Results 181 - 200 of 635
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: inmyheart Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Are Tounges a sign of Spiritual Baptism | Acts 2:4 | inmyheart | 73354 | ||
BradK, "Discuss" debate, it is your intention :) I would disagree that the Bible says tongues is the least of all gifts. I believe that you have misunderstood I Corinthians 14. Paul was not talking against tongues, but was only declaring that prophecy was better than tongues in the context of corporate worship (the context of I Corinthians 12, 14 indicates that Paul is speaking of corporate worship) because prophecy can be understood by all, whereas tongues cannot. Paul was concerned about the edification of the church (I Corinthians 14:12, 26). Tongues would only edify the individual speaking in tongues, but not the body (I Corinthians 14:2-4). Paul was not downplaying tongues. He was only explaining to the Corinthians that in corporate worship, the edification of the whole body should be the main concern. In fact, Paul put tongues on the same level of prophecy if those tongues were interpreted: "I would that you all spoke with tongues but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying" (I Corinthians 14:5; emphasis mine). In the context of provoking the Corinthians to edify the body Paul said, "Even so, forasmuch as you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that you may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaks in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" (I Corinthians 14:12-13). If tongues were interpreted, they would bring edification to the body just as would prophecies. That Paul was not against tongues-speaking, even in the context of corporate worship is evident. Notice that in I Corinthians 14:5 Paul said he wanted everyone to be speaking in tongues. That is hardly tantamount to Paul discouraging tongues or saying that tongues are the most undesirable gift. He even says, "Forbid not to speak in tongues" (I Corinthians 14:39). He only placed limits on the exercise of uninterpreted tongues so that the body would be edified, rather than just the individual. God bless |
||||||
182 | Are Tounges a sign of Spiritual Baptism | Acts 2:4 | inmyheart | 73343 | ||
BradK, Jesus Christ said believers would: John 4:23-24 But the hour cometh, and now is [almost here], when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Jesus Christ declared that believers would "speak with new tongues." It does not say apostles. It does not say "only in the first century." It says "them that believe." Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Ten days later these men (and about 3 thousand others) received the promised holy spirit and they spoke in tongues. Speaking in tongues is not a special gift as some declare. Speaking in tongues is the proof on the outside that you are born again with holy spirit on the inside. You cannot see spirit. But you can see the evidence of it when a believer speaks in tongues. They saw it on Pentecost as the apostles spoke in tongues and asked "What do we have to do to be saved and have this ability as well?" They were not asking about the spirit that they could not see. They were asking about the tongues they heard. "How can we speak in tongues, Peter?" Peter told them about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because to be saved you must "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" [Romans 10:9-10]. Once they believed, the promise of holy spirit [which includes the ability to speak in tongues] was theirs: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent [change!] and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall [absolutely!] receive [the Greek word is lambano which means to receive outwardly in evidence or manifestation] the gift of the Holy Ghost. The people asked Peter about the tongues they had just heard. Peter told them that when they believed they too would speak in tongues. They too would receive the gift of holy spirit and they too would manifest it outwardly by speaking in tongues. There is only one gift: the holy spirit from God. There are many ways to use it, tongues being one. Speaking in tongues is the proof you have the holy spirit on the inside. Its main function is your private worship of God - it is perfect prayer. But in every record in Acts where a group of believers is first born again of God's spirit the outward evidence or proof to those "witnessing the birth" is the new believer speaks in tongues. Thank you for your response, however, I only gave my post in reply, not to debate. As you know this topic has been well debated and your point is well understood, and there would be no success in further discussion. God bless YOU!!! |
||||||
183 | Are Tounges a sign of Spiritual Baptism | Acts 2:4 | inmyheart | 73323 | ||
What is the will of God? I Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues ... I Corinthians 14:14-15 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth...What is it then? I will pray with the spirit... I Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all. I Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. The apostle Paul wrote this section of Corinthians to correct error in use of the manifestations in public worship. When the Corinthians got together they all wanted to (because of course all can!) speak in tongues. In fact they were all doing it together at the same time. So Paul wrote to let them know what should be the order of things in public. But he also made it clear that tongues in your private worship of God was not only good. It was God's will, it was Paul's practice [more than ye all], and it was a commandment of the Lord. Does God want you to speak in tongues? ABSOLUTELY! God bless |
||||||
184 | I want to know more about suicide? | Ex 20:13 | inmyheart | 73322 | ||
Angelface, But what does the Bible say about taking your own life? 1. God has a great plan for your life. God has created us in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). He created us for a purpose. God has a specific plan in mind for everyone. "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." (Jeremiah 29:11) 2. God's plan is for life, not death. The Bible teaches that both physical and spiritual death are the result of our sin and disobedience to God, but eternal life is a gift to those who receive it. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23) 3. Jesus taught that death and destruction are the work of "the thief" (Satan). He said, "The thief comes only to steal and destroy;" (John 10:10). John 8:44 says that Satan is a "murderer" and the "father of lies". The feelings of despair that lead to suicide are caused by some of his lies. 4. Jesus wants us to have life. He said: The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. (John 10:10) 5. Life belongs to God. It is never our place to take our own life or someone else's life: Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Has this answered your question? God bless |
||||||
185 | No healing? why? | 2 Cor 1:4 | inmyheart | 73130 | ||
Meredith, Thank you for your response. I give all Glory to Our Heavenly Father, through His Son Jesus, Our Savior. May you continue to be a blessing to others. 1 Corinthians 2:5 God bless |
||||||
186 | No healing? why? | 2 Cor 1:4 | inmyheart | 73060 | ||
(Con't Pt. 3) The implication is that when we think of God, and when we are considering a particular instance of illness, we must begin with the biblically informed assumption that it is God’s will to heal. We must think of healing as God’s normal desire rather than the rare exception. Since, as we have seen, God has also revealed himself previously to Moses as "I am whom I am" – that is, one who is eternal, self-existent, and immutable— if his nature was to heal then, it is his nature to heal now. To say that his nature is to heal physical bodies then, and to heal spiritual lives now is to avoid the issue, and to betray God’s revelation on his own nature. God is not obligated to re-state his name and apply it to physical healing again if there is no indication that he has changed. What he has said stands forever. Anyone who says that God is now either not disposed to heal, or not disposed to heal physical bodies, is essentially challenging God’s truthfulness and his immutability – an impious charge, and one that is contrary to biblical and experiential evidence. Also, any doctrine that seems to contradict God’s healing nature must be challenged, and we will see that most likely it has either been stated wrongly, or that the doctrine is mistaken, or that it does not contradict God’s healing nature when examined closely. Nevertheless, any teaching that insinuates an unwillingness on God’s part to heal has to be questioned harshly before being accepted, if at all. It is due to a lack of information and understanding concerning this aspect of God’s nature that many contemporary Christians do precisely the opposite, in that they readily welcome teachings that are against God’s healing grace, but challenge and question teachings that promotes the same. Since God’s very nature is to heal us, our disposition should be to see him as healer, not the one who afflicts (Job 37:23). Most Christians take the name of God’s enemy seriously— his name is "Satan," meaning "the adversary," and also the "devil," meaning "the accuser, the slanderer." Due to the biblical revelation concerning Satan’s names and the descriptions of his nature (John 8:44), Christians rightly believe that it is his nature to accuse, deceive, and to be against every person, object, or value that God favors. He is the adversary of God, and he accuses God’s people "day and night" (Revelation 12:10). If we acknowledge that the Bible reveals something of Satan’s nature through his names, how much more should we take its revelation seriously when it teaches us about the nature of God through his names? We must take God’s names seriously, and not challenge or question what he has revealed as his nature, but accept that he is disposed to heal, and not to afflict. It is the "thief" who comes to "to steal and kill and destroy," but Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, has come so that we "may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10). God bless, praying that this information has been helpful. |
||||||
187 | No healing? why? | 2 Cor 1:4 | inmyheart | 73059 | ||
(Con't Pt. 2) The Healing Nature of God. With the above definition of physical healing in mind, I propose that it is God’s nature to perform such miraculous acts for his people. To appreciate the evidence that I will provide for this claim, you must first understand how we may discover information concerning God’s nature. God mainly reveals information about himself through the Scriptures. Through the Bible, we discover at least four things about God that will make clear his nature and dispositions to us. They are his names, actions, speech, and Scriptural descriptions concerning him. God’s names as recorded in the Scriptures contain various meanings that reveal different aspects of his nature. For example, he revealed his name to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as "I AM," saying, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" This name reveals his self-existence and timelessness. In a certain sense, no temporal being may say, "I am who I am," since as he says it, he has already changed – thus, what was intended as "I am" has become an "I was." Therefore, any being that is temporal and in a state of flex may not literally say, "I am who I am," but one who exists outside of time, where there is no before and after, and who is immutable, can make such a claim. Further, this name reveals God’s nature of existence, that he has the power of self-existence, that he is an independent being. No one may make this claim besides one who exists before all else, and who does not depend on any other being or object for his being and perpetual existence. In addition, one who has the power of self-existence, whose essence is existence itself, gives the gift of existence to all that exists. As Jesus said, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26). We do not have the power of self-existence in that our being has a definite point of origin in time and space, and even now, our perpetual existence depends on other things, and ultimately on the first cause of all existing matter, who is God: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16-17). Although the meaning of the name itself may reveal God’s transcendent nature, the way it is used in the Old Testament Scripture indicates that this God is also personal; he is eager to be involved in the lives of human beings. This name, "I am who I am," reveals abundant and profound information on the nature of God. It is a concise way of stating one aspect of God’s nature. We can see, then, how God may reveal information to us on what he is like by telling us his names. The name that we are interested in studying is revealed to us in Exodus, where God tells the people of Israel that he is "the LORD who heals you" (Jehovah-Rophi, or Jehovah-Rapha; Exodus 15:26). Each of God’s names does not merely consist in a sound, nor is it only a device for convenient designation, but contains rich information concerning him. The names of God reveal his very essence and his nature, and not arbitrary or peripheral information. Thus, when God reveals one of his names as "The Lord who heals you," he is telling his people that it is his nature to heal, that it is his disposition to restore the health of those who follow him. (con't) |
||||||
188 | No healing? why? | 2 Cor 1:4 | inmyheart | 73058 | ||
Jesified, There are many reasons as to why there is opposition. I will post why we should believe that God does in fact wants to heal His people. This post will be in 2 or 3 parts, because there is no short answer. Defining Biblical Healing. When we call something a disease, we are referring to a biological malfunction, in which the body is behaving or existing in a state different from and inferior to the body as God had intended. Physical healing, then, is a restoration of the body, returning it to the way God had created it. For example, if the physical sickness is due to a chemical imbalance, then a healing would be an act of God that restores the chemical balance of the individual, so that he may function normally again. Another area of physical healing has to do with the restoration of missing body parts. The restoration, whether instant or gradual, of an amputated limb may be considered a miraculous healing. By "biblical" healing, I intend to specify the source of this type of physical healing as the God who is revealed in the Christian Scriptures. I also include physical illnesses that result from psychological reasons and mental illnesses themselves into our definition, since God’s healing grace also applies to such. There are those physical malfunctions that are psychosomatic in nature; that is, the destructive mental and emotional state of the individual has caused a malfunction in the body. This implicitly acknowledges a relationship between one’s thinking and one’s physical health, and the Bible does not deny this connection, although it certainly does not endorse all the popular ideas regarding it. Biblical healing, therefore, includes these conditions. In situations where God’s healing power is active against these conditions, not only will the person recover physically, but the mental state that caused the sickness will also be changed, although the latter of which may not come only by a miracle as such, but through the willing submission of the individual to a process of renewing the mind through the Scriptures. God desires that man be whole and complete. There are exceptions to the above definition. There have been instances where the apparent condition of the person was not changed, but the bodily function that was impaired by the condition was restored. For example, there are examples where a given bone may be broken in a way that prevents a person from using a certain limb. After prayer, the person was able to use the limb again; yet, the bone was still broken according to the X-rays. However, since these are exceptions, we will not hesitate to use our proposed definition in these chapters. Some may object and say that such healing, and in fact all miracles, are impossible. However, if God exists, then miracles are possible. The existence of God can be demonstrated, but that belongs to the study of Christian apologetics. Since I am primarily addressing Christians, I will proceed with the mutual understanding that God exists, and that he had created the universe. If God has the ability to create and manipulate physical matter, as shown in passages such as Genesis 1-2, then miracles are possible. Whether he is willing to perform such in a particular situation is another matter— one that we will now proceed to investigate— but the possibility of their occurrence should not be in doubt. (con't) |
||||||
189 | tabernacle | Bible general Archive 1 | inmyheart | 73002 | ||
Ichen, Here is one more site you can visit, that will give you much information on the Tabernacle, which you do not have to download. This is an awesome site. http://www.domini.org/tabern/ God Bless |
||||||
190 | Drawing the line | 1 John 3:17 | inmyheart | 72838 | ||
christian7, I see Mommapbs has given you great response. I agree with her post. My post would only repeat what was posted. Be obedient to God's will. God bless you as you bless others |
||||||
191 | Comments on divorce and remarriage | Bible general Archive 1 | inmyheart | 72836 | ||
(con't) Pt 2 He in no way condoned her sin, but He did forgive her sin, when she gave evidence of godly sorrow and determination not to sin again in this way. Under such conditions, His followers would do well to follow His example. At least in this particular context, He put no further conditions on her freedom, either to return to her husband if he would have her, or to marry another if she were already divorced. There is one other important Biblical factor to consider in divorce-and-remarriage situations. A Christian should never marry a non-Christian, as this almost inevitably leads to serious friction in the home later on unless the unsaved partner can, by God's grace, be won to Christ. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (II Corinthians 6:14). Nevertheless, many Christians insist on doing this very thing. And then what? Also, a person may become a believer after marriage, with the partner still unsaved. In either case, there is an unequal yoke, and the Christian husband or wife may come to desire release from this yoke. The Apostle Paul commands in this case: "...If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." (I Corinthians 7:12, 13). The next verse indicates this is especially important for the sake of the children, who are often the ones hurt most by a divorce. But suppose the unsaved spouse is the one who insists on a divorce. "If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace" (I Corinthians 7:15). This obviously means that the Christian husband or wife is then at liberty to remarry. In fact, if there are children involved, and if a caring Christian spouse can be found, it would be good to remarry, for children need the love and guidance of both a father and mother, provided, of course, that the stepmother or stepfather is "in the Lord" (I Corinthians 7:39) and desires to assume such a responsibility. I pray that this has been helpful. This is the shortest response I could give here on this forum, always seek counsel from Pastors or those who can give professional Godly counsel. God bless |
||||||
192 | Comments on divorce and remarriage | Bible general Archive 1 | inmyheart | 72835 | ||
In earlier generations, this question was very seldom raised, simply because divorce was almost never encountered among Christians and was unusual even in the general population. Today, however, it has become a very real problem in evangelical Christian circles. First of all, the divine standard for marriage is lifelong commitment to one's spouse, and nothing else. Even though divorce was permitted in some cases under the Old Testament economy, Christ made it plain that this was not God's ideal. When He was asked this very question, "He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6). This seems very comprehensive and conclusive, yet He immediately followed up this statement with the following apparent exception: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:9; see also Matthew 5:31, 32). It does seem from this statement that the discovery of extramarital unchastity on the part of one' spouse is here given as a possible grounds for divorce. God does place a high value on faithfulness, on the part of both bride and bridegroom, as a basis for a happy and lasting marriage. Fornication is condemned as a sin in both Old and New Testaments. In this day of widespread sexual license, however, this provision might well become a rather common ground for divorce, even among Christians. It does, indeed, dilute the principle of "one flesh" used by God to describe a true marriage. "What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith He, shall be one flesh . . . Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body: but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body" (I Corinthians 6:16, 18). This passage, incidentally, suggests that a woman who submits to extramarital sex becomes, in God's sight, a harlot, whether she yields her body for money or some other reason that she sees as profitable to herself. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Jesus, evidently on a different occasion, did not give fornication as an excuse for divorce. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18). If there is any doubt, this also applies to wives. "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:12). Since the lord would not contradict Himself, we should conclude that, while there may be some situations in which extramarital sex would create such problems in a marriage that divorce would be better than continuing in an unhealthy or even dangerous relationship, in general it would be better to forgive earlier indiscretions (if accompanied by repentance and present faithfulness) rather than to break up what might otherwise still be a good marriage. In both cases, however, Christ warned that remarriage after divorce amounts to adultery, a sin which is explicitly forbidden by God's seventh Commandment. Both divorce and remarriage, therefore, are extremely serious steps, and both violate the divine principle of permanent union and faithfulness in marriage. But this is not the whole story. "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy . . . For He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust" (Psalm 103:8, 14). "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (I John 1:9). This promise is specifically for Christians, and includes even the sin of adultery, if there is genuine repentance. The Lord made this very clear in His dealing with the woman who "was taken in adultery, in the very act" (John 8:4). He reminded her accusers that they also were sinners and had no warrant to punish her. Then He told the woman: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). (con't) |
||||||
193 | Reading your Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | inmyheart | 72833 | ||
singnangel, The Bible is God’s written Word to us. How important for us to revere its pages of truth, as it tells us about the God we worship. A deep conviction of the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures is of paramount importance for the one who reads its pages. Bible reading keeps its glow when we revere it as God’s book. Desire: It is one thing to know that we need to read the Bible. It is another thing to desire to read it. Such a desire is not forced, but should come naturally to the one who knows the Author personally and loves His fellowship. This is what Peter had in mind when he wrote, "long for the pure milk of the word...if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord" (1 Peter 2:2-3). Receptivity: This is the attitude of submission and moldability. We approach the Bible not to do something to it, but to let it do something to us. With an open heart and mind, we are prepared to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45). Humility: Humility is a virtue that God values in every aspect of our lives, because He wants us always to acknowledge who we really are and who He truly is. When you feel discouraged over difficult passages of Scripture, recall that even Peter realized there were parts of Paul’s letters that were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). God bless |
||||||
194 | Drawing the line | 1 John 3:17 | inmyheart | 72812 | ||
What is the limit? The only limit is the one that love itself imposes; where giving to a person, meeting their perceived or immediate need, does them harm instead of good - then the loving thing to do is to not give them what they ask for, but to give them what they really need instead. You are not being specific in your question. Do you feel that there should be a limit as to "how much" your fellowship should contribute? Or, are you saying someone is taking advantage of their current situation? |
||||||
195 | is jesus god? | NT general Archive 1 | inmyheart | 72394 | ||
Is Jesus God? The Historical Dispute Is Jesus God? The answer to this question is the only real dispute surrounding the historical Jesus. No legitimate scholar today denies that Jesus is a historic figure that walked on this earth about 2,000 years ago, that he did remarkable wonders and acts of charity, and that He died a horrible death on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem. The emotionally-charged dispute focuses specifically on whether Jesus was God incarnate who rose from the dead three days after His Crucifixion. Is Jesus God? The Only Alternatives Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this "spiritual" dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus didn't mince words, He declared Himself God (John 10:30, John 14:6). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a "good man" is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a "good man," as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth. In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God. Is Jesus God? The Only Answer Is Jesus God? Once you have asked all your questions, weighed all the evidence, and tested all the arguments, you will ultimately be confronted with this question. In Mathew 16:15, Jesus put it this way, 'But who do you say that I am?' One of His disciples, Simon Peter, replied: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' What is your reply? |
||||||
196 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | inmyheart | 72392 | ||
Those who are opposed to present-day Christians performing miracles in the name of Jesus often cite Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" Jesus himself said the words in this passage, so we must accept them; however, we must understand what he truly means. Some take this passage to be a reference to New Age practitioners who frequently invoke the name of Christ; yet, their beliefs are mostly hostile to Christianity. In any case, Jesus is referring here to some kind of false prophets, and not Christians at all. This is determined by the context of this passage. The verses previous to Matthew 7:21-23 say, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15-20). In addition, note that Jesus says to those who come to him, "I never knew you," meaning that they were never Christians in the first place. Jesus does not say that he will disown those in question because they worked miracles in his name, but that simply by working miracles in his name does not constitute a proof of a relationship with him. It is possible for one who is influenced by Satan to appear as one who is on the side of Christ: "Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, 'These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved'" (Acts 16:16-17). The Bible warns of false apostles, false prophets, and false miracles: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15); "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9); and "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). However, those who use this passage (Matthew 7:21-23) against the Christians who heal the sick and cast out demons in the name of Jesus creates a subtle deception by doing so, since Jesus does not condemn the act of doing good in his name, but that doing good in his name may not be sufficient proof of relationship. In fact, he says in Mark 9:39 that, "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me," which is an implicit approval of one who legitimately performs miracles in his name. Also, if Jesus is condemning those who work miracles in his name, then he would be speaking against the actions of the apostles, as well as contradicting his own commission to all the believers. Therefore, this passage cannot be used to challenge Christians who, in obedience to Christ’s commands, heal the sick in the name of Jesus. Rather, those who refuse to carry out these basic elements of the Christian mandate should be ashamed of their negligence. Once we have an understanding of our authority in Christ and faith in his name, we may confront sicknesses that attempt to attack our own bodies, and that of other people. We may follow the biblical examples in commanding the bodies of the sick to be healed, and the demons that are oppressing people to leave. We may also claim supernatural protection in the name of Jesus: "In my name they will… pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). All this power belongs to us through Jesus Christ. God bless (Speaking the Truth In Love) awesome sign off! |
||||||
197 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | inmyheart | 72386 | ||
EdB, As I said, that's why I'm praying for you :) Another topic another time. God bless |
||||||
198 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | inmyheart | 72296 | ||
Jesified, I argue that the biblical evidence affirms that present-day Christians have the same type of divine authority over sicknesses and demons that the apostles had. The authority to heal had never been retracted, but it is available to Christians in every generation. For example, we have a record of the commission of Jesus to all believers: "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" (Mark 16:15-18). Some have argued that this passage only applies to the apostles, who Jesus was directly addressing. However, it is strange that they would make this claim when none of them hesitates to apply Matthew 28:18-20 to all Christians, where Jesus also commissions his disciples, but without the explicit mention of miracles: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." What is the difference between Mark 16:15-18 and Matthew 28:18-20? If the former only applies to the apostles, then how can we say that the latter does not? This "pick-and-choose" style of hermeneutics reflects not an honest interpretation of the Scriptures, but a hypocritical and disobedient attitude. Mark 16:17 clearly states that miracles will follow "those who believe," with no mention of which generation one must live in, or whether one is an apostle. Another objection raised against this passage in Mark 16 is that it is not supposed to be in the Scriptures at all! Many who hold to this view would assert that the passage was added to the end of Mark by an editor in the second century, and it reflects the common practice at that time. I think that the evidence fails to confirm this, but we will not take the time to explore it in detail. What we may say is that, if this passage was added in the second century, it would not carry the same level of divine authority, but it would still be true for us. This is because the original apostles had died by the second century, and if this passage reflects the common practice of that day, then it is one evidence confirming the fact that miracles were not only meant for the apostles, but also the subsequent generations of Christians. Nevertheless, as I have stated, it seems that the evidence does support the inclusion of this passage in the Gospel of Mark. In the final analysis, it is a devious practice to deny passages that one finds difficult to accept as not applicable, and accept all the others, when all of them have the same standing within the Scriptures. Jesified, you have posted well, keep doing what God has called you to do. 1Cor.15:57-58. God bless |
||||||
199 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | inmyheart | 72289 | ||
EdB, Does not James 5: 14, 15 prove that a physically sick person will surely be restored to health if he calls in the elders of the church to anoint him with literal oil and to offer the prayer of faith over him? The true Christian who desires to do only God’s will rather than to follow the desires of his flesh, will be very careful not to misapply this Scripture. To do so would be to follow Satan’s example (Matt. 4: 6). James 5: 14, 15 does not refer to physical illness at all, but to spiritual illness. To apply these verses to physical illness would be to make God’s Word appear untrue and would tend to make people become infidels; for many sincere people have done literally all the things here specified, in their efforts to obtain recovery from physical ailments, only to reap disappointment and cause to some to lose faith, wondering why God did not keep His promise that "the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." EdB, I'm praying for you also, really, this will be our last post concerning this topic. God bless |
||||||
200 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | inmyheart | 72286 | ||
EdB, Yeah, I heared about those men you speak of, all they want is your money. We are stewards of Gods money and we are aware of the devils schemes. Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Gal 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. God bless |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [32] >> |