Results 21 - 40 of 420
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Holy Spirit question on mysterious ways | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 103861 | ||
'the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways.' If it is in the Bible, you will find it by using a concordance. If it is not in any concordance, then it is not in the Bible. For an online concordance, go to http://bible.crosswalk.com/ or http://www.biblegateway.com/ Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
22 | what is the oldest form of religion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 60386 | ||
ploest "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. "Suggestions for ploest: 1. poloist 2. -plast 3. Paulist 4. playsuit 5. pulsate 6. plots 7. poults 8. Ploesti 9. pollutes 10. Ploiesti" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
23 | what is the ploest form of religion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 60388 | ||
ploest "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. "Suggestions for ploest: 1. poloist 2. -plast 3. Paulist 4. playsuit 5. pulsate 6. plots 7. poults 8. Ploesti 9. pollutes 10. Ploiesti" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
24 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77212 | ||
Acts 2:38 (NET Bible) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for[5] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Footnote 5. translators' note. 'There is debate over the meaning of eij" in the prepositional phrase eij" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a “causal” sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 369-71, discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: '(1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); '(2)The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41); '(3)The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it; '(4)Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. 'One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BAGD 229 s.v. eij" 4.f.' (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_5) |
||||||
25 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77455 | ||
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/). |
||||||
26 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77571 | ||
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/). |
||||||
27 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78585 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part One Is baptism necessary for salvation? "No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: "First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. "Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. "The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation." (to be continued) (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) |
||||||
28 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78586 | ||
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part Two "In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26). "Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. "Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. "I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. "In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. "Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) |
||||||
29 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 79816 | ||
Genesis 12:1a,3 (ESV) Now the Lord said to Abram..."I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." |
||||||
30 | Why is Joyce Meyer allowed to preach? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80059 | ||
Joyce Meyer teaches "the necessity of Jesus having to pay for our sins in hell, under the torment of Satan and his angels -- a teaching both unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture." "Why is Joyce Meyer allowed to preach?" This, in itself, is a good question. Why indeed is Joyce Meyer allowed to preach? [Note: numbers in parentheses are footnote references.] "Joyce Meyer shares the platform from time to time with Word of Faith teachers like, for example, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Benny Hinn, and T.D. Jakes.(5) Chrisitan Research Institute (CRI) is critical of and concerned with some of her practices and teachings. "In her 1991 booklet, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, she teaches a hallmark doctrine of Faith theology, namely, that Christ had to suffer in hell to atone for our sins and be born again: "During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin….He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme…Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus….He was resurrected from the dead -- the first born-again man.(6) "Her assertions are not unlike those of leading Word of Faith proponent Kenneth Copeland, who also believes Christ’s death on the cross was not sufficient to atone for our sins, and that His work of redemption was completed by suffering in hell and being born again. According to Copeland, "When Jesus cried, “It is finished!” He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the throne….Jesus’ death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption.(7) "[The] word of the living God went down into the pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life. He began to look like something the devil had never seen before. He was literally being reborn before the devil’s very eyes. He began to flex His spiritual muscles….Jesus was born again -- the first-born from the dead.(8) "According to a recently published interview with free-lance writer Ken Walker, however, Meyer contradictorily denies ever believing or teaching that Christ was born again in hell.(9) "Moreover, in her 1991 booklet, Meyer asserts that salvation is impossible without believing Jesus suffered in hell as the believer’s substitute. Meyer writes, “There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell.”(10) "While historic Christianity has debated the issue of whether or not Jesus actually descended into hell (e.g., to proclaim the gospel, declare victory, etc. [1 Peter 3:18-19), no orthodox believer ever held to the belief that Christ suffered and atoned for our sins in hell, rather than on the cross. Yet, Word of "Faith teachers, including Joyce Meyer, teach the necessity of Jesus having to pay for our sins in hell, under the torment of Satan and his angels -- a teaching both unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture. The entirety of Christ’s atoning work (i.e., His suffering and death in our place) occurred on the cross (e.g., 1 Peter 2:24), ending with His proclamation, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The Christ of Faith theology literally had to become sin, taking on the nature of Satan while in hell, thereby needing to be born again in hell before His resurrection could occur." (To read the entire, uncut article quoted above, please go to: http://www.equip.org/search/ and in the search field enter the words Joyce Meyer.) |
||||||
31 | Where a Ephraim and Dan not listed in Re | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80198 | ||
DUPLICATE POST | ||||||
32 | Where a Ephraim and Dan not listed in Re | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80200 | ||
DUPLICATE POST | ||||||
33 | Where a Ephraim and Dan not listed in Re | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80202 | ||
DUPLICATE POST | ||||||
34 | are there any types of fasting besides f | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80631 | ||
Does the bible speak of any other type of fast other than food? Fasting is defined as "abstinence from food and/or drink as an element of private or public religious devotion. "Abstinence from food and/or drink." This is the only type of fast the Bible speaks of. |
||||||
35 | Are the satraps of Daniel Magi? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81334 | ||
Duplicate post. | ||||||
36 | Any merchants attaining heaven? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81447 | ||
nlsavage: Welcome to the Forum! In the Bible a believer is not always identified or categorized according to his/her occupation or socio-economic class. However, sometimes he/she is. You may wish to look up "merchant(s)" in a Bible concordance. Read each entry to determine whether there are any biblical examples of a merchant attaining the kingdom of heaven. To help narrow the possibilities and facilitate your research, it may be helpful to make the gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- and Acts the focus of your search. These are, after all, the narrative portions of the NT, which would more likely contain the kind of example you are asking about. |
||||||
37 | What tree was the cross made of? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81564 | ||
Unknown. | ||||||
38 | Are injury lawsuits okay with God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81602 | ||
It is not advisable to attempt to use this forum for counseling. Please contact a trusted family member or qualified counselor. |
||||||
39 | Did Jesus visit hell when he died on the | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81674 | ||
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 1 Peter 3:18-20 (ESV) NASB 1 Peter 3:19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:19 In which He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 'This means that Christ preached by the Holy Spirit through Noah to unsaved people in O.T. times (compare 1 Peter 1:10-11), their spirits being now in prison. The theory that the Lord Jesus, after His crucifixion, preached to the unsaved dead in hades and gave them a second chance is not found in Scripture' (New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). 'Most likely this is a reference to the preincarnate Christ preaching through Noah to those who, because they rejected that message, are now spirits in prison" (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978). |
||||||
40 | Did Jesus visit hell when he died on the | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81675 | ||
In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison,[33] 1 Peter 3:19 New English Translation 33 study note. 'And preached to the spirits in prison. The meaning of this preaching and the spirits to whom he preached are much debated. It is commonly understood to be: '(1) Christ's announcement of his victory over evil to the fallen angels who await judgment for their role in leading the Noahic generation into sin; this proclamation occurred sometime between Christ's death and ascension; or '(2) Christ's preaching of repentance through Noah to the unrighteous humans, now dead and confined in hell, who lived in the days of Noah. 'The latter (2) is preferred because of the temporal indications in v. 20a and the wider argument of the book. These verses encourage Christians to stand for righteousness and try to influence their contemporaries for the gospel in spite of the suffering that may come to them. All who identify with them and their Savior will be saved from the coming judgment, just as in Noah's day.' (www.netbible.com) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [21] >> |