Results 241 - 260 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | BradK | 223841 | ||
Hello Godinus, You ask, "How has God "caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," if not through baptism?" By Faith! Heb. 11 is recognized as the faith Hall of Fame! I notice that there is not a corresponding chapter devoted to those noted because of baptism:-) The Pauline passages such as Rom. 6:3-5 are often (mistakenly) taken to be referring to water baptism. I do not believe they are and that he is here referring to spiritual baptism, which is the agency by which we are placed into union with Christ! The work of the Holy Spirit in our salvation is much overlooked and neglected! Note 1 Cor. 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." (NASB) Paul's use of this term is interesting. This is in the aorist tense, passive voice. This basically means it refers to a past (aorist) action (once for all)where the subject (passive) is acted upon by an outside force. The question then becomes, what is this outside force? It is also interesting to note that Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12, are also aorist tense, passive voice! The action of 1 Cor. 12:13 is clear! So is Acts 1:5, "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with (by) the Holy Spirit not many days from now." (NASB) In both these examples, denoting the difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism, the passive voice is used. This signifies the action being performed upon the subject by an outside force. In this case, the Holy Spirit. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
242 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | BradK | 223834 | ||
Hello Beja, Good point. It's also important to remember Peter cannot be saying something different than he's said elswhere in his writings! For example, in 1 Peter 1:3, he says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," So, here we're told, "...His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," Nothing about a salvific nature or imperative of baptism! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
243 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | BradK | 223829 | ||
Hello clsx2, I'm familiar with the Acts 2:38 "formula" for salvation. However, there's a couple obvious problems evident with this view if we are to hang our hat on it: 1. where's faith in all this? And, does this not rather portray a "works-based" righteousness? 2. Acts is a Narrative. One must excercise caution in deriving doctrine from such a book as this. The context should be primary. Does the rest of scripture teach and/or support this? Do not these scriptures say otherwise?: John 3:16, 11:25; Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5., 2 Tim. 1:9 Paul gives one of the clear presentations of the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Particularly note vs 3 and 4! Nothing is mentioned about baptism! Did Paul neglect this? Or, is it that salvation does not require baptism? As Rom. 11:6 clearly teaches, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (NASB). Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
244 | Do you drink milk? | 2 Tim 2:15 | BradK | 223777 | ||
Hello gospel, Now I understand what you're saying. Thank you for clarifying. The purpose of this Forum- as hosted by the Lockman Foudation- is the study of Scripture. As such, "trick questions", one's that are unclear, or cryptically worded may tend to create confusion and/or suspicion - particularly amongst us regulars:-) I'm a big believer in being clear by saying what you mean and meaning what you say. If you're not sure about the SBF, I'd welcome you to check About Forum, as it should help you to get a better picture! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
245 | Do you drink milk? | 2 Tim 2:15 | BradK | 223762 | ||
Hello gospel..., Unfortunately, I still have no idea of what you're trying to saying!? I'm at a complete loss to tie in "Do you drink milk" with the purpose of this Forum? Is this a reference to Heb. 5:13, "For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant."?(NASB) If not, could you re-phrase or restate your question? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
246 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | BradK | 223595 | ||
Hello granpa, You said, "My theory is that those chapters were written in an extremely primitive language which was then translated into hebrew". How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? Do you have something upon which to base your "theory"? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
247 | Hypostatic Union | John 1:14 | BradK | 223576 | ||
Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD) Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul [meaning human soul] and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness. We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality [hypostasis]. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word [Logos] of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers [the Nicene Creed] has handed down to us. BradK |
||||||
248 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 223574 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, Allow my brief but direct response. With all due respect, I missed nothing. You apparently did not read what I posted? Your theology has many gaps in it- from Bibliology to (now) the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not up to me to get you to "see the light":-( I do have an understanding of the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ- one that is in line with Orthodoxy! Are you familiar with the Nicene Creed or to what the Hypostatic Union means? Have you studied these? You state, "You seemed to have missed the point, Jesus was totally, Man, and totally God. This means Jesus had two diametrically opposed natures, the nature of man, (sin nature) and the Nature of God, Divine nature. This would mean that no matter how depraved the nature of man might be, the Divine nature of God is greater, thereby able to overcome any temptation to sin." Wrong. The is called Nestorianism and it is a heresy! Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human. AS CARM notes: "The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
249 | The Person and Work of Christ | Heb 4:15 | BradK | 223536 | ||
Regarding the Person and Work Of Christ: Heb. 4:15 tells us- in regard to His (Jesus) human nature, "...has been tempted in all things as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN". (NASB) A further issue becomes involved in this discussion. As the late John F. Walvoord wrote, it touches upon The Impeccability of Christ. He writes, "Orthodox theologians generally agree that Jesus Christ never committed any sin. This seems to be a natural corollary to His deity and an absolute prerequisite to His work of substitution on the cross. Any affirmation of moral failure on the part of Christ requires a doctrine of His person which would deny in some sense His absolute deity. A question has been raised, however, by orthodox theologians whether the sinlessness of Christ was the same as that of Adam before the fall or whether it possessed a peculiar character because of the presence of the divine nature. In a word, could the Son of God be tempted as Adam was tempted and could He have sinned as Adam sinned? While most orthodox theologians agree that Christ could be tempted because of the presence of a human nature, a division occurs on the question as to whether being tempted He could sin." Definition of Impeccability: "The point of view that Christ could sin is designated by the term 'peccability', and the doctrine that Christ could not sin is referred to as the 'impeccability of Christ'. Adherents of both views agree that Christ did not sin, but those who affirm peccability hold that He could have sinned, whereas those who declare the impeccability of Christ believe that He could not sin due to the presence of the divine nature." "The doctrine of impeccability has been questioned especially on the point of whether an impeccable person can be tempted in any proper sense. If Christ had a human nature which was subject to temptation, was this not in itself evidence that He could have sinned? The point of view of those who believe that Christ could have sinned is expressed by Charles Hodge who has summarized this teaching in these words: “This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people." Can an Impeccable Person Be Tempted? "It is generally agreed by those who hold that Christ did not commit sin that He had no sin nature. Whatever temptation could come to Him, then, would be from without and not from within. Whatever may have been the natural impulses of a sinless nature which might have led to sin if not held in control, there was no sin nature to suggest sin from within and form a favorable basis for temptation. It must be admitted by Hodge, who denies impeccability, that in any case the temptation of Christ is different than that of sinful men." Not only is there agreement on the fact that Christ had no sin nature, but it is also agreed on the other hand, that as to His person He was tempted. This is plainly stated in Hebrews 4:15." [Bibliotheca Sacra : A quarterly published by Dallas Theological Seminary. 1996. Dallas TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.] |
||||||
250 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 223534 | ||
Hello lightedsteps You are fundamentally in error my friend! Yes, Jesus was fully God and fully man- yet without sin or a sin nature! This is made abundantly clear in scripture! I urge you to think through this dilemma you've put yourself in. If Jesus had sin - or a sin nature- He could not have been truly God or our Saviour and died for us! As Charles Hodge notes, there were 3 conditions Christ had to fulfill to be our Mediator: "What those qualifications are, the scriptures clearly teach"- 1. "He must be a man. The Apostle assigns as the reason why Christ assumed our nature and not the nature of angels, that He came to redeem us. (Hebrews 2: 14–16). It was necessary that He should be made under the law which we had broken; that He should fulfil all righteousness; that He should suffer and die; that He should be able to sympathize in all the infirmities of his people, and that He should be united to them in a common nature. He who sanctifies (purifies from sin both as guilt and as pollution) and those who are sanctified are and must be of one nature. Therefore as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also took part of the same. (Hebrews 2: 11–14.) 2. The Mediator between God and man must be sinless. Under the law the victim offered on the altar must be without blemish. Christ, who was to offer Himself unto God as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, must be Himself free from sin. The High Priest, therefore, who becomes us, He whom our necessities demand, must be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. (Hebrews vii. 26.) He was, therefore, “without sin.” (Hebrews iv. 15; 1 Peter ii. 22.) A sinful Saviour from sin is an impossibility. He could not have access to God. He could not be a sacrifice for sins; and He could not be the source of holiness and eternal life to his people. 3. It was no less necessary that our Mediator should be a divine person. The blood of no mere creature could take away sin. It was only because our Lord was possessed of an eternal Spirit that the one offering of Himself has forever perfected them that believe. None but a divine person could destroy the power of Satan and deliver those who were led captive by him at his will. None but He who had life in Himself could be the source of life, spiritual and eternal, to his people. None but an almighty person could control all events to the final consummation of the plan of redemption, and could raise the dead; and infinite wisdom and knowledge are requisite in Him who is to be judge of all men, and the head over all to his Church. None but one in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead could be the object as well as the source of the religious life of all the redeemed. [Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 2: Systematic theology (457). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
251 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | BradK | 223519 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, You are speculating or confused as to the nature of the God man to say that Jesus, "had to have had the sin of Adam dwelling in his flesh, because he was born of a woman." Wrong! Among other things, this flies in the face of scripture and some 2000 Years of Orthodoxy! Where do you get this notion? Heb. 4:15 explicitly states, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (NASB) The miracle of the Incarnation bypassed a "sin nature" being passed on to our Lord. In Luke 1:35 we're told, (by the angel) "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God." (NASB) He could be neither holy or the Son of God if He were indwelt by sin! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
252 | Why do i need to love god? | John 3:16 | BradK | 223446 | ||
Hello Inquisitor, Allow me to address a couple or your points:-) 1. Rev. 2:10 cannot be taken in isolation. It's not a salvation passage and is contained in a prophetic book. You cannot ignore context and develop an entire theology based on this one verse! What does the rest of scripture teach in regards to salvation? 2. We need to excercise caution when postulating hypotheticals! We have David- a man after God's own heart- who had Uriah killed and committed adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11-12). Yet, the Lord had specifically told him, "My mercy shall not depart from him..." (2 Sam. 7:15) Obviously, David repented as his cry in Ps. 51 details. I have no doubt of David's eternal destiny. Aside from this, I see few- if any- professed Christians going around killing people! Do you? Let me stress this point: salvation is by grace through faith, not based on any activity or lifestyle (Eph. 2:8-10) We confuse this by (adding) the requirement of living a holy life to prove the reality of salvation! Now, please do not hear what I'm not saying. Let me qualify that statement by summary quotes from Dr. James Raiford: "No one who is familiar with the Word of God would deny the fact that God designs and desires His people to live holy, righteously, and godly after personal salvation. What God requires for obtaining eternal life differs greatly from what he requires for living a godly life. The presence of good works can give evidence of the reality of genuine regeneration but the lack of such good works does not necessarily prove that there is a false salvation". "Never is salvation, the receiving of God's gift of eternal life , attached to some requirement for being holy or living a holy life. One cannot live for the Lord unless he possesses salvation. Regeneration is the gift of eternal life, as opposed to sanctification which is a process of spiritual living" [The Camouflaged Church/James B Raiford/2009] Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
253 | Why do i need to love god? | John 3:16 | BradK | 223443 | ||
Hello inquisitor, Here's where we differ: You said "But like we're ALL saying, in order for any one of us to receive this Gift of Salvation, we must follow and obey God's Commands from the day we become a christian to the end of our lives, Rev 2:10." No, we're not all saying that. I disagree! We're not saved by grace, then kept by works. You are confusing grace and works my friend. Titus 2:11-12 clearly states, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age," (NASB) Eph. 2:10 says, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." (NASB) Rom. 11:6 states "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." You're confusing sanctification with eternal security. We serve God, we live Godly- because of His grace toward us. His grace is what motivates us. We don't "keep His commands" to the end of our lives in order to maintain our salvation. We obey Him because of His great love for us (Eph. 2:4-6), not out of fear of losing our salvation! We are saved to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25) I am more confused with each successive post, as it's unraveling a rather unorthodox view! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
254 | Why do i need to love god? | John 3:16 | BradK | 223432 | ||
Hello Inquisitor, First, I'd follow behind brother Beja, in his post #223429. What you initially posted seems to belie a works orientation of salvation? Second, I'm one for brevity. Most of the time I don't address every point simply due to constraints of time:-) Third, I'm feeling a bit of a "cat-and-mouse" type of dialog developing. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but is it necessary that I answer your "quotes from Jesus". What's the point, if I may kindly ask? Fourth, you're welcome to view my User profile if you haven't already. I strongly encourage you to expand on yours- especially if you intend to be a long-term participant. It helps all of us get to know each other better- breaking down the walls of anonimity- and where we're coming from theologically. In all fairness, your is very vague and doesn't tell me a lot:-) For that reason, I'm a little reluctant to answer you. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
255 | Why do i need to love god? | John 3:16 | BradK | 223426 | ||
Hello inquisitor, Thanks for the reply. I would make the distinction (and emphasize) that love is not the motivation or cause (on our part) that brings us to Christ! 1 John 4:10 says, "...not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (NASB) Once we have beleived on the Lord Jesus Christ, we are motivated by His grace- Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men," Titus 2:12 "instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age," Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
256 | Why do i need to love god? | John 3:16 | BradK | 223413 | ||
Hello inquisitor, From where in scripture do get the idea that "The biggest, most powerful reason we SHOULD love God is so we can go to Heaven."? Titus 3:5 tells us, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (NASB) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
257 | Is there always the evidence of tongues? | Acts | BradK | 223340 | ||
Hi vncnt, Tim has already supplied an answer for you. I'd go back and re-read his reply:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
258 | Is there always the evidence of tongues? | Acts | BradK | 223337 | ||
Hello Azure, A big AMEN to that! Without Christ, Christianity crumbles and falls. He is the focus of scripture. He is who we worship, because He died for our sins! BradK |
||||||
259 | Is there always the evidence of tongues? | Acts | BradK | 223336 | ||
Hello vncnt, No, all believers will NOT speak in toungues. As Tim already noted- Paul is explicit in his proclamation in 1 Cor. 12:30 "All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?" (NASB) The implied answer in the Greek is, "no". Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
260 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | BradK | 223155 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, I think the meaning straight forward as to these "two verses". I don't see it as a matter of "correct interpretation", per se. If I may ask, what in regard to Eph.1 (particularly vs. 3,4 and 11), is (your)the differing view? In order to have a meaningful discussion, I'd need to know where you're coming from? What is it about these verses that cuases concern for you? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [97] >> |