Results 201 - 220 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | The Sacred Romance | Num 28:11 | Radioman2 | 97467 | ||
Closing the Gaps "How to Study Your Bible: Closing the Gaps" (...) "...in order to get the most out of God's Word, in order to really understand what God meant by what He said, we have to close some gaps. (...) "The gaps in our understanding of the Bible are related to an ancient document. We're dealing with an ancient document. This book is a very old book...it is ancient. It was completed, as you obviously know, in the first century A.D., that's 2,000 years ago, and so we have a very old document. That creates some gaps for us. If we're going to understand the Bible we have to close those gaps. "Gap number one is a language gap. The Bible was not written in English. (...) "So knowing the language is very important. Somebody has to know the language. If you as a Bible student don't know it, you have to have somebody who does know it informing you about it. That's where commentaries come in to be of help to you and study materials and Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words and Dictionary of Old Testament Words and those kinds of things that help you to come to grips with what the words mean. (...) "A second gap that has to be closed is the culture gap. That deals not with the speech but with the customs. Speech is connected to custom. (...) "You can't recreate the scenery biblically unless you know the culture-that's very, very important-unless you know the background. Understanding many things about culture, Jewish culture, Greek culture very, very important in interpreting the Scripture. The culture of the mystery religions, the culture of the Pharisees, the culture of the Sadducees, the Romans, the whole situation there, the culture around Israel, the polytheism, the polytheism meaning the many god pagans, the culture of Baal worship, all of that stuff that surrounds the biblical data is part of understanding the framework in which language exists and in which stories are told. "Thirdly the geographical gap, the geography gap. (...) "[First] you understand much about [the language and] the culture of the Bible, [then] you understand much about the geography of the Bible, and then you're going to get to understanding the fourth point which is the history, the plot itself. You have to close those gaps. "Now let's talk about those...those four gaps... "- the language gap, that gives you the speech; "- the culture gap gives you the customs and the idioms; "- the geography gaps create the scenery, the actual scenario around it; "- and the history gap is the plot, what's going on historically around that. What is the context of history. "I have found through the years that spending a maximum of time on these matters is crucial to all effective Bible understanding." (http://www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-158.htm) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
202 | "...an insult to your infallibility"? | Num 28:11 | Radioman2 | 97851 | ||
justme: Yes, of course, you may use my material to quote. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
203 | Gender?? | Deut 6:4 | Radioman2 | 86755 | ||
What Jesus told the Sadducees is: "For in the RESURRECTION they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Matthew 22:30 NASB (Emphasis added.) Gracefull: The only reason I quote this verse is that I myself was always forgetting the exact wording of it. I couldn't remember whether it was "in heaven they neither marry" or "in the kingdom of God..." Just yesterday I looked it up to be sure and wrote the verse in a notebook. So please don't take my post as being negative or critical. That is not my intention. Grace and peace, Radioman2 AMPLIFIED Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrected state neither do [men] marry nor are [women] given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven. |
||||||
204 | How was the identity known by Peter? | Deut 29:29 | Radioman2 | 91164 | ||
Aixen7z4: Nothing in this Note is intended as criticism of you personally. OK? I am merely attempting to address the issue at hand. :-) Hoover's original question: "In Matthew 17 on the Transfiguration on the Mount, how did Peter KNOW that it was Moses and Elijah that appeared with Jesus?? Think of when they lived, the time difference. It's not like Peter had ever seen them before. "So HOW did he KNOW??" The point I was trying to make in reply to Hoover's question is: WE DON'T KNOW how Peter knew. To reply to your Note, let me say that in any given text what is apparent to one person may not be apparent to another. You ask: 'But is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation?' Your question calls for an assumption on my part, does it not? :-) We can assume what we will, but still WE DON'T KNOW whether names were used in the conversation you refer to. It may indeed be fair to make assumptions; but what I object to (and I'm not saying that you do this) is when a person broadcasts his assumptions as if they were absolute fact. At times I've given my opinions on this forum, but I have labeled them as opinion, not Bible doctrine or absolute fact. (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but no one has the right to be wrong in his facts.) Whenever anyone makes an assertion, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion. It is not unfair for another to require the asserter to provide evidence. A basic principle of interpretation is: We know what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS. So, 'Is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation?' I could assume it is fair, but then that would only be my opinion. Again, I mean no offense to you. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
205 | THIS IS NOT A SCRIPTURE | Ruth 1:12 | Radioman2 | 79073 | ||
The chimes of time ring out the news Another day is through. Someone slipped and fell. Was that someone you? You may have longed for added strength, Your courage to renew. Do not be disheartened For I have news for you. It is no secret... |
||||||
206 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80157 | ||
You assert 'that Jesus the Christ took back the keys to death, hell and the grave' has much scriptural basis. Does it? Is there a clear verse of Scripture to indicate that Christ took back the keys or that Satan had ever taken possession of the keys? In the entire King James Version of the Bible, the word "key" appears in 6 verses. The word "keys" appears in 2 verses. Thus, "key" and "keys" appear a total of 8 times in the KJV. This is ALL the Bible has to say about key(s). Jud 3:25 And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened them: and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth. Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. Lu 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Re 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Re 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. Re 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Re 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. |
||||||
207 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80184 | ||
[Note: The best information I've ever seen on 1 Samuel 28:3-25 is the following, which was posted here on the Forum by Makarios (ID# 7801).] 'Actually, there have been several explanations suggested for 1 Samuel 28:3-25.. 'Some believe the witch worked a miracle by demonic powers and actually brought Samuel back from the dead. In support of this view, there are certain passages that seem to indicate that demons have the power to perform lying signs and wonders (Matt. 7:22; 2 Cor. 11:14; 2 Thess. 2:9-10; Rev. 16:14). This view is unlikely, since Scripture also reveals that death is final (Hebrews 9:27), the dead cannot return (2 Samuel 12:23 and Luke 16:24-27), and demons cannot usurp or overpower God's authority over life and death (Job 1:10-12). 'A second view is that the witch did not really bring up Samuel from the dead, but a demonic spirit simply impersonated the prophet. Those who hold to this view say that certain verses indicate that demons can deceive people who try to contact the dead (Lev. 19:31; Deut. 18:11; 1 Chr. 10:13). This view is unlikely, because the passage seems to say that Samuel did in fact return from the dead, and that he provided a prophecy that actually came to pass. Further, it is unlikely that demons would have uttered God's truth, since the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). 'A third view is that God sovereignly and miraculously allowed Samuel's spirit to appear in order to rebuke Saul for his sin. Samuel's spirit did not appear as a result of the woman's powers (since no human has this power), but only because God sovereignly brought it about. The fact that Samuel actually seemed to return from the dead supports this view (1 Sam. 28:14), and this caused the witch to shriek with fear (see verse 12). The witch's cry of astonishment indicates that this appearance of Samuel was not the result of her usual tricks. That God allowed Samuel's spirit to appear on this one occasion should not be taken to mean that witches have any real power to summon the dead. God had a one-time purpose for this one-time special occasion.' (From a post by Makarios, ID# 7801) |
||||||
208 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80230 | ||
gracefull: You write: "Satan had authority to beckon souls from the dead." Other than 1 Samuel 28, are there any passages that clearly indicate this is true? If so, what are the scripture references that support this idea? Moreover, could you give scriptural support for the idea that the souls of men (dead or alive) were under the "jurisdiction" of Satan? As we all know, Satan is not the warden down in hell, running the place. Thank you for your help. Grace and peace to you. Radioman2 |
||||||
209 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80236 | ||
gracefull: Thank you. I share with you the desire to bring the discussion back to Biblical comparisons. Is there hope for the forum? I hope so! :-) You ask, "Paraphrase 'Satan is not the warden living in hell, and running the earth.' Is this a correct rendering of your statement? No, it isn't, but thank you for asking for clarification. When I say, "Satan is not the warden down in hell, running the place;" what I mean is "Satan is not the warden down in hell, running the place [hell]." Where is Satan and what is he doing? 1Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
210 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80261 | ||
Nowhere, by no stretch of the imagination, does the Bible teach that "during the days of the Old Testament, Satan and the demons could bring back the soul of Samuel." P.S. For the sake of clarity, please define "bring back the soul." What exactly does this consist of? What does it mean? Thank you. |
||||||
211 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80264 | ||
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (NASB Romans 13:1) You assert: "The government of the whole earth including the realm of the dead was in complete control of Satan and his angels (demons)." The government of the whole earth was in complete control of Satan? HE (GOD) REMOVES KINGS AND SETS UP KINGS AMPLIFIED Daniel 2:20-21 Daniel answered, Blessed be the name of God forever and ever! For wisdom and might are His! He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding! [Dan. 4:35.] THE MOST HIGH [GOD] RULES THE KINGDOM OF MANKIND AMPLIFIED Daniel 4:17 This sentence is by the decree of the [heavenly] watchers and the decision is by the word of the holy ones, to the intent that the living may know that the Most High [God] rules the kingdom of mankind and gives it to whomever He will and sets over it the humblest and lowliest of men. [Dan. 2:21; 5:21.] AMPLIFIED John 19:11a Jesus answered, You would not have any power or authority whatsoever against (over) Me if it were not given you from above. |
||||||
212 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80596 | ||
Satan's loss of authority: The Scriptural truth about who and what Satan is [Ed: I have yet to see scripture to clearly and plainly show that Satan had authority then God gave it to Adam and then Adam gave it back to Satan. I haven't seen it, have you? Here, for a change, is that which the Bible clearly tells us about Satan.] 'Satan 'The Hebrew word satan [f'f] means "an adversary, one who resists." It is translated as "Satan" eighteen times in the Old Testament, fourteen of those occurrences being in Job 1-2, the others in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1-2. There is some dispute as to whether it should be taken as a proper name or a title. In Job and Zechariah the definite article precedes the noun (lit., "the satan" or "the accuser"). Thus some argue it should be a title, while in 1 Chronicles (no article) it should be a proper name. The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David (1 Sam 29:4), Rezon of Damascus (1 Kings 11:23,25), and the angel of the Lord (Num 22:22,32). (...) '"Satan" occurs thirty-six times in the New Testament, eighteen of that number in the Gospels and Acts. The Greek term satanas [Satana'"] is a loan word from the Hebrew Old Testament, and twenty-eight of the total occurrences are accompanied by the definite article. Often in the Gospel accounts Jesus is in contact with Satan directly or indirectly. He was tempted by Satan (Mark 1:13). In the famous "Beelzebub controversy" Jesus made clear his intention to drive Satan out of people's lives and to destroy his sovereignty (Matt 12:26; Mark 3:23, 26; Luke 11:18). He liberated a woman "whom Satan (had) kept bound for eighteen long years" (Luke 13:16). Paul spoke of his being sent to turn people "from the power of Satan to God" (Acts 26:18), and that the works of the "lawless one (were) in accordance with the work of Satan, " in doing sham miracles, signs, and wonders (2 Thess 2:9). Christ will come, he wrote, to overthrow that agent of Satan. 'While the activity of Satan is carried out in "the world" (i.e., among those who do not acknowledge Christ as Lord), he also works against the followers of Christ. He influenced Peter's thinking about Jesus to the extent that Jesus said to his disciple, "Get behind me, Satan!" (Matt 16:23). He asked for all the disciples in order to severely test them (Luke 22:31). He "entered" Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:3), and "filled the heart" of Ananias (Acts 5:3). Believers can be tempted by Satan due to a lack of self-control in sexual matters (1 Cor 7:5), and he can even masquerade as "an angle of light" to accomplish his purposes (2 Cor 11:14). He tormented Paul by means of "a thorn in (his) flesh" (2 Cor 12:7). Some people even turn away from their faith to follow Satan (1 Tim 5:15). (...) 'Satan is regarded in the New Testament as "master of death and destruction, " who carries out God's wrath against sinners. Twice we read of persons "handed over to Satan" for spiritual discipline by the church (1 Cor 5:1-5; 1 Tim 1:19-20). This appears to mean that excommunication puts people out into Satan's realm, a sovereignty from which believers have been rescued (Col 1:13; cf. Heb 2:14-15). In other cases, Satan attacked the disciples of Jesus by "sifting" them (Luke 22:31), a figure that is enigmatic. It may have meant to test their faith (with the intent of destroying it), or, it may have meant "to separate off the rubbish" (I. H. Marshall). In any case, Satan was up to no good. He was able to "enter" Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:3; cf. John 13:27), resulting in that disciple becoming a betrayer of his Master. Peter's sifting may have brought about his threefold denial of Jesus. (...) 'Jesus spoke of seeing Satan "fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18), a fall not identified but spoken of within the context of demons being cast out—a sign of Satan's LOSS OF AUTHORITY. In Revelation, amid a war in heaven, Satan was "hurled to the earth" along with his angels/demons (12:9). He, the Accuser, was overcome by One stronger than he. Finally, he is bound, imprisoned in the abyss for one thousand years, then ultimately banished in the fiery lake to suffer eternal torment (20:1-3, 10; cf. Matt 25:41). (...) 'Jesus would drive out "the prince of this world" by his cross (John 12:31); the latter would have no hold on Christ, for he was without sin (14:30); and Satan stood condemned at the bar of God's judgment (16:11). While the devil has had a career of sinning "from the beginning, " the Son of God came to destroy his wicked works (1 John 3:8). Those unable to hear and receive Jesus' words belong to the devil, who is their "father" (John 8:44)—they share a family likeness to him. ...' by Walter M. Dunnett Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Emphasis added.) (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) |
||||||
213 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80600 | ||
OVERSTATING THE BELIEVER’S AUTHORITY [While we are striving to separate fact from fantasy (truth from error) regarding the subject of authority, we may as well include this related information. (I address this post to you, Ed, not to take issue with you in any way, but because your post is the "primary" post in this sub-sub-thread.) ] The notion that people can order Satan about when they can't even get their kids to do what they tell them is truly astonishing. "Nowhere does Scripture state that believers have authority over Satan himself." STATEMENT DA082 The Bondage Maker: Examining the Message and Method of Neil T. Anderson (Part Two: Spiritual Warfare And The "Truth Encounter") by Elliot Miller "OVERSTATING THE BELIEVER’S AUTHORITY, Anderson’s entire approach to spiritual warfare, is based on the authority of the believer over the devil. This is manifest particularly in his emphasis on "binding and loosing": "[Anderson writes:] God has granted us the authority to "bind what shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 16:19; 18:18). In other words, we have the spiritual capacity to discern God’s will and then, confident in the finished work of Christ, proclaim it in the spiritual realm. We have authority over demons as long as we remain strong in the Lord and operate in His strength (see Ephesians 6:l0)....The effectiveness of binding the strongman (see Matthew 12:20 [sic]) is dependent upon the leading of the Holy Spirit and subject to the scope and limits of the written Word of God.’ "In his instruction on how to help others find freedom in Christ, Anderson writes that the goal: "is to avoid all demonic activity which would short-circuit their ability to participate in the process. With this in mind, I usually begin the steps to freedom with a prayer similar to this: Dear heavenly Father....I take my position with Christ, seated with Him in the heavenlies. Because all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him. I now claim that authority over all enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ in and around this room and especially (name). You have told us that where two or three are gathered in Your name You are in our midst, and that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven. We agree that every evil spirit that is in or around (name) be bound to silence. They cannot inflict any pain, speak to (names)’s mind, or prevent (names) from hearing, seeing, or speaking. Now in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ I command you, Satan, and all your hosts to release (names) and remain bound and gagged so that (names) will be able to obey God." (Elliot Miller continues:) "The biblical evidence suggesting that believers have been given direct authority over the demonic realm is scantier than is usually supposed. Anderson applies Matthew 12:29 ("first binds the strong man") to believers, when it is obvious from the preceding seven verses that Jesus was referring to Himself alone. Matthew 18:18 ("bind" and "loose") refers to church discipline, not spiritual warfare, as the larger context makes entirely clear, Anderson uses Ephesians 1:18-21 (Christ is seated above all authorities and powers) combined with Ephesians 2:5-6 (believers are seated with Him) as proof of the believer’s authority over the devil. But rather than dealing with spiritual warfare, these passages speak of Christ’s exaltation by the Father and the believer’s acceptance and exaltation before the Father in Christ." One should therefore be careful not to infer too much from them. "Nowhere does Scripture state that believers have authority over Satan himself. Those biblical passages that do speak of believers’ authority over the demonic realm apply strictly to driving demons out of lost human beings (Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:19; Acts 8:7). They are never applied to pastoral counseling or the believer’s personal battle with the devil. "This does not mean Christians must accept defeat in spiritual warfare. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus has won the victory over the devil and all authority has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Col. 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:22; etc.). While believers do not have the prerogative to say, "I command you, Satan (to do this or not do that)," Jesus does. Believers are indeed positionally seated with Him in heavenly places and are thus made partakers in His victory. They therefore can be confident that if they resist the devil, he will flee from them (James 4:7)." (http://www.equip.org/search/). This article first appeared in the Summer 1998 issue of the Christian Research Journal. |
||||||
214 | 1 King 13-14 averted His judgement? | 1 Kin 13:2 | Radioman2 | 103212 | ||
Searcher: I agree with you completely that we shouldn't get into the "what ifs". One could play that game forever. Like you, I feel there's no need to speculate about questions on which the Bible is silent. I'm concerned more about "what is" than "what if." Grace and peace to you, brother, Radioman2 |
||||||
215 | Is sickness from satan? | Job 2:7 | Radioman2 | 83580 | ||
Norrie: To know what characters may not be included in your submission, do this: 1. Write a posting 2. Deliberately type one of the following: a plus sign, ampersand, greater than symbol, or dollar sign 3. Click on "Preview" 4. You will then get a message that shows you all the characters you cannot use 5. Print out this message and keep it by your PC or keyboard. Then, when you get that error message again or if you're in doubt, you can look at the printout. This really works and it only takes a couple of minutes to do it. :-) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
216 | Atheism means ‘no god.’ | Ps 14:1 | Radioman2 | 84722 | ||
Atheism means ‘no god.’ Atheism 'The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable. I need to mention that most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists. Most consider themselves as non-theists. ' I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which definition of atheism to use can be difficult. Following are some definitions offered by atheists. "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god." "An atheist lacks belief in a god." "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all." "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry." "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas." ' Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God. ' There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. A strong atheist actively believes and states that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence. ' Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God. But, the interesting thing with them is that they say they are open further evidence for God's existence. ' Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; the subject simply isn't an issue and they don't believe or not believe it. ' Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians. I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be had with them at all. 'Two Main Types of Arguments from Atheists ' Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one says there isn't enough evidence to decide and the other says there is evidence contrary to God's existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because are not involved in the debate. ' A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows: God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist. 'Some Basic Tenets of Atheism ' Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. Though there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. They are listed below. Please note however, that not all atheists assert all of these tenets. The only absolute common one they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods. 'There is no God or devil. 'There is no supernatural realm. 'Miracles cannot occur. 'There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will. ' Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable. 'Man is material. 'Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact. 'Ethics and morals are relative (http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheism.htm) ps141 |
||||||
217 | Atheism means ‘no god.’ | Ps 14:1 | Radioman2 | 84807 | ||
Mistakes Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Generally, you do not try to prove a negative. If I asked you to prove there wasn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter, could you do it? Of course not. It isn't a fair request. In fact, it isn't even a good request." - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Most Christians mean well when they defend their faith. But, too often, many make fundamental errors when dialoguing with atheists. We need to make as few errors as possible, not simply to win an argument, but to help the atheist come to a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus. 'Following are common mistakes made by theists when dialoguing with atheists. 'Asking an atheist to prove there is no God 'Sometimes Christians will attempt to dismantle an atheist argument by demanding that the atheist prove there is no God. Well, to be fair, an atheist can no more prove there is no God than he can prove that there isn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter. The problem does not lie with the atheist, but with the theist who demands such an impossible and illogical request. 'Generally, you do not try to prove a negative. If I asked you to prove there wasn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter, could you do it? Of course not. It isn't a fair request. In fact, it isn't even a good request. Let's think about this idea of proving there is no God. 'First of all, how could an atheist prove there is no God? Can he know all things to know there is no God? Well, of course not. If he knew all things, he'd be God. Can he answer every bit of evidence raised in support of theism? Again no. He is not omniscient. There is simply too much information in the world for one person to know. 'Again, in argumentation you don't try to prove a negative. It’s the same thing as making something up and then asking a person to prove it doesn't exist -- like an ice-cream factory on Jupiter. 'Labeling Atheists 'Some Christians have labeled atheists as evil, stupid, devil-worshippers, or morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not evil, stupid, devil-worshipping degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient. For a Christian, or anyone, to make a blanket statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on either side of the argument of truth. 'Generally, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought through their position over a long period of time. Some were raised in religious homes, have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course, I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very cogent arguments against the existence of God -- which need to be addressed -- and rest their eternity on their arguments. 'So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and name-calling have no place in the discussion. ( . . .) 'Stating that Atheism is a religion 'Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief that there is no God," but is not believing either way." 'To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to any effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to torture people." The Christian would simply role his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much. ( . . . ) 'Never admitting when you are wrong 'Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages. It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong in something, be kind and courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply loose the respect of the one with whom you are debating.' (www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm) ps141 |
||||||
218 | special revelation vs general revelation | Ps 19:1 | Radioman2 | 89034 | ||
There is no new revelation. The canon of Scripture is complete. "I'd put my confidence any day in the teacher who's tough enough and dedicated enough to have spent years in the study of the Bible as over against the guy who claims to have received his spiritual insights by some arcane mode of special revelation." --Hank (ID# 81725) I would have to agree with Hank. The use of the term revelation in reference to one's own teaching incorrectly implies that such teaching is directly from God and thus infallible. Revelation is the wrong term to apply to one's own spiritual insights. *Illumination* is the ministry of the Holy Spirit which makes clear the truth of the written *revelation* in the Bible. In reference to the Bible, *revelation* relates to its content; *inspiration* to the method of recording that content; and *illumination* to the meaning of the record. Notice WHAT and WHERE revelation is; it is WRITTEN and it is IN THE BIBLE. There is no new revelation. The canon of Scripture is complete and has been complete for approximately 2,000 years.See Heb. 1:1,2. |
||||||
219 | special revelation vs general revelation | Ps 19:1 | Radioman2 | 89070 | ||
BradK: Thank you for consistently speaking the truth in your postings. Oftentimes readers post their ideas in love, but their ideas aint necessarily so -- not always. Sincerely, Radioman2 |
||||||
220 | special revelation vs general revelation | Ps 19:1 | Radioman2 | 89203 | ||
From the writings of tj57h@cs.com: Posted by tj57h@cs.com ON Sat 07/12/03, 3:14pm: 'I believe you have misunderstood. I have not said anything about denominations leading people to hell.' Posted by tj57h@cs.com PRIOR TO Sat 07/12/03, 3:14pm: 'Why do Christian denominations practice " do not do this, do not do that, wear this don't wear that" When the bible clearly teaches not to?' 'Do you gentlemen belong to a denomination that does not practice works based doctrines OR actually teaches walking in the Spirit?' 'I did ask a question, do you have an answer? Why do Christian denominations practice " do not do this, do not do that, wear this don't wear that" When the bible clearly teaches not to?' 'I do have a problem with all denominations and leaders that have dropped and continue to drop the ball in the area of discipleship and walking in faith, through Christ, by the Spirit.' 'Go ahead and glorify denominations and I will Glorify Christ.' 'Denominations are divisions and they have excepted creeds, most which are not totally Biblical, that makes them Sin. 'Do I go to a Church that calls its self a name? Yes. We do not hold ourselves, and I do not hold my self as divided. Most who are in denominations do.' 'John Wesley if you have ever read about him, walked in the Spirit with a mighty testimony! 'When he died 3 denominations developed Wesleyn, Nazarene, and Methodist. If he only knew what people did with his life testimony. I have been in attendance of all three of these denominations and what they teach is a far cry from what John Wesley believed and walked in, I know I studied his life. 'I have a theory, when mighty men of God die, people go about teaching and preaching his revelations and what he did, instead of walking in the Spirit for them selves. This I believe is the greatest downfall of denominations, People stop hearing from God themselves and put God in a box.' 'The truth is division is sin and to a certain degree we ALL are a part of it. We need to stand up for Christ not divisions/denominations.' |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [40] >> |