Results 41 - 60 of 121
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: disciplerami Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Incesat of affinity or consaguinity? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77650 | ||
Greetings, I read somewhere that Herodias' was half-neice to both Philip and Herod. Maybe John, like Jesus in Matthew 5:28-32, was pointing people back to the original plan. What do you think? Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
42 | Is salvation revocable? | Rom 8:1 | disciplerami | 77590 | ||
Dear phruubel... I can imagine that many Christians do doubt, but the question is whether their doubt leads to a wholesale departure from God because that is what takes to lose salvation. Doubt can be very displeasing to God: 'the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind' (Jas. 1:6). The essence of doubt is a lack of faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Obviously, Job didn't understand why bad things were happening to him, but he did not stop believing in God: he simply wanted to inquire of God why? Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
43 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77572 | ||
This question is leading because we don't know that God changed anything. Baptism has always been by immersion. The Scripture hints at no other mode. The other modes that are common today are the traditions of men, instituted long after the Scriptures were completed. Good question. Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
44 | Is this about water baptism at all? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77509 | ||
Dear Ray, To those who don't see "water" but do see "Holy Spirit baptism, I say I would like to see what happens in these churches where the preacher gets up and "commands" that the people be baptized by the Holy Spirit! If we "take away" from the clear teaching of water baptism and demand that people be baptized in the Holy Spirit, we are commanding someone to do what is not in their conrol. Many who are untaught or unstable look at verses that are clearly 'water baptism verses, and say, "can't be talking about baptism 'cause I don't see the word 'water.'" But no matter, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, will see. "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." Others will keep on searchering and will not see. God bless you in your search for truth. Disciplerami |
||||||
45 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 77505 | ||
Greetings, You are right on track. It's funny how hard the 'spirit' inspired people have to work to deny that plain teaching of Scripture. You know what it says on Baptism. You can teach someone correctly if you teach as Peter or Paul did: Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3;21; Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3;26,27; Colossians 2:12 Good day. |
||||||
46 | "Tables" or "Beds" in original text? | Mark 7:4 | disciplerami | 77503 | ||
Most up-to-date Greek text: 'table' not there. | ||||||
47 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77450 | ||
I have a question. Is Matthew 28:18-20 commanding the Apostles to administer water baptism? If so, Is Mark 16:16 a command to receive water baptism? If so, Is Acts 2:38 a command to receive water baptism? If not, then believers are commanded to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit was imparted at God's discretion, when and where God chose to pour it out, then it does not follow that all believers are commanded "Be baptized" into the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins. Acts 2:38 is talking about water baptism. I hope that helps. disciplerami |
||||||
48 | Was the Disciples married? | Matt 8:14 | disciplerami | 77439 | ||
Sorry, I thought Matthew 8:14 would be included, not just the reference. Matt 8:14 When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. |
||||||
49 | Was the Disciples married? | Matt 8:14 | disciplerami | 77438 | ||
Greetings, The Bible shows that Peter was married, and Paul indicates that others were as well. 1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Disciplerami |
||||||
50 | how can we know we're saved? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 77346 | ||
God is true. If he says you are saved, then you are. Mark 16:16 'believe and be baptized' is a good start. Disciplerami |
||||||
51 | How can I locate the church that Jesus b | NT general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77344 | ||
Hello Derdan, The Bible offers a glimpse of the early church with all of its imperfections, but also with all of the authorized practices: commands, examples, inferences. I recall hearing once of a prisoner in Oklahoma who started a Bible study group. They were getting pretty organized in worship and teaching and began to wonder if there was a church on the outside that believed as they did. [This is the truth, I met this man after he was released from prison. He spoke in a chapel service]. The group compiled a list of things they believed [20 or so items, I don't recall] and mailed them to quite a few churches in the OK City area. Along with the questions, was a request for responses. One church sent back a response and they agreed on every one. I won't tell you which church it was, but the incident revealed that honest people could look at the Bible and come to an agreement. When this man got out of prison, he began to fellowship with this same group. |
||||||
52 | Misquote? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77281 | ||
Dear Tim, This is not a misquote; rather it is drawing a logical conclusion from your stated points. Here is what I posted originally, and you have read from a follow up post: ______________ Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. ______ That is my conclusion from what you have said. Did I misunderstand and if so, please point to the exact place where I went off course from your argument. Thank so much. Disciplerami |
||||||
53 | Are those who never heard saved or lost? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77241 | ||
Until a person hears, believes and obeys the Gospel (2 Thess 1:7-9; 1 Peter 4:16,17, must obey the Gospel too) he is not saved. But as I've stated before, the first message we 'hear', understand and know (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:18-20) is from the Creation. This message sparks the natural spiritual inclination of each man and causes him to seek and grope and find the Creator. Ultimtely, his search will lead him to the Gospel. When he has heard and obeyed it, he will be saved. Searcher, you are good asking questions, and you are good at posting others people's work, and you are good at sending people off to the netherland of old posts, but where is your work, where is the evidence of your deep study? That's what I would like to see. I have given you plenty to think about and respond to, but you give very little. We all must conclude that you are still wrestling with these things. Have a good day. I am sincere when I say, may God bless you as you seek His will. Disciplerami |
||||||
54 | How does a right heart save? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77240 | ||
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. How does a right heart save? Paul says, "if you believe in your heart, you shall be saved." Salvation follows a right heart. |
||||||
55 | Is baptism an evidence of faith? | Romans | disciplerami | 77233 | ||
In response to Searcher56's multiple posting of Morant61's handling of Acts 2:38, I would like to repost the following: According to Morant61, Acts 2:38, for grammatical reasons is more accurately translated, "repent for the forgiveness of sins, and be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" [I'm working from memory, but this is my best attempt to depict Morant61's position]. Consider the following, and I am glad to be corrected if I'm wrong. The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 in this mater is without merit for the following reasons: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
56 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77205 | ||
Repost, Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
57 | greatfullydead, Do we immmerse B4 eating | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77204 | ||
Searcher56, where does Mark 7:4 say anything about 'tables?' I've looked at the Greek and see nothing about 'tables?' The only thing mentioned in the Greek is the 'cups', 'utensils', and 'bronze vessels.' Is your question based upon a variant reading? Please respond and tell me from where the question about 'tables' comes. Thanks. |
||||||
58 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77119 | ||
I said, check any translation [except for the one Searcher56 Version] and check out Acts 2:38. It all fits very nicely. Keep trying. Disciplerami |
||||||
59 | disciplerami, must it be immersion? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77114 | ||
Hello Searcher56, This is an important question. I imagine if you do a word search you might find the answer. Just type in baptism over on the right side of the forum page and do a little reading. But I don't mind giving you an answer but it's a good question [and not everyone knows the answer; although I think you do, you sly one :)] The word means to immerse: innovations like sprinkling and pouring are only found in extrabiblical writings. The Catholic Encyclodia states: "Three forms of ablution have prevailed among Christians, and the Church holds them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion. THE MOST ANCIENT FORM USUALLY EMPLOYED WAS UNQUESTIONABLE IMMERSION [emphasis mine]." (Catholic Enclopedia online, "Baptism") The word means "immerse" and the most ancient writers, and foremost authorities agree, that baptism is by immersion. Have yourself a good day. disciplerami |
||||||
60 | disciplerami, are they saved or lost? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77111 | ||
Please restate, the sentence structure is broken and hard to understand. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |