Results 281 - 300 of 344
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | What???????????????????????????????????? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 7785 | ||
Is what this aurthor writes about dispensationalism, of which Scofield is a representative (is he not?), accurate? Was this ever their view? Or has their view been modified since the days of Scofield to make it more Scriptural?: "It is implied, however, that Adam was to observe the Sabbath day and worship God. And, after the fall at least, he was to offer certain sacrifices. Moreover the story of Cain, and Abel requires us to believe that God had forbidden murder. It would seem likely therefore that God had given Adam all the Ten Commandments. Later, after the flood, these commands were repeated. "Now, unfortunately, among the fundamentalists a certain group talks so as to give the impression that God gave no laws before the days of Moses. These people divide time into several dispensations which are distinguished by different plans of salvation. They speak of a dispensation of conscience, a later dispensation of human government; and only with Moses is the dispensation of law supposed to begin. This dispensational view, in addition to being inconsistent with Genesis, is directly contradicted in Romans 5:13,14. These verses say, "until the law (here Paul refers to the Mosaic law) sin was in the world"; that is to say, people before the time of Moses were sinners. "But," continues Paul, "sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless (sin very obviously was imputed before the days of Moses because) death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over (infants) that had not sinned (voluntarily) after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Accordingly, there must have been law between Adam and Moses because the penalty for disobedience was exacted.... ................... The dipensationalists go on and place a dispensation of grace after the dispensation of law. In this dispensation, i.e., the present age, law has no place. But once again the Scripture contradicts such a view. The three chapters of Romans where our freedom from the law of sin and death is most emphasized are far from disparaging the law. In addition to the strong insistence on the necessity of a righteous life (Rom. 6:2,6,12,15; 8:1,4,13), Paul asserts that the law is holy and good (Rom. 7:12), spiritual (7:14), a delight to the godly man (7:22), and the rule of service (7:25)." Gordon Clark, "What Do Presbyterians Believe?” p. 181, 182. |
||||||
282 | YES or NO. Do you obey the 4th cmdmt? | Col 2:16 | Lionstrong | 7731 | ||
From the Westminster Confession of Faith (verses given are those referenced in the Confession): Chapter 21, paragraph 7: "As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him: (Ex. 20:8,10,11; Isa 56:2,4,6,7) which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, (Gen 2:2,3; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Acts 20:7) which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's day, (Rev. 1:10) and is to be continured to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath." (Ex. 20:8; Matt. 5 :17,18) The framers of the Confession believed the Scriptures taught that the fourth Commandment was not ceremonial and temporary, but moral and binding on all men in all ages. The last day Sabbath was based on God's great work of Creation; and the first day Sabbath was based on God's great work of Redemption. |
||||||
283 | When did Jesus cry/weep? | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 7674 | ||
Luke 19:41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, On the occasion of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem the week before his crucifixion John 11:35 Jesus wept At the occasion of Lazarus' funeral |
||||||
284 | what is his image? | Gen 1:26 | Lionstrong | 7664 | ||
"...the first verse to be quoted, and for the purpose of showing that Scripture defines the image as knowledge and righteousness, is Colossians 3:10. The definition is derived by noting that the new man is such because God has renewed him after the image in which he was originally created. Ephesians 4:24 mentions righteousness, but Colossians has knowledge only. Its previous context speaks of "the old man with deeds." Then comes a contrast with "the new man." In what consists the renewal that makes the old man the new man? The verse says, He is renewed "to knowledge." He is renewed to knowledge according to the image of the Creator. That is to say, the image of God, in which image man was created, is knowledge. Of course this does not mean that Adam was omniscient: yet he had some knowledge, and this is not said of the animals. Since this knowledge comes by the act of breathing into Adam the spirit of life, the knowledge must be considered, not as the result of observation, since Adam had not yet observed anything at all, but as the apriori or the innate equipment for learning.... "The image must be reason because God is truth, and fellowship with him--a most important purpose in creation--requires thinking and understanding. Without reason man would doubtless glorify God as do the stars, stones and animals; but he could not enjoy him forever. Even if in God's providence animals survive death and adorn the heavenly realm, they cannot have what the Scripture calls eternal life because eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, and knowledge is an exercise of the mind or reason. Without reason there can be no morality or righteousness: These too require thought. Lacking these, animals are neither righteous nor sinful. Gordon Clark. "The Biblical Doctrine of Man." pages 14 and following. |
||||||
285 | What DO you mean, then? | 1 Tim 6:20 | Lionstrong | 7459 | ||
Let this subject of science be moved to a more appropriate place. | ||||||
286 | Your paradigm? | 1 Tim 6:20 | Lionstrong | 7458 | ||
Let this subject of science be moved to a more appropriate place. | ||||||
287 | ANTI or PRO? Which is it? | 1 Tim 6:20 | Lionstrong | 7407 | ||
Ooooo, a personal attack! Man! You must really have it in for me! I'm Pro-truth/knowledge, which is not science, which is falsely called truth :-). Paul quotes the Greek poets who happened to say something true. Now everything else they wrote might have been false, but on that one point they were right, and Paul used that truth to communicate the gospel. Affirming that science is false is not a dismissal, condemnation or making ridicule of it. Sometimes to use part of a quote is to misquote: "In this forum some have used the expression sola scriptura (Scripture only), which I accept. If Scripture, God's word, is our only source of truth, then what can be proven true by science, and mathematics? Then too, can science or math prove ANY biblical statement true or false?" |
||||||
288 | Growing in God for all christians | Is 28:10 | Lionstrong | 7376 | ||
Sorry, Jim, don't understand your question. Will you reword it, or explain your question? Also, would you explain your understanding of the relation between the two passages that you reference? | ||||||
289 | Does knowledge out weight truth | 2 Tim 3:7 | Lionstrong | 7353 | ||
Ray's statement is misleading: “One can study and learn about facts about biblical times and what the people wore, and what happened when and why, etc. and spend so much time on those studies that one doesn't recognize the truth in scripture. In a situation like that he has too much knowledge because he has deprived himself of the Truth.” As written, he implies that it’s false that Joseph wore a varicolored tunic (Gen. 37), because he puts "facts" and "truth" in oppositon. And this further implies that it is also false that, “ALL Scripture is inspired by God and PROFITABLE for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (My emphasis)(2 Tim. 3:16,17) All Scripture is profitable, even the Scripture that tells us what clothes Joseph wore. What Ray’s comments bring out is that it is important to see the relative place and significance of certain truths. The truth of what Joseph wore is not as important as the truth of what Adam ate, namely the forbidden fruit. Ray’s comments also point out that knowledge, as important as it is, is never an end in itself. The end of knowledge is practical. It is to result in faith, hope and love. (1 Cor. 13) So, you can never have too much knowledge, because you can never have too much truth. |
||||||
290 | Is heaven big enough to be God's home? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 7315 | ||
1 Kin 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! | ||||||
291 | Does knowledge out weight truth | 2 Tim 3:7 | Lionstrong | 7313 | ||
. | ||||||
292 | Does knowledge out weight truth | 2 Tim 3:7 | Lionstrong | 7312 | ||
As can be seen in the verse, the_object_of knowledge_is_the truth. There can be no real knowledge without truth. So what is talked about here is fruitless learning, that is, what they are learning is not the truth. Such as the "truths" of science. We live in a culture of the anti-intellectual where the "heart" is more important than the "head." This is not the attitude of Scripture. Although the more we know, the more we carry the burden of responsiblity, the pursuit of knowledge should not be shunned. Do a word search on the word "knowledge" and you'll see how important it is to God, for God is a God of knowledge. (1 Sam 2:3) 2 Pet 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. |
||||||
293 | Did Christ die for the world? | 1 John 2:2 | Lionstrong | 7017 | ||
Getting back to your proposal of referencing no other verse but the one under consideration: Why can't the verse be understood this way: since the "our" must refer to John and the recipients of his letter, and since they are not the only believers in the whole world, why can't he be referring to believers in the whole world? ("...not only the sins of us (believers), but (believers) of the whole world.") If one does not bring in other verses, be they of the unlimited or limited atonement interpretation, why can't the verse be understood this way? |
||||||
294 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Lionstrong | 6996 | ||
Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, Yes, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. This revelation from God is wonderful, in contrast to evolution, which gives no basis for the unity of the human race, and hence, no equality among men or inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. Since evoloution operates on the basis of chance, the people in Africa could have evolved from a different set of monkeys than those in Asia, the Middle East, or the superior Arian race of Northern Europe. |
||||||
295 | Is it primary...? | Rom 15:5 | Lionstrong | 6701 | ||
Thanks, I got a good laugh from your posting, Charis (I had forgotten the word "trinary"). But, really, should we limit what questions or comments forum member should or should not ask? Who knows? What may seems trivial to us may lead to a profound truth from God's Word!...................Besides, all truth, no matter how trivial, is God's truth and will ultimately lead to Him. | ||||||
296 | Must Christians agree? | Rom 15:5 | Lionstrong | 6675 | ||
The notion of secondary issues was brought up. Yes, we need not be divided over secondary issues either, but seek agreement. But the difficulty,of course, is what are the secondary issues? Can we agree on what they really are? Who's to decide what's essential or secondary? Is " the everlasting felicity of the redeemed" essential, or is free will secondary? Just as there are "weightier matters of the law" (Mat 23:23) there are secondary issues of doctrine. .......................................................................................................................................And agreement on what is secondary or trivial is also something we should seek. | ||||||
297 | Must Christians agree? | Rom 15:5 | Lionstrong | 6660 | ||
The issue of disagreement on matters of taste was introduced. Even here we can agree that matters of taste is not an issue for agreement or disagreement :-) | ||||||
298 | Must Christians agree? | Rom 15:5 | Lionstrong | 6658 | ||
Yes, I think it (agreement) is a goal toward which we should strive. Jesus prayed for the oneness he had with the Father to be among his disciples (Jn 17:21). Are there disagreements between Father and Son? I realize that it's an ideal we'll never reach in this life. Look at the big disagreement Paul and Barnabus had over Mark! Moreover, in fact, Paul says, "For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Cor 11:19 But like Jesus, even while teaching that the poor would always be with us, did not stop giving to the poor during His earthly ministry; so ever present factions should not stop us from striving for unity in the faith. | ||||||
299 | The burden of proof is on you. | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6635 | ||
My point is that one needs no special reference. Any encyclopedia of recent or not so recent date will have this information. My own source was my computer's Grollier's Encyclopedia (1996), under the heading of gravitation (no page number). One might also find some helpful information uner the heading of Physics, history of. | ||||||
300 | Who's on first? | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6632 | ||
Look up the tree for my post dated 5/28 to find what's being talked about. It starts off, "Once one defines..." | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [18] >> |