Results 1181 - 1200 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1181 | God Became Man to Redeem You | Heb 1:3 | srbaegon | 238956 | ||
Having thus discoursed about the divine nature, he moves to human matters to bring out the mystery of the divine plan.... He is the Son of the Father, who is one with the begetter, the creator and governor of all things, who reveals in himself the Father, and who by becoming man procured our salvation. Though most high he humbled himself, and though God, he became man. It was not that being humble he exalted himself, or being man he was made God. Rather on the one hand, as God he was always Lord of all, and on the other, as man he took to himself glory he had as God. He actually said as much in the sacred Gospels, "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" (John 17:5). He asked not to receive what he did not have, but for what he had to be revealed. Theodoret of Cyrus, “The Epistle to the Hebrews” |
||||||
1182 | Who are the companions? | Heb 1:9 | srbaegon | 134226 | ||
Hello survivor, "So was God choosing among Jesus and 'those who communed' with him the one to exalt to his throne based upon the extent to which each loved righteousness and hated lawlessness? It doesn't seem logical." You're right. It's not logical. It's also not what I said nor what the text is saying. Also your view of Israel's history skewed. You are making David and Solomon far better than they actually were. Go read Samuel and Kings, then come back and we'll talk. Steve |
||||||
1183 | What is a repentance from dead works? | Heb 6:1 | srbaegon | 133653 | ||
Hello Rowdy, "He has no needs whatsoever for He's God BUT we NEED to do them for our benefit." My Bible says differently. Rom 6:1-2 (ESV) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? [2] By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Rom 6:15 (ESV) What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! "[W]orks is most certainly NOT the basis of salvation as the ONLY foundation for salvation MUST be Jesus Christ, He alone and the Grace of God, His Father and ours. I guess you might compare this Grace and our works as a marriage." This is double-speak. Marriage is bringing together two individuals to make "one flesh." By its use you are saying that works are absolutely necessary in order to be saved. As Tim has mentioned, works are the result and evidence, not the basis. Nor are they part of the basis. It's all of grace (as C.H. Spurgeon nicely put it). Steve |
||||||
1184 | Are we too dull to understand the Bible? | Heb 6:1 | srbaegon | 133669 | ||
Hello Rowdy, Re: Your PS You have been given this verse before. Gen 15:6 (ESV) And [Abram] believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. But I'll add more: Gen 5:22-24 (ESV) Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. [23] Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. [24] Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Heb 11:5 (ESV) By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. Still you refuse to acknowledge the plain teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ: John 6:28-29 (ESV) Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" [29] Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." I don't see any other condition. Steve |
||||||
1185 | Are we too dull to understand the Bible? | Heb 6:1 | srbaegon | 133686 | ||
Hello Rowdy, There was only one point in that post, and I responded to it. Steve |
||||||
1186 | WHO is Hebrews 6:4-11 refering to? | Heb 6:4 | srbaegon | 144315 | ||
Hello Ed, I think you are overly harsh here. Any seminary worth attending will investigate and compare the systematic theologies of various persuasions. There will also be an evaluation of the positions with Scripture in order to see why something is correct or incorrect. I also recognize that those who adhere to other theologies are brethren and fellow heirs with our Lord Jesus Christ in the glories to follow (which Spurgeon was getting at in Doc's quote). Steve |
||||||
1187 | no redemption without shedding of blood | Heb 9:22 | srbaegon | 21012 | ||
Are you thinking of Lev 17:11? For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement. Steve |
||||||
1188 | Do you have to go to church and on sun.? | Heb 10:25 | srbaegon | 57720 | ||
Hello Searcher Actually, I'd call it a parenthetical to the request. The idea is that we must be stirring up one another, so don't forsake (completely abandon) meeting together. The gathering is the best place to stir up one another. Steve |
||||||
1189 | As to getting to heaven? | Heb 10:25 | srbaegon | 215966 | ||
Hi MeMe 3, Thank you for your patience. I just wanted to understand properly. Our eternal destiny does not depend on which denomination we are affiliated with. It depends on whether we obey the gospel. The only concern is where you stand concerning the crucified and risen Christ. Steve |
||||||
1190 | Are unbelievers in any way "saved"? | Heb 11:1 | srbaegon | 118879 | ||
Hello Rowdy, Allow me to chime in. When reading Romans 1:1-3:20 as a unit, one comes to the same conclusion as Paul did: Romans 3:9-10 (ESV) What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, [10] as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one." What that means is this: Those described in the first two chapters are unrighteous sinners--even those who perish without the law. You've stated that God has revealed Himself in creation. That is correct. What you are missing here is that the witness of creation is not enough to effect salvation. All creation can do is witness that there is a God. It is only the living and active word of God (Heb 4:12) that can do this as shown here: Romans 10:17 (ESV) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Steve |
||||||
1191 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127023 | ||
Hello Country Girl, I agree with you on this subject. My only addition would be that it is applicable in instruction for several things: fuller picture of what worship is and how to do it; understanding what a priest does (since we are a priesthood); what is an acceptable sacrifice; seeing the overall plan of redemption; understanding of what sin is. (And believe it or not, there is an early picture of church government there.) Steve |
||||||
1192 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127122 | ||
Hello Emmaus, The Leviticus passage says that a holy convocation would be on the 1st and 8th days of the feast (the feast being on the 15th day of the 7th month). How do you get that it would always be on the 1st day of the week? Steve |
||||||
1193 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127124 | ||
Hello Country Girl, I'm curious about your 2nd paragraph: "In the OT, God got ALL of mankind's attention and worship. Those with the Law of Moses of course, worshipped him in accordance with that guidance. Those w/o that guidance worshipped Him in the same way as before the Law of Moses." I disagree. God has never gotten all of mankind's worship. Before the Law was given, worship of the true and living God was sporadic. After the Law was given, those without the Law who worshipped Him were scarce as hen's teeth. Steve |
||||||
1194 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127125 | ||
Hello Ancient, You mentioned Acts 2:46, but might I point you to Acts 20:7 where the practice became meeting on the first day of the week. Steve |
||||||
1195 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127187 | ||
Hello Ancient, I agree. That's why I challenge it. The object of worship for those who did not have the Law would not have been the one true God because they didn't have His revelation through Moses. Steve |
||||||
1196 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127193 | ||
Hello Ancient, You said " I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine." So can I, but you were on a tangent based on slim evidence--one verse (Acts 2:46). Gather all the facts first. Also, if you want to be believed, answer more questions than you ask. Based on your post, you are simply unteachable. The structure of Acts 20:7 is such that demonstrates it had been a practice by the time of this meeting. Luke mentions it as a natural occurance rather than a special meeting. Also, though Paul was in town for 7 days, this is the only day mentioned where they broke bread. 2 Timothy was written well after this--a minimum of a year and more likely several years. You said "I find that 'They did this, so we must do this,' is an inferior teaching to, 'They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives.'" Do you have the same disregard for other Scriptures like: Acts 2:37-38 (ESV) Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 16:30-31 (ESV) Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." They did this. Don't we have to do the same? Steve |
||||||
1197 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127272 | ||
Hello Ancient, If you remember, I said that AFTER the Law was given, then those without the Law would not have been worshipping Him. Actually, I said they would have been scarce as hen's teeth. Melchizedek lived before the Law was given. Steve |
||||||
1198 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127273 | ||
Hello Country Girl, Thanks for the clarification. And a belated welcome to the forum. Steve |
||||||
1199 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127277 | ||
Hello Ancient, You are correct--I am very opinionated. I find unswerving devotion to the Word of God does that. My only comment about Acts 20:7 was that you should consider it as what the church practiced some years later. It was you who said I was building an eternal doctrine on one verse. I agreed that this statement was correct. I would not try to build a doctrine off this one verse. I said you seemed unteachable because those I engage with that ask a multitude of questions without offering answers to those questions are only building a smokescreen. They don't want to learn the truth. What credible evidence do I base the timing of 2 Timothy to Acts 20? Pick up any commentary written by a Bible-believing person, and you'll find all the evidence you need. Check out www.bible.org or www.ccel.org for examples. Even doing the math straight from reading Acts and 2 Tim. you'll find this. What questions did I want answered? These: "Does Acts 20:7 say that they did not meet on the second day of the week? Or the third? Or the fourth? Does Acts 20:7 say that they only met on that day of the week? Is it possible they met on the other days as well, but we are not informed here because it is not immediately relevent to the story being told? Is it also possible they met the other days, since we are lacking an address of the issue in this passage, and especially in comparison with Acts 2:46? Is it possible that they were at the tail end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, seeing that Paul and some of the others had gone ahead of the rest of the group, and the group that stayed behind didn't leave Phillipi until after said holiday? Could it be that the first day of the week was the last convocation of the holiday? The holiday lasts from the 14th through the 21st [Exodus 12:18]. It starts at evening on the 14th, and it ends at evening on the 21st. If the holiday started on a Sunday at evening, that would have it ending on a Sunday at evening. Could this be why they were gathered? We know from 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 that a door was opened up for Paul to preach the Gospel in Troas. But we know also from 2 Timothy 4:13-17 that in Troas, Alexander the coppersmith vigorously opposed his teaching, and everyone deserted Paul. So what kind of disciples were these men in Acts 20:7? We're talking about the same place. Are we talking about the same time? Is this the same occurrence? Did these "disiciples" we're wont to take example from the same "disciples" that abandoned Paul?" I consider "They did this, so we must do this" being inferior teaching as a disregard for Scripture. That's what I was discussing. I agree that knowing why a thing is to be done is important, but when God says to do something, we must do it even is there's no reason stated. (And please don't apply this to Acts 20:7. I'm not thinking of that passage.) Steve |
||||||
1200 | Is man the founder of religion? | Heb 12:2 | srbaegon | 200919 | ||
Hello propans8, I believe the Father promoted religion. James 1:27 (ESV) Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. That being the case, Jesus preached religion (Matt 5-7). Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Next > Last [64] >> |