Results 301 - 320 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | If Jesus did it, way can't I? | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 91196 | ||
'Consider this statement from the "Principles of Translation" of the NASB: '"In the Scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus, the most common name for Deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letter YHWH (Exodus 3;14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it was consistently pronounced and translated Lord. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated God in order to avoid confusion. '"It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh; however, no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation." 'The WBTS has criticized this practice as indicative of Jewish and Christian attempts to obscure the sacred name of Jehovah God from its people. They argue that it demonstrates the satanic nature of modern religious practice. 'Granted, some Christian scholars acknowledge that the use of LORD instead of the sacred name is unwarranted and that perhaps Yahweh or Jehovah should be the standard English transliteration. That being said, the WBTS contention that the Tetragrammaton is somehow the exclusive sacred name of God is also unwarranted. In fact, in the Old Testament, several other common names for God are utilized in Hebrew including Elohim (a generic word for God); El (a shorter form of Elohim); and other combinations of terms such as El-Elyon (God Most High) and El-Shaddai (God Almighty).' ____________________(http://www.namb.net/root/resources/beliefbulletins/cults/new_world_translation.asp) |
||||||
302 | How was the identity known by Peter? | Deut 29:29 | Radioman2 | 91164 | ||
Aixen7z4: Nothing in this Note is intended as criticism of you personally. OK? I am merely attempting to address the issue at hand. :-) Hoover's original question: "In Matthew 17 on the Transfiguration on the Mount, how did Peter KNOW that it was Moses and Elijah that appeared with Jesus?? Think of when they lived, the time difference. It's not like Peter had ever seen them before. "So HOW did he KNOW??" The point I was trying to make in reply to Hoover's question is: WE DON'T KNOW how Peter knew. To reply to your Note, let me say that in any given text what is apparent to one person may not be apparent to another. You ask: 'But is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation?' Your question calls for an assumption on my part, does it not? :-) We can assume what we will, but still WE DON'T KNOW whether names were used in the conversation you refer to. It may indeed be fair to make assumptions; but what I object to (and I'm not saying that you do this) is when a person broadcasts his assumptions as if they were absolute fact. At times I've given my opinions on this forum, but I have labeled them as opinion, not Bible doctrine or absolute fact. (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but no one has the right to be wrong in his facts.) Whenever anyone makes an assertion, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion. It is not unfair for another to require the asserter to provide evidence. A basic principle of interpretation is: We know what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS. So, 'Is it fair to assume that names were never used in the conversation?' I could assume it is fair, but then that would only be my opinion. Again, I mean no offense to you. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
303 | Release and Faith Question | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 91147 | ||
Gracefull: Even though I did not find any verse in the Bible in which "release" is used together with "faith", I have found some teaching on the subject of releasing one's faith. My sincere thanks for your reply to my note. Grace and peace, Radioman2 :-) ____________________ THE FORCE OF FAITH: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers within or at the end of sentences are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Of the multiple views of faith held by Faith teachers,10 Copeland focuses primarily on an understanding of faith as a force. "Faith is a power force," he claims. "It is a tangible force. It is a conductive force."11 Moreover, "faith is a spiritual force....It is substance. Faith has the ability to effect natural substance."12 As "the force of gravity...makes the law of gravity work...this force of faith...makes the laws of the spirit world function."13 'Copeland affirms that "God cannot do anything for you apart or separate from faith,"14 for "faith is God's source of power" (emphasis in original).15 Moreover, "everything that you're able to see or touch, anything that you can feel, anything that's perceptive to the five physical senses, was originally the faith of God, and was born in the substance of God's faith."16 In other words, "faith was the raw material substance that the Spirit of God used to form the universe."17 'Copeland adds that "God used words when He created the heaven and the earth....Each time God spoke, He RELEASED his FAITH - the creative power to bring His words to pass."18 For "words are spiritual containers,"19 and the "force of FAITH is RELEASED by words."20 'Copeland derives his definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV). He interprets the word "substance" as some transcendent, primary element that makes up the universe; it was and is activated by spoken words at the onset of creation (both God's original creation of the world and all subsequent creations, whether by God or man). 'Contrary to Copeland's view, the word translated "substance" in the King James Version is the Greek word hypostasis which, in the context of Hebrews 11:1, means "an assured impression, a mental realizing."21 Far from being some tangible material or energetic force, faith is a channel of living trust stretching from man to God. It is an assurance that God's promises never fail, even if sometimes we do not experience their fulfillment during our mortal existence. Other translations render hypostasis more precisely as "being sure" (NIV), "to be sure" (TEV), and "assurance" (NASB). 'Neither the original Greek text nor any of the modern translations support Copeland's understanding of faith. The same holds true for his understanding of spoken words. Besides, the idea of words functioning as faith-filled containers makes no sense if there is no such thing as a "force of faith" (requiring packaging and transportation) in the first place. ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland. (Emphasis added.) To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) matt2411 |
||||||
304 | Prescribing visualization? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 91014 | ||
angel9: You make a good point. I wonder the same thing. The Bible says: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2 Timothy 3:12 Radioman2 |
||||||
305 | Jesus | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90993 | ||
Truthfinder: I wish to preface my note by saying that in this and other posts of mine in reply to you, my intent is not to personally attack you or question your good character in any way. You have consistently been courteous and considerate in all your postings. Even though I disagree with the doctrines you present, I must commend you on the good spirit in which you present them. Take care! Radioman2 ____________________ 'The most widespread change in the Watchtower Bible is the insertion of the name JEHOVAH 237 times in the New Testament. Of course, it is appropriate for a translator to choose to use the divine name JEHOVAH or YAHWEH in the Old Testament where the Tetragrammaton YHWH actually appears in the Hebrew text. However, the Watchtower has gone beyond this by inserting the name JEHOVAH in the New Testament, where it does not appear in Greek manuscripts. One need only look at the word-by-word English that appears under the Greek text in the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation to see that the name JEHOVAH is not there in the Greek.' (http://www.watchman.org/jw/nwt.htm) |
||||||
306 | Did Christ take back the keys? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 90953 | ||
Elijah: Thanks for your reply. It's good to see you on the forum again. Welcome back. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
307 | Ask for a cold, and ye shall receive it? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90826 | ||
Hank: Isn't it odd that the people who encourage us to speak the Scriptures aloud are also the same people who are opposed to listening to someone else speak them aloud? Radioman2 |
||||||
308 | John 1:1 and the word was a god | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90815 | ||
Part 1 JWs and John 1:1 ____________________ No one uses the NWT except the JW's. JW's on the other hand will use nothing else! ____________________ The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." The New World Translation ' This is one of the most common verses of contention between the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians. Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word "a" to the verse so it says, "...and the Word was a god." The correct translation for this verse is "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc. ' The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is "a god" is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a "lesser" kind of God. He is the "mighty God" as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God. ' The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used. 'Isaiah 10:20-21, "Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God." 'Jer. 32:18, "who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name." ' We can see that the Jehovah's Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God. ' Furthermore, how many actual gods are there in scripture? The obvious answer is that there is only one God in existence. Though there are others who have been falsely called gods (1 Cor. 8:5-6) or even said to be "as God" like Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), there is only one real God (Gal. 4:8-9; Isaiah 44:6,8). If Jesus is "a god" that was "with God" in the beginning, then is Jesus a true god or a false god? ' But, the Jehovah's Witnesses often claim that Jesus is a god in the sense that Moses was called a god. But, Moses was not called a god. Rather, he would be "as God." '"Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God to him, (Exodus 4:16). '"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet,'" (Exodus 7:1).' (continues in Part 2) (http://www.carm.org/jw/john1_1.htm) 87716 |
||||||
309 | Ask for a cold, and ye shall receive it? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90800 | ||
PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION "Copeland can argue and fuss all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that through such teachings he has entered the world of the occult." ____________________ PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Copeland combines his "legal" precedent for prosperity with his "mechanics" of confession to form a formula for speaking things into existence. He insists, "You have the same creative faith and ability on the inside of you that God used when he created the heavens and the earth."84 However, he adds that most believers are not able to make full use of their inner power because "our imagination...has been so fouled up and fathered up with wasted useless words [and] wasted useless images."85 'As a corrective, Copeland instructs believers to "go to the New Testament, get the words of the covenant that cover the situation that you hope to bring to pass. Build the image of that hope inside of you....Keep the word before your eyes."86 As examples, he uses an inner picture of an 82-foot yacht that will transform into reality in the Holy of Holies in heaven, along with a "picture [of a Bible] that came right out of me and went into the Holy of Holies,"87 where it developed into an actual, physical object. 'Copeland also claims that "when you get to the place where you take the Word of God and build an image on the inside of you of not having crippled legs and not having blind eyes, but when you close your eyes you just see yourself just leap out of that wheelchair, it will picture that in the Holy of Holies and you will come out of there."88 'Recognizing that his technique "sounds like that visualization they do in meditation and metaphysical practices,"89 Copeland counters by reversing the tables. "What they're doing sounds like this," he retorts. "The devil is a counterfeiter. He never came up with anything real. That is the perverted form of the real thing. Where do you think he got it? That sucker doesn't know anything on his own. Amen."90 'During another occasion, however, Copeland revealingly affirms that both positive confession and creative visualization are based on the same principle: "Words create pictures, and pictures in your mind create words. And then the words come back out your mouth....And when that spiritual force comes out it is going to give substance to the image that's on the inside of you. Aw, that's that visualization stuff! Aw, that's that New Age! No, New Age is trying to do this; and they'd get somewhat results out of it because this is spiritual law, brother."91 'Copeland says, "Any image that you get down on the inside of you that is so vivid when you close your eyes you see it, it'll come to pass. When God came at the Tower of Babel, He said, 'Anything they can imagine, they can do.'"92 He fails to note, however, that those individuals built the tower out of brick and tar (Gen. 11:3), not simply out of their imagination. Moreover, their venture incurred God's judgment (vv. 6-9). Copeland can argue and fuss all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that through such teachings he has entered the world of the occult.' ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) matt2411 |
||||||
310 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90791 | ||
EdB: Good post! I agree with you. Moreover, it should be noted that in the Bible God has given us many precious PROMISES. However, He has not provided us with a Bill of RIGHTS. God is not a genie (a magic spirit believed to take human form and serve the person who calls it) in a bottle waiting to do our bidding. Grace and peace to you, brother! Radioman2 |
||||||
311 | Is "slain in the Spirit" biblical? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90742 | ||
It is true that: "All of these Godly men have appeared on TBN": Billy Graham, D. James Kennedy, Charles Stanley, David Jeremiah, and Adrian Rogers. What you fail to mention is that none of these men have shared the platform with WOF teachers or agreed with the distinctive teachings of the WOF movement. The regular television programs of Graham, Stanley, Kennedy, etc. are broadcast on TBN but have nothing to do with the WOF movement. It is NOT true that these so called WOF preachers have been seen on any platform with any of the above named preachers. It is NOT true that any of the aforementioned preachers have ever gone to or been with these WOF teachers. AND YOU KNOW IT! |
||||||
312 | Is "slain in the Spirit" biblical? | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90740 | ||
TBN - The Blasphemy Network 'It is indeed ironic that a broadcasting network called "Trinity" would promote anti-Trinitarian doctrine.' Matthew 7:22-23 (ESV) On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' [23] And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' 'Paul Crouch* 'Paul Crouch and his wife, Jan, are the founders of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, which today has an estimated net worth of half a billion dollars. As Crouch himself puts it, "God has, indeed, given us the MOST POWERFUL VOICE in the history of the WORLD."65 Unfortunately, this voice is being used to promote teachings straight from the kingdom of the cults. Crouch's influence has become so vast that he can now raise as much as 50 million dollars during a single "Praise-a-Thon." What many of the well-intentioned Christians who support TBN do not know, however, is that part of this money goes to promoting cultic groups and individuals who not only deny the Trinity but claim that this essential of Christianity is a pagan doctrine.66 It is indeed ironic that a broadcasting network called "Trinity" would promote anti-Trinitarian doctrine. 'To those who would speak out against the false teachings proliferated on his network, Crouch has this to say: "I think they're damned and on their way to hell; and I don't think there's any redemption for them."67 Shortly after I met with Crouch to prove that the Faith movement compromises essential Christian doctrine, Crouch looked into the lens of the television camera and angrily declared, "If you want to criticize Ken Copeland for his preaching on faith, or Dad Hagin, get out of my life! I don't even want to talk to you or hear you. I don't want to see your ugly face. Get out of my face, in Jesus' name."68' _______________ *Paul Crouch. Numbers within or at the end of sentences are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this quote, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-1.htm) Radioman2 |
||||||
313 | What is the difference between a | John 1:1 | Radioman2 | 90675 | ||
'Catholicism Is Not a Cult (Note: Due to space limitations, not all 10 Reasons can be reproduced here. Go to the link at the bottom of this post to read the entire article, including all 10 Reasons.) 'Ten Reasons Why Catholicism Is Not a Cult 'What those who label Catholicism a cult do not seem to understand is that even if one considers Catholicism to be unscriptural and greatly mistaken on many important doctrinal issues (certainly this writer does), it is simply misplaced and erroneous — for a variety of reasons — to classify Roman Catholicism as an anti-Christian cult. Let me give ten reasons why I say this.9 '(1) Cults, generally speaking, are small splinter groups with a fairly recent origin. Most American-based cults, for example, have to a greater or lesser degree splintered off from other Christian groups, and emerged in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered. '(2) Cults are usually formed, molded, and controlled by a single individual or small group. The Catholic church, by contrast, has been molded by an incalculable number of people throughout its long history. Catholicism is governed by creeds, councils, and the ongoing magisterium. '(3) Cults typically exercise rigid control over their members and demand unquestioning submission, with disobedience punished by shunning and/or excommunication. While Catholicism has exercised a triumphalism and an unhealthy control over its members in times past, this is far less true today, especially since the Second Vatican Council. Contemporary Catholicism's broad diversity as illustrated in Part One of this series certainly proves this point. '(4) An appropriate description of a cult is "a religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy."10 Regardless of one's criticism of Catholicism, even if it is heretical at certain points, it does not fit this description. It does not originate in heresy, and, as was mentioned before, it possesses a structural orthodoxy that other cults simply do not have (see comparison chart). '(5) Cults (when defined as heretical sects) are classified as such because of their outright denial or rejection of essential Christian doctrine. Historically, this has principally been a denial of the nature of God (the Trinity), the nature of the incarnate Christ (divine-human), and of the absolute necessity of divine grace in salvation (the Pelagian controversy).11 While Protestants have accused Catholicism of having an illegitimate authority and of confusing the gospel (two serious charges to be examined later), Catholicism does affirm the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and that salvation is ultimately a gift of God's grace (a rejection of Pelagianism).12 I challenge anyone to name a recognized cult that affirms the Trinity or the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (see comparison chart). (...) 'In summary, a cult generally emerges as a group that rejects orthodoxy and remains fervently committed to heresy. Catholicism's problem, by contrast, is of a different nature. It affirms teaching which is both extraneous and inconsistent with its historical affirmation of orthodoxy. From an evangelical Protestant viewpoint, Catholicism is definitely "too much" — but the cults are clearly "not enough." 'Roman Catholicism is not a cult. The classification of Catholicism as given above is much more accurate and preferable to the overly simplistic and misguided classification of Catholicism as a non-Christian cult.' CRI STATEMENT DC170-2 WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Two): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism by Kenneth R. Samples (http://www.equip.org/free/DC170-2.htm) |
||||||
314 | "Release" and "faith" not in same verse. | Rev 22:18 | Radioman2 | 90674 | ||
"do what the Bible says and release that faith"? Where in the Bible does it say that? An online search of the King James Version of the Bible resulted in 18 verses in which the word "release" appears. And yet the word "faith" does not appear in the same verse as the word "release" anywhere in this translation. An online search of the New American Standard Bible resulted in 31 verses in which the word "release" appears. And yet the word "faith" does not appear in the same verse as the word "release" anywhere in this translation. |
||||||
315 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90670 | ||
Amen and amen! I agree with every word of your note, Hank. The ridiculous and totally preposterous idea that "If you'd had enough faith, you would've been healed" is contrary to both Scripture and common sense. | ||||||
316 | once save always saved? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 90560 | ||
fran1946: Please clarify your Note. In it you write: "I am sure that Jesus was speaking to the members of that particulat congregation." What particular congregation did you have in mind? Please give us the chapter and verse in Revelation that you are referring to. Thank you for the clarification. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
317 | once save always saved? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 90558 | ||
Duplicate post. | ||||||
318 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90483 | ||
2. Healing...a gracious privilege [Note: The following is a direct quote from: (www.ag.org)] Divine Healing: The Privilege of All Believers [Part 2] Great faith then receives healing through the simple Word of the Lord. But Jesus did not turn away from those who had little faith or weak faith. Those who are sick often find it is not easy to express faith, and Jesus did a variety of things to help them. Some He touched (Mark 1:41; 8:22), took their hands (Mark 1:31; Luke 14:4), or laid His hands upon them (Mark 6:5; 8:25; Luke 4:40; 13:13). Others He helped by a variety of acts, some of which called for faith and obedience on their part (Mark 7:33; 8:23). Others found that to touch Him or His garments helped them express faith (Mark 3:10; 5:28; 6:56; Luke 6:19). Peter’s shadow had the same effect for a time (Acts 5:15). So did the handkerchiefs and work aprons from Paul’s tent-making shop (Acts 19:12). The faith, however, had to be in the Lord, not in the means used to help them express their faith. This seems to be the reason for the great variety of means used, lest people get their eyes on the means rather than on God. In the same class is James 5:14, which instructs the sick to call the elders of the church to anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. It is not the oil (a symbol of the Holy Spirit) that brings the healing, but the prayer of faith. The promise "anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing" is closely connected with prayer, asking in Christ’s name (John 14:12—14; 16:23,24). His name, however, is the revelation of His character and nature. We have that in us only if we abide in Christ and His words abide in us (John 15:7). Then our will lines up with His, and we can ask what we will, and it shall be done. Some have tried to limit healing (especially the promise of Exodus 15:26, the covenant of healing or health) to Israel. But the healing of the centurion’s servant and the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman show that healing is the privilege of Gentiles also. In fact, there is healing for those who desire it and will respond to Jesus, even though He has not yet dealt with their sins (as in the case of the impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda, John 5:2—9,14). Others have tried to set divine healing in opposition to or in competition with the medical profession. This need not be so. Physicians through their skills have brought help to many. It is true that the Lord is the Great Physician. It is also true that the Bible condemns King Asa because "in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians" (2 Chronicles 16:12). But Asa had already sought for help from Syria in an act of unbelief and disobedience when he refused to rely on the Lord (2 Chronicles 16:7). The emphasis is not that he sought physicians (which in this case may have been heathen physicians), but that he refused to seek the Lord. It is evident that the physician had an honorable place in Israel (Jeremiah 8:22). Jesus also presented the medicinal use of oil and wine by the Good Samaritan in a favorable light (Luke 10:34). When the woman with the issue of blood was healed, we are told she "had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse" (Mark 5:26). If it was wrong for her to go to physicians, this would have been the perfect place for Jesus to have said so. But He did not. Instead, He accepted the faith she now expressed and commended her for it. Even today God has performed many miracles for those given up by doctors. ( . . . ) We recognize that there have been abuses today. But we must not let that cause us to retreat from a positive proclamation of the truth of the Scripture. The apostles were able to say, "What I have I give you" (Acts 3:6). Gifts of healings are among the variety of gifts and manifestations of the Spirit set in the Church as the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:4—11,28—30). Like the other gifts, these seem to be administered through members of the Body for the edification of those who need them. (Just as the word of wisdom does not make a person wise, the gifts of healings do not make people healers. Rather as a fresh word of wisdom is given for each need, so a fresh gift of healing is given by the Spirit for each individual sickness.) ( . . . ) In humility we recognize that we do not understand all that pertains to divine healing. We still see through a glass darkly. We do not understand why some are healed and others are not, any more than we understand why God permitted James to be martyred and Peter delivered. Scripture makes it clear, however, that our part is to preach the Word and expect the signs to follow. ____________________ [Note: Edited due to space limitations. The above is a direct quote from: Assemblies of God Beliefs: Divine Healing (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4184_healing.cfm#top)] |
||||||
319 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90482 | ||
1. Healing...a gracious privilege - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Just as salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), so all God’s blessings and gifts are ours by His grace or unmerited favor. We do not earn them. We do not deserve them. "No one in the New Testament demanded healing. People came to Jesus beseeching Him. They did not look on healing as their right, but as a gracious privilege extended to them." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Note: The following is a direct quote from: Assemblies of God Beliefs: Divine Healing (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4184_healing.cfm#top)] Divine Healing: The Privilege of All Believers [Part 1] Just as salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8), so all God’s blessings and gifts are ours by His grace or unmerited favor. We do not earn them. We do not deserve them. No one in the New Testament demanded healing. People came to Jesus beseeching Him. They did not look on healing as their right, but as a gracious privilege extended to them. As the privilege of believers, the promise of healing does not rule out suffering for Christ’s sake and the gospel’s. We are expected to be prepared to follow His example (Hebrews 5:8; 1 Peter 2:19,21; 4:12—14,19). Nor are we to look to divine healing as a substitute for obedience to the rules of physical and mental health. Jesus recognized the need of the disciples to get away from the crowds and rest awhile (Mark 6:31). Jethro saw that if Moses did not delegate some of his responsibilities to others, he would wear away (Exodus 18:18). Neither is divine healing a means of avoiding the effects of old age. Moses did retain a clear eye and his natural strength until the day of his death (Deuteronomy 34:7). But this privilege was not granted to King David (1 Kings 1:1—4). The gradual breakdown of old age, pictured so graphically in Ecclesiastes 12:1—7, is the common experience of believers as well as unbelievers. Healing is still available to the aged, but the part that is healed usually continues to age like the rest of the body. We do not yet have the redemption of the body. Even we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit groan and travail in pain like the rest of creation, waiting patiently for the fulfillment of our hope (Romans 8:21—25). No matter what we do for this body, no matter how many times we are healed, if Jesus tarries we shall die. However, the Bible does not tell us this to discourage us, but to make us realize that we must encourage and cultivate our life in the Spirit, for the Spirit quickens (resurrects), and that is our real hope (Romans 8:11). In fact, even though outwardly one is perishing, inwardly one is being renewed day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16). Actually it is this inner renewal that makes us best able to have the faith to claim the privilege of divine healing. To the woman healed of the issue of blood, Jesus said, "Your faith has healed you" (Mark 5:34). Paul at Lystra, when he saw that the hearing of the gospel had brought faith to be healed into the heart of a cripple, commanded him to stand up (Acts 14:9,10). The inner renewal of the mind (Romans 12:2; Colossians 3:10) is seen also in the great faith of the Roman centurion who recognized the authority of Christ’s word (Matthew 8:5—13) and the Syrophoenician woman who believed that even a crumb would meet the need (Mark 7:24—30; Matthew 15:28). That divine healing comes through faith is further confirmed by the fact that unbelief hindered its reception at Nazareth (Mark 6:5,6) and at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:14—20). There Jesus indicates the necessity also of expressing faith by praying and fasting (Mark 9:29). Prayer is one of the chief means of healing in the Old Testament. Many of the Psalms include prayers for healing. Many of the prophets prayed for the healing of others. James 5:15 promises that the prayer of faith will save the sick and the Lord will raise them up. ____________________ To read more go to: (http://ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4184_healing.cfm#top) |
||||||
320 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | Radioman2 | 90424 | ||
"Touch not mine anointed" '...if any individual Christian is to be considered anointed, then so every Christian must be as well. For this is the only sense in which the term is used (apart from Christ) in the New Testament: "You [referring to all believers] have an anointing from the Holy One" (1 John 2:20, NIV). Thus, no believer can justifiably claim any special status as God's "untouchable anointed" over other believers.' ************* 'Advocates [of authoritarian rule or unconditional authority for certain preachers and evangelists] assume that Scripture supports their view. Their key biblical proof text is Psalm 105:15: "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (KJV). But a close examination of this passage reveals that it has nothing to do with challenging the teachings of church leaders. 'It first needs to be noted that the Old Testament phrase "the Lord's anointed" is typically used to refer to the kings of Israel (1 Sam. 12:3, 5; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1:14, 16; 19:21; Ps. 20:6; Lam. 4:20), at times specifically to the royal line de-scended from David (Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 89:38, 51), and not to prophets and teachers. While the text does also mention prophets, in the context of Psalm 105 the reference is undoubtedly to the patriarchs in general (vv. 8-15; cf. 1 Chron. 16:15-22), and to Abraham (whom God called a prophet) in particular (Gen. 20:7). It is therefore debatable whether this passage can be applied to select leaders within the body of Christ. 'Even if the text can be applied to certain church leaders today, in the context of this passage the words "touch" and "do harm" have to do with inflicting physical harm upon someone. Psalm 105:15 is therefore wholly irrelevant to the issue of questioning the teachings of any of God's "anointed." (...) 'Finally, if any individual Christian is to be considered anointed, then so every Christian must be as well. For this is the only sense in which the term is used (apart from Christ) in the New Testament: "You [referring to all believers] have an anointing from the Holy One" (1 John 2:20, NIV). Thus, no believer can justifiably claim any special status as God's "untouchable anointed" over other believers.' (This article first appeared in the Fall 1991 issue of the Christian Research Journal.) (www.equip.org/search/) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [40] >> |