Results 1201 - 1220 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1201 | What is your point? | Rev 3:5 | Radioman2 | 78828 | ||
You write: "all of the passage you provided Tamreneee are true only if man has no free will." Are you implying the following? "All of the passage you provided Tamreneee are true only if man has no free will." "I believe man has free will." Therefore, the passages of inspired Scripture (that Hank provided) are not true. Is that what you are implying, that some passages of the Bible are not true? |
||||||
1202 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Radioman2 | 78798 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He not know the time of His return? In Matt. 24:35-36 (../kjv/Matt/matt_24.htm) Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah." If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn't He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn't know all things, then He cannot be God. This objection is most often raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses (../witnesses.htm) but is also echoed by the Christadelphians (../christadelphian.htm). It is a good question. Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union (../dictionary/dic_g-h.htm); that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 (../kjv/Heb/Heb_2.htm) that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8 (../kjv/Phil/phil_2.htm), it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Col. 2:9 (../kjv/Col/col_2.htm) says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 (../kjv/Luke/luke_2.htm) that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man. Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it? He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 (../kjv/John/john_21.htm) - NASB). Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true. But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not. Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5. After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and He knew all things. For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) |
||||||
1203 | One save always saved? | Rev 3:5 | Radioman2 | 78797 | ||
Rev. 3:4-5 Does God Have an Eraser? How can I be certain God won't erase my name from the book of life? (All of the following text consists of direct quotations from the work cited at the end.) We will begin . . . by looking first at what the New Testament has to say concerning the book of life. (...) First Printing The apostle John refers to the "book of life" five other times in Revelation. From two of these passages it becomes evident that he certainly did not believe names could be erased: And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been WRITTEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Revelation 13:8, emphasis added. And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. Revelation 17:8, emphasis added. In these passages John informs us about the time when the book of life was filled out. This information comes as a surprise. Without it, our assumption would be that when men or women put their trust in Christ, their names were added at that moment. But that is not the case at all. The book of life has been complete since the foundation of the world. By "world," John does not mean "earth." In both passages "earth" and "world" appear. These are from two different Greek words. The one translated "earth" means just that--this ball of dirt upon which we live. The Greek word translated "world" is kosmos from which we get our English word cosmos. John is using "world" here to refer to the entire universe (see John 1:3; Acts 17:24). In light of the scientific limitations of John's day, it could very well be a reference to all created things. Either way, his point is the same: THE BOOK OF LIFE WAS FILLED OUT BEFORE THE FIRST ENTRY WAS EVER BORN. If that is the case, God's foreknowledge had a great deal to do with who was written in and who was not. In anticipation of Christ's death on man's behalf, God wrote the names of those He knew from eternity past would accept His gracious offer. The apostle Paul had this same idea in mind when he wrote, Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. (Ephesians 1:4) God wrote before we did anything. He filled out the book of life in anticipation of what He knew we would do. Therefore, He did not write in response to what we ACTUALLY did; rather, He wrote in response to what He KNEW we would actually do. This distinction is very important. For if God put names in the book as history unfolded--as we actually believed ---it could be argued that He erases them as history unfolds as well. But if God entered names according to His foreknowledge, it follows that He would erase them according to His foreknowledge, which makes no sense at all. If God wrote and erased according to foreknowledge, both His writing and His erasing would be complete before the world began. In that case, no one needs to live with the fear that his or her name will be erased from the book of life sometime in the future. But if that is the case, Revelation 3:5 is no longer a problem. Missing Persons There is a second reason these passages eliminate the possibility of names being erased. Both passages indicate that the lost people in these verses had never had their names written in the book of life. John does not say these names were simply not in the book at that time. He says, "Everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world." Who is he talking about here? "All who dwell on the earth." In other words, no lost persons alive at that time had ever had their names in the book of life. Of course, they had never had their names erased from the book, either. The only way around this problem for those who hold to the ERASABLE NAME VIEW is to maintain that all the unsaved people who had their names erased were already dead by this time in history. That is certainly possible, but it is highly unlikely. It is especially unlikely in light of the intense persecution those who name the name of Christ will be facing during this time (see Revelation 13:7). ---------- This material has been adapted from: Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? by Dr. Charles Stanley (http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/bible_says/eternal_security/erase_149096.html) |
||||||
1204 | One save always saved? | Rev 3:5 | Radioman2 | 78783 | ||
Rev. 3:4-5 (ESV) [4] Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. [5] The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. "It is unfortunate that this passage in Revelation has become a focal point of controversy. The result has been a fixation on what the verse does not say rather than what it does say. This verse was never intended as a warning. Within its context there is nothing negative or foreboding about these words. In fact, it makes a strong statement in favor of eternal security. It is a passage of encouragement and praise. "The comments are directed to a group of faithful believers from the church in Sardis (Rev. 3:4 Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy). Unlike the majority of the folks in their congregation, this handful of members had remained unsoiled by the world around them. The verse in question contains Christ's commendation to this group for their consistent walk. "To assume from what is said here that God will possibly erase names from the book of life is to read into the text a concept clearly not present. At best, it is an argument from silence, for the verse simply reads, "And I will not erase his name from the book of life." If this statement raises doubts for some about eternal security, they would do well to search the Scriptures for an answer. But to base one's answer to this important question on this verse is to adopt a method of study with the potential of leading to all kinds of problematic conclusions." (...) "The good news is, God's pencil has no eraser. Before you breathed your first word, God knew how you would respond to His offer of grace. According to His foreknowledge, He wrote your name in the book of life. And there it shall remain forever. Jesus said it this way: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. John 10.27-28 "And as if that were not clear enough: "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. John 10.29 " (To read the entire article, which I suggest you do before you post questions, go to: http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/bible_says/eternal_security/erase_149096.html) |
||||||
1205 | One save always saved? | Rev 3:5 | Radioman2 | 78779 | ||
"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." NASB John 5:24 AMPLIFIED John 5:24 I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, the person whose ears are open to My words [who listens to My message] and believes and trusts in and clings to and relies on Him Who sent Me has (possesses now) eternal life. And he does not come into judgment [does not incur sentence of judgment, will not come under condemnation], but he has already passed over out of death into life. AMPLIFIED John 10:27-29 The sheep that are My own hear and are listening to My voice; and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never lose it or perish throughout the ages. [To all eternity they shall never by any means be destroyed.] And no one is able to snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater and mightier than all [else]; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. AMPLIFIED Romans 8:35 Who shall ever separate us from Christ's love? Shall suffering and affliction and tribulation? Or calamity and distress? Or persecution or hunger or destitution or peril or sword? AMPLIFIED Romans 8:38 For I am persuaded beyond doubt (am sure) that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things impending and threatening nor things to come, nor powers, AMPLIFIED Romans 8:39 Nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. AMPLIFIED Philippians 1:6 And I am convinced and sure of this very thing, that He Who began a good work in you will continue until the day of Jesus Christ [right up to the time of His return], developing [that good work] and perfecting and bringing it to full completion in you. AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 1:4-5 [Born anew] into an inheritance which is beyond the reach of change and decay [imperishable], unsullied and unfading, reserved in heaven for you, Who are being guarded (garrisoned) by God's power through [your] faith [till you fully inherit that final] salvation that is ready to be revealed [for you] in the last time. |
||||||
1206 | Why did Jesus say "never again?" | Matt 24:21 | Radioman2 | 78758 | ||
You write: "What covenant is God going to make with the Jews? He already made one with them and they blew it." - - - - - - - - - - "That Israel has not been forever set aside is the theme of this chapter (Romans 11). "(1) The salvation of Paul proves that there is still a remnant (Romans 11:1 ) "(2) The doctrine of the remnant proves it (Romans 11:2-6). "(3) The present national unbelief was foreseen (Romans 11:7-10). "(4) Israel's unbelief is the Gentile opportunity (Romans 11:11-25). "(5) Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree, Christ (Romans 11:17-22 ). "(6) They are to be grafted in again (Romans 11:23,24). "(7) The promised Deliverer will come out of Zion and the nation will be saved (Romans 11:25-29). That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture. The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham (Genesis 15:5,6; Galatians 3:29) and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant." "But Israel as a nation always has it own place and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God." (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/) |
||||||
1207 | JWs and the Wholly Other, Holy Spirit | Acts 5:3 | Radioman2 | 78750 | ||
. | ||||||
1208 | Did Go call Himself, El Shaddai, first? | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78718 | ||
NASB Genesis 13:4 "to the place of the altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the LORD" (Hebrew YHWH). EdB: Thank you for an excellent post. In addition, may I point out the following? 'God Almighty (Hebrew, El Shaddai), the strong or powerful God...The name Yahweh WAS KNOWN TO THE PATRIARCHS (Gen. 13:4), but its SIGNIFICANCE as the One who would redeem Israel from Egyptian bondage was not known until this time' (i.e. the time spoken of in Exodus 6). (Note at Exodus 6:3, Ryrie Study Bible: Expanded Edition. Emphasis added.) |
||||||
1209 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78703 | ||
Nice try, trying to put words into God's mouth. Why does the New World Translation insert the word Jehovah in the New Testament when there are absolutely no Greek manuscripts that have it in there? Isn’t this playing with the text? |
||||||
1210 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78702 | ||
You write: "Last but not lest, Acts 2:21; And everyone who calls on the name of JEHOVAH will be saved." As it is translated here, this statement is not true. It is false. It is a lie. In the Greek, Acts 2:21 does not say "Jevhovah." What is says is: NASB Acts 2:21 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD (Greek KURIOS, Strong's #2962) WILL BE SAVED.' |
||||||
1211 | Why did Jesus say "never again?" | Matt 24:21 | Radioman2 | 78685 | ||
You write: "If time is to end at the end of the tribulation..." If time is to end? The King James Version says: "that there should be time no longer:" Re 10:6 (KJV) And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: The NASB says: "that there will be DELAY no longer, " NASB Revelation 10:6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer, The Amplified Bible says: "that NO MORE TIME SHOULD INTERVENE and there should be NO MORE WAITING OR DELAY." AMPLIFIED Revelation 10:6 And swore in the name of (by) Him Who lives forever and ever, Who created the heavens (sky) and all they contain, and the earth and all that it contains, and the sea and all that it contains. [He swore] that no more time should intervene and there should be no more waiting or delay, If time is to end? NASB Revelation 22:2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Note: "yielding its fruit every MONTH." |
||||||
1212 | Does any body knows the 12 names of God | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78667 | ||
'Let's take a look at one quote from the Watchtower. '"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, p. 29). 'The Watchtower says that the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the physical resurrection of Christ are all false doctrines. Yet, the Watchtower says that if you read the Bible by itself you will end up believing these doctrines. In other words, if you read the Bible by itself, then you will become a Trinitarian, believe that Jesus is God, and believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically. Why is that? Could it be because the Bible teaches these things? So I ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, what is it in the Bible that would lead someone to this conclusion? Again, what is in the Bible that reading it by itself would lead you to believe in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and His physical resurrection? This quote from the Watchtower is proof that it is teaching contrary to the natural reading of the Bible and that it is controlling the beliefs of those who follow it. To see the Watchtower quote in context, go to: (http://www.carm.org/jw/bibletrinity.htm) |
||||||
1213 | What did God first call Himself? | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78629 | ||
So what are you saying? That YHWH, the name used almost 7,000 times in the Bible, is NOT really God's name? That it's just a man-made nickname? I'm sorry, but this doesn't even make any sense. In Genesis chapters 4 and 12 it does not say that people CALLED him YHWH. It says they began to CALL UPON THE NAME of YHWH. Where do you think they got the name -- that they just made it up? Do your research. Man called God YHWH because that is his name. Do you understand that? |
||||||
1214 | What is meant in Genesis 17, verse 1 - 7 | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78621 | ||
"Yahweh/Yah. YHWH, THE TETRAGRAMMATON BECAUSE OF ITS FOUR LETTERS, IS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE ONLY PROPER NAME FOR GOD. It is also the most frequent name, occurring in the Old Testament 6,828 times (almost 700 times in the Psalms alone). Yah is a shortened form that appears fifty times in the Old Testament, including forty-three occurrences in the Psalms, often in the admonition "hallelu-jah" (lit. praise Jah). English Bibles represent the name yhwh by the title "LORD" (written in capitals to distinguish it from "lord" [adonai]. The Septuagint rendered yhwh as kyrios (Lord). The line from yhwh to adonai to kyrios is significant for the Pauline statement: "And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Php 2:11)" (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi). |
||||||
1215 | What is meant in Genesis 17, verse 1 - 7 | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78616 | ||
"We are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8)." Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" NASB Exodus 3:13 'There has been considerable debate about the name of Yahweh in the Pentateuch, primarily because of the source critical approach that tried to argue that the name Yahweh was not known in antiquity. The argument of this whole section nullifies that view. The idea that God's name was revealed only here raises the question of what he was called earlier. The word "God" is not a name. "El Shaddai" is used only a few times in Genesis. But Israel would not have had a nameless deity-especially since we are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8). 'It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that only he existed and there was no other God. But probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites wanting to be sure that Moses came from their God, and that some sign could prove it. They would have known his name (Yahweh), and they would have known the ways that he had manifested himself. It would do no good for Moses to come with a new name for God, for that would be like introducing them to a new God. That would in no way authenticate his call to them, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name-they had been praying to their covenant God all along. They would want to be sure that their covenant God actually had sent Moses. 'To satisfy the Israelites Moses would have had to have been familiar with the name Yahweh-as they were-and know that he appeared to individuals. They would also want to know if Yahweh had sent Moses, how this was going to work in their deliverance, because they had been crying to him for deliverance. As it turned out, the Israelites had less problem with this than Moses anticipated-they were delighted when he came. It is likely that much of this concern was Moses' own need for assurance that this was indeed the God of the fathers and that the promised deliverance was now to take place. See the discussions of this passage in the commentaries on Exodus by Benno Jacob and Umberto Cassuto. ' (Study note at Exodus 3:13, The Net Bible, (www.netbible.com)) |
||||||
1216 | What is meant in Genesis 17, verse 1 - 7 | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78615 | ||
WHEN was the name of God known? Genesis 4:26 American Standard Version (ASV) Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah. NASB Genesis 4:26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD. Genesis 12:8 ASV Genesis 12:8 And he (Abram) removed from thence unto the mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto Jehovah, and called upon the name of Jehovah. NASB Genesis 12:8 Then he (Abram) proceeded from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD. |
||||||
1217 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78586 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part Two "In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26). "Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. "Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. "I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. "In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. "Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) |
||||||
1218 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78585 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part One Is baptism necessary for salvation? "No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: "First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. "Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. "The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation." (to be continued) (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) |
||||||
1219 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 78578 | ||
For God so loved the elect Hank: Haven't you heard? For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that if the elect believe in Him they shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
||||||
1220 | What is meant in Genesis 17, verse 1 - 7 | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78575 | ||
"We are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8)." Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" NASB Exodus 3:13 'There has been considerable debate about the name of Yahweh in the Pentateuch, primarily because of the source critical approach that tried to argue that the name Yahweh was not known in antiquity. The argument of this whole section nullifies that view. The idea that God's name was revealed only here raises the question of what he was called earlier. The word "God" is not a name. "El Shaddai" is used only a few times in Genesis. But Israel would not have had a nameless deity-especially since we are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8). 'It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that only he existed and there was no other God. But probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites wanting to be sure that Moses came from their God, and that some sign could prove it. They would have known his name (Yahweh), and they would have known the ways that he had manifested himself. It would do no good for Moses to come with a new name for God, for that would be like introducing them to a new God. That would in no way authenticate his call to them, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name-they had been praying to their covenant God all along. They would want to be sure that their covenant God actually had sent Moses. 'To satisfy the Israelites Moses would have had to have been familiar with the name Yahweh-as they were-and know that he appeared to individuals. They would also want to know if Yahweh had sent Moses, how this was going to work in their deliverance, because they had been crying to him for deliverance. As it turned out, the Israelites had less problem with this than Moses anticipated-they were delighted when he came. It is likely that much of this concern was Moses' own need for assurance that this was indeed the God of the fathers and that the promised deliverance was now to take place. See the discussions of this passage in the commentaries on Exodus by Benno Jacob and Umberto Cassuto. ' (Study note at Exodus 3:13, The Net Bible, (www.netbible.com)) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ] Next > Last [66] >> |