Results 781 - 800 of 801
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
781 | Interpreting Revelation | Revelation | jlhetrick | 190538 | ||
RC- with all respect to you my friend might I suggest that you have made your position clear and recommend that you be done with the topic. It is not in accordance with the Terms of Use of this forum to base one's theological position on one's feelings and opinion. You have made several posts (which I have read carefully) where you basically offer to the rest of us that you are in the "right" camp and many or most others are in the "wrong" camp. Your entire argument, thusfar, has been based on feelings, thoughts, and opinion that were supposedly developed over "8 years" of study. Yet, you offer little to nothing from Scripture to support your position. I'm not asking that you do offer support for your position here as that would be, in my opinion, unproductive. After all, you have only studied the topic for 8 years. More correctly put, "at least three to 6 hours for 8 years daily". Personally I can see why you are so impressed with yourself- I have struggled to stay with a single topic for 8 weeks, even 8 days in many cases. Still, if you can appreciate that your 8 years of study really do not compare to centuries of study and debate by greater minds than yours and mine then perhaps you might agree that further debate here would be unproductive. After all, you yourself admitted that you "came to find out after my study that what I came up with is what the Church beleived for 1800 yrs." I'm glad you admit that. It's always concering when one comes along believing that God has given him a personal, special, and new revelation that He hasn't given to His Church. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
782 | Interpreting Revelation | Revelation | jlhetrick | 190580 | ||
I believe that one of the strengths of SBF is the ability and willingness of the members to monitor ourselves and for each of us to offer feedback to others when we feel something needs to be addressed. Like you have done in your response to me. So to be specific regarding our exchange I want to address a few points as well as hopefully clarify where I believe I may have been misunderstood. First of all, it is of the highest importance to me, that you fully understand that I did not say nor suggest that you claimed a “new revelation”. Quite the contrary- my comment was meant to express my relief that you in fact did not claim something new evidenced by your pointing out that your conclusions were consistent with what the church has believed for 1800 years. As for me not knowing your “position as I have not revealed it to anyone” I am simply puzzled by that. It seems your position was revealed clearly in more than one post- just not with any biblical support. I stop short of commenting on whether it is consistent with what the church has believed for 1800 years as you claim; other than to say that your not believing in a pre-, middle- or post-tribulation rapture does not seem consistent to me. Admittedly I am no expert regarding escatology. In truth, I am probably little more than a sheep with a simple “baaah” to contribute to a serious conversation of the issue. I have listened to and read/studied some on my own though to include Hank Hanegraaff and Steve Gregg, more current commentators on the topic if those names are not familiar to you. Regarding my response as being the most negative you have seen on this forum in almost 6 years I apologize, sincerely. After rereading it myself I do agree that the tone could definitely be received as being negative, and fairly so. In my line of work I am tasked with resisting being politically correct for fear that it may corrupt me. The truth is far better even at the risk of your intentions being poorly delivered or misunderstood. For that I apologize to you and the other forum members. It was not meant to be negative but redirecting. There really was/is no way for me to know that you are “known for sticking to what I can prove and demanding scriptural references” as prior to my responding to you there just wasn’t that much revealed by researching your history. Actually, instead of almost 6 years, your user profile showed you as having less than 5 months as a forum member and only 20 or so posts at the time of my response. Knowing that members who have their account revoked are not permitted to ever reregister and it is a violation of the Terms of Use to have more than one user profile I’m sure there is a legitimate explanation. That, however, is between you and Lockman and you don’t owe me an explanation of course. RC, the bottom line is this (for me). You complain in your response that you “haven’t seen anyone justify a Dispensationalist point of view yet…” while presenting yourself as one who is known for “sticking to what I can prove and demanding scriptural answers.” Simply put, you didn’t live up to that in a string of post and now your upset because someone challenged that. Perhaps it’s my own biased view that positions me to believe that if there is anything that (I) would expect someone to learn after a serious study of the issue is that it is highly debatable on many points and centuries of scholarship hasn’t resolved it; so what is the point of debating it here? There are significant limitations to a public forum. Finally- the Terms Of Use for the forum are “always” present and yes, including Atheists. We are all responsible for adhering to them and should be active in challenging others to do the same. Have you found a better online forum to participate in? I haven’t; I would like to see this one survive. If you wish to respond further on this issue I believe it would be more appropriate in private. I would have sent this in private but you don’t have a user profile and have not given an option to notify you via email. My email is listed in my user profile. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
783 | Interpreting Revelation | Revelation | jlhetrick | 190593 | ||
Thank you for your response- I'm glad we worked it out. Again, I appologize for any offense. And yes, I make no excuses for my ability to become defensive and allow myself to present in a way that is not my true intension. It has for years now been a struggle I pray about. If you knew me before you would say, wow! that guy has come a long way. But since you didn't know me before I hope you will be content to accept my apology. I'm interested to know who you are (your previous username) if you would care to email me with that. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
784 | Interpreting Revelation | Revelation | jlhetrick | 190600 | ||
Thank you brother- and I do offer my forgiveness. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
785 | Interpreting Revelation | Revelation | jlhetrick | 190603 | ||
Thanks brother! |
||||||
786 | weeping | Revelation | jlhetrick | 215293 | ||
Brother, I share in your enthusiasm. Allow me to play on your words to further make the point. I believe that even after hundreds of readings we still could never truly “grasp its depth”. Very often, I believe, that is precisely why these questions arise and, why they can only be answered (or speculated on) somewhat generally. Even with the words of Scripture and the work of the Spirit our minds are only capable of understanding or even imagining so much. I doubt that I could have even survived John’s experience and probably weeping would have been the least sign of my being overwhelmed. Of course, that’s still thinking with the human, finite mind. Had the Lord chosen to bless me as He did John, He would have sustained me through it for His purpose. I wonder how John, even with the inspiration provided, might have been frustrated by the limited use of language to explain such an event. |
||||||
787 | Jesus getting the keys to hell | Rev 1:18 | jlhetrick | 184782 | ||
Hello follower, Welcome to the forum :) Did you wish to ask a question or make a statement? |
||||||
788 | Blotted Out If We Reject Him | Rev 3:5 | jlhetrick | 171530 | ||
Easy Searcher, No one. Note, the wording is "I will not earase or blot out". So the answer is, no one is blotted out as far as this verse is concerned anyway. Furthermore, I don't find anything anywhere else in the bible that suggests a name is blotted out. I would relate this verse with the words of Jesus' in John 17:11-12. I know the debate on "losing salvation" has been covered many times on the forum, I doubt I could add to it. What I believe on the subject though was best stated by Paul. Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Rom 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? Rom 8:36 As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." Rom 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. Rom 8:38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, Rom 8:39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Praise God for that, Jeff |
||||||
789 | Blotted Out If We Reject Him | Rev 3:5 | jlhetrick | 171558 | ||
Hi brother Tim, Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Jeff |
||||||
790 | Blotted Out If We Reject Him | Rev 3:5 | jlhetrick | 171581 | ||
Hi Tim, Thanks for clarifying. Yes I agree, Christ would not promise something that He would not do. But I'm having trouble putting this together with the topic. God created us with an ability to apply logic and reason in our understanding of the Scriptures. But it is when we add assumption to what is written that our logic breakes down. You write: "Logically, those who do not overcome will: Not be clothed in white, will be blotted out of the book of life, and will not have their names confessed before the Father." Your assumption- that those names were ever written in the book of life before the foundations of the world. So your logic breaks down at that point. Furthermore, might it be considered an unkept promise if God were to write my name in the Book of Life, and then blott it out? God Bless, Jeff |
||||||
791 | Blotted Out If We Reject Him | Rev 3:5 | jlhetrick | 171582 | ||
Hi brother Tim, I don't want it to appear that you are being "teamed up on", but your theology is simply wrong, lacking to say the least brother. What makes you believe that Heb. 13:5b is a "general statement"? Your comments seems to contradict your own argument in this thread that Christ will not make a promise he will not keep. Sir, this is not a general statement. It is a promise made by the Lord. One that He is able to and absolutely will keep. I have nothing else to put my hope in, and the Scriptures offer me nothing else in which to have hope. Christ will never leave me nor forsake me. This is the reason, the only reason, that I will "overcome". Christ's Love, Jeff |
||||||
792 | Blotted Out If We Reject Him | Rev 3:5 | jlhetrick | 171588 | ||
Brother Tim, To make my position clear, I am learning to do all I can to never assume when it comes to the bible. I have made that greatest of errors over the years; time and time again. I am in the process of having to "unlearn" some things as a result; thanks be to the grace of God. I don't fit into any category that "assumes that a name CANNOT be blotted out". I am CURRENTLY at an understanding that NO name WILL be blotted out. My understanding is not an assumption in the abscense of Scripture. My understanding is based on where I currently am regarding my understanding of what is actually there in scripture (as presented in brief in this thread). So, this is a very different position from the "assumptions about this topic on both sides of the issue" that you present. By the way, as a point of curiosity, what do you believe it means to have one's name written in the Book of Life. In otherwords, what it the relevance of it? God bless, Jeff |
||||||
793 | Blotted Out If We Reject Him | Rev 3:5 | jlhetrick | 171595 | ||
Hello Brother Tim, Thanks for clarifying for me. I believe this hits the nail on the head (so to speak). Your right that it is not a conditional statement. I believe this is essential in really getting to the point of truth here. "I will never leave you nor forsake you". No conditions, no works, no if's you do or don't. Simply, I will never leave you nor forsake you. As the writer points out immediately before; it is for this reason that we are to continue to strive to do good and live holy lives. But doing so is not the condition. Isn't it an awesome and totally capable God that we were saved by? God bless, Jeff |
||||||
794 | Rev, Jesus states spew out of His mouth | Rev 3:16 | jlhetrick | 211777 | ||
John- good addition brother, thanks. Let's keep going. Jesus does want to give us an exit from our sin and Scripture promises that God will always provide an escape from temptation (1Cor. 10:13). The luke-warm person might be better understood in light of Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13. One foot in, one foot out. Doing the hockey pockey and turning oneself about in the pursuit of wealth, prestige and self-sufficiency while going through the motions of playing church. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
795 | Who is in heaven with Jesus right now? | Rev 7:9 | jlhetrick | 237152 | ||
Hi Jasper72 - Regarding your statement "As Chirst has said, these things which must shortly come to pass, they havent' happend yet" allow me to give a brief response. There are many who believe that most (if not all) of the prophecies in Revelation have been fulfilled. This is known as the “Preterist” view. There are many varying views and even within each view (Preterist, Historicist, Futurist, Spiritual - the main views as I understand it) there are varying degrees and positions taken. Years ago I read a book entitled Revelation: Four Views. I found it very informative in describing the approach taken by those holding the four “main views” though it didn’t necessarily help me arrive at my own conclusion. I eventually abandoned my developing fascination with prophecy for a more focused effort toward understanding and applying the essential doctrines related to salvation and discipleship. Others will be more equipped to give further insight here. |
||||||
796 | As saints can we be exempt? | Rev 13:7 | jlhetrick | 189210 | ||
Amen and amen! Very well said and appropriatly so. M.Royal - how might you in one statement say that we are exempt form persecution as described in Revelation 13:7 and then beg the question "As saints, are we not expected to face persecutions/tribulation from the antichrists as stated in the scripture?" Your own posts contradict. Please accept brother Steve's coaching. Now is a time for your study and perhapse, someday future, for teaching. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
797 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | jlhetrick | 204311 | ||
Dear Tamara- the passage in 1Cor 11 is not promoting Christian's getting drunk (not that I believe your saying that) but rather speaks OF it while speaking to inappropriate behavior. Also, on what basis do you say "Contrary to modern belief the wine at the Lord's supper was not watered down..."? If referring to 1 Cor. 11 then I've addressed that above. If you are referring to the time where our Lord actually instituted the "Lord's Supper" (as in Matthew 26:26) there is no reason to assume the "cup" contained an alcoholic wine, especially if basing the assumption on 1Cor. 11. We can assume a lot of things, but, Scirpture doesn't tell us that Jesus was drinking the wine at the wedding feast, so an assumption here wouldn't be recommended. I have heard some use John 2:10 as a license to drink alcohol (again, I'm not inferring that you are saying this- just point it out). A careful study doesn't even conclude that those at the feast were drunk or even drinking alcoholic wine, doesn't suggest in anyway that the water turned to wine was alcoholic, and again, gives no indication at all that Christ was consuming the wine, alcoholic or not. Hope this is helpful. Also, for everyone reading, type in the post number 2473 in the search box (upper right). I believe our brother Hank gave as good an answer that can be given on this whole topic way back in 2001. 2001- Hank, if your reading, you are old.... I mean, as a forum member. It's my opinion that further discussion on this issue would likely be redundant and unfruitful. God bless sister, Jeff |
||||||
798 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | jlhetrick | 204318 | ||
Tamara- quite sorry to have ruffled your feathers and ruffle them quite severely I did apparently. To begin with, I didn't ask a question, I simply pointed to the short-sighted assumptions and/or conclusions you had drawn in the post I was responding to. I take that as a responsibility as a forum participant. As for "curtailing" the discussion I was simply pointing to the fact that the issue has been discussed AND debated ad nauseam (in more forums than the internet and here). When all is said and done we are left with a lot of speculations (some more supported than others). It's not that I'm not interested in a rebuttal as you accuse, I only wanted to steer clear of repeating what's been repeated over and over again. As for your response to me I felt it unecessarily sarcastic and, should I say, almost volatile. And if I may say so ma'am, a "free discourse about Biblical concepts, doctrines and so on..." is something far different than engaging unecessarily in age old debates that those much more shcolarly than you and I can't even disagree on (especially when Scripture just doesn't finally, in the end, tell us). So again, I'm truly sorry to have offended you to the degree that you felt it necessary to respond in the way you did. Perhaps in our next interaction we will come closer together in a responsible, caring, and loving approach to bible study. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
799 | Define wine, please? | Rev 17:2 | jlhetrick | 204335 | ||
Thanks for the response Tamara. It took me a while to get used to using the search button to read topics that have been discussed here in-depth. Even still it doesn't seem as personal as I like since I'm reading things that were sometimes written and posted years ago. Still, that's one of the beauties of the SBF. It is a lengthy and growing record of the topic discussions and studies. It's not against the rules by the way to ask a question that's been asked before, but, it is a standard many of us here try to keep in trying to steer clear of devisive, debatable topics so that their not rehashed over and over again. For the new person coming on board I think it sometimes feels to them (perhaps true for you) that they are being personally attacked. Perhaps the way some of us approach it could be done more delicately so as not to cause offense or the need for defense. Again, I appologize if I've done that. I'm guessing by your participation so far that you are going to be one of the more beneficial participants as your sincerety and obvious love of God's word is so apparent. That is if you stick around and I for one hope you do. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
800 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | jlhetrick | 214197 | ||
Came in early for a meeting that was canceled so I had a few minutes (my home computer is still at Sony getting the hard-drive replaced). John, I believe you heard Mr. McGhee make the John Calvin Statement in the "Through the Bible" radio show. I'm not sure that he referred to himself as a "Calvinist" but I remember him indicating he is more in agreement with that camp. He did frequently comment regarding his assurdness that none have it all right indicating that he was not a follower, per se, of any man. While he pastored Prsbyterian churches he did not appear to place his faith in any denomination (my observation). A study of his work though, will clearly show his theology and that of Calvin to be very close in agreement. One of the most blessed theologins of modern times (in my opinion) he refused to mince words and stood very boldly on the foundation of Christ and God's holy word. Few, in my opinion, have been better able to articulate the sovereignty of God, the salvation of grace through faith in Christ, and the unquestionable and sole authority of Scripture. I don't know that the man ever referred to himself as a "Calvinist" (though he may have) but I would hesitate to hang any lable on him myself as in my observation of him he seemed to shun that sort of thing. I believe he understood the warning of Paul in 1 Corinthians. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ] Next > Last [41] >> |