Results 101 - 120 of 121
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: disciplerami Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Is it Sin or Me? | Rom 5:12 | disciplerami | 75680 | ||
Help me understand. You think Paul was still in the sinful, separated, depraved, hostile, unspiritual condition that he 'inherited' from Adam? Is that what you think? You think that when Paul did the very thing that he didn't want to do that the power of Christ was ineffetual in him? I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you believe that a born again person has a new spirit or you don't. I contend that the Christian and non-christian wrestles with his flesh. Following the things of the Spirit takes daily commitment. Paul had his mind on the things of the Spirit, but the flesh is weak. Romans 7 makes plenty of sense without beleiving in the doctrine of depravity. Complete sense. |
||||||
102 | Should not perish or shall not perish? | John 3:16 | disciplerami | 75679 | ||
Hello. John 3:16 uses the subjunctive 'should not' (not SHALL NOT) because believing alone isn't enough. A person isn't saved by the grace of God until the faith is obedient: repent, confess, be baptized. You are right, there is believing and there is believing. The only kind of believing that saves is the obedient kind of believing. Go ahead and check out John 3:36 and Hebrews 3:18,19. John 12:42 is, no matter how you spin it :), an example of people believing in Jesus, but their fear of men got in the way of them actually confessing Christ. You cannot be saved unless you confess (Romans 10:9,10). Confession is UNTO salvation. |
||||||
103 | disciplerami, Are we sinful by nature? | Rom 5:12 | disciplerami | 75575 | ||
YES, SIN IS LEARNED. "I did not know sin until the law said, thou shalt not covet." I imagine that Paul learned what sin was at an age approaching manhood--12, or so. Yes, you have to learn to sin. The little baby-and I've had five-doesn't know the difference between touching the rattle and touching the glass nick-nack. It is learning, growing. It is learning to verbalize, to walk, to explore. The things it does during this learning phase is not sin. If I spank the hand that touches the VCR, the child does not immediately learn not to touch the VCR. The learning curve dictates that the lesson will need to be reinforced once or twice before the lesson 'sinks' in. But if a parent is consistent, the child learns to do right--from a very early age. Conversely, if the parent is inconsistent, the child doesn't learn a valuable lesson. The child is seeking stimulus. The buttons look fun, the cookies taste good, etc. "I'll stick my hand in the cookie jar and eat another", it says. The child isn't sinning, it is learning: to do right or to do wrong. A parent is responsible for not watching and teaching: not the child. That is, until the child reaches an age where it SHOULD know. We call that age, the age of accountability. But as an infant and toddler and small child, it tests the waters all around it. The baby LEARNS to do wrong without correction. The first time my child said a dirty word, it did not sin. But when I corrected the child and said we don't say that kind of thing, then the child didn't do it again. The child learns to go right and the child learns to go wrong. Little brats become that way because parents don't parent, not because they are tainted by Adam's sin. They are of the same nature as Adam, but they have years to learn before they can be held to the standard that God holds adults to. Adam was a different situation in that he was full-grown when he started out. He already had adult skills. God could say to him, 'eat anything you want, except from that tree over there.' Adam, being good, without the excuse of a sin nature, chose to sin. He knew right and wrong, and he chose the wrong. That's what life is about. God knew Adam would sin. That's why God put the tree there, that's why God permitted the serpent to tempt, that's why Jesus' atoning blood was thought of before the foundation of the world. God knew man, with FREE WILL, would sin. But God provided the way of salvation too. God created man in his image, having certain capacities that made us unique from all other creatures. Man is ultimately responsible for his sin if he has free will. With reference to Psalm 51, yes, David is confessing his sin. But he is not confessing that he was born sinful. That is not possible. |
||||||
104 | disciplerami, Is being born, iniquity? | Rom 5:12 | disciplerami | 75574 | ||
Yes, you have to learn to sin. The little baby-and I've had five-doesn't know the difference between touching the rattle and touching the glass nick-nack. It is learning, growing. It is learning to verbalize, to walk, to explore. The things it does during this learning phase is not sin. If I spank the hand that touches the VCR, the child does not immediately learn not to touch the VCR. The learning curve dictates that the lesson will need to be reinforced once or twice before the lesson 'sinks' in. But if a parent is consistent, the child learns to do right--from a very early age. Conversely, if the parent is inconsistent, the child doesn't learn a valuable lesson. The child is seeking stimulus. The buttons look fun, the cookies taste good, etc. "I'll stick my hand in the cookie jar and eat another", it says. The child isn't sinning, it is learning: to do right or to do wrong. A parent is responsible for not watching and teaching: not the child. That is, until the child reaches an age where it SHOULD know. We call that age, the age of accountability. But as an infant and toddler and small child, it tests the waters all around it. The baby LEARNS to do wrong without correction. The first time my child said a dirty word, it did not sin. But when I corrected the child and said we don't say that kind of thing, then the child didn't do it again. The child learns to go right and the child learns to go wrong. Little brats become that way because parents don't parent, not because they are tainted by Adam's sin. They are of the same nature as Adam, but they have years to learn before they can be held to the standard that God holds adults to. Adam was a different situation in that he was full-grown when he started out. He already had adult skills. God could say to him, 'eat anything you want, except from that tree over there.' Adam, being good, without the excuse of a sin nature, chose to sin. He knew right and wrong, and he chose the wrong. That's what life is about. God knew Adam would sin. That's why God put the tree there, that's why God permitted the serpent to tempt, that's why Jesus' atoning blood was thought of before the foundation of the world. God knew man, with FREE WILL, would sin. But God provided the way of salvation too. God created man in his image, having certain capacities that made us unique from all other creatures. Man is ultimately responsible for his sin if he has free will. With reference to Psalm 51, yes, David is confessing his sin. But he is not confessing that he was born sinful. That is not possible. |
||||||
105 | If you are saved can you lose it | Heb 6:6 | disciplerami | 75564 | ||
Not if you have no free will. If you have free will, then yes you can lose it. Hebrews 6:6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." I know that most people don't believe this because they've slipped down the slippery slope of 'total depravity', but the doctrine of eternal security is false. A Christian is not perfect and as long as he keeps the faith, walks in the light, carries the cross daily, then the blood of God's Son cleanses him continually (1 John 1). But if he steps out of the light, tantamount to turning away from and shaking a fist at God, then the grace stops. James 5:19,20. Good day. |
||||||
106 | disciplerami, Is being born, iniquity? | Rom 5:12 | disciplerami | 75446 | ||
"Apparently you do not get it." I'm only trying to teach the truth, and I'm sorry to have brought out such a spirit in you. Accept my apologies. Maybe others will be more patient. You offer two choice: 'either conception was sin or I was a sinner at that time.' It is convenient that you limit the possibilities of its meaning, but not accurate. Maybe his mother was sinful, maybe the world in which he was born into was sinful. Why would I accept your interpretation when others exist? Why would I interpret David's word to be saying, "I inherited someone else's sins"? Sorry, that just doesn't fit the Gospel message. Each man has free will and the Gospel is for ALLLLLLLL. God is not a respector or persons, as He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. How can I take God's 'desire' seriously if He doesn't make a good faith offer of salvation to all men? If people come into the world depraved and stay in that condition because God DIDN'T ELECT THEM, that is not a sincere offering at all! God gives everyone the same chance. If he opens the eyes of one man, to be fair, He must open the eyes of all men. He does so through the preaching of the message. Each man is then responsible for accepting or rejecting it. Good day. p.s. I understand I won't hear from you again on this matter, and I'm indeed sorry. |
||||||
107 | disciplerami when did you Bcome a sinner | Rom 5:12 | disciplerami | 75378 | ||
I became a sinner when I sinned. What version are you reading from because mine does say that. Let's compare what you've said with Scripture: The Bible says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." Search56 says, "I was a sinner before birth." Hmmm...not the same thing. Good day. |
||||||
108 | disciplerami, Are we sinful by nature? | Rom 5:12 | disciplerami | 75315 | ||
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Sin is not our nature BECAUSE OF ADAM. Sin is connected to free will. We have things we can do and things we can't do. When we do what we are commanded not to, then we sin like Adam. We don't need to inherit a 'sin nature' to sin. Just ask Adam about that. "Say Adam, how come it is that you sinned, from whom did you get that sin nature?" He would ask, what are you talking about. "I chose to sin and paid for it." Don't blame your choice to sin on Adam. Go look in the mirror. | ||||||
109 | Why should we believe a "secret rapture" | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 75066 | ||
John, I don't believe the so-called 'rapture' of the faithful, as presented in our modern day, is a biblical idea. I certainly believe in the second coming of Christ, but on that day three things will happen in succession. First, the dead in Christ shall rise. Second, "We who are alive and remaining" shall rise to meet the Lord in the air. Third, the judgment of the unrighteous will occur. All of these things will occur on that day. I doubt that anyone else on this forum believes as I do, but there you have it. By the way, a prooftext for the rapture that I've heard used, is the one where Jesus says, 'two will be in the field, one will be taken away and one left.' (my paraphrase). Good day. |
||||||
110 | Are the 144,000 Jewish Christians? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 74771 | ||
Greetings, Here is my take on the 144,000. The number is not literal, it is symbolic for all the saved from both sides of the cross. 144 comes from squaring the number 12, the number for God's organized religion (on a lot more on this, see Ray Summer's "Worthy is the Lamb", a commentary on the book of Revelation. 1,000 comes from 10 (number for completeness) to the third power: 10x10x10. It is my view that the number cannot be taken literally, or we also must conclude that they are also only men who have not been with women (Revelation 14). Therefore the Jewish references are allegory for the true Israel of God (see Paul's message in Galatians 4 and Romans 2:28-29). The 144,000 refers to all the saved, on both sides of the cross. |
||||||
111 | Why didn't God make people to love him? | Genesis | disciplerami | 74711 | ||
Dear Kelly, If God made people love him it would not be love. Love is a choice. That's why man did not lose his free will when Adam fell. Agape love is the purest kind of love, it is spiritual. And it just wouldn't mean as much to God if He had to make us love Him. "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments." |
||||||
112 | Go to Hell after receiving Holy Spirit? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 74637 | ||
Greetings, Thanks for the very good questions. The answer to your question is 'yes.' The purpose of Baptism is clear: "Why do you delay, arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name." "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved..." In Mark 16:16, he tells us who is lost - those who don't believe the Gospel. He also tells us who is saved - those who believe and are baptized. Belief without works is dead. Good day. |
||||||
113 | What about the other verses on salvation | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 74356 | ||
Leaving something out? Sure, the rest of the passages on salvation. But this thread began with Romans 10:9 as the end all verse on salvation. My point was and is that to offer that one verse as the full message on salvation is 'leaving something out'; like Romans 6:3-5. Good day. |
||||||
114 | Romans 10:9: is it too simple? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 73877 | ||
It's just not the whole story. Paul told the Romans a few paragraphs earlier that they were buried with Christ in baptism...so they too might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-5). I have no problem with Romans 10:9,10, but it isn't everything the Bible says on salvation. Good day. |
||||||
115 | What about the other verses on salvation | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 73876 | ||
Greetings, The verses you reference are important verses and they should not be debated away. The way some people look at salvation passages is to pick some and ignore others. We who believe that salvation comes at the moment of baptism through faith in Christ also believe that "whoever believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." We who believe that to be saved, you must "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins" see no conflict with being "saved by grace through faith." [It is therefore important that the person being baptized actually have faith in God's promises, i.e. not an infant] It is not accurate to, because passages seem to contradict, boil everything down to the lowest common denominator and consequently nullify some very important teaching on baptism: namely, the purpose of baptism. God assigns purpose. When God tells us WHY to partake of the Lord's Supper, then we have no right to make it into something else. When God gives a purpose for singing--to worship, praise, etc--, it is wrong to turn it into entertainment [what is holy is holy and not to be used for vain entertainment]. And when God assigns to baptism the purpose of uniting us with Christ into His burial and His death, no man has a right to redefine it as "an outward sign of an inward grace." Keep the faith, man. Don't give telling the truth. I appreciate you. Good day. |
||||||
116 | church discipline | Matt 18:17 | disciplerami | 73010 | ||
Jesus says, 'tell it to the church.' There isn't much wiggle room there. Do you tell the church that the man/woman is in a sin [which shall go unnamed] and will not repent of it, or do you tell the church the exact sin being committed? The latter sounds extreme, but the exact sin may already be known. The sin will have to be told to someone, the 'two or three witnesses?' How else will the sinning brother 'listen to the church' that doesn't know about his sin? If the church doesn't know the man's sin, how would the church know if or when the sinning brother had repented? Maybe a few people know about the specific sin and the rest know that the brother is unrepentent of some unnamed sin. The upshot is that some people are going to know of the specific sin. "The persons reputation" is not harmed by the church, it is he who soiled his own reputation. It is up to him now to be humble, confess and repent. The church will welcome him back in open arms. "Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him" (2 Cor. 2:8). Paul publicly rebuked Peter in Galatians 2. He didn't hurt Peter's reputation, Peter hurt his own and 'stood condemend' unless he repented (which he obviously did). Paul didn't mind mentioning Hymenaeus and Alexander when they went astray, shipwrecking their faith (1 Timothy 1:19,20). Sometimes, confrontation can't be avoided. But it must be done with the right spirit (this is the hardest part for me). :) Good day. |
||||||
117 | "Hand this man over to Satan" | Matt 18:17 | disciplerami | 73008 | ||
Greetings, The Apostle Paul is speaking of church discipline. He goes on to them to have nothing to do with this man or any 'so-called brother.' The second epistle to the Corinthians indicates that the church did disfellowsip the man [who had his father's wife] which caused the man to repent. "Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority" (2 Cor. 2:6). Other passages that speak of the same thing: Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Timothy 1:19,20. My Bible's footnote says on this verse: "Paul had excluded these two men from the church, which was considered a sanctuary from Satan's power. Out in the world, away from the fellowship and care of the church, they would be 'taught' [the word means basically 'to discipline'] not to blaspheme." Titus says, "reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (3:10,11) Peter said to Simon who had just become a Christian, "you have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you" (Acts 8:21,22). Good day. |
||||||
118 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72878 | ||
Greetings, In answer to your question, 'isn't baptism necessary for salvation?' The answer is yes. Peter says it is "FOR the remission of sins." The Catholic church says it is. Luther's catechism says it is. While these denominations have the purpose right, they have the mode wrong. Baptism is an immersion. Technically speaking, WE can't be sprinkled or poured, but we can be immersed. WE are commanded to be immersed. Good day. |
||||||
119 | What was the man thinking? | Prov 23:7 | disciplerami | 72500 | ||
The passage is a warning to anyone who might be enticed be things external: food or a smile. Beware, for you may be sorry later. It is not what the man says that matters, it is what he is thinking that is your concern. What he is thinking isn't good. He isn't a good host, he is offering gifts because he has ulterior plans. He is a ruler and only hopes to use you to gain an advantage through you. Someone who is perceptive, not allowing the eyes to be glazed over by promises of riches or food, will recognize the true heart of this man. A wise man will be very cautious about whose delicacies he takes. Later, when the careless man is called to return the favor, he will throw up the morsels and take back his compliments. I like this vese because it is so practical. God bless. |
||||||
120 | What does Rev 8:5 mean? | Rev 8:5 | disciplerami | 72414 | ||
Greetings, I see what you are asking. The peals of thunder and flashes, etc are the rumblings of God's judgment. God has heard the outcry of his people and judgment has begun. Whether this refers to the temporal judgment upon an indvidual nation at the time of writing or the eternal judgment at the end of time, I don't know. Doesn't matter to me because it all works out the same. God bless. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |