Results 41 - 60 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy is | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103464 | ||
Sabbath believed to be "the seal of the living God". 'The seventh day of the week is the eternal sign of Christ’s power as Creator and Redeemer, and is therefore the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, constituting the seal of the living God. It should be observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 16:23-31; 20:8-11; John 1:1-3, 14; Eze. 20:12, 20; Mark 1:21-32; 2:27, 28; Isa. 58:13; Luke 4:16; 23:54-56; 24:1; Acts 17:2; Heb. 4:9-11; Isa. 66:22, 23; Lev. 23:32.)' ( http://www.adventist.org/churchmanual/appendix.html) |
||||||
42 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103409 | ||
deejhermit: I've overreacted to what you had posted earlier. I apologize for that. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
43 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103377 | ||
deejhermit writes: "Please stop taking verses out of the Bible and lifting them out of the Bible." Radioman2 replies: If you have a point, please tell us what it is. You need not resort to personal attacks as you did in the above quote. |
||||||
44 | Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy is | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103373 | ||
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit. We are not sealed by keeping the commandments. Are we saved by loving Jesus? No, we are not. Love for Jesus is the result, not the cause of salvation. --Radioman2 |
||||||
45 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103372 | ||
Your Note addresses none of the points made in my previous post. | ||||||
46 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103369 | ||
a false addition to faith when... "Repentance. This is a valid condition for salvation when understood as a synonym for faith. It is a false addition to faith when understood as a prerequisite, requiring the cleansing of the life in order to be saved" (p. 1950, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978). ******************** [AO: 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . .' 'If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?' Your quoting Acts 8:12 hardly answers the points made in my previous post, which follows:] Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.' ____________________ "...it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
47 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103338 | ||
Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.' ____________________ "...it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
48 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103327 | ||
AO: You write: "What Jesus taught in John 3:1-21 does not pertain to the Old Testament..." John 3:5 born of water and the Spirit. 'Jesus referred not to literal water here but to the need for "cleansing" (e.g., Ezek. 36:24-27). When water is used figuratively in the OT, it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with "spirit" (Num. 19:17-19; Ps. 51:9,10; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; Joel 2:28,29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (compare Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom.' (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) --Radioman2 |
||||||
49 | khuck ... thanks for your answers .. | Gal 6:17 | Radioman2 | 103295 | ||
khuck: Hang in there. :-) Not only are you doing a good job of posting helpful information, but you yourself are a blessing and an inspiration. Grace and peace be multiplied to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
50 | Under the Law but not under water? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103268 | ||
AO: You write: "Also, note that the thief on the cross did not die in the Christian age, but under the Law of Moses." My question is: Does this mean that under the Law there was no legal requirement to be baptized, but now that we are no longer under law there is such a legal requirement? If this were the case, then it would seem to be a contradiction. If we are no longer under Law, then why this new and additional legal requirement? --Radioman2 |
||||||
51 | Prophetic perfect tense in other verses? | Ps 102:16 | Radioman2 | 103246 | ||
No one enjoys the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will enjoy nothing else! It has undergone many revisions. It is not a translation, but a corrupt sectarian paraphrase. --Radioman2 |
||||||
52 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103244 | ||
Those who post to this forum have been asked to back up their assertions with specific Scripture references since Day One. You carry on as if you're the first person ever to be asked for chapter and verse. As Hank wrote: 'You say, "I felt no scripture was requred, only my interpretation." And, DL5, I must ask you: interpretation of what? Since you cited no Scripture, evidently feeling none was needed, just exactly what were you interpreting?' --Radioman2 |
||||||
53 | Romans2:14 Can Nonbelievers goto Heaven? | Mark 10:18 | Radioman2 | 103221 | ||
No one is good except God alone. Your workmate is NOT a good person. He is NOT following the Law. jultox: "my aethist work mate who believes that if they are a 'Good' person..." Scripture is its own best commentary. Let the Bible itself answer your question. You workmate is not a "good" person. None of us are. No one is good except God alone. None is righteous. All have sinned - ALL! Mark 10:18 (ESV) And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. Romans 3:10-11 (ESV) as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; [11] no one understands; no one seeks for God. Romans 3:23 (ESV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Your workmate is not following the law. Even if he were following the law, that would not save him. Romans 3:20 (ESV) For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. AMPLIFIED Romans 3:20 For no person will be justified (made righteous, acquitted, and judged acceptable) in His sight by observing the works prescribed by the Law. For [the real function of] the Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin [not mere perception, but an acquaintance with sin which works toward repentance, faith, and holy character]. AMPLIFIED Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified and made upright by faith independent of and distinctly apart from good deeds (works of the Law). [The observance of the Law has nothing to do with justification.] Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
54 | 1 King 13-14 averted His judgement? | 1 Kin 13:2 | Radioman2 | 103212 | ||
Searcher: I agree with you completely that we shouldn't get into the "what ifs". One could play that game forever. Like you, I feel there's no need to speculate about questions on which the Bible is silent. I'm concerned more about "what is" than "what if." Grace and peace to you, brother, Radioman2 |
||||||
55 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103209 | ||
I respect and support your right to not "come to this forum very much any more." --Radoman2 |
||||||
56 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103198 | ||
FytRobert: No problem, brother. :-) My post asking for book, chapter and verse was not addressed to you, but to DAIRYLEADER5. He is the one who attempts to tell us what Jesus was saying, without providing Scripture references to support his assertion. I'm not necessarily saying that DL5 is wrong. I merely ask the question of him. Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
57 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103172 | ||
I'm just wondering: could you give us the book, chapter and verse of the Bible where Jesus was saying this? --Radioman2 |
||||||
58 | is drinkin wine a sin | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 103169 | ||
Drunkenness is always a sin... "Careful biblical interpretation, however, requires that the choice to ABSTAIN [from alcohol] be made for reasons other than the demand of the biblical pattern." __________________________ 'The term "abstinence" is often identified with the question of the use or nonuse of alcoholic beverages. The Bible consistently condemns drunkenness, but it cannot be viewed as teaching total abstinence from fermented wine. The linguistic, historical-cultural, and contextual aspects of Scripture are often abused by those who claim that the Bible requires total abstinence. The primary Hebrew terms are yayin [Iy:y], tiros [v/ryiT], and asim. All three may refer to fermented wine in a negative connotation (cf. in order Prov 23:31; Hosea 4:11; Isa 49:26) and all three refer to the expected positive use of fermented wine (yayin [Iy:y] - Lev 23:13; Num 6:20; 28:14; Deut 14:26; Psalm 104:15; Isa 55:1; Itiros [v/ryiT] - Deut 14:23; asim - Joel 3:18). All three are used interchangeably and no hard-line distinctions for a linguistic reference to unfermented as opposed to fermented wine can be sustained for any term. The Greek word oinos [oi\no"] commonly translates all three terms in the Septuagint and is the common term for wine in the Greek period and in the New Testament. Paul cites oinos [oi\no"] as a nonissue equivalent to the meat offered to idols in Romans 14:21. The less-used Greek term gleukos [gleu'ko"], "new wine, " may also mean fermented (cf. Acts 2:13). The ancient world often diluted wine with water for a more or less fermented effect, although this could be viewed as an insult (cf. Isa 1:22). 'The historical setting of Israel as one of the leading and most respected wine-producing nations in their part of the ancient world is well documented. The blessings of this product are recorded in the Bible along with the evils that come from its abuse. Wine is a major image of joy and blessing (cf. Gen 27:28; Psalm 104:14-15). The messianic era is depicted as a time of great blessing via this imagery (Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13; Zech 9:17). The destruction of wine is noted as a calamity in the life of Israel (Deut 28:30-39; Isa 62:8; 65:21; Micah 6:15; Zeph 1:13). 'Believers in any given time period or geographical location may choose total abstinence from alcoholic beverages for numerous reasons. One may use certain passages of Scripture to warn against abuse just like ancient Israel did. The abuse of strong drink has plagued all cultures and reasons to abstain abound. Careful biblical interpretation, however, requires that the choice to abstain be made for reasons other than the demand of the biblical pattern.' Gary T. Meadors Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) (Emphasis added.) --Radioman2 |
||||||
59 | the wicked one does not touch [him] | 1 John 5:18 | Radioman2 | 103065 | ||
We know [absolutely] that anyone born of God does not [deliberately and knowingly] practice committing sin, but the One Who was begotten of God carefully watches over and protects him [Christ's divine presence within him preserves him against the evil], and the wicked one does not lay hold (get a grip) on him or touch [him]. (AMPLIFIED 1 John 5:18) | ||||||
60 | What would Jesus have you do? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 102997 | ||
[khuck: Welcome to the Forum. I am delighted to have you on board. May God richly bless you. I agree with your post regarding baptism. Grace to you, Radioman2] * * * * * * * * * * * * * The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [66] >> |