Results 481 - 500 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72843 | ||
Hi, Taleb; Thanks for the reminder. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
482 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72877 | ||
Greetings, disciplerami; If God requires baptism for salvation then it seems he has placed enormous practical obstacles before the new believer. Below are some statements that seem to follow from your position. If you could show that any of them are incorrect, it might help to understand your position. 1. One cannot baptize oneself. There are no examples or any mention of such a thing in the Bible. 2. If one cannot baptize oneself, then God has ordained that no one can or will be saved without the participation of another human being. Of course, God is sovereign and can save anyone he pleases, but that fact offers no guidance for those who are earnestly seeking him. 3. If the participation of another human being is required, it would be helpful to know whether or not that person is qualified for the job. For example, I wonder if a non-believer or an unsaved person can baptize. Can a Hindu who knows the right words or a huckster posing as an evangelist or an unsaved preacher who thought it an attractive line of work baptize? Jesus' commission was to his disciples, not to unbelievers. And there are no examples in the Bible of unbelievers baptizing. So it seems the baptizer must be a saved believer. 4. If the baptizer must be a saved believer, then the new believer must know what only God and the would-be baptizer know - whether or not the baptizer is saved. If we just assume that God will always provide a saved baptizer, then we have to assume that everyone who ever responded to a huckster's alter call is deluded and condemned (even though Paul said in Phillipians 1:15-18 that it's the message, not the messenger). Or, we could assume it is only necessary that the new believer earnestly seek a qualified baptizer, but the Bible gives no guidance. In Acts, the people who were told to be baptized were told in person by a qualified baptizer; so this problem never arose. 5. Unlike the examples in Acts, not everyone comes to faith in the presence of a qualified baptizer. So new believers who come to faith in Jesus in isolation are not saved. Persons who are given a Bible or hear a passing missionary or listen to a Christian radio station and believe are stuck in limbo if no qualified baptizer (whatever that may be) is nearby. They must wait for one to show up or go seek and hope to recognize one. There can be no battlefield or deathbed conversions; the thief on the cross was the last one. 6. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was not very forthcoming. He quoted Joel - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" - without qualification. But he should have added "and, oh, by the way, Joel's words aren't really applicable anymore. Not only do you have to call upon the name of the Lord, but now that you have killed Jesus, you also have to be baptized to be saved". To mention baptism as a requirement only after the main message was kind of a bait-and-switch tactic. We can't accept that Peter was guilty of shady dealings; Tim's explanation of Acts 2:38 solves that problem. Or, we could assume that Joel's message was only to his OT listeners and that it was no longer valid or sufficient by the time Peter quoted it. But then we're back in the same dilemma. Why would God inspire Peter to quote an invalid or insufficient prophecy? I don't expect you will change my mind (although forum members have changed my mind in the past, so is is possible). Nor do I expect to change yours. But since this a "place of ideas", I assume you might be willing to support yours by showing me my errors Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
483 | Judas Iscariot saved our not? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 80624 | ||
Hi, Mike7; This is one of those questions that many of us would like to see all wrapped up nice and neat and tied with a bow. However, there are many suggestive passages in the Bible, but no definitive answer. Judas was seized with remorse (Matthew 27:4-7); did his remorse lead him to repent and call upon God to save him? The Bible does not say. Someone had to betray Jesus in order to fulfill prophecy. Was Judas like Joseph's brothers (Genesis 45:4-8) - what he meant for evil, God meant for good? It seems likely, but the Bible doesn't say so. Did Jesus include Judas in his call from the cross to "forgive them" (Luke 23:34)? and did God indeed forgive them? The Bible does not say. Judas committed a terrible sin. Was the sin bigger than God? No. Was it bigger than God's ability to forgive? No. Was God willing to forgive it? Maybe. I don't know where Judas wound up, but I do know this: God is sovereign and Judas is wherever God wants him to be. As Radioman2 said, some believe he was saved, some believe he was condemned. I believe that no one on Earth knows. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
484 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20315 | ||
In another thread I said that I believed in the Bible because I believed in Jesus, not the other way around: 'I realize that those who were able to convince me of the believability of Jesus' claims about himself based their knowledge on the Bible. But the Bible did not directly influence me.... After a few faithful witnesses had opened my mind, I asked a God whose very existence I still questioned to tell me if Jesus really was his son. He did. Only then did I begin to pay any attention to the Bible.' I received this response: 'You experience of realizing that Jesus was the Son of God simply by "asking God" apart from the Bible is pretty darn close to the Mormon practice of praying over the Book of Mormon to determine whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.' This emphasis on actually reading the Bible to find faith in Christ seems, well, pretty darn unbiblical. In retrospect, I consider my experience to be an illustration of not only this passage in Romans but also of Jeremiah 29:13 - "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." So how about it? Can one come to faith without reading it directly out of the Bible? Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
485 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20336 | ||
Hi, Bill; Thanks for the reply. You said "In fact, the 'truest' revelation of God is not the Bible itself but the Christ of the Bible.... anyone who is truly seeking God will eventually have the Bible in their life in some form becuase it is through the Bible that the Truth, Jesus Christ, is revealed" Absolutely. Thw Word Made Flesh and the Word of God point to each other. Seek in one place and you'll find in both. I saw the JW exchange. The fruit of that gathering of men was the denial of God's word. Were they led by the Spirit? Obviously not. But the fruit of another gathering could as easily be a deeper and fuller understanding - led by the Spirit. I enjoy interacting with other believers (and non-believers too - they offer some stiff challenges). I still have to believe - even though it was not my experience - that the Bible can indeed stand on its own, convict, and lead to faith. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
486 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20338 | ||
Greetings, Steve; thanks for the reply. I agree completely. I'm grateful to God for writing it down for us. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
487 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20362 | ||
Thanks, retxar; I appreciate your reply, especially your observation that what God reveals to us will always line up with what the Bible teaches. What God revealed to me seemed true at the time; as I was drawn into the Bible, its truth was further confirmed. But I did use "darn" myself - indulging in a little parallelism, I guess. Your point is well taken. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
488 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20381 | ||
Support for Bill Mc -- The Bible is a book; Jesus is a living person, fully God, fully human. The Bible is the word of God; Jesus IS God. Jesus is a truer revelation because he is a more faithful and complete image of God (Colossians 1:15 - "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation"). The Bible makes so such claim for itself. The Bible is a wonderful gift of God, created by him to teach us and to lead us to salvation. It certainly isn't on the same level as the begotten Son of God who IS our salvation. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
489 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20442 | ||
Support for Bill Mc - What does "truest revelation" mean? If it means the most faithful and complete image of God, then Jesus is truer than the Bible. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15). The Bible makes no such claims for itself. The Bible is a book by and about God; Jesus IS God. If "truest revelation" means the most accurate and reliable source of information about God, then Jesus is truer than the Bible. John said of Jesus' earthly ministry "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25). How many more books would it take for Jesus to tell us everything he knows about himself, his father and the Holy Spirit? The Bible is a wonderful gift of God, given to teach us and show us the way to salvation (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Jesus is the begotten Son of God who IS the way to salvation. By the way, nothing I have said conflicts with your observation that "the entire Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice". You believe that; I believe that; I'll bet Bill does too. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
490 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20446 | ||
OOOPS! I didn't realize this made it to the forum; my browser crashed while I was in the "Preview" screen. Well as you can see, I gave it some more thought.... Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
491 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20459 | ||
Hi, Joe; I hope you understand that I did not say anything in the Bible is false. Nor did I question God's authorship of the Bible. Nor did I shame or ridicule anyone for revering the Bible. The question was not whether the Bible is true or false but whether Jesus is a "truer revelation" of God. If I were to provide you with a picture of my right foot, it might be 100 percent truthful, but it would not be as true a revelation of my appearance as a full length portrait would be. I respect your opinion but can you provide a scripture that says the Bible is "the image of God" or that it reveals him as fully as Jesus does? Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
492 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20482 | ||
Trying again ... But first, please stop introducing falsehood into my explanations - the Bible and Jesus are both 100 percent truthful. You may imagine that I'm saying something is false, but I'm not. Falsehood is not the issue. Maybe the word "revelation" is. Revelation is not the mere recitation of facts; it means to show us something. Moses got more than the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai; he saw God. Jesus does a better job of showing us God than the Bible does. Jesus has one true attribute in common with God that the Bible absolutely does not have - the ability to save. Therefore Jesus is a truer, more complete, more faithful, more accurate revelation (image, picture, representation) of God. The Bible truthfully informs us of this ability and provides examples of both God's and Jesus' exercise of this ability, but the Bible doesn't have this ability. What does it mean to you to "have the mind of Christ"? (1 Corinthians 2:16) Does it mean that Jesus is locked in Heaven unable to speak to us? There have been many times in my life when that mind has given me direction. Every time we pray for guidance, every time we see God's hand in earthly events, God is revealed through Jesus. Yes, the Bible is the standard that helps us to discern the hand of an invisible God, but every time we do discern it, another little truth, no matter how tiny, is revealed to us. So I do indeed know things about Jesus that the Bible did not reveal to me. I know how Jesus wanted me to respond to him in the midst of raising-a-teenager crisis. He spoke to me in that "still small voice" that is described in the Bible but not found in it. Please provide scripture to back up your assertion that the Bible is on a par with Jesus who is the "image of God". Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
493 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20485 | ||
Hi, Tim; Thanks for the note. You are probably right. "True" has lots of definitions. It may mean that something is correct or conforms to reality (both Jesus and the Bible). It may also mean that something is more accurate or faithful by virtue of being more complete (Jesus). Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
494 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 20503 | ||
Well, the question did generate some light amid all the heat. ;-) With all respect, kalos, I don't think I have come across any messages that undermine the authority and truthfullness of the Bible. And I assume from what I've read that everyone who has participated would probably agree with everything else you said in your last paragraph; I know I do. Most of the time, reverence for the Bible is good and Godly - "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17:11) But there is also a sense in which it is unhealthy and idolatrous - "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39) Anyway, I'll try to do my part to let the thread die a natural death. Thanks for your participation. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
495 | Faith apart from reading the Bible? | Rom 10:17 | stjones | 42248 | ||
Hi, Scribe; Thanks for the reply. And your great testimony. God speaks to us as he chooses. He gave us the Bible not only as a means to communicate with us but to provide a measure by which we can judge these experiences. God revealed nothing to me that was not already revealed in the Bible; it sounds as though the same is true in your case. In this way we can be confident that the message is of God even though it may have passed through many messengers to get to us. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
496 | Governmental Authority? | Rom 13:1 | stjones | 74616 | ||
Hi, Montag; My reply won't be entirely scriptural because I think we need to have a clear understanding of the events in question. Like most human endeavors, the American Revolution was not motivated by a single idea or principle. There were strong financial and political forces at work that might have been sufficient to start the War for Independence (in strictest political science terminology, it was a rebellion, not a revolution). But there was a strong intellectual and moral force at work too. Note the language of the Declaration of Independence - a statement that Christians, Deists, and admirers of British philosopher John Locke could all subscribe to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident [not revealed in the Bible], that all men are created equal [Paul says that equality is in Christ], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [John Locke], that among these are Life, Liberty [freedom in Christ] and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [Romans 13, John Locke]". The growth of the Colonies always had a strong religious component - from evangelizing the heathens to fleeing religious oppression. It is easy to see how a thoughtful Christian of the time, balancing Romans 13 against Acts 4:19-20, could conclude that independence was justified. Hope this useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
497 | what to say to those who smoke weed? | Rom 13:3 | stjones | 53389 | ||
Greetings Qs; Sorry, your friend is just making excuses. A search for any of the words smoke, smokes, smoking, leaves, weed, or weeds in Leviticus only turns up references to burnt offerings at the altar or to incense. None of them condone smoking pot. But there is this verse about obeying the law. And there are plenty of verses about drunkenness (the alcoholic equivalent to getting high on cannabis). They're against it: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) Sadly, if your friend's god is marijuana, God's word won't seem of much importance to him. Hope this helps a little. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
498 | what to say to those who smoke weed? | Rom 13:3 | stjones | 53414 | ||
Perhaps we can agree that if someone cannot quit smoking dope and cannot conceive that God might want them to quit (and perhaps goes so far as to find justification in the Bible for smoking it), that person has chosen to put another god before God. No matter how sincere a seeker one such might be, he will walk the same road as the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-22 - away from Jesus. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
499 | Friends smoking cigars, bad or not? | Rom 14:21 | stjones | 86047 | ||
Hi, Extol_Him; I don't think the Bible tells us that smoking cigars is intrinsically bad. Like any other of life's pleasures (food, married sex, hobbies), keeping one's priorities straight and maintaining balance are the keys. Two things are troubling, however. 1) If you're in the US, your under-18 friends and the buyer were probably breaking the law. The Bible is not ambiguous about that: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Rom 13:1-2) 2) I can't imagine what kind of rationalization "for the taste' not the feeling" might be. Either way, they were seeking a pleasurable sensation and seeking to justify it. Again, pleasure is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but looking for an excuse usually means you know what you're doing is wrong. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
500 | The gift of Tongues | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 49431 | ||
Hi, GandT; I guess I'll pile on here. I've heard this idea (no more gifts) before but have never understood where it came from. The passages you cite aren't much help. Spiritual gifts are not mentioned in Acts; the passage from Ephesians is about Christian unity; the passage in Matthew is the Great Commission. Taken in context, none of them speaks to the bestowing of gifts. Does the Bible say that God has stopped bestowing spiritual gifts? Is there a biblical reason to disregard 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12? These passages make it pretty clear that spiritual gifts are distributed by God as he chooses for building up the body of Christ - which continues today. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [33] >> |