Results 121 - 140 of 165
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | Radioman | 9703 | ||
Those who come to those passages (Heb. 6:4, etc.) and try to tell you that they refer to a loss of salvation are forcing those passages into their theological biases. |
||||||
122 | "...you are so slow to understand" | Heb 5:11 | Radioman | 8915 | ||
RSV Hebrews 5:11-14 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God's word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. Today's English Version Hebrews 5: 11 There is much we have to say about this matter, but it is hard to explain to you, because you are so slow to understand. 12 There has been enough time for you to be teachers—yet you still need someone to teach you the first lessons of God's message. Instead of eating solid food, you still have to drink milk. 13 Anyone who has to drink milk is still a child, without any experience in the matter of right and wrong. 14 Solid food, on the other hand, is for adults, who through practice are able to distinguish between good and evil. |
||||||
123 | Please accept my apology. | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 8189 | ||
EdB: Thank you. And I also look forward to sharing that moment when we join hands in heaven, no more to "see through a glass, darkly." 3 John 1:2 Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. Radioman |
||||||
124 | Is the Word-Faith movement biblical ? | John 10:27 | Radioman | 8173 | ||
Mark: It is more than gracious of you to write: "Case in point is the diatribe I got from Radioman. I couldn't take it personal, for it was largely not a response to what I said, but what it made him feel." How kind and Christ-like of you to see it that way. It's more kindness than I deserve. You are right. When I went off on you, you were not the one I was angry with. I had a lot of accumulated anger towards certain individuals on the Forum. (Neither you nor EdB were among that number.) I took out my anger upon you. My pre-existing anger is no excuse for treating you the way I did. There is no excuse for that. My apology is way overdue and should have been made days ago. I have nothing but repentance and remorse for my extreme personal remarks to you that I posted last week. You in no way deserved such treatement from me. In this you have been the Christian and I have played the role of pagan. I take back every harsh and critical remark I made to you. I apologize for every offensive syllable. I admit I was way wrong. Will you forgive me? I have been following your postings. At all times you have demonstrated a splendid attitude in all you've written. The content of your postings are biblical and they do make sense, a lot of sense. Again, I apologize and ask your forgiveness for my inexcusable past behavior toward you. I hope it's not too late for us to be friends, but if it is, I know I brought it upon myself. Keep up the positive, helpful posts. Sincerely, Radioman |
||||||
125 | Mark why do you say that? | John 10:27 | Radioman | 8011 | ||
Mark: You are no fan of CRI? Somehow I doubt that CRI is a fan of Mark Sutton. So you're another one of those unteachable spirits who don't need any man to teach you? Does this attitude not strike you as arrogant, as well as foolish? You've walked with many fringe groups, some of which hold beliefs or practices that are controversial? It's OK to listen to fringe groups, but not OK to listen to widely known, widely respected teachers? I can only imagine what your belief system consists of. What could it be but chaos and confusion? I haven't heard you say anything on this Forum that represents sound Bible doctrine. Those in the first century who rejected or disobeyed the truth were not rejecting the very words of the New Testament, since it was as yet not completed. What they rejected were the teaching of men (oh, I thought we didn't need men to teach us). They rejected men who were apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers, etc. So much for the theory that all teachings of men should be rejected. Instead of rejecting such teachings, it would be far more appropriate to test those teachings against the written Word to see if they line up. As someone here has posted previously, if all we need is the Bible and no teachers, then why did Jesus instruct his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel? According to your logic, wouldn't it have been just as effective to keep the disciples in Jerusalem, mail copies of the Bible to nonbelievers, and let them figure it out for themselves? Whoever despises and distrusts most, if not all, of the teachers that Christ has given to the church is a fool. But whoever despises and distrusts outstanding leaders and teachers of conservative evangelical Bible doctrine shall have to answer for it to God. To malign the character of someone who can see through false doctrine and speak out against it is to stand on very thin ice. It is the duty of every teacher to warn others against false doctrine. The problem with many people is that they base their beliefs, not on the Bible, but on what their Sunday School teacher taught them in the distant past, what their parents said was true, what they hear on TBN, and who knows what else. When a teacher who is thoroughly grounded in the Word and unemcumbered with superstition and bad doctrine comes along to fulfill his duty to warn others to turn away from error, heresy, apostasy or whatever term fits, all the pious self-appointed experts want to do to him what others did to the prophets and to Christ himself, which is to arrange a violent and speedy death or exile for the true prophet. It's not right for someone who really does know basic Bible doctrine to appraise the controversial teachings of a group of men? (Men, you know, the plural of man, as in i need no man to teach me. By the way if one needs no man to teach him, why join up with some fringe group in the first place? I have a problem with those who are condemning those who are most qualified to preach the truth of God's word and then defending those who have questionable beliefs.) Surely you are not suggesting or implying that "trusted defenders of the faith" are out to persecute, whip up powers against and kill people who are in error as to their doctrine, are you? Bad enough to slander a man's character with lies and slander, but worse still to accuse him of nurturing murder in his heart. Verbal "attacks" on false doctrine are entirely essential and fitting in this age of bad teaching, no teaching, and deceptive teaching. As far as understanding what a man means before you judge his words, your assertion is full of confusion and illogic. When a man speaks or writes, we determine what he means by what he says. Words have meaning and by a man's own words he will accuse or excuse himself. If a fringe leader or anyone else has insufficient knowledge of the Bible and the doctrine it contains, he'd best stay off the platform and away from the pulpit, the camera and the microphone. I admit there is a lot of bad teaching on TV and radio and one must use a great deal of discernment to know which to turn on and which to turn off and leave off. But, if one looks for it, he will find many trustworthy ministries whose teaching is uncorrupted by strange and outlandish false doctrine. A good example of TV to beware of is the so-called Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Why do they even call it the Trinity Network, when they allow on the network people who do not even believe in the Trinity? You may or may not be open to reproof, correction or instruction. But it is hoped that someone will read this post and wake up and be warned. To summarize: a cult is a cult is a cult. False doctrine does much harm to many people. If anyone exposes false doctrine, he should be commended, not condemned, for doing so. |
||||||
126 | You answer one question with 3 more? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7955 | ||
EdB: Apology accepted! Please excuse my unintentionally late reply to your posting of 12:52pm. I only saw it a few minutes ago. Before I say anything else, let me say: I overlooked and was completely unaware of your apology until just a few minutes ago. I regret and apologize for any and all harsh remarks that I posted to you between 12:52pm and the writing of this note (approx. 9:00pm). For such replies of mine to be posted after your apology only compounds my offensive behavior. Please let me explain something that accounts for, but does not excuse, my outburst. Dr. Scofield has been a favorite of mine since childhood. I am exceedingly sensitive to any personal criticism of Dr. Scofield. But, as I say, this is no excuse for rudeness or unkindness on my part. I gladly choose to forget our heated exchange and put it in the past. I freely, joyfully, sincerely accept your apology. I must apologize to you for my overreaction to your comment. Will you forgive me? You had the right intention when you attempted to get the discussion between JVH0212 and Lionstrong back on track. I assure you I think none the worse of you. It is I who hope that you think none the worse of me. Consider the sword in your heart removed. EdB, I would rather be your friend than not. Bless you. Radioman |
||||||
127 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | Radioman | 7929 | ||
EdB concludes: "Scofield must be right his Bible has been in print for 90 years 9 decades". You're the one who said it, EdB, not me. Steve Butler must be right, because EdB agrees with him. EdB must be right, because Steve Butler, the man who knows everything and understands nothing, agrees with him. Or, here is another alternative: The blind are leading the blind. |
||||||
128 | Churchianity to be answered: | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7923 | ||
Steve Butler: "Radioman ... it is by implication." Radioman speaks: "It is by implication?" No, it isn't. It may be by the infallible inference of one who was "correct most of the time." However, no such implication is made anywhere in that entire chapter of Acts. Remedial reading: The Bereans corrected Paul and he accepted it? Where does it say that in Acts 17:11? Notice, the question is not 'where does it IMPLY that?' The question is 'where does it SAY that?' By what stretch of the imagine do you take "they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" to mean they corrected Paul and he accepted it? You have a real knack for changing the subject, ignoring the question, and then answering new and different questions that you made up. |
||||||
129 | Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? | Gen 6:2 | Radioman | 7921 | ||
Elijah's Answer: "The sons spoken of in 6:2 are angles that left there proper dewling place (heaven)and came down to marry the daughters of men (Elijah)" Reply: Matt 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. "Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
130 | Churchianity to be answered: | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7911 | ||
The Bereans corrected Paul and he accepted it? Where does it say that in Acts 17:11? By what stretch of the imagine do you take "they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" to mean they corrected Paul and he accepted it? Also, thank you for judging every church in America and finding yourself not guilty. But I guess never being guilty goes hand in hand with never ever being wrong. |
||||||
131 | You answer one question with 3 more? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 7902 | ||
Apparently, as far as you are concerned, a prohibition against slandering another man's character is not a commandment. What does your life attest to? |
||||||
132 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Radioman | 6798 | ||
"We can throw ropes (Word of God) but a person must get ahold of it." Yes, Jim, I honestly agree with you. The problem is that some are throwing out straws to grab onto, not ropes -- straws of speculation and misinterpreation. (I don't mean to imply that you do this, Jim. I'm not saying you do or have ever done this. My remark is for certain "other(s).") |
||||||
133 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Radioman | 6797 | ||
Subject: Placing of sun, moon and stars Lionstrong says: As to 2 Cor 10:5, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,....” Some consider the doctrines of evolution to be speculations raised up against the knowledge of God. Radioman says: You can't destroy one speculation (theory of evolution) with another speculation (placing of sun, moon and stars). You may or may not know anything about astronomy, but God does. One need not go through mental gymnastics and invent a strange interpretation of a verse in Genesis in order to refute evolution. The existing body of evidence refuting evolution is more than adequate. Lionstrongs says: Now, let it be conceded that some of our aged scholars within the forum may not find in this meager note much that is good for their own personal edification, but what in my posting was BAD for it? Radioman says: What in your posting was good for anyone's edification? Lionstrong says: What in this posting warrants such ridicule, castigation and censorship, however frustrated one may be by such postings? Radioman says: The only thing in your note that warrants criticism is the following: "Subject: Placing of sun, moon and stars "Note: It appears that God did not create the sun, moon and stars in place. He created them and then "placed" them. Maybe that's why the light from the stars, though great distances from the earth, is already here. They were created near the earth, then moved out to their places. " Radioman says: I find it odd that you post a note asking, What in this posting warrants such ridicule, castigation and censorship? You've already been the recipient of several clear and unambiguous posts explaining to you why your postings are offensive and the target of criticism. ************************* Lionstrong says: What word of the note was unwholesome? Radioman says: Nowhere in Lockman's criteria for voting is the word "wholesome" even mentioned. Lockman's criteria is as follows: What does my vote mean? Is this posting appropriate to the subject matter? Vote YES if the subject matter of this posting reasonably fits within the scope of the others in this subject. Vote NO if the subject matter of this posting does not fit within the the scope of other postings to this subject. For example, a post could have been submitted in error. Is this posting biblically supported? Vote YES if this posting appropriately used Scripture to support its point. (Note: Even though "more can be better," a lot of verse references in a post does not necessarily mean they are properly used. On the contrary, a single verse reference or quote from Scripture may be all that is needed to clarify and solidify a point). Vote NO if a post fails to support itself Biblically. Either a conclusion or assumption was made that lacked sufficient Scripture, or Scripture was used out of context. Some times a brief post will refer to a previous biblically supported post by the same author, rather than voting NO, see the definition of "Not Applicable" below. In general, is this a good posting? Vote YES if, based primarily on your votes regarding the appropriateness and biblical support, this post offers significant input to a subject. Vote NO if, based primarily on your votes regarding the appropriateness and biblical support, this post does not offer significant input to a subject. (The next 2 questions may help some users to know whether a post contains what is considered, to the Bible student, "controversial" or "denominationally biased".) Is this verse or subject controversial? Vote YES if this post is regarding a subject where more that one major Biblical interpretation exist. Vote NO if this post is regarding a subject where differing major Biblical interpretations do not exist. Is this note denominationally biased? Vote YES if this post is regarding a subject where major denominations take opposing positions. Vote NO if this post is regarding a subject where major denominations do not take opposing positions. |
||||||
134 | The burden of proof is on you. | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6691 | ||
True to form you split hairs over gravity and miss the main point of the original discussion, which has nothing in the world to do with gravity. Gravity was merely cited as an example. You waste your time and everyone else's. I never knew of anyone who had such a talent for writing endlessly about nothing. I see no Christian motive whatever behind your participation in the forum. Your every utterance is contrary to everyone and everything. Prov 17:28 Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent. (Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.) Prov 15:14 The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly. Prov 1:7 ...Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov 1:22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? Prov 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly. If you can read this and continue to sit there grinning like an idiot as though you had accomplished something worthwhile, then maybe you're the one who had best find other websites with which to amuse yourself. You neither help nor enlighten anyone by your words or your attitude. |
||||||
135 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Radioman | 6561 | ||
The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons are not merely in error. They are in outright apostasy, just as the Oneness doctrine is heresy. You may wish to look up the terms in the dictionary. If you do, you will find that there is a "little" difference between error and heresy or apostasy. | ||||||
136 | Extra! Extra! | Gen 2:1 | Radioman | 6559 | ||
I guess I'll have to wait until the English translation of your comments comes out. Then I'll try to figure out what, if anything, you are trying to say. Regarding commentaries, if you have a point, would you mind telling us what it is? |
||||||
137 | Which is truth, Science or God's Word? | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6557 | ||
Once you make up your own private definition of what truth is, a definition which no one but you can understand or believe, then you can prove to yourself that anything and everything is fasle. But what a confused and confusing world you would live in. | ||||||
138 | Jesus is the truth | John 14:6 | Radioman | 6551 | ||
What in the world are you talking about? Jesus said WHAT? You believe WHAT? Understanding comes before belief. Christianity is not a blind leap of faith. Our faith is in the fact of the Word of God. Our faith in Christ for salvation is grounded in the biblical and historical FACT of His resurrection. If we close our mind to the clear teaching of the Bible and refuse to use our God-given intellect, we will not be walking in the truth. Truth that is neither known nor discerned is truth that is not available to us. "Jesus is Love also We must put on Christ." What does that have to do with the question at hand? |
||||||
139 | Quest for Truth | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6549 | ||
"Sometimes the context or other passages helps us understand how a word is to be taken." Sometimes an English or Greek dictionary helps us understand what a word means. "John 14:6 teaches that Jesus is the truth. It does not teach that truth is Jesus." This makes about as much sense as saying: It is true that 2 plus 2 equals 4. It is not true that 4 equals 2 plus 2. |
||||||
140 | Defining Truth | Josh 10:12 | Radioman | 6548 | ||
Anyone can make any assertion about anything. But do you have proof that what you assert here is true? If you can, give us the title of the book, the author, the page number, and the publisher where it says the law of gravity changed in 1905. Who changed it? How did it change? Was it abolished or merely amended? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |