Results 101 - 120 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | it is a one word answer | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231598 | ||
Is this 50 questions? Does the answer require a dentist? I'm just wondering... | ||||||
102 | rapture of the church: true or false | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231642 | ||
Hello Searcher, I'd be interested if you have a chart or some other resource (Word.doc or PDF) that could be e-mailed. I'd like to see your breakdown and examination of the different views! Yours In Christ, BradK |
||||||
103 | babies life after death in heaven? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231839 | ||
Hello G Preston, I'm just curious as to how you'd support this contention from scripture? Would you expand on how God imputes forgiveness to a child and the "age of accountability"? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
104 | should we attend church together | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 231882 | ||
Excellent post, brother! BradK |
||||||
105 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232133 | ||
Hello G. Preston, As far as your "three things we need to know from the Bible to receive eternal salvation", I'd respectfully disagree. I think we have a very different perspective on what constitutes salvation to begin with:-) Here's why: 1. Repentance. This is certainly part of salvation, but not THE entirety of it. I think you've confused the order (ordo salutis)of salvation. Is not the major aspect of salvation predicated upon faith in the completed work of Christ? (Rom. 4:3, Eph. 2:8-9). Scripture definitely supports this. Note, it is "Faith's Hall of fame" in Hebrews 11, not repentance! There is a difference; 2. Baptism. Does the Bible teach that we must be water baptized to be saved? Church History and a clear majority of those within Orthodoxy would proclaim- as I- that, no it does not! Though this is is continually debated, If it is a requirement for my and your salvation, then we are saved by works! Period! This negates the sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrifice. We also have something about which to boast (1 Cor. 1:31) What then of Rom. 11:6?; 3. Living righteously. This follows the process of sanctification, but does not nullify the grace of God. We don't live righteously to gain merit, favor or keep our salvation. We live 'the obedience of faith" because of what He did for us.(Eph. 1:3-14) We set ourselves apart because we are new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17). We walk by faith, not sight (2 Cor. 5:7) because we are in Him (En Christo). I believe that one of the single most important motivations to live godly is His grace and our understanding of it: Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, Titus 2:12 "instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age",(NASB) Keeping the law as a Christian would seem to be empirically an excercise in futility!If we must keep the Ten Commandments, then again Christ profits us nothing and He died in vain (Gal. 2:16, 21) No, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes".(Rom. 10:4). "The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But after faith has come we are no longer under a tutor" (Gal. 3:24-25) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
106 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232136 | ||
Hello G. Preston, I'm not quite following you:-) My last thought...? We are forgiven 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". This is accessed by faith. Your emphasis appears to be upon our performance... what WE do not, what He has already accomplished for us! Our only righteousness comes from being, "in Him" (1 Cor. 1:30) we have no righteousness apart from Christ! Can you summarize your thoughts by or from scripture, so I can better follow? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
107 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232142 | ||
Hello G. Preston, I'm not clear as to which verse you're referring? Can you please provide the Book and chapter reference along with the version you're using? Thanks, BradK |
||||||
108 | KJ Version | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232158 | ||
Hello G. Preston, You said, "The KJV...with it's human translation errors (Ghost from the Greek word Nuema means Spirit)...is the closest thing we have from the origional manuscripts" Aside from this being your own opinion, would you care to support this contention with any facts? Who is "we"? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
109 | KJ Version | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232168 | ||
G. Preston: You're not answering the question. I don't need to search anything and I can most certainly assure you I don't need help. Don't be so presumptuous, BradK |
||||||
110 | Romans in the light of Jonah does it say | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232833 | ||
Hello Ed, I honestly think you've set up a false dilemma. I'm not following either your thought process or reasoning on this one:-) Progressive revelation is the short answer! Speaking the Truth in Love, Brad |
||||||
111 | KJV Only Help | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 232929 | ||
Hello G. Preston, Let me state- with no animosity toward you- that I find the claims of the KJV-only crowd spurious at best and of dubious value. We're not talking a core issue regarding salvation nor even Orthodoxy. At best I see it as majoring on minors and chasing rabbit-trails. To what end? How much closer can we get to the original Word? What do we do with the Wycliff Bible? The Tyndale Bible- first printed NT in English based on the Greek? The Coverdale Bible or the Geneva Bible? The Bishops Bible published in 1568 was a revision of the Great Bible (1539) translated by a commitee of Anglican scholars. These are all translations, and all preceded the 1611 KJV! Did we not have the real Word of God prior to that? That would be patent nonsense to assert such a thing. As EdB stated, there are no original NT manuscripts in existance. None. There are nearly six thousand ancient manuscripts or protions of manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest extant fragment of the NT comes from about A.D. 130- the John Rylands fragment of John 18:31ff) the KJV was based on the best manuscripts- available at that time! You ask, "why is another/new one necessary...for what purpose?" Well, I'll let Dr. Robert Plummer answer that one. He states in "40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible" [Question 7] regarding the KJV. "The best Bible translations are based on the most reliable ancient manuscripts of the OT and NT. The King James Version is not highly recommended because it is not based on the best manuscripts and because the 17th-Century English is hard for most modern people to understand. While it was an excellent work for it's day, the KJV has been supassed by many modren translations in both readability and faithfulness to the original manuscripts. Some people wrongly and often passionately claim the KJV is a superior translation of the Bible. The historical and linguistic facts do not support this claim." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
112 | If not saved and suicide done Lost??? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 234148 | ||
Hello G Preston, Where do we find in scripture that eternal life is not received until after death? John 5:24 says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Here "has eternal life" is in the present tense, so grammatically and scripturally, one who believes has eternal life at the point of their belief! Further, John 3:36 tells us, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." So, it would be more acurate to say that one has (posseses) eternal life now but will not enter into their eternal state until after death. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
113 | ISAIAH 12:4 | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 234704 | ||
Hi Keith, Well, I think you answered your own question! Is ignorance then bliss? Out of curiosity, what was your major? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
114 | ISAIAH 12:4 | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 234709 | ||
Hi Keith, How exactly did you arrive at your conclusions? What can you present to this Forum that would substantiate your postulation? In other words, why would those of us don' t know you accept your statements? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
115 | what is moving me | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 234880 | ||
OK, then why ask your question? |
||||||
116 | Where did God and Jesus come from? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 234889 | ||
Hello kitty, Actually, Jesus is eternal- pre-existing with the Father, "in the beginning". Otherwise, Col 1:16-17 makes no sense, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (NASB) In John 3:16, Begotten has to do with His incarnation, not physical birth! Col. 1:13-18, First-born (Gr. prototokos) is in reference to His position over creation, not that he was literally "first born". God has no physical birth! My guess, is that you are espousing Watchtower theology? Arianism was defeated and renounced as heresy at the Council of Nicea back in 325! You might want to read the Terms of Use to which you implicitly agree to when registering on this Forum. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
117 | 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 |
||||||
118 | 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 |
||||||
119 | 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 |
||||||
120 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [97] >> |