Results 41 - 60 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Is John 6:66 the answer to 666 riddle? | John 6:66 | reformedreader | 2859 | ||
No, John 6:66 is the 66th verse of the 6th chapter of John and nothing else. Had you read the same text prior to the creation of chapters and verses, what do you think it would have meant? Right, the same as it means now and the numbers 666 have absolutely nothing to do with it. All unbelievers have the spirit of being anti- (against) Christ by their very nature. The term anti-Christ does not refer to a singularly specific individual but to the unbelief that Christ is God, King, Lord and Savour which flows naturally from the veins of Adams "natural" descendents. Sam Hughey |
||||||
42 | Is John 6:66 the answer to 666 riddle? | John 6:66 | reformedreader | 3142 | ||
DidymusMB, I was under the impression that the 1560 Geneva Bible was the first to create chapter and verse divisions. Is this not true? Sam Hughey |
||||||
43 | Easter Bunnies...or Risen Lord? | John 11:25 | reformedreader | 2952 | ||
Excellent Chris, Sam Hughey |
||||||
44 | What happens to Non-Christians? | John 14:6 | reformedreader | 3261 | ||
TruthSeeker, Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (NASB) Now, this is what God says, but you will receive slightly different answers from other Christians ranging from God saves everybody who doesn't have a chance to be saved all the way to nobody really knows for sure. You decide who and what is for a TruthSeeker. Sam Hughey |
||||||
45 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | reformedreader | 2963 | ||
HeirofGod, What does the term "world" mean in John 15:19 and 17:11-16 and how/why is it different from the term "world" in John 3:16? Sam Hughey |
||||||
46 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | reformedreader | 2987 | ||
Thanks Mark, I would, if you don't mind, like a further explanation as to how the term "kosmos" (referring to that of order as opposed to chaos) suddenly changes meaning and refers to human beings in John 3:16. Also, if, as you say, Christ died for mankind in general, does that mean "not specifically"? John 10:11 says Jesus laid down His life for the sheep. If that is true, then mankind in general would be His sheep. 10:27 says Christ's sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. This obviously refers to salvation since verse 28 says Christ gives those for whom He died eternal life. If then, Jesus died for all mankind, and all mankind are His sheep, then all mankind hear His voice and follow Him. Is that true of all mankind? And if so, why are some of mankind in hell? Sam Hughey |
||||||
47 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | reformedreader | 3040 | ||
Thanks Mark and please don't take my response the wrong way for I surely do not intend for it to be taken but with the utmost of respect and courtesy. I still don't see how the word didn't change meaning. It either retains the same meaning (referring to that of order as opposed to chaos) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it surely has changed. Now, you say the meaning did not change but the meaning you gave was "referring to that of order as opposed to chaos" and not "general" to "particular". The problem I see with this is the term "general" is so vague it can mean just about anything we want it to mean and the term "particular" was not followed with anything that is "particular" so it also leaves us with a vague and ambiguous meaning, which can also be whatever we want it to be in the absence of any specificity. I think John was very specific with what he wrote in 10:11; 27,28. I realize the word "kosmos" is used to refer to the created universe and as part of the created universe it "can" refer to mankind. However, that does not conclude that it "must" and most definitely refers to "all" mankind without exception. That is not general, that is very specific or I guess particular as you are using the term. This would completely disagree with what John states in the verses I quoted and it would contradict what John states if the word "kosmos" must be forced in John 3:16 to refer to "all" humans instead of just mankind, meaning some but not all. John does not say that Christ died for "all" mankind specifically or particularly. John says Christ died for His sheep and since "not all" humans are Christ’s sheep, then Christ obviously did not die for all humans unless something has changed the meaning of sheep. Now, we could say that all humans were/are Christ’s sheep (without any scriptural warrant) but at sometime in their lives they chose to become goats (also without any scriptural warrant). So, I still fail to see how the word "kosmos" changed from what you stated originally to what you stated in your response. What is it in John 3:16 that would lead anyone reading it to conclude that the term "kosmos" can only refer to all humans and still not contradict what John states in 10:11;27,28? Sam Hughey |
||||||
48 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | reformedreader | 3173 | ||
HeirofGod, Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand anything you are stating, so please correct me if I am wrong. I'm assuming your conclusion is that in John 3:16, the word "world" should be interpreted as "all humans without exception" and this would refer to all humans from Adam until the end of the world and would include every soul in the grave (or hell) at this time and every human ever mentioned in scripture. Is that correct? Sam Hughey |
||||||
49 | 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 |
||||||
50 | 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 |
||||||
51 | 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 |
||||||
52 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4010 | ||
Hank, Thanks for your response. The word "trinity" does not need to be literally found on the pages of scripture. The doctrine of the trinity is both implicitly and explicitly declared throughout the whole of scripture. There can be no other conclusion to anyone seriously reading scripture from Genesis onward than the reality of the trinity. I don't believe I made any reference to "no such reality as God's progressive revelation to humankind", unless I misunderstood you. In fact, I very much do believe in progressive revelation through God's covenants and have stated so often on this forum. However, the question of a church age still remains unsettled. Scripture either implicitly or explicitly teaches a church age referring to only those saved since Calvary or it does not. I think verifying that would be paramount to this discussion which I think is very important to how many of us interpret scripture. Thanks again, Sam Hughey |
||||||
53 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4014 | ||
JVH0212, Thank you for joining this discussion and I'm sure you know I will request the reference for the sake of any misunderstanding of either what scripture is being used and how it is being interpreted. Your statement about restricting the church as to being only from Pentecost (Acts 2) until the Rapture involves several troubling areas. First of all, there is an assumption that you are referring to the dispensational doctrine of the rapture. If this is so, then the church does not exist afterward (to dispensationalists). This is assuming that dispensational theology is absolutely correct on this doctrine and has no possibility of being in error. The (dispensational) millennium will not have any saints in it or at least none that can be called the body of Christ. If not, then where does the New Testament treat these Christians as being different (and how) than any other Christian of any time period? In fact, dispensationalism wants to create a multiplicity of divisions of those who are saved. It first wants to divide Old Covenant Saints from New Covenant Saints, then it divides pre-rapture Saints from tribulation Saints, then divides millenial Saints from all other Saints and without a single shred of scriptural evidence to justify doing so. This would also exclude Abraham, the father of faith of all those found in Christ (who are also known as "the body of Christ"). How would one exclude him from being in the body of Christ but at the same time include him to be in Christ? Are we not all in the body of Christ because we are all in Christ? Can any of us be in Christ and not be in the "body of Christ" which is His church? Also, nowhere in the second chapter of the Acts does Luke make any explicit or implicit statements that would lead us to a logical conclusion that only those saved at this period of time comprise the church (body) of Christ. There are no corresponding verses anywhere in the New Testament that would support such a view. I look forward to hearing you answer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
54 | Church Age? | Acts 2:17 | reformedreader | 4028 | ||
JVH0212, And I agree that it is cited as the most common definition of the church ("body of Christ") and I also agree that it "is" the biblical definition of the church ("body of Christ"). My apology for misunderstanding your intent. Sam Hughey |
||||||
55 | 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 |
||||||
56 | Aren't pictures wrong? | Acts 17:29 | reformedreader | 2948 | ||
P-J, What it says it not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, etc. It does not forbid us from having pictures or ornaments made of gold, silver or stone. The command is to not compare things made by man with the one who made man. However, I think we are committing sin should we worship, as God or in the place of God, these images which would violate the 1st and 2nd commandments. The 1st and 2nd commandments forbid our creating images for the purpose of worship. Sam Hughey |
||||||
57 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 2852 | ||
Not only is the term "accept Christ" not in the Bible, but on what basis would the unregenerate decide to "accept Christ"? Would they judge His holiness, righteousness, divinity or Lordship to be worthy of their acceptance? Strange things we "Bible-Believing" Christians believe that are not even Biblical. But, you are correct, we don't like to be confused with all that doctrinal "stuff". Sam Hughey |
||||||
58 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 2861 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I have often thought of doing this for my website, but it seems to be an overwhelming task. Perhaps I will give it more serious consideration for a newsletter or ezine, etc. Sam Hughey |
||||||
59 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 3190 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I would have said precisely the same thing. It is when Christians, for whatever reason, cease thinking, reasoning, speaking, etc. biblically, then we are no less guilty than the Pharisees who distorted the Word of God to suit their own minds. While we say we intend no harm, I'm sure the Pharisees said the same. Sam Hughey |
||||||
60 | Are the unevangelized people really lost | Rom 2:15 | reformedreader | 2882 | ||
Ric, If they are not really lost, then they are really saved and they would not need evangelizing. If they are really lost and not really saved, then they really need evangelizing. Wouldn't you think? Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |