Results 1 - 20 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | BradK | 235880 | ||
Hello EdB, I hear your concern. So, what do you suggest is needed to effectively remedy this situation? Can you offer specific steps and/or actions needed that would work toward righting this wrong? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
2 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | BradK | 235858 | ||
Hi Ed, Here's my take on this matter. From our time on the Forum, I realize you have some issues- objections to Calvinism in particular. Perhaps, other posters specifically? I understand this. Be that as it may, your or my personal feelings of what we like or dislike should not be the guide of discussions. That's why Lockman has set up specific Terms of Use. I would tend to agree with Beja since I think he's spoken with clarity on this. The Forum has no guideline that stipulates that no one can hold a certain theological position. We all have our own views on doctrines that I would call important but not essential. In other words they don't pertain to Salvation or the core of Historic Orthodoxy. Hopefully these are shaped by scripture. Regarding Cessationism vs Continuationism, there are simply no specific scriptures that say either "the gifts still continue" or "sign gifts have ceased"- if we're honest. But we do face a fork in the road as we will generally adopt one view or the other. We must then synthesize our views from scripture. The problem arises when we can't discuss these issues irenically (peacefully)- which is often the case. There is, again, much emotional tie-in to both sides which creates the difficulty. This is where the Forum guidelines come into play. I see 2 guiding principles that must be followed to have irenic discussions: 1. About Postings- "...They must not be submitted as an effort to foster debates, arguments, divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or disruptions to this forum." 2. Pushing ones own personal and denominational views- "Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division." So, as I understand it, we are free to hold our views on these theological positions and voice them in discussion threads as long as we follow the set guidelines. Way easier said than done, I realize from experience. The Study Bible Forum may well at certain times have a balance that tips in the favor of one view over another. That's just how it is. As I've told my daughters many times, "Life isn't fair, get used to it". I know we don't like to hear that, but it still applies to us, even as adults! If we truly come here to learn and seek to understand where each other is coming from, I know there's much benefit that can be gained and we can all learn and grow in our faith. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | BradK | 235844 | ||
Hello Edb, Allow me to share my perspective on 2 points: 1. In all fairness, I can find 3 positions regarding the question as to whether God still speaks today: Continuationism- This view holds that miraculous sign gifts are still being given and, therefore, God still speaks directly in various ways today. Hard Cessationism- This view holds that miraculous gifts ceased with the death of the last apostle and the completion of the New Testament. Therefore God does not speak directly to people today. Soft Cessationism- This view holds that miraculous sign gifts could still be given today, but believers need to be careful about outright acceptance of people's claims of possession. I personally would be in the Soft-Cessationist camp. In saying so, I have modified my view from that of a Hard Cessationist over the years from study:-) While this is certainly an important issue and one that carries much emotional baggage, I don't feel it a test of fellowship. It's not a core doctrine of Historic Orthodoxy; 2. Regarding Doc's statement. I realize you find it objectionable, but I don't see any "violation of forum guidelines". While I also don't want to presume to speak for him, he is free to share his view regarding this matter. He did so. You are as well. You did so. I fail to see this as any violation, my friend. Sorry! Doc is not pressing this matter or carrying on with any bias, so beyond your objection to his view, what's the problem? I don't see one:-) May we simply agree to disagree agreeably on this point? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
4 | How do you feel about the Ten Commandmen | Ephesians | BradK | 235822 | ||
Hello Steve, A few questions: Do you keep all of the commandments?; Are you then keeping the commandments for your righteousess before God? What is the basis for your salvation? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
5 | How do you feel about the Ten Commandmen | Ephesians | BradK | 235820 | ||
Hello brrrilliantsteve, You said, "ALL Ten commandments are binding today" In what way? Must we keep the commandments to be saved or for righteousness? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
6 | Live over 2000 years Old | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 235814 | ||
Fmp, The burden of proof is on you as you are making the assertion. My reply shouldn't require this anyway. I do not seek to debate this matter with you. Speaking the Truth in Love. BradK |
||||||
7 | Live over 2000 years Old | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 235808 | ||
fmp: I stand by my response as stated! BradK |
||||||
8 | Live over 2000 years Old | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 235792 | ||
Hello fmp, Please familiarize yourself with the Terms of Use and About Forum. You implicity agree to these terms when you register. To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
9 | Live over 2000 years Old | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 235780 | ||
Hello fmp, You stated, "All the evidence, therefore, indisputably points to the fact that the Lord’s prophecy regarding the coming kingdom, as set forth in Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27, came to fruition on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after the death of Christ." I think it more realistic to say that 'some of the evidence' may point to this, and there is much that can be disputed about this supposed fulfillment. I will agree that Preterism is a legitimate eschatological view within the pale of Orthodoxy. Yet, it remains a minority view at that. I find that telling in and of itself! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
10 | would u still go to hell | 1 John 3:9 | BradK | 235753 | ||
Hello fmp, I agree with the first part of your response. One is either "en Christo" and saved, or not- according to Eph. 1:7. However, I'm not following your reasons for one being "unsaved" and Hell being their distination(sic)? Where exactly do we find this supported by scripture? Your reply seems a bit dogmatic! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
11 | How many layers of meaning in the Bible? | 2 Tim 2:1 | BradK | 235537 | ||
OK | ||||||
12 | How many layers of meaning in the Bible? | 2 Tim 2:1 | BradK | 235528 | ||
Helsrisen, It might help to know what your theological presuppositions are? What do you believe regarding scripture itself? Is it the inspired, infallible Word of God? However, scripture only has one meaning- the one intended by the original(inspired) author, to the audience he was writting, within the context. The 1 Cor. 9:9-10 passage you're referring to needs to be interpreted within the context in which it was written. In other words, you can't pull a verse out, isolate it, and say, "this is what it means". Given the above, Possibly the question you're asking is Can a Text have more than one meaning? Yes, it can have more than one meaning if the human author conciously intended multiple meanings of his work. In this case, did Paul intend 2 meanings? Without further clarification I'd be very careful in saying "Two audiences, two meanings, both intended by the author." How do you know this? You're making an assumption without providing much support! Again, does the reader detrmine the meaning, the text determine the meaning or does the Author determine the meaning? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
13 | Ridding myself of guilt and fear | James 5:16 | BradK | 235422 | ||
Hello Happy Soul, Thanks for your response and your honesty. I do understand what you’re saying. Based on what you said, I think we’re dealing with two issues; salvation (how we are saved) and sanctification (how we are to live as saved people). As Dr. Jerry Benjamin has said, “The purpose of the Christian life is not to see how close to the edge we can live, but how close to our Savior we can get”. I think there’s a great deal of wisdom in those words. So to be clear, I’m not advocating any type of “easy-believe-ism” or “cheap grace”. In defining belief, I want to make sure we’re on the same page. Belief is not mere intellectual assent. My working definition of true faith- which the Reformers held- consists of three essential components: “knowledge” (Heb. 11:6) “assent” (Heb. 11:1; Is. 40-48; Ex. 4:1-9), and “trust”. Allow me to answer through some select quotes from Dr. James Raiford in his book, “The Camouflaged Church”. I agree with what he says because I believe it mirrors the message of scripture- at least as I understand it. I chose to quote him since he also speaks with a lot of clarity on the important distinctions. He states in Chapter Two: The Soldier’s Main Battle Weapon, “ Practically, the common situation among Christians sounds like this, ‘Is so and so a Christian?’ ‘He can’t be, he doesn’t act like a saved person’. There is no fruit displayed in his life.” “Two responses to this error can be stated at this point. First, salvation is by grace through faith, not based on any activity or lifestyle. Second, such a position as having to prove the reality of personal salvation clearly denies the doctrine of carnality as stressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 3 and Romans 6-7. Requiring proof to certify the reality of genuine regeneration contradicts 1 Cor. 3, as well as Hebrews 5:11-14. These passages identify categories of believers within the body as being carnal weak (immaturity) and the carnal willful states, such as spiritual infants, and adults.”’ He goes on to state that, “It takes great effort to deny that salvation is by grace alone and faith alone.” The problem is, “many who profess to be saved live like the unsaved! This is a real problem among the people of God and those seeking to solve it are to be commended for observing the problem and attempting to solve it.” This creates another problem as he notes, “ But the proposed solution of distorting the gospel of grace by adding works, and evidence and other requirements is unnecessary and certainly unauthorized by the Word of God.” To that, I say a hearty, “Amen”. I’ve been in a church where it was regularly proclaimed from the pulpit that, “If He (Jesus) isn’t Lord of all, He’s not Lord at all”! That’s not scriptural, in fact IMO, directly contradicts Acts 2:36 that says, “…That God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ”. Christ is Lord whether we acknowledge it or not. This segues into the matter of sanctification. Using manipulative language that attempt to shame people into obedience, doesn’t substitute for the Holy Spirit! He makes an important qualifying note in saying, “No one who is familiar with the Word of God would deny the fact that God designs and desires his people to live holy, righteously and godly after personal salvation”! [Eph. 2:10] Here’s the important distinction: “ What God requires for obtaining eternal life differs greatly from what he requires for living a godly life. When lifestyle becomes the measurement standard to determine possessing eternal life, then error has already corrupted a grace alone, faith alone doctrine of salvation. The presence of good works can give evidence of the reality of genuine regeneration but the lack of such good works does not necessarily prove that there is a false salvation.” Conversely, “ the evidence of good works in the lives of the unsaved does not demonstrate that they are saved.” “Works are no criteria to determine genuine salvation or the assurance of salvation.” They do matter- as James definitely speaks to the practical side of salvation- but they aren’t the sole determining factor! To sum up what he is saying is this: “ The camouflage of confusing salvation passages with sanctification truth is extremely common yet equally dangerous for the body of Christ”. I see this as the fallacy of attempting to prove that a godly lifestyle is required or one is not genuinely saved. I think this is the major concern that you are alledging? To close, “When a biblical writer states conditions for receiving eternal life he is clear when he states it is by grace through faith. The Bible always makes a clear distinction between obtaining eternal life and living a life for the glory of God.” I hope this dialog helps you to better understand and bring clarity to this sometimes confusing issue. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
14 | Creation and Restoration of the Earth | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 235394 | ||
My dear Mr. Smith: I'm sorry, but your argument makes absolutley no sense! What does Gen. 1:1 have to do with this matter? How do you know the earth is millions of years old? Says who? Were you there? There is absolutely no Biblical support for the notion you're entertaining that there was a flood prior to Noah! None! It is pure speculation! Where are you getting this notion from? Did you arrive at these conclusion soley from your own study? Did you study or read others that held this view? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
15 | Creation and Restoration of the Earth | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 235389 | ||
Hello Mr. Smith, If I may observe a couple things and then comment: 1. You seem to dismiss and disagree with the things you cannot sufficiently answer. Simply disagreeing with EdB doesn't validate YOUR view; 2. Anything regarding a Pre-Noahic flood is pure speculation! If you give speculative theology an inch it'll take you a couple of miles (Peake) So, where in scripture is there specific proof to this notion? What is your evidence? Just saying that it's God's Word because you say it, doesn't hold water, my friend... 82 years old or not. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
16 | Verses where God the Son is symbolized a | Ex 13:21 | BradK | 235354 | ||
2 Tim. 2:15! | ||||||
17 | Ridding myself of guilt and fear | James 5:16 | BradK | 235327 | ||
Hello Happy Soul, My question was based upon how I read your proof text of scriptures regarding salvation. In other words your use of certain texts portayed a Soteriological view. I don't know that you are, but it's merely an educated guess:-) Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand what you're saying (from your posts), I get the sense that you take more of a "works-based' approach to salvation, than I would. In other words, you seem to be implying that we cooperate with God in the salvation process. My position is that we are entirely saved by grace through faith in Christ- per Eph. 2:8-9! Salvation is one of the essential doctrines of our faith- and critically important at that. We need to clearly understand how we are saved (scripturally)- and be just as clear in communicating that to others, so as to prevent confusion. Do I "limit God in His capacity to enlighten individuals without beng affiliated wiht any one group or denomination"? Of course not! None of can limit God- He alone is Sovereign, "who works all things after the counsel of His will," (Eph. 1:11). My reason for inquiring of your affiliation -maybe better termed your "theological basis"- is to understand your presuppositions with regard to Orthodoxy. How do you view and understand the essential doctrines of our faith. By knowing this, I can better understand where you're coming from and respond accordingly. Feel free to checkout my User Profile to get to know me better:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
18 | Ridding myself of guilt and fear | James 5:16 | BradK | 235288 | ||
Church of Christ? | ||||||
19 | Ridding myself of guilt and fear | James 5:16 | BradK | 235280 | ||
Hello Happy Soul, You said, "You can only be included in the Kingdom of God through baptism (being born again) see John 3:1-8" Again, which is it? It cannot be both water and spiritual, for then you are mixing grace and works. The two are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation. Then you said, "Any future sins committed and the guilt that we might suffer after committing such sins can be alleviated through prayers and supplications to the Father and from prayers offered on our behalf by confessing our sins to others of like faith"? Is Christ's sacrifice on the cross not sufficiento atone for all our sins? (Cf. Eph. 1:7, 4:32, Col. 2:13; 3:13) I agree that it's true that according to Eph. 1:7, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace." (NASB) However, you've added " but only through obedient faith by our baptism is this process completed in Him."? How so? That's not what Eph. 1:7 says. We're told our redemption and forgiveness are, "...according to the riches of His grace.", not through obedient faith by our baptism. That's clearly adding to Christ's finished work! Gal. 2:16 is quite clear: "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified." It's either all of grace or it's not (Rom. 11:6) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
20 | Ridding myself of guilt and fear | James 5:16 | BradK | 235260 | ||
Hello Hasppy Soul, I'm not sure what your assumption that they have not been baptized would have to do with the reason for their guilt? What's the connection? Is the baptism to which you refer water or spiritual? One is either "in Christ" (en Christo), or not! Eph. 1:7 tells us, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [97] >> |