Results 281 - 300 of 305
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | I think, I feel, I believe. Hogwash! | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14169 | ||
Why, oh why, are you people so FASCINATED with speculation about what the Bible does NOT say? Shouldn't you be watching "Unsolved Mysteries" or one of those TV shows? Does anyone here have any respect for the silence of the Bible? When you speculate on what the Bible does not say, who is edified, who is encouraged, who is comforted? You people need to study and learn what the Bible DOES say. Then you might have less questions about and interest in what it doesn't say. I assure you, the Bible is complete. God has not, as some of you have suggested, left anything out that should be there or made any mistakes in the Bible. To go on and on and on about what the Bible does not say is to cast doubt upon the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture surely is not sufficient if you people have to make up 1,001 questions about what it does not include. You may get some kind of kick out of questioning the reliability or sufficiency of Scripture, but all you do is add doubt and confusion to seekers and babes in Christ. And by a strange twist of logic some of you declare that this is somehow helpful in furthering the gospel and the kingdom of God. That somehow speculating on trivial matters on which the Bible is silent is going to strengthen someone's faith in God or in the essentials of the Christian faith. Read your Bible with an open mind and heart. Be willing to obey what you find there. Accept it for what it actually is, the very words of God Himself. "Therefore, the person who rejects [the Bible] does not reject man, but God, who also gives you His Holy Spirit." One more time: according to the Lockman Foundation, this is neither a discussion group, a survey, or an opinion poll. Take a hint from the Apostle Paul and do not go beyond what is written. If you find the Bible insufficient to satisfy all your curiosity, maybe you ought to discard it and turn to the Apochrypha, the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower Society, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, or some of the more colorful and imaginative postings here at the forum. All of the above are equally spurious, fanciful and uninspired. Here at the Forum you will find all the bricks without straw, clouds without water, and idle speculation without Scripture that you'll ever need. Selah. (Pause and think about that.) |
||||||
282 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14538 | ||
Inquiring minds want to know. Your Questions and My Answers 1. Q: Are we to pray to Jesus? A: Had you been in combat in Vietnam, you wouldn't need (or have time) to ask that question. 2. Q: Could Jesus sin? A: No. 3. Q: Is sex before marriage wrong? A: Yes. Also note: Usually the Bible doesn't speak of right and wrong. It speaks of good and evil. 4. Q: When did God change lifespan of man? A: DID God change lifespan of man? In what verse of the Bible does it SAY he did? 5. Q: What law(s) did Christ fulfill? A: He fulfilled the law. Not "laws" (plural), but "the law" (singular). 6. Q: Why? A: Because. 7. Q: Does God have multiple motivations? A: Is the clay questioning the motives of the Potter -- AGAIN? 8. Q: Satan take the place of God in Genesis? A: No. 9. Q: Good News Bible? A: Yes. 10. Q: Does it state anywhere in the old testament about jesus' crucifixion? A: Yes, it does. Otherwise what was the source of the prophecies fulfilled when Christ was crucified? (FYI: We usually spell Jesus with a capital J.) 11. Q: Can all churches worship together as one? A: No. Can all Christians worship together as one? One day we will. This is not that day. 12. Q: Can someone give me a CLEAR answere to the question..Does salvation require baptism? A: Yes, someone can. 13. Q: Where is paradise? A: Anywhere where foolish and ignorant questionings (speculations) have ceased. |
||||||
283 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14659 | ||
Interesting use of sarcasm. Sandman: Thank you for expressing your judgment of my character and, in other posts, the motives and intentions of other post-ers. I have expressed my opinion of the caliber and quality of the posts of others. In turn you question the caliber and quality of mine. That's an interesting use of criticism. Sandman, you write: "Interesting use of sarcasm. Instead of edifying brothers of Christ, you have revealed the true substance of your own character. Sarcasm does not have a place on this forum." "Sarcasm does not have a place on this forum." Maybe, maybe not. But neither do rebellion, division, apostasy, heresy, wild speculation, arrogance and ignorance posing as wisdom have a place on this forum. And I honestly do not apply any of these characteristics to you, Sandman, or to sincere newcomers. My problem is not with you. Nor is it with newcomers, but with oldtimers or anyone else who base their opinions on speculation instead of Scripture. Agreeing or disagreeing with me is not the issue and it never was. The issue is not one's answer, but the supporting Scripture, if any, reasoning, and attitude with which the answer is written -- the process by which the opinion is arrived at. When I use the words wild speculation, arrogance, ignorance, etc., I'm speaking in terms of the entire history of this forum and its various crackpots and misfits who, at one time or another, have sought to dominate the forum or attract attention to themselves. Try to understand. I am not implying that to disagree with me makes one a crackpot or misfit. That is not the issue at all. What is the issue is, if anyone comes to this forum expecting answers based on Scripture and reason (common sense), then they most likely will be sadly disappointed with the vast majority of postings here. Re my Note, "Inquiring minds want to know," I would like to ask you, as a forum veteran of 40 days and 16 postings, what do you find sarcastic about my answers, numbers 1-5 and 7-10? Granted, they are blunt and to the point, but flippant? Sarcastic? Also, 7 of my 13 answers were direct answers to direct questions. Therefore, what is flippant about a "yes" or "no" answer? Just thought I'd ask. I'm not against you. I'm not saying that I am "right" and you are "wrong." Radioman |
||||||
284 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14661 | ||
Brian.g: I intend no sarcasm at all in this reply. In all sincerity, I thank you for your wise and gracious suggestions. In all honesty, I couldn't disagree with anything you said in your previous posting to me. I have read all of your posts since you started on the forum. I want you to know that I respect and appreciate you and all the good information you have shared with us over the past weeks. Thank you again for your well-intentioned and well-received previous post to me. Bless you, Radioman |
||||||
285 | Inquiring minds want to know. | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman | 14667 | ||
Norrie: Yes, that was my intention -- to quit shuckin' and jivin' and dancin' all around this "foolish and ignorant" speculation and to come quickly to the point. Thank you. Your perception and comments are both welcome and refreshing. Radioman |
||||||
286 | Paul's teaching: Inerrant or Fallible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman | 8056 | ||
No, this is not a possibility worthy of anyone's consideration. I would like to comment upon the exceeding foolishness, ignorance and absurdity of even implying or suggesting that the Apostle Paul (and by implication the other Eleven) went around teaching error, inaccuracy and falsehood. To create such doubt in the minds of people as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the Apostles' teaching is to cast doubt upon the New Testament as well as upon Christianity itself. Once one starts speculating on this, the potential for doubt and deception is unlimited. As I say, I would like to comment upon such a nutty notion, but it would do no good whatsoever. Let the foolish and ignorant remain foolish and ignorant. It's their choice. |
||||||
287 | Paul's teaching: Inerrant or Fallible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman | 8058 | ||
Unlimited potential for doubt. Speculate. "Once one starts speculating on this, the potential for doubt and deception is unlimited." Main Entry: spec·u·late Function: verb intransitive sense 1 : to review something *idly or casually* and often *inconclusively* transitive senses 1 : to take to be true on the basis of *insufficient evidence* 2 : to be curious or *doubtful* about (emphasis added) |
||||||
288 | can you lose your salvation | Hebrews | Radioman | 24324 | ||
Yes, you can lose *your* salvation. If you are the source of your salvation, then you can lose it. However, salvation is of the Lord. You cannot lose the salvation Christ gives you. |
||||||
289 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Radioman | 4666 | ||
2 Proverbs 1:1 Be not drawn into dispute concerning neither the King James Only controversy, Eternal Security vs Eternal Insecurity, nor Calvinism vs Arminianism. 1:2 For it tendeth only to frustration. The major portion of thy brethren neither can nor will understand the issues. 1:3 Neither will they answer thee according to Scripture, reason or logic. But their answer proceedeth out of their own emotions and the imaginings of their hearts. 1:4 Take heed unto thyself lest thou assay to challenge their pet beliefs, 1:5 For in the day that thou challengeth therof, they shall turn on thee and rend thee to pieces; 1:6 Insomuch that, if it were possible, even the very elect should be utterly cut off from all rational thought; and that without remedy. 1:7 Cast not thy learning before them that despise learning of any and every kind. |
||||||
290 | "...you are so slow to understand" | Heb 5:11 | Radioman | 8915 | ||
RSV Hebrews 5:11-14 About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God's word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. Today's English Version Hebrews 5: 11 There is much we have to say about this matter, but it is hard to explain to you, because you are so slow to understand. 12 There has been enough time for you to be teachers—yet you still need someone to teach you the first lessons of God's message. Instead of eating solid food, you still have to drink milk. 13 Anyone who has to drink milk is still a child, without any experience in the matter of right and wrong. 14 Solid food, on the other hand, is for adults, who through practice are able to distinguish between good and evil. |
||||||
291 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14672 | ||
Hebrews 6:4 and following. ibelieve, you write: "This passage is to a person who has reached a maturity in his CHRISTIAN walk that only a few people have reached. This person has tasted all that GOD has for us on this earth and is walking not as himself but as CHRIST. For a person to reach this point in this life and to turn back to the world would truly be putting Jesus on the cross again." First, it is not possible to put Jesus back on the cross. When He died, he died ONCE. Once! "It is finished." ibelieve: I respectfully disagree with you. The person in this passage is the exact opposite of one who has "reached a maturity in his CHRISTIAN walk that only a few people have reached." Actually, the person in this passage never was a believer; he is one who has stopped short of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Please consider the following: The warning in Heb 6:6-8 "is issued to those who have been instructed and even moved by the Holy Spirit but have never committed themselves to Christ. [In this passage] the experiences outlined may precede and even accompany salvation, but they do not always result in salvation. Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security; therefore this passage must not be interpreted as teaching that believers in Christ can lose their salvation. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" (note at Heb 6:4, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). ***** 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, "impossible "Hebrews 6:4-8 presents the case of Jewish professed believers who halt short of faith in Christ after advancing to the very threshold of salvation, even "going along with" the Holy Spirit in His work of enlightenment and conviction (John 16:8-10). It is not said that they had faith. This supposed person is like the spies at Kadesh-barnea (Deuteronomy 1:19-26) who saw the land and had the very fruit of it in their hands, and yet turned back. "partakers (Greek - iJlavskomai ," going along with)." Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Hebrews 6". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/ 1917. ***** " . . . logically [Heb 6:4] implies that if salvation were to be lost, it would be impossible for that person to be born again, lose it, and then be born again again. This much is clear: whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved ealier." Whether he had lost his salvation or never had it to begin with, "either way, the result is identical." (note at Heb. 6:4ff, NRSV Harper Study Bible, Zondervan, 1991) ***** No offense intended, but please spare me the observation that Dr. Scofield was a poor scholar who didn't know what he was talking about. I've already heard that on the forum approx. 40 or 50 times. It didn't work the first time I heard it and it won't work now. I am not at all implying that you would do such a thing. I merely point out that many on the forum have read an answer, which may include a quote by Dr. Scofield, MacArthur, Ryrie, etc. Then when they realize they have no answer to the points made, they try to change the subject by casting doubt upon the scholarship or character of the author that was quoted. Not to you, but to those who have employed this deceptive practice, I would say: It's a nice try and a cheap trick. But it will NOT WORK with everyone. (Disclaimer: No man, forum member, author, scholar, preacher, etc. is infallible. Only the Bible is infallible and only in the original manuscripts.) Again, I bear you no ill-will or personal criticism. I am merely expressing an alternative viewpoint. Radioman |
||||||
292 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14706 | ||
ibelieve: As I said in my previous post, I am not saying that I am "right" and you are "wrong." I sincerely mean that. I thank you for sharing with us your interpretation/understanding of Hebrews 6:1 and following. Since there are at least four major interpretations of this passage, it would be inappropriate for me to declare that I have "the one correct" intepretation. Nor do I make that assertion. As I also said, I have no quarrel, no problem with you. I'm glad to see you here, participating in the forum. It is in a spirit of humility and respect for you that I ask you and the readers to consider the following regarding Hebrews 6:4-6. "By far, the most serious interpretive challenge [in Hebrews] is found in 6:4-6. The phrase 'once enlightened' is often taken to refer to Christians, and the accompanying warning taken to indicate the danger of losing their salvation if 'they fall away' and 'crucify again for themselves the Son of God.' But there is no mention of their being saved and they are not described with any terms that apply only to believers (such as holy, born again, righteous, or saints). This problem arises from inaccurately identifying the spiritual condition of the ones being addressed. In this case, they were unbelievers who had been exposed to God's redemptive truth, and perhaps made a profession of faith, but had not exercised genuine saving faith. In 10:26 the reference once again is to apostate Christians, not to genuine believers who are often incorrectly thought to lose their salvation because of their sins" (p. 1896, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word Publishing). Thank you for your consideration. Radioman |
||||||
293 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14708 | ||
"Those who want to make this verse mean that believers can lose salvation will have to admit that it would then also say that one could never get it back again." ren333: You write: "Can someone please explain to me Hebrews 6:4. It seems to be saying that if you fall away from Christ, you cannot be forgiven. This does not seem to possible considering the rest of the bible tells me different." That if you fall away you cannot be renewed again to repentance is exactly what this verse IS saying in plain and clear language. Consider the following: " . . . logically [Heb 6:4] implies that if salvation were to be lost, it would be impossible for that person to be born again, lose it, and then be born again again. This much is clear: whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved ealier." Whether he had lost his salvation or never had it to begin with, "either way, the result is identical." (note at Heb. 6:4ff, NRSV Harper Study Bible, Zondervan, 1991) "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have (done all these things in vv. 4-5) and then have fallen away." "There is no possibility of these verses referring to losing salvation. Many Scripture passages make unmistakably clear that salvation is eternal (compare John 10:27-29; Rom 8:35,38,39; Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:4,5). "Those who want to make this verse mean that believers can lose salvation will have to admit that it would then also say that one could never get it back again" (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). Radioman |
||||||
294 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | Radioman | 14775 | ||
Tim: I appreciate and respect you and I read your postings with pleasure. Thank you for your reply and your explanation of this passage. As I mentioned in a previous post, this passage does have four major interpretations. I have been familiar with all four of them for about 30 years now. The one I am most familiar with is the one I was repeatedly taught as a child growing up in an Arminian church, i.e.: The warning is to those who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and are in danger of falling away, through unbelief or sin, and losing their salvation. I only wish that everyone who posts here would present their views with the courtesy, sensible references to Scripture, reason and clarity that you have used regarding Heb. 6:4. Sincerely, Radioman |
||||||
295 | How do u see drugs? | 2 Pet 2:21 | Radioman | 34344 | ||
Used For Glue: I am not a full believer in Used For Glue because I feel there is nothing, in my personal opinion, that proves Used For Glue is real. I read the question you posted to the forum and although I don't believe in you, I find the whole thing of Used for Glue and Anon. to be interesting. I do not understand how you can be considered a rebel at school when I have no evidence of your existence. Another thing I don't understand is, how can you say you are an atheist and then claim that God made cannabis? How could God make cannabis or anything else if he is not real? Finally, God made Used For Glue, and Used For Glue made up the theory of atheism. Who do I trust? If I knew for sure you existed, I would tell you. |
||||||
296 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Radioman | 39528 | ||
Hank: The Bible couldn't be a game to some of these loving and serene people. If one took a game and played as fast and loose with the rules as these people do with the principles of Bible interpretation, the game would have to be cancelled because of lack of structure. If the player of any game took as light and frivolous an attitude as these dreamers take toward the Bible, that player would be disqualified from the game. If every individual game player interpreted the rules of the game to suit his own fancy, the game would be cancelled on account of confusion and chaos. On the other hand, I guess to some the forum itself is a game in which points are scored for blasphemy and foolishness and where the players compete to see who can make the most outrageous assertions -- all without Scriptural evidence. |
||||||
297 | What is a Worldview? | 1 John | Radioman | 15237 | ||
"world view (noun). 'world view'; personal philosophy of life." The above is the basic dictionary definition of "world view." Considering the source of the word (Weltanschauung ), it is not surprising that it is not found in the text of God's Word. In fact, it would be rather amazing if it were found there. Taking the word in its simplest, most basic definition, it has nothing to do with God, Satan, demons, witches, hobgoblins or any such thing. Admittedly, world view is not an easy word to define. I found the definition online in the "Dictionary of Difficult Words." |
||||||
298 | 14 doctorates hummm | Revelation | Radioman | 1567 | ||
If Van Impe has 14 doctorates, he does a good job of hiding that fact. | ||||||
299 | 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? | ||||||
300 | The sensational or the reliable? | Revelation | Radioman | 1569 | ||
The sensational or the reliable? If I want sensational, I'll watch Jerry Springer. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [16] >> |