Results 21 - 40 of 47
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | A Universal Answer to Bible questions. | 2 Tim 3:16 | reformedreader | 5118 | ||
JVH0212, Excellent suggestions and I would add only one additional thought to the following: 7) Remember that: 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. We must always remember to interpret the unclear verses with the clearer verses. Verses that neither implicitly nor explicitly state something to be a fact cannot be used to determine one's theological belief on any given subject. They might indeed "add" support to other verses to conclude a theological belief on any given subject, but in and of themselves, they cannot create that belief based on their vagueness and ambiguity. We must rely on verses that are clear, distinct and which speak directly to the point we are attempting to make. Sam Hughey |
||||||
22 | chcking scripture context | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 4060 | ||
JVH0212, Thanks for the URL. John is very prolific when expounding the true gospel. Sam Hughey |
||||||
23 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4028 | ||
JVH0212, And I agree that it is cited as the most common definition of the church ("body of Christ") and I also agree that it "is" the biblical definition of the church ("body of Christ"). My apology for misunderstanding your intent. Sam Hughey |
||||||
24 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4014 | ||
JVH0212, Thank you for joining this discussion and I'm sure you know I will request the reference for the sake of any misunderstanding of either what scripture is being used and how it is being interpreted. Your statement about restricting the church as to being only from Pentecost (Acts 2) until the Rapture involves several troubling areas. First of all, there is an assumption that you are referring to the dispensational doctrine of the rapture. If this is so, then the church does not exist afterward (to dispensationalists). This is assuming that dispensational theology is absolutely correct on this doctrine and has no possibility of being in error. The (dispensational) millennium will not have any saints in it or at least none that can be called the body of Christ. If not, then where does the New Testament treat these Christians as being different (and how) than any other Christian of any time period? In fact, dispensationalism wants to create a multiplicity of divisions of those who are saved. It first wants to divide Old Covenant Saints from New Covenant Saints, then it divides pre-rapture Saints from tribulation Saints, then divides millenial Saints from all other Saints and without a single shred of scriptural evidence to justify doing so. This would also exclude Abraham, the father of faith of all those found in Christ (who are also known as "the body of Christ"). How would one exclude him from being in the body of Christ but at the same time include him to be in Christ? Are we not all in the body of Christ because we are all in Christ? Can any of us be in Christ and not be in the "body of Christ" which is His church? Also, nowhere in the second chapter of the Acts does Luke make any explicit or implicit statements that would lead us to a logical conclusion that only those saved at this period of time comprise the church (body) of Christ. There are no corresponding verses anywhere in the New Testament that would support such a view. I look forward to hearing you answer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
25 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4010 | ||
Hank, Thanks for your response. The word "trinity" does not need to be literally found on the pages of scripture. The doctrine of the trinity is both implicitly and explicitly declared throughout the whole of scripture. There can be no other conclusion to anyone seriously reading scripture from Genesis onward than the reality of the trinity. I don't believe I made any reference to "no such reality as God's progressive revelation to humankind", unless I misunderstood you. In fact, I very much do believe in progressive revelation through God's covenants and have stated so often on this forum. However, the question of a church age still remains unsettled. Scripture either implicitly or explicitly teaches a church age referring to only those saved since Calvary or it does not. I think verifying that would be paramount to this discussion which I think is very important to how many of us interpret scripture. Thanks again, Sam Hughey |
||||||
26 | Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? | Acts 16:13 | reformedreader | 3945 | ||
userdoe211, While JVH0212 might not have given the conclusive answer you would have liked, I do not believe he was making comparisons. There is no cultural or archaelogical data that would replace old-fashioned eyesight. How circumcision was checked out was very simple, they looked. How else would one know? Sam Hughey |
||||||
27 | The number one third? | Rev 8:7 | reformedreader | 3886 | ||
JVH0212, Thank you for your compliments and I will always try to live up to acceptable standards of both communication and proper Christian love when dealing with matters such as this, however, even the best intentions sometimes fall short of its goal. I am assuming by the use of the phrase "Since only one-third of the earth is destroyed" the reference is to population rather than geographical location since that is how I have seen it popularly interpreted. Perhaps my assumption is too broad but that is precisley why I asked why the word "earth" refers to people. If I have misunderstood the original intent, please forgive me. Perhaps I should have asked "if" the intent was to associate "earth" with "people". Sam Hughey |
||||||
28 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | reformedreader | 3846 | ||
SpreadWord, I disagree with your view of salvation and so does scripture when you stated "Salvation is a New Testament concept". Salvation has never been a "concept" and nowhere does scripture teach so. Salvation has and always will be a "reality" and "actual" even in the Old Testament (and prior). The change of covenants has never influenced the definition of salvation. Salvation has always been and always will be entirely by the mercy and grace of God (Eph. 2:8). Man has never been able to obey in perfection the laws of God, starting with Adam and leading up to you and I and forward to the last human. The laws of God found in any covenant have never been the mode of salvation under any circumstances. Your statement, "Christ's salvation is the answer to man's inability to keep the law imposed upon the Old Testament believer" is very misleading. Salvation is not just merely the answer to enable man to obey God's laws for even the believer still disobeys those same laws. God's laws are designed to teach us about Himself and His righteous demands for "ALL" men to live by, not only the believer. The covenants are an expanding revelation of God, His will, His laws, His Son, His righteousness and our sinfulness. One covenant is built upon another but never does one displace another. There is both continuity and discontinuity within each covenant as well as among all covenants. The discontinuity is found within the specific framework of each and all successive covenants but never does one covenant supercede or contradict another since all are God's will for man. Your statement,"While Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, God has operated under different covenants during different periods of time" seems to force the Father and the Son to be on different sides of the same will and in opposing directions. Nonething could be further from truth. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are always in perfect harmoniuous agreement. Could you show the scripture that states any differently? And to your statement, "salvation" is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12), but for those who lived before the New Covenant, they were required to join God in the covenant He had established at the time" is not only unbiblical, it is anti-biblical. Absolutely nothing in the whole of scripture agrees with you and this is very dangerous advice to give to people. The very verse you used to justify your view actually refutes your view. Acts 4:12 clearly states that salvation is found in nothing, nowhere and nobody but Christ alone. So, if there was salvation prior to the New Testament (and there most certainly was) then their salvation was strictly according to Acts 4:12. Sam Hughey |
||||||
29 | WILL GOD PUNISH | Ex 20:5 | reformedreader | 3767 | ||
JVH0212, Amen brother. Christians must wake up and see that we are responsible (for the great part) for the ills of society. After all, it is us who Christ said must be the salt and light of the world, not the unbelievers. Too many Christians today are more concerned with the rapture and what their new bodies might look like to be concerned with the here and now. For 2000 years Christians have pondered such ideas and have allowed culture and society to go down the drain (so to speak) by ignoring our greatest impact on a fallen world. True, changing societal problems does not lead to salvation, but if salvation does not lead to societal changes, then something is terribly wrong with our salvation (or our theology). Sam Hughey |
||||||
30 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3709 | ||
Jim, An excellent observation. I also would love to see Christians put away their fascination with "Rapture Fever" and become much more concerned with theological and doctrinal study for the sole intent of glorifying God. The five solas of the Reformation are clearly more concerned with Christians worshipping God rather than countless and endless rapture theories which "none" ever prove to be true. Sam Hughey |
||||||
31 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3625 | ||
Thanks Hank, I will agree that the lone translation, standing in stark contradiction to a widely trusted and accepted orthodox translation by reputable and unquestionable translators would be considered suspect of error. I would also say that vague and ambiguous dialogue concerning non-specific error can be equally suspect. So, could you be a little more specific as to what you are talking about? By the way, George Washington was not the first President the US had. He was the first President of the US under the Constitution. There were several other Presidents over the colonies which would become the US and were considered the US by many even prior to the Constitution. Is this the type of "suspect" error to which you were referring? Sam Hughey |
||||||
32 | Jesus condemn soldier to life on Earth? | Amos 1:1 | reformedreader | 3619 | ||
I first heard about this story 10 years ago and to this date I have known it to be just that, a "story" dreamed up by those who have more time for religious fantasy than biblical fact. Hank is correct in his observation. Movies today, including Left Behind, have just enough biblical similarity to make the unlearned and spiritually immature not only waste their money, but waste an even more valuable asset the Holy Spirit has given them which is discernment (assuming, of course, they are believers). Sam Hughey |
||||||
33 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3617 | ||
Hank, It would greatly depend upon what the difference actually is and, like you said, opinion or heavily skewed sectarian bias might cause one to see a particular translation as suspect when it really isn't. Sam Hughey |
||||||
34 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3509 | ||
JVH0212, I agree and I realize some might think of this as trivial, but if one is a Christian then one must take seriously the accusations they make (Ex. 20:16;Eph. 4:25). It seems to me that many Christians today want to be "Bible-Believers" but not "Bible-Doers". I would be more than willing to discuss this at length with Elijah, but only on the grounds of true statements or at least statements he would be willing to say he truly doesn't understand, as with any believer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
35 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3472 | ||
LVDTHELORD, I'm certain there is much where we would agree, however, our concern should not be centered on agreeing or disagreeing with each other but, rather, scripture. If dispensationalists truly do not want to insert gaps of time into scripture, then they should simply stop doing so when scripure gives no warrant for so doing. The only reason you believe "those" events have not yet occurred is because dispensational theology is the light by which you interpret scripture. However, scripture never depends upon the created light of men in order to determine the interpretation of scripture itself. The "supposed and imaginative" absence of an event which is based on the demands of a man-centered theology in no way whatsoever proves a gap in scripture where scripture itself never intended one to be. This is precisely what I was saying about inserting whatever one needs to be there. The insertion is not derived from scripture but, rather, from a man invented theology that forces scripture to mean whatever it wants it to mean. If the gap has so much clarity, why then is scripture completely ignored and dispensationalism becomes the only light by which scripture has any meaning? 2 Thessalonians 2:2-7 are time-specific related verses. Paul did not write to the believers at Thessalonica in the 1st century to warn them of an event or a person that would "never" have any impact on them at all and would only happen in some unknown future time that is continually forced to be further into the future because of the continually failed prophecies by dispensationalists. Paul wrote to a specific group of people, concerning a specific event, a specific person and in verse 5 he reminds (them specificially) that he told (them specifically) about these specific events and this specific person. Paul also goes onto specifically relate these specific events with the appearing of the Lord's coming (verse 8). Yet in spite of all the specific verses of scripture, dispensationalists come along and reject and deny any specificity at all. The clear and unambiguous words of our Lord are watered down to the imagination of men. We do not come from two different perspectives, we merely view scripture from two different perspectives. One is from a scriptural perspective and the other is from a non-scriptural perspective. Sam Hughey |
||||||
36 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3460 | ||
Elijah, You have twice not answered my question about the source of the alleged changes you claim to have been made in the Bible. So, I will suppose you do not have an answer and the accusation is false. Do you understand the seriousness of such an accusation? Also, I never said anything at all about God not using women in ministry and you should discover much more about Aimee Semple McPherson before you associate the name Christian with her. Sam Hughey |
||||||
37 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3458 | ||
Chris, There is nothing to forgive. I was not offended in anyway at all and if I was I would not hold it against you. Chris, they were wrong for believing in something that neither existed nor was taught from Holy Scripture. Nowhere does our Lord ever teach that His return to call out His church would be an any-moment event, meaning God has never concluded exactly when He would return. What we commonly call the rapture, is a definite and determined event that will occur but once and is only an "at one-moment" event. Our Lord knows precisely when He will return because it is an already fixed event in the mind of God. Humans cannot change that event simply because they do not know when it will happen. Saying it is an "any-moment" event contradicts the foreknowledge of God in that it will happen only once and cannot happen at any other time in our history other than the predetermined and fore-ordained time God has already fixed for it to happen. "Assuming" what God can do is not the same as "proving" what God will do. Out of the ANYTIME He was free to choose, He only determined that event to happen at one particular time in history and not before or after that time. Chris, the very fact that our Lord has not returned is the evidence that proves the Father had not ever determined to send His Son until some future time and no time in the past (to us) could ever have been the time the Father had pre-determined to send His Son back for His Church. Again Chris, your view undermines the foreknowledge and pre-determination of God in fore-ordaining the events only He would cause to happen at the appointed time. I don't know if you are familiar with the term "Open Theism", but your view is very close to it. No disrespect intended Chris but not IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD is a common "catch-all" phrase Chrsitians enjoy using when we have no other "biblical" answer. Whenever we can't defend a particular position in which we believe, we just simply say that God can do anything He wants to do and that is supposed to settle the issue. It doesn't and furthermore, it only confuses and further contradicts the issue. Of course I believe nothing is IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD, but that doesn't prove anything. It's not impossible that God could have re-grown all the hair on my head 10 years ago, being almost bald now, but He didn't. Obviously, it was not His will to do so even though it is not impossible. Get the point? If our Christian forefathers truly expected the return of Christ to happen, then they surely believed it would happen. If they surely believed it would happen, they must have had sound biblical warrant for such a belief. However, they were mistaken because it never happend and could not have happened since it was obviously not the Father's will for it to have happened. The false assumption of an unbiblical teaching of an immanent return is VERY MUCH responsible for past and present faulty predictions of our Lord's return. Faulty predictions are the result of faulty understandings which come from a faulty view of scripture. Actually Chris, the idea of a supposed immanent return does indeed espouse a date for the return of Christ. Isn't the very moment you are reading this response considered an "any-moment" in our history? So then, Christ could return at the very moment you are reading this and that is most definately espousing a specific date. However, we leave ourselves an easy-out since we do not specifically name a calendar date. But what's the difference? Isn't the very moment you are reading this a calendar date? The very fact the we not only CANNOT know, but also WILL NOT know, proves the "any-moment" idea is false. You cannot say the rapture will be at any moment, yet I do not know if it will be at any moment. And for what should Christians be "looking out" Chris. Will a sudden, immanent return change anything at all about our relationship with Christ, our salvation, our redemption, our eternal destiny? If "looking-out" means we should live holy lives, then our Lord has already given us a clear, unambiguous and distinct command to do this without any reference to a future rapture. I look forward to hearing from you Chris. Sam Hughey |
||||||
38 | Isai 41:2 referring to Christ or Cyrus? | Isaiah | reformedreader | 3400 | ||
JVH0212 and Ray, It appears as though there is little doubt that Isa. 41:2 is referring to Christ. Obviously 41:4 clearly concludes the discussion, at least referring back to verse 1, and "I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he" certainly seems to be point to Christ Himself. However, I would like to hear other views. Sam Hughey |
||||||
39 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | reformedreader | 3264 | ||
granma ota, The daughters of men is obviously referring to human women since they had the ability to bare children. The Bible is completely silent on the idea of them being the daughters of Cain. Sam Hughey |
||||||
40 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 3190 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I would have said precisely the same thing. It is when Christians, for whatever reason, cease thinking, reasoning, speaking, etc. biblically, then we are no less guilty than the Pharisees who distorted the Word of God to suit their own minds. While we say we intend no harm, I'm sure the Pharisees said the same. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |