Results 1241 - 1260 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1241 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77860 | ||
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Nowhere in Matthew 24:12 is there any form of THE ENGLISH WORD b-a-c-k-s-l-i-d-i-n-g. I say again: If you can, show me the book, show me the chapter, and show me the verse where any form of the word "backsliding" appears in the NT. - - - - - - - - - - Once again, nowhere in the NT do we find the *word* "backsliding". What we do find in the NT is the English translation of the Greek word for "apostasy" (Apostasia (Strong's #646) defined as "a falling away, defection, apostasy." The English translation of the Greek word appears twice in the KJV New Testament. It is translated "to forsake" in Acts 21:21 and "falling away" in 2 Thess. 2:3. Apostasy defined and summarized: "Apostasy, Summary: Apostasy, "falling away," is the act of professed Christians who deliberately reject revealed truth "(1) as to the deity of Jesus Christ, and "(2) redemption through His atoning and redeeming sacrifice (1 John 4:1-3; Philippians 3:18 ; 2 Peter 2:1). Apostasy differs from error concerning truth, which may be the result of ignorance (Acts 19:1-6) or heresy, which may be due to the sphere of Satan (2 Timothy 2:25,26) both of which may consist with true faith. The apostate is perfectly described in (2 Timothy 4:3,4). Apostates depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession of Christianity (2 Timothy 3:5). Apostate teachers are described in: 2 Timothy 4:3; 2 Peter 2:1-19; Jude 1:4,8,11-13,16 . "Apostasy in the church, as in Israel (Isaiah 1:5,6; 5:5-7) is irremediable, and awaits judgment (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 ; 2 Peter 2:17,21; Jude 1:11-15; Revelation 3:14-16.)" Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on 2 Tim 3". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/ 1917. |
||||||
1242 | Do you sin every day? | 1 John 1:8 | Radioman2 | 77847 | ||
"[deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin" Check this: In 1 John 3:9 this phrase conveys the idea of habitual sinning. Amplified New Testament 1 John 3:9 "No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him...and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God." The key words are: "[deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin" and "he cannot practice sinning." This phrase conveys the idea of habitual sinning (see 1 John 3:4,6). The emphasis here is on the first part of v. 9: "No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him." (Read 1 John 3:4-9 in the Amplified Bible in order to read the verse in context.) - - - - - - - - - - Amplified New Testament 1 John 1: 8 If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts]. 9 If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just (true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [dismiss our lawlessness] and [continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action]. 10 If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts]. 1 John 2: MY LITTLE children, I write you these things so that you may not violate God’s law and sin. But if anyone should sin, we have an Advocate (One Who will intercede for us) with the Father—[it is] Jesus Christ [the all] righteous [upright, just, Who conforms to the Father’s will in every purpose, thought, and action]. 2 And He [that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world. |
||||||
1243 | Holy Spirit | Rom 8:9 | Radioman2 | 77838 | ||
Question:What are the Conditions for the Holy Spirit to Dwell, to start working in ones heart? - - - - - - - - - - Answer (short): 'C. CONDITIONS FOR BEING *FILLED*. '1) *A dedicated life*. '2) *An undefeated life*. '3) *A dependent life* Answer (full): The Holy Spirit -- baptized by, indwelt by, filled with 1) Upon salvation we are *baptized* (placed) into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. NASB 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit. 2) Also, at the time of our salvation, we are *indwelt* by the Holy Spirit. NASB Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. AMPLIFIED Romans 8:9 But you are not living the life of the flesh, you are living the life of the Spirit, if the [Holy] Spirit of God [really] dwells within you [directs and controls you]. But if anyone does not possess the [Holy] Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [he does not belong to Christ, is not truly a child of God]. [Rom. 8:14.] NASB Ephesians 1 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. AMPLIFIED Ephesians 1 13In Him you also who have heard the Word of Truth, the glad tidings (Gospel) of your salvation, and have believed in and adhered to and relied on Him, were stamped with the seal of the long-promised Holy Spirit. 14That [Spirit] is the guarantee of our inheritance [the firstfruits, the pledge and foretaste, the down payment on our heritage], in anticipation of its full redemption and our acquiring [complete] possession of it--to the praise of His glory. 3) We are also commanded to be *filled* with the Spirit. Eph. 5:18 NASB Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, AMPLIFIED Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but ever be filled and stimulated with the [Holy] Spirit. [Prov. 23:20.] While all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), it is obvious that not all believers at all times are *filled* (controlled and empowered) by the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). ' X. THE FILLING OF THE SPIRIT. (...) 'B. CHARACTERISTICS. 1) Filling is commanded (Eph 5:18, the verb is imperative). 2) Filling is repeated (Acts 2:4; 4:31). 3) Filling produces Christlikeness (Gal 5:22-23). 'C. CONDITIONS FOR BEING FILLED. '1) *A dedicated life*. Yielding to the Spirit's control, though commanded, is voluntary and necessitates an act of dedication. This includes two aspects: initial dedication (Rom 12:1-2) and continual dedication of one's life (Rom 8:14). 2) *An undefeated life*. Victory over sin in daily experience is necessary in being controlled by the Spirit (Eph 4:30). This means responding to the light of the Word as it is continually revealed (1 John 1:7). 3) *A dependent life* (Gal 5:16). 'D. CONSEQUENCES. Being filled or controlled by the Spirit means: 1) A Christlike character (Gal 5:22-23). 2) Worship and praise (Eph 5:18-20). 3) Submissiveness (Eph 5:21). 4) Service (John 7:37-39).' (Page 2064, the Ryrie Study Bible: Expanded Edition, Moody, 1986, 1995.) Eph. 5:18 "be filled with the Spirit. Paul has taught in this epistle that all believers are sealed with the Spirit when they believe (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30), but not all are filled, since that depends on yieldedness to God's will (5:17). 'Filling' describes an experience that can be repeated (Acts 2:4; 4:31), and here, as in Acts, it is connected with joy, courage, spirituality and Christian character. Though contrasted with drunkenness, the filling of the Spirit compares the idea of control, either of wine over a person or the Spirit over the believer" (Ryrie Study Bible: Expanded Edition, note at Eph. 5:18). |
||||||
1244 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77743 | ||
I don't care to deal with the question of how many of the 10 Commandments are in force? I did deal with it on Fri 03/7/03. Following is a repost for those who missed it. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
1245 | I refuse to deal with it??? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77742 | ||
I don't care to deal with the question of how many of the 10 Commandments are in force? I did deal with it on Fri 03/7/03. Following is a repost for those who missed it. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
1246 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77737 | ||
In the Mosaic Law there are 613 commandments. Neither nine nor ten, but 613. | ||||||
1247 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77736 | ||
Hebrews 10:39 (NKJV) But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. 10:39 "draw back to perdition. The writer expresses confidence that believing readers ("we") will not be counted among "those" who fall away to destruction" (MacArthur Study Bible). 1 John 2:19 (NKJV) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 2:19 "They went out from us...none of them were of us. The first characteristic mentioned of antichrists, i.e., false teachers and deceivers (vv. 22-26), is that they depart from the faithful. They arise from within the church and depart from true fellowship and lead people out with them. "The verse also places emphasis on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Those genuinely born again endure in faith and fellowship and the truth (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 2:12). The ultimate test of true Christianity is endurance (Mark 13:13; Heb. 3:14) The departure of people from the truth and the church is their unmasking" (MacArthur Study Bible). |
||||||
1248 | One lamb per household | Ex 12:3 | Radioman2 | 77735 | ||
NASB Acts 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." "and your household." These words must be connected with "believe" as well as "be saved." Each member of the household must believe in order to be saved. |
||||||
1249 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77728 | ||
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your interest. But my question remains: Can you find any form of the *word* backsliding in the NT? Can you find the English word 'backsliding' (b-a-c-k-s-l-i-d-i-n-g) or any of its forms (e.g., backslide, backslidden, backslider) in the NT? |
||||||
1250 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77726 | ||
Can you find any form of the *word* backsliding in the NT? My question is not: Can you find the *concept* of backsliding in the NT? (The word Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible, yet the concept is Biblical. By contrast, we cannot say the word backslide is not found in the Bible. It is in the Bible! Backslide is found in the OT, but not in the New.) My question is not: CAN YOU FIND *SYNONYMS* FOR 'BACKSLIDING' IN THE NT? My question remains: Can you find any form of the *word* backsliding in the NT? Can you find the English word 'backsliding' (b-a-c-k-s-l-i-d-i-n-g) or any of its forms (e.g., backslide, backslidden, backslider) in the NT? If you can, show me the book, show me the chapter, and show me the verse where any form of the word backsliding appears in the NT. |
||||||
1251 | Psalm 37:24 | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77725 | ||
In a previous post (ID# 30239)someone wrote: 'The question has been debated, "Did Judas go to hell?" It seems to me the question could have been better resolved had it been considered from the perspective of whether Judas lost his salvation or whether he [n]ever had it to begin with. The weight of evidence in the New Testament points to the latter conclusion. Judas never "backslid" because he never "slid forward" -- he never was a truly regenerate disciple of Jesus Christ.' But I say unto you: Judas was definitely saved. Following are the Scripture passages that prove it beyond a doubt. NASB Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. NASB John 13:2 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon, to betray Him, KJV John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? NASB John 13:26-27 So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, [the son] of Simon Iscariot. After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. AMPLIFIED John 13:26-27 So when He had dipped the morsel of bread [into the dish], He gave it to Judas, Simon Iscariot's son. Then after [he had taken] the bit of food, Satan entered into and took possession of [Judas]. KJV John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition [Judas Iscariot -- the one who is now doomed to destruction, destined to be lost (AMPLIFIED)]; that the scripture might be fulfilled. KJV Acts 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. If you will carefully read the entire book of 1 John, you will see that all of the above verses about Judas show that he possessed every evidence of geniune saving faith. NOT! |
||||||
1252 | Psalm 37:24 | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77718 | ||
He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life. Revelation 3:5 "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. 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) |
||||||
1253 | Sin is Defined as Breaking God's Law | Gen 1:1 | Radioman2 | 77669 | ||
"Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
1254 | JWs and the Wholly Other, Holy Spirit | Acts 5:3 | Radioman2 | 77645 | ||
Acts 5:3,4 (ESV) But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men but to God." 'The Watchtower and the Wholly Other, Holy Spirit 'By Tim Martin 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches that the Holy Spirit is God's active force on the earth today. If this statement is taken alone, most Christians might agree to it. However, along with the above statement, the Watchtower also teaches that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but only a force, comparable to "wind or radio beams."[1] A Biblical examination of their arguments shows that they are twisting the facts to validate this heresy. 'Upon studying various years of Watchtower publications, one can see five key arguments used to teach their aberrant views on the Holy Spirit: '1- No name 2- Use of neuter pronouns 3- Historical Arguments 4- Impersonal references 5- Personification 'No Name '"The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit."[2] This quotation from the Watchtower is correct that the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name recorded in Scripture. However, this does not mean that He is not a person. If this were a valid argument, then one could suppose that a newborn child is not a person until he/she is named. In addition, Scripture does not record personal names for most of the demons it mentions, who are, nevertheless, personal. A name does not imply personality or impersonality. Therefore, the lack of a name for the Holy Spirit does not prove impersonality. The Watchtower admits that the Greek word for spirit (pneuma) is used of the demons.[3] Why would these nameless beings called "spirits" be persons, and the nameless Holy Spirit not be a person? The Watchtower argument is flawed.' '1 "Overseers in Apocalyptic Times," The Watchtower, January 15, 1958, pp. 42–3. '2 Reasoning From the Scriptures, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989, pp. 406–7. '3 Insight on the Scriptures, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989, pp. 612.' (http://www.watchman.org/jw/watchtowerholyspirit.htm) |
||||||
1255 | Failure to communicate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77584 | ||
Do we have a failure to communicate? "If we may cast aside the 'norm' of immersion, what other norms may we cast aside?" "...May be used as substitutes IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" does not equal "cast aside." Cast aside is not only an exaggeration, but also an apparently deliberate misquote of what I previously wrote. |
||||||
1256 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77571 | ||
The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
1257 | Did Paul actually "see" Jesus? | Rom 10:15 | Radioman2 | 77545 | ||
Actually Paul did see Jesus. 1 Cor. 15:8 (NKJV) Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. NKJV 1 Corinthians 15 3For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. |
||||||
1258 | Only one way to baptize? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 77534 | ||
Only one way to baptize? The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)." (http://www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
1259 | Only one way to baptize? | Mark 7:4 | Radioman2 | 77550 | ||
Only one way to baptize? The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)." (http://www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
1260 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77455 | ||
The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ] Next > Last [66] >> |