Results 41 - 60 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | invitation to salvation/accepting Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3998 | ||
jrm, The invitation system has never been part of orthodox Christianity and is certainly not a biblical doctrine. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to biblically defend it. However, it would also be difficult for churches to stop since they depend on the invitation system in order to get someone saved, at least in theory. The churches I have asked what would happen if they stopped all respond with "how then will anyone get saved?" When I ask them why they use an invitation system, they all responded with "it's in the Bible". When I asked them to show it from scripture they all respond with "you're arguing against scripture and are attempting to mock the salvation of God". I suppose we all need an excuse for the unbiblical practices we perform every Sunday. That's bad enough. But when it cannot be (or won't be) biblically defended, then that is a much more serious problem. If a church does not have one (and mine doesn't) then there is certainly nothing anyone can legitimately accuse that church of doing that is contrary to scripture since scripture never teaches it. Of course, others will have their own personal views and I will be greatly interested in hearing how they defend their views from scripture. Sam Hughey |
||||||
42 | OT church? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 3985 | ||
charis, I do not believe salvation was any different in the Old Covenant as it is in the New Testament. Since we use the New Covenant to better understand and in many cases define the Old Covenant, then we should believe precisley what the New Covenant says about salvation being by the grace and mercy of God. The New Covenant gives us absolutely no new teaching concerning salvation. It only expands upon the revelation of salvation, as is the primary purpose of each covenant. One covenant does not negate a previous covenant. The New Covenant did not negate the truth or command of Exodus 20:3-6 or 12-17. Does the New Covenant negate:(Exodus 20:6, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.)? I believe you will find not only were these laws repeated in the New Covenant but the understanding of them were expanded into the broader scope of Christ-like living in the New Covenant, for example read Ephesians 4:17-32 and 1 John 2:3 among a great many other New Covenant verses. Certainly the New Covenant speaks of the blood of Christ but so does the Old Covenant. In fact, Christ is spoken of as far back as Genesis 3 as the one who will bruise (defeat) Satan, which was accomplished at the cross. Was the blood of Christ working in Abraham and Moses? Well, if it wasn't, then they are not saved according to the New Covenant (Acts 4:12, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."). So again, the New Covenant itself establishes the only definitive answer to and example of salvation. So, if we use the New Covenant to define how a person is saved, and unless we want to teach a multiplicity of salvific operations, then anyone who ever was, is or ever will be saved is according to the mercy and grace of God with no exceptions. If (since) this is true, then all those who are saved are precisley what the New Covenant says, (Romans 12:4-5, "For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." It is the authority of the New Covenant, to which I wholly agree, that establishes what salvation is, who is saved, how they are saved and determines who is in the one and only body of Christ. It is the authority of the New Covenant from our Lord's own mouth that declares His body (church) to be comprised of all who have ever been saved by the mercy and grace of God and are joined together to make up His one and only body, the church. I look forward to hearing your response charis. Sam Hughey |
||||||
43 | Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? | Acts 16:13 | reformedreader | 3945 | ||
userdoe211, While JVH0212 might not have given the conclusive answer you would have liked, I do not believe he was making comparisons. There is no cultural or archaelogical data that would replace old-fashioned eyesight. How circumcision was checked out was very simple, they looked. How else would one know? Sam Hughey |
||||||
44 | The number one third? | Rev 8:7 | reformedreader | 3886 | ||
JVH0212, Thank you for your compliments and I will always try to live up to acceptable standards of both communication and proper Christian love when dealing with matters such as this, however, even the best intentions sometimes fall short of its goal. I am assuming by the use of the phrase "Since only one-third of the earth is destroyed" the reference is to population rather than geographical location since that is how I have seen it popularly interpreted. Perhaps my assumption is too broad but that is precisley why I asked why the word "earth" refers to people. If I have misunderstood the original intent, please forgive me. Perhaps I should have asked "if" the intent was to associate "earth" with "people". Sam Hughey |
||||||
45 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | reformedreader | 3857 | ||
Ric, Pharaoh was born in the image of Adam no differently than you or myself. Romans 3:23;5:12 conclude "all" have sinned, therefore, "none" are excused. There is no such thing as an "innocent" sinner who is born in the image of Adam, be it an embryo or a 100 year old man. The issue of sin is not the sins we commit that condemn us but, rather, the sin in which we are conceived. Sam Hughey |
||||||
46 | The number one third? | Rev 8:7 | reformedreader | 3856 | ||
gomar, Shelly, An excellent question and an interesting answer. Could either of you state why the word "earth" must be translated as "people"? Sam Hughey |
||||||
47 | Why OT covenants if not for salvation? | OT general | reformedreader | 3847 | ||
MIILAZ, You are correct that salvation was as much a reality (not a concept) in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. Be careful when viewing the difference in terminology. The difference could very well be the difference between truth and error. How one defines their terminology greatley influences how one interpretes scripture. In SpreadWord's case, he is interpreting scripture based on a faulty understanding of the covenants. It seems as though he is viewing scripture through the eyes of dispensationalism instead of scripture itself, but I am only supposing that based on his view of non-relating covenants/dispensations and an ever changing definition of salvation as well as a dual mode of salvation. It is a contradiction to say that salvation is through Christ alone and at the same time say salvation was different at some other time unless a different salvation is being discussed. Sam Hughey |
||||||
48 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | reformedreader | 3846 | ||
SpreadWord, I disagree with your view of salvation and so does scripture when you stated "Salvation is a New Testament concept". Salvation has never been a "concept" and nowhere does scripture teach so. Salvation has and always will be a "reality" and "actual" even in the Old Testament (and prior). The change of covenants has never influenced the definition of salvation. Salvation has always been and always will be entirely by the mercy and grace of God (Eph. 2:8). Man has never been able to obey in perfection the laws of God, starting with Adam and leading up to you and I and forward to the last human. The laws of God found in any covenant have never been the mode of salvation under any circumstances. Your statement, "Christ's salvation is the answer to man's inability to keep the law imposed upon the Old Testament believer" is very misleading. Salvation is not just merely the answer to enable man to obey God's laws for even the believer still disobeys those same laws. God's laws are designed to teach us about Himself and His righteous demands for "ALL" men to live by, not only the believer. The covenants are an expanding revelation of God, His will, His laws, His Son, His righteousness and our sinfulness. One covenant is built upon another but never does one displace another. There is both continuity and discontinuity within each covenant as well as among all covenants. The discontinuity is found within the specific framework of each and all successive covenants but never does one covenant supercede or contradict another since all are God's will for man. Your statement,"While Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, God has operated under different covenants during different periods of time" seems to force the Father and the Son to be on different sides of the same will and in opposing directions. Nonething could be further from truth. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are always in perfect harmoniuous agreement. Could you show the scripture that states any differently? And to your statement, "salvation" is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12), but for those who lived before the New Covenant, they were required to join God in the covenant He had established at the time" is not only unbiblical, it is anti-biblical. Absolutely nothing in the whole of scripture agrees with you and this is very dangerous advice to give to people. The very verse you used to justify your view actually refutes your view. Acts 4:12 clearly states that salvation is found in nothing, nowhere and nobody but Christ alone. So, if there was salvation prior to the New Testament (and there most certainly was) then their salvation was strictly according to Acts 4:12. Sam Hughey |
||||||
49 | WILL GOD PUNISH | Ex 20:5 | reformedreader | 3767 | ||
JVH0212, Amen brother. Christians must wake up and see that we are responsible (for the great part) for the ills of society. After all, it is us who Christ said must be the salt and light of the world, not the unbelievers. Too many Christians today are more concerned with the rapture and what their new bodies might look like to be concerned with the here and now. For 2000 years Christians have pondered such ideas and have allowed culture and society to go down the drain (so to speak) by ignoring our greatest impact on a fallen world. True, changing societal problems does not lead to salvation, but if salvation does not lead to societal changes, then something is terribly wrong with our salvation (or our theology). Sam Hughey |
||||||
50 | WHY DO WE NEED TO EVANGALIZE? | Acts 1:8 | reformedreader | 3759 | ||
PYLE, Simply becuse God has elected whom He would call to salvation does not negate the fact that He also called His Church to preach the gospel. We evangelize for the simple fact we are commanded to do so whether you believe in election or not. Salvation is wholly of God, therefore we are to simply obey God by preaching the gospel and God will call to salvation whomever He wills to be saved. If God does not call one to salvation, it is entirely the right of God and man has no complaint. Sam Hughey |
||||||
51 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 3754 | ||
charis, How one defines their terminology determines how one translates this and other verses. If we begin with a presupposition that the term "Church Age" is actually a legitimate biblical term, then we must of necessity be able to comprehend that entirely from the Bible. Since the Bible never uses any such term, we can only conclude that it is a man-made term and whose definition of "Church Age" are we willing to accept as the definitive answer? The term "church" refers to the body of Christ, that is, all who have been called by the Father, circumcized by the Spirit and recevied by the Son. If we relate this only to those after Christ's resurrection, then we rule out Abraham and any other person from ever being saved or we are creating a dual mode of salvation of which the Bible also does not speak. I think the Bible is very clear that the church is made up of all who have been saved (the same way) of all ages, past, present and future. Therefore, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to say the Bible teaches a "Church Age" that is referring to only a specific period of time. If that is true, then there is no such thing as a "Church Age" in the Bible unless it is referring to all the saints of all ages. Let me know what you think. Sam Hughey |
||||||
52 | Blood sacrifices during the Millenium? | Heb 10:12 | reformedreader | 3745 | ||
Nrojac, I truly do not mean for this note to be disrespectful to you or anyone else in anyway whatsoever, however, I do intend it to be firm and serious. The dispensational idea of blood sacrifices at "ANY" time since Christ's once and for all blood sacrifice is blashpemy and the epistle to the Hebrews clearly warns those who do not accept the finished work of Christ as the only propitiatory redemptive act that they cannot redeem themselves again through vainful human effort of repetitive acts of blood sacrifices. What you are talking about is nothing more than imaginative eschatology. There is no such thing as a future "literal" millennium, rebuilt temple and especially blood sacrifice. This is nowhere found in scripture. It sounds like this DD is a hyper-dispensationalist who really doesn't understand the scriptures. The typical place dispensationalists use to teach a future temple and sacrifices is in Ezekiel 40 and further. The supposed future earthly millennium is Revelation 20:4. You are correct in not believing in a future blood sacrifice for the remission of sin or as a remembrance of "anything". Sam Hughey |
||||||
53 | Was Jesus a reformer? | NT general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3741 | ||
roverjbh99, In response to your question, "Was Jesus seeking to reform the Jewish religion", "NOT A CHANCE"! Jesus is the Son of God, the Lamb of God whose soul purpose on earth was to secure the redemption of His people, of which He was completely and totally victorious. He came to be the propitiation for sins, the justifier, mediator and savior of His people. His mission was set in stone (so to speak) since before the foundation of the world and not a single episode of His redemptive works for His people could have possibly been altered, delayed or brought to naught for a single second. He founded no new religion, man does that, but He expounded upon the religion that His Father commanded since before creation and that is to worship God and only God in truth. It was the religious sects of the Jews who sought to do precisely the opposite while using all the seemingly "religious" verbage in order to make it "seem" right to themselves. Hmmm, sounds a lot like what goes on in many churches today. We use the words, but we usually re-create God in our image and worship is often what "we" decide it should be. There is an amazing comparison with the religious sects of 2000 years ago and what is commonly referred to as religion today. Sam Hughey |
||||||
54 | What's the sign? | Matt 24:27 | reformedreader | 3715 | ||
prayon, If you approach this from a dispensational perspective, the sun, moon and stars are forced to be translated literally. If you do this, a literal conclusion and literal consequences must also follow. If the sun were to darken, the earth and all its inabitants will freeze and die almost instantly. The moon not giving its light would hardly mean anything since the new moon occurs quite regularly now with no adverse affects. If the stars were to fall, then surely the earth would be completely annihilated if they strike the earth and if not I see no concern when there is no danger. The SIGN of the Son of Man appearing in the sky has been interpreted by most dispensationalists as the cross. But even if it isn't, dispensationalists have no interpretation for this. What we must remember is that the language is pure Old Covenant metaphorical language primarily referring to Israel and is used throughout the Old Testament and the book of the Revelation. Terms such as "sun", "moon" and "light" have typically been associated with Israel and Christ's disciples would have had no problem understanding this metaphorical language. It would be senseless for Christ to warn them of an event that He knew would never happen in their lifetime! In fact, Christ said "When YOU SEE" so often that any reference to people other than those to whom Christ said WOULD SEE renders the interpretation without biblical warrant. The event(s) of which Christ spoke refer to the destruction of Jerusalem starting from about 63 AD until 70 AD. The governing power and authority of Israel would die (lose its light, sun and moon) and the priesthood (which had become defiled and useless because of Christ's atonement) would fall from their places and the whole world of Judaism would be shaken by the end of Temple worship and sacrifices and the destruction of Jerusalem (which was the Jew's reason for living). There is no reason for the shakina glory of God to reappear since its departure from the Temple hundreds of years prior to the time Christ spoke these words. The shakina glory represented God but we hardly need a representation when we have the real thing. This is by no means considered exhaustive, but I would encourage you to compare the words of our Lord with what our Lord has spoken of Israel all throughout the Old Testament. Don't forget that Christ also told his disciples (those to whom He was addressing His words) that THEY WOULD SEE the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15). I look forward to hearing your remarks. Sam Hughey |
||||||
55 | You can lose your salvation | Luke 23:26 | reformedreader | 3710 | ||
Chucky1146, While it is true that Jesus said, "If you abide in me I will abide in you", it is not true that Jesus was referring to one losing their salvation. And it is also true that Jesus said, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."(John 6:39) Now, if we can make "I lose nothing" equal to "I lose some", then we can make "if you abide in me I will abide in you" mean you can lose your salvation. Can we do that? Sam Hughey |
||||||
56 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3709 | ||
Jim, An excellent observation. I also would love to see Christians put away their fascination with "Rapture Fever" and become much more concerned with theological and doctrinal study for the sole intent of glorifying God. The five solas of the Reformation are clearly more concerned with Christians worshipping God rather than countless and endless rapture theories which "none" ever prove to be true. Sam Hughey |
||||||
57 | Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? | 2 Corinthians | reformedreader | 3705 | ||
Nolan, This is an excellent question that has caused many Christians to create great harm to others with unbiblical advice. The only forbidding we have from God in regards to marriage is found in 2 Cor.6:14. We are not to marry unbelievers and I think it could also be proven that we should avoid marrying those with major theological differences than our own. God does not forbid us from marrying anyone on the basis of race. Sam Hughey |
||||||
58 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3625 | ||
Thanks Hank, I will agree that the lone translation, standing in stark contradiction to a widely trusted and accepted orthodox translation by reputable and unquestionable translators would be considered suspect of error. I would also say that vague and ambiguous dialogue concerning non-specific error can be equally suspect. So, could you be a little more specific as to what you are talking about? By the way, George Washington was not the first President the US had. He was the first President of the US under the Constitution. There were several other Presidents over the colonies which would become the US and were considered the US by many even prior to the Constitution. Is this the type of "suspect" error to which you were referring? Sam Hughey |
||||||
59 | Jesus condemn soldier to life on Earth? | Amos 1:1 | reformedreader | 3619 | ||
I first heard about this story 10 years ago and to this date I have known it to be just that, a "story" dreamed up by those who have more time for religious fantasy than biblical fact. Hank is correct in his observation. Movies today, including Left Behind, have just enough biblical similarity to make the unlearned and spiritually immature not only waste their money, but waste an even more valuable asset the Holy Spirit has given them which is discernment (assuming, of course, they are believers). Sam Hughey |
||||||
60 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3617 | ||
Hank, It would greatly depend upon what the difference actually is and, like you said, opinion or heavily skewed sectarian bias might cause one to see a particular translation as suspect when it really isn't. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |