Results 381 - 400 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Importance of Distinct Doctrine | Titus 2:1 | Hank | 177318 | ||
Doc -- Profound words with which I couldn't agree more. When the message of the gospel of Christ is eviscerated by the removal of doctrine, nothing is left but the empty fluff that sadly has become the hallmark of many errant sects that claim to be churches. --Hank | ||||||
382 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 177283 | ||
SSBG - Oops! The Scripture reference to 1 Timothy 2:15 that I cited toward the end of my post 177282 was intended to be 2 Timothy 2:15. Please pardon the slip. --Hank | ||||||
383 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 177282 | ||
SSBG - ..... "All you guys must be Theologians or something" ..... Count me in as a "something." :-) ..... Dr. Mohler is not always easy reading, but he writes a number of things worth knowing and I've found that the expenditure of the effort it takes to read him is well rewarded. Dr. Mohler not infrequently makes heavy demands upon his readers, but this is almost universally the norm for any writer who is truly worth reading. There is no royal road to learning, but in our time not a few well-meaning but ill-advised writers and speakers, as well as Bible translators, attempt to spoon-feed their audience through over-simplification. The result so often is a watered-down serving of mush that neither properly instructs nor edifies; and it clearly is not particularly inspiring. One of the criticisms one frequently hears about the King James Bible and even modern formal-equivalence translations is that they are difficult to understand. Hence, we have a glut of paraphased versions, each claiming to be easier to understand than all the others. But does accuracy of translation suffer? I submit that it does. ..... Back to Dr. Mohler's article. May I suggest to you that you go back and read Part 1 of the article again, and then again if necessary? Have handy a good dictionary that will help you with the words that may be unfamiliar to you. Then proceed to Part 2 of the article. ..... Why am I suggesting this? Obviously you had some interest in the subject or you would never have bothered to read Part 1 of the article or to have responded to me. You may find Dr. Mohler hard to understand at times, especially on the first reading, but I don't believe you will find him tedious. ..... I'm an avid proponent of the idea that it is of foremost importance to know what is happening in and to the church in our day. As any good military general understands, it's not only important to know the position of his own camp well but also the position of other camps about him with whom he may be engaged. The apostle Paul is a good New Testament example of this principle, as he demonstrated by his encounter with the Greek philosophers and in the sermon he delivered to them on Mars Hill in Athens during his second missionary journey (see Acts 17:16-34). A reading of this account makes it obvious that Paul, like a good general, not only knew perfectly well where he stood but he also knew where his listeners stood. In like manner so should we. That is why I believe it so important to know, and know well, what Scripture teaches; and, like the Bereans of old, to be able, when we are exposed to the various religious teachings of our time, to discern truth from error by "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (see Acts 17:11). ..... We cannot hope to lead others to the truth if we do not know the truth ourselves. And this requires our utmost diligence (see 1 Timothy 2:15..... Thank you so much for your response. May God bless you in your walk with Him. --Hank | ||||||
384 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 177244 | ||
Doc, if the Emergent Church Movement and others of a similar stripe keep whittling away at that fragile one-half inch crust....what, I ask rhetorically, will remain? ..... Yet when, in despair, I bow my head, the words of our Lord flood my soul and afford me blessed surcease of sorrow: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away" (Mark 13:31). Trouble invariably comes about when men who would aspire to follow Christ forget two things: That the Bible is the authoritative, inerrant and plenary word of God, and that God is absolutely sovereign. ...... But man so easily forgets that God is sovereign and makes himself the center of his own private universe, including the organism he calls the church. But a man wrapped up in himself makes a small package. --Hank | ||||||
385 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177190 | ||
MJH - I disagree that "strong evidence and theory are the same thing." They are no more the same thing than hearsay and heresy. I give you a case in point. The "theory" of evolution has never been able to present "strong evidence" that it is valid. Theories are theories, that and nothing more; but strong evidence is something else. Mere theories don't carry weight in a court of law but strong evidence certainly does. Strong evidence has substance; it is something you can sink your teeth into. Theory is really nothing more than opinion, and even though in some instances it may be "educated" opinion, it is nevertheless opinion. Theories that are postulated before all the pertinent facts are in are merely assumptions. --Hank | ||||||
386 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177176 | ||
MJH - It is apparent from that particular context of your post in which you quote a segment from Kalos' post 177166 that you are confusing the word "hearsay" with "heresy." Although they look very nearly alike in print and sound similar in speech, they are dissimilar in meaning. You write, "It is very serious to call something a hearsay (sic). Just because some believe there is evidence for a Hebrew Matthew does not mean they are Heretics (sic). We must be careful how we use that term." ..... I agree. Kalos WAS careful and used the term "hearsay" correctly and in harmony with the meaning intended. You in turn responded as though he had called the reports of the fathers heresy when in fact he called them hearsay. ..... Words, words, words! How tricky they can be :-) --Hank | ||||||
387 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177175 | ||
MJH - Well, it is interesting to say the least that you downgrade the "Q" document issue from "strong evidence" in your initial post on the subject to "theory" in your second post. At least we seem to be progressing toward a more accurate representation of the matter :-) --Hank | ||||||
388 | my sister is living a lie | Phil 3:17 | Hank | 176962 | ||
"Brother Paul" -- Are you a JW? Your post is so ambiguous that it's impossible to tell which side of the JW fence you're on. It is customary to answer Forum questions on the Forum. Why should you want your correspondent to e-mail you in order to discuss "JW theology"? If you have a biblical answer to this person's Forum question, answer it on the Forum. --Hank | ||||||
389 | How many people will go to heaven? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 176867 | ||
teresaa - We seem to be going around in circles on this. Is salvation by faith only, or do we contribute to it by works? ..... A quote from your post: "I would rather live with the belief that there is a chance to lose my salvation. It keeps me in fear of the the Lord." ...... What this says, of course, is that though you say that works do not save, you believe that works contribute to salvation by keeping you saved. That leads inexorably to the conclusion that salvation is a joint effort between you and God. Scripture does not teach this, teresaa. Please go to the following web site and read the article: http://www.gotquestions.org/contribute-salvation.html .... If we do not earn salvation through works, as you have posted and as Scripture clearly teaches, tell me how it can be that we can "lose" our salvation by works. So why would you rather live with the belief that there is a chance to lose your salvation? Because it keeps you in the fear of the Lord, you say. Teresaa, believe what Scripture teaches and set aside what you would "rather believe." I know of no better way to live in reverental awe (fear) of the Lord than to take Him at His word, do you? --Hank | ||||||
390 | How many people will go to heaven? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 176821 | ||
teresaa - Quoting from your post "...in the church today people believe in once saved always saved." .... True. I do. So does the church I'm a member of. But we believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, not because it is something we dreamed up, but because Jesus taught it (cf. John 10) and the Pauline letters confirmed it, as did the letters of John, Peter and Jude. ..... You continue, "but there are Bible verses that can prove that this is not true." ..... No there aren't, teresaa, unless they are wrenched from their context and given an eisegetical spin. Using the same level of biblical interpretation, I can give you a Bible verse, Genesis 6:14, that can "prove" beyond any doubt that you and I ought hasten to gather together some gopher wood right now and build ourselves an ark to shelter us from a forthcoming cataclysmic event of epic proportions. ..... It is not only possible but it is relatively easy to thumb through the pages of Scripture and pick out some "proof texts" that one can use to lend a measure of verisimilitude to almost any preconceived idea or half-baked doctrinal stance. The most dangerous doctrines on earth are those that seem true but, when weighed on the balance of God's word, are patently false. Man has no reason and can offer no excuse to stumble around in doctrinal darkness. He has the light of the word of God and instructions on how to use it: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) ...... Won't you reconsider your position on this important doctrine in light of the full context of what Scripture actually teaches about regeneration and the eternal security of the believer? The regenerate believer can no more "lose" his salvation than he could save himself to begin with. Salvation is wholly of God. Man is as powerless to save himself as he is to keep himself saved. ....... What I have said in this post is intended as a didactic exposition of scriptural teaching and in no sense as a personal attack on you or anyone else. ...... May God bless your spirit and illumine your understanding as you study His blessed word! --Hank | ||||||
391 | How many people will go to heaven? | Bible general Archive 3 | Hank | 176820 | ||
teresaa - Quoting from your post "...in the church today people believe in once saved always saved." .... True. I do. So does the church I'm a member of. But we believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, not because it is something we dreamed up, but because Jesus taught it (cf. John 10) and the Pauline letters confirmed it, as did the letters of John, Peter and Jude. ..... You continue, "but there are Bible verses that can prove that this is not true." ..... No there aren't, teresaa, unless they are wrenched from their context and given an eisegetical spin. Using the same level of biblical interpretation, I can give you a Bible verse, Genesis 6:14, that can "prove" beyond any doubt that you and I ought hasten to gather together some gopher wood right now and build ourselves an ark to shelter us from a forthcoming cataclysmic event of epic proportions. ..... It is not only possible but it is relatively easy to thumb through the pages of Scripture and pick out some "proof texts" that one can use to lend a measure of verisimilitude to almost any preconceived idea or half-baked doctrinal stance. The most dangerous doctrines on earth are those that seem true but, when weighed on the balance of God's word, are patently false. Man has no reason and can offer no excuse to stumble around in doctrinal darkness. He has the light of the word of God and instructions on how to use it: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) ...... Won't you reconsider your position on this important doctrine in light of the full context of what Scripture actually teaches about regeneration and the eternal security of the believer? The regenerate believer can no more "lose" his salvation than he could save himself to begin with. Salvation is wholly of God. Man is as powerless to save himself as he is to keep himself saved. ....... What I have said in this post is intended as a didactic exposition of scriptural teaching and in no sense as a personal attack on you or anyone else. ...... May God bless your spirit and illumine your understanding as you study His blessed word! --Hank | ||||||
392 | Was the thief on the cross baptised? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 176735 | ||
Bruce - Thanks for responding. I believe I get the picture. You didn't submit scriptural proof for your statements about the two "other kinds" of baptism because there isn't any. You didn't even provide definitions of these two others kinds of baptism as I requested. Could it be that you don't know enough about them to define them in language that all who run can understand -- or possibly, that there is not such thing as two other kinds of baptism? ..... Bruce, we are pretty much sola scriptura people on this forum and don't put much stock in extra-biblical references. In fact, I have no idea what "CCC 1258 and 1259" means, though I suppose I could Google it if I were all that curious, but really I'm not. Of course, I don't agree that the Bible is insufficient of itself without the authoritative interpretation of the successor of Peter. I don't believe there is or ever was any successor of Peter -- unless Peter happened to have sired children, and even so, no interpretative authority was passed down to them either. Thanks again. Let's stick with what we know and can show by Scripture to be true and trustworthy -- on this Forum, at any rate. Please do read the guideliness once again and have a good day. --Hank | ||||||
393 | Was the thief on the cross baptised? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 176691 | ||
Bruce - You cite two additional forms of baptism which you call "Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood." The statement is terse and made so asseveratively that one ponders whether you consider it to be so self-evident that it needs neither the elucidation of definition nor the illumination of biblical proof. But there are some of us denizens of this Forum who have not yet come into full bloom of the scholarship to which we aspire, and thus would appreciate being taught what "Baptism of desire" and "Baptism of blood" mean, and exactly where (book, chapter and verse) in Scripture these two kinds of baptism are described. --Hank | ||||||
394 | Smoking | 1 Cor 3:17 | Hank | 176656 | ||
Dear teemc - Yes, I know it's serious, teemc. But a little bit of humor never hurts, do you think? Having made 6,100 posts to this Forum, I really appreciate that your third post was to steer me away from the humor of which I've always been so fond. Thank you for your advice and counsel. ..... Your question has garnered some good responses, by the way. I love CDBJ's personal testimony of how the Lord lifted him out of addiction to nicotine. I smoked for years and, stubborn old mule that I am, it took a couple of heart attacks and quadruple by-pass surgery to convince me that my life was literally going up in smoke. Since I quit I've been asked many times whether I want a cigarette whenever I see someone puffing away. And the truth is that I don't want a cigarette when I see other people smoking. I just feel sorry for them and pray for their deliverance from a habit that has no redeeming features to it -- it is filthy, extremely unhealthful, annoying and harmful to others, and quite expensive. ... Sorry you took my little stab at humor seriously. I pray you weren't terribly offended by it. God bless. --Hank | ||||||
395 | Smoking | 1 Cor 3:17 | Hank | 176642 | ||
Kalos, did Smike smoke? And if so, did Smike smoke Lucky Strike? --Hank | ||||||
396 | The Offender | Matt 7:21 | Hank | 176500 | ||
Elohist - It is always helpful to other users of this Forum to learn something of the basic belief system and denominational affiliation of newcomers. With your promotion of baptismal regeneration and your call to "Come to Zion" it's somewhat of a puzzle to figure out exactly what your religious orientation is. My first guess would be Church of Christ, but I may, of course, be wrong. If you don't mind, please supply some pertinent information via your user profile that will possibly assist others in interacting with your posts. Thanks. --Hank | ||||||
397 | Three will, two or just one? | Luke 22:42 | Hank | 176356 | ||
Dear Lemont - On fully understanding the concept of the triunity of God, even theologians quickly come to the end of their tether! So I, a simple layman, do not pretend to understand it, but the Bible presents clear and unimpeachable evidence that there is one God in three Persons, and holding as I do to the plenary inspiration of Scripture, I am a trinitarian. ..... Now, back to your question which relates to the Lukan passage in which Jesus the Son is quoted as praying to God the Father, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine be done" (Luke 22:42). Lemont, I don't see this passage as implying any conflict, any clash of wills as it were, between Jesus and the Father. On the contrary, it constitutes a vivid revelation of Jesus in His humanity surrendering His will to the will of the Father as He always did in all things. Be sure to see also John 4:34; 6:38; 8:29. ...... The doctrine of the triunity of God, among all doctrines that the Bible teaches, has always been for me the most difficult; and I suppose it is for everyone, since it entails the notion of finite man struggling to attain a perfect understanding of Infinite God, and this simply cannot be done. Thus the road toward a clearer and deeper understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is narrow and slippery, and it is easy to fall into the ditch of error along the way. Let me illustrate the ease with which one may fall into error by citing three basic historical heresies of the doctrine of God that have been around for centuries and are still being taught in various forms and in various disguises today. ...... The first on my list of errant teachings is Modalism. Modalism maintains that there is one God who manifests Himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but who is not contemporaneously all three. ..... The second is Subordinationsism. Subordinationism views the Son and the Holy Spirit as essentially and eternally subordinate to the Father. ..... The third false concept of God on my list is Tritheism. Tritheism teaches that there are three gods rather than one God who is in three Persons. ....... The fundamental concept of the Shema is eternally true: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4). ...... In the five plus years of this Forum's existence, we have witnessed variations of all three of these heretical teachings. Those who promoted them, I'm happy to say, are no longer registrants of Study Bible Forum! --Hank | ||||||
398 | Mystery of Gods Purpose | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 176230 | ||
Steven - Please don't be hostile with me or with any other member of this Forum. I merely pointed out the purpose and aim of this Forum, all of which are set down in the guidelines published by the owner of this web site, the Lockman Foundation. May I once again suggest to you, should you care to remain an active user, that you read and abide by these guidelines. --Hank | ||||||
399 | Mystery of Gods Purpose | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 176228 | ||
Steven - Thanks for your response. We all of us have dreamed dreams and each has an accumulation of experiences which he considers unique to himself. The retelling of some of them make interesting reading, though it is doubted that the reader gets quite the bounce out of these stories as the writer does. But at all events this Bible study forum is not an exchange club for the sharing of dreams or near-death or "post-death" experiences. It is, as the name clearly implies, a forum for Bible study. Please, let's keep it on track, shall we? If relating experiences is your bag, I'm sure a little search effort will yield a web site more sympathetic to your zeal. --Hank | ||||||
400 | The Myth of Never Judging (revised) | John 7:24 | Hank | 176055 | ||
Kalos, in my judgment you exercised good judgment in posting a revised version of your former post on judging. It's a recurring question on the Forum, as is the one about Cain's wife, but of the two I judge the question on judging to be by far the more important as well as the more practical. The modern church has in large measure fallen prey to that part of this spineless "political correctness" nonsense that is dedicated to the proposition that we should judge no one lest we offend him in some way. It's the same sort of moronic mentality that holds truth to be relative and the protection of delicate feelings to be more important than honesty. ....... It's all really a big cop-out, a lame excuse for refusing to stand up for sound doctrine. And we can always fall back on the 'judge not' passage and misinterpret it to suit our purposes. ....... To illustrate: If I teach that Moses received the Ten Commandments by e-mail while floating down the Mississippi on a raft, don't judge me, man. My opinion is as good as the next guy's, probably better. And besides, you ain't got no right to judge me no how, and the Bible says so. :-) --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [217] >> |