Results 261 - 280 of 344
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | Does Jesus still heal? | James 5:14 | Lionstrong | 9570 | ||
Greetings, Anne: James 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; James 5:15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Notice, "the Lord will raise him up." |
||||||
262 | I am referring to the "LAW" of Moses. | Gen 18:20 | Lionstrong | 8927 | ||
Hi, Lali, ............ I hope these verses will help: ........... Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, Rom 2:16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. .............. Man is the image of God. As such he is a moral being after his Creator. Even though a man has never been exposed to the written Law, as the image of God he makes moral judgements. Sometimes those moral judgements agree with God's law. God will also judge man by the judgements a man passes on others. Matt 7:2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." ........... So, even by their own standard the Sodomites would no doubt would have been justly condemned. But to degree that they instinctively knew the law of God, they were justly condemned, even though at this point the Ten Commandments hadn't been written. In this case what Paul says in the verses I quoted above applies. |
||||||
263 | Why did God not create more one couple ? | Lev 18:6 | Lionstrong | 8924 | ||
Hello, Lali; ............. Your question is a good one. I know my answer will not be complete, but hopefully it will be a good start that maybe others will finish. .............. Your question is a moral one concerning incest. And I didn't have and answer until recently. ......... First let me deal with what I think is a wrong answer. I believe that pragmatism is wrong, that is, what makes something right is if it is practical; does it makes sense (supposedly) practically to do so. ........... What I've heard given is a pragmatic answer: "Siblings just had to marry because there was no one else!" This answer puts morality on a pragmatic basis rather than on the law of God where it ought to be, as you rightly see. .......... Others may disagree, but I think my answer keeps morality where it ought to be, grounded in the law of God. My answer is not hard to understand; it's simple. It is based on the principle that to God "is due... whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 2, para. 2) So if God says do not eat a certain fruit in the middle of a certain garden, then it's sin to eat that fruit. Or if He says that only certain men are to carry a certain box by means of poles, then God is justified in striking a certain Uzzah down for touching it. ............ Contrariwise, if God rescinds a law He had given, then it is no longer sin not to keep that rescinded law. God has rescinded the ceremonial laws, so not keeping the Old Testament Passover is no longer sin. ............ So, I hope by now you see where I'm leading, Lali. God at this point had not forbidden incest. Therefore, at this point in time it was not sin. ............ One might object, "Well I can understand God changing a ceremonial law, but incest is immoral! Aren't the moral laws of God universal and absolute? Yes, for man they are ... as long as God requires obedience to those laws. God is not bound by the law. And man is bound by certain laws of God so long as chooses to bind him to some, any or all of his laws. |
||||||
264 | Why destroy Sodom and Gom if no God law | Gen 18:20 | Lionstrong | 8922 | ||
Hello, Lali, ........... Here are some verses I pulled up just in the New Testament alone on Sodom and Gomorrah: ............ Matt 10:15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. 2 Matt 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 3 Matt 11:24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you." 4 Luke 10:12 "I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. 5 Luke 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 6 2 Pet 2:6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. |
||||||
265 | How meny years in BC? | Genesis | Lionstrong | 8861 | ||
Hello, Buddy, Here's an anwer Phil gave: "How old is the earth scripturally? Answer Gen 1:1 Phillip Sun 04/29/01, 11:43pm The Bible gives specific years of lifespans and timeframes of events (such as the time of slavery in Egypt) to determine the time from Adam to Solomon. There is enough agreement as to the date of the reign of Solomon that it can be added to the previous years to give us a total age of the Earth. This is approximately 6177 years according to my study. There is no exact date known because of several difficulties but the Bible is far from silent on the issue. An excellent book on the subject written by Harold Camping has a unique insight into how to date the Earth and offers an even older age of the Earth of over 13,000 years. The book is called "Adam When" and can be ordered from www.familyradio.com without charge. The book does not contradict my calculations, it simply offers insight that I did not have. I would highly recommend that you order it to see if his understanding is correct in your eyes. If anyone would like a copy of my detailed charts from Adam to Solomon so they may see for themselves, simply e-mail me at peacock@grapevine.net and I will mail them to you. In the Creator's Name, Phil" So, if the earth is 6,177 years old, then there are about 4,176 years in BC. If the earth is over 13,000 years old, then there are over 10,999 years in BC. |
||||||
266 | First evidence of currency used? | Gen 23:16 | Lionstrong | 8852 | ||
Greetings, Nolan: Bible trivia? OK, would it be Gen. 23:16 where Abraham buys a burial place for his wife from Ephron of the sons of Heth? An interesting note is that apparently the use of currency was already well established in Abraham's day. Abraham's payment was according to the "commercial standard." On a weightier side I thinks this has implications on one's philosophy of economics. This is an example of free trade without apparent government intervention, control or interference. |
||||||
267 | How many years are there in BC. | Genesis | Lionstrong | 8843 | ||
Greetings, Buddy, That's about the same as asking how old is the earth. Go to the upper right to the Quick Search box and type in "age of earth" and you'll find some answers. |
||||||
268 | Apologetics for every Christian? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Lionstrong | 8828 | ||
Greetings, Nolan Although one would expect those gifted as evangelists (Ehp 4:11) to be more adept in apologetics, Peter's letter is general and addressed to all God's people. As such, we're all to "sanctify Christ as Lord in (our) hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks (us) to give an account for the hope that is in (us), yet with gentleness and reverence." However, to answer your question: No, there's no command that we all be directly involved in this good work. But we should all have an answer (defense) for those who ask what is the reason for our optimism, that is, our hope of eternal life, our hope of eternal bliss in the presence of God, our hope even in the midst of suffering and loss of loved ones, our hope of the resurrection and glory, our hope in Christ our Savior. Also, it cannot be overemphasized that our answer to those who ask should not be harsh or curt, but gentle and reverent. |
||||||
269 | Why is relativistic truth wrong? | John 14:17 | Lionstrong | 8824 | ||
Greetings, Nolan, Relativistic truth is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle. The very nature of truth is absolute. If Jesus is the truth (that is, if Jesus defines the nature of truth), then truth can not be relative. Please, see my comments on truth at Josh 10:12. |
||||||
270 | Gen. 1 | Gen 1:3 | Lionstrong | 8812 | ||
Greetings, Joy, No, Joy, these two parts do not mean the same thing. These are two separate acts of creation on two different days. On the first day God created light without any light sources of sun, moon and stars. He did not create sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. You'll also note that both light and the heavenly bodies were created by his command. In other words God did not take something to make something else. He simply spoke them into existence. Please see also my notes on Gen. 1:3,4,16 and 17. |
||||||
271 | What is Christianity? | Acts | Lionstrong | 8238 | ||
Christianity is all and only what the Bible alone teaches. Christ is all and nothing contrary to what the Bible alone says he is. And the personal relationship with God is and can only be had in terms of what the Bible alone says it is or can be had. Christianity is not what any individual who calls himself a Christian says it is. It is not what the churches that call themselves Christian have practiced. Christianity is not an experience of any individual or the collective experience of a group. It is not a Papal edict. It is not trite sayings. Christianity is the whole counsel of God revealed in the whole Bible alone. |
||||||
272 | Why did God put us on earth with satin? | Genesis | Lionstrong | 8191 | ||
God put us on earth with Satin because it was always a part of His plan to do so. Since God works all things after the counsel of His will, this must be so. Just as he had always planed that Jesus would be put to death by the hands of godless men (Acts 2:23), He had planned for Man to fall. And God did this in order to glorify his power, love and mercy through Christ. This is beautifully expressed in Rev. 8:13 where Jesus is identified as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (KJV) So, the redemption of man has always been God's plan. God didn't think of a plan after man had fallen. He's always known what he wanted to happen and how he wanted it to happen. God knows that he wants to glorify himself and he knows how he wants to glorify himself. God is going to glorify himself the way he wants to glorify himself, and everything happens according to his plan. |
||||||
273 | What does the word "invisible" refer to? | Col 1:16 | Lionstrong | 8178 | ||
Greetings, Ekip In our materialistic culture this word can be misunderstood to mean only that which cannot be seen with the naked eye. But the word in this context means truly invisible. The invisible is truly there but it cannot be seen, no matter how powerful a microscope one invents. "Invisible" in this context refers to the spirit world of angels and demons. They cannot be seen ("perceived" would be a better word) unless they manifest themselves or God "opens our eyes" to perceive them. And of course, God himself is not of some material substance. His is spirit. (John 4:24) Num 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed all the way to the ground. Judg 13:20 For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. Judg 13:21 Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. 2 Kin 6:17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 1 Tim 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. |
||||||
274 | Paul's extra-biblical teaching inerrant? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Lionstrong | 8069 | ||
Greetings, Steve; ......... What do you mean by "extra-biblical"? Do you mean different doctrines that are not taught in Scripture? I don't believe Paul taught anything beyond what Spriture teaches. What He did do, however, was teach God's people "the whole purpose of God" according to Acts 20:27. ......... Your statement, "But, Paul and others taught other things that were not recorded in God's Word" can be taken to mean that the apostles taught different doctrines than those found in Scripture. This notion is unfounded and must be false. In his Word, God has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. Pet 1:3 ....................... I think I know what you meant to say when you wrote, "so we cannot say what his errors were." What you wrote says that Paul did if fact make mistakes in his teaching, but we just don't know what they were. Your wording here is unfortunate. ........ Since Paul and the other apostles were redeemed just like us, they were capable of mistakes, as Peter's mistakes were recorded in Galatians. Outside the infallable Word, all we concede is only the possiblity of mistakes and not the actuallity. ............. So, on the one hand we're not claiming sinlessness for the apostles as the Roman Catholics have done with Mary, and on the other we maintain the infallibility of God's inspired Word. |
||||||
275 | Paul's teaching: Inerrant or Fallible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Lionstrong | 7951 | ||
Greetings, Hank; Yes, Hank, but, it must be quickly added, _just_ the possibility,... because all we know of what Paul taught is what God, infallibly, inspired him to write (and say as recorded in acts) in the Scripture. We have no way of knowing everything he said. We're just thankful that "all Scripture is inspired by God" including Paul's and is for that reason infallible. It is interesting to note that Paul subjected the Gospel he preach to the scrutiny of the other apostles "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain." Gal. 2:2 I guess another way of saying this is that apostleship does not imply sinlessness. Peter in Galatians is an example. What we affirm is that what God inspired the writers of Scripture to write is infallible, not that the writer himself never made mistakes in all his life. But this possibility, to return to your questions, is only worth consideration in terms of careful thinking. The liberal theologians use Paul's (and all the Bible writer's) humanity to deny the infallibility of Scripture. But like Jeus said about the liberals in his day, "(They) are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Matt 22:29) The power of God is almighty. So he can take an educated Pharasee or an uneducated fisherman and so control their thoughts to give us truths without error in writing. So, a writer's humanity cannot be used to deny that God's Word through Paul is infallible. |
||||||
276 | Do we have a flawed New Testament? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Lionstrong | 7947 | ||
Greetings, Hank; Please don't misunderstand me when I say this, because I speak as one who believes that the whole Bible is God's Word, inerrant, infallible, eternal truth. But regarding _all_ that Paul taught we do not know, because all that he taught as he traveled on his missionary journeys is not recorded in Scripture. But what is important is that what God inspired him to write to the churches is without error. The New Testament "in its original autographs" is flawless in all that it teaches. |
||||||
277 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | Lionstrong | 7890 | ||
Since both views contradict each other, they both cannot be true. If one view is in error, what "middle ground" can there be? What is the middle ground between truth and error. I think Prince's suggestion is part of the tripe our secular culture has been trying to feed us. Yes, the issue is complicated, but on the ponts the two views disagree, there is clearly no compromise possible. Just thank God that his word is truth. We may not agree sometimes what that truth is, but both sides agree where it can be found. | ||||||
278 | did i miss something? | Col 2:8 | Lionstrong | 7853 | ||
Greetings, Mark; ............... To answer your question, no one asked. I was just taking advantage of Lockman's offer of "a free study Bible with an unlimited margin." ............ The idea is to make a comment on or ask a question of a verse or passage. Then someone else in the forum applying 2 Tim 3:16 may fill out the thoughts or make corrections, or give a different point of view, or give an answer from Scripture. ........................ Do you have any thoughts on this passage, Mark? Do you think there can be such a thing as a Christian philosophy? |
||||||
279 | You answer one question with 3 more? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 7812 | ||
JVH0212, greetings; If Scofield is a representative of dispensationalism (which he is), and if dispensationalism is antinomian, then Scofield is antinomian and no reference is needed. |
||||||
280 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Lionstrong | 7791 | ||
(note: this is in response to Charis' note under, "The Christian and the Law of God" , Tue 06/19/01, 7:56pm) ........................................... ..................................................................................................................... Hi, Charis, .................................................................................................. I started this thread with the hope to make it easier for those who were interested in the subject to get information. If one does a search of covenant or dispensation, he will see that a lot has been said about these topics in many places in the forum. I think this illustrates the fact of how the truths of Scripture form a system such that one truth touches many others. ........................................................ ..................................................................................................................... We see how the issue of the Sabbath leads to the issue of the Law of God as a whole, and now this issue to the issue of covenants and dispensations............................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................... Now to your questions, Charis: As I said in the opening remarks at the top of this thread, I don't feel qualified to adequately defend covenantal theology, though I believe it's right. In response to your points on the essence of dispensationalism: covenantal theology agrees with the first point, that God's purpose in history is his own glory. .......................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... As to the second, like dispensationalism, covenant theology is a way of looking at the whole of Scripture and understanding (interpreting) it. .......................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... With respect to the third point, covenant theology sees in God's covenant with Abraham, and, farther back, God's covenant with Christ, the unity between the Old Testament people of God (Israel) and the Church . By faith in Christ we are children of Abraham (Rom. 4:16), heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:29), the people of God (Rom. 9:25), and counted among true Israel (Rom 9:6; Ehp 2:12; Gal. 6:16). This is to say that Israel is the Old Testament Church and the Church is the New Testament Israel. ...................................................... .................................................................................................................... This is not to deny that God has plans for Israel according to the flesh as he says in Romans, but it is to affirm that the New Testament people of God are one with the Old Testament people of God, one Church universal. (Heb. 12:23) ............................................................... ..................................................................................................................... There is much more that can, should and has been said on these important Biblical topics, but I will leave them to develop (hopefully) further down this thread. ........................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... Finally, about the meaning of "followers" of Scofield. Nothing pejorative was meant. He was referenced as a popular representative. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [18] >> |