Results 681 - 700 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
681 | To think clearly and Biblically | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 85812 | ||
"I think I'm somewhat of an evangelical iconoclast because I'm always breaking up people's parties, so to speak. An iconoclast is an image breaker, someone who kind of attacks, to some degree, cherished notions. Sometimes that bothers people and I 'm sorry about that. I don't mean to cause trouble for the sake of trouble, but I do mean to force people to think clearly and Biblically, even about those ideas they cherish the most." -- Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/actsvoic.htm) |
||||||
682 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Radioman2 | 85785 | ||
'Meyer’s writings and tapes continue to lack solid biblical exposition. Yet perhaps next month, next year, or the year after she will have again changed her teachings and be spreading different errors and “revelations.” Scripture is clear: We are to avoid those who are devoid of sound doctrine and are like wandering stars (Jude 12-13).' 'Meyer’s evolving, changing Word-Faith views are at best aberrant, confusing, misleading and unscriptural. Magic words, magic names and magic blood should be deplored and seen for what they are: superstition.' To read more go to: (http://www.pfo.org/wan-star.htm) |
||||||
683 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Radioman2 | 85783 | ||
THE CHANGING VIEWS OF JOYCE MEYER 'Meyer can be classified as a Word-Faith teacher and as such has shown an inclination to waffle on major doctrines. In her 1991 booklet, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, an evangelistic work aimed at nonbelievers, she resounds the Word-Faith view of Christ’s atonement: '“During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin. He paid the price there ... no plan was too extreme ... Jesus paid on the cross and in hell” (pg. 35, underlining in the original). '“God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, ‘Let Him go.’ Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus ... He was resurrected from the dead — the first born-again man” (pg. 36, underlining in the original). '“His spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go. Remember in the very beginning of this, I said, ‘When you die, only your body dies. The rest of you, your soul and spirit, goes either to heaven or hell’” (ibid.). '“There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell” (ibid.). '“Jesus went to hell for you” (pg. 38, underlining in the original). 'All of the above citations are from her chapter entitled, “What Should You Believe?”. The first subheading in this chapter is “What Happened on the Cross?”. Those familiar with Word-Faith vernacular will recall Kenneth Copeland’s 1984 tape, “What Happened From the Cross to the Throne.” Copeland apparently borrowed the title and theme from E.W. Kenyon’s book by the same name. 'Meyer teaches the classic “Born-Again Jesus” gospel that has been taught by Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, John Jacobs, Charles Capps, Benny Hinn and Jan Crouch, to name a few. It’s usually presented under the guise of “revelation knowledge,” given by the Holy Spirit and grounded in Scripture. However, this gospel does not stand up under biblical scrutiny. 'Charismatics many times will make their case by saying, “Jesus went to hell. Doesn’t it say so somewhere in the book of Acts?” 'While it is true that Jesus went to hell (Ephesians 4:8-9; 1 Peter 3:18), attention should be focused on what He did or didn’t do there. Meyer and her kind teach that Jesus went there to pay for our sins, it’s the same kind of payment — or better — that He made on the cross. 'The reader is asked to recall Meyer’s repeated declarations: “He paid the price there ... Jesus paid on the cross and in hell ... Jesus took your place in hell ... Jesus went to hell for you.” 'Every cult and pseudo-Christian sect disparages the cross. An enemy of the cross is one who even suggests that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was insufficient for salvation. Anyone who disparages the cross is teaching another gospel. The destiny of such teachers is destruction (Philippians 3:19). Based upon Christ’s atonement for their sins, Christians are not going to hell. Therefore, no enemy of the cross can be a brother in Christ.' ____________________ DOCTRINAL AMBIGUITY OF A WANDERING STAR: THE CHANGING VIEWS OF JOYCE MEYER by G. Richard Fisher and Paul R. Belli To read more go to: (http://www.pfo.org/wan-star.htm) |
||||||
684 | The genuine gospel Jesus preached | 1 Cor 15:1 | Radioman2 | 85745 | ||
"Do you really know what constitutes the genuine Gospel that Jesus and His Apostles preached?" This question was asked by goodnewsminister in his post ID# 85505. My reply (ID# 85506): 'Do I really know what constitutes the genuine Gospel that Jesus and His Apostles preached? Yes, I do and it is NEITHER the gospel according to Jehovah's Witnesses NOR is it that of the 'Jehovah' of the Watchtower Society. Nor is it to be found in the New World Mis-translation of the Bible.' |
||||||
685 | Avoid quarreling about non-essentials | Eph 4:5 | Radioman2 | 85744 | ||
"Avoid quarreling about non-essentials" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'What is Christianity? ____________________ 'How do you make sense of the different denominations with everybody saying their way is right? Some distinctions to help you avoid quarreling about non-essentials. ____________________ 'There are two different issues. First, if Christianity happens to be true in the broader sense, how do you make sense of the different denominations with everybody saying their way is right? Second, what are the basics of Christianity? 'With regards to the first question, some people like to overplay this issue. "Five thousand different denominations and everybody claims their way is right." It is true that those who belong to a particular denomination do so because they think the details of the teachings in that denomination are accurate. Who would want to belong to a denomination they thought was teaching falsehood? But this question over-emphasizes the differences. 'I found a very helpful metaphor for the person who likes to complain about all the denominations. There are many different baseball teams and each team has a coach. Each coach coaches according to a certain set of principles. Those principles are the ones he thinks are the best for producing the best team. He differs with many coaches with regards to that. He could say that his way is right, but the others think their way is right. The fact is, they are all still playing baseball and they are playing with the same set of fundamental rules. Within the context of those rules, there are a number of variations in emphases and strategies that can be expressed in the way the game is played, but the fundamental game is still the same. Christianity is much like that. There is a fundamental core of beliefs and teachings that identify any particular denomination as being Christian. That is why we call them Christian denominations. It may be that these denominations differ in regards to the finer points--points that may be moot or debatable. 'For instance, how do you baptize a person? Do you dip them, do you sprinkle them, or do you fully immerse them? There are different points of view. People have an idea about what is right and they follow that in their particular denomination. Few would say that it really makes a critical difference whether you are dipped, sprinkled or immersed. Most would say that Christianity teaches baptism and that is something we all agree on. Even if you are baptized in a slightly different way, it doesn't mean the baptism doesn't count. 'Most of the differences in denominations are similar to this kind of thing. Do you worship on Saturday or on Sunday? In the morning or the evening? Do you use instruments or no instruments? Should you have a choir? Should you teach topically or verse by verse? How do you baptize? What are your particular views about the way salvation is mediated by God? How about the Holy Spirit? Do you speak in tongues or not? These are more peripheral issues to the fundamental superstructure of what C. S. Lewis called "mere Christianity." 'When it gets to mere Christianity, the basics and fundamentals are rather few. All Christians agree on the basics and fundamentals. If they don't, they are not called Christians. 'By the way, this is what separates Mormons from Christians. Mormons disagree on those fundamental issues and that is why they have to be called something other than Christian. 'My point simply is that the variations that people point to are somewhat smaller and incidental and are debatable issues. They aren't the kinds of things that undermine the basic truth claims of Christianity as a whole. The fundamental truth claims of Christianity as a whole are rather basic. Christianity stands or falls on those things, and not on the parochial particulars. 'What are the fundamental truth claims of Christianity? 'The particulars of mere Christianity entail four basic things: '1. Your view of God , '2. your view of creation , '3. your view of man , and '4. your view of salvation .' ____________________ What is Christianity? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/whatis.htm) |
||||||
686 | Is there support for deaconesses? | 1 Tim 3:11 | Radioman2 | 85729 | ||
Strong's Number: 1135 Original Word: gune Word Origin: probably from the base of (1096) 'Definition '1. a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow '2. a wife' 'NAS Word Usage - Total: 214 bride 1, wife 71, wife's 1, wives 11, woman 96, woman's 1, women 33' King James Word Usage - Total: 221 women 129, wife 92 [Note that in the KJV the same Greek word is more often translated "women" than it is "wife."] ___________________ Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/) |
||||||
687 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Radioman2 | 85724 | ||
Joyce Meyer teaches "the necessity of Jesus having to pay for our sins in hell, under the torment of Satan and his angels -- a teaching both unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Joyce Meyer shares the platform from time to time with Word of Faith teachers like, for example, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Benny Hinn, and T.D. Jakes.(5) Chrisitan Research Institute (CRI) is critical of and concerned with some of her practices and teachings. 'In her 1991 booklet, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, she teaches a hallmark doctrine of Faith theology, namely, that Christ had to suffer in hell to atone for our sins and be born again: "During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin….He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme…Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus….He was resurrected from the dead -- the first born-again man.(6)" 'Her assertions are not unlike those of leading Word of Faith proponent Kenneth Copeland, who also believes Christ’s death on the cross was not sufficient to atone for our sins, and that His work of redemption was completed by suffering in hell and being born again. According to Copeland, "When Jesus cried, “It is finished!” He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the throne….Jesus’ death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption.(7) "[The] word of the living God went down into the pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life. He began to look like something the devil had never seen before. He was literally being reborn before the devil’s very eyes. He began to flex His spiritual muscles….Jesus was born again -- the first-born from the dead.(8)" 'According to a recently published interview with free-lance writer Ken Walker, however, Meyer contradictorily denies ever believing or teaching that Christ was born again in hell.(9) 'Moreover, in her 1991 booklet, Meyer asserts that salvation is impossible without believing Jesus suffered in hell as the believer’s substitute. Meyer writes, “There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell.”(10) 'While historic Christianity has debated the issue of whether or not Jesus actually descended into hell (e.g., to proclaim the gospel, declare victory, etc. [1 Peter 3:18-19), no orthodox believer ever held to the belief that Christ suffered and atoned for our sins in hell, rather than on the cross. 'Yet, Word of Faith teachers, including Joyce Meyer, teach the necessity of Jesus having to pay for our sins in hell, under the torment of Satan and his angels -- a teaching both unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture. The entirety of Christ’s atoning work (i.e., His suffering and death in our place) occurred on the cross (e.g., 1 Peter 2:24), ending with His proclamation, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The Christ of Faith theology literally had to become sin, taking on the nature of Satan while in hell, thereby needing to be born again in hell before His resurrection could occur.' (To read the entire, uncut article quoted above, please go to: http://www.equip.org/search/ and in the search field enter the words Joyce Meyer.) |
||||||
688 | OT Laws - still apply today? | Lev 20:9 | Radioman2 | 85661 | ||
"...the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability." The Law under the New Covenant. [Note: The following is an excerpt from the article "The Law". It is recommended that you go to the website given here and read the entire article.)] 'The New Testament's statements about Old Testament law are difficult to harmonize. On the one hand, some New Testament statements indicate that under the new covenant the whole law is in some sense abrogated (Rom 6:14, "you are not under law" Rom 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law" ).' ["For sin will not have authority over you; because you are not under legalism but under grace." Romans 6:14 (Complete Jewish Bible, David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1998) "For the goal at which the Torah (Law) aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts." Romans 10:4 (CJB)] (...) 'On the other hand, the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. (...) 'The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). 'In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.' ------------- Bibliography. G. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics; W. S. Barker and W. R. Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique; H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus; D. A. Dorsey, JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 321-34; H.-H. Esser, NIDNTT2:438-51; M. Greenberg, Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, pp. 3-28; idem, Studies in Bible: 1986, pp. 3-28; idem, Religion and Law, pp. 101-12, 120-25; H. W. House and T. Ice, Dominion Theology: A Blessing or a Curse?; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics; idem, JETS33/3 (Sept. 1990): 289-302; G. E. Mendenhall, Religion and Law, pp. 85-100; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law; V. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses; R. J. Rushdooney, The Institutes of Biblical Law; R. Sonsino, Judaism33 (1984): 202-9; J. Sprinkle, A Literary Approach to Biblical Law: Exodus 20:22-23:19. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
689 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Radioman2 | 85635 | ||
You write: "Let us never lose sight of the fact that no matter what doctrine one ascribes to, the absolute most important thing is one's spiritual walk and relationship with Jesus Christ." I hope you do not mean to say that you can believe anything you want to, as long as you believe in Jesus -- that it doesn't matter what doctrine you believe, as long as you're in a relationship with Christ. I hope that's not what you're saying because doctrine does matter. If one were to believe false, bad doctrine (teaching), that would have a negative impact on his spiritual walk and relationship. What we believe affects every area of our lives. |
||||||
690 | Will be be above or here on earth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 85625 | ||
Is there a pretribulation rapture? 'Pretribulationalism 'This view was first known as "the secret" or "any moment rapture." It is a relatively new position which was first taught by the founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church, Edward Irving, in the late 1820's. It was then picked up by Plymouth Brethren pastor John Nelson Darby, and he first preached on it in 1843. It came to America in the late 1800's . . . 'Pretribulationists teach that the return of Christ has been imminent since the days of the early church and that the church will be raptured sometime before the seventieth week begins. Although they have no Scripture that in so many words teaches it, they teach that there are no signs and the rapture could take place at any moment. The seventieth week of Daniel is therefore considered to be a seven-year period of God's judgmental "tribulation" (hence the term pretribulation). This position generally views the seventieth week as the day of the Lord's wrath from which the church is excluded.' 'Prewrath 'The Prewrath position teaches that the true church will be raptured when the great tribulation by Antichrist, inspired by Satan, is cut short by God's day-of-the-Lord wrath, which will occur between the sixth and seventh seals of Revelation, sometime during the second half of the seventieth week. The persecution associated with the great tribulation of Antichrist is viewed as the wrath of Satan, whereas the events that follow, beginning with the seventh seal, are considered the wrath of God. There is another term that is sometimes expressed, "historical premillennialism," which refers back to the teaching of the early church fathers before 325 A.D. who believed that the church would face the persecution of Antichrist and Christ would then reign for 1000 years upon the earth. With the exception of two, Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who were allegorist, they all taught this view. Prewrath is plainly and simply an expansion of this view which was biblical then and biblical now.' (www.solagroup.org/) |
||||||
691 | message by an angel - another gospel | Gal 1:8 | Radioman2 | 85585 | ||
mommapbs: Yes, the doctrine of the Mormons is a very different gospel. Thanks for your good observation. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
692 | whats the reference to our day? | John 4:48 | Radioman2 | 85582 | ||
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 | ||||||
693 | The Rich Man and Lazarus... | Luke 16:23 | Radioman2 | 85508 | ||
Lazarus and the Rich Man, Luke 16:19-31 'In Luke 16:19-31 is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Basically, Lazarus is a poor man who suffers during life. The rich man is, of course, rich. They both die. The rich man goes to Hades. Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom, another term for paradise. In Hades, the rich man lifts up his eyes and sees Lazarus far off. He cries out to Abraham and asks for mercy because he is in agony in flame. Abraham says no. Then the rich man asks if someone from the dead were to rise and go tell his brothers not to come to this terrible place. Abraham teaches him that that will not be done either. 'Some say that this is a parable. However, if it is, it is unique because no other parable actually names a person. It isn't a story. It is history. It really happened. But many who believe in no consciousness after death will say it is still a parable. The question then is, if it is, What is it teaching? If hell fire is false and if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth. If it is a parable what does the consciousness after death symbolize? Also, what does the agony in flame symbolize? Are they not real? Of course they are. 'Conclusion 'Hell is a real place. It is not mere unconsciousness. It is not temporal. It is eternal torment. Perhaps that is why Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there. After all, if people just stopped existing, why warn them? If it was temporal, they'd get out in a while. But if it were eternal and conscious, then the warning is strong. 'Jesus said, "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell," (Matt. 5:29-30).' (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/hell.htm) |
||||||
694 | Prove all things hold fast to the good.. | 1 Cor 15:1 | Radioman2 | 85506 | ||
Do I really know what constitutes the genuine Gospel that Jesus and His Apostles preached? Yes, I do and it is NEITHER the gospel according to Jehovah's Witnesses NOR is it the "Jehovah" of the Watchtower Society. Nor is it to be found in the New World Mis-translation of the Bible. | ||||||
695 | The Holy Spirit b4 Christ's ascension? | Num 11:25 | Radioman2 | 85473 | ||
...'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' Says the Lord of hosts. Zec 4:6 in the Old Testament (NKJV) |
||||||
696 | Am I once and forever saved? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85470 | ||
Revelation 2:4-5 does not say what you said it does. DAIRYLEADER5: You write: "But if youve left your first love,God, then you are no longer in Christ." What it actually SAYS is: Revelation 2 [4] Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. [5] Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Note that the text says: "or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." "WILL REMOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE"; not "you are no longer in Christ." We know what the Bible means by what IT says -- not by what WE think it says. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
697 | Am I once and forever saved? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85464 | ||
No, we are not once and forever saved. Isn't it a fact that our salvation is a roller coaster ride of being saved on Sunday and then losing it on Monday? Eternal life by definition is temporary, is it not? Isn't it a fact that Jesus is NOT able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He does NOT ever live to make intercession for them? Isn't it a fact that my salvation depends on God AND me? And that if I mess up, I might lose it? Isn't it obvious that if there is no security in our salvation, we can never have any assurance of it? Where does it say in the Bible "if you've left your first love, God, then you are no longer in Christ"? Please show us the book, chapter and verse where the Bible says this. |
||||||
698 | Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85457 | ||
ad hominem - marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made Your ad hominem attack and bold assertions prove nothing. Also, you have not directly addressed any of the points made in my post, ID# 85420. I am not here to play dueling assertions. All you have done is deny what I posted, without refuting any of it. To refute mans "to PROVE wrong by argument or EVIDENCE." I find your arguments weak and your evidence non-existent. |
||||||
699 | Part 2 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85421 | ||
Part 2 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Do we have biblical justification for the idea that one of the ways the Holy Spirit is active in our lives is that He, as a standard operational procedure, gives Christians personal and individual messages from God, contentful, propositional information like, "Marry that person"? Does the Bible teach that having a personal, live connection with God speaking to you is God's way for Christians? Does the Bible teach that this represents the optimal Christian life? You hear His voice and then you know what to do in your life? 'Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is not the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is also a source of authoritative information about God? And can we expect God to speak to us and fill in the gaps, as it were, on things the Bible does not address (e.g., the specific person I should marry)? 'My answer is, the Bible does not teach such a thing. It's ironic that so many Christians who hold to sola scriptura in debates with Roman Catholics, would also hold that they receive authoritative pronouncements from God. For goodness sake, at least the Roman Catholic Church relegates that only to the teaching magisterium of the church, and to the Pope when he speaks from the chair. 'But we have Protestants who hold to sola scriptura who then, in the next breath, speak about the authoritative messages they've received from God that they're obliged to follow. 'By the way, if you're in the habit of saying, "God told me to do..." thus and so, keep in mind that you're making the claim of a prophet, no less than any prophet of the Old Testament. The testing for a prophet was very severe. A prophet of the Old Testament never made that kind of claim unless he was willing to stake his life on it and die for the claim. In fact, if the claim wasn't true, that's just what happened. The prophet found himself under a pile of rocks. 'So Christians would be good to guard their mouths and not flippantly make proclamations that God has been speaking privately to them. Even the prophets of God did not make those claims with such a cavalier attitude. 'We ought not assume that maturity as a Christian means receiving daily authoritative revelations from God when the Bible itself does not give us the justification for believing that such a thing is a standard work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does many things, but it doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit does that.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm).' |
||||||
700 | Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85420 | ||
Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ] Next > Last [66] >> |