Results 41 - 60 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? | Luke 24:27 | Radioman2 | 86731 | ||
Can one accept Christ but not the Bible? Can one be a skeptic and a believer at the same time? Can an individual accept the Son of God but reject the written Word of God? Edb, Emmaus, Hank, Justme, Mommapbs, Morant61, Reformer Joe and anyone else who wishes to reply: I have a question for you. I sincerely would like to know: Here on the forum we often read postings written by people who claim to be Christians, who profess faith in Christ for salvation. Then they go on to say they have many strong doubts about the Bible -- its inspiration, authority and reliability in the various English translations. Often they cite verses by Paul that they question -- ones they don't agree with or that anger them. Or they may cite passages in Genesis that they have a hard time accepting as inspired, accurate and literal. Some do not trust any English translation, as if all were perverted versions produced as a result of some conspiracy to deceive. You get the picture. My question is: Is it likely that the person who continues to reject part(s) of the Bible, to question the inspiration or authority of the Bible, to have no confidence in any English translation, etc. -- is it likely that such a person is really a Christian? Especially if this doubt and mistrust of the Bible continues for years and years with no change, no growth, and no resolution? (In my question I am not suggesting that we pick certain individuals by name and judge whether they are saved.) My question is a general one. In short, people who have a low view of the Bible and who question every other verse they read -- how likely is it that they have really come to know Christ, with the result that they are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit? If one's faith in the written Word is so uncertain, precarious and fragile and remains that way for years and years, is it likely that this person truly believes that Jesus is everything the Bible says he is? Is it likely that their salvation is real? Again, this is not to judge any given individual(s) as to their salvation. But, it just seems a contradiction to me that although what we know of God and Christ is contained in the Bible, there are people who have little or no trust in the written Word of God and still claim to be Christians. Is this possible, impossible, the normal Christian experience, abnormal or what? What do you all think? Why do you believe what you do regarding this question? Can you give scripture and sound reasoning to back up your view of this matter? Sincerely, Radioman2 |
||||||
42 | T or F. Sola Scriptura (Scripture only) | Ps 119:105 | Radioman2 | 85827 | ||
'Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is NOT the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is ALSO a source of authoritative information about God?' Note that this is a direct (yes or no) question that asks for a direct answer -- either "No, the Bible is NOT the only source of authoritative information about God" or "Yes, it is." Hopefully, any reply to this post will include a simple yes or no answer to the above question. Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: ID# 85421 at this website (StudyBibleForum) and/or: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
43 | If Gen 1,2 are not true, then what is? | Gen 1:27 | Radioman2 | 85247 | ||
Hank: Surely you do not take the English dictionary literally, do you? In my imagination, I've always believed that the dictionary was a collection of myths, fables and stories that don't necessarily mean anything in particular. Isn't it possible that the entries in the dictionary could be true without necessarily being literal or making any sense? "Strawberry fields Nothing is real Nothing to get hung about Strawberry fields forever." Maybe each of us should write this rhyme on the flyleaf of his/her Bible . . . Or not. In addition to your excellent post, I urge readers to consider: If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? Radioman2 - - - - - - - - - - Creation: Believe it or Not "Understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, and if God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires. "So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life. (...) "Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. "So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. "This is more than just a secondary issue. " [Excerpt from "Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1" (www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm)] |
||||||
44 | How can we discern meaning of Bible? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 85243 | ||
If the meaning of the Bible "cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV) He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." "Compare Gen. 1:27; 2:23-24. Observe in Matt. 19:4-6 Jesus' confirmation of the Genesis narrative of the creation" (New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hank: Your post is excellent. In addition to what you have written, I urge readers to consider the above, as well as the following. Radioman2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Avoid allegorizing the Bible "Avoid spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible. This is that which gives to the Bible some kind of mystical meaning. In other words, what is on the surface is not the meaning, but what is hidden becomes the meaning. This is very popular. Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication. The historical meaning is not the real meaning, the real meaning is the spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface. "And once you say that something in the Bible is an allegory, that is, it is only a symbol of the reality, you have just made it impossible to know what that reality is because if that reality cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" (from the radio message: "How to Study Your Bible: Interpretation" by John MacArthur on Grace to You broadcast) |
||||||
45 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84481 | ||
"Why are you attacking Christians?" "Why are you dividing the Body this way? These people love the Lord." "Why don't we stay unified?" [These are questions that I am asked repeatedly, especially when I dare to question the teachings of certain TV preachers and others who "end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird." --Radioman2] "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl 'I think the medium of TV lends itself to excess, such that people who are not well trained in theology can be launched into positions of high influence and authority, and end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird. When that happens I take exception and try to be a defender of the truth, as I understand it. But then people call in and say, "Why are you dividing the Body this way? Why are you attacking Christians? These people love the Lord." 'If you've been around for a while and understand the issue of tactics here--especially the suicide tactic-- you notice that this objection immediately defeats itself because this person is calling me on the air and publicly telling me that I am wrong for speaking on the air about other people who are wrong. In other words, they are accusing me of doing the very thing that they are in the process of doing. It doesn't bother me because I don't think there is anything wrong with that, per se. But their whole point is that I'm so divisive. Why don't we stay unified? After all, we're all Christians. We all love Jesus--as if there is something magical about this sound "Christian," or this sound, "love Jesus," such that those who have a commitment to the sound should therefore not have any meaningful differences between them. 'My view is that "Christian" is not a sound, it's a word. And the phrase "loving Jesus" is not two sounds, it is two words. The difference between a sound and a word is that a sound is a noise and a word means something. It has particular and peculiar content. 'I would be the first to agree that sometimes we major in the minors. Christians get all hot and bothered about minuscule theological issues, and Paul himself says don't fuss about it; don't waste your time with the silly things. I think one characteristic of an ill-educated church is that they create a tempest in a teapot. They fuss over the things that mean very little and they ignore the things that are really critical. 'What's the difference? If you know anything about church history, you know the difference. It is easy for someone to say, "Koukl, you think that what's important to you is really critical, and the rest is insignificant. Well, maybe you're wrong." 'Well, maybe I am wrong, but I'm trying to line up my understanding of what is critical with what the church has characteristically lined itself up with over the last 2000 years. I'm trying to maintain a historical perspective and not simply play my own evangelical joy-toy, my own hobby horse. A historical perspective will help protect you from doing that. 'I'm deeply concerned about any rush to unification just for unity's sake. This is the problem with the World Council of Churches. Their idea is, "Let's just ignore our differences and get together." But any love that is not based on truth--as a teacher of mine once said--is not love, but adultery. 'I want you to think carefully about this for a minute. It really hinges on the distinction between the sound and the word. 'I might ask you then, "What unites us?" And you say, "We all love Jesus. That's really what is important here. Not all those little theological minutiae." My response is going to be, "Why do you want to be so divisive?" You'll say, "What do you mean?" I say, "Why would you exclude all these people who call themselves Christians, but who don't feel about Jesus the way you do? In other words, they don't 'love Jesus.' Why do you want to impose this doctrinal standard of 'loving Jesus' on them? That's very divisive. You probably want to start your own denomination of people who are the 'Love Jesus' denomination, excluding all those who don't love Jesus."' ____________________ "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl. This post is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm). |
||||||
46 | If this is a parable, what does it teach | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 84475 | ||
Questions (unanswered) Luke 16:19-31 Lazarus and the Rich Man 'Some say that this is a parable. However, if it is, it is unique because no other parable actually names a person. It isn't a story. It is history. It really happened. But many who believe in no consciousness after death will say it is still a parable.' There are questions about Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16) that remain unanswered. Tell me, if you can, what are the answers to these questions? QUESTION: 'If this is a parable, What is it teaching?' 'If hell fire is false and if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth.' QUESTION: 'If it is a parable what does the consciousness after death symbolize?' QUESTION: 'Also, what does the agony in flame symbolize?' 'Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there.' QUESTION: 'After all, if people just stopped existing, why warn them?' If it was temporal, they'd get out in a while. But if it were eternal and conscious, then the warning is strong. 'Jesus said, "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30"And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell," (Matt. 5:29-30).' (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/hell.htm) |
||||||
47 | "Lost books" of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 84426 | ||
Do the "lost books" of the Bible prove that the Bible has been altered? | ||||||
48 | T or F? "God is a gentleman." | Matt 13:1 | Radioman2 | 83383 | ||
T or F? "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." 'Sloppy Slogans' 'There's nothing wrong with catchy ways of expressing a conclusion based on careful consideration. In fact, Jesus was a master at using short, pithy statements (known as aphorisms) to drive a point home. Sloganeering in the hands of the unskilled, though, tends to be a sloppy business. The kernel of truth is lost beneath a pile of misleading chaff. 'Many slogans are not answers, but clever dismissals. No careful work has been done to justify the verdict. Let me explain. 'One truism I've heard regarding the problem of God's sovereignty versus man's freedom goes something like this: "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." The statement has a ring of truth to it, and as a slogan it has populist appeal. Yet, more often than not, the statement is like a roof hanging in mid-air; the more demanding foundational work needed to support it simply has not been done. 'For example, this maxim is vulnerable to a couple of simple observations. First, the Scripture doesn't make this particular claim about human freedom. It doesn't even imply that God is a gentleman who won't interfere with our lives. To the contrary, there are a number of biblical examples that indicate just the opposite. 'Take Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance. He was in total rebellion against God. He dragged Christian men, women, and children into prison and even presided over executions. Paul was, in his human will, an enemy to the cross of Christ. So God knocked him off his horse on the Damascus Road, blinded him, then spoke to him like thunder from the sky (Acts 9:3-7). Was God tampering? It looks like it. 'Consider poor Nebuchadnezzar. God had him chewing grass with the cows in the fields of Babylon for three years until he finally looked heavenward, came to his senses, and gave God the glory (Daniel 4:28-37). Was there any divine pressure here? Seems like it to me.' ____________________ Faith and Philosophy by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org) |
||||||
49 | No limit on what faith can do? | Matt 6:10 | Radioman2 | 83311 | ||
No limit on what faith can do? Don’t several New Testament passages declare that there is no limitation on what genuine faith can do? 'Several other passages, such as Matthew 7:7; 21:22 ; John 14:12-14 ; and 1 John 3:22-23 are often mistakenly understood to mean that God places no restrictions on what we should be able to receive in response to our prayers. But if there were no limitation on the things we could receive from God through prayer, why would Jesus say, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . .Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”? ( Matthew 5:4,10 ). 'In other words, if our lack of faith is all that stands in the way of our having whatever we want, we should never be mournful, persecuted,or afflicted. But that was not what Jesus promised, and His disciples did not receive everything they might have wanted. Just as Jesus had no permanent place to lay His head ( Matthew 8:20 ), the apostles suffered persecution and hardship ( 2 Corinthians 6 ), and eventually all but John were martyred. 'These passages assume that we will pray in humble, childlike faith (Matthew 7:11; 17:20 ), with sincerity, out of genuine love ( Matthew 5:44 ), with good motives ( Matthew 6:5 ), with perseverance( Matthew 7:7 ), and in submission to God’s sovereign will ( Matthew 6:10 ). When we pray this way, we won’t make improper requests. Also, we will be so in tune with God that we will be satisfied when His plans prove to be different than we hoped they would be.' ____________________ Written by: Dan Vander Lugt (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/bible/passages/ntmiracles.xml/) |
||||||
50 | How Do You Know Christianity Is True? | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83169 | ||
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." ____________________ "...one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view." ____________________ 'What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question: Why do I believe that Christianity is true?...my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." (...) 'If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. ____________________ "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." ___________________ 'When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." 'What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. 'This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. 'This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. 'Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices.' _____________ How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm) |
||||||
51 | Spiritual death of Christ? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 83092 | ||
SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - [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)] 'When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin...anybody can do that."63 Jesus supposedly "put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."64 Copeland is here referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam would die spiritually - that he would take on the nature of Satan which is spiritual death."65 He adds that "the day that Jesus was crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth, moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death itself."66 'During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the light was turned off."67 We are told that Jesus "had to give up His righteousness"68 and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."69 'Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of God,"70 Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God" as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12). 'Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has "life in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity. 'Still, Copeland insists "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in original).71 Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to suffer."72 'The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."73 However, Copeland explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."74 God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again - the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him - and He whipped the devil in his own backyard."75 'Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) primarily denotes primacy, headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily resurrection - not some spiritual resuscitation in hell). 'Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He triumphed "over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for humanity's sin in full (Greek: tetelestai) at the cross (John 19:30) - not by becoming a satanic being, but through His physical sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22). ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
52 | Posting is a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 82738 | ||
Did you know...? Posting is a privilege, not a right. [A friendly reminder to us all: Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it. Following are Lockman's guidelines for posting.] 'About Postings 'Postings should be biblically based and whenever possible include supporting Bible references. 'Postings are not to be intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 'They are not to be submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or disruptions to this forum. 'Pushing ones own personal and denominational views 'Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. 'Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. 'If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary.' (http://www.studybibleforum.com/about.php) Have a nice day! :-) |
||||||
53 | 1. Summary.Teachings of Kenneth Copeland | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 82609 | ||
1. Summary: 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)] 'Summary 'Kenneth Copeland stands today as one of the Faith movement's leading spokesmen. His voluminous material (in print and broadcast media), combined with his crusades and international outreach centers, attest to his vast influence. 'Copeland is responsible for spreading many of the Faith movement's unbiblical teachings. He distorts the biblical concepts of faith and covenant. He reduces God to the image of man while elevating man to the status of God. He lowers Jesus to being a product of positive confession who took on a satanic nature at the cross. And he promotes the occult practice of creative visualization. 'Copeland's errors are largely due to his negative stance on reasoning, his poor handling of the Bible, his aversion toward theology, and his bias against tradition. 'On the night of November 2, 1962, a young man twenty-five years of age, struggling against "sin, sickness, and strife," asked Jesus to "come into [his] heart."1 His decision came two weeks after his wife had done likewise.2 Today, these two individuals head a ministry that literally stretches around the globe, while remaining in the forefront of what has come to be known as the "Faith" movement. They are Kenneth and Gloria Copeland. 'Part One of this series explored the roots of the Faith movement and surveyed some of its leading proponents today. In this installment, our primary attention will be devoted to cataloging and critiquing the core theology of one of the most widely recognized and respected Faith teachers to date - Kenneth Copeland.3' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland by Hank Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) matt2411 |
||||||
54 | 5. MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82384 | ||
5. MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS? - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Copeland also claims that Adam's transgression empowered Satan to evict God from the earth. "God's on the outside looking in," says Copeland. "He doesn't have any legal entree into the earth. The thing don't belong to Him."37 (Psalm 24:1 says otherwise.)' (Footnote 37. Kenneth Copeland, The Image of God in You III (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989, audiotape #01-1403), side 1.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5. 'MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS: : The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in the text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Copeland overemphasizes similarities between God and man to the point where any distinction becomes virtually nil: "God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself....Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh" (emphasis added).26 'Referring to his so-called law of genesis, Copeland asserts, "Adam was created in God's own image and likeness, a spirit-being...[and] takes on the nature of his spiritual father or lord."27 In explaining the terms "image" and "likeness" in Genesis 1:26, he adds: "If you stood Adam upside God, they look just exactly alike....If you stood Jesus and Adam side-by-side, they would look and act and sound exactly alike....The image is that they look just alike, but the likeness is that they act alike and they are alike....All of God's attributes, all of God's authority, all of God's faith, all of God's ability was invested in that man."28 'Actually, the terms "image" and "likeness" refute Copeland's point. The Hebrew word for "likeness" (demuth) simply means similarity or resemblance, not identity.29 Furthermore, the term itself actually "defines and limits" the word "image" (Hebrew: tselem) in order "to avoid the implication that man is a precise copy of God, albeit miniature" (emphasis added).30 'Humans are created in God's image in the sense that they share, in a finite and imperfect way, God's communicable attributes (e.g, rationality and morality). These attributes, in turn, give individuals the capacity to enjoy fellowship with God, develop personal relationships with one another, and take care of God's creation as He has commanded.31 God's incommunicable attributes (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, self-sufficiency), however, remain solely His. 'Along with the "image of God," Copeland also refers to "the life of God," which he interchanges with the terms "the absolute life of God," "absolute life," "life force," "life in the absolute sense," "eternal life," and "everlasting life."32 He applies these terms to a quality of life, the source of which is God.33 But he also speaks of it as "the substance - the source, the power - the unseen force that makes God, God...[and] places Him above everything else that exists."34 'Copeland states that "man was created to know that great life force and he longs for it in his dreams. Adam had that life force in him before he committed high treason" (emphases added).35 This is yet another sense in which Copeland believes Adam to be created in God's class. He was made to partake of "the unseen force that makes God, God" - once again diminishing severely if not altogether destroying any final distinction between creator and creature. 'Furthermore, this "force" is at times spoken of as a reality more ultimate than God Himself, conferring deity not only on the Creator but on His creation, man. This again puts God and redeemed man in the same class. 'In Copeland's theology, Adam (and, consequently, the rest of humanity) does not appear to have a uniquely human nature. Initially possessing the nature of God, "when Adam committed high treason [sinned] against God and bowed his knee to Satan, spiritual death - the nature of Satan - was lodged in his heart."36 Adam had, in effect, allegedly traded in his divine nature for a satanic nature, otherwise called "spiritual death." However, Scripture reveals that mankind is wholly distinct from both God (2 Sam. 7:22; cf. Mark 12:32) and angelic/demonic beings (Ps. 8:5; cf. Heb. 2:7). And even after the Fall, man is still said to bear the image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). 'Copeland also claims that Adam's transgression empowered Satan to evict God from the earth. "God's on the outside looking in," says Copeland. "He doesn't have any legal entree into the earth. The thing don't belong to Him."37 (Psalm 24:1 says otherwise.) And supposedly, since "the sin of Adam went all the way up to, but not including, the throne of God...[even] the Heavenly Holy of Holies had to be purified."38 ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
55 | 4. A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82162 | ||
4. A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS? - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Copeland's deflation of God is best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the Bible...is God."* (*Kenneth Copeland, Praise-a-Thon, TBN, 1988. Copeland has, in another instance, stated that God "is not a failure" (Kenneth Copeland, The Troublemaker [Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland Publications, n.d.], 23).) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4. 'A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS: 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)] 'Copeland's view of God fares no better biblically than his understanding of faith. He describes God as someone "very much like you and me....A being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds, little better, [and] has a [hand]span nine inches across."22 'Copeland's statement is based on his hyperliteral reading of Isaiah 40:12 ("Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, marked off the heavens with a [nine inch] span,..." [AV]). Yet following the same line of interpretation, one would also have to conclude that God literally held a basket full of dust and weighed mountains on a gigantic set of scales (v. 12b) - an absurd proposition ruled out by the context of the passage. The fact is that Isaiah 40 makes extensive use of figurative language to underscore the vast difference between the Creator and His creation. 'Giving a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms, Copeland makes God out to be a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears, nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet."23 However, the Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physical features like His human creation. Anthropomorphic descriptions were simply meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus declared, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), not a spirit-being with a body (cf. Deut. 4:12). The Creator is, after all, "God, and not man" (Hos. 11:9). 'The idea of God possessing a body (physical or spirit) implies the unbiblical view that the Trinity is actually composed of three separate beings. Moreover, a God who has a body with definite, measurable dimensions cannot truly be omnipresent, unlike the God of Scripture who is present everywhere in all His fullness (Jer. 23:23-24). (It is true that in His human nature Christ has a body and is localized in space and time. But in His divine nature He remains nonphysical and omnipresent, sharing this immutable nature with the Father and Holy Spirit.) Copeland's deflation of God is best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the Bible...is God."24 In stark contrast, the biblical God is an all-powerful being (Dan. 4:35) whose plans cannot be thwarted (Job 42:2) and who considers nothing too difficult (Jer. 32:17; Luke 1:37). 'Copeland's diminished view of God is further amplified by a correspondingly inflated view of the universe in general and man in particular. He claims that the earth is "a copy of the mother planet [i.e., heaven] where God lives."25 Exactly how Copeland could "squeeze" God on any planet is difficult to fathom, especially since Solomon pointed out that heaven itself cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27).' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
56 | What is the "Force of Faith"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82146 | ||
What is the "Force of Faith"? 3. '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)] 'THE FORCE OF FAITH '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. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
57 | Is sinless perfectionism Bible doctrine? | 1 John 1:8 | Radioman2 | 82055 | ||
Is sinless perfectionism biblical doctrine? 'THE ERROR OF PERFECTIONISM 'Some people actually claim that they have reached a state in the Christian life where they just don't sin anymore. Wait a minute, doesn't the Bible say that if we actually think something like this we are deceiving ourselves and are, in fact, calling God a liar? 'Sinless perfectionism is not biblical doctrine. 1 John 1:8 clearly states: 'If we claim to be without sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.' While willful sin ought not to characterize our life, sin will remain a part of human experience until we lay aside our physical body at death (Rom. 7). In fact, the wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) said: 'Who can say, I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?'' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0609.pdf) |
||||||
58 | No need of proof? Faith in faith? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81887 | ||
No need of proof? Faith in faith? People MUST believe in spite of the lack of any evidence? I know because I know? What is this -- the "We Say So" School of the Bible? Hank's post, ID# 81883, is excellent as it stands. Also it is a post that stimulates me to ask questions. These questions are directed to any and all -- anyone who wishes to reply. Could it be that people who need no facts, no proof, no reason, no logic are also people who are receptive to voodoo apologetics? If an unbeliever initially does not accept the authority of the Bible, do we just give up on him/her? Do we write that person off? If someone asks us WHY we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, we'd better be ready to give a good reason. We need to have to have something to say in addition to or instead of "Because it says so." There are a number of good reasons for accepting the authority of the Bible. One of them is that fulfilled prophecy is proof of inspiration. If we are not familiar with this and other proofs, it's time we made the effort to become familiar with them. "And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to EXPLAIN IT" 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT) (Emphasis added.) We need to be ready to explain it. KJV 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth. Finally, the idea that someone's faith could be LESS because of the proof they've found doesn't even make any sense. How could a person have less faith in a fact after he's discovered more evidence to prove that fact? |
||||||
59 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81891 | ||
What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? (Latter-Rain) What in the world is "dominion theology"? And is it really consistent with the Bible? 'DOMINION THEOLOGY 'Dominion theology is associated with two distinct movements. In order to give an accurate assessment of this very controversial issue, I'll need to spend a few moments discussing the elements which characterize these two movements. [Reconstructionism] 'The first of these movements is known as "Reconstructionism," which arose within Reformed (Calvinistic) Christianity...Well, no matter how controversial you may think Reconstructionists are, the fact remains that this is a perfectly acceptable orthodox movement. ["Latter-Rain"] 'The same, however, cannot be said about "Kingdom Now Theology," which represents the other movement associated with dominion theology. This movement, popularized by Earl Paulk, basically boils down to a systematic presentation of what is commonly referred to as "Latter-Rain." Central to this system is the belief that since the time of the Reformation, God has progressively restored "truths" to the church. It also includes the view that the offices of apostle and prophet remain in effect to this very day, which is why submission to spiritual leaders is so heavily emphasized. Kingdom Now Theology also subscribes to the "Manifest Sons of God" doctrine, which holds the heretical position that the church is the incarnation of God and is therefore to "take dominion" -- politically and otherwise -- before Christ can return. For these and a host of other reasons, we strongly advise Christians to steer clear of Kingdom Now Theology.' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0606.pdf) |
||||||
60 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81842 | ||
What about so-called revelation knowledge? 'Teachings of Kenneth Copeland 'FATALLY FLAWED 'Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland's theology can be attributed to the following four reasons. 'First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. "Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even to be led by GOOD SENSE" (emphasis in original). Copeland's statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the "ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was not led by logic. He was not led by the mind." Isaiah 1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us REASON together." 'Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge (information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one communication with God). His neglect in this area is made embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words (e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they appear. The Bible, however, stresses the importance of correctly handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). 'Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of systematic theology, as indicated by his statement, "I don't preach doctrine, I preach faith." Although he may not realize it, HIS PREACHING ON FAITH AND OTHER TOPICS DO IN FACT CONSTITUTE DOCTRINES, which combined form his theology (however inconsistent). He would do well to heed the apostle Paul's advice to "watch your life and your doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16). 'Fourth, Copeland displays an open attitude of disdain and disrespect for the historically established views of the church. Admittedly, tradition must ultimately be tested by the Word of God. However, it should be recognized that certain historically accepted views, especially as they apply to essential Christian doctrine (e.g., the nature of faith, the nature of God, the nature of man, and the person and work of Jesus Christ), are significant, time-tested summations of fundamental Bible-based truths. To deviate from them is to reject the heart of Christian faith. 'It is regrettable that someone so influential within contemporary Christianity continues to preach a message that overturns virtually every major biblical teaching. To date, Copeland refuses to discuss with his critics the issues raised in this article. We only hope that he will soon realize the dangerous road he is traveling. As Scripture warns, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). For now, Copeland, being a false teacher, has made himself an enemy of the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).' ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland by Hank Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |