Results 3361 - 3380 of 3591
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3361 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 163991 | ||
Dear atdcross, Greetings! I would concur with your statement that "With respect to the apostle Paul, to say that his “thorn in the flesh” was sickness is merely speculation" We don't know WHAT his affliction was- that much is true. However, I would take issue with your contention that healing is provided in atonement for the following reasons: 1. Scripture in no way supports this in it's entirety; 2. You would be at odds with some near 2000 years of Church history This appears to be a relatively new- and by that I mean a 20th and 21st Century- interpretation. My study leads me to believe this was more an "invention" of F.W. Bosworth- not sound exegesis. The Church fathers didn't embrace this view nor did scholars such as John Gill or C.H. Spurgeon. I understand and appreciate your intent but cannot endorse that physical healing is and was the purpose of Christs' atoning sacrifice. Sin is a terminal disease. Spurgeon said: "Sin dwelleth in us, and will be deadly in the case of every one among us, without a solitary exception, unless we accept the remedy which God has provided." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3362 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 164020 | ||
Hello atdcross, Thank you for your reply as it clarifies to me where you're coming from:-) I truly mean that! My intent in appealing to Church History, Gill, and Spurgeon was not that they're correct in every regard (or that I agree with them on every issue), but that they collectively represent a historically sound and widely understood interpretation. The point being that this is important to sound exegesis and a correct understanding of scripture. We can't just dismiss the collective knowledge of good men led and inspired by God. I agree with your first and second points of clarification. You better communicated your thoughts:-) Christs' atoning sacrifice was done because man has an incureable, fatal spiritual malady called sin. Our problem is not physical. As to your observation that in the Gospels (Christs') healing is associated with forgiveness: I can agree with qualification. As only God can forgive sin (Mark 2:7), Christ was merely authenticating that He was the Messiah- the Son of God! None of His healings (miracles) were done soley for the benefit of the recipient. They were done to authenticate His ministry. (See Matt. 9:35 and 10:1.) This helps us (properly) view the miracles and disassociate them from the atonement. Regarding Isaiah 53:5, I think we could agree that proper interpretation rests on: 1. Understanding of the context; 2. Proper understanding and useage of the word for "healing" (Heb. rapha); 3. Historical and Biblical useage of the word; 4. The writer Isaiahs' intent For the most part, I think were on the same page with this. I hope I've helped you to better understand my thoughts. Thanks again for sharing! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3363 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 164076 | ||
Dear atdcross, I must interject on this matter, my friend. It is not so much that I disagree with your viewpoint- which I do- as it is your highly speculative logic that brings you there. 1. You state: "John 11:3-4: I understand what is stated but it is the intended meaning that is important and, on the basis of other verses and God’s revealed character (at least, to me), what is for the glory of God is not the sickness but the healing." You are wrong and you are twisting scripture! His (Lazarus) sickness was "for the glory of God"- NOT the healing. So stated. 2. You state: "Whether or not there is purpose in suffering is not the focus my point. My point is that suffering is not Father’s will or intention for his children (Jer 29:11). Sickness, in particular, has no purpose at all except to disrupt God’s will for us." What is the Biblical support for these claims? 3. You state: "My general reading of the Bible does not see suffering or sickness itself as good, especially good for God’s children (or anyone else). Suffering and sickness are enemies of God and must be defeated and overcome." I beg to differ! This is speculation at best. Please demonstrate from scripture that your view has any merit. If I may offer an observation, it might be best at this point to discontinue this discussion as I see it leading to serious arguments that aren't edifying! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3364 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 165918 | ||
Dear atdcross, If I may interject on this topic with a couple of comments. I first want to commend you for the humble attitude you display in approaching this debated topic:-) Your lack of a contentious spirit goes a long way toward amicable discussion. Agreeing to disagree in keeping with Rom. 14:1 is a sign of maturity! Here's a verse to consider: Job 2:10 "But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips." I think we would agree that God is sovereign ( Ps. 115:3) and He can and does heal all whom He desires. The major challenge I have with the doctrine of God healing all, always and that it's His will for us to be without sickness is twofold: 1. It lacks the support of the entirety of scripture. There are numerous instances of various diseases and infirmities given in both the OT and NT. Empirically, what of Paul and Timothy and even, Jim Elliot or Joni Erikson Tada? 2. It lacks the historical support of Orthodoxy and the Church fathers and divines of old. It is a relatively "newer" doctrine more or less fueled by F.F. Bosworth's, " Christ, the Healer". What did almost 2000 years of scholarship and exegesis miss? I believe we could safely say that God does not decree sickness, but by His permissive will allows it. While it is true that there are many verses where God grants healing, there are numerous examples of Him not (cf. Job. 2:10, 2 Cor. 12:8-9, 2 Tim. 4:20, Heb. 11:36ff). I might point to Deut. 28:22 as an example of God promising sickness (by Israel's disobedience): "The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3365 | Guidance with couples bible study.. | 1 Pet 3:1 | BradK | 174900 | ||
devolt, Mike Murdock is seriously off-base with his WOF non-sense! BradK |
||||||
3366 | Guidance with couples bible study.. | 1 Pet 3:1 | BradK | 174904 | ||
Devolt, We need to demonstarte care in who and what we refer on this Forum as there are those who might be led astray! Further, Murdock and his theology are not founded on Othodoxy. His teachings are man-centered and appeal to the flesh. This link should help:http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac19.htm Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3367 | Do you believe Sarah wore make-up? | 1 Pet 3:6 | BradK | 176608 | ||
Hi Steve, Since you asked, no I haven't:-) In all honesty, is it really even important? Second, since scripture doesn't give any indication, it would be pure speculation and nothing more! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3368 | DOES GOD HEAR ALL PRAYERS ? | 1 Pet 3:12 | BradK | 112881 | ||
Makarios, I was discussing this very topic with a brother last week. You gave a good answer that I'm in general agreement with. One of the verses I brought up was John 9:31: "We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him." I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this if you'd care to comment. I've always been a little puzzled by this in light of 2 Cron. 33:12-13, etc. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3369 | Wolves or Sheep? | 1 Pet 3:15 | BradK | 163147 | ||
Hi Jayee, Here is what CARM.org says in the way of Oneness Pentacostalism: What is Oneness Pentecostal theology? Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. The Trinity does not assert that there are three gods, but only one. This is important because many groups who oppose orthodoxy, will accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods. But this is not so. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons. Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."1 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christ’s ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension. In addition, oneness theology also maintains that baptism is a necessary part of salvation; that is, in order to be saved, one must be baptized, by immersion. If you are not baptized you cannot be saved. However, not only must baptism be by immersion, it must also be administered with the formula "In Jesus’ name" rather than the formula "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" which is mentioned in Matt. 28:19. Finally, this baptism must be administered by a duly ordained minister of a church that maintains oneness theology: United Pentecostal, United Apostolic, etc. Oneness churches also teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Since a person cannot be saved without the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), it follows that only those who have spoken in tongues are really saved. There is, therefore, an emphasis that Oneness church members speak in tongues to "demonstrate" that they are saved and have the truth. Oneness groups are decidedly Arminian in the doctrine of salvation. They deny predestination and maintain that it is completely up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to be saved. They also teach that it is possible to lose one's salvation. There is within the Oneness movement an attempt to represent themselves in a modest and holy manner. This is to be commended. However, sometimes it tends to become legalistic in that women are required to abstain from wearing makeup and pants. They also must have their heads covered. Likewise, men should be well dressed, preferably in ties (this has been my experience with them). Such practices are not wrong in themselves, and are good examples of propriety. However, when they become requirements for acceptance in a church, it is legalistic. Legalism leads to bondage and the requirements of keeping the law to maintain salvation. It then becomes a means by which a person's spirituality is judged. Oneness churches strongly imply that if you go to movies, or have a TV, or wear makeup, etc., then you are not "really" a Christian. I am not saying that the Oneness Theology necessarily leads to legalism, but it seems to be quite evident that it has taken over much of Oneness practice. ________________ 1. http://www.upci.org/about/index.asp While Oneness theology may not be entirely "cultic", the fact that it denies the trinity certainly places it outside orthodoxy. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
3370 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | BradK | 177096 | ||
Hi Parable, Without trying to be condescending, I would first ask, "Why do we need to respond to Sam Harris?", "What credentials does he posses?", and "Why should we listen to him?". Scripture is replete with examples of faith! (i.e. Rom. 4) I would refer to and study Hebrews 11! Eccl. 1:9 states an eternal truth: "There is nothing new under the sun" Similarly, Mr. Harris' argument is not new either! Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). Man is always looking for ways around having to submit to a Holy, Sovereign God! The problem lies not with the validity of the Bible or Christs' claims, or even our faith. It lies with the heart of man. Jeremiah 17:9 summs it up well: "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" There is a God, and Mr. Harris will have his day of reckoning- whether he believes it or not. 1 Cor. 1:21, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3371 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | BradK | 177127 | ||
Hi Parable, I'm not sure I know what you're looking for? I provided an answer with a basis. You and I are not accountable (Or answerable) to Mr. Harris. 1. God is Sovereign! Mr. Harris has not established the definitive, unanswerable, unassailable argument! 2. Changed lives prove ministry. That was Paul's defense in 2 Cor. 3:1-3ff: "Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 3. Ours is to preach the Gospel- Rom. 1:16! It is the POWER of God... As H.A. Ironside was once challenged by an atheist to debate, he shut him up by asking to bring all those who had been changed for the better by his preaching (Christianity)- the atheist had no reply and declined to pursue the matter! How many lives will or has Mr. Harris changed by being a Philosopher? A Best-Selling author? How many have come off drugs, had their marriages healed, become better fathers or husbands by his message? There is no life-changing power in his message! No one is coming to eternal life by his "preaching"! 4. I do understand 1 Peter 3:15. The operable verb is "to those who ASK for the hope that is in you". Has Mr. Harris asked or demanded you to defend your belief? I do not owe it to him, nor do I feel any obligation to respond to him. Parable, I do not know this man and further do not plan on either buying or reading his book! Might I ask, why you feel so compelled to reply or defend his accusations? Do you feel he has established some merit in his hypothesis? Do you feel the Bible or the Christian faith comes short in some way? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3372 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | BradK | 177155 | ||
How do we respond?: No Witnesses For Atheism "Charles Bradlaugh was the outstanding atheist in England. Down in one of the slums of London was a minister by the name of Hugh Price Hughes. All London was aware of miracles of grace accomplished at his mission. Charles Bradlaugh challenged Mr. Hughes to debate with him the validity of the claims of Christianity. London was greatly interested. What would Mr. Hughes do? He immediately accepted the challenge and in doing so added one of his own. Hughes said, “I propose to you that we each bring some concrete evidences of the validity of our beliefs in the form of men and women who have been redeemed from the lives of sin and shame by the influence of our teaching. I will bring 100 such men and women, and I challenge you to do the same. “If you cannot bring 100, Mr. Bradlaugh, to match my 100, I will be satisfied if you will bring 50 men and women who will stand and testify that they have been lifted up from lives of shame by the influence of your teachings. If you cannot bring 50, then bring 20 people who will say, as my 100 will, that they have a great joy in a life of self-respect as a result of your atheistic teachings. If you cannot bring 20, I will be satisfied if you bring 10. “Nay, Mr. Bradlaugh, I challenge you to bring one, just one man or woman who will make such a testimony regarding the uplifting of your atheistic teachings.” Again London was stirred. What would Mr. Bradlaugh do? In answer, Charles Bradlaugh, with great discomfiture and chagrin, publicly withdrew his challenge for the debate." [Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations] In Him, BradK |
||||||
3373 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | BradK | 221515 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, There is simply nothing in scripture to support the notion that Jesus went to Hell. The source of this appears to be the Apostle's Creed, where is says, "he descended into hell...". This is more Old English, probably to refer to 'sheol" the earth or ground. 1. Wrong. Here's what scripture says: 1 Cor 15:3 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Cor 15:4 "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," 1 Pet 3:18 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;" Jesus did not atone for our sins in hell, he atoned for them on the cross! 2. 1 Peter 3:19 says, " in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison," It says nothing about Him going to Hell. We don't know exactly where He went. This is one of the more difficult passages in the entire NT. As principle, we interpret the unclear passages from those that are clear! 3. Matt. 27:52 and 53, does tell us, after Jesus death, "The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many." (NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3374 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | BradK | 221534 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, Let's stick to one topic at a time as it makes it much easier to answer and follow:-) We're in agreement on the first two parts are we not? Your question had to do with Jesus going to hell and I've answered it! Time doesn't permit me to fully answer the "where were the souls from Adam to Christ". I don't see anything controversial about Eph. 4:9. The phrase "descended ino the lower regions,the earth" (katabas eis ta katotera tes ges) means that. It is not 'gehenna" which would refer to hell, so there's no support here from the text itself! The scriptures clearly teach that Christ died on the cross for our sins as I gave reference to in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. (cf 1 Cor. 1:17-18, Eph. 2:16) Atonement was made there, not in hell. Where are the scriptures that teach otherwise? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3375 | Christ waslking through hell | 1 Pet 3:19 | BradK | 160696 | ||
Hi ItsMe, You may be referring to 1 Peter 3:19: "in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison," There are many views on this verse and what it means, but no consensus. Here are 3 of the more popular: 1. Christ preached through Noah to the people of his day. ( this view was held by Augustine and Gill); 2. Between the time of our Lord's death and His resurrection, He descended into the abode of the dead and preached to those who had formerly lived in Noah's day but were now dead and in prison, spiritually. (Matt. 27:52-53, Eph. 4:9 seem to support this); 3. Between Christ's death and resurrection, Christ descended into hell and proclaimed His victory to the demonic spirits, who cohabitated with women in Noah's day ( Gen. 6:1-8, Jude 6) I have to like (and agree with) Martin Luther's candor, when he said of ths passage: "I don't know what Peter means here." We do know that Peter's audience would have known and understood what he meant. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
3376 | Jesus speaks the gospel in hell, what b? | 1 Pet 3:19 | BradK | 188426 | ||
Hello serene, The reference you appear to be looking for is in 1 Peter 3:18-19: "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,..." There is no direct scriptural suppport for the notion that Jesus actually went to hell. This passage is one of the more difficult in the entire NT. There are many acceptable and varied views on where He went and who the "spirits in prison" are. We should always take the approach of asking "what to do with difficult passages" in dealing with a text such as this. Luther held this view: "I don't know what Peter means here". We can at least respect his honesty. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
3377 | 2 Petet 3-19 Jesus preached in Shoel? | 1 Pet 3:19 | BradK | 213843 | ||
Hello 561..., I believe the reference you're looking for is 1 Peter 3:19. The entire immediate context reads: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." (NASB) I'm not sure what your question is? It doesn't actually say He preached in sheol. As a note, this passage is one of the more debatable in the NT as far as it's precise meaning! I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
3378 | Jesus traveled to hell | 1 Pet 3:19 | BradK | 221839 | ||
Hello little doe, Nowhere in scripture does it teach that Jesus went (traveled) to hell! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3379 | What transpired when Jesus went to hell | 1 Pet 3:19 | BradK | 231727 | ||
Hello jancu, 1 Pet 3:19 says, "in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison" (NASB) It's exact meaning is unclear (IMO), it arguably being one of the most difficult verses in the NT. The Nicene Creed not withstanding, there is nothing from scripture that says- or otherwise implies that Jesus went to hell (to atone for our sins). 1 John 2:2 tells us, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3380 | When does regeneration take place ? | 1 Pet 3:20 | BradK | 230136 | ||
Hello Brett, Welcome to the Forum. If I may comment on a statement you made:-) 1 Peter 3:20-21 is one of the most difficult- and debateable -passages in the NT. It's exact meaning is anything but clear. So we must take care in attempting to determine it's intended meaning and thereby making doctrine of it. You said, "It tells us that the water symbolizes BAPTISM and saves us just like the water saved Noah and his family." Actually that is not what the passage in the NASB says. It says they, "...were brought safely through the water". The water saved no one. In actuality, those who were "baptized" were drowned, i.e. they died! The better question might be, 'to what baptism do you refer'? Are yoou speaking to (or about) "water" or "spiritual"? From my study I don't believe the Pauline passages are dealing with water, but instead refer to the spiritual- which is how we are actually brought into union with Christ. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 ] Next > Last [180] >> |