Results 21 - 40 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | If you have a point, what is it? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79746 | ||
"Could Cain do well?" What is your point in asking this? The answer to this question does not prove or disprove anything. It does not prove or disprove Calvinism, fatalism, Arminianism or anything else. |
||||||
22 | If you have a point, what is it? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79819 | ||
inhisname: "Could Cain do well?" What is your point in asking this? The answer to this question does not prove or disprove anything. It does not prove or disprove Calvinism, fatalism, Arminianism or anything else. |
||||||
23 | "...an insult to your infallibility"? | Num 28:11 | Radioman2 | 97461 | ||
"...an insult to your infallibility"? "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others" (Spurgeon). "My opinion, when I have Bible study, all other books except the Bible are put away. DL5" If all other books (except the Bible) are put away, then what you end up with will be *your opinion*. Since the inception of the Forum in February 2001 we have had to endure the frequent repetition of the odd idea that, although the commentators are not infallible, somehow certain forum posters are. (I have never said or implied that any commentator or Forum reader is infallible.) Often when one has no argument, he tries to divert attention from the issue at hand by attacking the scholarship or even the very character of the quoted commentator. Of course, no man is infallible. But one who has studied the Bible, say, 30 hours a week for 30 years in the original languages just might be better equipped to get at the meaning of the Scriptures than one who hasn't devoted that much time and effort. But, these self-sufficient ones reason, don't listen to men who've spent years and years studying the Bible in the original languages. Instead harken unto the many Internet self-appointed Lone Ranger Bible experts who overpopulate this forum. They seem to think the rule of interpretation is not sola scriptura (Scripture only), but is instead solo scriptura (me and my Bible). The following quote from Spurgeon answers these odd notions better than I've ever seen them answered. *************************************** "In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. " - C. H. Spurgeon --Radioman2 |
||||||
24 | Do you have a private hot line to God? | Deut 18:22 | Radioman2 | 92502 | ||
Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl ___________________ Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. ____________________ 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
25 | T or F. Sola Scriptura (Scripture only) | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 85827 | ||
'Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is NOT the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is ALSO a source of authoritative information about God?' Note that this is a direct (yes or no) question that asks for a direct answer -- either "No, the Bible is NOT the only source of authoritative information about God" or "Yes, it is." Hopefully, any reply to this post will include a simple yes or no answer to the above question. Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: ID# 85421 at this website (StudyBibleForum) and/or: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
26 | A Private Hot Line to God? | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 89035 | ||
Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture. "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' ____________________ This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: ID# 85421 at this website (StudyBibleForum) and/or: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
27 | What topics are censored on the forum? | Prov 5:19 | Radioman2 | 79109 | ||
Thank you. Now I'll ask you again: Perhaps you could favor us with a list of topics that are banned from discussion on this forum. Or would the list itself be censored? |
||||||
28 | What is the third toe on the left foot? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61951 | ||
In Daniel what is the meaning of the third toe on the left foot (Daniel 2:41-42) of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB)? NASB Daniel 2:41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay. |
||||||
29 | The Law: Abolished or Not Abolished? | Matt 5:17 | Radioman2 | 102137 | ||
Why are there so many extremists when it comes to the question of the Mosaic Law? At one extreme there are those who would have us bound to the Law regarding sabbath keeping and tithing. At the opposite extreme are those who say that we are free from the Law. What does that mean? Does it mean that now we are free to steal, murder, commit adultery, bear false witness? --Radioman2 |
||||||
30 | No limit on what faith can do? | Matt 6:10 | Radioman2 | 83311 | ||
No limit on what faith can do? Don’t several New Testament passages declare that there is no limitation on what genuine faith can do? 'Several other passages, such as Matthew 7:7; 21:22 ; John 14:12-14 ; and 1 John 3:22-23 are often mistakenly understood to mean that God places no restrictions on what we should be able to receive in response to our prayers. But if there were no limitation on the things we could receive from God through prayer, why would Jesus say, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . .Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”? ( Matthew 5:4,10 ). 'In other words, if our lack of faith is all that stands in the way of our having whatever we want, we should never be mournful, persecuted,or afflicted. But that was not what Jesus promised, and His disciples did not receive everything they might have wanted. Just as Jesus had no permanent place to lay His head ( Matthew 8:20 ), the apostles suffered persecution and hardship ( 2 Corinthians 6 ), and eventually all but John were martyred. 'These passages assume that we will pray in humble, childlike faith (Matthew 7:11; 17:20 ), with sincerity, out of genuine love ( Matthew 5:44 ), with good motives ( Matthew 6:5 ), with perseverance( Matthew 7:7 ), and in submission to God’s sovereign will ( Matthew 6:10 ). When we pray this way, we won’t make improper requests. Also, we will be so in tune with God that we will be satisfied when His plans prove to be different than we hoped they would be.' ____________________ Written by: Dan Vander Lugt (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/bible/passages/ntmiracles.xml/) |
||||||
31 | T or F? "God is a gentleman." | Matt 13:1 | Radioman2 | 83383 | ||
T or F? "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." 'Sloppy Slogans' 'There's nothing wrong with catchy ways of expressing a conclusion based on careful consideration. In fact, Jesus was a master at using short, pithy statements (known as aphorisms) to drive a point home. Sloganeering in the hands of the unskilled, though, tends to be a sloppy business. The kernel of truth is lost beneath a pile of misleading chaff. 'Many slogans are not answers, but clever dismissals. No careful work has been done to justify the verdict. Let me explain. 'One truism I've heard regarding the problem of God's sovereignty versus man's freedom goes something like this: "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." The statement has a ring of truth to it, and as a slogan it has populist appeal. Yet, more often than not, the statement is like a roof hanging in mid-air; the more demanding foundational work needed to support it simply has not been done. 'For example, this maxim is vulnerable to a couple of simple observations. First, the Scripture doesn't make this particular claim about human freedom. It doesn't even imply that God is a gentleman who won't interfere with our lives. To the contrary, there are a number of biblical examples that indicate just the opposite. 'Take Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance. He was in total rebellion against God. He dragged Christian men, women, and children into prison and even presided over executions. Paul was, in his human will, an enemy to the cross of Christ. So God knocked him off his horse on the Damascus Road, blinded him, then spoke to him like thunder from the sky (Acts 9:3-7). Was God tampering? It looks like it. 'Consider poor Nebuchadnezzar. God had him chewing grass with the cows in the fields of Babylon for three years until he finally looked heavenward, came to his senses, and gave God the glory (Daniel 4:28-37). Was there any divine pressure here? Seems like it to me.' ____________________ Faith and Philosophy by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org) |
||||||
32 | Is "slain in the Spirit" biblical? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90453 | ||
Is "slain in the Spirit" a biblical experience? 1) There is no biblical precedent for slain in the Spirit. 2) Only the enemies of Jesus fell BACKWARD after touching or being touched by Him. His followers fell FORWARD in worship and adoration. 3) God never has to do the same thing in the same way twice. Hypothetically, IF God were to slay people in the Spirit, it is unlikely He would do it cookie cutter fashion. I.e., it is not: "Everybody in the building, line up. You're all going to receive the same experience in the same way." 4) The literal definition of the English word "slay" is "to kill." I don't think I want to be killed -- either in the Spirit or otherwise. 5) Where "slain in the Spirit" is concerned, neither the WORDS nor the CONCEPT appear in the Bible. 6) One radio broadcaster has written about being “slain in the Spirit”: “Despite the pious attribution of this phenomenon to the Holy Spirit as well as the pragmatic addition of ‘catchers,’ multitudes continue to suffer spiritual, emotional and physical damage from this practice. Some have even died.”62 (www.equip.org/ ) 7) "The three-hour repetition of a spiritual song, being slain in the spirit, or even a spiritualistic seance have at least one thing in common — they all involve subjects becoming extremely susceptible to spontaneous suggestions." (www.equip.org/ ) 8) The same broadcaster writes: "Furthermore, let me underscore the fact that I continue to be gravely concerned about the spiritual and physical consequences of unbiblical manifestations such as spasmodic jerking and being “slain in the spirit.”" (www.equip.org/ ) 9) "Slain in the Spirit "Also "resting in the Spirit" or in the vernacular of movements like the Toronto Blessing and Pensacola Outpouring "doing carpet time." "This manifestation is promoted especially (but not exclusively) by proponents of some current renewal and revival movements. "In a practice said to have been introduced by Kathryn Kuhlman, people who receive what they consider to tbe a "touch of the Holy Spirit" pass out on the floor, where they are said to "rest in the Spirit." Many people do not pass out completely, but rather "yield" - i.e., they voluntarily fall to the floor. "Churches like the Vineyard Movement, the Toronto Christian Fellowship, and preachers like Benny Hinn say they do not completely understand why people fall "under the power of the Spirit." However, they do claim God can more easily do a work of healing, renewal, and/or impartation while a person "does carpet time". "People who do not fall are sometimes referred to as "HTR" - Hard To Receive." (www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex) To click on links to further info on slain in the Spirit cut and paste into your address bar the following link: http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/s00.html#slain |
||||||
33 | Where is his common courtesy? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90781 | ||
RJJ: The Pastor answered your question with silence? Well, welcome to the club. I was beginning to think I had replied to the postings of Harpo. Radioman2 |
||||||
34 | Prescribing visualization? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90806 | ||
PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION? "Copeland can argue and fuss all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that through such teachings he has entered the world of the occult." ____________________ PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Copeland combines his "legal" precedent for prosperity with his "mechanics" of confession to form a formula for speaking things into existence. He insists, "You have the same creative faith and ability on the inside of you that God used when he created the heavens and the earth."84 However, he adds that most believers are not able to make full use of their inner power because "our imagination...has been so fouled up and fathered up with wasted useless words [and] wasted useless images."85 'As a corrective, Copeland instructs believers to "go to the New Testament, get the words of the covenant that cover the situation that you hope to bring to pass. Build the image of that hope inside of you....Keep the word before your eyes."86 As examples, he uses an inner picture of an 82-foot yacht that will transform into reality in the Holy of Holies in heaven, along with a "picture [of a Bible] that came right out of me and went into the Holy of Holies,"87 where it developed into an actual, physical object. 'Copeland also claims that "when you get to the place where you take the Word of God and build an image on the inside of you of not having crippled legs and not having blind eyes, but when you close your eyes you just see yourself just leap out of that wheelchair, it will picture that in the Holy of Holies and you will come out of there."88 'Recognizing that his technique "sounds like that visualization they do in meditation and metaphysical practices,"89 Copeland counters by reversing the tables. "What they're doing sounds like this," he retorts. "The devil is a counterfeiter. He never came up with anything real. That is the perverted form of the real thing. Where do you think he got it? That sucker doesn't know anything on his own. Amen."90 'During another occasion, however, Copeland revealingly affirms that both positive confession and creative visualization are based on the same principle: "Words create pictures, and pictures in your mind create words. And then the words come back out your mouth....And when that spiritual force comes out it is going to give substance to the image that's on the inside of you. Aw, that's that visualization stuff! Aw, that's that New Age! No, New Age is trying to do this; and they'd get somewhat results out of it because this is spiritual law, brother."91 'Copeland says, "Any image that you get down on the inside of you that is so vivid when you close your eyes you see it, it'll come to pass. When God came at the Tower of Babel, He said, 'Anything they can imagine, they can do.'"92 He fails to note, however, that those individuals built the tower out of brick and tar (Gen. 11:3), not simply out of their imagination. Moreover, their venture incurred God's judgment (vv. 6-9). Copeland can argue and fuss all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that through such teachings he has entered the world of the occult.' ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) matt2411 |
||||||
35 | What would happen if...? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90835 | ||
Hank: While we're at it, what do you suppose would happen if a prosecuting attorney went into court and, when asked by the judge to present his evidence, replied: "Your honor, if it's evidence you want, why don't YOU conduct an investigation and come up with evidence to prove my case?" Why not? As Copeland would reason, If you have imagination as a grain of sesame seed, nothing shall be impossible unto you. Would such a prosecutor be cited for contempt of court or would he be disbarred on the grounds that he is too stupid to practice law? Radioman2 P.S. "Stupid" is such an ugly word. But then so are the words "you fools" and "you skeptics". |
||||||
36 | Can the rapture happen anytime? | Matt 24:3 | Radioman2 | 79268 | ||
Darcy writes: "But the rapture can happen anytime." What is your scriptural evidence for this assertion? I.e., where in the Bible does it teach the rapture can happen anytime? 'WHAT ABOUT IMMINENCY? '...the doctrine of imminency is nowhere taught in Scripture. The concept that Christ could return at "any moment" since His departure back to heaven is simply not taught anywhere in the entire Bible. Not one of the passages used to sustain imminency, actually teach imminency. Expectancy, yes. Imminency (an any-moment rapture), no. If imminency had been the concept that the writers had wanted to convey, it could have and would have been clearly stated (in fact 19th century promoters of pretribulationism initially taught expectancy rather than imminency for this reason). In addition, there were many events prophesied by Christ, known throughout the Christian world at that time, that still had to occur before He could return, such as the destruction of the Temple (Lk. 21:6) and the death of Peter (Jn. 21:18-19). Imminency was an impossibility until the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. 'Likewise, Christ taught that His rescue of the elect of God will occur "on the same day" that His wrath will begin upon the wicked that remain (Lk 17:26-30). There is no gap of time between the rapture and His wrath. If the seventieth week of Daniel is really the wrath of God, as pretribulationism maintains, and the seventieth week begins with Israel's covenant with Antichrist (Dan. 9:27), then Israel must be back in the land and Antichrist must be on the world scene before the Rapture, a simple deduction which once again destroys the unbiblical concept of imminency. But the prewrath position has no problem with any of these passages, including Revelation 12:12, where the persecution of Antichrist against the "elect" of God during the great tribulation is not called the wrath of God, but rather, the wrath of Satan. Pretribulationism makes Antichrist's persecution of God's elect the wrath of God. Prewrath rapturism sees this great persecution as the wrath of Satan (Rev. 12:12 being the proof text). Antichrist's persecution of God's elect is never the wrath of God (Mt. 24:21-22; Rev. 12:7; 13:7; 14:12-13).' (Questions for a Pretribulationist 'By Robert Van Kampen and Rev. Roger Best) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0006.html) |
||||||
37 | 1. Summary.Teachings of Kenneth Copeland | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 82609 | ||
1. Summary: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers within or at the end of sentences are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Summary 'Kenneth Copeland stands today as one of the Faith movement's leading spokesmen. His voluminous material (in print and broadcast media), combined with his crusades and international outreach centers, attest to his vast influence. 'Copeland is responsible for spreading many of the Faith movement's unbiblical teachings. He distorts the biblical concepts of faith and covenant. He reduces God to the image of man while elevating man to the status of God. He lowers Jesus to being a product of positive confession who took on a satanic nature at the cross. And he promotes the occult practice of creative visualization. 'Copeland's errors are largely due to his negative stance on reasoning, his poor handling of the Bible, his aversion toward theology, and his bias against tradition. 'On the night of November 2, 1962, a young man twenty-five years of age, struggling against "sin, sickness, and strife," asked Jesus to "come into [his] heart."1 His decision came two weeks after his wife had done likewise.2 Today, these two individuals head a ministry that literally stretches around the globe, while remaining in the forefront of what has come to be known as the "Faith" movement. They are Kenneth and Gloria Copeland. 'Part One of this series explored the roots of the Faith movement and surveyed some of its leading proponents today. In this installment, our primary attention will be devoted to cataloging and critiquing the core theology of one of the most widely recognized and respected Faith teachers to date - Kenneth Copeland.3' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland by Hank Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) matt2411 |
||||||
38 | Where does Scripture say Christians... | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 94108 | ||
DAIRYLEADER5: The following is in reply to your Note, "Radioman2, I dont care a lot for Copelands analogy...," ID# 94106. --Radioman2 ____________________ Repost of ID# 89213 by Hank "We need to be careful of what we say about our brothers and sisters, we will be judged for it." --from your post No. 89181. Tim, where does Scripture say that Christians will be judged for reproving and rebuking false teaching and false teachers? Just how "careful" were Paul and other apostles about soft-peddling error and corruption in the church? For that matter, how compromising was Jesus in dealing with false teachers? Have you read anything about the vigor and forcefulness with which Charles H. Spurgeon opposed modernism and the apostasy that it brought to the Baptist Union of England in his day? No, Tim, Christians who love the faith once and for all delivered to the saints are not to be careful lest they offend. They are not to be spineless, namby-pamby, weak, apathetic, and ineffectual, craven and ignorant little wimps hiding in the shadows, ashamed of the gospel of Christ, bent on condoning error and deception. They try to rationalize their hypocrisy by calling it Christian charity and tolerance. The seminal cause of many church groups floundering today in man-centered theology can be traced to the failure of professing Christians to stand up for orthodox teaching and practice. The corrupting interlopers had free play simply because there was no one who had the guts to oppose them and put an end to their ungodly secularism and socinianism. When man began to introduce theological concepts that robbed God of his sovereignty and placed man in control of his own destiny, much of biblical Christianity began a slow, steady disintegration into a devilish mixture of cults, false teaching and heresy. Much has been said on this forum about the so-called Word of Faith movement, one characteristic of which that is widely advertised by its practitioners is expressed in the silly slogan, "Name it and claim it." Name the blessing or whatever that God "owes" us and claim it. Since when has God ever empowered man to put Him in the dock and force Him to do anything? This is Heresy with a capital H. What is sad is that disciples of the false teachers are not bashful to come forth to condemn orthodox evangelicals, frequently tagging them as practicing legalism because they adhere to sola scriptura and thus don't look for any special favors from God such as a private and extra-biblical sign or special revelation . . . --Hank ID# 89213 |
||||||
39 | Only one way to baptize? | Mark 7:4 | Radioman2 | 77550 | ||
Only one way to baptize? The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [i.e., modes other than immersion] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "There are three modes (or methods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)." (http://www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
40 | "Chronos-time" is no longer? | Mark 9:1 | Radioman2 | 97990 | ||
"Chronos-time is no longer in the days whenever the 7th Trumpet is about to sound (Rev.10:6,7)"? The King James Version says: "that there should be time no longer:" Re 10:6 (KJV) And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: The NASB says: "that there will be DELAY no longer, " NASB Revelation 10:6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer, The Amplified Bible says: "that NO MORE TIME SHOULD INTERVENE and there should be NO MORE WAITING OR DELAY." AMPLIFIED Revelation 10:6 And swore in the name of (by) Him Who lives forever and ever, Who created the heavens (sky) and all they contain, and the earth and all that it contains, and the sea and all that it contains. [He swore] that no more time should intervene and there should be no more waiting or delay, "Time" no longer? NASB Revelation 22:2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Note: "yielding its fruit every MONTH." --Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |