Results 121 - 140 of 165
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15207 | ||
SisterD: He who is without error among us shall cast the first stone. In that case, you have nothing to worry about. :-) You certainly are entitled to express your beliefs here on the forum. I tend to become a tad emotional over certain issues, but as anyone can tell you, "Radioman's bark is worse than his bite." Actually, Radioman has no bite. Figuratively speaking, he is a toothless old lion who enjoys roaring a bit now and then, but who couldn't bite even if he wanted to. :-) Sincerely, how could anyone be angry with you when you have such a kind and gentle attitude? Welcome to the Forum. (I should have said that first before I roared at you. Sorry.) :-) I look forward to reading many more of your postings in the future. Bless you, Radioman |
||||||
122 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15213 | ||
SisterD: Thank YOU! You just made my day! Radioman :-) |
||||||
123 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15240 | ||
To quote a thoroughly reliable source (myself), I said "figuratively speaking, R-man is a toothless old lion." You ask a lot of questions for somebody who lives in Arkansas. :-) Watch the lion stuff. Don't push it, Hank H. :-) (Just kidding.) Radioman |
||||||
124 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15296 | ||
Norrie, you are truly one of my favorite people on the Forum. You have a great attitude. If I were in need of prayer, I think you would be at the top of the list of people that I would ask to pray for me. So, although I disagree somewhat, what I write here is by no means intended to criticize or offend you. I'll make my answer short. You write: "There are those that say, well, he was never REALLY saved, but how do we know?" How do we know? 1 John 2:19 (NIV) They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. Faith that endures is the only legitimate saving faith. Consider Matthew 13:20. Some people make an emotional, superficial commitment to salvation in Christ, but it is not real. They remain interested only until there is a sacrificial price to pay, and then abandon Christ. Always remember: we do not prove the Bible nor do we build doctrine on the experience(s) of people, whether the experiences are ours or belong to others. We do not establish Bible doctrine on case examples. On the contrary, we prove or disprove experience by the Bible. There are biblical evidences of genuine saving faith. Maybe we'll get into those soon. I hope this helps. Go with God, Radioman |
||||||
125 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15389 | ||
Re: the post " Hank, Your analogy of the lost son is ..." Hank, is this Note even worth answering? The arguments presented are so tiresome. The first sentence in the other Note is "Your analogy of the lost son is innaccurate." That sentence itself is laughably inaccurate. You very accurately called Luke 15:11 and following the "parable of the lost son." The theme of the chapter is not "sinners that need to repent." It is more than obvious from reading the chapter that it contains three parables concerning joy over repentance. Does John 15 have to do with the judgment of sinners? For everyone's information, lost souls are not gathered up in bundles to be burned. God deals individually with souls. Then we jump to the subject of man's much-touted ability to choose. Hello? While not denying human responsibility, can we at least acknowledge that divine sovereignty has something to do with our salvation? Then the writer of the other Note says: "I have seen those committed to Christ turn back to the world..." No, you haven't. You've never seen any such thing. This whole idea of proving the Bible by case histories or the experiences of people was adequately addressed in another submission posted yesterday. I quote yesterday's post for those who missed it. "I'll make my answer short. You write: "There are those that say, well, he was never REALLY saved, but how do we know?" How do we know? "1 John 2:19 (NIV) They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. "Faith that endures is the only legitimate saving faith. Consider Matthew 13:20. Some people make an emotional, superficial commitment to salvation in Christ, but it is not real. They remain interested only until there is a sacrificial price to pay, and then abandon Christ. "Always remember: we do not prove the Bible nor do we build doctrine on the experience(s) of people, whether the experiences are ours or belong to others. We do not establish Bible doctrine on case examples. On the contrary, we prove or disprove experience by the Bible." Finally, the other post uses the same old tired and false argument twisted from 2 Peter 2 to "prove" that it's possible for a blood bought, blood washed, born-again, Holy-Spirit sealed and indwelt child of God to "fall from grace and lose his salvation." Who is being spoken of in 2 Peter 2: false teachers or born-again Christians? The answer is simple to ascertain. Verses 20-22 use the word "they" a number of times. They is a pronoun. Every pronoun has an antecedent. If one keeps backing up until he find the pronoun's antecedent in 2:1, he will see that the chapter is talking about false teachers. False teachers, not believers. There is no magic or guesswork here. This conclusion is arrived at by the application of the rules of English grammar. Oh, did I forget to mention? This question and the arguments from John 15 and 2 Peter 2 have been asked, answered and refuted a number of times. Anyone who can read will note before he posts a question that the instructions plainly say: "Please search for your question before asking it?" Merely following the directions would have shown that this question has already been debated to death here on the forum. |
||||||
126 | 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. |
||||||
127 | 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 |
||||||
128 | Do you forgive Judas? | John 13:11 | Radioman | 42791 | ||
If anyone's postings result in Love Fountain becoming discouraged from future Forum participation, then that one's writings will not have been in vain. Be assured: reporting abusive or innappropriate postings to the Lockman Foundation has been done and shall continue to be done whenever necessary. |
||||||
129 | 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? |
||||||
130 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | Radioman | 5553 | ||
You say: "These things will take place only after the rapture of the Church." If this is so, then why does Peter say in Acts 2:16, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel"? Verse 17 goes on to say: "And it shall come to pass in the last days." We are in the last days. We have been in the last days since Jesus opened his eyes in a manger in Bethlehem. Answer (short): In Acts 2:17 the phrase " 'last days' refers to the present era of redemptive history from the first coming of Christ (Heb 1:2; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 2:18) to his return." (p. 1636, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). Answer (full): "LAST DAYS. In the passage quoted from Joel the Hebrew has 'after this' and the Septuagint 'after these things.' Peter interprets the passage as referring specifically to the latter days of the new covenant in contrast to the former days of the old covenant." At the time of Acts chapter 2, "the age of Messianic fulfillment" had "arrived." (p. 1575, Zondervan NASB Study Bible, edited by Kenneth Barker, Zondervan, 1999) "Last Day(s), Latter Days, Last Times. There are problems with the terminology of 'the latter days' in that, for example, the King James Version quite often refers to 'the latter days,' an expression not found in modern translations. Further, it is not always clear whether 'the latter days' means a somewhat later period than that of the writer or the latest times of all, the end of the world. There are also expressions that locate the day being discussed in the time of the speaker. Care is needed as we approach the passages that use these terms." (pp. 464-465, Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible, Walter A. Elwell, editor, Baker Books, 1996) |
||||||
131 | Reformed and Arminian Gospel Preaching | Rom 1:18 | Radioman | 20623 | ||
The one born of Armenian descent would be the Armenian. The one who believes in the opposite of Calvinism would be the arminian. |
||||||
132 | response | Rom 1:18 | Radioman | 20627 | ||
schwartzkm: In all sincerity, thank you for a very interesting post. However, I need clarification on something you wrote. Systamtic Theology. "Systamtic" is not a word that I am familiar with. Also, I could not find the word in the dictionary. Could you please define the word "Systamtic' in order to clarify your meaning. I won't know whether I agree or disagree with you until I know what the word means. Thank you. |
||||||
133 | response | Rom 1:18 | Radioman | 22033 | ||
Joe: I have been reading your writings on the forum from the beginning. Your points are always well thought out, well researched and well written. I notice that you do not just write off the top of your head. You are thorough and accurate in every factual matter with which you deal. Any dabbler or babbler who thinks he can just waltz in here and with a few "witty" postings refute your points is very much mistaken. On the forum I've said all along that before one attempts to disprove or refute a position, he had better be very familiar with that position in order to write intelligently about it. Bravado and sophistry are themselves marks of immaturity and are no match for a knowledgeable, articulate believer such as yourself. Keep up the excellent, excellent work. Radioman P.S. To attack the razor sharp mind of R.C. Sproul with a dull butter knife is laughable at best. |
||||||
134 | 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. | ||||||
135 | What is guilt? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman | 4386 | ||
"guilt is feeling that we feel when laws are breached." Guilt is a feeling, but it is not merely a subjective feeling. It is also an objective fact. Guilt is the "fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty." "The guilt we feel can be ours or someone elses ie; when a plate is broken by a child and another child runs away crying.They feel the guilt of the broken plate,even though it is not their guilt. That is why we are no longer under the old law." "They feel the guilt of the broken plate,even though it is not their guilt. That is why we are no longer under the old law." Are you sure? Is this your Final Answer? I don't think so. The reason we are no longer under the Law is that, since Christ's death on the cross, we are now under Grace. |
||||||
136 | Are those He called always chosen? - II | Rom 8:30 | Radioman | 14319 | ||
Get rid of a conceited person, and then there will be no more arguments, quarreling, or name-calling. Proverbs 22:10 GOD'S WORD Translation Who is the conceited person, Steve? "Thou art the man." By the way, lad, you yourself have neither proved nor answered anything. P.S. Could you post one complete Note or Answer without a misspelling? Would it kill you to use spell checker or a dictionary? It isn't the English language that is poor and horrible; it's your use of English. |
||||||
137 | so in other words it's not wrong | Rom 8:38 | Radioman | 14487 | ||
Hank: If I didn't know your voice, I'd have thought I said that. I'm sure your questions will be answered with more sentences containing either grammatical and/or orthographic errors. By the way, does anyone know what a "blnak" (sic) mind is? Does anyone know what spell check is or how to use it? Or why to use it? My suggestion is that His Honor, the Judge, could save himself and the Forum a lot of embarrassment if he would just SHUT UP until he has something worth saying. |
||||||
138 | RELIGION HOMEWORK HELP | Rom 12:2 | Radioman | 40315 | ||
We are never to appraise or evaluate anything by our feelings alone. Everything, including "Jesus Christ Superstar", must be judged in light of the Bible, the Word of God. And the fact is this musical play DOES NOT line up with what is clearly revealed in the Bible about the person and motives of Christ. The composer came right out and said this is the last 7 days of Christ AS SEEN THROUGH THE EYES OF JUDAS. This is the Gospel According to Judas, which is another gospel and another Christ. You continually drag the Holy Spirit and the name of Christ into your witless defense of the blasphemous production "Jesus Christ Superstar." You piously complain that your conversation with others seems to have degenerated and that people are arguing. YOU are the one who repeatedly issues personal attacks to all who oppose your unorthodox views. WHY do you think this thread has been restricted? THINK! |
||||||
139 | Communion, how often? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Radioman | 4387 | ||
The original question is: How often should communion be taken (received)? How does Passover relate to the original question? Since Passover is observed only ONCE a year, does that mean you think communion should be served only ONCE a year? | ||||||
140 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | Radioman | 25777 | ||
'ank: 'e was so wery 'umble that I thought 'e were Uriah Heep reincarnated. David C. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |