Results 281 - 300 of 305
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Does anyone remember this verse? | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman | 1572 | ||
Thank you for an apt verse and for reminding us. | ||||||
282 | ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI? | Mark 15:34 | Radioman | 1571 | ||
To the question re Mark 15:34, someone gave the following reply: "That's the way I see it too. It's too bad no one responded to you directly." Really? It seems to me you responded directly to the question. Re the person who wrote the comment: "It's too bad no one responded to you directly." 1) When he says "no one responded", he included himself. If he meant to exclude himself, the grammatically correct phrasing would be: "no one ELSE responded." 2) However, if he means it's too bad no one, including him, responded directly, then I have no objection to his phrasing. | ||||||
283 | Ideal, but prerequisite? | 1 Timothy | Radioman | 1570 | ||
It is written: "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage..." 1 Tim 3:1-4 NASB | ||||||
284 | The sensational or the reliable? | Revelation | Radioman | 1569 | ||
The sensational or the reliable? If I want sensational, I'll watch Jerry Springer. | ||||||
285 | Best commentary on Revelation? | Revelation | Radioman | 1568 | ||
Yours is a good answer. Forget the sensational, turn to the reliable and trustworthy. Not everyone will agree with the men cited in your answer. But, surely one can do better than to go running after Van Impe or many of the preachers on TBN. Why do they call it Trinity Broadcasting Network when they allow preachers to be on who don't even believe in the Trinity? | ||||||
286 | 14 doctorates hummm | Revelation | Radioman | 1567 | ||
If Van Impe has 14 doctorates, he does a good job of hiding that fact. | ||||||
287 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 1566 | ||
I agree with you: Election is unconditional. The word election is synonymous with choosing, just as elect is a synonym of choose. According to some people's definition of election, it is not choosing at all. Whenever a word in the Bible is interpreted to mean someting other than the ordinary English definition of the word, Beware! Someone is not rightly dividing the word of truth. According to the opinion of some, there is NO Bible doctrine of election. I wonder then: when the Bible speaks of "the elect", whom is it talking about? Thank you for taking a stand for the Bible doctrine of election. | ||||||
288 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman | 1299 | ||
I would like to submit Part One . . . I would like to submit for your consideration the following quotation re: the never ending debate over once saved, always saved (which, I remind you, is a term used ONLY by the opponents of Eternal Security). I offer this quotation without any comment of my own. Note that I am not claiming to agree or disagree with this position. I merely point it out. . . . The following is a quotation from a denominational publication stating the position of the denomination on this issue. If you are not happy with what you read, don't complain to me. I didn't write it. I never said this is so or not so. OK? . . . "In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible's call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the __________ __ ___disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost. . . . "The Christian religious world divides basically into two schools of thought concerning the spiritual destiny of people. One is Calvinism, named after John Calvin (early 16the century); the other is Arminianism, traced back to James Arminius (late 16th century). The theological debate is thus centuries old. (continues in Part Two) |
||||||
289 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Radioman | 1298 | ||
(I would like to submit Part Two.) . . . "Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God's unconditional election (or predestination) of certain ones to saved and certain others to be lost, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God's saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation. . . . "Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God's salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation. (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian (5) One's salvation can be lost through willful disobedience. . . . "Rather than the unconditional predestination of Calvinism, Arminianism teaches conditional predestination. We are predestined to eternal life if we accept God's provision of salvation. . . . "The __________ __ ___ leans toward Arminianism, though it accepts scriptural truth found in both positions. We agree with the Calvinist emphasis on God's sovereignty or supreme power and authority. But we also firmly believe the Arminian emphasis on mankind's free will and responsibility for his actions and choices. We believe the Bible teaches both truths.." So there it is: Calvinism, Arminianism, a little of each, or neither. Take your pick. |
||||||
290 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 1076 | ||
P.S. The same logic would cause one to conclude that since the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, then there is no such thing as the Trinity. The same thing could be said of television, radio, the Internet, etc.: well, since those words don't appear in the Bible, then those things don't exist. Whatever. | ||||||
291 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 1075 | ||
When someone accurately states that there is no mention of an "age of accountability" in Scripture, WHY then do you come back with "So there is no age where a person is considered responsible for their actions"? All that was said was that the term "age of accountability" does not appear in the Bible. No one said there is no age where a person is considered responsible for their actions. | ||||||
292 | (still) God created evil? | Genesis | Radioman | 1052 | ||
Crazy? Flattery will get you nowhere. (smile) Thanks, KB, for your reply. I agree with you. Sometimes these debates, as I call them, can get pretty intense. So a good laugh now and then doesn't hurt a thing. We KNOW God has a sense of humor. And I do not mean that disrespectfully. | ||||||
293 | Lure or Norse demon? | Rev 19:4 | Radioman | 1004 | ||
Bologna or baloney. No matter which way you spell it, it's still a cold, dead, unappetizing commodity full of additives and other impurities. So is the book of Urantia. | ||||||
294 | When is a plumb line true? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 1003 | ||
How can a man be plumb lyin' and true at the same time? (It's a joke.) Seriously, yours is an excellent answer. Keep them coming. I commend you on your answer, with which I agree. Thanks for attempting to restore some balance and Christian charity to this endless debate. In Christ, Radioman | ||||||
295 | Is there an age of accountability? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 1002 | ||
P.S. . . . Joseph, thank you for your question. After all the sometimes heated, sometimes confused and confusing debate over election, Calvinism or whatever one wishes to call it, I needed a good laugh. Thanks for providing me with one. |
||||||
296 | Is there an age of accountability? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 1001 | ||
What do you think? Surely you jest! The short answer is: No! The long answer is: No! | ||||||
297 | Problems with Election Theory - Part One | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 995 | ||
Greetings, jg8ball! I have made my sincere reply, although I didn't address it to the respective question listed in the tree. I am writing this to remove a question that is no longer unanswered. Hope you don't mind. See you later! | ||||||
298 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 994 | ||
. . . P.S. . . . Regarding your submission, "Problems with Election Theory," I sincerely thank you for the background info. Now I see that for you Calvinism is neither a mere intellectual issue nor a matter for debate for the sake of debate. Rather it is a practical issue. However, I remind you that to my knowledge, I have never once in any of my answers used the word "Calvinism". For the record, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I suppose I'm somewhere in between strict Calvinism and strict Arminianism. I'm not saying either group is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong. I never even used either of those terms (Calvinism or Arminianism, except perhaps to distinguish between the two or to reply to your comments and questions regarding Calvinsim, but not to defend strict, absolute, undiluted Calvinism). . . . In the same submission, I agree with you: you have to research it and determine for yourself whether you believe election is true and what your understanding of election is. . . . I also agree with your statement that ANYONE who ... believes in God's Son and turns to him for salvation SHALL BE SAVED. This is consistent with every statement in the Bible regarding salvation. Whosoever will may come. However, Scripture also plainly teaches that we neither chose nor sought out Christ; instead he did the choosing and the seeking of us (John 15:19). He came to seek and to save that which was lost. For an unregenrate man to say that he is seeking Christ is like the mice saying they are seeking the cat. If they are seeking his location, it is only for the purose of avoiding the cat. . . . I fear that to give detailed answers to your question "Problems with Election Theory" would take hours. Also that to answer in detail might stir up more emotion and hostility, which certainly is not my intention. I sincerely wish to give you helpful answers. Even if you don't agree with the answers (which is your right and privilege), my intention is to be helpful. Whether I have been helpful remains to be seen. My prayer for you is that the Lord will show you in His Word that which you are seeking to know and understand. Whatever your decision, I pray that it will be the right one for you. . . . Take care. Thank you for your interest and input. Disclaimer: I am not infallible. Calvin (there -- I used the word) is not infallible. No study Bible footnotes are infallible. Only the Scriptures are WITHOUT error and INCAPABLE of error and ONLY in the original manuscripts . . . . I apologize for not thoroughly proofreading this answer. If I tried to proof it, I'm afraid I would spend another hour thinking of one more thing after another that I would want to add. Because of Dry Eye Syndrome, if I don't stop reading and typing now, I will go temporarily blind. It will have to stand as is, typos and all. . . . I thank you for your time and patience. Take care. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
299 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 993 | ||
In reply to: "Questions for my Calvinists friends." . . . Re: your question 1. I'm not sure that there is an answer to your hypothetical question, "Why go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood?" For that matter, why did God go to the trouble of creating a world of humankind when He knew that the vast majority of that creation would be lost and never see eternal life? This is the kind of "Why" question that is God's business and none of my business. I would not dare question God about WHY He does this or that? One thing we do know is that all God's acts are consistent with His Eternal nature. All God's acts are done in perfect justice and righteousness. And, like it or not, our finite minds cannot grasp all the ways of God. . . . Nor does He owe us an explanation. Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJV) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." What IS revealed is, not Calvinism, but a BIBLE doctrine of election. What is NOT revealed is questions that ask: if election were true, then why would God do this and why would God not do that? . . . Re: your question 2. Heb 9:22 KVH "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Without shedding of blood is NO remission -- for neither the elect nor the non-elect nor the undecided. That is why Jesus had to die on the cross. . . . Re: your question 3, Matt:19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25. Q: "Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" A: It is more difficult because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does. . . . (Compare, for example, the conversion rate in the mud hut villages of Zambia, Africa with those of Marin County, California, Beverly Hills, California or Jupiter Beach and Jupiter Island, Florida. This may or may not be an apt comment on the above question or answer. However, it remains a fact that it IS more difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and it is a fact for the reason given, i.e., because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does.) . . . Now I have given sincere, if not lengthy, answers to your original 3 questions. I'm not trying to win a battle of wits; I merely seek to answer your questions as they were asked. . . . (More to come) |
||||||
300 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 973 | ||
PART TWO. Why won't Calvinists answer directly? 1) Who is a Calvinist? If I don't call myself a Calvinist, who are you to put that label on me? 2)Answer what directly? Sometimes the questions are so off topic, so hypothetical and broad, that they cannot be answered. . . . 3) Do you respond directly? You all never respond directly to the Scriptures used to defend election. I've rarely, if ever, seen an anti-electionist directly answer a scripture or an argument used to prove election. You usually answer a question with more questions or with sophistry that only confuses the issue. I've read more rambling remarks, irrelevant Scripture, hypothetical questions, "why" questions full of suppositions and way off topic, angry comebacks and just plain nonsense in the anti-Calvinism answers and questions. How is anybody supposed to answer such wide-ranging, hypothetical questions? . . . I would also note that the underlying resistance of the anti-election people is due to their idea that God just wouldn't be fair if election were true. And so they ask WHY questions that are worded to get the other person to agree with them. If election isn't true or doesn't exist, why does the Bible make 250 references to the subject? . . . Again people keep raising objections to what they call Calvinism while not bothering to even try to read and understand a definition and explanation of the doctrine. It's as if I had driven a Honda Accord for 20 years. Then you come along. You've never even seen a Honda Accord, but you've already decided you don't like Accords and don't want one. In that situation do you think you could convince me the car is no good? Having never seen one, you wouldn't have the slightest personal knowledge on which to build an argument. At best, you would be limited to quoting the writings of others, parroting their ideas while having none of your own. . . . Again, if I ever saw a well-thought-out, Scripture related question re election, I would make a sincere attempt to answer it. . . . In conclusion, thiese remarks may have sounded harsh and critical. Such was not my intention. I have love and respect for you and all who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I respect your right to your own attitudes, opinions and beliefs. It's just that I cannot sit by silently and read all the criticism, mockery and misunderstanding of the Bible doctrine of election. As Dylan said, "Don't criticize what you don't understand." If you've read this entire answer, then I thank you for your time and patience. Let's keep searching and learning for greater wisdom and understanding, shall we? After 30 years of serious Bible study, I feel as though I've only begun to scratch the surface in knowing and understanding Scripture. My thanks to you and the other users for stimulating me to continue to search, study and pay attention to the details of the Bible. Always look forward to reading your questions or comments. In Christ, Radioman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [16] >> |