Results 4041 - 4060 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4041 | Can one who commits suicide be saved? | Mark 3:28 | kalos | 3156 | ||
There is only one unforgivable sin. And it is neither divorce nor suicide. | ||||||
4042 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | kalos | 3140 | ||
."Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." 1 Cor 11:10 NASB. The fact of the husband's having authority over his wife is a Scriptural principle. As far as I can see, the woman submitting to the authority of her husband is primarily a Scriptural, not a cultural, issue. So are you saying that "because of the angels" is a local, cultural issue? I don't think so. We may not know the exact meaning of the phrase "because of the angels," but whatever the meaning it indicates the reason for the regulation is other than cultural. Yet, as far as keeping silent in the church, this indeed may have been because of local and cultural reasons. |
||||||
4043 | To capitalize or not to capitalize? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 3122 | ||
Dear Ray: I thank you for your input on this subject. God bless. --JVH0212 | ||||||
4044 | Did you know we did it? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 3120 | ||
I agree with you: who knows but that someone will come to Christ for salvation after reading something here that helped him? I would also say, it might be that someone who sifts through all the questions and comments herein presented and finds a reasonable answer will then be equipped to help point some precious soul to Christ. . . . And yes, you may have purple Welch's. Your unlimited, unhindered, unassailable freewill carries with it the right to choose purple grape juice over white. However, some of us, being mere puppets, have been predestined to drink white Welch's only. |
||||||
4045 | Is church attendance important? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 3116 | ||
Dear JonnyRay49423: Thanks for a very thorough answer, one that covers most and probably all the main reasons we Christians ought to attend church regularly. Someone is always making the comment, "Why go to church? You don't have to go to church to get to heaven." Maybe not, but going to church is something a person does because he is already a Christian, not something he does in order to become one. Having read your excellent, good-sense answer, I sincerely wish that you could be with me when I hear this challenge thrown out by someone seeking to justify his own non-attendance at church. --JVH0212 | ||||||
4046 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 3111 | ||
In general, I agree with the essence of your answer, that God is NOT responsible for evil. I might add: I know the Bible clearly teaches both the sovereignty of God and the limited freewill of man. But I do hope you're not implying that God's sovereignty ends where man's freewill begins. The sovereignty of God never ends. (I do not say that you mean to imply the above, I am just expressing my concern.) | ||||||
4047 | Did James (author) know as much as Paul? | James | kalos | 3098 | ||
Correction: delete Timothy; add James. . . . Correction: In the line that says: "in short, Timothy is speaking of", delete "Timothy" and add "James". |
||||||
4048 | Wise Debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 3097 | ||
I agree with almost everything you wrote in your answer. As far as Lockman monitoring this Forum, I'm not so sure that would be a good idea. It may not be a bad idea either. I'm just saying that I am not convinced one way or the other. . . . I agree that the ideal Forum would be one in which people for the most part limited their postings to Bible questions that can be addressed with Bible answers. Like you, I don't care for all the arrogance, arguing, quibbling, hairsplitting over every jot and tittle, everyone calling everyone else everything from heretic to apostate, etc. I usually don't take the time to read the theological, hypothetical, philosophical, speculative debates that go on and on with insufficient Scripture to support what the authors assert. . . . The type of questions that I feel are inappropiate to this Forum and its format are those that want an explanation for WHY God did this or that? Is God fair? Does this passage really mean what it says? Where did Cain get his wife? (I would love, just once, to answer this question by asking the questioner: "More importantly, where did YOU get YOUR wife?") Also inappropriate are questions asking someone to explain the unexplainable; questions like Where is the garden of Eden?; Is there intelligent life on earth?; Is there life after high school?; as well as questions that clearly ask for a speculative answer, i.e. ones where everybody knows the Scripture is silent on the subject. . . . In general, I try to support my answers with relevant and clear passages of Scripture. When giving my opinion I try to remember to come right out and label it as my opinion, not as doctrine or dogma. Where the Bible is silent on a subject, I prefer to remain silent, too, unless known archaeological, medical, historic or cultural *evidence* can shed some light on the question. Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has the right to be wrong. . . . Every man has a right to an opinion, but I do not come to the Forum either to look for or to post questions and comments unsubstantiated by Scripture. Or to look for those comments that can only quote one verse, usually out of context, to support the author's answer. Or those postings that shed no light on the subject, but instead quibble over the other person's wording of his question or comment. When people build a doctrine based on one word or one punctuation mark in one sentence, I'm just not interested. I don't have time for that. (See Deut 29:29.) . . . Thank you, EdB, for a very thoughtful and well-written answer. God bless. --JVH0212 |
||||||
4049 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 3050 | ||
Your answer makes several valid points. Nevertheless, the question remains: "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE PLAINLY SAY about the purpose of His baptism?" Maybe I should have phrased the question, "What does Jesus plainly say is the reason for him to be baptized," since Jesus Himself plainly answered the question when he said "to fulfill all righteousness." Matt 3:14-15 NASB But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS (emphasis mine)." Then he *permitted Him. |
||||||
4050 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | kalos | 3045 | ||
Interestingly, you write: "As far as the hair issue, I believe Paul is addressing a cultural issue." A cultural issue. Really? . . ."Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." 1 Cor 11:10 NASB. . . . "11:10. *because of the angels.* The insubordination of an uncovered woman (signifying her refusal to recognize the authority of her husband) would offend the angels who observe the conduct of believers in their church gatherings (1 Pet 1:12)" (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody, 1976, 1978). . . . The regulation regarding an uncovered woman (read the verse in the context) was given "because of the angels," i.e., so as to not offend the angels. Since it is "because of the angels," how can one say it is a cultural issue? "Because of the angels" and "to address cultural issues", it seems to me, are two mutually exclusive things. I.e., it has everything to do with not offending the angels and nothing whatever to do with local culture. |
||||||
4051 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | kalos | 3044 | ||
Interestingly, you write: "As far as the hair issue, I believe Paul is addressing a cultural issue." A cultural issue. Really? . . ."Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." 1 Cor 11:10 NASB. . . . "11:10. *because of the angels.* The insubordination of an uncovered woman (signifying her refusal to recognize the authority of her husband) would offend the angels who observe the conduct of believers in their church gatherings (1 Pet 1:12)" (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody, 1976, 1978). . . . The regulation regarding an uncovered woman (read the verse in the context) was given "because of the angels," i.e., so as to not offend the angels. Since it is "because of the angels," how can one say it is a cultural issue? "Because of the angels" and "to address cultural issues", it seems to me, are two mutually exclusive things. I.e., it has everything to do with not offending the angels and nothing whatever to do with local culture. |
||||||
4052 | Did James (author) know as much as Paul? | James | kalos | 3011 | ||
Correction: Dear Inerrant Word: I agree with your fine answer. And for anyone to argue that one passage of Scripture actually contradicts another passage is to deny that "all Scripture is inspired by God." Who superintended the writing of Romans? The Holy Spirit. Who superintended the writing of James? The Holy Spirit. Who superintended the writing of the Mosaic Law? The Holy Spirit. . . . The Bible, while it may contain "apparent" contradiction, actually contains no contradiction at all. Paradox maybe, but not contradiction. . . . May I add: in short, James (not Timothy as in my earlier posting) is speaking of being justified in the eyes of *men," while Paul is teaching about being justified in the eyes of *God.* Not pointing a finger at anyone in particular, but whoever does not understand the distinction between and harmony of James and Romans is in no position to be confident that he is "a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes." Time to go back to Bible Basics 101. |
||||||
4053 | New book answers ?? on women teaching | 1 Tim 2:12 | kalos | 2997 | ||
I'm not sure I would accept without qualification or reservation everything I read in Charisma magazine. But, I thank you for making the points you did in your posting. Speaking only for myself (a U.S. Male and former U.S. Marine), it is about time someone exposed how that in the church women have been kept in spiritual bondage by the tradition of man. | ||||||
4054 | Can a deacon drink wine with dinner? | 1 Tim 3:3 | kalos | 2996 | ||
You write: "Grace supplanted work as the answer to finding favor with God...." Did it? Neither work (nor works) nor the deeds of the Law ever were the means to find favor with God. Abraham is cited as an example of justification by faith. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Please read carefully Rom 3:28, the first 6 chapters of Romans, and the entire book of Galatians. | ||||||
4055 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | kalos | 2993 | ||
I do not disagree with your definition and defense of the word "accept". But should we not, as Bible-believing Christians, be using Biblical terminology to discuss and describe Biblical issues, even in everyday conversation? Note also that the term "accept Christ" is used not only in everyday conversation among laymen, but also from the pulpit, where qualified preachers are supposed to be rightly dividing the Word of Truth. This may sound nitpicky, but I feel it is still important to impart Biblical truth using Biblical words. When Christ Himself, as well as the inspired men who penned the words of Scripture, used the words "believe" and "receive", who are we to substitute the word "accept"? Surely believe and receive are not obscure, obsolete Middle English words that are no longer in use today. | ||||||
4056 | New book answers ?? on women teaching | 1 Tim 2:12 | kalos | 2989 | ||
What do I think 1 Tim 2:12 means? I think it must mean what it says, that a woman is not allowed "to teach or exercise authority over a man." But is she forbidden to teach other women and children? That is not what the text SAYS. We know what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS. | ||||||
4057 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | kalos | 2986 | ||
Thank you, Mark McIntyre, for further clarification of the subject and of the three verses in question. | ||||||
4058 | Did James (author) know as much as Paul? | James | kalos | 2985 | ||
Dear Inerrant Word: I agree with your fine answer. And for anyone to argue that one passage of Scripture actually contradicts another passage is to deny that "all Scripture is inspired by God." Who superintended the writing of Romans? The Holy Spirit. Who superintended the writing of James? The Holy Spirit. Who superintended the writing of the Mosaic Law? The Holy Spirit. . . . The Bible, while it may contain "apparent" contradiction, actually contains no contradiction at all. Paradox maybe, but not contradiction. . . . May I add: in short, Timothy is speaking of being justified in the eyes of *men," while Paul is teaching about being justified in the eyes of *God.* Not pointing a finger at anyone in particular, but whoever does not understand the distinction between and harmony of James and Romans is in no position to be confident that he is "a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes." Time to go back to Bible Basics 101. |
||||||
4059 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | kalos | 2878 | ||
Good idea. The subject itself, non-Bible doctrine, is a favorite topic of mine for coffee shop conversations, especially with one or two of my preacher (pastor) friends. The rural church I formerly attended was a gold mine for such beliefs. And the folks there were very resistant to changing their beliefs. A typical response to a clear verse of Scripture contradicting their pet beliefs was to dismiss or explain away the Bible passage, and cling to their tried, though untrue, beliefs. If such a list or essay would ruffle some feathers, then those feathers need to be ruffled. I have no interest in being "right." However, it is my duty to counter error with Truth, which by the way, is what you will have abundant opportunities to do on this Forum, if you stick around. And I hope you do. --JVH0212 | ||||||
4060 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2866 | ||
There is more than one interpretation of the doctrine of the rapture, as is the case with many Bible doctrines, especially when it comes to the doctrine of future things (prophecy). . . . The main differences of opinion concern the time of the rapture. The primary theories are: 1) Pretribulation rapture; 2) Midtribulation rapture; 3) Posttribulation rapture; 3) Partial rapture, which is sort of a Marine Corps rapture where only the perfect, only the brave, only the few are worthy to be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out; 5) Postmillenial rapture; and 6) Amillenialist rapture. Take your pick. (. . . There is also the new theory of No Rapture.) . . . For detailed explanations of the above views of the rapture, see the Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, in Ryrie's article A SYNOPSIS OF BIBLE DOCTRINE, The Doctrine of Future Things. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 ] Next > Last [212] >> |