Results 161 - 180 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Identifying the born again moment | NT general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77864 | ||
Dear Steve, I think that the moment of salvation can be pinpointed. The real crux of the matter is when God says you are saved. A lot of people will claim they have salvation, but not if they don't obey. Obedience is seen in many ways. Baptism is the moment of salvation. Baptism has no other significance. The Bible doesn't say, as some claim, that it's an "outward sign that you have been saved." Instead, baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism is said to be the moment that you put on Christ (Gal 3:26,27). It is where you are raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-5). Doubt may still linger as to whether the person was saved, but that goes to the question of faith. But if the person takes God at His word, He will know when God cleansed his soul. Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
162 | Identifying the born again moment | NT general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77862 | ||
Hi Tim, The question was about the moment of salvation. A lot of people argue that salvation happens first and belief, repentance, confession and baptism follow. This can't be the case since the angel indicated salvation followed hearing the words from Peter. About your points on Acts 2 and 10, pertaining to the Holy Spirit. What is promised in Acts 2 is the indwelling Spirit; the sanctified vessel, cleansed by the blood of Christ, becomes the dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph 2). What happened in Acts 10 is quite different. Peter said, 'who can refuse them baptism' after seeing the Holy Spirit poured out on them as it did on the Apostles in the beginning (Acts 11:15). Until that moment, the Jewish brethren who accompanied Peter had some misgivings as to whether they should be with Gentiles. This was evidently the prevailing opinion among the Christians back in Jerusalem as well. "The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house" (Acts 11:12). After the Holy Spirit was poured out, the subject of baptism came up. Peter concluded that Cornelius needed to be baptized, along with the rest of his household. How different is this from modern practice! What happened in Cornelius' home with the Holy Spirit had no more sanctifying significance than did the angel who spoke through a donkey: it just got somebody's attention. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
163 | Identifying the born again moment | NT general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77852 | ||
Dear Dalprad, We know that Cornelius couldn't have been saved before he heard Peter's preaching. Acts 11:14 confirms as much: "and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household." When the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and household, Peter had only began his preaching: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning." So the things Cornelius did prior to that were done while in an unsaved condition. He was: "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2) Obviously, prior to the moment of salvation, Cornelius was spiritually discerning. It was this trait in him that got God's attention: "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4) The moment of salvation is when God says it is. Read the following: Galatians 3:26,27 Colossians 2:12 1 Peter 3:21 Acts 22:16 Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16 God bless you, Disciplerami |
||||||
164 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77801 | ||
I agree. Searcher56 protests too much. He doesn't realize that his argument isn't with me. He is arguing against Jesus Christ. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believes not shall be condemned." (Mk 16:16). 1 Peter 3:21 says that Noah was brought safely through the water AND that baptism saves us....it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Good talking to you. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
165 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77800 | ||
Searchier56 disproves the need for getting wet. So, let me see if I understand your point? You are arguing that baptism isn't necessary because Israel and Noah didn't get wet? That would have to be your conclusion. Facts? What facts? Disciplerami |
||||||
166 | Does God hear the prayers of nonbeliever | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77797 | ||
Is it sort of like saying, "Don't call on Me, until I call on you"? | ||||||
167 | Failure to communicate? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77796 | ||
Some say, "We need to cast aside norms that aren't 100 percent truth." Let's see how consistent he is. Will he quit defending sprinkling and pouring in place of immersion when there is 0 percent evidence for them? I doubt it :) Disciplerami |
||||||
168 | What "norms" can we disregard? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77794 | ||
Those who misinterpret the 1 Cor 2 passage (e.g. Calvinists) should be consistent and quit spouting Scripture to those who trust in, as you put it, "a little self-righteousness." What, we can't believe the God wants an obedient faith? Aren't you really saying that because we don't accept your point of view, that proves we are unspiritual? If Calvinist believe Holy Writ, being Truth, has no intrinsic power over a depraved, "dead person", why ever 'convey' another word to them and stick to preaching to the choir? I obviously don't believe as Calvinist do, but I also don't believe in self-righteousness. To even suggest it shows you do not understand our position. I believe in salvation by grace through an obedient faith (Romans 1:5:16:26). I've never known a person with my beliefs to suggest it takes a little "self righteousness" to get to heaven. Believe it, you don't understand what you are talking about. If you believe what you wrote to Hank, don't betray your thoughts by trying to convince me and the other "dead" with Scripture. It is you who believes it is powerless until God steps in and intervenes and enlightens the soul. I fail to see how we become "self-righteous" and spiritually dead because we insist that "immersion" is the Biblical norm that mustn't be disregarded. What if the Calvinist are the deceived ones? Just in case, I'll keep preaching God's word believing that Truth can trump error. "constantly bearing in mind your work of faith" (1 Thess 1:3); "to bring about the obedient of faith among all the Gentiles" (Romans 1:5); "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (Jas. 1:22); "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24) Good day. |
||||||
169 | Psalm 37:24 | Rom 8:1 | disciplerami | 77790 | ||
Dear EHC, Once Saved, Always Saved people have your very good points covered. It's easy for them to conclude that the man in the harlot's arms was obviously never saved. To them, God lets Christians commit little 'venial' sins, but God doesn't let them commit big 'mortal' sins. Here is a story to show how confused this doctrine becomes. During a door-knocking campaign, a member of a denomination admitted that he didn't attend worship but had been saved years ealier. He understood that his reward wasn't what it could be if he was more faithful, but he wasn't worried, his would be a place on the outskirts of heaven called "outer darkness." If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. Disciplerami |
||||||
170 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77787 | ||
Dear jlpangilinan, Searcher56 can't be taken serious. He obviously doesn't study the Scripture, but reacts to whatever is said. The people of Israel WERE 'baptized into Moses' having water above and to the side (1 Cor. 10:1,2). Their baptism is a type of Christian baptism: which is Paul's point in the Corinthian letter. If Searcher spent a little more time studying before responding, he would recognize his error. With Noah in 1 Peter 3:20, the connection of water in Noah's day to water of baptism goes completely over his head. From now on, Searcherer56 will talk to the air. No responses to him. Thanks for the comments, Disciplerami |
||||||
171 | I refuse to deal with it??? | Heb 8:13 | disciplerami | 77745 | ||
Greetings, I agree with everything you have stated here: except I wonder if you are right about the following: "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). " The Hebrew writer says a Sabbath still remains and implies the heavenly promised land. The Revelation letter says, "blessed are the dead who die in the Lord ...that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them" (Rev 14:13) I think the true Sabbath rest -- not the shadow -- is enjoyed in heaven. What are your thoughts. disciplerami |
||||||
172 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | disciplerami | 77739 | ||
How many are enumerated in in Exodus 20? How many are hung in the judges chamber in Alabama? I don't think it is 613, it is 10. Now, I'll ask this question for others, because you obviously don't care to deal with it: How many of the Ten Commandments are in force, 9 or 10? |
||||||
173 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | disciplerami | 77738 | ||
How many were on the tablets? 613? :) |
||||||
174 | What "norms" can we disregard? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77721 | ||
Greetings Hank, I'm glad to have you weigh in on this subject. Obviously, I don't think it is a moot point. If God meant that we only 'get wet', then we might do it any of the ways you state, but when the specific command is given to be 'immersed', then that negates all other options. Following this principle is sound and keeps the church from straying from the truth. Legalism is the habit of binding where God has not: such as what Jews did, layering various traditions on washings and fasting on top of the Mosaic Law. That is Legalism. A strict adherence to the Biblical pattern can also become a Legalistic practice if it is done for the wrong reason: when a faith act becomes a ritual/rite. I believe that the practice of sprinkling infants is viewed in much the same way that carnal Jews viewed circumcision. Without faith being involved, the act has saving power "in and of itself." This error is not followed by adults who believe salvation is by grace through faith, received at the point of immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. Adhering to "immersion" because Jesus said "immersion" does not constitute Legalism. Disciplerami |
||||||
175 | Are there still "unlawful" marriages? | Luke 3:19 | disciplerami | 77681 | ||
Can you tell me what they are? The civil law of the government is always changing and the "canon law" of some churches is apt to change as well. Of course, the Scriptures do not change. What 'impediments' to marriage do you refer? I'm curious. Disciplerami |
||||||
176 | Acts2-4 | Acts 1:26 | disciplerami | 77680 | ||
I'm not sure what the question is, but here's the answer. :0 The promise was to the Apostles (John 14-17, Jesus is with Apostles)and the Apostles were the ones gathered together in the upper room. Acts 2:1 refers to "they", the antecendent to this is the "apostles" of the previous verse. It was the eleven who Peter defended as not being drunk (2:14,15), it was Galileans, a reference to the fishermen, who were speaking of God in other tongues (2:7). Later, other Christians had gifts of the Spirit, but these things did not happen immediately. Not until the Apostles laid hands on the Christians as Simon witnesses in Acts 8 and which the Apostles did to the 7 servants of Acts 6. Good day. |
||||||
177 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | disciplerami | 77678 | ||
Here are passages that refer to the law of Christ. "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed," James 1:25. AND "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty, verse" James 2:12 (also see Romans 8:1, law of the Spirit) AND "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city, Revelation 22:14." These are names for the New Covenant or Testament through Christ blood. You err in not making a distinction between the Old Law and the New Law. The Old was done away with and the New established (Heb. 8:6,7,13; 9:15-17). The Old Law was hostile to us because it pointed out sin but couldn't justify (Heb 10:4). The cross of Christ took it out of the way. "Behold he takes away the first to establish the second" (Heb 10:9). The Second was establish at the death of the Testator, Jesus (Heb 9:15-17). He did this at the cross, through the offering of His body (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15). Other passages about the being obedient to the commandments of God have to be considered in context. If the quote comes before the Cross, then it most likely relates to keeping the Mosaic Law. But if it is stated after the Cross, then it relates to obedience to Christ, not Moses. The passages you refer to also relate to the "law of the Spirit" that Paul mentions in Romans 8:1ff. These all refer to the New Covenant. In contrast, the Old Law of Moses was done away with because it was inferior. Yes, it was "holy, righteous and good", but it served it's purpose. But what it could not do was justify. As Paul says, it could not make holy, it could not "weak as it was through the flesh." The Law required perfection. The James 2:10 passage and Galatians 5:3 show why we don't want to turn back to the Old Law. I know some try to justify following part of the Law and discarding the other; but there is no justification for doing only part of the Law. We are freed from the Law written on tablets of stones: "2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it." What Law is he talking about? Paul is even more specific in the Roman letter. "Rom 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." To answer the last question people usually have when the 10 Commandments are shown to be done away with, "No, that doesn't mean you can murder, commit adultery, or worship idols." The New Testament in Christ covers such things. The references to the "law of the Spirit", "law of liberty", and "the perfect law" DO NOT refer to the Mosaic Law: they are the Law of Christ established at the Cross. The fundamental principle for salvation still remains: by grace through faith. But the Old Law was not perfect (Heb.8:7), so God established the New. Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
178 | Sin is Defined as Breaking God's Law | Gen 1:1 | disciplerami | 77677 | ||
Concerning the following verse, are you saying that it refers to the Old Law or the New? You quote: "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed," James 1:25. AND "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty, verse" James 2:12 AND "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city, Revelation 22:14." These are names for the New Covenant or Testament through Christ blood. You err in not making a distinction between the Old Law and the New Law. The Old was done away with and the New established (Heb. 8:6,7,13; 9:15-17). The Old Law was hostile to us because it pointed out sin but couldn't justify (Heb 10:4). The cross of Christ took it out of the way. "Behold he takes away the first to establish the second" (Heb 10:9). The Second was establish at the death of the Testator, Jesus (Heb 9:15-17). He did this at the cross, through the offering of His body (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15). The passages you refer to also relate to the "law of the Spirit" that Paul mentions in Romans 8:1ff. These all refer to the New Covenant. In contrast, the Old Law of Moses was done away with because it was inferior. Yes, it was "holy, righteous and good", but it served it's purpose. But what it could not do was justify. As Paul says, it could not make holy, it could not "weak as it was through the flesh." The Law required perfection. The James 2:10 passage and Galatians 5:3 show why we don't want to turn back to the Old Law. I know some try to justify following part of the Law and discarding the other; but there is no justification for doing only part of the Law. We are freed from the Law written on tablets of stones: "2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it." What Law is he talking about? Paul is even more specific in the Roman letter. "Rom 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." To answer the last question people usually have when the 10 Commandments are shown to be done away with, "No, that doesn't mean you can murder, commit adultery, or worship idols." The New Testament in Christ covers such things. The references to the "law of the Spirit", "law of liberty", and "the perfect law" DO NOT refer to the Mosaic Law: they are the Law of Christ established at the Cross. The fundamental principle for salvation still remains: by grace through faith. But the Old Law was not perfect (Heb.8:7), so God established the New. Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
179 | Incesat of affinity or consaguinity? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77670 | ||
Emmaus, I think you are right on. I'm not having trouble with this. I certainly don't think the fact that she was a half-neice is the issue. It says, "he had his brother's wife" and he "married her." The Leviticus 18 and 20 passages certainly do apply. Leviticus talks about all kinds of sexual sins: everything from lying with your neighbors wife to sex with animals. The penalty for sexual sins is strong. John was telling Herod that his union with Herodias was not acceptable to God. Likewise, many marriages today are unlawful. Adultery, and homsexuality, and incest are unlawful and need to be preached against. We live in a society that allows anything and Christians must have the courage to do as John did and tell when a marriage is wrong. If John had approached Scripture in the "enlightened" manner that many do today, he could have saved his neck. Good day to you. Disciplerami Do you think Herod could have said, 'I'm sorry, I won't do it again', and it would have been suddenly acceptable? It's not lawful and preachers need to point out sin when they see it. Thanks for continuing this post. Disciplerami |
||||||
180 | Incesat of affinity or consaguinity? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77666 | ||
[Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, who was the half-brother of Herod Philip I. and Herod Antipas, and these two last were in turn half-brothers to each other. Herodias, therefore, had married her uncle Herod Philip I, who was disinherited by Herod the Great, and who lived as a private citizen in Rome. When Herod Antipas went to Rome about the affairs of his tetrarchy, he became the guest of his brother Herod Philip I., and repaid the hospitality which he received by carrying off the wife of his host.] (JWMcGarvey, Fourfold Gospel) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [29] >> |