Results 2201 - 2220 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2201 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | Hank | 166464 | ||
Sins. This topic has been discussed many times on the Forum. Please use Search. --Hank | ||||||
2202 | Is submission of wives for today? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Hank | 124444 | ||
joyduncan: This short response is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of the Bible's teaching either on slavery or the fairer sex by any means. But there is in your post regarding the treatment of slaves and women, a phrase that is especially interesting and, for that matter, troubling. It is this: "as long as the culture supports and condones..." This is a particularly reckless and dangerous way to go about exegeting the Bible. God's word, Scripture, is eternal (see, e.g., Isaiah 40:8), and its truths are for all times and all cultures. It was never written with the intent to be culturally and politically correct or applicable only to a certain time or place -- and then dismissed as being no longer relevant. God's word never has been in line with what "culture supports and condones" -- not when it was written and not in our time. Nor was it ever meant to cater to or be subservient to the ways of sinful society in any age at any time. Today, for example, "culture supports and condones" homosexuality, abortion, divorce for any cause whatever, and is marching toward full sanction of same-sex "marriage." Are we therefore to redefine what the Bible says about immorality, murder, infidelity, and marriage? Do we have the authority to re-image God to our personal tastes and preferences and to bend His eternal word to fit current social mores and human standards of right and wrong? ....... Incidentally, the plan for the respective roles of man and woman, and their relationship to one another, was divinely established in Genesis 3, ages and ages before a word of the New Testament was written. There is no evidence whatever in Scripture that God ever has altered or ever will alter His plan to bring it into compliance with what "culture supports and condones." --Hank | ||||||
2203 | How literal do we go? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Hank | 124467 | ||
Joy, the alternative to "interpreting away" Scripture is NOT a slavish, unthinking devotion to pure literalism from Genesis through Revelation! It is, rather, a careful, critical -- and prayerful -- exegetical, analytic and synthethic examination of the whole of Scripture in its natural context. This is the way that the fundamental doctrines and beliefs of the orthodox church are arrived at, not by lifting a verse or two out of context, isolating it from the rest of Scripture, and thus trying to lay the foundation for a false doctrine that conflicts with other parts of Scripture. ...... So many times when a person asks a question about whether something in the Bible should be taken literally today, they don't mean "literally" at all. What they're really asking is whether it's applicable to us in our time. Some of the questions are easier than others, of course. To use a well-known OT example: No one but a dunderhead would, when reading God's command to Noah to build an ark, go to Home Depot and try to purchase some gopher wood. Another example, this one from the NT: In Acts 10:9 we are told that Peter went upon the housetop to pray. Does this therefore mean that we must climb upon the roof of our house whenever we pray? The question isn't whether this passage from Acts is literal, i.e., did Peter pray on top of the house? Yes, he did. That is exactly what the passage literally says. But the question really is, is this act of Peter applicable to us? Does it constitute a teaching, establish a principle, or give a command concerning prayer that all Christians for all time must obey? Obviously not, because if we exegete it thusly we immediately run into a wall of opposition from many other places in Scripture that speak of praying in the street, in the wilderness, in a house of worship, in a garden, or in a private room. ....... A good book to own and use is Kay Arthur's "How To Study Your Bible." In it she talks incessantly about context, context, context. I'd have to say that I surely do believe that context, context, context are the three most important keys, aside from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to unlocking the riches and true meaning of Scripture. --Hank | ||||||
2204 | Still looking for black and white | 1 Pet 3:1 | Hank | 124487 | ||
Joy: It isn't a matter of consideration of HOW applicable the "submission passages" are. They are either fully applicable or they are not applicable at all. God's commands, His principles, His truth are not meted out by degrees of applicability. His commands to Noah concerning ark building, the illustration I used in a previous post, applied solely to Noah and his immediate family. They did not apply to Abraham, Moses or the apostle Paul -- or to present-day believers. The changing times that have occurred across the centuries since Noah's day, and that occur in our society still, have had absolutely nothing to do with the applicability of God's commands to Noah. The commands applied to Noah and only Noah then, and they apply to Noah and only Noah now. They did not apply to Noah one hundred per cent and to present-day believers fifty per cent or twenty-five per cent because times have changed, and we must make adjustments in the degree of their applicability to us. ..... But the "submission verses" have nothing to do with the one-time-only building of the ark. The "submission verses" that first appear in Scripture are in Genesis 3. They pertained to the divinely ordained relationship between man and woman -- not to Adam and Eve alone. All subsequent scriptural passages, which for convenience we will continue to call "submission verses," that touch upon God's commands concerning the right relationship between man and woman, clearly encompass all men and all women. They have no expiration date. They are as applicable now as when they were first revealed by the Spirit of God. --Hank | ||||||
2205 | So should your wife wear a headcovering? | 1 Pet 3:1 | Hank | 124539 | ||
Joy, perhaps you'd enjoy the article at this URL: http://baptist2baptist.net/printfriendly.asp?ID(type in equals symbol)230 .... or you can go to sbc.net and type in the words __wives submit husbands__ in the site's search engine. --Hank | ||||||
2206 | Do you believe Sarah wore make-up? | 1 Pet 3:6 | Hank | 176921 | ||
HMM - Whereas this whole thread is of the tongue-in-cheek variety, inasmuch as the answer to the question is not remotely dealt with in Scripture, I presume that no indelible harm would ensue if one proffered the notion that old Abimelech's eyesight was so compromised by presbyopia or his perception so distorted by too much wine that he thought Sarah was a nubile teen-ager. Of course, one should not rule out the possibility that Sarah regularly visited her local Neiman Marcus store and loaded up on Estee Lauder cosmetics. It's hard to find an authorative reference to back all this up, but I'm looking. --Hank | ||||||
2207 | Door-to-door false teachers | 1 Pet 3:15 | Hank | 63424 | ||
Biblesearcher, each has his own way of dealing with false witnesses whom he encounters, I suppose, but a most apropriate biblical answer may be found in this verse: "Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." [1 Peter 3:15]. But far too many professing Christians are so unversed in their faith that they can give but a poor and unconvincing confession of it, if any at all. Therein lies the problem. The false teachers have done their homework, but orthodox believers have not done theirs. The clarion call has never been stronger than it is in our time: Christians must be able to defend the faith. 2 Timothy 2:15 is a command. It does not appear in the Bible for the idle purpose of filling in the blank space between verses 14 and 16! --Hank | ||||||
2208 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Hank | 177145 | ||
Hi, Parable - Each generation produces its crop of naysayers. If we mark off a generation by allotting it 20 years, I've been a part of three generations, and now am in the fourth. So I've been exposed to the psycho-babble of quite a few atheistic writers, the majority of them learned denizens of the halls of academe. These atheists sing the same tired old refrain. They have a way about them of using big words and a lot of them to say the same thing: I don't believe in God. They are those of whom the Psalmist spoke in Psalm 10:4: "The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, 'There is no God.'" Prominent among the current crop of naysayers are, in addition to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett -- fools all. The Bible says that the fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." ..... Consequently, Parable, I am in full agreement with BradK: Why should we listen to these naysayers? What indeed can we learn from a fool? Is it, indeed, worth the investment of precious time to bother with such blind guides as Sam Harris? No, I say, no, it is not. Whenever I feel inclined to read their books and expose myself to their godless evolutionary psychological and philosophical nonsense, I am reminded of what the Lord Jesus said to Peter when Peter impulsively tried to meddle in things that were none of his business: "What is that to thee? follow thou Me" (cf John 21:22). ...... Frankly, Parable, I believe the proper answer to the abbreviated version of your question, "How do we respond to Sam Harris?" is simply that we don't -- not, at any rate, on SBF which is designed for the study of God's word and not for arguments for God's existence. "The Bible begins with God, not with philosophic arguments for His existence." Thus spoke C. I. Scofield in his annotation of Genesis 1:1 (Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford). So I conclude with this: that we of Study Bible Forum should rivet our full attention upon God and His word and not upon responding to the atheistic arguments of Sam Harris or others of his stripe. I firmly believe that our Lord has not changed His mind one iota since He asked Peter, "What is that to thee? follow thou me." Such, I believe, would be His answer to us if we put our time to poor use by reading or paying the slightest attention to the worn-out, fatuous and inane arguments of fools. --Hank | ||||||
2209 | Is Joyce Myers right or wrong? | 1 Pet 3:19 | Hank | 27136 | ||
Jude, if Joyce Myer or an angel from heaven teaches that Jesus Christ was "born again," such teaching represents a total misunderstanding -- and possibly a deliberate misrepresentation -- of the nature of the Trinty and of who Christ is. It is nothing less than undiluted heresy. Unfortunately, no one has a patent on false teaching. It is rampant. Constant vigilance and careful comparison of what we hear with what God says in his word is the price we must pay in order to remain steadfast in the truth. --Hank | ||||||
2210 | Is baptism needed for salvation? (One.) | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 2714 | ||
JVH, you have posted a well-researched dissertation on baptism, and I concur with you in your conclusion, and with your reasoning that led to it: The New Testament does not teach that baptism is a sine qua non for salvation. I'm thinkig about the man on the cross, one of two criminals who were hanged alongside Jesus, who said in his hour of death, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." What was Jesus' response -- was it something about figuring out a way to get the man down from the cross and finding some water so he could be baptized and thus be saved? The record is clear what Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23).It may sound trite and simplistic, but I'll say it anyway: Jesus saves, water doesn't. The corpus of New Testament teaching confirms this. It is always a grave mistake to base a major doctrine upon an isolated verse or two of Scripture without taking the whole body (corpus) of teaching on the subject into full and careful consideration. It is quite possible to lift a Bible verse out of its context, call it a "proof text," and thereby extrapolate an infinite number of bizarre doctrines. "Accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) is a fearful responsibility of every Christian. | ||||||
2211 | Baptism by w/o faith in BtismalSalvation | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 5259 | ||
If I interpret your question properly, aren't you really asking, Who or what is the saving agent: the baptizer or the baptism? If that is the question, I would say neither. In the first place, what does the belief of someone else, the baptizer in this instance, have to do with your salvation? If my pastor believes that baptism is merely a way to get a free bath, or that Paul was a Portuguese pygmy, I can't see either of his views as affecting my salvation. In the first chapter of his Philippian letter, Paul endorses the preaching of Christ even by preachers who themselves may be envious, selfish, or insincere. The message is more important than the messenger. In the second place, does the act of baptism itself save? I hold that the Bible teaches that Jesus, not water, saves. If water saves, why would it have been necessary for Christ to suffer on the cross, shed His blood, and die? By grace are we saved through faith in Christ Jesus. There is a great deal of additional material on baptism posted elsewhere on this Forum. You might want to use the Search feature and enter "baptism" or "baptize" to read more. --Hank | ||||||
2212 | number of persons in Noah's ark | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 62865 | ||
In the ark were Noah and his wife, his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japeth and their wives. The story of Noah's flood is recorded in Genesis 6-9. --Hank | ||||||
2213 | Was Noah's flood world-wide? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 62870 | ||
The flood world-wide or local? Arguments have been advanced favoring both possibilities; however, in my view the argument is far stronger that it was world-wide. You might want to read some good on-line stuff about Noah's flood from a Christian-oriented scientific perspective. Go to www.icr.org. --Hank | ||||||
2214 | 1peter3:21baptismdoesnotsaveus? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 69294 | ||
Here is what 1 Peter 3:21, New American Standard Bible, says: "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." --Hank | ||||||
2215 | where is the verse "love covers a multit | 1 Pet 4:8 | Hank | 69253 | ||
See 1 Peter 4:8 | ||||||
2216 | Joining a Church? | 1 Pet 5:1 | Hank | 158834 | ||
Truecalling: You have a right to be confused! The way "joining a church" is kicked around these days is confusing. There are two ways that "joining" a church is used. First, in Scripture. But there the word "joining" is not used, but "adding." Acts 2:47: "...And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved." At the moment of regeneration, believers become members of the body of Christ, His church. ..... The other meaning of "joining" has to do with becoming identified as a member of a specific local church. Different churches have different "rites of passage" as it were, i.e., conditions under which they receive members. It is quite possible to "join" a local church without having been "added" to the church, the body of Christ. That is another way of saying that joining a local church is not necessarily evidence of salvation, neither will it effect salvation. There is only one way to be saved, and that is by the grace of God through faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. --Hank | ||||||
2217 | The existence of Satan | 1 Pet 5:8 | Hank | 194084 | ||
dkweiland - Do a word search of Satan on this website, jot down the passages from both the Old and New Testaments, and show them to your friend. If she doesn't believe the Word of God, however, you face an enormous problem, everything else is well nigh academic anyway, and you're not very likely to meet with much success. But let's pray that she does believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God! It is impossible to believe what the Bible teaches and deny the existence of Satan. One simply cannot believe those parts of Scripture that he wishes to believe and ignore or deny the rest. (See 2 Timothy 3:16). ..... French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) wrote, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." May your efforts bear fruit, and we'll be praying for you. --Hank | ||||||
2218 | What does antinomianism mean? | 2 Pet 2:18 | Hank | 144630 | ||
Here's a brief definition of antinomianism: "The view that teaches that the forgiveness found in Christ eliminates the need for any governming law, and thus makes it legitimate for a Christian to do things which the Bible forbids. The word is made up of two Greek terms meaning literally 'against law.'" [--from the Glossary of "The Believer's Study Bible" (Nelson)]. I found a much more extended treatment of this doctrine and its historical background by typing in the single word _antinomianism_ in the Google search box. --Hank | ||||||
2219 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Hank | 89990 | ||
"heretic, noun -- 1. what a lunatic calls someone whose faith and doctrine he doesn't understand. 2. A female tick." --excerpt from the Ozarks Unabashed Dictionary, Bubba Seastrunk, Editor --Hank | ||||||
2220 | scriptures and wrtings | 2 Pet 3:16 | Hank | 34221 | ||
JMSCOTT: Your definition of Scripture -- just what is it? The English word "scripture" comes from the Latin noun "scriptum": thing written, and the Latin verb "scribere": to write. Scripture is a generic word meaning something written. The word is usually capitalized when it is used to refer to the Holy Scriptures, i.e., the Bible. The books of the Old Testament are inspired writings. So are the books of the New Testament. Using our definition of scripture, "something written," the books of both the Old and New Testament are something written, or scripture. If both the Old and New Testaments are inspired of God, as they proclaim themselves to be, they are "something written" that is holy and sacred. They are therefore the Holy Scriptures or the Sacred Scriptures. The reason Jesus referred to the Old Testament writings when he used the word "Scriptures" is obvious; but He in so doing did not negate the fact that the writings that we know as the New Testament are any less inspired than those of the Old Testament. Your last sentence, by the way, in addition to being ambiguous (who is the antecedent of "he" -- Paul or Jesus?), begs scriptural corrobration. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ] Next > Last [114] >> |