Results 1 - 20 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Where do you see it? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 2842 | ||
LVDTHELORD, Where in Dan. 9:24-27 do you see any mentioning of a pre-trib rapture? Sam Hughey |
||||||
2 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3179 | ||
LVDTHELORD, With all due respect, this statement is not correct. Dispensationalism may want to insert a gap in this prophecy but scripture does not. Nothing in these verses, including Daniel speaks of any gap. We do not have authority to create gaps or break down a whole period of time into lesser periods of time and say it is biblical unless scripture itself is crystal clear on this matter. Now, if anyone can show the gap without "assuming" it, then I will accept it as biblical authority. Is that fair? Sam Hughey |
||||||
3 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3186 | ||
Mike, Thanks Mike for two refreshing details; 1. A real name and 2. "I do however believe for us to say that we are that generation would be presumptuous at best". Every generation for the past 2000 years has believed in an imminent return of Christ, signs describing it is about to happen and that they were the rapture generation. They all share one thing in common which is; "They were all wrong"! Presumptuous belief is not honoring to God and does little to aid our hermeneutical abilities and has caused Christians to adopt an attitude of believing in a doomed and defeated church. Nothing can be further from the truth of our Lord's own words when He stated that not even the powers of hell can prevail against His church. Christ did not die to present a defeated church to His Father, He died to present a glorious and victorious church to His Father. If Christians have an attitude of defeat, it is found only in their own hearts. This is the main reason why a Biblical Reformation of thought and study are so seriously needed in the body of Christ as never before. Sam Hughey |
||||||
4 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3458 | ||
Chris, There is nothing to forgive. I was not offended in anyway at all and if I was I would not hold it against you. Chris, they were wrong for believing in something that neither existed nor was taught from Holy Scripture. Nowhere does our Lord ever teach that His return to call out His church would be an any-moment event, meaning God has never concluded exactly when He would return. What we commonly call the rapture, is a definite and determined event that will occur but once and is only an "at one-moment" event. Our Lord knows precisely when He will return because it is an already fixed event in the mind of God. Humans cannot change that event simply because they do not know when it will happen. Saying it is an "any-moment" event contradicts the foreknowledge of God in that it will happen only once and cannot happen at any other time in our history other than the predetermined and fore-ordained time God has already fixed for it to happen. "Assuming" what God can do is not the same as "proving" what God will do. Out of the ANYTIME He was free to choose, He only determined that event to happen at one particular time in history and not before or after that time. Chris, the very fact that our Lord has not returned is the evidence that proves the Father had not ever determined to send His Son until some future time and no time in the past (to us) could ever have been the time the Father had pre-determined to send His Son back for His Church. Again Chris, your view undermines the foreknowledge and pre-determination of God in fore-ordaining the events only He would cause to happen at the appointed time. I don't know if you are familiar with the term "Open Theism", but your view is very close to it. No disrespect intended Chris but not IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD is a common "catch-all" phrase Chrsitians enjoy using when we have no other "biblical" answer. Whenever we can't defend a particular position in which we believe, we just simply say that God can do anything He wants to do and that is supposed to settle the issue. It doesn't and furthermore, it only confuses and further contradicts the issue. Of course I believe nothing is IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD, but that doesn't prove anything. It's not impossible that God could have re-grown all the hair on my head 10 years ago, being almost bald now, but He didn't. Obviously, it was not His will to do so even though it is not impossible. Get the point? If our Christian forefathers truly expected the return of Christ to happen, then they surely believed it would happen. If they surely believed it would happen, they must have had sound biblical warrant for such a belief. However, they were mistaken because it never happend and could not have happened since it was obviously not the Father's will for it to have happened. The false assumption of an unbiblical teaching of an immanent return is VERY MUCH responsible for past and present faulty predictions of our Lord's return. Faulty predictions are the result of faulty understandings which come from a faulty view of scripture. Actually Chris, the idea of a supposed immanent return does indeed espouse a date for the return of Christ. Isn't the very moment you are reading this response considered an "any-moment" in our history? So then, Christ could return at the very moment you are reading this and that is most definately espousing a specific date. However, we leave ourselves an easy-out since we do not specifically name a calendar date. But what's the difference? Isn't the very moment you are reading this a calendar date? The very fact the we not only CANNOT know, but also WILL NOT know, proves the "any-moment" idea is false. You cannot say the rapture will be at any moment, yet I do not know if it will be at any moment. And for what should Christians be "looking out" Chris. Will a sudden, immanent return change anything at all about our relationship with Christ, our salvation, our redemption, our eternal destiny? If "looking-out" means we should live holy lives, then our Lord has already given us a clear, unambiguous and distinct command to do this without any reference to a future rapture. I look forward to hearing from you Chris. Sam Hughey |
||||||
5 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3472 | ||
LVDTHELORD, I'm certain there is much where we would agree, however, our concern should not be centered on agreeing or disagreeing with each other but, rather, scripture. If dispensationalists truly do not want to insert gaps of time into scripture, then they should simply stop doing so when scripure gives no warrant for so doing. The only reason you believe "those" events have not yet occurred is because dispensational theology is the light by which you interpret scripture. However, scripture never depends upon the created light of men in order to determine the interpretation of scripture itself. The "supposed and imaginative" absence of an event which is based on the demands of a man-centered theology in no way whatsoever proves a gap in scripture where scripture itself never intended one to be. This is precisely what I was saying about inserting whatever one needs to be there. The insertion is not derived from scripture but, rather, from a man invented theology that forces scripture to mean whatever it wants it to mean. If the gap has so much clarity, why then is scripture completely ignored and dispensationalism becomes the only light by which scripture has any meaning? 2 Thessalonians 2:2-7 are time-specific related verses. Paul did not write to the believers at Thessalonica in the 1st century to warn them of an event or a person that would "never" have any impact on them at all and would only happen in some unknown future time that is continually forced to be further into the future because of the continually failed prophecies by dispensationalists. Paul wrote to a specific group of people, concerning a specific event, a specific person and in verse 5 he reminds (them specificially) that he told (them specifically) about these specific events and this specific person. Paul also goes onto specifically relate these specific events with the appearing of the Lord's coming (verse 8). Yet in spite of all the specific verses of scripture, dispensationalists come along and reject and deny any specificity at all. The clear and unambiguous words of our Lord are watered down to the imagination of men. We do not come from two different perspectives, we merely view scripture from two different perspectives. One is from a scriptural perspective and the other is from a non-scriptural perspective. Sam Hughey |
||||||
6 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3709 | ||
Jim, An excellent observation. I also would love to see Christians put away their fascination with "Rapture Fever" and become much more concerned with theological and doctrinal study for the sole intent of glorifying God. The five solas of the Reformation are clearly more concerned with Christians worshipping God rather than countless and endless rapture theories which "none" ever prove to be true. Sam Hughey |
||||||
7 | invitation to salvation/accepting Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3998 | ||
jrm, The invitation system has never been part of orthodox Christianity and is certainly not a biblical doctrine. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to biblically defend it. However, it would also be difficult for churches to stop since they depend on the invitation system in order to get someone saved, at least in theory. The churches I have asked what would happen if they stopped all respond with "how then will anyone get saved?" When I ask them why they use an invitation system, they all responded with "it's in the Bible". When I asked them to show it from scripture they all respond with "you're arguing against scripture and are attempting to mock the salvation of God". I suppose we all need an excuse for the unbiblical practices we perform every Sunday. That's bad enough. But when it cannot be (or won't be) biblically defended, then that is a much more serious problem. If a church does not have one (and mine doesn't) then there is certainly nothing anyone can legitimately accuse that church of doing that is contrary to scripture since scripture never teaches it. Of course, others will have their own personal views and I will be greatly interested in hearing how they defend their views from scripture. Sam Hughey |
||||||
8 | chcking scripture context | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 4060 | ||
JVH0212, Thanks for the URL. John is very prolific when expounding the true gospel. Sam Hughey |
||||||
9 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7449 | ||
Nehemiah, What do you mean by "cover our children"? Sam Hughey |
||||||
10 | Can I express my opinion? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7457 | ||
JVH0212, An excellent opinion. Sam Hughey |
||||||
11 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7569 | ||
Nehemiah, A covenant between you and God is something that must never be entered into lightly. It is a serious matter to make a vow to God. It is also highly commendable. The covenantal agreement you make with God is simply to raise your children in a Christian home where the atmosphere is always as Godly centered as possible. However, it doesn't stop at home, it only begins there. You are to be the priest of your family and take a position of personally instructing your children in Biblical theology and doctrine. You must take the lead in teaching them about God, His law and His love. You are also responsible for providing them with an academic education that is founded upon and immersed in Biblical theology and doctrine as well as academics. A proper Christian/Biblical worldview that brings honor to God that expands His kingdom is paramount for both home, culture and society. You are to be the Biblical example your children must see and hear every day of their lives. So, as you can see, there is a tremendous responsibility on the part of parents if they are to raise their children Biblically. Sam Hughey |
||||||
12 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7688 | ||
Nehemiah, There is no such biblical doctrine as people becoming of age in order to be saved. All of us are conceived in the image of Adam and from birth we are sinners and in need of the mercy of God for salvation if we are to receive eternal life. Sam Hughey |
||||||
13 | Salvation for children | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7838 | ||
Jim, Thanks for asking with such a kind spirit. The truth of the matter is that age has absolutely nothing at all to do with our salvation. John 6:44 clearly states that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Coming to the Son is the same as believing for the purpose of salvation, which is precisely why God calls in the first place, and is precisely what Isa. 55:11 states concerning the call (word,will) of God. It is also very important to note that Christ will also raise up on the last day (eternal resurrection of the just) those whom the Father calls for the purpose of receiving salvation. We cannot separate "those whom the Son will raise" from "those whom the Father calls". At what time in a person's life do they realize they are a sinner? Well, that can be debatable and perhaps the answer could be at most any age. However, just because a person understands they are a sinner does not imply they are being saved. The two are not necessarily the same. I knew I was a sinner as young as 16 but I was not saved until I was 38. Sam Hughey |
||||||
14 | How do we make a Covenant with our Lord? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 7839 | ||
Nehemiah, Your vow/oath is your word. If you have given God your solemn word of truth that you will do whatever you promise to do, then that is your covenantal agreement between you and God. However, don't forget that you do not control the agreement, you must obey your commitment. God may have other plans that might not coincide with exactly what you want to happen. Sam Hughey |
||||||
15 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | reformedreader | 3846 | ||
SpreadWord, I disagree with your view of salvation and so does scripture when you stated "Salvation is a New Testament concept". Salvation has never been a "concept" and nowhere does scripture teach so. Salvation has and always will be a "reality" and "actual" even in the Old Testament (and prior). The change of covenants has never influenced the definition of salvation. Salvation has always been and always will be entirely by the mercy and grace of God (Eph. 2:8). Man has never been able to obey in perfection the laws of God, starting with Adam and leading up to you and I and forward to the last human. The laws of God found in any covenant have never been the mode of salvation under any circumstances. Your statement, "Christ's salvation is the answer to man's inability to keep the law imposed upon the Old Testament believer" is very misleading. Salvation is not just merely the answer to enable man to obey God's laws for even the believer still disobeys those same laws. God's laws are designed to teach us about Himself and His righteous demands for "ALL" men to live by, not only the believer. The covenants are an expanding revelation of God, His will, His laws, His Son, His righteousness and our sinfulness. One covenant is built upon another but never does one displace another. There is both continuity and discontinuity within each covenant as well as among all covenants. The discontinuity is found within the specific framework of each and all successive covenants but never does one covenant supercede or contradict another since all are God's will for man. Your statement,"While Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, God has operated under different covenants during different periods of time" seems to force the Father and the Son to be on different sides of the same will and in opposing directions. Nonething could be further from truth. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are always in perfect harmoniuous agreement. Could you show the scripture that states any differently? And to your statement, "salvation" is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12), but for those who lived before the New Covenant, they were required to join God in the covenant He had established at the time" is not only unbiblical, it is anti-biblical. Absolutely nothing in the whole of scripture agrees with you and this is very dangerous advice to give to people. The very verse you used to justify your view actually refutes your view. Acts 4:12 clearly states that salvation is found in nothing, nowhere and nobody but Christ alone. So, if there was salvation prior to the New Testament (and there most certainly was) then their salvation was strictly according to Acts 4:12. Sam Hughey |
||||||
16 | Why OT covenants if not for salvation? | OT general | reformedreader | 3847 | ||
MIILAZ, You are correct that salvation was as much a reality (not a concept) in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. Be careful when viewing the difference in terminology. The difference could very well be the difference between truth and error. How one defines their terminology greatley influences how one interpretes scripture. In SpreadWord's case, he is interpreting scripture based on a faulty understanding of the covenants. It seems as though he is viewing scripture through the eyes of dispensationalism instead of scripture itself, but I am only supposing that based on his view of non-relating covenants/dispensations and an ever changing definition of salvation as well as a dual mode of salvation. It is a contradiction to say that salvation is through Christ alone and at the same time say salvation was different at some other time unless a different salvation is being discussed. Sam Hughey |
||||||
17 | Was Jesus a reformer? | NT general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3741 | ||
roverjbh99, In response to your question, "Was Jesus seeking to reform the Jewish religion", "NOT A CHANCE"! Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God whose soul purpose on earth was to secure the redemption of His people, of which He was completely and totally victorious. He came to be the propitiation for sins, the justifier, mediator and savior of His people. His mission was set in stone (so to speak) since before the foundation of the world and not a single episode of His redemptive works for His people could have possibly been altered, delayed or brought to naught for a single second. He founded no new religion, man does that, but He expounded upon the religion that His Father commanded since before creation and that is to worship God and only God in truth. It was the religious sects of the Jews who sought to do precisely the opposite while using all the seemingly "religious" verbage in order to make it "seem" right to themselves. Hmmm, sounds a lot like what goes on in many churches today. We use the words, but we usually re-create God in our image and worship is often what "we" decide it should be. There is an amazing comparison with the religious sects of 2000 years ago and what is commonly referred to as religion today. Sam Hughey |
||||||
18 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | reformedreader | 3264 | ||
granma ota, The daughters of men is obviously referring to human women since they had the ability to bare children. The Bible is completely silent on the idea of them being the daughters of Cain. Sam Hughey |
||||||
19 | What exactly is idolatry? | Ex 20:3 | reformedreader | 5300 | ||
Hank, Idolatry is the worship of false deity through the use of images. The second commandment does not, per se, forbid the making of an image of creation. An image of a snake on a staff was used to heal the Israelites bitten by snakes in the wilderness. It is not the image itself that God forbids. It is the intent to worship the image in place of God which violates the 1st commandment. If there are other gods, then God is not who He claims to be. The word "god" in the bible is usually misunderstood and misinterpreted. They are not gods at all, they are only treated and thought of as gods. Satan is referred to as the god of this world, however, Satan is not a god in any sense of the term "deity". Satan is not an image but he is worshipped by those who reject God's laws as though he is a "god" or even "God" Himself. The word does have both a narrow and broad meaning. Sam Hughey |
||||||
20 | WILL GOD PUNISH | Ex 20:5 | reformedreader | 3767 | ||
JVH0212, Amen brother. Christians must wake up and see that we are responsible (for the great part) for the ills of society. After all, it is us who Christ said must be the salt and light of the world, not the unbelievers. Too many Christians today are more concerned with the rapture and what their new bodies might look like to be concerned with the here and now. For 2000 years Christians have pondered such ideas and have allowed culture and society to go down the drain (so to speak) by ignoring our greatest impact on a fallen world. True, changing societal problems does not lead to salvation, but if salvation does not lead to societal changes, then something is terribly wrong with our salvation (or our theology). Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |