Results 1781 - 1800 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1781 | If we ask for healing does God answer no | 1 Peter | BradK | 146560 | ||
Hello Mark, Very well said! I'm not commending you just because I agree with you, but rather because of the truth and wisdom conveyed in your remarks. You hit the nail on the head:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1782 | Mitch, were at Bethesda healed? | 1 Peter | BradK | 146577 | ||
Hello Mitch, I offer these comments in the spirit of love, so please don't be offended or take them otherwise. One of the challenges in the majority of your posts, is that you make a lot of broad assertions but rarely- if ever- provide any scriptural support! What I see is you just stating your views, your opinions and nothing more. You need SCRIPTURAL support for your statements! One of the intended purposes of the Forum for posts is that they are "biblically based and whenever possible, (you) have included Bible references to support it." This would be very helpful:-) Another matter is you're tending to make statements that argue from the silence of scripture. For example, you state "And I'll ask you the same about Paul, show me where Paul has said that he still suffers from the 'thorn' in his flesh. Problems may come, but God is willing to remove them all." Where does scripture tell us that Pauls' "thorn in the flesh" was EVER healed? That's an assumption upon which scripture does not say! Again, please provide the Forum with SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT to the contrary. Mitch, as Doc has offered, the burden of proof is on you, my friend! Finally, it would be helpful to answer the questions brought up in reply to you instead of switching gears and asking more questions. My intent is not to "nit-pick" or come across harsh, but to help fine-tune things, so that a more constructive discussion can be had on this topic:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1783 | Prove the will of God is the Word of God | 1 Peter | BradK | 146626 | ||
Hi Mitch, If I may interject here. The problem is that you're not listening closely to what Searcher has said! As has been wisely observed by others, we need to be careful to not say what scripture doesn't say. In other words, there is no scripture that says "Gods' Word is His will". You're drawing a faulty conclusion by doing so, much like the mantra that "God always heals." For instance ( and I'm purposely being silly), IF Gods' Word is His will, then in Matt. 27:5 Judas "... went away and hanged himself." I know this is not your intent, but taken to its' illogical and faulty conclusion this is what you you're in effect saying. If I might inquire, who have you learned this from and how would you DEMONSTRATE from SCRIPTURE that this is sound doctrine? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1784 | If we ask for healing does God answer no | 1 Peter | BradK | 146640 | ||
Hello Mitch, Allow me to address a point in your response to Tim. You state: "I can't say for sure what happened to Job, but I can tell you, that Job was in fear before the bad things began to happen in his life, and living in fear, of course, is lacking faith, Jesus addressed that on the boat with his disciples." So, you don't know FOR SURE what happened to Job. Fine. But then you go on to state something that is simply your personal opinion- a speculation- nothing more. NOWHERE does it say that Job "was in fear before the bad things began to happen in his life" OR that he "lacked faith". These are YOUR words, Mitch. The major challenge I have with this is that you are representing as FACT assertions, NOT facts given from the biblical account! You're simply making things up. Nothing written in Job tells us he was "in fear" or "lacked faith". Do you see a problem here? My plea is for you to distinguish between speculation, assertions, and facts. Mitch, though I disagree with your view, I could at least accept something stated by you if you qualified it by saying, "In my opinion" or "I think this may be what happened", etc. It is careless disregard to claim something as fact from the Bible, when it is not evidenced from the text! You continue to do this on an ongoing basis, my friend :-( It's one thing to disagree, it's an entirely different matter to make representations as fact that clearly aren't. The only thing we know about Jobs' "state" is what is recorded in Chap. 1:1 (2:3). It reads: "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil." As to Job lacking "faith", Roms 14:23 tells us that "whatever is not from faith is sin." Yet in Job 1:22 we find "Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God." The only "fear" I see being mentioned, is that Job feared God. A reverential fear at that! If you'd care to prove me wrong and show me FROM SCRIPTURE where Job was in fear, I'd be happy to recant. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1785 | If we ask for healing does God answer no | 1 Peter | BradK | 146677 | ||
Hi justme, Let me say a LOUD, AMEN! You are absolutley right in your comments about Mitch. Good, solid advice is obviously falling on deaf ears! Folks, this is a Study Bible Forum, not an opinion or speculation forum. It is not for parroting the teachings (or errors) of spurious doctrines. Thanks for addressing the issues head-on and speaking so forthrightly. When 2 or 3 brothers are saying the same thing, it would occur to me that maybe, just maybe, I might want to listen and consider the advice. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1786 | what does the word conversation | 1 Peter | BradK | 234263 | ||
Hello ramzweb, You're "question" is posting as a note! hYou've only given a partial statement and/or question? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Could you please clarify? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1787 | Why can we not just be Christians? | 1 Pet 1:2 | BradK | 151625 | ||
Hi Ray, From my heart to yours, I too implore you to move on to other more edifying topics. In the spirit of Christian love, please heed the advice of your brothers ands sisters here on the Forum. This fetish with capitalization has long since lost itself on me and I see no real benefit in its' continuence. I love you as a brother in the Lord and you have my respect and prayers. But, at the same time I cannot endorse your obsession with this matter. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1788 | ? laws prior to Exodus/Moses | 1 Pet 1:10 | BradK | 202722 | ||
Hello PDAL, I'll let Doc speak for himself, but let me say this: What has changed is our relation to sin, cf Rom. 6:11-17ff. Particularly note Rom 7:14-25 where Paul is speaking in the Pesent tense as opposed to the Past tense in 7-13. He says in 7:20, "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." (NASB) I would also reference Gal. 5:16-17, "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please." (NASB) I'm not aware of anything stating in scripture that our sin nature has left us! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1789 | ? laws prior to Exodus/Moses | 1 Pet 1:10 | BradK | 202829 | ||
Hello PDAL, You state, "Name change in scripture denotes change in nature." Where exactly does scripture say this? Let's deal specifically with the verses from Romans 7, which formed the basis of my initial response. The entire portion of Rom. 7:14-25 is in the PRESENT tense. This means he (Paul) is speaking about something that is currently the case! You state that, "Romans 7;5,20,23says sin was in our bodily members". That is not entirely true, and is not what those verses actually say! 1. Rom. 7:5 is in the Imperfect Tense, where it says, "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." (NASB) However, note the reference is to "sinful passions". It says nothing about 'sin nature'! Weust's Translation reads: "For when we were in the sphere of the flesh, the impulses of sins which were through the law, were operative in our members, resulting in the production of fruit with respect to death." His comment is thus: "That is, in the case where the person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that person is not in the control of the evil nature. That individual is a saved person. Consequently, the one who is in the flesh is an unsaved person, the flesh here referring to the fallen nature." 2.Rom. 7:20, reads, "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." (NASB) Weust's Translation reads: "In view of the fact then that what I do not desire, this I do, I am in agreement with the law that it is good. And since the case stands thus, no longer is it I who do it, but the sin (sinful nature) which indwells me; for I know positively that there does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, good; for the being desirous is constantly with me; but the doing of the good, not; for that which I desire, good, I do not; but that which I do not desire, evil, this I practice. But in view of the fact that that which I do not desire, this I do, no longer is it I who do it, but the sin which indwells me." Notice it does not say anywhere here that "sin was...". It is in the present tense, so 'sin is...'. He writes, "It is safe for a Christian like Paul—it is not safe for everybody—to explain his failings by the watchword, Not I, but indwelling sin.… A true saint may say it in a moment of passion, but a sinner had better not make it a principle.” Sin, of course, here, is the evil nature indwelling a believer." 3. Rom. 7:23 is also in the present tense, where it reads, "but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members" (NASB). Wuest notes, "The law in his members warring against the law of his mind is, of course, the evil nature. Paul finds a condition that when he desires to do good, this evil nature always asserts itself against the doing of that good. He brings out the same truth in Galatians 5:17 where he says, “The flesh (evil nature) has a passionate desire to suppress the Spirit, and the Spirit has a passionate desire to suppress the flesh. And these are set in opposition to each other so that you may not do the things which you desire to do." Again, nothing in this verse says that "sin was...", but rather, that 'sin is...'. Nothing in these verses would indicate that the sin nature no longer resides in the believer, but rather the opposite is true:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1790 | ? laws prior to Exodus/Moses | 1 Pet 1:10 | BradK | 202958 | ||
Hello PDAL, I don't really think there is much I can add to help you better understand the error you proclaim! I cannot enlighten you, but would pray that the Holy Spirit, through the Word would do so. (2 Tim. 2:15) While I can certainly appreciate your attempt at an analogy, it fails on 2 counts: 1. It's not rooted and founded in proper exegesis of scripture, as Gen.17 has nothing whatsoever to do with the "dual nature" of the the believer; 2. The analogy is also flawed in that I fail to see how "Abraham can be looked at as the church giving birth to the nature of the son"? Allow me to provide the following quote (in part) from C.H. Spurgeon and his sermon on Rom. 7:24-25 titled, "THE FAINTING WARRIOR": "Thus, you see, the Christian becomes a double man — two men in one. Some have imagined that the old nature is turned out of the Christian: not so, for the Word of God and experience teach the contrary, the old nature is in the: Christian unchanged, unaltered, just the same, as bad as ever it was; while the new nature in him is holy, pure and heavenly; and hence, as we shall have to notice in me next place — hence there arises a conflict between the two. Again, observe, that the old nature of man, which remains in the Christian is evil, and it cannot ever be anything else but evil, for we are told in this chapter that “in me,” — that is, in my flesh — “there dwelleth no good thing.” (present tense) The old Adam-nature cannot be improved; it cannot be made better; it is hopeless to attempt it. You may do what you please with it, you may educate it, you may instruct it, and thus you may give it more instruments for rebellion, but you cannot make the rebel into the friend, you cannot turn the darkness into light; it is an enemy to God, and an enemy to God it ever must be. On the contrary, the new life which God has given us cannot sin. That is the meaning of a passage in John, where it is said, “The child of God sinneth not; he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” The old nature is evil only evil, and that continually, the new nature is wholly good; it knows nothing of sin, except to hate it. Its contact with sin brings it pain and misery, and it cries out, “Woe is me that I dwell in Meshech, that I tabernacle in the tents of Kedar.” I have thus given you some little picture of the two natures. Let me again remind you that these two natures are essentially unchangeable. You cannot make the new nature which God has given you less divine; the old nature you cannot make less impure and earthly." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1791 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 160433 | ||
Hi atdcross, Welcome to the Forum! You state, "The word "healed" refers to the whole man, spirit and body, in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the NT." Might I ask, how did you come to that conclusion? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1792 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 163991 | ||
Dear atdcross, Greetings! I would concur with your statement that "With respect to the apostle Paul, to say that his “thorn in the flesh” was sickness is merely speculation" We don't know WHAT his affliction was- that much is true. However, I would take issue with your contention that healing is provided in atonement for the following reasons: 1. Scripture in no way supports this in it's entirety; 2. You would be at odds with some near 2000 years of Church history This appears to be a relatively new- and by that I mean a 20th and 21st Century- interpretation. My study leads me to believe this was more an "invention" of F.W. Bosworth- not sound exegesis. The Church fathers didn't embrace this view nor did scholars such as John Gill or C.H. Spurgeon. I understand and appreciate your intent but cannot endorse that physical healing is and was the purpose of Christs' atoning sacrifice. Sin is a terminal disease. Spurgeon said: "Sin dwelleth in us, and will be deadly in the case of every one among us, without a solitary exception, unless we accept the remedy which God has provided." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1793 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 164020 | ||
Hello atdcross, Thank you for your reply as it clarifies to me where you're coming from:-) I truly mean that! My intent in appealing to Church History, Gill, and Spurgeon was not that they're correct in every regard (or that I agree with them on every issue), but that they collectively represent a historically sound and widely understood interpretation. The point being that this is important to sound exegesis and a correct understanding of scripture. We can't just dismiss the collective knowledge of good men led and inspired by God. I agree with your first and second points of clarification. You better communicated your thoughts:-) Christs' atoning sacrifice was done because man has an incureable, fatal spiritual malady called sin. Our problem is not physical. As to your observation that in the Gospels (Christs') healing is associated with forgiveness: I can agree with qualification. As only God can forgive sin (Mark 2:7), Christ was merely authenticating that He was the Messiah- the Son of God! None of His healings (miracles) were done soley for the benefit of the recipient. They were done to authenticate His ministry. (See Matt. 9:35 and 10:1.) This helps us (properly) view the miracles and disassociate them from the atonement. Regarding Isaiah 53:5, I think we could agree that proper interpretation rests on: 1. Understanding of the context; 2. Proper understanding and useage of the word for "healing" (Heb. rapha); 3. Historical and Biblical useage of the word; 4. The writer Isaiahs' intent For the most part, I think were on the same page with this. I hope I've helped you to better understand my thoughts. Thanks again for sharing! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1794 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 164076 | ||
Dear atdcross, I must interject on this matter, my friend. It is not so much that I disagree with your viewpoint- which I do- as it is your highly speculative logic that brings you there. 1. You state: "John 11:3-4: I understand what is stated but it is the intended meaning that is important and, on the basis of other verses and God’s revealed character (at least, to me), what is for the glory of God is not the sickness but the healing." You are wrong and you are twisting scripture! His (Lazarus) sickness was "for the glory of God"- NOT the healing. So stated. 2. You state: "Whether or not there is purpose in suffering is not the focus my point. My point is that suffering is not Father’s will or intention for his children (Jer 29:11). Sickness, in particular, has no purpose at all except to disrupt God’s will for us." What is the Biblical support for these claims? 3. You state: "My general reading of the Bible does not see suffering or sickness itself as good, especially good for God’s children (or anyone else). Suffering and sickness are enemies of God and must be defeated and overcome." I beg to differ! This is speculation at best. Please demonstrate from scripture that your view has any merit. If I may offer an observation, it might be best at this point to discontinue this discussion as I see it leading to serious arguments that aren't edifying! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1795 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | BradK | 165918 | ||
Dear atdcross, If I may interject on this topic with a couple of comments. I first want to commend you for the humble attitude you display in approaching this debated topic:-) Your lack of a contentious spirit goes a long way toward amicable discussion. Agreeing to disagree in keeping with Rom. 14:1 is a sign of maturity! Here's a verse to consider: Job 2:10 "But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips." I think we would agree that God is sovereign ( Ps. 115:3) and He can and does heal all whom He desires. The major challenge I have with the doctrine of God healing all, always and that it's His will for us to be without sickness is twofold: 1. It lacks the support of the entirety of scripture. There are numerous instances of various diseases and infirmities given in both the OT and NT. Empirically, what of Paul and Timothy and even, Jim Elliot or Joni Erikson Tada? 2. It lacks the historical support of Orthodoxy and the Church fathers and divines of old. It is a relatively "newer" doctrine more or less fueled by F.F. Bosworth's, " Christ, the Healer". What did almost 2000 years of scholarship and exegesis miss? I believe we could safely say that God does not decree sickness, but by His permissive will allows it. While it is true that there are many verses where God grants healing, there are numerous examples of Him not (cf. Job. 2:10, 2 Cor. 12:8-9, 2 Tim. 4:20, Heb. 11:36ff). I might point to Deut. 28:22 as an example of God promising sickness (by Israel's disobedience): "The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1796 | Guidance with couples bible study.. | 1 Pet 3:1 | BradK | 174900 | ||
devolt, Mike Murdock is seriously off-base with his WOF non-sense! BradK |
||||||
1797 | Guidance with couples bible study.. | 1 Pet 3:1 | BradK | 174904 | ||
Devolt, We need to demonstarte care in who and what we refer on this Forum as there are those who might be led astray! Further, Murdock and his theology are not founded on Othodoxy. His teachings are man-centered and appeal to the flesh. This link should help:http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac19.htm Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1798 | Do you believe Sarah wore make-up? | 1 Pet 3:6 | BradK | 176608 | ||
Hi Steve, Since you asked, no I haven't:-) In all honesty, is it really even important? Second, since scripture doesn't give any indication, it would be pure speculation and nothing more! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1799 | DOES GOD HEAR ALL PRAYERS ? | 1 Pet 3:12 | BradK | 112881 | ||
Makarios, I was discussing this very topic with a brother last week. You gave a good answer that I'm in general agreement with. One of the verses I brought up was John 9:31: "We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him." I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this if you'd care to comment. I've always been a little puzzled by this in light of 2 Cron. 33:12-13, etc. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
1800 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | BradK | 177127 | ||
Hi Parable, I'm not sure I know what you're looking for? I provided an answer with a basis. You and I are not accountable (Or answerable) to Mr. Harris. 1. God is Sovereign! Mr. Harris has not established the definitive, unanswerable, unassailable argument! 2. Changed lives prove ministry. That was Paul's defense in 2 Cor. 3:1-3ff: "Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 3. Ours is to preach the Gospel- Rom. 1:16! It is the POWER of God... As H.A. Ironside was once challenged by an atheist to debate, he shut him up by asking to bring all those who had been changed for the better by his preaching (Christianity)- the atheist had no reply and declined to pursue the matter! How many lives will or has Mr. Harris changed by being a Philosopher? A Best-Selling author? How many have come off drugs, had their marriages healed, become better fathers or husbands by his message? There is no life-changing power in his message! No one is coming to eternal life by his "preaching"! 4. I do understand 1 Peter 3:15. The operable verb is "to those who ASK for the hope that is in you". Has Mr. Harris asked or demanded you to defend your belief? I do not owe it to him, nor do I feel any obligation to respond to him. Parable, I do not know this man and further do not plan on either buying or reading his book! Might I ask, why you feel so compelled to reply or defend his accusations? Do you feel he has established some merit in his hypothesis? Do you feel the Bible or the Christian faith comes short in some way? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ] Next > Last [97] >> |