Results 341 - 360 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Importance of the Word | Jer 23:30 | BradK | 219080 | ||
Doc, Might I add the truth and power of Heb. 4:12- "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (NASB) "For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart." (AMPLIFIED) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
342 | universalism? | Luke 23:34 | BradK | 218998 | ||
Hello Azure, Sorry for the confusion:-( Mine was intended as a follow up to you but hope it would also further clarify for Yen:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
343 | universalism? | Luke 23:34 | BradK | 218993 | ||
Hello Azure, Here's what my good friend and mentor, Dr. John Ward says of this: "Autos" in this verse refers specifically to the Roman soldiers,as you correctly pointed out, on the basis of the context. However, it would also include all of the unbelief and rejection characterized by the Jews who were rejecting Christ at the time of the crucifixion. Since His prayers are always answered, including the prayer He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, some have argued that the conversion of the three thousand Jews in Acts 2 may have included some of these Jews who were at the crucifixion. Others have stressed that the verb translated "forgive" should rather be translated "release." This would mean that Jesus was praying that His Father would not immediately judge them. Either way you take this, I believe the prayer was answered. In response to your question, I would agree that the Roman soldiers would be the antecedent of the pronoun "them." I hope this will better clarify and expand my response. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
344 | universalism? | Luke 23:34 | BradK | 218985 | ||
Hello Yen, So, I think we'd agree that the Christ's Atonement was sufficient for the whole World. This still leaves us with vs. 34 and to who "they" (autos) refers? I don't think it too narrow (nor of Robertson) to understand it to refer back to vs. 33. I firmly believe the immediate context supports this, does it not? As Searcher noted, the only other "they" could be the two criminals! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
345 | universalism? | Luke 23:34 | BradK | 218961 | ||
Hello YenlsaRap, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter:-) However, I think the immediate context would support exactly what Robertson is saying! Of course, If I misunderstand the question, then I'm remiss. I take "universalism" to mean: Everyone is saved or eventually becomes saved! I agree that Jesus death, burial, and resurrection is sufficient to atone for all the sins of mankind. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
346 | two main sections of pauls letters | 2 Tim 2:15 | BradK | 218903 | ||
Hello Christi, Here's some general advice intended to help you:-) It's always best if we study, and do the leg work on our own. We learn more that way! I'd assume you've read Paul's epistles? For instance, you'll note, Romans and Ephesians. Both have a "doctrinal section" and a "practical section". Read, and re- read and meditiate on these (Ephesians being the shorter book) and see if you can't pick out where this occurs. Hopefully this will provide you a little framework to prepare for your discussion group. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
347 | What were the main changes and developme | Acts | BradK | 218748 | ||
Hello paris, Welcome to the Forum. This sounds like a test question. My recommendation would be to actually read and meditate on Acts 1-12! Have you done so? "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
348 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | BradK | 218713 | ||
Dear Edd, ??? Unless, I'm missing something your post comes across heavy on sarcasm? Pardon me if I'm mistaken. I don't see it as particularly edifying. It would be more helpful/instructive to provide comment on why you disagree! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
349 | Scripturally, can women be pastors? | Gal 3:28 | BradK | 218366 | ||
Hello fellowlaborer, I'm not certain that 1 John 1:1 is "addressing a female pastor"? What leads you to that conclusion? The Amplified reads, "THE ELDERLY elder [of the church addresses this letter] to the elect (chosen) lady (Cyria) and her children, whom I truly love--and not only I but also all who are [progressively] learning to recognize and know and understand the Truth--" The Commentary Critical observes: "1. The elder--In a familiar letter John gives himself a less authoritative designation than "apostle"; so 1 Peter 5:1 lady--BENGEL takes the Greek as a proper name Kyria, answering to the Hebrew "Martha." Being a person of influence, "deceivers" ( 2 John 1:7 and her children from the faith [TIRINUS], whence John felt it necessary to write a warning to her." At any rate, I don't see it as a prescription for "female pastors"! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
350 | Supportive scripture for woman preachers | NT general | BradK | 218299 | ||
Hello Mike, IMO, 3 primary considerations would need to be considered first: 1. We should be cautious about deriving doctrine from a Narrative such as Acts; 2. The context wouldn't seem to support this. It's speaking of Paul going to Jerusalem. Verse 9 is mentioned more in passing, than laying a foundation for and giving biblical authority to women preachers; 3. We're assuming the continuation of the office of Prophet. John the Baptist was the last OT Prophet. I don't see any mandate for this office to continue into this present age! This also touches directly upon the authority of scripture- and sola scriptura! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
351 | Why read the bible? What scriptures | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 218279 | ||
Hello Mike, Here's the overview info from Lockman itself regarding the Amplified: "The first complete Bible produced by The Lockman Foundation was the Amplified Bible. The Amplified Bible is a translation that, by using synonyms and definitions, both explains and expands the meaning of words in the text by placing amplification in parentheses and brackets and after key words or phrases.This unique system of translation allows the reader to more completely grasp the meaning of the words as they were understood in the original languages. Through multiple expressions, fuller and more revealing appreciation is given to the divine message as the original text legitimately permits. The Amplified Bible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice. It is a translation from the accepted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts into literary English. It is based on the American Standard Version of 1901, Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament as well as the best Hebrew and Greek lexicons available at the time. Cognate languages, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Greek works were also consulted. The Septuagint and other versions were compared for interpretation of textual differences. In completing the Amplified Bible, translators made a determined effort to keep, as far as possible, the familiar wording of the earlier versions, and especially the feeling of the ancient Book. Through amplification, the reader gains a better understanding of what the Hebrew and Greek listener instinctively understood (as a matter of course)" Personally, I wouldn't call the Amplified in any sense, inaccurate. It's only "shortfall"- if you will- is it can be a bit verbose- Other than that you should find it very helpful. It's similar to Wuest's Expanded NT. Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
352 | Oneness theology wrong again | 2 Cor 13:14 | BradK | 218150 | ||
jt: Please, do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with the following before you procede: "To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts." BradK |
||||||
353 | Oneness theology wrong again | 2 Cor 13:14 | BradK | 218148 | ||
Hello jt, So you say... I fail to understand your position- or response. Since you are rather vague about it, I really see little need to continue! Should you care to enlighten us and provide Biblical support for your view so we have something to discuss, I'd be happy to continue. Otherwise I have no desire to play cat and mouse:-) Are you a JW or member of the Watchtower Organization? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
354 | Oneness theology wrong again | 2 Cor 13:14 | BradK | 218137 | ||
Hello 5282jt, I'm not sure what you mean by your statements: "I wonder where these oddball teachings come from? I have never even heard this one before???" Are you saying you doubt the veracity of what I said? It's a generally understood, well-founded Orthodox view! Allow me to quote Charles Hodge- in part- from his Systematic Theology regarding the Ascension of Christ- Acts 1:9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. Acts 1:10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. Acts 1:11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (NASB) "From these accounts it appears, (1.) That the ascension of Christ was of his whole person. It was the Theanthropos, the Son of God clothed in our nature, having a true body and a reasonable soul, who ascended. (2.) That the ascension was visible. The disciples witnessed the whole transaction. They saw the person of Christ gradually rise from the earth, and "go up" until a cloud hid Him from their view. (3.) It was a local transfer of his person from one place to another; from earth to heaven. Heaven is therefore a place." "Luther argued that as God’s right hand at which Christ in his glorified body sits, is everywhere, so that body must be everywhere. "All these on his ascension he laid aside, and now dwells in heaven as a glorified man." Sitting at the Right Hand of God- "This is the next step in the exaltation of our Lord. He rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; that is, was associated with Him in glory and dominion. The subject of this exaltation was the Theanthropos; not the Logos specially or distinctively; not the human nature exclusively; but the theanthropic person. When a man is exalted it is not the soul in distinction from the body; nor the body in distinction from the soul, but the whole person." [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology] We must remember, He is the God-man (1 Tim. 2:5)- theanthropos. Christ is the eternal Son of God. I trust this further clarifies what I'm saying. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
355 | Oneness theology wrong again | 2 Cor 13:14 | BradK | 218127 | ||
Hello 5282tj, Welcome to the Forum. You said, "Jesus did not need a body to take back to Heaven with him. He was a spirit creature before he came to Earth and went back to being a spirit creature, when the need for a body came to an end." What scripture(s) would you use to support that? In noting Acts 1:11, do we not see that He ascended with a body and will also return in like manner? We know Jesus has a glorious body, as Phil. 3:21 tells us, "...who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory"(NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
356 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | BradK | 218101 | ||
Hello YenlsaRap, The term "sanctification" in it's broad sense simply means, "set apart". The believer is set apart by God for His intended work at the point of salvation (1 Cor. 6:11). There is also an ongoing process by which we are continually, "conformed to the image of His Son..." (Rom. 8:29) Regarding Rom. 12:2- "but be transformed by the renewing of the mind". Paul emphasizes the contrast between what believers are not to do verses they are to do by the use of the strong adversive "alla"- which is an emphatic 'but'. We are to allow the Holy Spirit to transform us "by the renewing of the mind". This word "transformed" is in the present tense, imperative mood, and passive voice- the implication being that believers are commanded to continuously be submitted to God the Holy Spirit for this mind and renewing to take place. "Definition- A comprehensive definition of sanctification by the New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833) states; We believe that Sanctification is the process by which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of his holiness; that it is a progressive work; that it is begun in regeneration; and that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the continual use of the appointed means—especially the Word of God, self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness, and prayer. (Article X) This definition helps us to distinguish sanctification from regeneration in that the latter speaks of the inception of the Christian life. Sanctification is also distinguished from glorification, which focuses on the consummation of God’s work in the believer. Put quite simply, then, regeneration refers to the beginning, sanctification to the middle, and glorification to the end of salvation." [Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
357 | Why does Jesus have mercy on Demons? | Mark 5:13 | BradK | 217922 | ||
Hello saved, Could you possibly clarify your statement, "But, it was after all just his opinion, not the word of the Lord."? Are you saying that what Paul said was merely his opinion and not the inspired Word of God? One one of our previous discussions, did you not quote 2 Tim. 3:16? - "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (NASB) It now appears you are contradicting yourself. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
358 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | BradK | 217888 | ||
Saved: We're running way off-track here and you've missed the point. However, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Blessing to you. BradK |
||||||
359 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | BradK | 217874 | ||
Saved: Steve said it well and I am in agreement with him on this point. We are not in dispute that the 66 books of the bible are inspired, inerrant, nor authoritative. Where we differ is on how we approach the hermenuetic principle (how we interpret them)- such as a historical narrative like Acts! We should not ignore the Historical Principle- specifically, Genre which characterizes each book. To quote Hank Hanegraff from his book "Christianity in Crises", "...individual passages of scripture are synergistic rather than deflective with respect to the whole of Scripture. Scriptural synergy demands that individual Bible passages may never be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with the whole of scripture. Nor may we assign arbitrary meaning to words or phrases that have the referent in biblical history." So, I'm not offering opinion on this matter. Let's be clear about that. I hope this gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to convey:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
360 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | BradK | 217869 | ||
Hello saved, Actually, the Bible says a great deal more about baptism. I'd also caution against deriving/basing a doctrine from a historical narrative such as Acts. I was sprinkled as an infant but immersed as an adult after I had confessed Jesus Christ as my Savior! However, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that unites us to Christ and brings us into a saving union with Him. Water baptism has no salvific merit! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [97] >> |