Results 101 - 120 of 130
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lookn4ward2Heavn Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 193386 | ||
Real Quick...took me awhile, Hank, to get to read this. I can agree with you regarding translations and paraphrases, however, I do find Bibles like the TEV helpful in understanding what is meant; and I have no problem attempting to discover the author's intended meaning (although, admittedly, disagreement with you in essence. As far as repentance is concerned, my position is that it is not something God does for sinners or that a sinner must be "born again" before he can repent. Acts 5:31 and 2 Tm 2:25 speaks of opportunity. Rom 2:4 indicates one being led by God's demonstration of kindness to repentance. Repentance, if it is Biblical (as I understand the Bible), also involves more tha just a "change of mind or attitude" as well as more than just sorrow; it also involves the act of turning away from what is being repented of and turning towards God. One can change their mind or attitude about something but not necessarily act according to that change. As such, it is not repentance. Furthermore, God commands men everywhere to repent and all have the ability, as created, to do so. Just my understanding of the Bible. No reponse is necessary. |
||||||
102 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 193387 | ||
Real Quick...took me awhile, Hank, to get to read this. I can agree with you regarding translations and paraphrases, however, I do find Bibles like the TEV helpful in understanding what is meant; and I have no problem attempting to discover the author's intended meaning (although, admittedly, disagreement with you in essence. As far as repentance is concerned, my position is that it is not something God does for sinners or that a sinner must be "born again" before he can repent. Acts 5:31 and 2 Tm 2:25 speaks of opportunity. Rom 2:4 indicates one being led by God's demonstration of kindness to repentance. Repentance, if it is Biblical (as I understand the Bible), also involves more tha just a "change of mind or attitude" as well as more than just sorrow; it also involves the act of turning away from what is being repented of and turning towards God. One can change their mind or attitude about something but not necessarily act according to that change. As such, it is not repentance. Furthermore, God commands men everywhere to repent and all have the ability, as created, to do so. Just my understanding of the Bible. No reponse is necessary. |
||||||
103 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 193388 | ||
Oops! Sorry about the double entry... | ||||||
104 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187808 | ||
Ps25, You said, "Those who are genuinely born again, have been sealed, by the Holy Spirit, before they actually were saved." Unless I am reading it wrong, the verse in the KJV actually reads the opposite: "after ye believed, ye were sealed." The NAS reads: "after listening to the...gospel...having believed, you were sealed." This verse, at least to me, shows God's act of sealing in the Holy Spirit as occurring after one listens and believes in Christ and not before. |
||||||
105 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187838 | ||
Please note, the KJV reads, "after ye heard...after that ye believed, ye were sealed". (1) It looks "past tense" to me but that's no indication of "before the foundations of the world". A simple reading of the verse shows the sealing occurs after hearing and believing. (2) The book of Acts gives practical demonstrations of the Spirit's reception (and, therefore, sealing) occcurring after one has heard and believed the message. Also, none of the apostles are shown in Acts to have preached a sealing - the receiving of the Spirit - occurring from eternity past as you suggest, but clearly shows the opposite. (3) Ep 1:4. It seems to me you are misreading the verse, effectively ignoring the testimony of v.13 (as it reads) together with that of the whole epistle. (a) The "us" refers to believers, that is, those who after hearing, believed the gospel. (b) The stress of the divine choice refered to here is not of specific persons but of a specific pourpose: that believers should be "holy" and "without blame" in order to stand before "him in love". (4) An interpretation, as you suggest,(1) upends the clear reading of the verse; (2) reverses the way in which the text shows salvation is to be procured ("order of salvation" as some call it); and (3) proposes what seems to be an invented explanation of the Greek grammer to support an otherwise foreign understanding of the the plain reading of the verse in question. (5) What can be "biblically refute(d)" is not "what this verse says" (since the translation is not ambiguous) but your interpretation of it. |
||||||
106 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187852 | ||
Ps25, Are you familiar with or a scholar of NT Greek? 1. Apparently, you have not read my note correctly regarding Ep 1:13. The main point is that the verse does not read that God Spirit-sealed us "before the foundation of the world." That is you interpretation, which goes beyond the text. As I stated, "A simple reading of the verse shows the sealing occurs after hearing and believing." Your contention that "the scriptures are clear that it was done 'and sealed' in our case, thousands of years before we were ever born" has no support in either vs.13 or vs.4 of Ep 1. The phrase in v.4, "chosen before the world was made" (TEV), contemplates (1) believers, not specific individuals, and (2) within the context of purpose, sealing. There is no reference to sealing. 2. You say, "what God 'seals' cannot be 'unsealed'." Well then, it should also hold true to say, "What God 'grafts in' cannot be 'ungrafted'," which flies right smack against Romans 11. 3. That "that no man has ever sought God on his own," is off the subject and has no bearing on this issue. 4. You're appeals to logic seem to be attemps to squeeze a round peg into a square hole, which effectively results in illogical jumps to conclusions that have no bearing on how the text in question actually reads. 5. With all due respect, if this discussion is to go forward, the first three points in my note #187838 need to be answered, which you totally ignored, having gone through some other unrelated avenue of argument. |
||||||
107 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187859 | ||
1. I hadn't discussed church history (whatever happened to sola scriptura?") except for menyioning Acts. That's jumping over the issue. I was discussing how the Bible reads. 2. Neither was I discussing "free will" or the lofty notion of "eternal security". Again, I was discussing the reading of Ep 1:13, the Bible. |
||||||
108 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187861 | ||
We need to resolve the issue of Ep 1:13 as to what it actually reads. You're just clouding the issue with what you call "proof-texts" and conversations between pastors you may have overheard. | ||||||
109 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187927 | ||
WOS, I was responding to what I believe was a misreading in Ep 1:13 made by Ps25. My response is related to the issue of "eternal security" because Ps25 used it as "proof-text" for it. |
||||||
110 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187954 | ||
InGod, 1. Are you assuming that because they are on a Catholic webpage, called saints by the RCC, the fathers of the Church you cited are Roman Catholic? 2. Are you saying that "many Christians" who "were not at all part of the system then known as the church" were the true Christians while those in the "system" were not? Let me just note that: (a) The first 300 years had no "system"; no form of institutional organization existed. (b) The early "universal church" of the first 300 years was not the same as the RCC as it developed after Constantine's rise and as it is today (and I have no idea what you mean by "original"). I think that such an assessment of the early Church, as stated in the last two sentences, is mistaken. To be sure, the RCC laid it's foundation from the early Church, but it drifted far away from early Church teachings in many respects as the Protestant Reformation, in seeking to protest against the abuses of the RCC, went too far the other extreme at certain points; instead of returning to apostolic doctrine and traditions as revealed in the Scriptures and understood by the early Church, the Reformation ended up with their own brand of erroneous teachings, e.g. the subject of free will and predestination. At least, that is my assessment of church history from the little I've read. |
||||||
111 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187955 | ||
InGod, 1. To say, "...the sealing took place before the foundation. Of course the effect of that sealing was after salvation," seems to me just a convenient way in which to manipulate the verse to promote what it does not say. 2. If there is a relation between v.4 and v.13 is that (a) the former reveals the purpose of God having chosen and (b) the latter shows what persons - the "us" - were chosen, namely, those -"you" - who heard and believed. 3. Upon their "hearing" and "believing" God Spirit-sealed them, gave them the Spirit as a foretaste of His glory to be revealed and as a sign that guarantees His faithfulness to fulfill his purpose that they (1) should stand before him holy, and, thereby (2) receive their inheritance. 4. Putting these verses alongside wach other, I also see that what is contemplated in v.4 is God's purposes for believers and in v.13, God's faithfulness toward believers to fulfill His purposes. 5. One can say these are two of the strongest verses in the Bible on God's purposes for and faithfulness towards those who are believing in Christ. 6. As far as a doctrine of "eternal security" is concerned, that is not stated here, nor does it seem to be in the mind of the writer. The doctrine may be true but if it is, as far as I can tell, one will need to look elsewhere for Biblical support to find it. |
||||||
112 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187956 | ||
... | ||||||
113 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187990 | ||
Just out of curiousity...what do my own words say? | ||||||
114 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187991 | ||
I could add many other things I don't deserve... | ||||||
115 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187992 | ||
I can't remember what i stated here. Just curious...did I say something that was deemed to be a "personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum, or seen as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum"? Would it be possible to send the what I stated to my email address and advise me how my response was offensive? I would like to avoid any cause offense in the future. I'm making the best effort to objective. |
||||||
116 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207935 | ||
Steve, having read only your comment, may I point out something to consider regarding Mt 12:12? I think the point Jesus was making was that, in taking the sheep out of the pit on the sabbath, the person does not break the sabbath law - maybe the letter of the law but not the spirit (that for which the law is intended) -because it is lawful to do what is good on the sabbath. Jesus was saying, "You'd break the sabbath in order to save an animal; why condemn me for breaking the sabbath in order to heal the sick?" Jesus did break or allow the law to be broken. Jesus even condoned David's breaking the law by eating food that was for only the priests. It just may be that the one who lies in order to preserve another's life, although breaking the law with respect to the letter, is nevertheless, not breaking the law with respect to the spirit, that is, it's intention. The "evil" of the lie is meant to bring out a good, that is, the saving of a life. Now, I'm not saying that the end justifies the means, at least, not in general or "let us do 'evil' that good may come of it"; but there are some cases where this proverb may apply. I realize this is a sticky situation to be put in but, for me, if my lie would save one's life, I'll either omit the information or, if pressed, I don't think I'll have any qualms in lying. In general, I agree with you. However, not absolutely everything is "black and white" (as much as we'd like it to be). Just something to think about. |
||||||
117 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207942 | ||
I have no problem agreeing with you although I have not done any particular study of whether or not Jesus ever actually violated the Law. What just comes to mind is that he touched a leper and dead a body in order to bring healing. And, I did mention Jesus condoning David for breaking the law eating food that was only for the priests to eat. I don't think Jesus' perfection is endangered if he did break the letter of the Law in some way (although, admittedly, it is kind of hard to imagine; probably just as hard to imagine Jesus in a wedding where the guests are getting drunk and he supplies more wine). In any case, I don't think we can judge those Christians who have lied in order to save another's life as having disobeyed God, be it those who hid Jews during WWII or Christians in China today to try to protect their pastors, congregation, or family. I once read of this Christian women under persecution who, in order to protect her young daughter from being raped and tortured to death, since she had absolutely no other avenue of escape,spoke softly to her daughter, held her, and jumped off a cliff to both of their deaths. Yes, that is extreme - thou shalt not kill' - but I find it hard to see God condemning her outright. I also think about Bonhoeffer in collaborating to kill - murder - Hitler. There are other really rather radical stories of Christians under persecution and the unorthodox things they did to protect others. Some answers don't come as easy as we would like; like I said before, not everything is a simple "black and white". |
||||||
118 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207955 | ||
Azure, please note: I said, "Jesus even condoned David's breaking the law by eating food that was for only the priests." David broke the law by eating the priest's bread, is what I said; Jesus only condoned it. Besides, there is no place in the NT where Jesus is eating bread for the priest's alone. | ||||||
119 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208006 | ||
Saul was also God's anointed. God tore away the kingship from him because he appropriated to himself the privileges of the priesthood. | ||||||
120 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208062 | ||
I disagree. In any case, Saul was anointed by God. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |