Results 7401 - 7420 of 7732
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
7401 | what does this mean, is there no hope? | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 2262 | ||
" . . . logically [Heb 6:4] implies that if salvation were to be lost, it would be impossible for that person to be born again, lose it, and then be born again again. This much is clear: whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved ealier." Whether he had lost his salvation or never had it to begin with, "either way, the result is identical." (note at Heb. 6:4ff, NRSV Harper Study Bible, Zondervan, 1991) . . . The warning in Heb 6:6-8 "is issued to those who have been instructed and even moved by the Holy Spirit but have never committed themselves to Christ. [In this passage] the experiences outlined may precede and even accompany salvation, but they do not always result in salvation. Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security; therefore this passage must not be interpreted as teaching that believers in Christ can lose their salvation. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" (note at Heb 6:4, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). |
||||||
7402 | Online resources for Joshua study. | Joshua | kalos | 2226 | ||
For online Bible resources, always begin your search at one or both of these 2 sites: www.goshen.net; www.gospelcom.net |
||||||
7403 | what is baptized in the Holy Spirit | John 14:16 | kalos | 2216 | ||
With all respect to you, sir, I would have to amend your answer as follows: the baptism with the Spirit is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body. . . . 1 Cor 12:13 NASB "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." . . . The same verse in the Amplified Bible reads: "For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all...baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit." |
||||||
7404 | what is baptized in the Holy Spirit | John 14:16 | kalos | 2215 | ||
1) Upon salvation we are baptized (placed) into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit(1 Cor 12:13). 2) Also, at the time of our salvation, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9). 3) We must realize that those first disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Day of Pentecost, because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given. . . . 4) Pentecost was a one-time, never to be repeated event in the history of the church. Now there is no need to wait or tarry to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. This was only true of the first (pre-Pentecost) disciples/believers. . . . What exactly happened at Pentecost?" "The disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost." Acts 2:4 *filled with the Holy Spirit.* "In contrast to the baptism with the Spirit, which is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body (1 Cor 12:13), the filling is a repeated reality of Spirit-controlled behavior that God commands believers to maintain. Peter and many others in Acts 2 were filled with the Spirit again (e.g., Acts 4:8,31; 6:5; 7:55) and so spoke boldly the Word of God. The fullness of the Spirit affects all areas of life, not just speaking boldy (compare Eph 5:19-33)" (p. 1635, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . To be "filled with" the Spirit means to be "controlled and empowered by" the Spirit. . . . I might add that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9 "...Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."), it is obvious that not all believers at all times are *filled* (controlled and empowered) by the Spirit. |
||||||
7405 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | kalos | 2214 | ||
Dear Ray V.H.: Greetings! I read with interest your posting, "Dear Minister, Thank you for your input..." It is not my intent to take issue with you, but I would just like to point out one or two things. . . . Regarding your sentence: "Not only then is Jesus the Son of Joseph in the spiritual sense..." I would like to know: Who ever accurately and correctly called Jesus the son of Joseph? Luke 3:23 New King James Version: "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..." "*as was supposed.* Luke had already established the fact of the virgin birth (1:34,35); here he made clear once again that Joseph was not Jesus' true father" (p. 1529, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . You wrote concerning Adam: "In a sense then, he became a man." I would have to disagree with you. God *created* Adam as a man. I cannot agree that sometime subsequent to his creation, Adam *became* a man, since he was a man from the moment of his creation. . . . You wrote: "In Adam's case also there didn't have to be a father, just a Creator." Please note what it plainly says in Luke 3:38: "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Repeating: "Adam, the son of God." If one wishes to debate whether the meaning of "Adam, the son of God" is literal or metaphorical, one may do so. But in the Scriptures, when the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it be nonsense. . . . (Yet it is true that not every statement in Scripture was meant to be taken literally. No one can deny that often Scripture uses figurative language. Care must be taken to distinguish the figurative from the literal. Notice that in the above paragraph, I did not say "literal sense." To be safe, I prefer to use the term "the plain sense.") . . . Again, thank you for a most interesting posting. In Christ, JVH0212 |
||||||
7406 | God warns: disobey and see consequences | Zech 7:12 | kalos | 2212 | ||
I appreciate your note. However, I would never accuse God of vindictiveness (not saying that you did that). Instead, I would point out that one of God's many attributes is His JUSTICE. Justice is defined as: "2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS." It seems that many of us Americans have a real problem recognizing and reverencing the justice as well as the sovereignty of God. (Again, this is not directed at you. I am just commenting on Americans in general, including some Forum members in particular.) |
||||||
7407 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2211 | ||
Dear Charis: Even before I submit this note, I can already hear the outraged cries of dissent from all the armchair theologians. Nevertheless I quote John MacArthur. After you all read it, please don't ask me to explain or defend what he writes. Ask John MacArthur to defend John MacArthur. As far the Bible, we don't need to defend it. It is a weapon, a sword. Whoever heard of defending one's weapon? The weapon defends you. . . . MacArthur's note at Heb 4:12. "*division of soul and spirit.* These terms do not describe two separate entities (any more than 'thoughts and intents' do) but are used as one might say 'heart and soul' to express fullness. Elsewhere these two terms are used interchangeably to describe man's immaterial self, his eternal inner person" (p. 1903, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . MacArthur's note at 1 Thess 5:23. "*whole spirit, soul, and body.* This comprehensive reference makes the term 'completely' more emphatic. By using spirit and soul, Paul was not indicating that the immaterial part of man could be divided into two substances (compare Heb 4:12). The two words are used interchangeably throughout Scripture. There can be no division of these realities, but rather they are used as other texts use multiple terms for emphasis. Nor was Paul a believer in a 3-part human composition, but rather two parts: material and immaterial" (p. 1850, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . Yours in Christ, JVH0212 . . . (Note: many, many Scriptures were cited by MacArthur in the above note on 1 Thess 5:23 -- too numerous for me to include in this posting. However, one can read and look up for oneself the Scripture references cited in the MacArthur Study Bible.) |
||||||
7408 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2210 | ||
So far I have heard, "It is my conviction...," "I believe...," and "I believe..." Scripture, please. | ||||||
7409 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2206 | ||
I would not deny that man is "body, soul, and spirit," as it says in the verse you quote. But after years of reading commentary and definitions, it is still unclear to me what the distinction is between soul and spirit. I wouldn't even attempt to define the distinction between these two. Yours is a good question. When you find out the answer, share it with me, please. I, too, would sincerely like to know. | ||||||
7410 | Woe to us? | Matt 23:13 | kalos | 2204 | ||
Dear Charis: A partial answer to your question: Pharisees, not unlike tongues and other gifts of the Spirit, did NOT cease to exist at the close of the 1st Century A.D. Pharisees, whose character is marked by hypocrisy and self-righteousness, still exist today. Whoever they are (and their name should be Legion, for they are many) the woes and judgments of God would still apply. I don't know whether the hypocritical and self-righteous alone are responsible for the splintered church of today. Neither could I or would I defend the division we have. What do we do? Hypothetically speaking, if every believer would abide in Christ and let the Word of Christ and the Spirit of God dwell in him/her richly -- i.e. if agape love ruled -- then we could heal much of the division in the church today. What to do is fairly self-evident. HOW to do it, or HOW to bring it about, is something we still need to work on. Your brother in the Lord, JVH0212 | ||||||
7411 | Does God hate the workers of iniquity? | Ps 5:5 | kalos | 2202 | ||
Short answer: Yes, God hates the workers of iniquity. That's what it says in this verse in plain English. Read Ps 5 verses 4-6 together. Note in context the use of the words "not...Nor...not...hate...destroy...abhors." . . . "These 3 negatively phrased descriptions follow 3 directly stated affirmations. This reveals God's perfect standard of justice both in principle and in practice" (p. 746, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . Ps 7:11 KJV "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day." . . . Rom 5:1 ASV "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;" The sinner may think he is not at war with God, but God is most certainly at war with the sinner. "*peace with God.* Not a subjective, internal sense of calm and serenity, but an external, objective reality. God has declared Himself to be at war with every human being because of man's sinful rebellion against Him and His law (Rom 5:10; compare Rom 1:18; 8:7; Ex 22:24; Deut 32:21,22; Ps 7:11, John 3:36; Eph 5:6)" (p. 1700, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
7412 | Heaven | Matt 22:30 | kalos | 2201 | ||
Dear Hugger: . . . In general, I tend to agree with you when you write: . . . "I think (and this is not from scripture but by the witness of the Spirit that lives in me)that we will not need the physical expression of sexual relations in heaven because we will be in love with the Lord and we will be the bride of Christ. The pure joy and ecstacy of being in heaven with the Lord is much more satisfying that anything we can experience with our bodies in sexual relations." . . . To add to my earlier answer, our bodies in heaven will be *capable* of eating and drinking, but I don't see where we will *need* to eat and drink. The same could be true of sexual capability vs. sexual need in heaven. Maybe we will be *capable* of sexual activity, but will not *need* it because of "the pure joy and ecstasy of being in heaven with the Lord." . . . To all our master debaters let me say: Save your angry postings to me, folks. I started out by saying that what I originally wrote re this question is neither doctrine nor dogma, but is merely my observation on the subject. I do not claim to have the one right answer to the question. As Americans we have the right to debate this topic endlessly, but, frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to. . . .Your brother in Christ, JVH0212 |
||||||
7413 | Heaven | Matt 22:30 | kalos | 2186 | ||
Matt 22:30 (ASV 1901) "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven." This is neither doctrine nor dogma. It is merely my own observation on the above Scripture and related Scriptures. 1) The Bible does not SAY there will be no sex in heaven. WHAT IT SAYS is there will be no marriage in heaven. 2)Because of what the Scriptures tell us of Jesus' post-resurrection body, we know that our resurrection bodies will have the capacity to eat and drink -- normal biological functions. 3) Therefore, one can infer that if our resurrection (glorified) bodies can eat and drink, are they not able also to perform other natural biological functions, e.g. having sexual relations? Yours is a very good question. I don't even claim to have the answer, let alone the one right answer. But until it is proven otherwise, this is how I see it. |
||||||
7414 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2184 | ||
Earlier I wrote you an answer to your question: What is the best inter. of the Bible? If I may, I would like to supplement what I wrote before with this additional information. . . . The best Bible version is the one YOU use -- the one you can understand AND trust. . . . If you asked 20 different people what's the best version, you would get 20 different answers. . . . First you have to answer the question, best for what? What will you be using this Bible for -- general reading, devotional reading, personal study, evangelism, teaching youth, etc.? . . . I personally use 16 different versions of the Bible. What are my top recommendations? They are, in alphabetical order: a) The Amplified Bible; b)New American Standard Bible; c)New International Version; d)New King James Version. . . . Which is my personal favorite over all, for reading, study, teaching, memorization, devotional reading, etc.? It's the New American Standard Version of the Bible. The New American Standard is widely acclaimed as "the most literally accurate Bible in the English language." I use many translations every week, but after 30 years of reading, studying, teaching and praying in the NASB, it is my personal favorite over all the others. . . . NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE. Inerrancy can be said to apply only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Back to my original answer: The best Bible version is the one you use -- the one you can understand AND trust. |
||||||
7415 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | kalos | 2174 | ||
In your question you write: "Revelation 7:9 says that we will recognize all family and loved ones in Heaven." . . . No, it doesn't. For the record, Rev 7:9 NASB says: . . . "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;" |
||||||
7416 | Apostasy vs. heresy. | 2 Tim 4:3 | kalos | 2155 | ||
Apostasy and heresy. "Apostasy, 'falling away,' is the act of professed Christians who deliberately reject revealed truth as to (1) the Deity of Jesus Christ, and (2) redemption through His atoning and redeeming sacrifice. Apostasy differs, therefore, from error concerning truth, which may be the result of ignorance, or heresy, which may be due to the snare of Satan (2 Tim 2:25-26), both of which may exist with true faith. The apostate is perfectly described in 2 Tim 4:3-4. Apostates depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession of Christianity (2 Tim 3:5). ... Apostasy in the church, as in Israel, is irremediable and awaits judgment." (p. 1304, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967) | ||||||
7417 | Apostasy differs from heresy - how? | 2 Tim 4:3 | kalos | 2154 | ||
Time for the author of this question (yours truly) to remove it from the list of Unanswered Questions. | ||||||
7418 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2153 | ||
Yours is a very subjective question, but there seems to be a consensus among Bible scholars, pastors, teachers, and students that the two BEST English translations of the Bible are: the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. . . . For LITERAL accuracy as well as a high degree of readability, the NASB is the favorite of many, many teachers and authors, both little known and well-known. There is a nearly universal agreement that the NASB is *the most literally accurate Bible in the English language*. For further information on this excellent translation, at this website click on "Lockman". . . . Then for readability and clarity of meaning, along with accuracy, the NIV (Zondervan) is first choice for preaching and teaching among a high percentage of pastors and teachers, missionaries, teachers of youth, etc. It is also highly recommended for devotional reading because of its great clarity. . . . Both the NASB and the NIV are well supported by the availability of a wide variety of reference works, such as concordances, etc. Note also that if you acquire a copy of the Amplified Bible, you will have no immediate need of a commentary (nothing against commentaries -- in fact, is not every preacher's sermon a commentary of sorts?). This is because the best commentary is a good translation. Further info on the Amplified Bible is also available by clicking on "Lockman". . . . Also very well liked and highly recommended is the New King James Version. Check this one out, too. . . . Please note: I have not said what my personal favorite(s) is/are. Rather I have given you the general consensus as to the translation with the highest literal accuracy (NASB), as well as the translation with the greatest readability and clarity (NIV). Finally, the bottom line answer to your question is: the best translation is the one *you* TRUST and UNDERSTAND. What good is one without the other? What would it benefit you if you had absolute trust in, say, a highly revered, centuries-old English translation, but found that it contained too many obscure and obsolete expressions and passages? On the other hand, if you happen to be highly proficient in 16th Century English, then go for it. |
||||||
7419 | Does Bible ban body piercing? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2150 | ||
Does the Bible prohibit body piercing? Please give Scripture with your answer. | ||||||
7420 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | kalos | 2147 | ||
Dear RElderCascade: I want to thank you for all the encouragement and support you've been giving me. How kind of you to write and encourage me. I just read your Personal Profile and agree with you on your choice of favorite authors. I have spent much of my life in a church that not only rejects the Bible doctrine of election (having formulated their own doctrine which they find easier to accept), but one in which the average member neither knows nor wants to know any Bible doctrine about anything. As such, I never "saw" or understood the Bible doctrine of election until fairly recently. Now that it's been well explained to me, I find it instantly logical and Scriptural, as I did the doctrine of Eternal Security when, at long last, it was defined and explained for me. Thank you again. May God be with you and bless you in all your service for Him. Yours, JVH0212 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 ] Next > Last [387] >> |