Results 21 - 40 of 53
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Greek has no "first day" in its text? | Luke 24:1 | reformedreader | 2943 | ||
Greek uses the word "mia" which refers to first. Translating Greek is not as simple as making it a word for word equivalent with the English language. Words in one language do not always equal what is used or how it is used in another's language. Mia refers to the "first" of the week. Most of the manuscripts used for translation also use the term "sabbaton" which means "Sabbath", which also refers to the first day of the week. So, it is translated as "on the Sabbath, the first day of the week". I would also like to hear from others who have better Greek knowledge. Sam Hughey |
||||||
22 | lets stick to original text! | Luke 24:1 | reformedreader | 3201 | ||
eddy, Ok, you make a good point of sticking to the original text. However, can you, or anyone responding to your question, actually produce the "original" text here so we may observe it? If you could direct me to the manuscript document used by the NASB translators to translate the term "first day", we could better judge how to answer your question. I will certainly start looking. Sam Hughey |
||||||
23 | Salvation comes by asking for it. | John 3:3 | reformedreader | 3078 | ||
Chucky1146, What if you can't ask for salvation? Sam Hughey |
||||||
24 | Is John 6:66 the answer to 666 riddle? | John 6:66 | reformedreader | 2859 | ||
No, John 6:66 is the 66th verse of the 6th chapter of John and nothing else. Had you read the same text prior to the creation of chapters and verses, what do you think it would have meant? Right, the same as it means now and the numbers 666 have absolutely nothing to do with it. All unbelievers have the spirit of being anti- (against) Christ by their very nature. The term anti-Christ does not refer to a singularly specific individual but to the unbelief that Christ is God, King, Lord and Savour which flows naturally from the veins of Adams "natural" descendents. Sam Hughey |
||||||
25 | What happens to Non-Christians? | John 14:6 | reformedreader | 3261 | ||
TruthSeeker, Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (NASB) Now, this is what God says, but you will receive slightly different answers from other Christians ranging from God saves everybody who doesn't have a chance to be saved all the way to nobody really knows for sure. You decide who and what is for a TruthSeeker. Sam Hughey |
||||||
26 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Acts 1:8 | reformedreader | 3759 | ||
PYLE, Simply becuse God has elected whom He would call to salvation does not negate the fact that He also called His Church to preach the gospel. We evangelize for the simple fact we are commanded to do so whether you believe in election or not. Salvation is wholly of God, therefore we are to simply obey God by preaching the gospel and God will call to salvation whomever He wills to be saved. If God does not call one to salvation, it is entirely the right of God and man has no complaint. Sam Hughey |
||||||
27 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 3754 | ||
charis, How one defines their terminology determines how one translates this and other verses. If we begin with a presupposition that the term "Church Age" is actually a legitimate biblical term, then we must of necessity be able to comprehend that entirely from the Bible. Since the Bible never uses any such term, we can only conclude that it is a man-made term and whose definition of "Church Age" are we willing to accept as the definitive answer? The term "church" refers to the body of Christ, that is, all who have been called by the Father, circumcized by the Spirit and recevied by the Son. If we relate this only to those after Christ's resurrection, then we rule out Abraham and any other person from ever being saved or we are creating a dual mode of salvation of which the Bible also does not speak. I think the Bible is very clear that the church is made up of all who have been saved (the same way) of all ages, past, present and future. Therefore, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to say the Bible teaches a "Church Age" that is referring to only a specific period of time. If that is true, then there is no such thing as a "Church Age" in the Bible unless it is referring to all the saints of all ages. Let me know what you think. Sam Hughey |
||||||
28 | OT church? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 3985 | ||
charis, I do not believe salvation was any different in the Old Covenant as it is in the New Testament. Since we use the New Covenant to better understand and in many cases define the Old Covenant, then we should believe precisley what the New Covenant says about salvation being by the grace and mercy of God. The New Covenant gives us absolutely no new teaching concerning salvation. It only expands upon the revelation of salvation, as is the primary purpose of each covenant. One covenant does not negate a previous covenant. The New Covenant did not negate the truth or command of Exodus 20:3-6 or 12-17. Does the New Covenant negate:(Exodus 20:6, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.)? I believe you will find not only were these laws repeated in the New Covenant but the understanding of them were expanded into the broader scope of Christ-like living in the New Covenant, for example read Ephesians 4:17-32 and 1 John 2:3 among a great many other New Covenant verses. Certainly the New Covenant speaks of the blood of Christ but so does the Old Covenant. In fact, Christ is spoken of as far back as Genesis 3 as the one who will bruise (defeat) Satan, which was accomplished at the cross. Was the blood of Christ working in Abraham and Moses? Well, if it wasn't, then they are not saved according to the New Covenant (Acts 4:12, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."). So again, the New Covenant itself establishes the only definitive answer to and example of salvation. So, if we use the New Covenant to define how a person is saved, and unless we want to teach a multiplicity of salvific operations, then anyone who ever was, is or ever will be saved is according to the mercy and grace of God with no exceptions. If (since) this is true, then all those who are saved are precisley what the New Covenant says, (Romans 12:4-5, "For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." It is the authority of the New Covenant, to which I wholly agree, that establishes what salvation is, who is saved, how they are saved and determines who is in the one and only body of Christ. It is the authority of the New Covenant from our Lord's own mouth that declares His body (church) to be comprised of all who have ever been saved by the mercy and grace of God and are joined together to make up His one and only body, the church. I look forward to hearing your response charis. Sam Hughey |
||||||
29 | Aren't pictures wrong? | Acts 17:29 | reformedreader | 2948 | ||
P-J, What it says it not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, etc. It does not forbid us from having pictures or ornaments made of gold, silver or stone. The command is to not compare things made by man with the one who made man. However, I think we are committing sin should we worship, as God or in the place of God, these images which would violate the 1st and 2nd commandments. The 1st and 2nd commandments forbid our creating images for the purpose of worship. Sam Hughey |
||||||
30 | Are the unevangelized people really lost | Rom 2:15 | reformedreader | 2882 | ||
Ric, If they are not really lost, then they are really saved and they would not need evangelizing. If they are really lost and not really saved, then they really need evangelizing. Wouldn't you think? Sam Hughey |
||||||
31 | double predestination con | Rom 5:12 | reformedreader | 3047 | ||
CHESTYFIRE, Actually, the term "double-predestination" is more mistunderstood than understood. For the most part it refers to God predetermining who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. The "double" take on this is that God intentionally purposed some men to spend eternity in hell. As a Calvinist, I do not accept double-predestination as it has been erroneously taught by other Calvinists. They are wrong and I have stated so many times. Romans 5:12 clearly states that "ALL" men have sinned and have acquired the death penalty for Adam's likeness. We are all predestined to spend eternity in hell because of the fall unless we are saved by God's grace before our physical death. I do, however, believe that God elected a chosen race before the foundation of the world who would be called to receive salvation in the process of human time and history who would be shown His mercy and grace while not calling others. This does not negate their deserving hell anymore or less than those who are not called. All men are guilty and have sinned and fail to glorify God. All men are deserving eternal punishment and it is only by God's grace that any are saved. |
||||||
32 | FOR JACOB I LOVED AND ESUA I HATED | Rom 9:11 | reformedreader | 2867 | ||
There are basically two ways to approach scripture. 1. I can read into scripture whatever I want to be there. 2. I can receive from scripture whatever is already there. Our motives judge our hearts and depending upon how we study scripture, much can be revealed about ourselves and our relatonship with God. Since God said He loved Jacob, and I believe that to be true, why then when God said He hated Esau would I "not" believe that to be true? Sam Hughey |
||||||
33 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | reformedreader | 3857 | ||
Ric, Pharaoh was born in the image of Adam no differently than you or myself. Romans 3:23;5:12 conclude "all" have sinned, therefore, "none" are excused. There is no such thing as an "innocent" sinner who is born in the image of Adam, be it an embryo or a 100 year old man. The issue of sin is not the sins we commit that condemn us but, rather, the sin in which we are conceived. Sam Hughey |
||||||
34 | Will all of Israel be saved? | Rom 11:26 | reformedreader | 7405 | ||
Steve, This obviously does not refer to each and every individual Jew simply because many are already dead who died in unbelief. It also cannot be refering to Israel as a nation since that nation is also comprised of those same individuals already dead in unbelief. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as God's elect. But do not forget what Paul stated in Rom. 9:6; "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". Not all Jews are Israelites simply because they physically descended from Jacob (Israel). Paul states precisely who true Israelites are in verse 8; "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants". So, when salvation is used in conjunction with Israel, God is referring to any individual who is a child of God according to the spirit (not the flesh). Paul states in Galatians 6:15,16 that neither circumcision (physical Israelites) nor uncircumcision (physical Gentiles) is anything. It is the new creation that refers to salvation and Paul relates the new creation with being the Israel of God in verse 16. It is the elect Israel of God who will be saved because God has chosen them to be in Christ since before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12;2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10) Sam Hughey |
||||||
35 | Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? | 2 Corinthians | reformedreader | 3705 | ||
Nolan, This is an excellent question that has caused many Christians to create great harm to others with unbiblical advice. The only forbidding we have from God in regards to marriage is found in 2 Cor.6:14. We are not to marry unbelievers and I think it could also be proven that we should avoid marrying those with major theological differences than our own. God does not forbid us from marrying anyone on the basis of race. Sam Hughey |
||||||
36 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3265 | ||
dpettway22, Galatians 3:28 is referencing superiority standing within the realm of salvation which none have. We are all saved equally and have an equal standing in the Kingdom of God. A Jew does not have any greater position simply because he is a Jew. The same goes for Gentiles over Jews, men over women or women over men. It does not reference either a right or forbidding for women to be involved with a ministry. There are other scriptures that clearly cover that isse. Sam Hughey |
||||||
37 | Can a deacon drink wine with dinner? | 1 Tim 3:3 | reformedreader | 2961 | ||
rwash, The qualifications for a Deacon in 1 Tim. 3:3 do not forbid him from drinking wine, it only disqualifies him if he is an abuser (addicted) to wine. "When" one has a glass of wine I think to be irrelavent. "Why" one desires a glass of wine I think to be very relavent. I would also think that any church who raises its standards above that of the clear and unambiguous testimony of Holy Scripture has more with which to be concerned than a Deacon who has an occassional glass of wine. Keeping the law is not the same as re-creating the law, which is what the Pharisees did and for what Christ condemned them. Sam Hughey |
||||||
38 | Criticize what no one understands? | 2 Tim 2:23 | reformedreader | 7442 | ||
JVH0212, I believe it to be the vilest of character for any child of God to criticize an opposing view when there is either a lack or absence of a proper understanding. I just visited a website that was antagonistically adamant about their opposition to Calvinism, yet at the same this site promoted Charles H. Spurgeon, who was a 5 point Calvinisit, and confused Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism without any knowledge the two are antithetical to each other. I do not mind someone wanting me to show sound biblical proof for what I believe. But I do mind critical comments about what I believe from a person who really does not understand what I believe. Sam Hughey |
||||||
39 | Vilest of character? | 2 Tim 2:23 | reformedreader | 7508 | ||
charis, I don't think it is overstating at all. Ephesians 4:25 commands us to speak the truth with one another. Whenever a brother is criticized for his view and the one criticizing has not taken the time to truthfully know the facts, then vile is an appropriate term. Since God hates a lying tongue, should we not also find our Lord's truth to be objective enough to be our own? Should our objective standard for Christian character be any less than God's? Sam Hughey |
||||||
40 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | reformedreader | 3143 | ||
RWC, To your statement, "If Jesus' divine nature prevents His human nature from being "tempted to the point of sin," then would it not also prevent Him from being truly tempted at all"?, Why must that be the logical conclusion? God does not need to eat, sleep or feel physical pain, etc, yet Jesus did while in His humanity. The Divinity of Jesus is not the same as was His humanity, therefore, it is not necessarily logical to "assume" Jesus should have not been tempted at all. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |