Results 161 - 180 of 280
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Scribe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Are we listening to each other? | John 12:32 | Scribe | 104067 | ||
PART 2 OF 3 These songs were written and sung by Charismatics as a better way to express Real Worship from the heart toward God instead of empty vain ritualistism. Charismatics or Pentacostals, (I refer to those that believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate and additional work of Grace available to those that are Born Again) believe that we should not let what people think about us hinder us from doing biblical things to express our enthusiasm for the Lord such as Lifting hands toward heaven as an act of faith and surrender. Not that we have to but that we want to. And so their music is also heart felt and expressive. Charismatics or those that believe that the Gifts of the Spirit mentioned in Acts, I Corinthians, Romans etc.. are still available for the church today as they were active in the church then (charismatic is a shorter way of saying that) believe that a Christian should be lead along by the Holy Spirit in worship. In a church that believes in the Leading of the Spirit a common experience is that you will be worshipping the Lord, maybe your eyes are closed maybe not, you might feel like (have the desire) to just lift up your hands toward the Lord and tell Him how much you love Him, and then at another moment you will sense you should be quite and listen to the Lord, and the Lord will just drop a thought or remind you of a scripture that you need.. at that time you are feeling the desire to be quite, you may suddenly notice that the song leader just started singing the song slower and lower, much quieter and he may be repeating the same phrase over and over, but it is the perfect thing to do at the time. The song leader did not communicate with you but yet, because you are all allowing the Spirit to control the flow of the worship service it seems as if he felt the same desire to be quiet when you did. You cant help but just break out in a smile and think “wow, God you are awesome” and as you allow yourself to be moved by the Spirit you experience God in more than just intellectualism. Intellectualism is great. And I bank everything on the written word. A person who has not experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or does not attempt to operate in the Gifts of the Spirit will not understand the emotional worship of a charismatic church. They will see the repetition of a phrase as fluff. But there is another reason they might think so. It is more likely that they have not been in a charismatic church where this type of song was originated and seen it being sung in the setting of a group of sincere believers that are expressing heart felt worship and being lead by the Spirit. (and no I am not talking about Benny Hinn). But more than likely those that take offense to the repetition of chorus music are hearing it in a mainline denomination who have tried to make their music more “upbeat” and “modern” to attract a “younger crowd” and so they have instituted “traditional worship times” and “contemporary worship times” The difference being the music they are playing (and I say playing because many of their congregation do not sing just stand there) is borrowed from the charismatic movement. But now since they do not believe that the Gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today they do not operate in the same faith in those gifts as the charismatic church so they sing the songs with a different heart and mind. They sing them as though they are just words to listen to and learn doctrine from. Well then they might be disappointed, and certainly bored at any repetition. Why be repetitious when the Spirit is not leading you to. Then you are just making the poor congregation suffer a test of endurance. And if 90 percent of the congregation is reading their bulletins or standing there looking bored, the song “as the deer panteth for the water so my heart longeth after you” just does not seem to fit. The worship leader might mean it but the rest of the people act like they don’t have a clue as to what he is talking about. The reason is that you have a Charismatic born song that works great in a congregation that are charismatic, being sung in a church that does not believe in the gifts of the Spirit and for what? So they can get the congregation to worship the Lord with new fervor? No so they can draw a younger crowd. It is cursed. It will never work because the motive is wrong. It is flesh. CONTINUED ON NEXT POST |
||||||
162 | Are we listening to each other? | John 12:32 | Scribe | 104068 | ||
PART 3 OF 3 I am amazed that they even try. If they honestly do not believe in the charismatic movement they ought to be true to their convictions and reject their music also. But the fact that they are willing to accept the music to attempt to draw people (who are turned off by the vain inscincere ritualism of their tradition) exposes the very reason why they are not open to the Charismatic doctrine in the first place. They love the praise of men and not the Praise of God. The praise of men delights more in intellectualism of grand words in an old hymn than in the scripture being sung on a harp. The Praise of men will not allow them to do anything “radical” like life their hands toward God in worship, and the Praise of men makes them ignore the sound doctrine of saying that the Gifts of the Spirit are still available to the church today and replace it with a made up explanation (not doctrine) that the Gifts were in the Church then but now we have the Bible and do not need the Gifts. They no that it is risky business to state that we do not need something The Holy Spirit gave the first church, but their conscience is quited by words (not even smooth words but shaky and sketchy words) from their teachers and books that say that Paul chided the Corinthians for speaking in tongues, so they also chide men for speaking in tongues. Well enough said for now I will take up the subject again at a later post. May God bless you as you Study His Word. |
||||||
163 | Jesus knew.......... | John 13:11 | Scribe | 41758 | ||
It was prophesied that it would happen. But Judas did not go to hell because it was prophesied. He went there becuase of his own choice. Jesus said it must needs be that offences will come but WOE to those who do the offenses, (my paraphrase) The lesson is that we can all go to the same place Judas went if we follow his example or we can take the high road of holiness by faith. Yes even some that seem to be a disciple of Christ are nothing more than a judas, a son of wickedness, becuase they love money and the things of flesh and the praise of men more than the praise and approval of God. In the pulpit throughout the world you have these judas' proclaiming religious words but finding thier chief pleasures in their secret sins. The flock of these false shepherds are starving for truth and the pure Word of God, and they come week after week to be disappointed by a backslidden or even unregenerate man claiming to know more than them about the Bible when in reality he knows almost nothing at all that was not taught him by other men. May God grant repentance and revival before that Day comes when judgmenet must begin in the house of God. |
||||||
164 | How to show Christ is God? | John 14:6 | Scribe | 44525 | ||
The only way I know of to do this is to present the intellectual argument of Justice, Judgement. To present to an intellectual a case for Jesus being the only way requires at least the premise that there is a God and that all men have failed to measure up to the standard of God or moral perfectness. If I can at least start on that basis then I can explain why Jesus is the only way. First of all if there is a God and if He is infinitly holy then I have most assuredly failed Him in this life. If there is one thing I do not need proof of that would be of the fact that I have done things that a Holy God would not approve of. If this Holy God has made a way for failed humanity to be reconciled to Him then we have to examine that way that is made by God. If the Bible is true at all then all other methods and ways must be false. The reason for this is that If God sent holy prophets and men of God to call men to repentance and holy living and these men were persecuted and killed and so God sends His only Son and He also is killed by sinful men and God does all this NOT because He has too but to make a WAY for sinful man to be reconciled to Him and knowing His Son will be crucifed, He sends Him anyway because through that crucifixtion, blood, death burial and resurrection man can have his sins paid for... If... I say... this is true at all, then it excludes all other religions. Why? Because if God has made such a way to Himself, and such a wonder it is to contemplate.. and it has cost so much... And if you realize that He did not have to do so at all. I mean He was not obligated to reconcile man.. So if He chooses to restore man by this sacrifice of His Son.. what right do we have ...what right does any man have.. to say "I would like ANOTHER way besides that one, so I will go meditate on my navel and find inner peace and get to the same God. No.. if THIS cross way is A way then it must be THE only way. And if not then it must not be THE way at all. And if it is A way then the seeker must acknowledge that it is too great a price paid to turn up the nose at and seek another way. May God Bless you in your study of His Word. |
||||||
165 | Why 3rd person? | John 17:1 | Scribe | 84519 | ||
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. A mark of divine utterance. The fact that this would be recorded and that we might preach it to all the world is a good reason to have spoken in this manner. Now we may say "It is written..this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." The beauty and perfection of the wording of this prayer of John 17 reveals the divine inspiration of the writing. |
||||||
166 | why did soldier | John 18:5 | Scribe | 85364 | ||
John 18:5-6 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Remember that Jesus had previously made these statments... John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. and ...John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. And also in this same context of the soldiers coming to arrest him.. is when Jesus said this in another place... Matthew 26:52-53 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? So when he says I AM HE, it is a declaration that He is the I AM that spoke to Moses from the Buring bush, the I AM that was before Abraham, and the that these soldiers had no power to arrest him. He was willing letting them take him. But so that no man could ever say that his words about being able to call down angels if he wanted to were empty words, he says I AM HE and they all fall to the ground. He had the power to do more than that if He wanted to. Prais God he laid doen His life for us, so that he might take it up again. We are saved today because of this and thankfuly serve Him every moment. |
||||||
167 | Napkin? | John 20:7 | Scribe | 41118 | ||
I do not have a scripture for it, but it sounds as though it is saying that the napkin was where it would be if His body had just risen and left the clothing where it would be if it did not move when His Supernatural Glorified body arose. The head cloth (napkin) was lying there where His head would be and seperate from the rest of the linens where the body would be. The position of the clothing seems to be a testimony that a miracle had taken place of His Body coming through the clothing and leaving it exactly where it was. | ||||||
168 | need help .spiritual dryness | John 21:16 | Scribe | 85727 | ||
John 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: Notice here that Peter who was called by Jesus as a shepherd, and told to feed the flock, has a revelation of feeding the flock being most importantly of all the Word of God. I cannot pass judgment on your particular church but I am speaking generally concerning why some churches are dry and boring and the members feel like attending is a test in endurance. A common reason is that the shepherd is either not called to feed the flock or is neglecting his chief duty. What does it mean to feed the flock. It is obviously a broader subject than what can be entered here in this short post, but I will summarize the picture of the shepherd that will not want for spiritual growth in his flock. If a man of God will make Prayer and the Ministry of the Word his chief concern so that he will shut himself up with God and allow the Holy Spirit to make him a broken and contrite vessel emptied of self and seeking only the Glory of Christ, and if he will study the word as a man that seeks treasure, then God will grant him not just another sermon but a fresh word from heaven, though the doctrine he preaches may be as old as the church, the freshness will come forth as a message from a prophet, and the people will be challenged to go all the way with Christ in a new way as never before. This is not something that God holds back from men, but few are willing to pay the price to seek it. As someone once said, "Salvation is indeed free, but everything else will cost you something." When Peter said to feed the flock he meant feed them the Word. Peter considered the Word more necessary than daily bread, (as the Lord said) and Peter said that as desperately as a newborn babe needs milk, so a saint needs the word to grow. (Which verse had nothing to do with preaching elementary messages or weak sermons, or to speak on the level of a Christian just saved yesterday, but this verse speaks of the comparison of the desperate need for the Word of God to survive. In other words teaching a deep message of an abundance of scriptures and doctrinal truth is just as much feeding the sheep as preaching the simple messages we call "milk" but which Peter never called milk. This verse is telling us how important it is to eat the Word. If we understand this we will understand that if our sermons are too light and fluffy and contain little scripture, we are not feeding the flock at all. Some would say.. but the new Christians cannot handle the "strong meat and must be given milk," which is not from this verse bur another context where Paul is rebuking them for that. If Paul rebukes them for it, it is not our goal to keep our flock in that condition. In public preach on the level of the mature and the immature will grow up into it by hearing it. This lesson seem so hard for so many to learn. The majority of churches are anemic when it comes to feeding the flock the Word of God. We would call meat what Paul called the first principles of the oracles of Christ. I do not say any of these things with criticalness but with grief in my soul, knowing that the return of Christ is at the very doors, and it is high time to awake out of sleep and preach a challenging message that will shake the people from their indifference before it is too late. The pastors are taught to be loving and kind to the point that they are afraid to preach a challenging message of repentance. It is not the Love of God shed abroad on our hearts by the Holy Ghost that makes them this way, but a human sympathy not wanting to hurt any ones feelings. This at times is commendable but we must learn to have the Love of God motivate us and give way to human emotions that make us uncomfortable when it comes to rebuking in love the indifference in the flock. When the pastor does this with a heart of Love the people welcome it and they are helped to repent and break free of the chains of lethargy that have them bound. They will love the pastor for it, and sheep will come from every part of the city to join such a church. |
||||||
169 | How did the apostles die | John 21:22 | Scribe | 54615 | ||
The bible does not tell us about all of them. However there are storied in church history that are called "tradition" that say that all were killed by persecution except for John. Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound. Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead. Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost. John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully. Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died. James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation. James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian. Bartholomew, also know as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip. Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired. The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent. Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded. Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica. The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire. These letters, which taught many of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, form a large portion of the New Testament. The details of the martyrdoms of the disciples and apostles are found in traditional early church sources. These traditions were recounted in the writings of the church fathers and the first official church history written by the historian Eusebius in A.D. 325. Although we can not at this time verify every detail historically, the universal belief of the early Christian writers was that each of the apostles had faced martyrdom faithfully without denying their faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Reference: Jeffrey, Grant R., "The Signature of God", Frontier Research Publications, Inc. (1996), p.254-257 |
||||||
170 | Did Jesus go to hell after crucifixion? | Acts 2:27 | Scribe | 63523 | ||
Acts 2:27-31 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. I think you will get different answers on this, but it seems to me that this passage makes it clear that Jesus did descend into hell. But not as in torment for sin, but as the One that had the authority becuase he was without sin to take the keys (authority) of death hell and the grave. Ephesians 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? |
||||||
171 | Apostles Spirit-led? | Acts 2:38 | Scribe | 39516 | ||
One thing that seems to clear it all up is when people read books. Soon they find that the term "in the name of" means by the authority of, not what sounds come out of your mouth. So both verses are saying the same thing. Go in the authority of God. Who is the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and doing something in the Name of Jesus is the same thing as doing it in the Name of God, or if I write it in a more wordy manner "doing it in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost" The error of this discussion among christians is that it hinges on ignorance of meaning of the phrase. This idea of it being some sort of "spell you Speak" was never what the disciples meant when they wrote about "in the name of" The term was used all around them at the time as it has been to this day when you hear someone say "Open up in the name of the Law" and if it is a policeman you do not even think for a moment that His exact syntax needs to be correct. You do not say I am not going to open up becuase he did not say "Open up in the name of the Police in Mayberry" No you get sort of anxious and realize that the POWER of the LAW is at your door and you must open or you might be face first on the ground in cuffs. I am amazed at how embedded this strange concept of speaking the words is what carries the power. The Law is powerful not becuase of the words of the Officer, but the Power behind the badge. You are going to open or more officers will come and they will enforce whatever law it is they are trying to enforce. You will not stand against them. When I go baptize in the Name of Jesus I go in the Name of Jesus because I am called. I go because I am sent. I have God with me and He has commanded me to Baptize. So if I say nothing at all when I dunk the new believer, (haveing taught him previous to the dunk to believe on Jesus) I am still baptizing in Jesus Name (or GOD) or Father Son and Holy Ghost, because he ordained me and sent me. | ||||||
172 | what is the difference between the to? | Acts 2:38 | Scribe | 53835 | ||
These are not two different things. To say so is to say that Either Matthew or Peter or Luke (writer of Acts) were not inspired when it was written. But if we believe they were inspired then we conclude that they must mean the same thing. If we understand that "In the name of" means to be sent in the authority of then we see how both mean the same thing. To be sent to baptize becuase God sent you or becuase Jesus sent you is what Gives you the right to baptize. The "in the name of" here applies both to the one sent to baptize others as well as by what faith the believer is being baptized into. |
||||||
173 | Jesus' name baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Scribe | 85331 | ||
Isn't it amazing how much controversy can be stirred up over such a simple topic. I have browsed through some of the posts, and I am sure I am repeating some of them with my response. It seems to me that most of the posts I have read have completely missed the main argument that should be presented when this question arises. The whole controversy began in the early 1900s due to the misunderstanding of the phrase “In the Name of”. We use it often in common speech when we refer to the doing something by the authority of. We are all familiar with the command “open up in the name of the Law” from old TV shows or other popular cultural references. But it goes back further than that, and I am not going to present all the history of its origins but it has always been used to refer to “what authority you are doing something in, or Who gave you that authority.” When we say we Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we are saying it is The Divine Godhead that has given us this authority. When we say we Baptize in the Name of Jesus, we are stating that Jesus has given us the commandment to Go and Baptize people. The words are not what make you “In the Name of” What I mean is that if you are not born again and saved by faith and living pleasing to God, you have no authority to baptize another believer. However those of us that are believers and particularly those that are called to do so, are sent to Baptize in the Authority of Christ, or In the Authority of God. Now when some well meaning but ignorant and uneducated preachers say “In the Name of” as though it is some spell or incantation they cast with words, then this is why this type of foolish hairsplitting takes place. There is no difference between saying I am sent by the authority of God or to say I am sent by the Authority of Christ except to give emphasis to the Divinity of Jesus. Whether you say you are given authority to baptize by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or whether you say you are Given Authority to Baptize by Jesus Christ, is all the same to a New Testament believer. To emphasize what words you use when you speak at a baptism as constituting what is defined as “the name of” rather than by what authority you do what you do, and who gave you this authority shows you to be an ignoramus with less than a high school education. I do not say that mean spirited. I am saying that is exactly how one appears to the well read that would observe a man emphasizing the phrase “in the name of “ as something other than “in the authority of”. Then you might have your formula of words just the way you want it, but your converts will all be of the poor ignorant masses like you because the intelligent will think you are a loony tune. It is amazing to me that a whole denomination has sprung up around what words to use at a baptism, but what is NOT surprising to me is that there is not one scholar among them. The very foundation is based on error in grammar. The argument ceases to exist as soon as you learn what “in the name of” means in New testament usage. Look through the New Testament at all the times In the Name Jesus is used, on almost every occasion, the idea has nothing to do with speaking words, but rather by what authority a believer does things in. Also it is good to read about the origins of this Jesus Name Only movement and how it began. May God Bless You as You Study His Word |
||||||
174 | In Gen.46:27, the number is 70, why? | Acts 7:14 | Scribe | 85859 | ||
This is not a contradtiction. Genesis 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; [Here he lists 66 that came into Egypt becuase Judah was sent before him] Genesis 46:28 And he sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his face unto Goshen; and they came into the land of Goshen. Genesis 46:27 Genesis 46:27 And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. Exodus 1:1-5 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin, Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already. So the seventy are not including Joseph and family which were in Egypt already. Joseph his wife, his two sons make 74.. I still do not have 75 but maybe I missed something like Judah who went before? Not sure, I will have to rework it later. It is there, there are no contradictions in scripture and not mistakes, only mistakes are with the readers. :) |
||||||
175 | Why was the Holy Spirit delayed? | Acts 8:16 | Scribe | 86180 | ||
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. I don't see any reference to a delay. As you read through the book of Acts after Acts 2 you see several accounts of believers recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues and prophesying. It was poured out initially on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 on the 120 in the Upper Room. Then as they go forth being witnesses in the power of the Holy Ghost they prayed for others and they recieved the Holy Ghost. This happens so often that you can't help but get the idea that this is a pattern for world evangelism. There is no verse that says this would stop when the last book of the bible was written. People like to make up explanations like that to help them understand their own life experiences but if we want to be as biblical as we can we will assume that what we read in Acts can still happen today. |
||||||
176 | Difference between tithes and offerings | Acts 11:29 | Scribe | 47375 | ||
Well since there is no new testament law that prescribes these things I think you answered your own question. It is about a willing heart, faith and as you see the needs. The person that gives to a need he sees such as for the purpose of sending a missionary or relieving a poor saint, is giving offerings. Whereas tithes seem to be for the dedication of supporting the ministers who are called to full time preaching such as pastors and the care of the church affairs. This is from God and acceptable in his sight if done in faith with a willing heart. Acts 11:28-30 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. To me the above passage is a good example of an offering. |
||||||
177 | what does Easter mean | Acts 12:4 | Scribe | 42841 | ||
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Here it is Gr. Passover I am sure you know by now that The Roman Catholic church set up the idea of celebrating Easter as the resurrection of the Lord. Now today those that do not see it as commandment from the Bible might still use it to evangelize all the poor ignorant sinners that are not yet born again that will visit their church on that day when they do not go to church any other day. God looks at the heart. And if you love people you will use every opportunity to win them to Christ and the Story of the Crucifixtion and Resurrection of Christ is somthing you should preach on that day since your church might be filled with sinners who have never really understood it. So it is not a sin to celebrate the day as such. |
||||||
178 | Different Claims On Joseph's Father | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40936 | ||
This is pretty simple actually. The problem comes from 'misreading' one small part. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, 24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph, 25 Which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Amos, At first you think it is saying Joseph is the son of Heli, but it is really saying Jesus is the son of Heli, in the same sense that he was supposed to be the son of Joseph, but we know that He was born of a virgin. So it could be said like this.. Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Jesus was the son of Heli, and Jesus was the son of Matthat, and Jesus was the son of etc, until you get to Adam and see that Jesus was that seed of the woman that would bruise the serpents head. Matthews point is not tracing Joseph to David, and Lukes Mary to David, that has been said but I don't see it. The obvious truth when you read the accounts is that Matthew stops at Abraham and that is what Matthew is pointing out, through Joseph's lineage, and Luke goes to Adam through Mary's. "Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary". |
||||||
179 | Contrary Accounts of Jesus' Genealogy. | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40937 | ||
This is not an error. It proves the fact that Jesus is the promised messaih. "Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah." Not an error but rather and exacting particular that if it were a false book the writer would have left this out. But since it is indeed from God it even details how that the legal right was transferred, which you can read about in the Old Testament. God is so awesome! |
||||||
180 | i need Biblical info on homosexuality | Rom 1:27 | Scribe | 42546 | ||
It is extremely rare that a person that is a homosexual really believes they are a christian. Most likely they know they are not but hate the idea of being accused of being in "sin." Forget about preaching against homosexual sin as a means to convince her because I doubt she would care even if she agreed that it was a sin. You will have to preach about how that all men are sinners and that we all need Christ. If there is any hope for a person being brought to repentance it will be in seeing their need for a physician. You are called to preach the gospel of the Cross of Christ as the remedy for all sin and deliverance from the power of sin. All sex before marraige is forbidden. If she reads Romans 1 and is not convicted then there is nothing you can do to add to it. It is extremely rare that you should ever enter into a vain argument with a homosexual on whether it is a sin or not. If they believe in God at all they know it is a sin, they will not admit it to you but they know. Is it any worse of a sin than others? Yes it is. There are sins that were given capital punishment in the OT and others that demanded restitution. Homosexual sins were rated worthy of captial punishment (death). Does that mean we should give captal punishment to homosexuals today? No but we should make it illegal and stand on the side of scripture in our Governments. Many states have laws against it but it is not enforced. There are sins that a society commits daily but there are some sins that if a society embraces them as a whole God will have no choice but to bring judgement on that society. We are told to look to Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of what God will do when a nation cast off all restraint and embraces such heinous sin as open homosexuality. And what person really thinks it is OK with God? None, they that do such things have chosen to push God out of their conscience and are not interested in serving God. They may make up some other God in their imagination that is a god of creature lusts but they will not believe in the God of the Bible. They may say they are a christian but it is a lie and an attempt to disarm you. Let your peace remain with you and preach to them as you would any other sinner, not dealing with their individual sins but with the whole heart issue. Judgement awaits all sinners that refuse to repent. And those that would flee the wrath to come must do so on God's terms alone or experience eternal regret. The stubborn heart of a self willed man or woman cannot be won or softened with vain strivings about words or sins. The only thing that can change the heart of man is repentance and faith toward God. When you speak to them speak about How God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives but they can only enter that plan by repentance of all sin and faith toward God. Then let God work on them. Some are not open to God and God will lead you to those that are. It takes a much greater degree of willful rebellion against knowledge of what is good to commit homosexual sins therefore it is rare to see them repent. The state of the heart to commit such sins requires a greater searing of the God given conscience. Can they be saved? Yes but it is rare that they desire to know God in spite of the words they may cast at your feet. May God Bless you in your study of the Word. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [14] >> |