Results 41 - 60 of 109
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5857 | ||
20 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? 21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? Please give me the answers to these questions, can the thing formed speak back to the one forming it? NO! Is Paul accusing the Jewish readers of questioning GOD? YES! Therefore, if the clay cannot question the potter, but the Jew can question GOD, I would say that the Jew (or anyone else) can resist GOD's will! You say, but the rest of verse 21 clearly shows that His will is to honor some and dishonor others! I disagree, I believe Paul is suggesting to the reader (Jews) to submit themselves to the authority of GOD (Salvation through Jesus Christ), because He does have the right over them! Why do I believe this? Why does v. 21 start with ‘Or'? When we use the word ‘or' we are offering an alternative to the previous statement. So, I believe he is saying, since GOD does have the right to honor (salvation) or dishonor (judgment) put yourself under His will and accept Jesus Christ! Does GOD will that all Christians, who are given opportunity, mature? YES! Do they all mature? NO! Did GOD want Job to question Him for Job's suffering? NO! Did Job question GOD? YES! Forgive me these are weak examples, but there are many such examples, and even circumstantial evidence can convict when is it is abundant enough. 22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, 23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory, Why doesn't Paul use the same Greek word for ‘fitted out' verses v. 23 ‘prepared'? The word prepared has a definition, "to prepare before, to make ready beforehand"(Online Bible Greek Lexicon), whereas, ‘fitted out' has the definition, 1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete 1a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair 1a1) to complete 1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust 1b1) to fit or frame for one's self, prepare 1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be Also notice that the word ‘prepare' is done by GOD, whereas there is no such suggestion for ‘fitted out', why do you suppose that is? As to self-preparation, I assume you have more training that the writer of the above mention Lexicon, Online Bible Greek Lexicon. Also, I assume you have more expertise that the note writers in the Nelson Study Bible, "The grammatical structure of the first ‘prepared' (in our discussion, ‘fitted out'), referring to the vessels of wrath, is different from the second ‘prepared', referring to the vessels of mercy. The first literally means "prepared themselves," while the second is "which He prepared." 24 whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations.(LITV) Who is us? Vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, who submit themselves to the will of the potter! Whom He also called? Though this is not my view, one could make the argument that He called those who did not prepare themselves for destruction, or those who continue to ‘answer back to GOD!' GOD bless!! |
||||||
42 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5856 | ||
10 And not only so, but also Rebekah conceiving of one, our father Isaac, 11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling, 12 it was said to her, "The greater shall serve the lesser;" 13 even as it has been written, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." Paul goes further, just because you are the son of Isaac GOD still has the right to choose who the promise will pass to. Offering the promise was GOD's choice, therefore He is not bound to offer it to anyone he does not want to. The point is, that GOD is not bound to save all Jews, just because they are Jews!(By the by, this belief is still held by those in the Jewish faith.) 14 ¶ What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be! Paul is again speaking to Jews by considering that they probably think that this is not just! 15 For He said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity." 16 So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God. Paul gives Jews proof from their own Law that GOD is not breaking His promises in not saving all Jews. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth." 18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens. GOD can do anything he wants! I do believe that, I don't know if Calvinist understand that this is true of those who hold a different view of election, and Arminians. We disagree on WHAT GOD wants to do. You say He wants to save some and damn others, I say He wants to offer all people an opportunity to receive salvation, and all who accept His offer will receive salvation. Also, if you read these examples in the O.T. you will find that GOD is abundantly merciful, and that Egypt's fate was sealed in Genesis, when GOD says that the nation Abraham's decendents would go to will be punished for their treatment of the Jews. GOD could punish people for no reason, but the O.T. suggests that He chooses not to. 19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Notice this is not a rhetorical question by Paul! He is anticipating the question by the Jews. My reading of Romans suggest to me that Paul either answers his teaching question, "GOD forbid," or he asks them with a negative Greek punctuation, this is shown in the NASB with a 'will he?' at the end of these questions, or He asks them himself. I don't remember many examples where he asks them for other people and doesn't clearly say 'GOD forbid' or the Greek punctuation. I may be wrong! |
||||||
43 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5855 | ||
I don't think I've behaved in such a way for you to question my motives. You seem to want to put more words in my mouth than I do yours, so my asking about replacement theology should have been responded to with the same respect our other correspondences have had. The reason I want to know is, as I stated, my interpretation of Rm 9 hinges on an unsaved Jacob. The people of GOD in the O.T. would naturally question GOD saving Gentiles and forfeiting Jews, I think Paul makes it quite clear that this is what he is writing about. I assume from your response you do accept replacement theology, so please try to be open-minded with my interpretation. 1 ¶ I tell the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that my grief is great, and a never ceasing pain is in my heart, 3 for I myself was wishing to be a curse from Christ on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose are the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the Lawgiving, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to flesh, He being God over all, blessed forever. Amen. I believe this clearly shows that the following passage is about the unsaved Jews, not Christians. 6 ¶ Not, however, that God's word has failed. For not all those of Israel are Israel, Paul says that GOD's word has not failed, and he is going to justify that comment. 7 nor because they are Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac a Seed shall be called to you." Gen. 21:12 8 That is: Not the children of flesh are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for a seed. 9 For the word of promise is this, According to this time I will come, and a son will be to Sarah. Gen. 18:10 So, being the son of Abraham does not guarantee the promise, so GOD does not have to save the Jews. The promise went to only Isaac not to Ishmael. |
||||||
44 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5800 | ||
Paul addresses irresistible grace in Romans 9:19-23. He addresses unconditional election in Ephesians 1:4-11 and the mercy issue in Romans 9:5-18. Total depravity is Romans 3:10-18,23. Perseverence of the saints is John 6:35-65 and Romans 8:1-2,37-39 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Contrary to your statement, it is not up to man to decide which God is "greater," but rather we need to look to Scripture to see who God truly is. Well that grace sounds pretty resistible, vs 20 suggests that someone is questioning GOD, and then says the thing molded cannot question the molder. But he just did!! Paul asks the question, "For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to GOD? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,' will it? Lets see, the thing molded will NOT say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this.' Yet, the man IS answering back to GOD. For who resists His will? Apparently, the man that answers back to GOD, do people answer back to GOD in the world today? YES!! Therefore, it would seem to me, that His grace IS resistable. Ephesians 1:4-11, see Robertson's Word in Pictures, "(Having foreordained us) To be taken with ‘chose' either SIMULTANEOUS OR ANTECEDENT (CAUSAL). (The words in caps mean that predestination happened at the same time as or was the cause of His choice. In other words, election did not come before predestination, and predestination comes after foreknowledge (Rm. 8:28), so GOD must have known something else. This is my understanding of this information, please study it and consider it, if I am wrong please correct and censure as necessary. In addition, Dallas The. Sem. has slightly different info, but this work has been more scrutinized.) GOD bless!! I again ask you to refute the apparently blatant declaration of election in Romans 9:5-23. If there is some alternate explanation that Paul makes room for, I would be more than happy to hear it. So far it has not been forthcoming. Is the Reformed theology an ideology that ‘replaces' Israel with the Church? Because as I read the Bible Rm CH. 9-11 are specifically Jewish chapters, so I want to make sure my explanation does not completely contradict your interpretation. |
||||||
45 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5799 | ||
Yes, He is an active GOD, but you make my view seem dense. If GOD is actively involved everyday in every person's life convicting them and giving them signs and witnesses before they're saved, and then of course after they're saved the activity only increases. Is that sitting back and taking steps when necessary? Not in my thinking! As far as Rom 3, I am fine with that but we have a difference of opinion on what the Holy Spirit is doing! I believe Jn 16:8-11 shows that the Holy Spirit convicts the world (all who do not have Christ) of their sin(Rm.3), because they do not believe in Him. I don't remember using the words "kicking and screaming" I think you assume I have no understanding of the terms 5-pointers use, but I do. I'm no expert, but I've heard this speech before and it blows my mind that believing is a Biblical requirement for salvation so many more times than any ‘choice' but to cover that 5-pointers say, well, GOD made me do it. The Bible sure doesn't make it sound that way! Does God only have mercy for some? You think that God is required to show mercy to all or none. What does Romans 9:15-18 tell us? Which reflects God's true character? I believe that GOD has CHOSEN to offer Grace to all. The fact that He doesn't have to, just shows what a Merciful GOD He is! Rm 9:15-18 states what GOD can do, but you have to look at the examples to see what He did do! Egypt was promised punishment in Genesis, Pharaoh was the tyrant in control at the time of Egypt's judgement. And, GOD was merciful and compassionate to Moses. So, in both cases, if you look at the history, GOD was too merciful to be just, but He never hardened anyone without just cause! Paul was an expert in the O.T. his references do not, in my opinion, simply stand on their own. You have to know the background. A God "that allows some to be saved and some to be lost" is more of a description of the image of God YOU hold to. First of all, do you disagree that God allows some to be lost? If God did not allow it, it would not happen. People will spend an eternity in Hell, so God does allow some to be lost. Calvinists hold that God does not merely ALLOW men to be saved, but rather that God is the sole and efficient CAUSE of salvation, from start to finish (Romans 8:28-30). Poor choice of words on my part, but we both got the point. GOD, I believe, would allow someone to reject Him, but He would never simply reject someone without offering them redemption. Check out Rm 9:22, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath PREPARED for destruction?" (The word in all caps, in the original language suggest self-preparation. In other words, the vessels of wrath prepared themselves for destruction, GOD did not.) Why do you quote Rm 8:28-30, we both know there is no Biblical proof of what ‘foreknowledge' is, so to suggest that those verses prove something is ridiculous. Calvinists and Armenians use these verses to prove their points depending on what foreknowledge means, citing that text proves nothing. |
||||||
46 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5796 | ||
My belief about election/freewill is that both are true(better stated election/responsibility, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that non-believers will be to blame for not choosing Christ, and that one I can show you in Rom. 9.), and we will never understand how! (Unless GOD decides to reveal it to us in heaven.) Limited atonement is refuted all over the Bible by John, Paul, and Peter, but these verses are 'interpreted' in an unusal way to make the 5-points work. I've made this comment before, but I know there are alot of gifts and lots of wisdom I do not have but what I do have is a sound mind and the ability to reason, and for me to rearrange verses to believe any doctrine, is wrong and my conscience cannot bear it. My understanding of 'world' does include everyone but the apostles in John 16; because, they have already realized their need for Christ through His divine choice. John uses the same word for world in John 3:16 and I believe in that usage it included everyone, including the disciples because He was speaking in general rather than specific terms, as to who has been saved and who has not. Also, in Jn. 16 Jesus uses judgment and conviction in vs 8-11. Are these the same word and if not what is the significance? Lastly, I have always gone to 'dispensational' churches and they have always been 'election' folks. Are most dispensationalist not this way? Dallas Theological Seminary is VERY much pro-Election doctrine; although, they are willing to say that they cannot understand it all. (Not 5-point Calvin, but 4, Limited Atonement.) About Rom. 9, I believe if I was so inclined I could work around these verses as easily as 5-pointers work around, say I Tim 2:4. But, I admit it is a strech. My point with Mr. Wesley is that he probably studied the Bible as much as anyone and the Spirit was strong in his life, and he, unlike some great saints, was quite careful about doctrine (specifically, election, I mean he studied it!) and yet the Spirit chose not to move him in Calvin's direction. So, if its that important the Spirit would not leave Spirit-filled saints on the side-lines. |
||||||
47 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5777 | ||
This debate may be old and tired to you, but it does speak fundamentally to how we view God and how we conduct evangelism. It is highly important, even though it is not a salvific issue, that we get it right. How has God revealed his intentions with regard to salvation? What does the Bible have to say on man's supposed freedom? Take away the assumption that all men are equally aided by the Holy Spirit to receive Christ and see if the entirety of the New Testament supports such a thesis. I am always interested in how Calvinists think I view GOD. Which GOD is greater, a God who must control everything, so nothing will go wrong, or a God that knows everything possible, so He can let his creation have freewill because nothing can go wrong? A God who forces some to Him by His irresistible will, or a God that welcomes all to Him in His unfathomable love? A God who has enough mercy for some, or a God who has abundant mercy for all? A God that allows some to be saved and some to be lost, or a God that desires that all men come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved? You decide. As far as evangelism, I have recently seen some prominent preachers, who believe in election, say that it is hard work to go to hell because you have to walk over the knowledge of Jesus. That doesn't sound like election! Thank you for your views and GOD bless!! |
||||||
48 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5776 | ||
Again in verse 16:13 we see that the Spirit will be the active guide to truth. If the Spirit is here to "try and convert everyone," why does our holy, sovereign God fail in his mission? Perhaps that isn't his mission after all... A guide to truth for believers, yes. I do not believe that this verse is suggesting that the HS will be active in bringing only some to salvation, by guiding them to the undeniable acceptance of Christ because they were chosen for salvation and others were not. Verse 17:6 reinforces this: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." Again, God GAVE them to Him out of the world. Who is consistently the active agent in bringing people out of the world? ALl througout the Bible, we see it is God who (unaided by our "free will") chooses individuals out of the world and gives them to Christ. This is, of course, the High Priestly Prayer and you will remember that I said the disciples were indeed chosen, please take special note of this chapter. Who is Jesus talking about in vs 6? I believe the disciples, notice verse 7, "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;" No one knew this information at that time but the disciples (the twelve). Chapter 17 focuses on GOD giving the disciples (the twelve) to Christ, or in other words choosing them. However notice vs. 20, "I do not ask on behalf of these(the twelve) alone, but for those also who BELIEVE in Me through their word;" So the chapter clearly indicates that the twelve were chosen by Christ, but when Christ prays to the Father, He says, "those also who believe in Me." Now, if there was ever a time when Christ could have said, You Father decide who believes in Me, He would have while talking to the Father! But He did not, who does the action? Those who believe in Me, non-believers do the action! Therefore, contrary to your post, the world does NOT include "everyone." Conviction of sin does not lead to ability to repent and choose Christ. It is merely a declaration of guilt and judgment, which is reinforced by passages such as Philippians 1:27-28. Our presence here on earth is not to "win all the lost." It is to proclaim God's truth, to be the Holy Spirit's visible instruments through which He calls the elect, and to be the embodiment of the "sign of destruction" to those who will die and face just punishment. You have given me no convincing arguments that the world does not include everyone. And, what does Phil. 1:27,28 have to do with conviction of sin? As I read it, Paul is saying that the fact that your opponents are fighting against you shows that they have not received Christ; therefore, they will pay the price in eternity. Did you truly determine the doctrine of election solely from Scripture? You didn't read about it in the notes of a Study Bible or Commentary on the Bible? I take you at your word, but I have found that most people initially reject the doctrine of election until they are shown the verses that suggest it. (By the by, I do believe in some form of the doctrine of election; however, a ridged adherence to 5-point Calvinism is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of Scripture! So, I agree with you, but only somewhat.) Yes, I do have the Holy Spirit in me as you do, but a better question is, did John Wesley? How about Calvin? I believe the answer to both is yes, and yet they disagreed on this subject, so if you want to compare your resume to Wesley, and then tell him he doesn't know how to read the Bible, please do! If the HS doesn't lead all Christians to the same conclusion, the HS may think we should leave well enough alone! Romans 3 was written after Pentecost, but aren't all those statements quotes from the Old Testament? I see ch. 3 as Paul proving to the Jews that they are under sin just like the Gentiles. If the Law said that ‘None is Righteous' then they must need salvation just as much as the dirty Gentiles. (I'm speaking in terms of what the Jews thought of the Gentiles.) Besides that, ‘conviction of sin' is to make one realize their need for Christ, so these words help the HS convict of sin. |
||||||
49 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5775 | ||
Does the fact that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin mean that everyone will be enabled to accept Christ? Well, in John 14:17 says that "the world cannot receive [Him], because it does not see Him or know Him., but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." Therefore, the world is unable to receive the Spirit, so that classifies the "world" in a different category than the disciples, whom Jesus is addressing. It says that the world does not see Him, doesn't even know Him! No the world cannot ‘receive the Holy Spirit' if they do not know Jesus Christ. Receiving the Holy Spirit is the regeneration or the rebirth of the Christian, it is not, in my opinion, the ability of the HS to convict a sinner of their need for Christ. At this time the HS had not come to the world; therefore, NO ONE but the disciples could have received Him because only His disciples had accepted Him as their personal Savior, so yes, our Lord would consider the world different than the disciples. I personally consider the world different than the Church, but not because GOD decided to take me and not another; because I have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In John 15:18, the "world" will hate the disciples, just as it hates Christ. In the next verse, we see that the disciples are "not of the world," that Christ CHOSE them, and as a result, the world hates them. Therefore, we see reinforced a clear division between the world and the ones who are called by God. In verse 26 we see that the Spirit will testify about Christ with the disciples, but there is no indication that everyone will be free to accept the Spirit's testimony. In fact, Christ has just promised them the opposite from the world. Yes, the ‘world' will hate the disciples, but I consider this to be because Jn 3:19-20, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil HATES the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (Emphasis mine) The ‘world' is not regenerated the disciples are, yes they're different. The twelve certainly were chosen, we will discuss this shortly. In verse 15:26 who will the Spirit testify to? "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning." It does not sound like the Spirit is testifying to the disciples, because the disciples are to do the same type of testifying! Could it be that the HS and the disciples would be testifying to non-believers? |
||||||
50 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Chris | 5748 | ||
Only this section of your comment will be addressed: "The problem here is that you are taking it as axiomatic that unregenerate man in any way has the ability to "choose God," that he is morally free to do so. Please show us in Scripture where it declares that man's will is free in this regard." Man's will is certainly not 'free' but GOD did send the Holy Spirit. This debate is old and tired! I always get into it because people actually think they are 'wise' enough to understand the intricate workings of GOD, and perhaps I am hoping someone out there is wise enough. But usually people simply misinterpret Scripture in an attempt to feel like they understand. I hope you will show me the proof I am in need of! See John 16:8-11, "And, He (Holy Spirit), when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. Now, if the HS convicts 'the world' it's safe to assume that 'the world' includes everyone; but I know you don't assume that! So, if the HS convicts 'the world' and the ruler of 'this world' is judged, what part of 'the world' did satan not rule over before he was judged? As I am sure you know, Rom 3:10-18 states clearly that we are(were) all under sin, doesn't that mean we were under the control of satan? I'm sure you know that these are the same exact words for 'world' in the Greek text, so there is no play on words here, at least there is no evidence of it in the Greek. So, if the HS convicts the world concerning sin, and if the world means everyone, doesn't everyone have the power, through the Holy Spirit, to choose Jesus Christ? |
||||||
51 | I need answers to several questions . | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 5718 | ||
1. Check I Tim 2:12-14, many in the Church question this verse, but the meaning in clear. In addition, the Nelson Study Bible has some good info conserning this verse, "Paul uses a Greek word that indicates the type of teaching that was found in the Jewish communities and synagogues from which he had come. Such teaching was more than giving information to students. It included the call by the rabbi, or teacher, to have his disciples listen, believe, and practice his words." In other words, a woman should not have doctirnal control or primary leadership over a Church. 2. Actually, I believe the way He speaks has changed. Start with Heb. 1:1-2, this suggest to me a change in the method of communication through the Son, exclusively. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you," (NASB) and if you compare this Scripture with Eph. 5:18-20, a very similar command, which tells us to be 'filled with the Spirit'. I believe Paul is talking about the same thing with two different titles. If you look through the book of Acts, the apostles are usually 'prompted', or a word similar to that, by the Holy Spirit. The HS dwells in all believers and its our job to get rid of the carnal baggage (deeds of the flesh) so we can hear Him clearly. The only clear OT style communication in Acts is the conversion of Paul, and that is not the rule but the exception. There are a couple of examples of 'visions' or dreams, but this is not the norm either.(Please correct me if I'm wrong about the communications in Acts, or if you interpret it differently!:-) 3. Music instruments are all over the Old Testament, and there is no reason not to have them in Church. I know one denomination does not allow intsruments of any kind, but this is based upon, in my opinion, a poor basis of interpretation. What I mean by that is that this denomination refuses to allow anything in Church that is not CLEARLY asked for in the New Testament. I disagree with this because the OT is still relevant in many ways to us today, and considering that the apostles and our Lord were poor, they could not buy instruments even if they wanted them. So, the shear amount of instruments in the OT, I believe, justifies them in the NT Church. 4. No Scriptural requirement, but I believe we as Christians with an individual and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, should consider His sacrifice as often as we eat; because, He is our source of life! But when discussing the ceremonial communion performed in Church I have no suggestion. Hope this helps! GOD bless!! |
||||||
52 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | Chris | 3712 | ||
I appreciate these Scriptures, but they do not speak to the idea of divine healing in the purest sense (All sickness and disease has been conquered at the cross, therefore, we have a divine right to claim healing. And, if we are not healed, our faith is not strong enough). Paul said, 'many', not all and he was talking to the corinthians specifically; he does not share the same sentiment with anyone else in Scripture. Do you believe that all sickness is judgement from GOD, and is it all avoidable? And, can we 'name it and claim it' when it comes to healings and prosperity? | ||||||
53 | Divine Healing? | Matthew | Chris | 3676 | ||
Sorry, I have, once again, failed to clarify my question. There is a 'theology' out in the charismatic world of Christianity today that says no christian has to be sick. They say that it is ALWAYS GOD's will for christians to be healthy, and if you're sick you must be doing something wrong. So, the conclusion is that all christians can receive a healing, if they have enough faith and do everything else that GOD wants them to do, this idea is what I was phrasing as Divine Healing. Do you believe in this idea? Do you know of any Scripture that would support it? The same movement is unearthing the idea that GOD is about to pour a financial anointing on believers, and we are going to be rich, so that GOD will be able to use our tithes. This message usually comes with a request for a 'seed' of faith to start the harvest of wealth. Is there anything is Scripture to support this idea? Please express your (everyone!!) opinion!! GOD bless!! |
||||||
54 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Not Specified | Chris | 3600 | ||
I've caught the broadcasts for Benny Hinn and John Hagee this week, and it seems they are both speaking about 'Divine Healing'. Does anyone know if there is Scripture to support this theology? And, what about the 'Prosperity Gospel', any Scriptural documentation? Please give me your opinion! | ||||||
55 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Matthew | Chris | 3605 | ||
I've caught the broadcasts for Benny Hinn and John Hagee this week, and it seems they are both speaking about 'Divine Healing'. Does anyone know if there is Scripture to support this theology? And, what about the 'Prosperity Gospel', any Scriptural documentation? Please give me your opinion! | ||||||
56 | Money root of all evil? | 1 Tim 6:10 | Chris | 3371 | ||
Sorry Hank, that was my lame sense of humor! The idea had to do with your mistake(typo in first question), and the joke came from the idea of where have all our heros gone. And finally, the ultimate American hero is Joe D (please excuse the spelling). But, it was a shot at humor! SORRY. GOD bless!! | ||||||
57 | Money root of all evil? | 1 Tim 6:10 | Chris | 3311 | ||
The problem with the quote is that it misses the message that 'the love' of money causes problems. Money itself is neither evil nor good. Another problem is the way this phrase is translated in english translations of the Bible. I think the NASB is the best, with the possible exception of a completely literal translation, 'the love of money is a root of all the evils.' Check out Literal Bible for that translation. Notice it doesn't say, 'the love of money' is THE(as in only) root of ALL EVIL. This translation decisions greatly harm the original meaning of the passage! Greed is the greatest of the traps, in my opinion, Paul calls greed, idolatry! How about Ananias in the book of Acts, or the rich young ruler in the Gospels. Hank, you have truly hurt me! Where are you now, Joe Dimasio? |
||||||
58 | RE: "immenint return" in first answer | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3241 | ||
Lifer1J511 I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your (and everyone else's who may read this debate) forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. In response to your comment, I copied this message from a previous corrospondence; I have added an explanation or two of the comments, so if you have already read it, look for (**) before and after the new comments. I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness! **My interpretation of this verse has been questioned, so I will try to defend it, I believe that when we die, WE GO to be with the Lord, I believe Paul teaches this clearly in Philippians 1:23, ‘But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better:' It seems to me, that Paul is strongly implying that if he would have died in prison, he would immediately GO and be with Christ. Why is that important? If John were not talking about the return of Christ when he used ‘we' in include himself, then Christ would not be manifested, but John would GO and be with the Lord, rather than the other way around. So, the fact that John includes himself being present and having boldness before Him he must be talking about if he were alive when Christ came, not when he died and went to be with the Lord. And, some might also suggest that John may have thought that he would live for an extended period of time because the Lord said that he might, but again, if that were the case he would use ‘I' not ‘we' to include people other than himself.**) **This comment made by our Lord** Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.) |
||||||
59 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3237 | ||
Sam, I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. I want to preface my comment, with a realization of the debate between Mike and myself. I truly have been blind to an important fact during our debate! As you probably noticed, Mike made it very clear that GOD's time schedule does not allow for immanent return, and for some reason I was blind to the fact that this was a major sticking point, that needed to be rectified. I agree with Mike fully, there is no such thing as immanent return for GOD! He knows everything! And, if you like Charles Stanley, you've probably heard that GOD cannot have expectations; because, He already knows the outcome. Immanent return is only relevant in Man's realm of time and space. Man does not know when the Lord will return, so he must always be looking for the Lord. This problem was clearly stated by Mike, but unfortunately, I was oblivious to this important point of contention. And, to note the difference is crucial! Immanent return is an idea that only exists in the limited time and limited knowledge in the realm of man. The reason I write is because I don't think I understand your comment. You say that all christians, in the past, who have believed in immanent return were wrong, but they were only wrong if it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have returned at that time. I assume that GOD is and was free to choose ANYTIME to send our Lord back to earth. Therefore, if GOD can choose anytime to send Jesus back or could have chose anytime in the past to send Him back, they were, in fact, correct in thinking that Christ COULD have come back during their lifetimes. Immanent return does not mean Christ WILL come back immediately, only that He COULD come back at anytime (which COULD be soon or even today). And, since I believe we would agree that NOTHING IS (or ever has been) IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD; He could have sent Jesus back in the past if He would have chosen to do so. So, for the sake of not 'being caught unprepared' our christian forefathers were, in my opinion, correct in keeping their heads up looking for Jesus. Notice, that immanent return is not to blame for any of the faulty predictions made in days past. The idea does not espouse a date for the return and in fact, suggests the opposite, since we CANNOT know the date we should always be on the look out; because, our Lord said, 'I am coming quickly!' |
||||||
60 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 3181 | ||
Sorry, last comment: You said; "If John had interpreted that as teaching the "imminent return" as meaning that Lord could come back any day now, John's interpretation would be incorrect." To say someone 'could' do something is not the same as saying, someone 'will' do something. If our Lord wanted to take all of the sea out of the Sea of Galilee 'could' he have done it? OF COURSE HE COULD HAVE!! Just because He did not, does not mean He could not! You said, "We have 2000 years plus or minus of proof that Jesus' coming could not have occurred to date, because He did not come." If I would have wanted to, could I have stuffed myself full of choclate yesterday? Yes, I could have, but I didn't! This does not imply that I was unable at that time, it only implies that I, in fact, did not. And, I quoted several scriptures, not just one. I apologize again! GOD bless! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |