Results 101 - 120 of 581
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: New Creature Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Are miracles for today? | 1 Cor 13:8 | New Creature | 132902 | ||
THE MIRACLE OF NEW BIRTH "I watched a hairy caterpillar crawling on the ground. It slowly inched its way along, not making any sound. To me it looked quite ugly, and I thought, "I'd hate to be A worm-like creature such as that, who crawls painstakingly." But as I watched, it slowly found a limb, and held on tight, And spun a silk cocoon that kept it safely out of sight. And then one day it struggled to break free so it could fly, And I beheld a butterfly that rose up to the sky. Its beauty was spectacular, and now its wings could soar, For days of crawling in the dirt were gone forevermore. I pondered on the wonder of that glorious new birth, And thought of how the Lord looks down upon our sin-sick earth. We must resemble lowly worms who wallow in our sin, But that is why Christ came to earth, to save the souls of men. He wraps us in His loving arms, and writes our names above, And we become new creatures, born again by His great love. And someday we will leave this earth, and with our wings we'll fly With beautiful new bodies to our mansions in the sky. For God has wrought a miracle in those He chose to be His holy bride, to reign with Him through all eternity." By: Betty Jo Mings http://www.geocities.com/sharing_treasures/miracle_of_new_birth.html |
||||||
102 | Are miracles for today? | 1 Cor 13:8 | New Creature | 132896 | ||
By the way, each time God takes a wife abuser, a drunkard, or a drug addict, and changes them into a born again child of God, that is a miracle, and an awesome display of God's power to change lives. When the child of God looks into the word of God, and sees the Son of God, he is changed into the image of God for the glory of God. Praise God for his life giving power. |
||||||
103 | Are miracles for today? | 1 Cor 13:8 | New Creature | 132894 | ||
The new birth is something only God can bring about. The birth I am talking about is not a physical birth, but rather a spiritual birth. The new birth involves bringing to life that which was previously dead. Only God can raise the dead. And that is exactly what He accomplishes when someone becomes born-again. Therefore to say that each new birth is not a supernatural miraculous event in an individual, is to not give God the credit for this display of His power. This is not a downgrade as you suppose. Eph 2:1 ¶ And you hath he made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins; |
||||||
104 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132551 | ||
Dalcent; You probably are much more educated than I am. However I will attempt to individually answer your questions, and give my personal view or understanding concerning them. "What is your theory as to why Protestantism is so fragmented?" 1) Splitting hairs over doctrine brings division. Especially over non-essentials to salvation. We even see division in 1 Cor. I do however believe that correct doctrine, especially on the essentials is of utmost important. We need to beware of false teachers. (2 Pet. 2:1; Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:28-30) 2) Men following the teaching of other faliable men while failing to trust the Holy Spirit's guidance in Scripture. etc. etc. "who is the head of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12)?" Christ is the head of the church: (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18) "Look how Calvinists and Arminianists tear into each other doctrines. Why do, say half of, these Christians not possess the correct biblical interpretation, viz. they don't get led into Truth. Perhaps the theory you espouse contains some truth but isn't quite the full picture." When we follow faliable men we are bound to come away with faliable men's interpretation. We need to compare what men say in light of what Scripture says. When Scripture proves men in error we should side with Scripture "When you study scripture how much of your comprehension is coloured by your pastor's fallible preaching." I know you will be amazed at my answer here, but I would personally have to say that while I have learned much though the teaching of godly men, at no time do I ever consider any of the Pastor's or teachers as being infaliable. I have yet to find the perfect teacher, Pastor, etc. None of us agree all the time. We do however agree that Scripture alone is the final authority, not any church, denomination, teacher, or Pastor, or leader. Being human we are all faliable. I have found that we do have agreement on the essentials of our faith. "Why do evangelicals always offer convolted explanations as to why Catholics are wrong to interpret the Bible literally" I don't have an answer for the majority on this. I will provide a personal answer on this as I see the Catholic church. I am not even sure what I am about to say is totally accurate. 1) I have been to Catholic weddings where the priest has told couples getting married, that since they were baptized as infants they can be assured of eternal life. Many times the couples whom I knew very well personally, never displayed any interest in spiritual things in their entire life. I cannot accept the fact of guarantee of eternal life based upon the decision parents to have their infants baptized. I have seen the same thing mentioned by catholic Priests at the funerals of drunks and others who never in their adulthood desire to step foot in the door of a church, or desire to read God's word. 2) Catholic friends of mine tell me their Priest tells them they shouldn't read the Bible, because they will not be able to understand it. And so they don't read the Bible for theirselves. 3) I see an over-emphasis on praying to Mary. I have yet to find where Scripture tells us we are to pray to Mary. 4) Five of my neighbors are Catholic. One told me that they are now taking two separate offerings weekly. The first offering is their regualr weekly offering. The second offering is taken to pay for lawyers of priests within the organization who have committed sexual abuse with young boys. I personally believe that those who committ such crimes should be sent to jail, and removed from priesthood. "Where the Bible says "So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." They deny both sides of the sentence: claiming obviously Jesus is being metaphorical about his blood being true/real flesh and then assert he doesn't mean you will have no life in you either. And, we are called unscriptural!" I am not an expert on that subject. So I will not at this time comment on it. "Why is the Bride of Christ getting the small " It has always been small. Jesus calls it the "little flock" elesewhere Scripture refers to it as the "remnant" and in Matthew 7:13-14 we see that narrow is the way and FEW there be which find it. It's not the many but rather the few. The many travel on the broad way that leads to destruction "Scriptures does teach the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth, not the Bible." Scripture also teaches that God's word is true. And that all Scripture is God breathed. '...the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.' Amen New Creature |
||||||
105 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132544 | ||
Dalcent; The following two web-sites have alot of historical works. http://www.ccel.org/ http://www.torreys.org/bible/ Perhaps you are already familar with them New Creature |
||||||
106 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132540 | ||
Are you attempting to say that the Catholic history of selling indulgences is myth? Why then did Martin Luther and other individuals who were once part of the Cathloic faith themselves, report and personally obsrerve them? Was Luther and other respected men making all that up? Why did Luther risk his life, if that was untrue? Who is historically being lied to? Who has the most to gain or lose by lying? |
||||||
107 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132537 | ||
Dalcent; What I attempted to point out was the fact that the church, (any church) is filled with faliable men, therefore the church is not the final authority on Scripture. The fact that the Cathloic church has previously been wrong in the past is proof of the possibility of error in the present. I used Luther as an example in comparrison. I myself respect Luther for his role in the Reformation Period, but that in no way means that I am 100 per-cent in agreement with him either. I can only say that I personally am 100 per-cent in agreement with Scripture as led by the Holy Spirit as I prayerfully study God's word and trust that the Holy Spirit, who alone is called the "Spirit of Truth" is capable of guiding us individually and corperately into all truth. New Creature |
||||||
108 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132529 | ||
Dalcent; you stated; "The Catholic interpretation is cast in stone" and, "This nonsense about the Christian as a man alone, his own pope pontificating on his personal interpretations of Scripture, while claiming to possess divine truth comes not from the apostolic faith. Christianity is not meant to be a multitude of individuals, as numerous as sands of the seashore." My thoughts; Has the Catholic interpretation always been "cast in stone" and infaliable? If so then why, at one time did the Popish church believe in the selling of "indulgences" and the matyrdom of those who desired to have the Bible printed in the common language of the people? Is it not accurate to say that because of such things, that the Popish church is itself responsible for the Reformation that took place, and the lack of trust in the ability of the Popish church to properly interpret Scripture? Wasn't it only when Martin Luther looked into Scripture for himself that he was able to Scripturally determine the errors of Popish teachings. When the church departed from Scriptural truth, such individuals had to part from such teachings. My point is; If the church was not totally reliable in it's interpretation in the past, how can we be so sure that it's interpretation is absolutely correct in our time? New Creature |
||||||
109 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132515 | ||
Dalcent; Am I therefore correct in assuming that your personal view is that the church is the final authority on Scripture, and no trusted intrepretation is possible apart from what the church says Scripture means? New Creature |
||||||
110 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | New Creature | 132484 | ||
Dalcent; you said; "as a Catholic at least I have a Church to appeal to as arbitrar" I'm assuming you meant "arbiter" - someone chosen to judge and decide a disputed issue. Does that mean that you believe that the church is the final authority on Scripture? Does that mean that you believe that the Holy Spirit takes a back seat to the church in guiding us into the truth of Scripture? Should we put more reliance on human authority rather than Divine? Isn't the Holy Spirit called the "Spirit of truth?" (John 16:13 and elsewhere) Doesn't Scripture say that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us into all truth? (John 14:26; 15:13; 1 John 2:27) As born again believers each of us personally has the promise that the Holy Spirit will teach and guide us into the truth. Part of the problem as I see it today, is that more people can be found who rely on human interpretation rather than Divine. New Creature |
||||||
111 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 129287 | ||
justme Will do God Bless |
||||||
112 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 129147 | ||
Karen I have your answer recorded Thanks a bunch God Bless you New Creature |
||||||
113 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 129146 | ||
Thank you justme God bless you New Creature |
||||||
114 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 129040 | ||
Hank Thanks for the reply Yes it would certainly benefit each of us to not only become acquainted with the correct definition of repentance, but other words often associated with salvation. For instance; under the umbrella we call salvation are terms like, justification, sanctification, and glorification etc. I believe it should be our desire to gain a correct understanding of such Biblical terms and how they relate to a more complete picture of what salvation entails. Thanks again Hank God Bless New Creature |
||||||
115 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 129039 | ||
Mark; Thank you I also have profited from our discourse Love in Christ New Creature |
||||||
116 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 129038 | ||
Thank you Emmaus I will check it out soon as I am able Blessings New Creature |
||||||
117 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 128979 | ||
Emmaus Thanks for that bit of history I see that "The Council of Trent" obviously must have believed that there may have been things that precede justification. I wonder if they ever elaborated on that. God Bless New Creature |
||||||
118 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 128978 | ||
Thanks again Mark I want you to know that I am not disagreeing with you. I merely am probing you to see if you still remain firm in your stance of "being passive, but consenting" I see you continue to remain standing firm in what you believe concerning this discussion, and I commend you for that. The reason I probe deeper in questioning individuals, is to come away with a better understanding of how individuals view this topic. Keep in the word God Bless you New Creature |
||||||
119 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 128968 | ||
Country Girl Help me understand. You said to put you down as passive concerning the "new birth" but now you say, in our repenting we are active. So if we must be active and repent, how can we say that in the new birth we are passive. If you were to say that the "new birth" precedes repentance, and we are passive in our new birth, but then we must be active in our repenting, then that would seem consistent to me. Help me out here. God Bless New Creature |
||||||
120 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | New Creature | 128966 | ||
Tim; After reading Mark's position, I personally couldn't see where the option of being "passive but consenting" could be possible. Below is my reply to Mark. I wanted you to see the problem I have with with such a position. When I looked up the word "passive" in my Websters Dictionary I got the following definition: passive adj. 1. influenced or acted upon without exerting influence or acting in return; inactive but acted upon. 2. offering no opposition or resistance; submissive; yielding; patient. 3. taking no part; inactive; inert. 4. in grammar, indicating that the subject is the receiver (object) of the action the verb denotes (e.g., in "the tree was struck by lightning," was struck is said to be in the passive voice). Then looking up the word "consent" I end up with the following definition; consent 1. to agree (to do something); give permission, approval. 2. an act of the will By using those definitions, I don't see how it is possible to be both "passive" and "consenting" at the same time. How is it possible to be passive and yet consenting using those definitions? Maybe you can help me once again. God Bless you New Creature |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [30] >> |