Results 1 - 20 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | is the oldest man immortal | Gen 5:27 | Makarios | 228106 | ||
two strikes against his immortality? --Makarios | ||||||
2 | What is adamic covenant? | Gen 2:16 | Makarios | 227886 | ||
Greetings Beja, While it is clear that Adam transgressed against God, I do not believe that this verse actually states that there was, in fact, a covenant between God and Adam. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3 | when is one spit out? can door be opened | Rom 11:5 | Makarios | 227586 | ||
Thank you, dear Brother! All to the glory of our Savior. Your co-worker in Christ, Makarios :) | ||||||
4 | gods blessing goes to younger not older | Bible general Archive 4 | Makarios | 226950 | ||
Greetings Cheagan! In Chilis's original question, they actually asked for Old Testament references. But thank you for the input! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
5 | forgivness of sins | John 3:16 | Makarios | 226188 | ||
Continuing the discussion DD4Truth, You state, "Now concerning baptism, the scripture also clearly teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation." Dealt with that in Part #1. When you mention John 3:5 and 3:36, it becomes clear that you interpret 'faith' as a verb to also connotate 'obedience,' when "A man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28). The context of John 3 clears up Jesus' intended meaning. Being "born again" simply refers to the act of God by which He gives eternal life to the one who believes in Christ (John 3:3; Titus 3:5). Being "born again" places the one who believes into God's eternal family (1 Peter 1:23) and gives the believer a new capacity and desire to please the Father (2 Cor. 5:17). Now, when John 3:1-5 mentions "that which is born of the flesh", flesh can only reproduce itself as flesh and cannot pass muster with God (Rom. 8:8)- it must be "after its kind" (Genesis 1). So, likewise, the Spirit produces spirit. Therefore, when one is "born of the water" in verse 5, it is parallel to being "born of the flesh" in verse 6, just as "born of ... the Spirit" in verse 5 is parallel to "born of the Spirit" in verse 6. As a result, John 3:5 and 3:36 has nothing to do with water baptism. Instead of seeing faith as an act of obedience on our part, faith is something wrought by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:9; Romans 10:17), making us able to glorify the Lord (Ephesians 1:12). It is the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation that gives us the will and desire to glorify Christ. Concerning Acts 2:38, Pastor Beja gave a great response in Post# 226181, and azurelaw provided a website that I would also highly recommend for you in Post# 226182 (the website was: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html). You are struggling with Mark 16:16, stating, "Again, both words are linked by the word and." It is good that you remember the subject, but a correct understanding of the sentence is made complete by examing the entire sentence- everything after the word 'but'! You cannot expect to obtain a proper understanding of a verse if you don't look at the entire sentence. The verse clearly put the emphasis on belief, stating that unbelief is what condemns you, not a lack of being baptized. As for the verses that you have mentioned in Acts, these verses have to do with baptism only and not salvation. I hope that this helps you in your journey, Makarios |
||||||
6 | forgivness of sins | John 3:16 | Makarios | 226187 | ||
Greetings again DD4Truth! Yes, it is true that faith in Christ alone (to the exclusion of everything else) saves a person. What is faith? For a Biblical definition, I would recommend the following: Romans 4:5, 23-25; 5:1 You stated, "The only time faith alone is used in the scripture is in James 2:24"... Close to 200 times in the New Testament salvation is said to be by faith alone- with no works in sight! Recall that in Acts 16:31 the jailer asked Paul and Silas how to be saved, and they responded, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." The jailer believed and immediately became saved. Also, the thief on the cross was saved, but never baptized (Luke 23:42-43). John 3:15 says that "everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." John 5:24 says, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 11:25 Jesus says, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies." John 12:46 says, "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." John 20:31 says, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." If salvation were not by faith alone, then Jesus' message in the Gospel of John- shown briefly in the above quotations- would be deceptive, stating that there is one condition for salvation when there are allegedly two- faith and works. But I cannot emphasize this enough: we are saved by faith for works. Works are not the condition of our salvation, but a consequence of it. We are saved not by works, but by the kind of faith that produces works. Thank you for mentioning Galatians 3:5, which explains that circumcision was the human response by the children of Israel to the promise of God as conveyed in the covenant.. Just as baptism for the believer today is the human response of identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. As mentioned above, you referenced James 2:24. There are no real contradictions in the Bible. In the context, James is concerned with "justification" (that is, "declaring righteous") by man, whereas Paul is talking about being justified by God. Man necessarily must judge by what he sees, and he cannot look into another man's heart to ascertain whether he really has saving faith or not. So, James says, "I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18) Paul does not contradict this, but is fully in agreement with the principle that genuine faith will inevitably show itself in works: see Ephesians 2:10. Therefore, "good works" come as a result of a faith that is truly genuine. In this post that I am responding to, you go on to mention 1 Cor. 13:2; 16:22; Luke 13:3; Matt. 12:41; Jonah 3:10; Hebrews 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:8; Ephesians 1:7 and Romans 1:16, summing all of that up by saying, "The scripture clearly teaches that faith, obedience, repentance, the blood of Jesus (Eph 1:7), grace, love, the gospel (Rom 1:16) are all necessary for salvation." The problem here that I see in the interpretation that you have given is that the only real requirement in all of these verses is faith in Jesus Christ. Galatians 2:16 says, "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." If a person is depending in any way upon his own righteousness or good works to earn his salvation, he may very well not be saved at all, since basically he is trusting in himself and what he is doing, rather than in Christ and what He has done. I pray that this response is received constructively! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
7 | Do babies go to Hell? Born w/ sin nature | Matt 18:3 | Makarios | 226173 | ||
Greetings DD4Truth, you are welcome! In my near 10 year history at this Forum, I have burned the midnight oil quite a few times over the years... I have learned that I have to quit posting when I am really tired or else I just cannot concentrate towards anyone's benefit. :) Blessings to you, Makarios | ||||||
8 | forgivness of sins | John 3:16 | Makarios | 226133 | ||
Greetings DD4Truth! Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone, and water baptism is not necessary for salvation. John 3:16-17 presents a clear, excellent example: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Now, in Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins", the word 'for' is understood in a causal, or resultant, sense. Therefore, the verse could be paraphrased: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of (or as a result of) the remission of sins." You don't get baptized in order to attain the remission of your sins, you get baptized following the salvation experience. In Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Without delving into the textual criticism of whether or not this verse should actually be in the Bible (By the way, I agree with you that it should be there!), it is 'unbelief' that brings the condemnation, not a lack of being baptized. When a person rejects the gospel in a refusal to believe it, then that person is condemned to face judgment. Paul writes, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1 Cor. 1:17). Here, Paul clearly draws a distinction between baptism and the gospel. And since it is the gospel that saves (1 Cor. 15:1-2), baptism is clearly not necessary to attain salvation. It is our faith in Christ that saves us (Acts 16:31; John 3:16), not baptism. Baptism is a public profession of faith that identifies us with Christ. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
9 | Do babies go to Hell? Born w/ sin nature | Matt 18:3 | Makarios | 226131 | ||
Greetings DD4Truth! You ask, "What sin is the newborn baby guilty of?" Answer: Nothing! "Also, is it the flesh of the baby that is gulity of the sin, the spirit of the baby that is guilty, or both?" Answer: None of the above! Please re-read my previous post. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
10 | Did God the Father create Jesus | Bible general Archive 4 | Makarios | 226094 | ||
Greetings DD4Truth, Good questions! 1) 1 Cor. 11:3 - Just in what sense is God the "head" of Christ? Actually, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with inferiority or superiority of one person over another; rather, it has to do with patterns of authority. Example: If husband and wife are both created in God's image (Gen. 1:26-28) and said to be "one" in Christ (Gal. 3:28), then husband and wife can be completely equal in terms of their nature, but assume different places in a functional hierarchy (1 Cor. 11:3). In the same way, the Father and Son are equal in their divine being (Jesus said "I and the Father are one" - John 10:30), even though Jesus is functionally under the Father's headship (1 Cor. 11:3). 2) 1 Cor. 15:24-28 - The Son will be made subject to the Father in the sense that God the Father is the administrative Head (see answer to #1 above). This verse does not suggest that the Son is in any way inferior to the Father. All three persons of the Trinity are equal in deity. 3) Matt. 12:32 - Basically, whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven and the person is guilty of a sin that not even eternity can wipe out. If we are to understand what this means we must first understand the circumstances in which it was said. It was said by Jesus when the Scribes and Pharisees had declared that the cures He wrought were not from God's power, but from the power of the devil. Now, the Holy Spirit reveals God's Truth (2 Peter 1:21) and enables men to recognize the Truth (John 14:26). If a person believes in Christ, so long as he hates his sin even if he cannot leave it completely, even in the mud and the filth, he or she can still be forgiven. It is only when a person has a hardness of heart in such a way that the calling of Christ means absolutely nothing to them; they have shut themselves out forever from the love of God - then, even the Resurrection of Christ is unable to move their heart. This is the sin against the Holy Spirit that cannot be forgiven. So, those who say that Christ did miracles from the power of the devil rather than the power of God - it is of this very same hardness of heart that can blind a man to look at the incarnate love of God and think that it was the 'incarnate' power of Satan. In conclusion, in no way is the Son or the Holy Spirit inferior to God the Father in deity. All three persons of the Trinity are equal in deity, but assume different functions within a functional hierarchy (1 Cor. 11:3). I hope this helps! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
11 | Did God the Father create Jesus | Bible general Archive 4 | Makarios | 226005 | ||
Greetings jonathandunlap30@gmail.com, "Does the fact that Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of His return except the Father mean that He is less than God Almighty (Mark 13:32)?" "No. But explaining this issue requires a little theological background. Though a bit complex, the eternal Son of God was, prior to the Incarnation, one in person and nature (wholly divine). In the Incarnation, He bacame two in nature (divine and human) while remaining one person. "Thus Christ at the same moment in time had what seem to be contradictory qualities. He was finite and yet infinite, weak and yet omnipotent, increasing in knowledge and yet omniscient, limited to being in one place at one time and yet omnipresent. It was only from His humanity that Christ could say that He didn't know the day or hour of His return. In His humanity, Jesus was not omniscient but was limited in understanding jsut as all human beings are. If Jesus had been speaking from the perspective of His divinity, He wouldn't have said the same thing. "Scripture is abundantly clear that in His divine nature, Jesus is omniscient- just as omniscient as the Father is. The apostle John said that Jesus "did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man" (John 2:25). Jesus' disciples said, "Now we can see that you know all things" (16:30). After the Resurrection, when Jesus asked Peter for the third time if Peter loved Him, Peter responded: "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you" (21:17). Jesus knew just where the fish were in the water (Luke 5:4-6; John 21:6-11), and He knew just which fish contained the coin (Matthew 17:27). He knows the Father as the Father knows Him (Matthew 11:27; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15; 17:25)." (1) So, Christ in His deity is omniscient. It is only from the perspective of His humanity that He did not know the time of the Second Coming. Source: (1) pg. 94, The Complete Book of Bible Answers, 1997 by Ron Rhodes, Harvest House Publishers Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
12 | Caleb from the tribe of Judah? | Num 13:6 | Makarios | 225965 | ||
Greetings Doc, This is definitely a constructive additional insight to this passage about Joshua and Caleb and the rest of the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. Thank you for your very thoughtful answer! It also makes me wonder what other Rabbinical teachings there are that would shed some light on otherwise rather obscure meanings or passages in Scripture. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
13 | Caleb from the tribe of Judah? | Num 13:6 | Makarios | 225912 | ||
Greetings again Searcher, I've been trying to find out more about Caleb in Chronicles, thinking about what you said about Caleb's mother, and here's what I found out: * Caleb's father was Jephunneh, a Kenizzite (Josh. 14:14) * Jephunneh was a son of Jether (1 Chr. 7:38) * Jether was a son of Ezrah (1 Chr. 4:17) 1 Chr. 4:17 "The sons of Ezrah were Jether, Mered, Epher and Jalon. (And these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took) and she conceived and bore Miriam, Shammai and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa." So, if the 'Ezrah' in 1 Chr. 4:17 is really Caleb's great-grandfather, then I find it rather confusing that only 2 verses above (1 Chr. 4:15), it says "The sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh were Iru, Elah and Naam; and the son of Elah was Kenaz." So, if the sons of Caleb are listed two verses before the geneaology of Caleb's great-grandfather, then I doubt that this 'Ezrah' in 1 Chr. 4:17 is related in any way to Caleb. I find this thread rather interesting because, if the Ezrah in 1 Chr. 4:17 is really related to Caleb, then it would further substantiate your point on Exodus 12:38. Sometimes looking at all of the names in Chronicles (and trying to make sense of them) gives me a headache and I have to take a break.. :) Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
14 | Caleb from the tribe of Judah? | Num 13:6 | Makarios | 225910 | ||
Greetings Doc! Thank you for your reply. I've got to say, your reply (especially #1) has definitely given me something to think about! So, according to Rabbinic teaching, as long as you could trace your ancestry back to Mount Sinai, then your status as a Jew was secure, even if you might have been an Egyptian (Exodus 12:38) just a short while before. If I am interpreting this correctly, then the Israelites really took the Sinai experience to be a major milestone of national identification, to say the least. Wow! I never quite thought of Mount Sinai in that way. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
15 | Caleb from the tribe of Judah? | Num 13:6 | Makarios | 225909 | ||
Greetings Searcher! Thank you for your reply. You wrote, "I think Caleb's mother was from his loins and Judah's, so Caleb was from the tribe of Judah." Do you have any Scriptural proof of this? As for Exodus 12:38, I have usually interpreted this verse to mean that many Egyptians went along with the Israelites as they left Egypt. But this verse cannot explain how Caleb, a Kenizzite, could attain to a place of leadership and actually be the representative of the tribe of Judah in Numbers 13:6. But I appreciate your help anyway! Your Brother in Christ, Makarios |
||||||
16 | why are the twelve tribes of isreal diff | Bible general Archive 4 | Makarios | 225883 | ||
Greetings Ariel Levin! Yes, I apologize: I should re-examine the differences between these two passages more thoroughly. First of all, the context couldn't be more different: in Genesis 49, Jacob (Israel) is giving the blessing to each of his sons before he dies, and foretelling with a bit of prophesy as to how it will go with them in the generations to come. In Revelation 7:4-8, the apostle John is relating to us the vision that he received regarding the sealing of the 144,000, stating that 12,000 are from each tribe listed. Since the context in both passages is so drastically different, a person could not look at both passages seriously and come to a conclusion of contradiction with any supporting logic. Who is to say that each tribe necessarily needs to be mentioned in Revelation 7? Secondly, why is studying the Bible within the context so important? In Kay Arthur's book "How to Study Your Bible" (page 18), she writes, "The word context means "that which goes with the text." In general, then, context is the environment in which something dwells, the setting in which something exists or occurs. Remember the tadpole in the creek? Context is the creek!" David L. Thompson in his book "Bible Study That Works" (page 32) writes the following, "So, assuming a context of prayer, the first step in good Bible study is observation. And one must see two things. First, one must see what is there; a matter of the contents. What is the book or unit at hand actually about: sin or grace, prayer or faith, Abraham or David, creation or second coming? These are matters of content, of observing what was said." Therefore, context is determined by carefully observing what is repeated in the text and seeing how it all relates. On a side note: this 128 page book, "Bible Study That Works" was actually the textbook as specified by the syllabus in my 'Methods in Bible Study' course at Indiana Wesleyan University more than a decade or so ago. Perhaps a good online resource that would explain context would be: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Bible_Interpretation/03_Context/03_Context_Notes.pdf. In conclusion, you can understand why a narrative listing of the tribes of Israel (Genesis 49) would be different from an apocalyptic listing (Revelation 7:4-8) of the tribes of Israel without coming to a conclusion that there is a contradiction. Good observation in regards to the tribe of Levi: in Genesis 49, this tribe had clearly not been as yet 'set apart' for their special service to God. I hope that this helps! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
17 | Who is the man who buys the treasure? | Matt 13:44 | Makarios | 225879 | ||
GREAT post, Doc! Excellent! --Makarios | ||||||
18 | who has the authority to baptize | Acts 10:48 | Makarios | 225531 | ||
Greetings Brother Lionheart! Yes, I believe that all believers are called to be baptized. But salvation is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8; John 3:16-17). Therefore, I interpret Acts 2:38 in the following way: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of (or as a result of) the remission of sins." As for Mark 16:16, it is unbelief that brings condemnation, not a lack of being baptized. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul drew a clear distinction between baptism and the gospel. And since it is the gospel that saves (1 Cor. 15:1-2), baptism is clearly not necessary to attain salvation. Please don't get me wrong: baptism is important. But even though we should obey Christ and be baptized, we must not forget that our faith in Christ, not baptism, is what saves us (Acts 16:31; John 3:16). Baptism is basically a public profession of faith. Water baptism follows the salvation experience. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
19 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | Makarios | 225381 | ||
Greetings Drbloor, As far as the Transfiguration itself being only a vision of sorts of Moses and Elijah, perhaps Mark 9:9 is a bit more direct with "eido" (to see / be sure of / to know). When the English rendering of "to see" is applied to "horao" in Luke 9:36, then we can understand Matthew 17:19 in that the Transfiguration had a double signficance. First, Jesus received a 'double approval': from God the Father, and from the fact that what the supreme law-giver (Moses) and the greatest of the prophets (Elijah) saw in Jesus was the total consummation of all that they had dreamed of. Second, the Transfiguration gave the disciples something to hold on to, even when they could not understand it, until a later time. The disciples had been shattered by Jesus' statement that He was going to die - still struggling with what "Messiahship" was all about. Jesus told them not tell anyone because He saw in Messiahship a way of service, love and sacrifice with a cross at the end of it. Galileans were ever ready to follow any nationalist leader - a conquering King who would blast the Romans and lead the Jews to domination. Therefore, before there could be any proclamation of His Messiahship, Jesus had to educate the disciples into what the true idea of Messiahship was - and only disaster could have come at this stage from any proclamation that the Messiah had arrived. Therefore, "eido" in Mark 9:9 leads us to believe that this was more of an encounter rather than just a vision "horama" in Matthew 17:19. For Jesus, this was a true encounter, but for the disciples, they could only understand it and take it as nothing more than a vision, much like the burning bush, Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10, etc., and they would later understand (John 14:26) what it was all about. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
20 | Paradise is Heaven? Would you clarify? | Luke 16:22 | Makarios | 225359 | ||
BradK: Very well done post! --Makarios | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [185] >> |