Results 1721 - 1740 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1721 | compilation of scripture and compilatio | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 214300 | ||
Hello lionheart, No, as far as I'm aware, Bruce's book is only available through normal booksellers. However, here's a link that may be of help: www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html. It contains an article by Bruce titled, "The New Testament Canon". The rest of the works looks solid. I hope this helps, BradK |
||||||
1722 | Dialogue with KJV only person? | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 215818 | ||
Hello justme, I would concur with our other brothers' advice. Proverbs 8:5 comes to mind: "O naive ones, understand prudence; And, O fools, understand wisdom." (NASB) From my perspective and experience, it's difficult if not impossible to enter into a rational discussion with someone who isn't. Based on that, (your) avoiding the subject seems the prudent course. I would! Why are they insisting on a dialog? What do they hope to gain? "The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly." (Prov. 15:2) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1723 | all scripture non some | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 220911 | ||
Hello giovanna, Maybe you could clarify? Have we forgot something? Where has it been stated or supported that scripture is not inspired by God? BradK |
||||||
1724 | Bible tampered with?? plz help | 2 Tim 3:16 | BradK | 231489 | ||
Hello Mr. Chambers, Possible this video link will be helpful. Session 3 on the Transmission of Scripture should be very informative. This an excellent course that I've both been through and taught, so I can personally vouch for the content. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/what-we-do/the-theology-program/bibliology-hermeneutics/Session 3 Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1725 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | BradK | 132308 | ||
Dalcent, I certainly welcome you to the Forum and are glad to see a brother from across the Atlantic:-) With all due respect,I'm puposefully going to ignore your rather biased reply. It is nothing other than "your" opinion. I strongly disagree! You have come to this Forum, stating that you are a Catholic Christian with a Masters in Contemporary Catholic Theology. That's fine, and I congratulate you. However, don't claim to be so superior to everyone else! By and large you have come across as arrogant! From the start, you've seemed to have a chip on your shoulder, that is obviously "anti-Protestant"- in my view. Nobody is out to question your relationship with the Lord, or the fact that you're Catholic. Catholics are as welcome here as any other Orthodox believer. Why do you find it necessary to slam Protestant views with such utter disdain? You don't have to PROVE anything, my brother. This is not becoming, and your arrogant, harsh tones will not win you many supporters here. May you take this in the manner of love in which it is intended. Speaking the Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
1726 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | BradK | 132329 | ||
Dear Dalcent, Thank you for your response. I can understand your feelings and I'm sorry that you felt assailed initially. I'm sure it was not intended as malicious. I also agree that deep theological debate should be open to discussion on this Forum. I think it is based on my Two and One-Half years experience here. However, many times it is stifled and collapsed due to "put-downs" or personal attacks as emotions can run pretty deep on these matters. I'm certainly open to discussing theological issues, but these discussions have to be within the guidelines that the Lockman Foundation has set. Again, many times emotions take charge over constructive discussion and the guidelines get ignored. I think if we keep as our guide the principles in Romans 14, much benefit can be gained. I do look forward to your participation and discussing of issues with you- in the spirit of love (Gal. 5:22). Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1727 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | BradK | 132458 | ||
Dalcent, I thank you for your honesty and thoughts on this matter of your testimony. My main question is: Are you then intimating that "Catholic" Theology is right and everyone else is wrong? That's how I read what you're saying. If not please correct me:-) This seems to be your thrust based on the posts I've read. You say "Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all." Though I can't argue with your right to object, you certainly can't be advocating that Protestantism is all wrong in it's interpretation of scripture?! That's a very broad brush by which to paint! I would ask, "why"? By your own logic, the very same argument could be used against Catholicism that you levy at Protestants. However, that would be extremely unfair because it is an over-generalization at best. Again, I respect your right to disagree, but it does appear that you have a MAJOR chip on your shoulder with regards to Protestantism and I'm not exactly sure why. If we're being honest, none of us has a "corner on the truth" when it comes to interpretation- Catholicism included! To say that you've "come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits" is fine - if that's where you're at with the Lord. Praise God. However what you seem to be suggesting reeks of superiority in my humble estimation. God resists the proud , but gives grace to the humble. Those are my thoughts, in the spirit of love. BradK |
||||||
1728 | Spurgeon on Regeneration | Titus 3:5 | BradK | 142253 | ||
Hi CDBJ, I've always believed that it was Josh McDowell that this was attributed to. He wrote the resulting book, "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". I Hope This Helps, BradK |
||||||
1729 | about melchizedek | Hebrews | BradK | 175798 | ||
Hi puzzler, As this question has been asked all too frequently, might I suggest that you type "Melchizedek" in the Search box at the upper right. That should give you ample responses along with an answer to your question. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1730 | How does God speak to us? | Heb 1:1 | BradK | 154300 | ||
Hi Jehonadab, While I don't agree with you, I at least applaud your honesty! By your own admission you are "one of Jehovah's Witnesses". You also have a longer standing than most, if not all of your fellow "workers" who have posted on the SBF. God Bless, BradK |
||||||
1731 | HEARING THE VOICE OF GOD | Heb 1:2 | BradK | 142266 | ||
kalos, Good observation! Suppose that I said that God just spoke to me via e-mail to say He won't take any personal, audible requests anymore. There just too much volume to keep up with it! Plus, He's gone "high-tech"! Many seem to be evermore seeking the extra-ordinary, bizarre experiences that are subjective in nature and not verifiable by the Word of God. God's Word is increasingly being relegated to second class in this type of "spiritual weirdness" environment. Just to note: I hear the voice of the Lord speaking to me through His, inerrant, living and powerful Word! Just check out Hebrews 4:12. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1732 | Searching for the truth | Heb 1:6 | BradK | 75213 | ||
Truthseeker, I would also echo my support for Tim Moran on this matter! I too affirm the Diety of Christ. What of John 17:5," Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." This verse most certainly shows forth the Diety of Christ along with His eternal preexistence! Only the Lord (Jehovah) is to receive glory. Isaiah 42:8, "I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images." As there are no contradictions in scripture, How could we have Christ praying to the Father to receive glory (that's only reserved for God) if He is not indeed God in the flesh? Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
1733 | What does "Edens Dawn Light Mean?" | Heb 2:9 | BradK | 200952 | ||
Hi Steve, Good comments with which I heartily agree! I had a similar conclusion in reading the background to Peterson's "Message". If only we'd not stoop down- dumb down- to the masses. If the Bible is that uninteresting and unreadable, I'd submit that speaks a great deal more of the "MTV", 30-Second-sound-bite pop culture-mentality that afflicts us, than it does the Bible itself. The Church needs the unadulterated Word of God even more today! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1734 | The Doctrine of Dreams | Heb 4:12 | BradK | 213220 | ||
The Doctrine of Dreams: The Doctrine of Dreams in the Old Testament- Number of Dreams. There are sixteen dreams recorded in the Old Testament (Gen. 20:3, 6; Gen. 28:12; Gen. 31:10–11, 24; Gen. 37:5, 9; Gen. 40:5; Gen. 41:1, 5; Judg. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:5; Dan. 2:1; Dan. 4:5; Dan. 7:1). Purpose of dreams. In the Old Testament God often used dreams to reveal His will. God promised to show His will unto the prophets in dreams (Num. 12:6). Job said that “God speaketh…in a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed” (Job 22:14–15). In half of the Old Testament dreams the source of the dream is specifically stated to be God. Through these dreams God revealed His will to the dreamers. While God sometimes spoke in dreams, not all dreams were attributable to Him. Dreams whose contents did not accord with reality were obviously not from God. One of the tests of a true prophet was whether his dreams came true (Deut. 13:1–5). The Israelites were warned against false dreamers (Jer. 29:8; Zech. 10:2). Dreams were inferior in comparison to having God’s Word (Gen. 12:6–8; Jer. 23:28) The Doctrine of Dreams in the New Testament- There are two Greek words translated dream. One word, honar, occurs six times in the New Testament. It occurs only in Matthew. Each time it is translated “dream” in the King James Version. Another Greek word for dream, enupnion, found only in Acts 2:17. It is translated dream in the King James Version. The verbal form of enupnion (enupnioazo)occurs in Acts 2:17 and Jude 8. Dreams or dreamers are thus referred to in only three New Testament books: Matthew, Acts, and Jude. . Interestingly, Jesus never mentioned dreams. There is no symbology in New Testament dreams and therefore no need of an interpreter. In the New Testament there is one citation of an Old Testament passage dealing with the subject of dreams (Joel 2:28). In this citation Peter at Pentecost recites to the throng the prophecy concerning the activity of God’s outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:16–21). The Doctrine of Dreams Today- Scientific research has shown that everyone dreams every night. It has also shown that dreams can be caused by a variety of conditions such as poor blood circulation, improper ventilation, and uncomfortable sleeping position, or overeating. Sigmund Freud spoke of “those disagreeable dreams one has only when one’s stomach is upset.” Obviously dreams have a diverse etiology. As was seen in the foregoing discussion, in Biblical times some dreams were caused by God. However, does God give dreams to people today in post-Biblical times? Or are dreams today better explained by other conditions and causes? Thomas Aquinas is exemplary of those who believe that dreams in the Christian era sometimes come from God. He said that dreams are: “…sometimes referable to God, who reveals certain things to men in their dreams by the ministry of angels, according to Num. 12.5. …Accordingly we must say there is no lawful divination in making use of dreams for the foreknowledge of the future, so long as those dreams are due to divine revelation….” A. J. Gordon did not claim that extra-Biblical dreams reveal the future. Nevertheless, he did agree with Thomas Aqainas in allowing that dreams may come from God. He wrote of the effect of one of his dreams and then gave instances of other dreams which had proved potent factors in human affairs. “Those who are familiar with the history of Catherine of Siena know how repeated and striking were her visions by day and by night; and readers of the life of Richard Baxter will recall his marked experience, and vivid vision of lost opportunities which so quickened his afteractivity; Christmas Evans, also, that prince of Welsh preachers…always believed that…dreams were God’s messengers sent to communicate to him some of the mightiest impulses that swayed his life. Both Thomas Aquinas and A. J. Gordon believed that dreams in the post-Biblical era could come from God. However, it is doubtful that God has communicated with men by dreams since the close of the canon. Arthur B. Fowler says that God “could reveal his will in dreams today, but the written Word of God, and the indwelling Holy Spirit have made dreams of this sort unnecessary.” There is no Biblical evidence for the contention that God speaks today in dreams. God speaks today in His Word (2 Tim. 3:16–17). He has given the Holy Spirit to every Christian to lead him into the truth (John 16:13; 1 Cor. 6:19–20). With the Bible in his hand and the Holy Spirit in his heart, the Christian has ample provision for guidance into God’s perfect will. [The Doctrine of Dreams, Richard L. Ruble; Bibliotheca Sacra : A Quarterly Published by Dallas Theological Seminary., 364 (Dallas TX)] |
||||||
1735 | is it possible for Jesus to have sinned? | Heb 4:15 | BradK | 221190 | ||
Hello CDBJ, Good points- and I agree! To add some more fuel to this discussion, Joseph Saul in Bibliotheca Sacra observes: "Could Jesus Christ sin? Was it possible that He could have succumbed to the temptations He faced in the world and at the instigation of Satan? All evangelical scholars affirm that Christ did not sin. But the question is whether He could have sinned. The problem centers on the question of Christ’s susceptibility to sin. Theologically, the question is whether the Savior is posse non peccare (able not to sin) or non posse peccare (not able to sin). In other words, is it only that the Lord Jesus was able to overcome sin and temptation or rather that He could not be overcome by them? Peccability refers to Christ’s being liable to or prone to sin, and impeccability speaks of His not being liable to sin and being incapable of sinning." As to why this is significant, he notes, "First, since the Lord Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), whatever attributes were true of Him during His earthly existence also must be true in His preincarnate state, as well as in His present state of glory. Second, the virgin birth, the Incarnation, and the hypostatic union, are all influenced by one’s understanding of the question concerning the impeccablity of Jesus Christ. Christ, the God-Man, had a divine nature and human nature that were inseparably linked without confusion. This union demonstrated the humanity of the God-Man prepared by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5). If Christ could sin, then deity was capable of sinning. Third, this doctrine has ramifications for angelology. The Scriptures affirm the existence of a personal being known as Satan, who is the primary instigator and sole originator of evil within the universe. Yet, if the Lord Jesus Christ is not impeccable, one can begin to question the temptation accounts of the Lord in the wilderness. If it is possible that He could sin or be overcome by temptation, what assurance does one have that these temptations were not just self-induced lustful thoughts within His human intellect and were not attacks by Satan? Fourth, the question of the impeccability of Jesus Christ also has implications for biblical inerrancy and integrity. Without a doubt, at times within His earthly life, the Lord Jesus spoke from within the limits of His unfallen humanity. For example, He declared His thirst (John 19:28) or His lack of information on the exact time of His return (Matt. 24:36). If it is possible that the Lord Jesus Christ could succumb to or be deceived by sin, then one must also conclude that it is possible for Him to have given inaccurate information about eternal things when He was growing in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man (Luke 2:52)." Blessings, BradK |
||||||
1736 | is it possible for Jesus to have sinned? | Heb 4:15 | BradK | 221200 | ||
Hello Thomas, The original question in this thread had to do with the impeccability of Christ. Peter's denial is another. The question is only speculative, since Peter did deny Christ! So, it ultimately cannot be answered from scripture:-) What do you mean by, "OT predictions of Jesus just as immutable?" Can you clarify, please? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1737 | The Person and Work of Christ | Heb 4:15 | BradK | 223536 | ||
Regarding the Person and Work Of Christ: Heb. 4:15 tells us- in regard to His (Jesus) human nature, "...has been tempted in all things as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN". (NASB) A further issue becomes involved in this discussion. As the late John F. Walvoord wrote, it touches upon The Impeccability of Christ. He writes, "Orthodox theologians generally agree that Jesus Christ never committed any sin. This seems to be a natural corollary to His deity and an absolute prerequisite to His work of substitution on the cross. Any affirmation of moral failure on the part of Christ requires a doctrine of His person which would deny in some sense His absolute deity. A question has been raised, however, by orthodox theologians whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a peculiar character because of the presence of the divine nature. In a word, could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could He have sinned as Adam sinned? While most orthodox theologians agree that Christ could be tempted because of the presence of a human nature, a division occurs on the question as to whether being tempted He could sin." Definition of Impeccability: "The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the term 'peccability', and the doctrine that Christ could not sin is referred to as the 'impeccability of Christ'. Adherents of both views agree that Christ did not sin, but those who affirm peccability hold that He could have sinned, whereas those who declare the impeccability of Christ believe that He could not sin due to the presence of the divine nature." "The doctrine of impeccability has been questioned especially on the point of whether an impeccable person can be tempted in any proper sense. If Christ had a human nature which was subject to temptation, was this not in itself evidence that He could have sinned? The point of view of those who believe that Christ could have sinned is expressed by Charles Hodge who has summarized this teaching in these words: “This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people." Can an Impeccable Person Be Tempted? "It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation. It must be admitted by Hodge, who denies impeccability, that in any case the temptation of Christ is different than that of sinful men." Not only is there agreement on the fact that Christ had no sin nature, but it is also agreed on the other hand, that as to His person He was tempted. This is plainly stated in Hebrews 4:15." [Bibliotheca Sacra : A quarterly published by Dallas Theological Seminary. 1996. Dallas TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.] |
||||||
1738 | When are names put in the Book of Life | Heb 6:4 | BradK | 193312 | ||
Hello cana, You stated "Paul wrote about Mt 6:33 in Ro 1:16-21." How so? Could you elaborate? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1739 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | BradK | 207663 | ||
Dear son: Not to nit-pick, but you've not only misquoted scripture in your reply, but missed the entire point of the discussion! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1740 | people who have never heard the Gospel ? | Heb 7:25 | BradK | 150244 | ||
Hi Danny, I'd have to take issue with you on your statement that "It really wouldnt be fair to condemn someone just because they never had the chance to believe." How so? What about Romans 1:20? God is emminently fair in His judgements. He is both fair in His grace and mercy as well as His wrath! John 3:36 tells us "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." I think you're reading too much into 1 Peter 3:18-22. It is most certainly not teaching universal salvation! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ] Next > Last [97] >> |