Results 201 - 220 of 305
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | the rapture??? | Matt 24:40 | Radioman | 20619 | ||
Matthew 24:40. Using the search engine, look up the word "rapture." |
||||||
202 | Who were the holy people raised fromdead | Matt 27:52 | Radioman | 38758 | ||
RE: your post, jesus said..."i am the resurrection and...JMSCOTT Wed 03/13/02, 6:19pm Was your PC struck by lightning while you were sending the above post? |
||||||
203 | ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI? | Mark 15:34 | Radioman | 1571 | ||
To the question re Mark 15:34, someone gave the following reply: "That's the way I see it too. It's too bad no one responded to you directly." Really? It seems to me you responded directly to the question. Re the person who wrote the comment: "It's too bad no one responded to you directly." 1) When he says "no one responded", he included himself. If he meant to exclude himself, the grammatically correct phrasing would be: "no one ELSE responded." 2) However, if he means it's too bad no one, including him, responded directly, then I have no objection to his phrasing. | ||||||
204 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | Radioman | 9703 | ||
Those who come to those passages (Heb. 6:4, etc.) and try to tell you that they refer to a loss of salvation are forcing those passages into their theological biases. |
||||||
205 | Questions on Luke 8:16-25 | Luke 8:18 | Radioman | 5539 | ||
Could you tell us, who is the author of this daily devotional? If the author is you, would you say so? If it is not you, would you mind telling us who did write it? Normally, IF quoting another publication, one would give the author, title, page number, name of publisher, date of publishing. ************************************ Main Entry: pla·gia·rize Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing Etymology: plagiary Date: 1716 transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source |
||||||
206 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman | 1298 | ||
(I would like to submit Part Two.) . . . "Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God's unconditional election (or predestination) of certain ones to saved and certain others to be lost, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God's saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation. . . . "Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God's salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation. (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian (5) One's salvation can be lost through willful disobedience. . . . "Rather than the unconditional predestination of Calvinism, Arminianism teaches conditional predestination. We are predestined to eternal life if we accept God's provision of salvation. . . . "The __________ __ ___ leans toward Arminianism, though it accepts scriptural truth found in both positions. We agree with the Calvinist emphasis on God's sovereignty or supreme power and authority. But we also firmly believe the Arminian emphasis on mankind's free will and responsibility for his actions and choices. We believe the Bible teaches both truths.." So there it is: Calvinism, Arminianism, a little of each, or neither. Take your pick. |
||||||
207 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman | 1299 | ||
I would like to submit Part One . . . I would like to submit for your consideration the following quotation re: the never ending debate over once saved, always saved (which, I remind you, is a term used ONLY by the opponents of Eternal Security). I offer this quotation without any comment of my own. Note that I am not claiming to agree or disagree with this position. I merely point it out. . . . The following is a quotation from a denominational publication stating the position of the denomination on this issue. If you are not happy with what you read, don't complain to me. I didn't write it. I never said this is so or not so. OK? . . . "In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible's call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the __________ __ ___disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost. . . . "The Christian religious world divides basically into two schools of thought concerning the spiritual destiny of people. One is Calvinism, named after John Calvin (early 16the century); the other is Arminianism, traced back to James Arminius (late 16th century). The theological debate is thus centuries old. (continues in Part Two) |
||||||
208 | Why was the samarian woman right? | John 4:16 | Radioman | 20343 | ||
Even stronger counter view casiv: Your attack on Tim is unfounded for a few more reasons. 1) Tim is right -- as usual. 2) You are wrong -- as usual. 3) Each and every one of your postings shows your ignorance, arrogance and abrasiveness. My advice to you once and for all is: Wise up or shut up! |
||||||
209 | Is God Right Handed? | John 4:24 | Radioman | 24263 | ||
Question: "Would it be safe to say or could it be proven to some degree that God himself is right handed?" Answer (short): No. Answer (full): The idea that God is right-handed is one of the top 1,000 weirdest ideas I've seen on the forum -- this week. I nominate this question for the coveted Panthera Leo Strang Award. First, God is Spirit (John 4:24). He is not body. He is Spirit. God does not have a physical body. Second, the right hand of God is a figure of speech. (Lookup "right hand" at the following website: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/) The next thing you know someone will be asking if God holds his toothbrush in his right hand. |
||||||
210 | Once Save; Always Saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15070 | ||
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29 Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" You may or may not choose to respond to the point(s) I have made here. But, consider the following. In a debate, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes. I will interact with anyone who has a specific comment or question about the passage(s) in question. I will not respond to questions or posts that stray away from the specific passage(s) being discussed. |
||||||
211 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15178 | ||
You write: "So you are tellen me that a person can except Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, repent of their sins, and turn around and live as they did just prior to their new conversion in to the family of God (backslide) and still be saved and enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Where did you ever hear anyone make such a statement? People who *properly understand* the doctrine of Eternal Security would never make such an outrageous statement. People who do not *properly understand* the doctrine had best keep their comments to themselves until they know what they are talking about. Every man has a right to his own opinion; but no man has the right to be wrong in his facts. This forum has been active for 200 days. In that time 2,936 registered users have submitted a total of 14,412 postings. To my knowledge you are one of the few people ever to have made such an assertion here. Normally, it is the opponents, not the proponents, of Eternal Security who trot out this outlandish interpretation of the doctrine when the subject comes up. |
||||||
212 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15196 | ||
I'll say it again, this time more slowly. Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" In a debate, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes. I will interact with anyone who has a specific comment or question about the passage(s) in question. I will not respond to questions or posts that stray away from the specific passage(s) being discussed. |
||||||
213 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15207 | ||
SisterD: He who is without error among us shall cast the first stone. In that case, you have nothing to worry about. :-) You certainly are entitled to express your beliefs here on the forum. I tend to become a tad emotional over certain issues, but as anyone can tell you, "Radioman's bark is worse than his bite." Actually, Radioman has no bite. Figuratively speaking, he is a toothless old lion who enjoys roaring a bit now and then, but who couldn't bite even if he wanted to. :-) Sincerely, how could anyone be angry with you when you have such a kind and gentle attitude? Welcome to the Forum. (I should have said that first before I roared at you. Sorry.) :-) I look forward to reading many more of your postings in the future. Bless you, Radioman |
||||||
214 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15213 | ||
SisterD: Thank YOU! You just made my day! Radioman :-) |
||||||
215 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15240 | ||
To quote a thoroughly reliable source (myself), I said "figuratively speaking, R-man is a toothless old lion." You ask a lot of questions for somebody who lives in Arkansas. :-) Watch the lion stuff. Don't push it, Hank H. :-) (Just kidding.) Radioman |
||||||
216 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15296 | ||
Norrie, you are truly one of my favorite people on the Forum. You have a great attitude. If I were in need of prayer, I think you would be at the top of the list of people that I would ask to pray for me. So, although I disagree somewhat, what I write here is by no means intended to criticize or offend you. I'll make my answer short. You write: "There are those that say, well, he was never REALLY saved, but how do we know?" How do we know? 1 John 2:19 (NIV) They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. Faith that endures is the only legitimate saving faith. Consider Matthew 13:20. Some people make an emotional, superficial commitment to salvation in Christ, but it is not real. They remain interested only until there is a sacrificial price to pay, and then abandon Christ. Always remember: we do not prove the Bible nor do we build doctrine on the experience(s) of people, whether the experiences are ours or belong to others. We do not establish Bible doctrine on case examples. On the contrary, we prove or disprove experience by the Bible. There are biblical evidences of genuine saving faith. Maybe we'll get into those soon. I hope this helps. Go with God, Radioman |
||||||
217 | What is eternal life? What is saved? | John 6:37 | Radioman | 15389 | ||
Re: the post " Hank, Your analogy of the lost son is ..." Hank, is this Note even worth answering? The arguments presented are so tiresome. The first sentence in the other Note is "Your analogy of the lost son is innaccurate." That sentence itself is laughably inaccurate. You very accurately called Luke 15:11 and following the "parable of the lost son." The theme of the chapter is not "sinners that need to repent." It is more than obvious from reading the chapter that it contains three parables concerning joy over repentance. Does John 15 have to do with the judgment of sinners? For everyone's information, lost souls are not gathered up in bundles to be burned. God deals individually with souls. Then we jump to the subject of man's much-touted ability to choose. Hello? While not denying human responsibility, can we at least acknowledge that divine sovereignty has something to do with our salvation? Then the writer of the other Note says: "I have seen those committed to Christ turn back to the world..." No, you haven't. You've never seen any such thing. This whole idea of proving the Bible by case histories or the experiences of people was adequately addressed in another submission posted yesterday. I quote yesterday's post for those who missed it. "I'll make my answer short. You write: "There are those that say, well, he was never REALLY saved, but how do we know?" How do we know? "1 John 2:19 (NIV) They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. "Faith that endures is the only legitimate saving faith. Consider Matthew 13:20. Some people make an emotional, superficial commitment to salvation in Christ, but it is not real. They remain interested only until there is a sacrificial price to pay, and then abandon Christ. "Always remember: we do not prove the Bible nor do we build doctrine on the experience(s) of people, whether the experiences are ours or belong to others. We do not establish Bible doctrine on case examples. On the contrary, we prove or disprove experience by the Bible." Finally, the other post uses the same old tired and false argument twisted from 2 Peter 2 to "prove" that it's possible for a blood bought, blood washed, born-again, Holy-Spirit sealed and indwelt child of God to "fall from grace and lose his salvation." Who is being spoken of in 2 Peter 2: false teachers or born-again Christians? The answer is simple to ascertain. Verses 20-22 use the word "they" a number of times. They is a pronoun. Every pronoun has an antecedent. If one keeps backing up until he find the pronoun's antecedent in 2:1, he will see that the chapter is talking about false teachers. False teachers, not believers. There is no magic or guesswork here. This conclusion is arrived at by the application of the rules of English grammar. Oh, did I forget to mention? This question and the arguments from John 15 and 2 Peter 2 have been asked, answered and refuted a number of times. Anyone who can read will note before he posts a question that the instructions plainly say: "Please search for your question before asking it?" Merely following the directions would have shown that this question has already been debated to death here on the forum. |
||||||
218 | "Many false prophets will arise ..." | John 10:27 | Radioman | 7914 | ||
(The following has been re-posted to keep it in the right thread. My apologies for posting it twice.) Matt 24:11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many." I have a question for all who would defend the word of faith movement and those who would defend its super-star preachers, including Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, Paul and Jan Crouch, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Jesse Duplantis, and Marilyn Hickey, and the many other evangelists, teachers, and writers promoting the teaching. For a moment, forget their unbiblical doctrine of the prosperity gospel (i.e., name it and claim it). What about their heretical, near blasphemous teachings concerning the nature of God, Christ and man, as summarized below? "In brief, the teachings of these men may be summarized as follows: God created man in “God’s class,” as “little gods,” with the potential to exercise the “God kind of faith” in calling things into existence and living in opportunity, however, by rebelling against God in the Garden and taking upon ourselves Satan’s nature. To correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (thus taking upon Himself Satan’s nature), went to Hell, was “born again,” rose from the dead with God's nature again, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the Incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be little gods. Since we are called to experience this kind of life now, we should be successful in every area of our lives. To be in debt, then, or be sick, or (as is often taught) be left by one’s spouse, and not to have these problems go away by “claiming” God’s promises, shows a lack of faith" (Christian Research Institute). |
||||||
219 | Mark why do you say that? | John 10:27 | Radioman | 8011 | ||
Mark: You are no fan of CRI? Somehow I doubt that CRI is a fan of Mark Sutton. So you're another one of those unteachable spirits who don't need any man to teach you? Does this attitude not strike you as arrogant, as well as foolish? You've walked with many fringe groups, some of which hold beliefs or practices that are controversial? It's OK to listen to fringe groups, but not OK to listen to widely known, widely respected teachers? I can only imagine what your belief system consists of. What could it be but chaos and confusion? I haven't heard you say anything on this Forum that represents sound Bible doctrine. Those in the first century who rejected or disobeyed the truth were not rejecting the very words of the New Testament, since it was as yet not completed. What they rejected were the teaching of men (oh, I thought we didn't need men to teach us). They rejected men who were apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers, etc. So much for the theory that all teachings of men should be rejected. Instead of rejecting such teachings, it would be far more appropriate to test those teachings against the written Word to see if they line up. As someone here has posted previously, if all we need is the Bible and no teachers, then why did Jesus instruct his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel? According to your logic, wouldn't it have been just as effective to keep the disciples in Jerusalem, mail copies of the Bible to nonbelievers, and let them figure it out for themselves? Whoever despises and distrusts most, if not all, of the teachers that Christ has given to the church is a fool. But whoever despises and distrusts outstanding leaders and teachers of conservative evangelical Bible doctrine shall have to answer for it to God. To malign the character of someone who can see through false doctrine and speak out against it is to stand on very thin ice. It is the duty of every teacher to warn others against false doctrine. The problem with many people is that they base their beliefs, not on the Bible, but on what their Sunday School teacher taught them in the distant past, what their parents said was true, what they hear on TBN, and who knows what else. When a teacher who is thoroughly grounded in the Word and unemcumbered with superstition and bad doctrine comes along to fulfill his duty to warn others to turn away from error, heresy, apostasy or whatever term fits, all the pious self-appointed experts want to do to him what others did to the prophets and to Christ himself, which is to arrange a violent and speedy death or exile for the true prophet. It's not right for someone who really does know basic Bible doctrine to appraise the controversial teachings of a group of men? (Men, you know, the plural of man, as in i need no man to teach me. By the way if one needs no man to teach him, why join up with some fringe group in the first place? I have a problem with those who are condemning those who are most qualified to preach the truth of God's word and then defending those who have questionable beliefs.) Surely you are not suggesting or implying that "trusted defenders of the faith" are out to persecute, whip up powers against and kill people who are in error as to their doctrine, are you? Bad enough to slander a man's character with lies and slander, but worse still to accuse him of nurturing murder in his heart. Verbal "attacks" on false doctrine are entirely essential and fitting in this age of bad teaching, no teaching, and deceptive teaching. As far as understanding what a man means before you judge his words, your assertion is full of confusion and illogic. When a man speaks or writes, we determine what he means by what he says. Words have meaning and by a man's own words he will accuse or excuse himself. If a fringe leader or anyone else has insufficient knowledge of the Bible and the doctrine it contains, he'd best stay off the platform and away from the pulpit, the camera and the microphone. I admit there is a lot of bad teaching on TV and radio and one must use a great deal of discernment to know which to turn on and which to turn off and leave off. But, if one looks for it, he will find many trustworthy ministries whose teaching is uncorrupted by strange and outlandish false doctrine. A good example of TV to beware of is the so-called Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Why do they even call it the Trinity Network, when they allow on the network people who do not even believe in the Trinity? You may or may not be open to reproof, correction or instruction. But it is hoped that someone will read this post and wake up and be warned. To summarize: a cult is a cult is a cult. False doctrine does much harm to many people. If anyone exposes false doctrine, he should be commended, not condemned, for doing so. |
||||||
220 | Is the Word-Faith movement biblical ? | John 10:27 | Radioman | 8173 | ||
Mark: It is more than gracious of you to write: "Case in point is the diatribe I got from Radioman. I couldn't take it personal, for it was largely not a response to what I said, but what it made him feel." How kind and Christ-like of you to see it that way. It's more kindness than I deserve. You are right. When I went off on you, you were not the one I was angry with. I had a lot of accumulated anger towards certain individuals on the Forum. (Neither you nor EdB were among that number.) I took out my anger upon you. My pre-existing anger is no excuse for treating you the way I did. There is no excuse for that. My apology is way overdue and should have been made days ago. I have nothing but repentance and remorse for my extreme personal remarks to you that I posted last week. You in no way deserved such treatement from me. In this you have been the Christian and I have played the role of pagan. I take back every harsh and critical remark I made to you. I apologize for every offensive syllable. I admit I was way wrong. Will you forgive me? I have been following your postings. At all times you have demonstrated a splendid attitude in all you've written. The content of your postings are biblical and they do make sense, a lot of sense. Again, I apologize and ask your forgiveness for my inexcusable past behavior toward you. I hope it's not too late for us to be friends, but if it is, I know I brought it upon myself. Keep up the positive, helpful posts. Sincerely, Radioman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [16] >> |