Results 21 - 40 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy is | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103464 | ||
Sabbath believed to be "the seal of the living God". 'The seventh day of the week is the eternal sign of Christ’s power as Creator and Redeemer, and is therefore the Lord’s day, or the Christian Sabbath, constituting the seal of the living God. It should be observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 16:23-31; 20:8-11; John 1:1-3, 14; Eze. 20:12, 20; Mark 1:21-32; 2:27, 28; Isa. 58:13; Luke 4:16; 23:54-56; 24:1; Acts 17:2; Heb. 4:9-11; Isa. 66:22, 23; Lev. 23:32.)' ( http://www.adventist.org/churchmanual/appendix.html) |
||||||
22 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103409 | ||
deejhermit: I've overreacted to what you had posted earlier. I apologize for that. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
23 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103377 | ||
deejhermit writes: "Please stop taking verses out of the Bible and lifting them out of the Bible." Radioman2 replies: If you have a point, please tell us what it is. You need not resort to personal attacks as you did in the above quote. |
||||||
24 | Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy is | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103373 | ||
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit. We are not sealed by keeping the commandments. Are we saved by loving Jesus? No, we are not. Love for Jesus is the result, not the cause of salvation. --Radioman2 |
||||||
25 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 103372 | ||
Your Note addresses none of the points made in my previous post. | ||||||
26 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103369 | ||
a false addition to faith when... "Repentance. This is a valid condition for salvation when understood as a synonym for faith. It is a false addition to faith when understood as a prerequisite, requiring the cleansing of the life in order to be saved" (p. 1950, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978). ******************** [AO: 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . .' 'If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?' Your quoting Acts 8:12 hardly answers the points made in my previous post, which follows:] Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . 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.' ____________________ "...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." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
27 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103338 | ||
Baptism never was part of Paul's gospel 'Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations . . . 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.' ____________________ "...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." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
28 | AO, was His John 3 not in effect? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 103327 | ||
AO: You write: "What Jesus taught in John 3:1-21 does not pertain to the Old Testament..." John 3:5 born of water and the Spirit. 'Jesus referred not to literal water here but to the need for "cleansing" (e.g., Ezek. 36:24-27). When water is used figuratively in the OT, it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with "spirit" (Num. 19:17-19; Ps. 51:9,10; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; Joel 2:28,29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (compare Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom.' (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) --Radioman2 |
||||||
29 | khuck ... thanks for your answers .. | Gal 6:17 | Radioman2 | 103295 | ||
khuck: Hang in there. :-) Not only are you doing a good job of posting helpful information, but you yourself are a blessing and an inspiration. Grace and peace be multiplied to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
30 | Prophetic perfect tense in other verses? | Ps 102:16 | Radioman2 | 103246 | ||
No one enjoys the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will enjoy nothing else! It has undergone many revisions. It is not a translation, but a corrupt sectarian paraphrase. --Radioman2 |
||||||
31 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103244 | ||
Those who post to this forum have been asked to back up their assertions with specific Scripture references since Day One. You carry on as if you're the first person ever to be asked for chapter and verse. As Hank wrote: 'You say, "I felt no scripture was requred, only my interpretation." And, DL5, I must ask you: interpretation of what? Since you cited no Scripture, evidently feeling none was needed, just exactly what were you interpreting?' --Radioman2 |
||||||
32 | 1 King 13-14 averted His judgement? | 1 Kin 13:2 | Radioman2 | 103212 | ||
Searcher: I agree with you completely that we shouldn't get into the "what ifs". One could play that game forever. Like you, I feel there's no need to speculate about questions on which the Bible is silent. I'm concerned more about "what is" than "what if." Grace and peace to you, brother, Radioman2 |
||||||
33 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103209 | ||
I respect and support your right to not "come to this forum very much any more." --Radoman2 |
||||||
34 | Searching for the truth | Matthew | Radioman2 | 103172 | ||
I'm just wondering: could you give us the book, chapter and verse of the Bible where Jesus was saying this? --Radioman2 |
||||||
35 | the wicked one does not touch [him] | 1 John 5:18 | Radioman2 | 103065 | ||
We know [absolutely] that anyone born of God does not [deliberately and knowingly] practice committing sin, but the One Who was begotten of God carefully watches over and protects him [Christ's divine presence within him preserves him against the evil], and the wicked one does not lay hold (get a grip) on him or touch [him]. (AMPLIFIED 1 John 5:18) | ||||||
36 | What would Jesus have you do? | John 4:14 | Radioman2 | 102997 | ||
[khuck: Welcome to the Forum. I am delighted to have you on board. May God richly bless you. I agree with your post regarding baptism. Grace to you, Radioman2] * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/). |
||||||
37 | PROVE ME: God's challenge to tithers | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 102947 | ||
capemimi: You write: "From these tithes you must give the LORD's portion to Aaron the priest." It is not clear to me how we are to do this, since there is a new priesthood, one that is not according to the order of Aaron. Hebrews 7:11-14 (ESV) Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? [12] For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. [13] For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. [14] For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
38 | Are we supposed to observe the Sabbath? | Bible general Archive 2 | Radioman2 | 102944 | ||
"Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " ____________________ "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle." ____________________ "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." ____________________ (www.gty.org) Click on Issues and Answers. Click on Previous Topics Lazola: Thanks for being patient with me. :-) Grace and peace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
39 | HELP ME PLEASE...I am not content! | Rom 12:1 | Radioman2 | 102572 | ||
But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (NASB Matthew 22:29) But Jesus replied to them, You are wrong because you know neither the Scriptures nor God's power. (AMPLIFIED Matthew 22:29) |
||||||
40 | HELP ME PLEASE...I am not content! | Rom 12:1 | Radioman2 | 102568 | ||
"Breathes there a man with wit so dim...?" (sigh) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |