Results 4101 - 4120 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4101 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Hank | 51725 | ||
Treadway, I've read all your posts thus far and had meant to say hello to you sooner...... (A) You impress me as a true searcher and not one of the garden-variety flakes we get on here from time to time..... (B) I'm one of 'them thar' Bible-totin' foot-stomping Baptists possibly not a great deal unlike what you used to be but, I gather, have cooled off a few degrees :-) ..... (C) Do hang on with us for a spell longer. Some of these guys and gals on this forum know what they're doing and post some good stuff. Others come along, alas, who don't really know whether they're pitching or catching. Me? Well, you may not learn all that much from my posts except that I'm sort of a gad-fly who buzzes around commending the good, reasonable and Bible-oriented posts and not being very flattering at all of posts that are less than commendable..... In all seriousness, Treadway, I'd like to see you stick around, because I've a feeling that you may actually find something good here, something that will be of real value to you. --Hank | ||||||
4102 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Hank | 51800 | ||
Treadway, good to see you back. Ye Olde Forum can become mildly addictive, can't it? Now let's talk about what Jesus said in that "problem verse," Mark 9:1, and in the parallel passages in the other two synoptic gospels, Matthew 16:28 and Luke 9:27 ..... In the verse, Mark 9:1 NASB, Jesus says this: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." ..... Now there have been a number of interpretations given of this statement that Jesus made, among them that He was referring to [1] His resurrection and ascension [2] the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost [3] the spread of Christianity or [4] the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But the most logical and contextually accurate interpretation is to connect what Christ said in this verse to the Transfiguration. The proximity of this verse to the subsequent account of the Transfiguration which occurred a week later is consistent in all three of the accounts in the Synoptics and is likely not tossed in the context in a haphazard manner. The contextual support for linking Christ's words to the Transfiguration is very strong indeed. The Transfiguration provided a foretaste of His second-coming glory; and 'kingdom' as Christ used it in this verse can certainly refer to royal splendor. Moreover, 2 Peter 1:16 seems to support this interpretation. Peter, of course, was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration ..... The weakest interpretation of all is to link Christ's words in this verse to His second coming. Not only is there no contextual support whatever for this view, it stands in contradiction of the clear facts of Scripture and would make Christ either a liar or at least someone who did not know what He was talking about. I'm reasonably sure, therefore, that to interpret His words as referring to His second coming would be the interpretation of choice among the skeptics who would love to prove the Bible false. Of course anyone can, by ignoring context, logic, reason, and sound exegesis, twist Scripture and make it seem to say just about anything one wants it to say. Even that the disciples rode in a Honda, because in the upper room they were all with one Accord. [Acts 1:13,14 NKJV] --Hank | ||||||
4103 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Hank | 51920 | ||
Treadway, one brief observation -- that's all the time I have at my discretion right now -- on the question you raise about our Lord's Second Coming and about the word 'soon.' As to His return, He said He would return. This constitutes a promise from the Son of God. Therefore, not to believe Him, not to take Him at His word, really does play havoc with our own personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord, doesn't it? It militates against our personal relationship with our Creator and our Redeemer. And as for 'soon,' what it may mean to us in our hurry-up society in which we measure time in nano-seconds and what it may mean to the eternal, sovereign and transcendent God are likely not the same things. But this we know: that 'soon' each of us is going to cross the unavoidable bar that separates temporal life on earth from eternity. It will be too late then to speculate about our Lord's return; thus, to my mind, while it is important to watch and wait in expectation of His return, it is of more vital importance to place our total faith and total trust in Him here and now, while we yet can. Treadway, I pray to God that His Spirit will guide and comfort you in your quest for His truth; that you will come to know more about Him; that you will indeed come to know Him and trust Him for all your days. There is a hymn with the words, 'leaning on Jesus, leaning on the everlasting arms.' There can be no nobler calling in all of heaven and earth than 'just in simple faith to trust Him, just to take Him at His word.' --Hank | ||||||
4104 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Hank | 51956 | ||
Treadway, re faith being a gamble: As for me, I'd rather have faith in the Lord and lose the 'gamble' than have no faith in Him and lose THAT gamble! But I've really never thought of my Christian faith as a gamble. I'd rather go with the apostle Paul, who was more spiritually discerned than I am, and was brighter than I will ever be. Said Paul: "I KNOW whom I have believed and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day." Those who truly know Christ, who are regenerated by the Spirit, have a hope that is both sure and steadfast. Treadway, you need not answer publicly if you'd rather not -- I pose the question for your personal consideration -- Do you truly know the Lord? --Hank | ||||||
4105 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Hank | 39510 | ||
Approximately 2,000 years since the birth of Christ? Yes, we have fairly reliable documentation for that. But approximately 6,000 years since Adam? No, that's pure guesswork; we have no way of knowing that. --Hank | ||||||
4106 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Hank | 39518 | ||
CDBJ, Hello! We haven't visited in some time. I believe you have said, and said correctly, all that can be said and all that needs to be said, on this question of time in 2 Pet. 3:8. You know, brother, it is perfectly true that some really far-out doctrines have be born by attempting to read in Scripture more than is there. This numbers symbolism business is a perfect example.Well, let them play their game. Your answer makes more sense. --Hank | ||||||
4107 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Hank | 39531 | ||
From out of the sea of Japan sweeps a breath of fresh air! Charis, greetings my long-time cherished friend and brother in the Lord. It's good to hear from you and to have your solid input onto a thread that so sorely can use it! Blessings, my friend. --Hank | ||||||
4108 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Hank | 39537 | ||
Love Fountain, how nice of you to post three verses of Scripture for my evening vespers. And I shall with great alacrity return the favor to you, in the same version, the King James, that you used for my meditation: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). Thanks again, and ever so much, for your spiritual guidance. --Hank | ||||||
4109 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Hank | 39539 | ||
And, Charis, I shall pray that that new church in Yokohama may be the instrument by which many souls will be led to know the Lord Jesus Christ. I exult with you, my brother. --Hank | ||||||
4110 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Hank | 81305 | ||
"...we should all identify ourselves theologically by our user ID's like I do..." --- Hmmm, makes one wonder: How would Peter, Paul, and Mary (of the Bible, not the folk-singing trio) have identified themselves theologically by a user ID? Predestined Paul? Chosen Cephas? Mother-of-God Mary?... --PCH (Plain Christian Hank) | ||||||
4111 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Hank | 81310 | ||
I like the line from a song in "The Sound of Music": "me, a name I call myself." The forum's "justme" has captured that one however, and it's a superb user ID. I like the name "justme" and I like the book title "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis for much the same reasons. There's a certain plainness and lack of pretense about these names. When I read user names that seem to be trying to make a denominational or doctrinal statement, I tend to wince, square my jaw, and view what they have to say with a jaundiced eye. Should I read user names like R.Minian, Cal-Vin, KJ Only, Ethel Mormon, J.Witness, or SavedbyWater, my guard would go up and I would take with several grains of salt whatever they opined on. Likely as not I'd be able to make a fairly well educated guess about what they were likely to expound on and the conclusions they reasonably could be expected to reach. Thus armed with this advance warning, I should feel somewhat cheated for, as with a good mystery tale, it's much less interesting when one pretty well knows the outcome in advance!.... I join CDBJ in ruing the day when it no longer means much to call oneself a Christian without the use of modifiers. One is pressed in today's world to accept one label or another, and if he refuses to do so, along will come the label makers and slap one on him anyway. There are those who hold that if one isn't a Calvinist he is an Arminian by default. This is wrong. It is, in fact, both wrong and ridiculous. What were Christians called in Antioch? Were they divided into two camps and called pre-Calvinists and pre-Arminians? Calvinists think they are right. Arminians think they are right. Can two opposing views, both of whom claim scriptural foundation in support of their views, be right in all doctrinal matters? No, they cannot both be right, but it is possible that they can be wrong in certain points of doctrine. Is it possible to be a Christian, a child of the King, to be regenerated and on one's way to heaven, without subscribing in toto to either Calvinism, Arminianism or any other "ism" that happens to pop up? In my 54 years as a Christian I have come to believe that it certainly is. Not only possible, but rather desirable in my view. --Hank | ||||||
4112 | scriptures and wrtings | 2 Pet 3:16 | Hank | 34226 | ||
JMSCOTT: You ask, based on 2 Cor. 3, whether the New Testament was written in ink? My friend, if it weren't how could I read 2 Cor. 3? I am relieved that you do not wish to turn this thread into a debate between the Old Testament and the New. You will get the fullest cooperation from me. I wouldn't dream of engaging in such a ludricrous debate. --Hank | ||||||
4113 | scriptures and wrtings | 2 Pet 3:16 | Hank | 34337 | ||
JMSCOTT: Am I reading you wrong? Please tell me whether I err. I get the distinct impression in your posts that you are down-playing the importance and the role of the written word of God, all the while using the written word in an effort to substantiate your points. Surely my inferences are not what you seem to me to be implying. Would you state, simply, clearly and fully, how you view the written word of God and what importance you attach to it? Do you, for instance, believe it is the inerrant and only guide and authority for our faith and practice? Please be as forthright and plain as you can. It is a vital issue and of utmost importance to my mind. --Hank | ||||||
4114 | scriptures and wrtings | 2 Pet 3:16 | Hank | 34399 | ||
JMSCOTT: You give scriptural references as "proof" of your points, but they don't in any sense corroborate what you are saying. For instance, you cite Matthew 28:20 to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is God's main way of teaching, yet this verse is part of Jesus commission to His disciples to go into all the world and teach (preach) the gospel. There is a definite sense in which the Holy Spirit teaches, but it is NOT in the sense that you appear to be using it. The Holy Spirit inspired the words of the Bible; the Holy Spirit indwells in the heart of the regenerate believer. But the Holy Spirit does not ignore or go beyond the written word of God; He does not provide special revelation to every human being on the face of the earth. The Scriptures, my friend, are true, are complete, are God's inerrant revelation of Himself. To assert otherwise defies what the Scriptures themselves teach. And, by the way, how do you know "there are so many mistranslated Bibles in the world"? Are you a translation expert and have you seen all translations around the world? From what perspective are you coming? In other words, what is your church affiliation? --Hank | ||||||
4115 | Things the untaught and unstable distort | 2 Pet 3:16 | Hank | 86255 | ||
Radioman, thanks for the collation of forgettable quotations from the mighty pen of "dschaertel." Of the 15 you cited, I agree with exactly none, and would urge other readers of this forum to pay no attention to this user's posts or to the posts of any other user who pushes opinion over fact and vain speculation over revealed truth. Posts of this caliber are contrary to the aims of this forum. It was never designed to be a soap-box for the proclamation of wild speculations and worthless opinions. I'm convinced that the vast majority of users come to this forum to interact with other Christians in a serious study of Scripture. I doubt that many appreciate -- and none profits by -- being bombarded with inane and fatuous junk. --Hank | ||||||
4116 | Poor old Paul! | 2 Pet 3:16 | Hank | 91971 | ||
Well, Radioman, I guess we just expect too much of poor old Paul. We must keep in mind that he lived in the dark ages before the enlightenment of such luminaries as Word-Faith and Watchtower. And besides, Paul was merely an apostle of Jesus Christ, and the only guidance he had in his writing was the Spirit of God. That doesn't count for much with the New Age crowd. .... Peter in his day observed that the ignorant and unstable had already begun to distort and misinterpret Paul's epistles. With nearly 2,000 years of practice, you'd think they'd get even better at twisting and misconstruing them. Obviously they have. --Hank | ||||||
4117 | Grow in grace? | 2 Pet 3:18 | Hank | 73552 | ||
Just a thumbnail, Mommapbs, upon the subject of "growing in grace" which is a term not entirely different, I suppose, from what we mean by the word "santification." The Bible recognizes two kinds of sanctification. There is the sanctification by which we are "set aside" [which is what sanctification means] as members of Christ's body, the church, at the time of conversion (justification, regeneration). And there is subsequent experiential sanctification as we who from the point of conversion set out on our walk with Jesus Christ, in obedience to His commands. This is the way that is marked out for us as we begin our journey as a child of the King, and is aptly expressed in the words of a familiar hymn: "Trust and obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey." --Hank | ||||||
4118 | Can someone sin after salvation ? | 1 John | Hank | 35782 | ||
jb8910. Dear Sir or Madam: Being, as I am, aware that you are new to the forum, this being your fourth posting, may I welcome you and at the same time gently tutor you on the merits of using appropriate scriptural passages in answer to scriptural questions. The reason for this is perfectly obvious if one thinks about it. You see, when someone asks a question to which the Bible has a clear answer, in all fairness to God's word, we should let it speak to the question. In that way the questioner has the advantage of reading what God said and not what man said. Does that sound reasonable? In none of your four posts is there any Scripture reference. Especially on your answer to which this note is appended, would you consider please preparing a supplementary answer, using a passage or two from the Bible that would appear to corroborate your views? Somehow its a little bit worrisome to me what you said about "the only difference" thing, the sinning before and after salvation, and ... but I will stop here and let you clear all this up, using biblical texts, if you would kindly be disposed to do so. Please don't feel that this response to your answer is meant as a slap on the wrist or to be unkind or mean-spirited toward you. What I have said about backing up our answers to scripturally-oriented questions with Scripture applies as much to me and to everyone else who uses this forum as it does to you. Cordially, --Hank | ||||||
4119 | god's nature | 1 John 1:5 | Hank | 151124 | ||
Good post, Brad, and good quotes from Pink. Two of the pitfalls of theological error that men, left to their own flawed powers to reason things out for themselves without the guidance of Scripture, are to take on the one hand the extreme and erronous view that God in His goodness and holiness is incapable of exacting judgment and eternal punishment on any man. Or to take the second view, no less extreme and erroneous, that God is capricious and acts much in the mannner of an all-powerful tyrant who takes delight in punishing and condemning his subjects to unspeakable suffering and eternal torment. God's word supports neither view. The first view of God is obviously more popular than the second. How often do we hear a sermon about hell these days? I expect Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon would find it next to impossible to get a job preaching in the "feel-good, name-it-and-claim-it churches of today. ...... Incidentally, I'm happy to report that my pastor preached a fine sermon on hell last Sunday, and equally happy to report that no one got up and walked out on his sermon :-) --Hank | ||||||
4120 | Immaculate Conception, mary, how? | 1 John 1:8 | Hank | 67639 | ||
Jestified: Your "best guess" answer pertained to the Virgin Birth of Christ, not to the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It's always helpful to understand the question before attempting an answer, but may you find solace in knowing that others before you on this forum have trodden the same path :-) --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 ] Next > Last [217] >> |