Results 1101 - 1120 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1101 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98902 | ||
DL5: It seems that it is you yourself who does not know or care about anything that anyone else is talking about. Why study Hebrew or Greek or even English, when we can all bask in the light of your many opinions? --Radioman2 |
||||||
1102 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98905 | ||
If you are of that opinion...remain so ____________________ "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." ____________________ "In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. " - C. H. Spurgeon --Radioman2 |
||||||
1103 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98978 | ||
Apparently the goal of some on this forum is contained in the first part of the verse: "I determined to know nothing." And they have succeeded. | ||||||
1104 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 99253 | ||
mkm9: My sincere thanks to you for providing this information. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
1105 | Unification Just For Unity's Sake? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84082 | ||
Unification Just For Unity's Sake? "Why are you dividing the Body this way? Why are you attacking Christians? These people love the Lord." [This is a question that, in various forms, I have repeatedly been asked, especially when I dare to question the teachings of certain TV preachers and others who "end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird." --Radioman2] - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'I'm deeply concerned about any rush to unification just for unity's sake.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl 'I think the medium of TV lends itself to excess, such that people who are not well trained in theology can be launched into positions of high influence and authority, and end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird. When that happens I take exception and try to be a defender of the truth, as I understand it. But then people call in and say, "Why are you dividing the Body this way? Why are you attacking Christians? These people love the Lord." 'If you've been around for a while and understand the issue of tactics here--especially the suicide tactic-- you notice that this objection immediately defeats itself because this person is calling me on the air and publicly telling me that I am wrong for speaking on the air about other people who are wrong. In other words, they are accusing me of doing the very thing that they are in the process of doing. It doesn't bother me because I don't think there is anything wrong with that, per se. But their whole point is that I'm so divisive. Why don't we stay unified? After all, we're all Christians. We all love Jesus--as if there is something magical about this sound "Christian," or this sound, "love Jesus," such that those who have a commitment to the sound should therefore not have any meaningful differences between them. 'My view is that "Christian" is not a sound, it's a word. And the phrase "loving Jesus" is not two sounds, it is two words. The difference between a sound and a word is that a sound is a noise and a word means something. It has particular and peculiar content. 'I would be the first to agree that sometimes we major in the minors. Christians get all hot and bothered about minuscule theological issues, and Paul himself says don't fuss about it; don't waste your time with the silly things. I think one characteristic of an ill-educated church is that they create a tempest in a teapot. They fuss over the things that mean very little and they ignore the things that are really critical. 'What's the difference? If you know anything about church history, you know the difference. It is easy for someone to say, "Koukl, you think that what's important to you is really critical, and the rest is insignificant. Well, maybe you're wrong." 'Well, maybe I am wrong, but I'm trying to line up my understanding of what is critical with what the church has characteristically lined itself up with over the last 2000 years. I'm trying to maintain a historical perspective and not simply play my own evangelical joy-toy, my own hobby horse. A historical perspective will help protect you from doing that. 'I'm deeply concerned about any rush to unification just for unity's sake. This is the problem with the World Council of Churches. Their idea is, "Let's just ignore our differences and get together." But any love that is not based on truth--as a teacher of mine once said--is not love, but adultery. 'I want you to think carefully about this for a minute. It really hinges on the distinction between the sound and the word. 'I might ask you then, "What unites us?" And you say, "We all love Jesus. That's really what is important here. Not all those little theological minutiae." My response is going to be, "Why do you want to be so divisive?" You'll say, "What do you mean?" I say, "Why would you exclude all these people who call themselves Christians, but who don't feel about Jesus the way you do? In other words, they don't 'love Jesus.' Why do you want to impose this doctrinal standard of 'loving Jesus' on them? That's very divisive. You probably want to start your own denomination of people who are the 'Love Jesus' denomination, excluding all those who don't love Jesus."' ____________________ "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl This post is an excerpt from the above commentary. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm). On 5-15-2003 *only*, you can go to (http://www.str.org/cgi-bin/daily_commentary.pl). |
||||||
1106 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84481 | ||
"Why are you attacking Christians?" "Why are you dividing the Body this way? These people love the Lord." "Why don't we stay unified?" [These are questions that I am asked repeatedly, especially when I dare to question the teachings of certain TV preachers and others who "end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird." --Radioman2] "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl 'I think the medium of TV lends itself to excess, such that people who are not well trained in theology can be launched into positions of high influence and authority, and end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird. When that happens I take exception and try to be a defender of the truth, as I understand it. But then people call in and say, "Why are you dividing the Body this way? Why are you attacking Christians? These people love the Lord." 'If you've been around for a while and understand the issue of tactics here--especially the suicide tactic-- you notice that this objection immediately defeats itself because this person is calling me on the air and publicly telling me that I am wrong for speaking on the air about other people who are wrong. In other words, they are accusing me of doing the very thing that they are in the process of doing. It doesn't bother me because I don't think there is anything wrong with that, per se. But their whole point is that I'm so divisive. Why don't we stay unified? After all, we're all Christians. We all love Jesus--as if there is something magical about this sound "Christian," or this sound, "love Jesus," such that those who have a commitment to the sound should therefore not have any meaningful differences between them. 'My view is that "Christian" is not a sound, it's a word. And the phrase "loving Jesus" is not two sounds, it is two words. The difference between a sound and a word is that a sound is a noise and a word means something. It has particular and peculiar content. 'I would be the first to agree that sometimes we major in the minors. Christians get all hot and bothered about minuscule theological issues, and Paul himself says don't fuss about it; don't waste your time with the silly things. I think one characteristic of an ill-educated church is that they create a tempest in a teapot. They fuss over the things that mean very little and they ignore the things that are really critical. 'What's the difference? If you know anything about church history, you know the difference. It is easy for someone to say, "Koukl, you think that what's important to you is really critical, and the rest is insignificant. Well, maybe you're wrong." 'Well, maybe I am wrong, but I'm trying to line up my understanding of what is critical with what the church has characteristically lined itself up with over the last 2000 years. I'm trying to maintain a historical perspective and not simply play my own evangelical joy-toy, my own hobby horse. A historical perspective will help protect you from doing that. 'I'm deeply concerned about any rush to unification just for unity's sake. This is the problem with the World Council of Churches. Their idea is, "Let's just ignore our differences and get together." But any love that is not based on truth--as a teacher of mine once said--is not love, but adultery. 'I want you to think carefully about this for a minute. It really hinges on the distinction between the sound and the word. 'I might ask you then, "What unites us?" And you say, "We all love Jesus. That's really what is important here. Not all those little theological minutiae." My response is going to be, "Why do you want to be so divisive?" You'll say, "What do you mean?" I say, "Why would you exclude all these people who call themselves Christians, but who don't feel about Jesus the way you do? In other words, they don't 'love Jesus.' Why do you want to impose this doctrinal standard of 'loving Jesus' on them? That's very divisive. You probably want to start your own denomination of people who are the 'Love Jesus' denomination, excluding all those who don't love Jesus."' ____________________ "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl. This post is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm). |
||||||
1107 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84545 | ||
Why would I attack false teachers? NLT Ecclesiastes 12:12 But, my child, be warned: There is no end of opinions ready to be expressed. Studying them can go on forever and become very exhausting! AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 3:13 But wicked men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and leading astray others and being deceived and led astray themselves. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold, AMPLIFIED 2 Peter 2:1-3 BUT ALSO [in those days] there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical doctrines (destructive heresies), even denying and disowning the Master Who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their immoral ways and lascivious doings; because of them the true Way will be maligned and defamed. And in their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning) arguments. From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not been idle; their destruction (eternal misery) has not been asleep. NLT 1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. NLT 2 John 1:10-11 If someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don't invite him into your house or encourage him in any way. Anyone who encourages him becomes a partner in his evil work. |
||||||
1108 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84599 | ||
Asis: You have my forgiveness, my friend. I welcome you and your contributions to the forum. God bless you richly in all things. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
1109 | WHY DON'T WE TEACH THE CROSS? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 96312 | ||
LET GOD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. | ||||||
1110 | What in the world was Paul thinking?!? | 2 Tim 4:18 | Radioman2 | 96258 | ||
But he who endures to the end will be saved. Matthew 24:13 AMPLIFIED "The reference is not to the salvation of the soul of the believer who endures persecution, but to his deliverance by the Lord's return" (NSRB note at Matthew 24:13). In Matthew 24:4-31 the entire passage is Jesus' answer to the disciples' questions: "When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (v.2). In subsequent verses Jesus is teaching about Daniel's seventieth week of years: the end time; the middle of Daniel's seventieth week: the abomination of desolation; the great tribulation (latter half of week); and the King's return to earth at the close of the tribulation. So in the context this interpretation of verse 13 is the more likely interpretation -- i.e., that the reference is to the believer's deliverance by the Lord's return. In addition, we are not saved by enduring to the end. We are saved by grace through faith because of what Christ did on the cross -- not by anything that we do. No one is saved by holding on or holding out. When we are saved, it is because God Himself holds onto us. --Radioman2 |
||||||
1111 | What was the apostles doctrine? | Titus 2:1 | Radioman2 | 82180 | ||
This does not exactly answer your specific question, yet the following Scriptures emphasize the need for the teaching of "sound doctrine". 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: The King James Version (Authorized) |
||||||
1112 | Snatch? | Hebrews | Radioman2 | 99801 | ||
Security of the Believer (Backsliding) [All of the following is a direct quote from the web page (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_09_security.cfm). The article has been edited solely to fit within space limitations.] What is the Assemblies of God position on the security of the believer's salvation? ...We believe it is possible for a person once saved to turn from God and be lost again... In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible's call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost. ( . . . ) The Assemblies of God leans toward Arminianism, though it accepts scriptural truth found in both positions. We agree with the Calvinist emphasis on God's sovereignty or supreme power and authority. But we also firmly believe the Arminian emphasis on mankind's free will and responsibility for his actions and choices. We believe the Bible teaches both truths. "Eternal security," according to Calvinists, means "once saved, always saved." The key passage for this position is John 10:28,29— "No one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." There is great assurance in this passage and in Romans 8:35,39—"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . . Neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The Assemblies of God also stands on these wonderful truths knowing we need not fear that something external will overpower us and take away our salvation. Only our willful choices can do that. But because we are creatures with free wills, we must be vigilantly on guard because the enemy of our soul, the devil, "prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith" (1 Peter 5:8,9). In our Fellowship we believe carelessness can lead to apathy, apathy to neglect, and neglect to a conscious decision to sin. We often refer to this spiritual decline as backsliding. We believe one who backslides is in danger of losing his salvation if the individual persists in rejecting the Spirit's call to repentance and restoration. Luke 8:13 makes clear the fact that believers can lose their salvation. It says some "believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away." Revelation 22:19 says "If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life, and in the holy city." Certainly there are true Christians who believe and teach Calvinism; there are also true Christians who believe and teach that men and women have free will. Unfortunately, both sides have spent more time arguing doctrinal terminology and interpretations of theology than reaching out to a lost world. The irony of the disagreement is that Calvinists, who believe in predestination, are sometimes more active in witnessing and evangelism than Arminians who believe that man has a free will and should be encouraged to accept Christ as Savior. God, of course, looks on the heart and the actions rather than on the eloquence with which one defends a position. CONCERNS: Although the Assemblies of God adheres basically to the Arminian position on the spiritual security of the believer, there are extremes and potential abuses which must be avoided. The Christian life is not a roller coaster of Sunday salvation and Monday through Saturday backsliding. On the other hand, no Christian, no matter how spiritual, can claim perfection and sinlessness (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1). Therefore as Christians we must continually come to God sincerely asking His forgiveness for living below the potential He makes possible through the gift of His Holy Spirit. The truth of God's marvelous and free grace has sadly led some to imagine and indulge in a cheap grace, a grace that covers all sins with no need to live a holy life. Such an attitude is an insult to the great price Christ paid to purchase our salvation. Though we may fail and fall, and sometimes sin, the heart of the true believer always regrets, repents, asks forgiveness, and seeks never to sin that way again. To carelessly participate in sin, expecting to gain forgiveness later, is itself an act of backsliding that will lead ultimately to losing one's salvation. We therefore reject any "once saved, always saved" doctrine that excuses sinful lifestyles. |
||||||
1113 | He doesn't try to speak and not get hear | Heb 1:2 | Radioman2 | 94466 | ||
God doesn't "try" to speak and not get heard. Does God Try? Some hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way. 'God doesn't try. He is all-powerful. God doesn't attempt. He knows everything. Whatever He intends to accomplish He does, in fact, accomplish. 'Now I've got another question. What about this sense in many evangelical circles, especially in charismatic ones, that God is working hard to speak to individuals, but they don't "hear His voice" because they simply aren't listening? What of the notion that the ability to hear the voice of God requires we simply quiet ourselves and get in tune? 'Many have bought the idea that optimal Christian living involves "experiencing God" in a special manner: hearing His voice and getting special directives or assignments from Him. For those who say, "I don't hear God," the rejoinder is often, "He's been trying to talk to you, but you weren't listening." ( . . . ) 'I know of no place in the Bible, ladies and gentlemen, where God attempted to speak and He wasn't heard. Frequently, He wasn't obeyed, true enough. Certainly, people hardened their hearts against the revelation–which itself was clear–and refused to believe that which was spoken. But I know of no case where God was speaking and He just couldn't get through because people were not listening. 'For goodness sake, we're talking about special revelation. Paul's says in Romans 1 that even general revelation is so obvious and so forceful that people must actively suppress the truth in unrighteousness in order to ignore it. 'As far as I can tell, the Bible knows of no such thing as God trying to speak, but is incapable of being heard because fallen men and women have somehow closed Him off, denied His ability, and so can't hear Him or are just simply too busy to hear the still, small voice of God. 'This is simply a matter of consistent reasoning. It seems to me that if we hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way, then we have to accept as valid the same objection against the authority of Scripture and surrender our confidence that God could guarantee the outcome of the writing of the Bible. 'If, however, we say that God is big enough to overcome any human limitations so He can guarantee the word-for-word accuracy of the Scripture, then the same sovereign power is available to God to speak to any individual when He so chooses. God doesn't "try" to speak and not get heard. 'Now, if that's true, then we don't have to spend any time quieting our lives to hear the voice of God as He "tries" to penetrate all the clamor. Instead, we can simply turn our gaze upon the only voice of God we are ever commanded to hear, to know, and to obey. That is the written, fully inspired, fully accurate Word of God: the Bible.' (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/doesgodt.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
1114 | Does God try to speak and not get heard? | Heb 1:2 | Radioman2 | 94591 | ||
Does God try to speak and not get heard? Does God Try? Some hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way. 'God doesn't try. He is all-powerful. God doesn't attempt. He knows everything. Whatever He intends to accomplish He does, in fact, accomplish. 'Now I've got another question. What about this sense in many evangelical circles, especially in charismatic ones, that God is working hard to speak to individuals, but they don't "hear His voice" because they simply aren't listening? What of the notion that the ability to hear the voice of God requires we simply quiet ourselves and get in tune? 'Many have bought the idea that optimal Christian living involves "experiencing God" in a special manner: hearing His voice and getting special directives or assignments from Him. For those who say, "I don't hear God," the rejoinder is often, "He's been trying to talk to you, but you weren't listening." ( . . . ) 'I know of no place in the Bible, ladies and gentlemen, where God attempted to speak and He wasn't heard. Frequently, He wasn't obeyed, true enough. Certainly, people hardened their hearts against the revelation–which itself was clear–and refused to believe that which was spoken. But I know of no case where God was speaking and He just couldn't get through because people were not listening. 'For goodness sake, we're talking about special revelation. Paul's says in Romans 1 that even general revelation is so obvious and so forceful that people must actively suppress the truth in unrighteousness in order to ignore it. 'As far as I can tell, the Bible knows of no such thing as God trying to speak, but is incapable of being heard because fallen men and women have somehow closed Him off, denied His ability, and so can't hear Him or are just simply too busy to hear the still, small voice of God. 'This is simply a matter of consistent reasoning. It seems to me that if we hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way, then we have to accept as valid the same objection against the authority of Scripture and surrender our confidence that God could guarantee the outcome of the writing of the Bible. 'If, however, we say that God is big enough to overcome any human limitations so He can guarantee the word-for-word accuracy of the Scripture, then the same sovereign power is available to God to speak to any individual when He so chooses. God doesn't "try" to speak and not get heard. 'Now, if that's true, then we don't have to spend any time quieting our lives to hear the voice of God as He "tries" to penetrate all the clamor. Instead, we can simply turn our gaze upon the only voice of God we are ever commanded to hear, to know, and to obey. That is the written, fully inspired, fully accurate Word of God: the Bible.' (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/doesgodt.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
1115 | Restorations??? | Heb 6:4 | Radioman2 | 77232 | ||
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened . . . if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance," Hebrews 6:4,6 NIV __________________________ Hebrews 6:4-6 NIV [4] It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, [6] if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 1 Cor. 3:6-7 (ESV) I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. [7] So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. |
||||||
1116 | I'm still unclear about "fallen away", | Heb 6:6 | Radioman2 | 77250 | ||
"Fall away." (Hebrews 6:6) "This Gr. term occurs only here in the NT. In the LXX, it was used to translate terms for severe unfaithfulness and apostasy. It is equivalent to the apostasy in [Heb] 3:12. The seriousness of this unfaithfulness is seen in the severe description of rejection within this verse: they re-crucify Christ and treat Him contemptuously (see also the strong descriptions in 10:29). "The 'impossible' of v. 4 goes with 'to renew them again to repentance.' Those who sinned against Christ in such a way had no hope of restoration or forgiveness. The reason is that they had rejected Him with full knowledge and conscious experience (as described in the features of vv. 5,6). With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of being saved. They can never have more knowledge than they had when they rejected it. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with his enemies. "There is no possibility of these verses referring to losing salvation. Many Scripture passages make unmistakably clear that salvation is eternal (compare John 10:27-29; Rom. 8:35,38,39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Pet. 1:4,5). Those who want to make this verse mean that believers can lose salvation will have to admit that it would then also say that one could never get it back again." (Note at Hebrews 6:6, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997. For all Scripture references, see the MacArthur Study Bible.) |
||||||
1117 | Judgement:preachers who curse nontithers | Heb 7:8 | Radioman2 | 79015 | ||
Speak to the Israelites, that they take for Me an offering. From every man who gives it willingly and ungrudgingly with his heart you shall take My offering. Exodus 25:2 AMPLIFIED AMPLIFIED 1 Chronicles 29:9 Then the people rejoiced because these had given willingly, for with a whole and blameless heart they had offered freely to the Lord. King David also rejoiced greatly. - - - - - - - - - - "Tithes were not primarily gifts to God, but taxes for funding the national budget in Israel." "New Testament believers are never commanded to tithe. " - - - - - - - - - - You are correct when you say "tithes do not apply to the NT" era. "Two kinds of giving are taught consistently throughout Scripture: giving to the government (always compulsory), and giving to God (always voluntary). "The issue has been greatly confused, however, by some who misunderstand the nature of the Old Testament tithes. Tithes were not primarily gifts to God, but taxes for funding the national budget in Israel. "Because Israel was a theocracy, the Levitical priests acted as the civil government. So the Levite's tithe (Leviticus 27:30-33) was a precursor to today's income tax, as was a second annual tithe required by God to fund a national festival (Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Smaller taxes were also imposed on the people by the law (Leviticus 19:9-10; Exodus 23:10-11). So the total giving required of the Israelites was not 10 percent, but well over 20 percent. All that money was used to operate the nation. "All giving apart from that required to run the government was purely voluntary (cf. Exodus 25:2; 1 Chronicles 29:9). Each person gave whatever was in his heart to give; no percentage or amount was specified. "New Testament believers are never commanded to tithe. Matthew 22:15-22 and Romans 13:1-7 tell us about the only required giving in the church age, which is the paying of taxes to the government. "Interestingly enough, we in America presently pay between 20 and 30 percent of our income to the government--a figure very similar to the requirement under the theocracy of Israel. "The guideline for our giving to God and His work is found in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7: "Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully. Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver." (www.gty.org Click on Issues and Answers. Then click on Previous Topics) For much more in-depth information on Tithing, including many Scripture references, look up Tithing in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker's Dictionary is available online at (bible.crosswalk.com) |
||||||
1118 | Judgement:preachers who curse nontithers | Heb 7:8 | Radioman2 | 79046 | ||
EdB: Excellent post! Well said. I agree with you that ten percent would be a good place to start. All that you say here about giving is certainly true. Thank you for saying it. Let us all remember the widow in the gospel of Luke who outgave the rich men. NASB Luke 21:3-4 And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on." Radioman2 |
||||||
1119 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77737 | ||
In the Mosaic Law there are 613 commandments. Neither nine nor ten, but 613. | ||||||
1120 | I refuse to deal with it??? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77742 | ||
I don't care to deal with the question of how many of the 10 Commandments are in force? I did deal with it on Fri 03/7/03. Following is a repost for those who missed it. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ] Next > Last [66] >> |