Results 1621 - 1640 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1621 | Is there any sickness in heaven? | Rev 21:4 | BradK | 115639 | ||
punkiedo, I will humbly and kindly bow out of this thread. It is not edifying nor beneficial to carry on. "Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1622 | Is there any sickness in heaven? | Rev 21:4 | BradK | 115634 | ||
punkiedo, With all due respect, we've been down this tired and endless road before. Why do you persist if you "really don't want to get into a spat about this"? The logic does not follow, and empirical evidence alone along with scripture say otherwise. My dear sister, physical healing is not in any remote sense the ONLY provision of scripture nor does it comprise the ENTIRETY of Its' doctrines. Man says "we need to realize the power that WE have." The Bible teaches that, "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might." (Eph. 6:10) Our only POWER, is based upon our SUBMISSION to God, not usurpation of His Divine dunamis. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1623 | what does slain in the spirit mean? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 115514 | ||
Hank, You haven't looked hard enough. The reference can be found in both 1 and 2 Opinions, as well as the Book of Speculations:-) BradK |
||||||
1624 | How did Paul understand salvation? | Eph 1:5 | BradK | 115005 | ||
Hank, Thanks for your kind words. I really thought Spurgeon's words are some of the best I've read as they give balance and perspective to a difficult doctrine. I actually bought his entire library on CD ROM about 6 months ago. It is a treasure of wisdom and knowledge. I would highly recommend it to all- regardless of theological persuasion. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1625 | How did Paul understand salvation? | Eph 1:5 | BradK | 114969 | ||
John, Please don't hear what I'm not saying, brother:-)I merely offered the response in what I intended to be charitable and balanced. I'm not trying to be argumentative or disagreeable, nor was my attempt to "put you on the defensive". You don't need to defend yourself to me! I'm most certainly not advocating avoidance in discussing any theological topic. The problem becomes when we cease (not you in particular) to be agreeable. I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. I am seriously, Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1626 | How did Paul understand salvation? | Eph 1:5 | BradK | 114955 | ||
John, Let me answer by saying this, I respect your position and I agree that being "In Christ" is the important thing. It's not that this particular topic isn't appreciated by many, but rather those of us who have been on this Forum for some time have seen the negative and non-edifying results of heated and dogmatic discussions. Hence Lockman's warning on the Home Page:-) The late and eminent C.H. Spurgeon - a noted Calvinist- has some charitable and fair words to say in this regard. I think they speak volumes to this whole topic and I share them for all to benefit. "DO not imagine for an instant that I pretend to be able thoroughly to elucidate the great mysteries of predestination. There are some men who claim to know all about the matter. They twist it round their fingers as easily as if it were an everyday thing; but depend upon it, he who thinks he knows all about this mystery, knows but very little. It is but the shallowness of his mind that permits him to see the bottom of his knowledge, he who dives deep, finds that there is in the lowest depth to which he can attain a deeper depth still. The fact is, that the great questions about man’s responsibility, free-will, and predestination, have been fought over, and over, and over again, and have been answered in ten thousand different ways; and the result has been, that we know just as much about the matter as when we first began. The combatants have thrown dust into each other’s eyes, and have hindered each other from seeing; and then they have concluded, that because they put other people’s eyes out, they could therefore see. Now, it is one thing to refute another man’s doctrine, but a very different matter to establish my own views. It is very easy to knock over one man’s hypothesis concerning these truths, not quite so easy to make my own stand on a firm footing. I shall try to-night, if I can, to go safely, if I do not go very fast; for I shall endeavor to keep simply to the letter of God’s Word. I think that if we kept more simply to the teachings of the Bible, we should be wiser than we are; for by turning from the heavenly light of revelation, and trusting to the deceitful will-o-the-wisps of our own imagination, we thrust ourselves into quays and bogs where there is nosure footing, and we begin to sink; and instead of making progress, we find ourselves sticking fast. The truth is, neither you nor I have any right to want to know more about predestination than what God tells us. That is enough for us. If it were worth while for us to know more, God would have revealed more. What God has told us, we are to believe; but to the knowledge thus gained, we are too apt to add our own vague notions, and then we are sure to go wrong. It would be better, if in all controversies, men had simply stood hard and fast by “Thus saith the Lord,” instead of having it said, “Thus and thus I think." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1627 | How did Paul understand salvation? | Eph 1:5 | BradK | 114892 | ||
John, I don't know that I quite buy your logic:-) I realize we're getting into the area of election- a topic that has been greatly debated on this Forum. And while I would side with the Calvinists, we must be honest with scripture. Your last statement that "Jesus died for all of the sins of some men" doesn't appear in scripture though we may view the results as being so? What about Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,". Christ's death had to be efficacious for all to make the offer valid. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1628 | Do you sing in tongues together? | 1 Corinthians | BradK | 114462 | ||
JLY, Your rather contentious, stormy entrance onto the Forum is bizarre and unbecoming! I simply asked you a question based on your initial responses to others, and you can somehow conclude that I attack you "for being truthful and honist(sic)". What I'm really trying to do is find out where you're coming from. If your fellowship is truly noted for it's love, why then do you take such a hostile demeanor to resonable questions asked by others on the Forum? After all, love suffers long, holds no grudges, keeps no record of wrongs..." You get the point. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1629 | Do you sing in tongues together? | 1 Corinthians | BradK | 114431 | ||
JLY: Do you have the gift of love? Speaking the Truth Love, BradK |
||||||
1630 | What can we do to have salvation | NT general Archive 1 | BradK | 114322 | ||
arrow1, In all of Paul's epistles, he never speaks of (water) baptism as necessary FOR salvation. That is why the 1 Cor. 15:1-4 passage is notable. One cannot miss the distinctiveness of Paul's ministry (and the weight of his epistles) as compared to the other apostles unless you fail to understand the transitional nature of the Book of Acts. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1631 | no smoking but alcohol and drugs ok? | Is 44:1 | BradK | 114247 | ||
Bojo2, Thanks for the clarification. I did not take your post as tongue and cheek, so I responded based on the content alone:-) We have had others in the past who have held to such nonsensical views, so I was a bit leary. My apologies, and I'm glad to hear we're on the same page. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1632 | no smoking but alcohol and drugs ok? | Is 44:1 | BradK | 114210 | ||
Bojo2, Where on earth would you get such an ungodly idea that drug use/abuse are a way to get closer to Christ? They're not, and speaking as one who has been there and done that, I would condemn such a cavalier attitude. Scripture in both 1 Cor. 6:19-20, and Rom. 14:13 would strongly disprove such behavior. Smoking pot or snorting coke ARE NOT God-glorifying in any way, shape, or form. Get real! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1633 | What about "The Passion of the Christ"? | Luke 24:14 | BradK | 114095 | ||
Rowdy, I know several both on this Forum and within our church fellowship who have seen the movie. Most were moved by it in ways that no other film has done. We also plan to see it in the near future:-) Personally though I wouldn't make this a "test" of one's dedication or committment, nor would I say we owe it to our God. That would be a little too legalistic from my standpoint. What we owe our God is to be faithful to what He has called us to. We should "walk by faith, not sight". If that includes sharing this movie or encouraging a non-believing friend to go, I think that's great! This movie can certainly be used as an evangelism tool, but it's only one of many we already have:-) I would more opt to work on my relationships with those in my association to witness via my lifestyle by being an example. Those are my thoughts. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1634 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 114011 | ||
punkiedo, I rather like what the late and eminent A.T. Robertson ( a noted Greek Scholar) says of 1 Peter 3:21: "Which also (o kai). Water just mentioned. After a true likeness (antitupon). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah's deliverance by water. For baptisma see on "Mt 3:7". For antitupon see on "Heb 9:24" (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tupon Hebrews 8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah's family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful. Doth now save you (umaß nun swzei). Simplex verb (swzw, not the compound diaswzw). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Romans 6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (ou sarkoß apoqesiß rupou). Apoqesiß is old word from apotiqhmi (Romans 2:1), in N.T. only here and 2 Peter 1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupoß) is old word (cf. ruparoß, filthy, in James 2:2; Revelation 22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isaiah 3:3; Isaiah 4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Hebrews 9:13). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin. But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God (alla suneidhsewß agaqhß eperwthma eiß qeon). Old word from eperwtaw (to question as in Mark 9:32; Matthew 16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether eiß qeon (toward God) be taken with eperwthma or suneidhsewß. Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (di anastasewß Ihsou Cristou). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Romans 6:2-6). See 1 Peter 1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus." The Commentary Critical, long noted for it's solid exposition, and time-tested faithfulness says: " vs. 21. whereunto—The oldest manuscripts read, “which”: literally, “which (namely, water, in general; being) the antitype (of the water of the flood) is now saving (the salvation being not yet fully realized by us, compare 1Co 10:1, 2, 5; Jud 1:5; puts into a state of salvation) us also (two oldest manuscripts read ‘you’ for ‘us’: You also, as well as Noah and his party), to wit, baptism.” Water saved Noah not of itself, but by sustaining the ark built in faith, resting on God’s word: it was to him the sign and mean of a kind of regeneration, of the earth. The flood was for Noah a baptism, as the passage through the Red Sea was for the Israelites; by baptism in the flood he and his family were transferred from the old world to the new: from immediate destruction to lengthened probation; from the companionship of the wicked to communion with God; from the severing of all bonds between the creature and the Creator to the privileges of the covenant: so we by spiritual baptism. As there was a Ham who forfeited the privileges of the covenant, so many now. The antitypical water, namely, baptism, saves you also not of itself, nor the mere material water, but the spiritual thing conjoined with it, repentance and faith, of which it is the sign and seal, as Peter proceeds to explain. Compare the union of the sign and thing signified, Jn 3:5; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5; Heb 10:22; compare 1Jn 5:6. not the, .—“flesh” bears the emphasis. “Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” (as is done by a mere water baptism, unaccompanied with the Spirit’s baptism, compare Eph 2:11), but of the soul. It is the ark (Christ and His Spirit-filled Church), not the water, which is the instrument of salvation: the water only flowed round the ark; so not the mere water baptism, but the water when accompanied with the Spirit." If "Baptism is immersion in water" as you say, then how whould you explain 1 Cor. 10:1-2: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" Two questions come to mind; 1. Who got wet?, and 2. Who died? Those who were "baptized into Moses" were the Egyptians- who's baptism (water) was unto death. Moses and the Israelites, on the other hand recieved a "dry" baptism and lived! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1635 | StudyBibleForum or MyOpinionForum? | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 113884 | ||
Hank, I'll throw in my endorsement of your caution. Well said! You spoke to something I've certainly noticed of recent and I agree. While again, with no specific individuals in mind, it behooves all of us to hold scripture in the utmost regard and with which our Lord did in Matt. 4:4 " It is written..." This shows the primacy of scripture! We should not only follow the posted guidelines by Lockman, but be diligent enough students who are careful to base our responses on scripture. The Word of God should be foremost in our thoughts that very little is left for opinion or speculation. "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ," ( 2 Cor. 10:5) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1636 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | BradK | 113766 | ||
arrow1, "Must" is a mighty definite term to use in relation to Eph. 4:5. If that is the case, then you are advocating that one is saved by water baptism, correct? By negating that Spiritual Baptism is the baptism of Eph. 4:5, you leave only water. My friend, that is in serious opposition to the balance of scripture- particularly the Pauline Epistles- look at Titus 3:5! How would you understand 1 Cor. 12:13 in light of your words, "Once water baptism is recognized as the "one baptism", now all the baptism verses begin to make sense?" Does the Holy Spirit have any involvment in our salvation? Just curious. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1637 | Water baptism unnecessary for conversion | Acts 2:38 | BradK | 113750 | ||
arrow1, Two questions: 1. What verse tells us that we are saved during baptism in water; 2. Upon what basis would you state that Col. 2:12 is indeed refering to water baptism? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1638 | connection: baptism and holy spirit | Acts | BradK | 113568 | ||
jcsav, The ID# is 113543. You responded to Hank, and he was responding to me:-) I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
1639 | connection: baptism and holy spirit | Acts | BradK | 113558 | ||
jcsav, Huh??? Did you read what I wrote? It appears you didn't. Your argument is with the Greek grammar, not me. What "difference" is it that so many have told me? Sorry, but I'm just not making the connection:-) BradK |
||||||
1640 | connection: baptism and holy spirit | Acts | BradK | 113543 | ||
punkiedo, "Speaking in tongues is for everybody". Well, I hate to disappoint you, but 1 Cor. 12:30 says different! In the Greek, all of these questions( from both verse 29 and 30) have the negative participle preceding them, which means the answer to each question is no. We can thereby affirm that all do not have the gift of healing, tongues, or interpretation. To insist that ALL must speak in tongues (foreign languages) would be contrary to the Word of God. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 ] Next > Last [97] >> |