Results 21 - 40 of 192
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Scribe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Pt.1 Female Overseer | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86245 | ||
LOL. Well I am not concerned about it myself, I even listen to women teach the Word. I was just adding some good logic as to why we might be applying legalism to New Testament instructions and trying to put women back under the law, and that would be a very bad thing in the AUTHOR'S eyes wouldn't it? I think we have to be careful and make sure we are knowing the AUTHOR then we will interpret the Word according to the SPIRIT of the AUTHOR and not a legalistic interpretation He never intended. The more I look at this subject the more I see women as being quite oppressed by christian men and it was never meant to be that way. If there is one thing Jesus brought that was liberty for all man and woman. I am leaning toward the USURP being key to understanding this. Also I lean toward the idea of women teaching in the church as not prohibited by this statement but that of teaching men as in a fleshly way, teaching them to do what the woman wants. Kind of like what wives have a problem with. LOL. If he had said I suffer a woman not to teach the word in the church I could see the point, but it says I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over the man which sounds more like what I witness often among couples who don't believe in women teaching in the church. In other words, they don't believe in women teaching in the church and yet the woman keeps teaching and usurping authority over the man by nagging and scolding him. | ||||||
22 | Why was the Holy Spirit delayed? | Acts 8:16 | Scribe | 86244 | ||
The delay in Acts 2 was because it was to be poured out on the day of Pentecost fulfilling the prophetic shadow of Old Testament feast days as all the OT feast days and temple ordinances are shadows of a greater reality. I understood the question to be about why the Samaritans did not recieve it until later, and there is no reason to call it a delay but a progression of the continual world evangelism still ongoing. | ||||||
23 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86243 | ||
Maybe it was Ignatius, that first applied it to Sunday, at least it would be one on good authority as to the dates about 100-110 AD. This is from his epistle to the Magnesians, "Consequently, if the people who were given to obsolete practices faced the hope of a new life, and if these no longer observe the Sabbath, but regulate their calendar by the Lord's Day, the day, too, on which our Life rose by His power and through the medium of His death--" We all know many of the things the Early Church writers had to say revealed that they were no authorities on perfect interpretation, many things hindered the earliest writers such as not even being decisive about which books were canonical, that would take time due to seperation from each other geographically, so if an early church writer is quouted as applying it to Sunday it does not make it the final authority. That could have been their interpretation of what John meant. But that could have been because of a first impression upon reading the words. I am not 100 percent sure it does not mean Sunday but based on the whole bible I feel more comfortable with applying it to The Day of the Lord and just another way of saying it, such as The Lord's Table and the Table of the Lord. The Day of the Lord and the Lord's Day. But I am open. :) |
||||||
24 | Justification? | Rom 2:13 | Scribe | 86242 | ||
I do see that there is an awakening first prior to conversion. Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. I think that based on the conversation with the disciples and their conversion later that the more you show forth an intellectual honesty in seeking truth the more "able" you are to recieve faith unto salvation. I think that this does not give glory to the man. I am sure that theologians discussing this issue have come up with a name for it, if not I will call it "The Law of Illumination." The prophets say alot about it and Jesus confirmed all that the prophets said about the reason why the blind are blind. They reject light. Therefore they are given over to darkness. The more severe their rejection in the face of truth the more severe the darkness. Jesus gives us the parable of the sower as a foundation of why some can understand and others cant and in each case it is the condition of the persons heart (mind, will, intellect, decision process) and not an arbitrary reason about the predestined will of God. Looking at my own testimony I remember how when I was in the third or forth grade I decided based on the story of evolution that I would stop believing in God. I told some child friend this while standing in the lunchroom line at school and a little girl overhearing my casual conversation became extrememly emotional and almost shouted "WHAT? You Don't Believe in GOD?" And a few other comments about hell or something I cannot remember. I was shocked at her surprise. I decided I needed to look into this a bit further, since I did not want to make such a big decision without getting all the facts. I went home that day and asked my Dad about God. He told me something about a blade of grass being too complex to not have a designer and so from that day on I decided to believe there was a God. Was I saved? no, even the devil believes in one God and trembles. However, I went through life open to talking about God. My brother and others I witnessed who decided that God was for the weak minded and refused to believe in God were not open to discussing God. When I was in a crisis I called out to God to help me, over time I heard someone pray in Jesus Name, I realized they probably knew about this religion thing and so I would pray in Jesus name also. As of yet I did not have a clue what Jesus did for me on the cross. My prayers began to be answered and I was sure it was because I had discovered that man must come to God through Jesus. It was a while before I learned the whole Gospel story, I was born again within days after praying in Jesus Name,I really can't say which day it occurred, I witnessed a change in my thinking, my understanding, I knew I was forgiven of my sins, before I understood much about the cross. Now some might doubt my salvation, I think it really does not take much to be born again, just a faith that says Jesus I believe in You please save me. Prior to ever hearing about Jesus name I was calling out to God daily and I remember lying to someone at the time, when I did I felt very guilty.. was I saved? I had lied all my life without concern, now I was lying and feeling bad about it. Itold Go d I was sorry for lying and I would confess it to the person I lied to. It was very hard to do, but somehow I felt if I did not I could never live with myself again. I went through it and got it over with and felt much better. Was I converted? At this time I did not even know to pray in Jesus Name, that came several days later. I did not even start trying to figure out who Jesus was until after I heard the man pray in Jesus Name. It is possible that I associated Jesus with God. I mean I was praying to God and not saying anything about Jesus, but maybe in my mind I considered God and Jesus two words that meant the same thing. But other than that, there is no reason for me to have been converted yet. When I heard the Gospel message later I rejoiced and understood why it was necessary to come to God through Jesus Christ, but by then I was already born again and had experienced a dramatic change in a two or three week span. I never had an altar call experience.. it was more like a progressive revelation. I give Glory to God for all of it. Especially the lying incident. That was a foundation I learned early as to the Law of Illumination. I was faced with a choice, I was sure that if I did not confess my lie I would not recieve God or His knowlege, I wanted to learn about how to please God and I knew that if I did not confess my lie I would not be able to pray. |
||||||
25 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86179 | ||
Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, This verse has nothing to do with the sabbath. I think it makes more sense to view it as John saying that He was translated by the Spirit into that Day of the Lord. And so he is just introducing to us what the whole series of visions had to do with.. THE DAY OF THE LORD .. the prophesied Day of the Lord to come in which the wrath of God is poured out on the world and all that is prophesied concerning the Day of the Lord will come to pass. THIS MAKES IT 100 percent Crystal Clear that what follows is future and begins when the DAY OF THE LORD begins. Because the Day of the Lord is still future, we know Revelation is future. And just so no one would be confused as to what time these things would take place he begins with "I was translated by the Spirit into the Day of the Lord" My paraphrase Actually I really did not paraphrase it because the Greek words hear translated The Lord's Day can be translated the Day of the Lord as well. Just as The Lord's Table and the Table of the Lord. I am not a Greek scholar but Joseph A. Siess has presented this at length in his book The Apacolypse and he has done it in a way that all Greek scholars will enjoy. There is no reference to the either the sabbath or Sunday being called the Lord's Day. When you take a step back and think about it, it makes sense that we messed it up along the way because of our church denominational filters. I think the first church thought John meant the Day of the Lord, and much later someone interpreted it as Sunday and it was repeated that way often until many have never heard it interpreted any other way. But the scriptures no where speak of Sunday or sabbath called the Lord's Day. But we read often of The Day of the Lord or the Lord's Day in that sense. This is what John is saying. I was taken by vision into the "Day of the Lord". May God Bless You as you stay humble to the Word and allow the Word of God to transform you into the image of Christ. |
||||||
26 | Justification? | Rom 2:13 | Scribe | 86161 | ||
I don't mean this in a mean spirited way, but I can never make sense of this concept of man having no part that you speak of, so I don't try. Philosophize it until Jesus comes, the truth is that Jesus said that Those that do not do the Word are like those that build their house on the sand. I don't think it is required for us to understand the mechanics of the spiritual workings of God, but for us to do the word is the difference between standing and falling. What does it mean to fall? I don't plan to find out. |
||||||
27 | In Gen.46:27, the number is 70, why? | Acts 7:14 | Scribe | 86160 | ||
Amen, God's Word is Perfect. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. |
||||||
28 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | Scribe | 86133 | ||
I have a strong inclination to interpret this passage as having nothing to do with the sabbath. Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, I think it makes more sense to view it as John saying that He was translated by the Spirit into that Day of the Lord. And so he is just introducing to us what the whole series of visions had to do with.. The Day of the Lord .. the prophesied Day of the Lord to come in which the wrath of God is poured out on the world and all that is prophesied concerning the Day of the Lord will come to pass. This is why we know the book is future and not fulfilled after 70AD because the Day of the Lord is still future and just so no one would be confused as to what time these things would take place he begins with "I was translated by the Spirit into the Day of the Lord" My paraphrase. |
||||||
29 | What about those who never hear gospel? | Prov 24:12 | Scribe | 86084 | ||
I see no contradiction. I have never once seen a contradiction in the sinfulness of man and the fact that he can attempt to be moral and choose to do well. That fact does not make him innocent or make up for the wrongs he has done or will do. I never even heard of another idea (man can't choose) until I had been a committed christian for over 5 years. Not until I met a Calvanist did I know anyone thought that way. And he was a drinker, so I never gave it much thought. My point is you have to be trained by other men to think in terms of men not being able to choose to do well. They have still all failed. | ||||||
30 | Can you learn to pray in the Spirit? | 1 Cor 14:15 | Scribe | 86082 | ||
If the gift of tongues is in the bible. And we know that it is. And if we would determine "Can I, or How Can I, recieve this gift?" Then we must look at the incidences of believers recieving it in the book of Acts where it began. If these people seeing and hearing the tongues (which is specifically points out that they did hear) asked? what is the meaning of this.. and if Peter in answering them says.. the promise it to you and your children and all that are afar off, then I would simply point out that the logical mind is going to assume that the gift of tongues would be included in the promise along with this Baptism of the Holy Spirit for it was that manifestation that made them ask in the first place.... Acts 2:11-12 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? When Peter answers them, (and he specifically answers them who because they saw them speaking in tongues, said these men are full of new wine) he starts with.. Acts 2:14-18 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: The inclusion of the prophesying and demonstration of the gifts of the Spirit (tongues would be included) Has to therefore be part of the "Promise" which he claims this is a prophesy of that is available not just to the 120 but all those there, and their children and them that are afar off, (that would include me no doubt). I do not go beyond what it says, but I fear God too much to change what it says and remove the promise of the Holy Spirit to be exclusive of the prophesy of Joel. This indeed "is that." |
||||||
31 | Spirit and Truth | John | Scribe | 86026 | ||
John 4:19-24 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. This passage explains to us that the idea that the woman had, that which building or "site" you visit was significant in the eyes of God as to acceptable worship was error. Jesus was saying the establishing of his church, the pouring out of the Spirit on all believers was upon them, and they would learn that you can worship and praise and fellowship with God anytime any where by your faith in Jesus Christ. He would give us the Holy Spirit which would be in us a well of water springing up in our innermost being and we would have constant fellowship with God in the Spirit and in Truth. Not the pompuos outward religious show of religous man made rituals in stuffy cathedrals that have no biblical basis, but in real comunion in the heart with God and the Holy Ghost. He will open up the Word of God to us so that we know what it means without any religious ruler telling us or without any need to attend a "school" of man's making to teach us how to interpret it. May God bless you in Spirit and in Truth as you study His Word. |
||||||
32 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86023 | ||
The writer says " She has no grasp of historic systematic theology. Basically what she’s doing is, she’s going back to Rome with her understanding of sin...She has rejected the basic Reformational truth of justification. She’s a heretic!”" I say.. This writer is probably mad because Joyce preaches better than him and she is a woman. :) |
||||||
33 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86022 | ||
Radioman2 states "From your own words, it appears that your concept of bad doctrine is narrowly limited and your concept of heresy is nonexistent. It sounds as if you're saying it doesn't matter what you teach about Christ, His atonement or anything else, as long as you don't teach that it's OK for a Christian to sin. If so, then Joyce Meyer is not the only one who fails to understand essential Christian teaching." narrowly limited to only what the scriptures states is false doctrine is safer foundation to stand on than what you think is false teaching otherwise we accuse others of teaching false doctrine if their doctrine does not agree with us. I differ massively on the interpretation of how the Atonement of Christ applies to infants than the Lutheran Matzat, and therefore does that make me a false teacher or him? Oh and by the way.. where is the scripture that says.. you have to have the necessary theological training to preach? Sounds like a wrong teaching to me, but I will extend grace and not call him a false teacher :) |
||||||
34 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86014 | ||
I hope my posts have been helpful in making us truly look to see what the scripture says. It is not my purpose to condemn any group,we all have need of more light. I am certainly in need of more light and I pray that my heart will be humble before the Lord that I may recieve it. May God Bless Us as We Study His Word. | ||||||
35 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86013 | ||
If that is the case then that would indeed be a false doctrine that is opposite the true grace of God. Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; |
||||||
36 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 85981 | ||
Oops correction to this post above.. Now I have not taken the time to explain why this explanation does NOT follow scripture | ||||||
37 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 85979 | ||
Part 2 of 2 In Colossians 2:11-12 St. Paul refers to Christian baptism as a circumcision. Since throughout the Old Testament God required circumcision of infants on the eight day after birth (Genesis 17:10-14 - except when one converted as a youth or adult) then clearly the baptism of infants shortly after birth is also a biblical practice. Babies are sinners held accountable before God for their sin. (Original sin) This is clearly seen in the fact that children die. The wages of sin is death. The theory that a child is not held accountable by God for his/her sins until they reach some 'age of accountability' cannot be supported from the pages of Holy Scripture. A related problem here is that this age of accountability cannot easily be determined. This also has the effect of eroding ones confidence in God's gift of salvation. (Was I old enough to make the decision to be baptized . . .) Finally, in the New Testament we find examples of entire households being baptized. (1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 11:14, 16:15,33; 18:8) Since almost every household in that day included children, some infants were almost certainly baptized. 2) It has been the practice of the Church from the time of the Holy Apostles on. This can be established in three ways: First, some of the early Christian writers were not in favour of it. This shows that it was certainly practiced! Secondly, we are told by the early Church Father Origen (240 A.D.) that infant baptism was the normal practice. He writes: "The church received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism to infants too." Thirdly, as already mentioned we find no trace of the children of practicing Christians being baptized as older children or adults. Clearly, infant baptism has been, and still is for the vast majority of Christians the normal means of entrance into God's family, the Holy Christian Church. 3) We also baptize infants because, quite simply, it works! Millions upon millions of fine upstanding Christians have become part of God's family through Holy Baptism. Baptism of infants is a great witness to the fact that is God and God alone who saves us. That tiny child can do nothing for himself/herself. God, and God alone gives that child the gift of salvation. To learn more about Holy Baptism please turn to Luther's Large and Small Catechism. Mark R. Danielson Now I have not taken the time to explain why this explanation does follow scripture because most readers are going to see through it without my help, my point is not to start a thread refuting infant Baptism but to demonstrate that the Lutheran Writer that calls Joyce a false teacher holds to doctrines that most protestant evangelicals today would vehemently disagree with. Should we call him a false prophet too? If Joyce taught that Jesus descended into hell but she does not say you have to believe that to be saved, that is a slander of her to say she says that, yet the Lutheran says the baby goes to hell without this baptism.. which one would you say is closer to false doctrine? You judge. |
||||||
38 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 85978 | ||
Part 1 of 2 Posted below you will find some error from the Lutherans. It is as much error as the posts that have been given from Joyce or Kenneth Copeland. But I do not call the Lutheran Pastor who teaches this error a false teacher or a false prophet unless... He teaches that the baby goes to hell without this baptism. Then I would say it is false doctrine because then he preaches salvation through something other than faith in Christ alone, which is one of the other marks of a false teacher, one that denies Christ. If the redemption of Christ is extended toward this baby who cannot reason by virtue of baptism in the Luthern Church, then this redemption of Christ is extended to this baby who cannot reason without the baptism in water also or otherwise it is not the redemption of the supstitutionary sacrifice of Christ of which they are having faith in, because that reality stands whether the baby is baptized or not, so it either extends to babies or it does not. If on the other hand the Lutheran pastor believes this is biblical, but does not go so far as to say he thinks the baby goes to hell without it then I do not label him as a false prophet, only wrong, as he should label Joyce and Kenneth as wrong and not false prophets or teachers. WHY DO LUTHERANS BAPTIZE INFANTS? To begin with it should be noted that infant baptism has been practiced in the Christian Church as far back as we can trace. There appears to be no time in the history of the Church when infants were not baptized. In addition to this there is no trace in either the New Testament or the early Church of the Baptism of the children of Christian parents who had been brought up in the faith. It appears then that they were either baptized as babies or they were never baptized. What this means is that Lutherans really do not have to defend the Biblical, Holy, Christian and Apostolic practice of infant baptism, it stands on its own. The burden of proof lies with those who would abandon it. Presently we find a segment of Christianity which practices believers baptism. This group does not practice infant baptism but usually has some sort of consecration of the child to God. Lutherans baptize infants because: 1) It is biblical. While it is true that there is no command to baptize infants (babies) in the bible, it is also true that there is no command to baptize adults. The biblical command is to baptize people (all nations.) Our Lord Jesus clearly considered infants (babies) and children to be people. One of the few times that our Lord grew angry was when His disciples tried to keep the children away from Him. "When Jesus saw this, he was indignant (angry). He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." Mark 10:14 (NIV) Our Lord tells us to baptize all nations. Matthew 28:19 He never tells us to baptize just reasoning adults. All nations clearly included the children of those nations. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19 (NIV) Those who have a problem with infant baptism usually assume that saving faith must involve reason. The line of thought seems to be that since a very young child cannot reason - a child cannot have such faith. Most who follow this line of reasoning believe that baptism is a work of man which demonstrates, or flows from, faith. This is a sharp contrast with the Biblical position that Baptism is a gracious gift of God that bestows saving faith. What we need to remember here is the fact that the Bible teaches that salvation comes through faith and that faith itself is God's gift. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17 (NIV) God's Word cannot be bound. A child can be given a gift of a million dollars even though that child cannot appreciate it at the time. So a child can be given the gift of faith through the water and Word of Holy Baptism even if that child cannot appreciate it at the time. A related problem is that by involving man (reason) in the process of salvation one turns God's action into something in which sinful man has a part (making a decision for Christ). In so doing one destroys the heart of the gospel message. (The fact that God saves us by grace, through faith!) Think about it for a moment, if I am involved in my salvation, did I do it right? Was I sincere . . . Faith is turned from a gift of God into a work of man. And since we often make mistakes . . . Thus it is that the assurance of salvation is often lost. (continued on next post) |
||||||
39 | can a women preach and teach men | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 85975 | ||
I am saying... That if we post all the scriptures on what Paul, Peter, Jude, John described as what a false teacher we should avoid teaches, we see that the number one pattern is that a christian could sin or indulge in the flesh and be blameless. You can apply that to anyone you want and see if that sounds like what they are teaching, then be a berean or be biblical, and from such turn away. |
||||||
40 | What about those who never hear gospel? | Prov 24:12 | Scribe | 85974 | ||
Good word. I like it. It is so true. Of course I would add that I am of the persuasion that the native is born with the ability to seek after God, God does not make him unable from birth to seek after God, he only would become unable by his own "I dont care attitudes" which would in time give him over to a reprobate mind. Acts 17:26-28 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [10] >> |