Results 221 - 240 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101803 | ||
Greetings Arapga! There are two important issues surrounding Mark 16:16. First of all, is the text original or not. I have posted on this point before. If you would like to read them, simply search for 'Morant61' and 'Mark long ending'. To summarize, there is strong evidence that the long ending of Mark is not original. At the very least, there is tremendous uncertainty as to what the ending was period. So, it would be very dangerous to base a doctrine upon such a disputed passage. Secondly, there is the question of the meaning if the verse is original. Is there some 'work' required on our part to be saved? Here are some of the other verses where the phrase 'will be saved' is used in the New Testament. 1) Acts 2:21 - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 2) Acts 16:31 - "They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved — you and your household.'" 3) Rom. 10:9 - "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." 4) Rom. 10:13 - "for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'" The common theme in all of these verses is trust or belief in Christ. There just isn't any support for the notion that we must 'do' something in addition to what Christ has already done to be saved. We are saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross, not by our good deeds or obedience. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
222 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101812 | ||
Greetings AO! Thanks for the response my friend! To me, there is a principle called the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to Scripture. :-) What I mean by that is simply this: If Scripture says to simply believe, but more is actually needed, then Scripture taught a lie. So, the 'lowest common denominator' must be all that is really needed for salvation. :-) With that in mind, let's address your comments. 1) Acts 2:21 actually says that all who 'call' on the name of the Lord will be saved. No other requirement is listed. 2) Acts 16:31 is explicit, because it is a direct response to a direct question. The question was: "What must I do to be saved?" The answer: "Believe!" Now, if Peter left something out that was necessary for salvation, his response would have been a lie. 3) Rom. 10:9 does not contradict the two passages you cite. John 3:36 does call for obedience, but John 6:29 tells us what 'work' it is that God expects us to obey: "Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'" And, James 2:19 talks about the evidence of a geninue faith, not the basis for salvation. Concerning your last paragraph, let's see what Scripture says. You wrote: "It seems the logical conclusion would be that these verses do not negate the importance of work, but merely state some of the elements necessary to obtain God's reward." Yet, Scripture specifically says that we are not saved by our works. Eph. 2:8-9, The entire chapter of Rom. 4, Rom. 11:6. So, Scripture is quite clear on the fact that 'works' play no part in our salvation. Now, if that is the case, then we have the answer to the second part of your last paragraph. If we are not saved by what we do, then 'obedience' is not a 'requirement' of salvation, but a result of it. I pray that people would really come to understand the grace of God. We don't have to 'worry' about salvation. We don't have to go through life 'wondering' if we are really saved or not. We don't have to be constantly concerned that at some moment, we might slip up or fail God in someway and 'lose' our salvation. Why? Because our salvation is not based upon anything that we did or will do. It is based entirely upon what He did on the cross. Now, does that mean that we can go out and do whatever we want after we have accepted Christ? No! After we accept Christ, we will 'do' good works. But, they are the result of salvation, not the grounds for salvation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
223 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101813 | ||
Greetings AO! The textual situation is quite a bit more complex than the longer ending simply being absent from two manuscripts. There are actually four versions of the ending of Mark. 1) The first does not have the last twelve verses of the commonly receved text of Mark. To quote Bruce Metzger: They "...are absent from the two odest Greek manuscripts, from the Old Latin codex Bobienss, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgia manuscripts. Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knoledge of the existence of these verses, furthermore Eusebious and Jerome attest that the passage was abent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The orginal form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammoninu) makes no provision for numbeing sections fo the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indiate a spurious addition to a document." Source (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger, pp. 122-123). 2) The second ending is found in several mid to late versions. It says, "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told And after this Jesus himself sent out by meas of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishble proclamation of eternal salvation." This addition is then followed by vv. 9-20 in most of the manuscripts containing this ending. 3) The third is the traditional ending (vv. 9-20). It is found in the vast number of witnesses: including, A, C, D, k, X, W, ect... The only problem is that these manuscripts are not as old as those supporting the first manuscript and they contain a different style of writting than the rest of Mark. 4) There was also a longer version which circulated in the fourth century accoding to Jermore. It is only found in one Greek manuscript. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
224 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101823 | ||
Greetings Norrie! How exactly is it being used in the Worship Service? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
225 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101841 | ||
Greetings AO! If the verses were 'removed', it would have to be on the basis of the best texts available, not on the basis of doctrine. Textual decisions are made all the day, by every translation. The KJV made textual decisions concerning what to include and what not to include. Were they wrong or right? :-) Since various manuscripts list a total of four different endings for Mark, should we include them all? If we don't, are we 'removing' something from the Word of God? As far as my personal approach is concerned, these verses are so questionable that I would not base any doctrine upon them that I could not find elsewhere in Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
226 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101844 | ||
Greetings AO! I notice that you didn't quote the rest of the verse! :-) " and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Now, if baptism doesn't cleanse from the filth of sin, in what way does it save? The verse tells us - it is the response of a good conscience toward God. In other words, it is an action done as a result of what God has already done for us, not as a means to get saved. So, personally, I would say that the Lowest Common Denominator is still valid! :-) For, in Acts 16:31, Peter lists everything necessary for salvation in response to a direct question concerning how one must be saved. The context is clear. The question is clear. And, the response is clear. To add anything else, would be to do violence to the text. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
227 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101847 | ||
Greetings Norrie! May I make an observation that may not go over well? :-) I sense a disturbing tone in your comments about your pastor. Look at how you refer to him in your post. "...this is our NEW pastor that everyone is so crazy about." "..., then got this one and everybody seems to be bowing down to him." "...we got along fine thruout all those years of interims but..." I have been a pastor for about 10 years now. I can tell you from first hand experience that nothing I do can or will please everybody. Everyone has a different taste in music. Everyone has a different concept of how long a service or a sermon should be. Everyone prefers a different style of preaching. The list goes on and on and on! :-) But, God calls a pastor to a particular church at a particular time for a particular reason. And we, as members of that church, are called to submit to his leadership and teaching. It sounds like, to me, that you have individuals and groups within your church who are trying to use these differences of opinion to split your congregation. I would encourage you to pray for, support, and love your pastor - even if you don't always understand or agree with what he is doing. (Note: I'm not talking about false doctrine or moral failure here! :-)) Otherwise, Satan will sow seeds of discontent, which rather than building up the body of Christ will tear it down. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
228 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101849 | ||
Greetings Norrie! So, he's not preaching from the book, he is simply structuring his sermons around the weekly theme of the book? I can't speak for your pastor, but I'm sure that he would say to bring your Bible even if the Scriptures are flashed on the screen. ;-) Another question if I may, is this Sunday School class your only option or are there others? I know that we, even being a smaller church, generally offer several options for Sunday School. One class might be a topical study. One class might be a doctrinal study. One class might use a quarterly. I know the Sunday School class I teach is currently doing a 13 week 'Christian Basic Training' series. It is basically a low level discipleship series. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
229 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101853 | ||
Greetings AO! Where does the verse say that baptism buries past sins? Further, I believe that you have the order wrong for your last clause. Baptism does not allow a person to "benefit from 'the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'" The order in the verse is that baptism saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Whatever the verses means concerning baptism, it is a result of the resurrection, not the other way around. p.s. - Not that it really matters, but which verse did I only quote partially? I did not recall doing that, since I cut and paste all of my Scripture references, I usually cite the entire verse. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
230 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101883 | ||
Greetings Norrie! Why is the church so filled? Maybe, God is simply blessing the ministry of the man that God called to leadership! :-) I pray that is the case! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
231 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101885 | ||
Greetings John! I would call to your attention that I did specifically exclude false doctrine and moral failings. These are issues which must not be allowed! :-) I would agree that the best course of action for someone who is 'uncomfortable' in any church, regardless of the reason, is to prayerfully consider going to a church more in line with your theology and/or sensibilities. However, most simply stay in the church and spread discontent. :-( They go to someone else and share their 'prayer' concern about how the pastor is failing in such and such an area. They point out how things used to be so different. You get the point! :-) Just out of curiosity, what was the false doctrine that was being taught? If you are free to share it, of course! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
232 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101886 | ||
Greetings Norrie! Actually, I'm Nazarene! But, I have family who are Baptist, if that counts! :-) Concerning your rebellion, have you considered that every class if told what they are going to study? I'm sure that you have some sort of leadership structure for your Sunday School department, right? I'm sure that the leadership of both the church board and the teaching ministries of the church must have been involved in this decision, right? Here is where Satan can cause so many problems. This isn't a moral issue or a doctrinal issue. It is an issue of preference and style. But, you are allowing Satan to foster a spirit of rebellion over it. I would strongly encourage you to talk to the leadership of your church and find out why they are doing this study. Perhaps, after consulting with them, your attitude toward it might be different. However, whether you ultimately agree with their decision or not, you do have a responsibility to submit to the leaders God has appointed for your congregation. As I said previously, I haven't read this particular book, but I have been exposed to Rick Warren's preaching and writings. They have also blessed me tremendously. It may be that you are allowing yourself to be robbed of a blessing my friend! :-) I know that I think the book 'Purpose Driven Church' should be mandatory reading for every new church board! ;-) I pray God's richest blessings upon you and your congregation! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
233 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101887 | ||
Greetings AO! Didn't I cite the entire verse in all four instances? I looked back and it's all there! :-) You still never addressed my point about the verse in question. Doesn't salvation clease us from sin? Yet, Peter specifically says that baptism does not clease the filth of the flesh. What exactly did Peter mean by this qualification and why did he feel it necessary to include it? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
234 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101892 | ||
Greetings Norrie! :-) It is like I always say about Presidents. They get too much credit when things are going well, and too much blame when things are going poorly. Pastors are the same way! :-) If you remember the parable of the seed and the sower, the quality of the crop is determined by the soil in which the seed was planted! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
235 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101893 | ||
Greetings AO! Not to keep badgering you my friend, but where exactly does Scripture say: "The unpardonable sin is that sin someone commits repeatedly, and willfully, in disobedience to God." Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
236 | Purpose Driven Life? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101911 | ||
Greetings John! Thanks my friend! I would have left too! :( Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
237 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101960 | ||
Greetings Makarios! I pray that things are going well with you my friend. As I stated previously, I have not read all of this thread. So, I was not sure what had or had not been said - though I could guess most of it! :-) As I alluded to before, I am in substantial agreement with you. I believe that the word 'apostle' is used in two senses. 1) The Apostles - which meant only the 12 and Paul. Scripture is very definite when refering to this group either as 'the Apostles' or 'the twelve'. I don't believe that these kinds of apostles exist anymore. 2) However, there seems to be a 'lesser (for lack of a better word)' sense of the word. It would apply to anyone 'sent'. In this sense, anyone sent by a Church for ministry was an apostle. I believe this is how the term was used of Barnabas and others. These kinds of apostles could be said to exist today in the sense that anyone sent with a mission could be said to be an apostle. However, as you noted, much of the 'ministry description' applied to 'The Apostles' would not apply to those sent today. They are not the foundation of the Church. So, I too would say that an apostle is not a missionary, though a missionary could be said to be an apostle. Did I make sense there? :-) In other words, a missionary could be said to be an apostle in the sense that he was sent with a mission. But, this term would not just apply to missionaries. Church planters, evangelists, and many others could be said 'to be sent' as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
238 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101963 | ||
Greetings Makarios! One very minor point of correction, if I may? The vague allusion was to Titus, not Timothy. As much as I would rather it be the other way around, since Timothy is my name sake! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
239 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101975 | ||
Greetings Aixen7z4! Thanks for the kind words! One quick note though, wasn't Judas replaced by Matthias in Acts 1:26? So, there still was The Twelve plus Paul. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
240 | The unpardonable sin? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101978 | ||
Greetings AO! You wrote: "It is only unpardonable if the person has not repented before they physically die!" Exactly where does Scripture teach this? This has always been my concern about the belief in baptismal regeneration. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you are teaching that we are saved by our works. One slip, and if we die without confessing it, we would go to hell. But, Scripture makes it clear that we are not saved by our works (Eph. 2:8-9), not do we stay saved by our works. We are saved (past tense) by what Christ did on the cross. Consider the following: Titus 1:4 - " But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." Every action of God in this verse in the tense of past completed action. We aren't being saved. We aren't hoping to be saved. We are saved, justified, and have already become heir of eternal life. In your interpretation, we might be saved one day and not the next. We might be justified one day and not the next. We might be heirs one day and not the next. Why? Because of our 'works', our status changes? Yet, Titus 3:5 specifically says that we were not saved because of righteous works. The Christian walk is not one of saved today, lost tomorrow, saved again. Peter, in the first chapter of his first epistle, agrees with Paul and lists the past, present, and future aspects of our salvation. In v. 3, we have been give new birth. It is a finished and completed action. In v. 5, we are being shield by God's power. This is an ongoing continuous progess. Finally, in v. 4, we have an inheritence which we will receive in heaven. How does this all tie into the unpardonable sin? Well, I agree with Mommapbs and George. There is only one unpardonable sin according to Mt. 12:30-32. This passage does not speak of every unconfessed sin. It speaks of a specific sin in contrast to every other sin. But, this is the position to which baptismal regeneration logically leads. If we are saved by grace plus other things that we must do, then logically we could be 'unsaved' by doing wrong things or not doing the right things. But, this is not the way Scripture describes salvation. It is not described as a process of being saved, being lost, being saved again, and hoping that I am saved when I die. It is described as a past completed action. That is good news. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [339] >> |