Results 201 - 220 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | The Father ,the Son and the Holy spirit, | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 119483 | ||
Shadow, I won't argue with you except to say this: You are sadly mistaken:-( Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
202 | can you give some scriptures? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 119560 | ||
Sir Pent, I would weigh-in with Tim on this issue. I do not believe anywhere in scripture are we told that suicide is "an unforgivable sin". Christ either died for ALL sins or He didn't (Col. 2:13). Just as a note: When you say that "A person who ends their life denying God cannot be saved", how do we know that they are denying God? The references in Romans do not seem to me to be making a case against suicide as much as they are, in generel dealing with unbelief and it's consequences. Those are my thoughts on this matter. I remain: Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
203 | can you give some scriptures? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 119812 | ||
Sir Pent, Thanks for your response. I don't think we're vastly far apart on this, but it does come down to (as you say)"whether we believe that the person committing suicide is denying God or not." We are dealing with a somewhat hypothetical scenario, but here are my thoughts. One question that comes to mind on this matter is this: Is sin denying God? Suicide is as much a sin as any other. Rom. 14:23 says "...whatever is not of faith is sin." Here's my position. We're either saved or not. One has placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ... or they haven't. So, could someone become despondent to the point of suicide? Yes, I believe they could. One could not walk in the Spirit and let the (despondency) of the flesh overtake them to the point of suicide (Gal. 5:16-17). I don't know of anyone personally, but it could happen. What I believe to be the core issue is that of a misplaced dependency. When one is dependent on self, and not the Lord, we can allow our feelings to control our actions. If the Lord Jesus is firmly in control of one's life and they're rooted and grounded (Eph. 3:17), I think suicide is a remote option. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
204 | Purpose of Prayer? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 121475 | ||
tgs, I'll enter into the topic here with a section from Oswald Chambers, "If Ye Ask". I think it defines very well the purpose of prayer. "Prayer alters CIRCUMSTANCES through me It is only when a man flounders beyond any grip of himself and cannot understand things that he really prays. It is not part of the natural life of a man to pray. By “natural” I mean the ordinary, sensible, healthy, worldly-minded life. We hear it said that a man will suffer in his life if he does not pray; I question it. Prayer is an interruption to personal ambition, and no man who is busy has time to pray. What will suffer is the life of God in him, which is nourished not by food but by prayer. If we look on prayer as a means of developing ourselves, there is nothing in it at all, nor do we find that idea of prayer in the Bible. Prayer is other than meditation; it is that which develops the life of God in us. When a man is born from above (rv mg), the life of the Son of God begins in him, and he can either starve that life or nourish it. Prayer is the way the life of God is nourished. Our Lord nourished the life of God in Him by prayer; He was continually in contact with His Father. We generally look upon prayer as a means of getting things for ourselves, whereas the Bible idea of prayer is that God’s holiness and God’s purpose and God’s wise order may be brought about, irrespective of who comes or who goes. Our ordinary views of prayer are not found in the New Testament. It is not so true that “Prayer changes things” as that prayer changes me, and then I change things; consequently we must not ask God to do what He has created us to do. For instance, Jesus Christ is not a social reformer; He came to alter us first, and if there is any social reform to be done on earth, we must do it. God has so constituted things that prayer on the basis of Redemption alters the way a man looks at things. Prayer is not a question of altering things externally, but of working wonders in a man’s disposition. When you pray, things remain the same, but you begin to be different. The same thing when a man falls in love, his circumstances and conditions are the same, but he has a sovereign preference in his heart for another person which transfigures everything. If we have been born from above (rv mg) and Christ is formed in us, instantly we begin to see things differently—“If any man is in Christ, there is a new creation“ (rv mg). The good of praying is that it gets us to know God and enables God to perform His order through us, no matter what His permissive will may be. A man is never what he is in spite of his circumstances, but because of them. Circumstances, as Reader Harris* once said, are like feather beds—very comfortable to he on top of, but immensely smothering if they get on top of you. Jesus Christ, by the Spirit of God, always keeps us on top of our circumstances." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
205 | 40 Days | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 121536 | ||
following him How do you arrive at "40 years of Christ living on earth?" Just curious as to your scriptural basis, if any. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
206 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126707 | ||
Ancient, In regard to your question, I'll address two main points: 1. "So was he also formed in iniquity?" No. Scripture explicitly tells us in Hebrews 4:15 that "...we do not have a high priest(Jesus) who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Christ was begotten, not created and is the Eternal Son of God. The point of Phillipians 2:5-11 is that Christ humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross. This does not say or mean He gave up any of his Diety. God would not have exalted Him or given Him the name above all names if He were not God- equal with God. As Is. 42:8 says, "I will not give My glory to another". Who Christ is as to His Being and work is the most impotant question we must answer! 2. Paul was an apostle, called of God. Josephus was not. I don't know of any scripture that tells us that Paul "considered part of the creation philosophical"? If we don't understand the literal creation as God set forth in Genesis, then we fall prey to higher criticism- that being that God's Word is not really authoritative, etc. God was in the beginning and created the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
207 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126712 | ||
Stultis, I don't know that I agree completely with your statement "that He had every opportunity to sin". Again, scripture tells us in Heb. 4:15 that He was "tempted", not that he had opportunity to sin. There is a big difference in wording. The Commentary Critical says this "without sin—Greek, “choris,” “separate from sin” (Heb 7:26). If the Greek “aneu” had been used, sin would have been regarded as the object absent from Christ the subject; but choris here implies that Christ, the subject, is regarded as separated from sin the object [Tittmann]. Thus, throughout His temptations in their origin, process, and result, sin had nothing in Him; He was apart and separate from it [Alford]." Further, what do you mean by "If he could not choose to sin, there would be no temptation following his forty days fast in the wilderness, nor a temptation to flee his course when Peter (Satan) told him never to go to Jerusalem." I don't see any scriptural basis or proof for such an assertion. Temptation does not logically entail choosing to sin- especially when it deals with the Lord Jesus Christ (1 John 3:5). Scripture tells us He KNEW no sin. "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:21) Would you care to clarify? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
208 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126715 | ||
Stultis, I'm not exactly following your thoughts on this. First, why is it "hermenueticaly sound to compare Paul with Josephus? Second, where does the writer of Hebrews view the literal creation as allegorical? I do not think it "completely unreasonable".. that there is possibility of allegory designed specifically for our understanding. The section of scripture we're referring to is not allegorical and any attempt to render it so is outside of sound principles of Biblical interpretation. We can allegorize anything to death, and any approach to scripture needs to be careful to determine if that (allegorical) interpretation is intended by the writer. In the case of Genesis, it is clearly not historically or otherwise been understood apart from the literal. Josephus was not a believer or an apostle, so I wouldn't expect his view of Genesis to coincide with that of the historical Christian Church. His value is more of an eyewitness and historian than a biblical scholar. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
209 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126718 | ||
Stultis, Two quick points: 1. So you say! You provide no scripture or other biblical basis for your view. Opinion and logic don't necessarily provide a correct understanding:-) 2. The "age-old Original Sin concept" is in fact taught in scripture. Why wouldn't it be? I'm not suggesting anything other that what I believe based on the Bible and the beliefs of the historic Christian Church. See Psalm 51:5. This applies to all of us. We are a fallen race, in need of a Savior. By the way, this is a Study Bible Forum and as such we adhere to the Bible as being inspired and authoritative. WE also hold to the Doctrinal Statement of the Lockman Foundation. Are we on the same page? It appears by your postings that we are not. You might want to consider the posted guidelines for submitting a post to the Forum: "To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts." If you already have, my apology, if not you may run into some challenges, my friend:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
210 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126749 | ||
Stultis, With respect, I can see that we are getting nowhere, fast! You obviously do not believe the Bible to be the inspired, authoritative, Word of God. You are wrong in a number of points: "We do not "sin because we are sinners." We are created "in the image of God." What is God's image? God is spirit [15:47]." No, The image,(tselem) in Hebrew means form, image, or likeness. We are not created sinless! Only God is without sin, my friend. "We sin because we are tempted" No, again scripture tells us over and over that we are "sinners" (Rom. 3:10-12, 23) , in us is no good thing, our heart is deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9), See Ps. 51:5! Because of Adam we inherit a sinful nature (Rom. 5:9). We're born with it like it or not. That is the teaching of scripture. "Christ came to us in the same corruptable flesh" No, He did not! That is a blasphemous statement and misses the mark. If you read Romans 8:3 CAREFULLY, you'll note that it says "... sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..." Likeness is not the same as "sinful flesh. Christ was God in the flesh, without sin. The Greek, homoioma means that which is made like (something). It carries with it the sense of appearance or form. It does not infer He was sent as a sinful man. You ignore the context as well. You are guilty of ignoring the entire scope of scripture by taking certain, selected texts out of context to prove your point. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
211 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 126768 | ||
Stultis, With all due respect, No, I did not ridicule you or call YOU names! I stand by what I said. What you SAID is and was blasphemous! There is a major difference between attacking a person- which I most certainly did not- and calling a spade a spade! Your statement was appropriately labeled. It is not in accord with orthodox Christianity with regard to the person of Christ. Therefore it is blasphemous. I'm not going to waste my time addressing every point, but to ignore the grammar in interpretation is either ignorant or careless- nothing personal, but a fact. It is not arguing semantics. It goes to the very heart of the matter- sound principles of Biblical interpretation. Words have meaning, and to properly interpret, we must know the exact meaning of those words. No, "My doctrine" is not mine, but that which scripture teaches and has been the foundation of the Historical Christian Church. In all fairness, as you are a newcomer, might you be so kind as to enlighten us as to what your background is and what it is you believe? Are you in agreement with the Lockman Foundation's Doctrinal Statement for starters? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
212 | The Doctrines Please? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 127453 | ||
Forum: First, I will echo my support and stance for EdB on this matter. I say that he has spoken well and to the point. I too would like any "objectors" to state their case in all fairness. Maybe we would all better understand you if you'd take the time to lay out publically what it is you hope to achieve. Hiding behind an agenda serves no true, edifying purpose. It simply will not gain you an audience. To gain respect, you must also show respect. Second, before anyone cries "foul" and claims they're being attacked, called names, etc. please do us the courtesy of not taking offense so personal. Being direct is not necessarily the same as attacking someone or being rude, etc. Don't confuse them. Behave like an adult and learn to deal with disagreement without getting your feathers ruffled:-) Repoire is built over time, not overnight! To be taken seriously, you must show that you deserve to be. Lastly, realize that this is a Public albeit Christian Bible Study Forum. It has certain Doctrinal parameters and posting guidleines. They're there for a good reason and should be adhered to by ALL. Everyone is giving tacit approval to these guidleines when they sign up with an account with Lockman. Actions have consequences- as does every other area in life. And, because this is a public Forum, dialog will entail having your views-good, bad, or indifferent- exposed to open (public) review and criticism! Welcome to life in the Public Domain. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
213 | Christians before Jesus came | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 128615 | ||
Chesed, Without duplicating what EdB and Tim have stated to you, the OT saints were saved the same way we are- by faith in Christ! Heb. 11:13 "All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." If that was not the case, how could Christ state in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Clearly, the forefathers (patriarchs) looked to Christ by faith. The truth of 1 Cor. 5:7 is applicable to both the OT and NT, "...we walk by faith, not sight". Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
214 | Christians before Jesus came | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 128625 | ||
chesed, A couple points you make definitely could use some clarification, i.e. scriptural support:-) 1. "A lot of the things that we consider "messianic prophesy" in the OT are not." Could you provide some specific examples? 2. "The first legitimate one that I can think of would be Isa. 53...and who really understood what that was talking about until Jesus fulfilled it?" On what basis would you support this? Christology of the OT goes back to Gen. 3:15- the Protoevangelium. Numerous other OT books contain Messianic Prophesies as well. (cf Hengstenberg- Christology of the Old Testament). As a suggestion I would recommend (if you haven't done so already) read and study Hebrews 11. "By Faith" is the key word, my friend. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
215 | How am I saved? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 131598 | ||
Dalcent, I thought my challenge to you was with "respect?:-) I see no need to repeat what I've already said. If the verses I pointed out don't mean what they say, then what do they mean? You assume way too much, my friend in saying "Read the Bible with an open mind, not a closed system." Come on! You can do better than that! When you write "I take specific issue with, "All the Pauline verses denote a past action, which is complete, carrying forward to the present time." What nonsense!" On what basis? How do you ignore the grammar of those verses? 1 Cor. 1:18 cannot be saying or implying something otherwise taught in scripture! My question would then be: What sins (of yours and mine) did Christ NOT die for? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
216 | How am I saved? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 131599 | ||
Hello Emmaus, I thank you for your response. In all due respect, I will agree to disagree on this, my friend:-) For the record, I have no challenge with you or any other "Catholic Christian" who names the name of Christ! We are one in Him, regardless of any doctrinal disagreements, if indeed Jesus Christ has entered our hearts by faith. As always, I so much appreciate your input and perspective. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
217 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 131620 | ||
Tim, You make a good point to state that the phrase is not defined. This is an interesting phrase nontheless! Possibly we can get a sense of it from Hebrews 11:8: "By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going." Obviously this being a reference to Gen. 12:1-4. Abraham's "obedience" was "by faith"- the focus of Hebrews 11. C. H. Spurgeon referred to this example as "the obedience of faith" in one of his enlightening sermons of the same title. It is an interesting and worthwhile read:-) Israel had to obey to receive the blessings of God. By contrast, we have been blessed (Eph. 1:3) that this would bring obedience. Therefore, our obedience is "by faith". Speaking the Truth in Love, |
||||||
218 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 131636 | ||
Emmaus, This is an obviously emotionally charged topic, and one that no doubt may be misunderstood by non-Catholics. I do appreciate your "insider" perspective. In honestly seeking clarification here, could you do 2 things? 1. Provide a more "layman" explanation or summary of what this is saying; 2. Define Infallibilty. My major challenge is this: I would have an extremely hard time (from my perspective)in accepting that anyone- including the Pope - could be "infallible" in any meaningful sense of the word. This seems to be contrary to scripture. How exactly would the Church as a whole possess infallibility? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
219 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 131641 | ||
Emmaus, Thanks for the reference. I will check it out and read it:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
220 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | BradK | 131664 | ||
gods son, If you're really true to your moniker, would you mind toning down the Catholic Bashing. It is not becoming, proper, or fitting. You are strongly advised to read the Posting rules before you further your diatribe. I speak as a Protestant, that not all Catholics- specifically Emmaus- are of the ilk and persuasion you think. Whether we agree or not, please stop with the over-generalizations in the name of Christ. We are to be speaking the truth in love! BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [97] >> |