Results 4101 - 4120 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4101 | What unmarried sexual acts are sinful? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2337 | ||
CAUTION: Do not let certain personnel at this forum catch you in the act of NOT capitalizing the word "Creator." (You wrote: "When this relationship is established between created and creator...") | ||||||
4102 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2323 | ||
Dear Charis: I do respect what you wrote to inhzsvc. Honestly, I think the closest one could come to making a factual disctinction between soul and spirit would be: To look up the original Greek and Hebrew word(s) translated "soul", and the one(s) translated "spirit". Then read what each original language word means, how it is used, and the different English words used to translate the orginal Heb or Gr word throughout the same Bible version. This might shed some light on the subject. Yours, JVH0212 (not dummy, just a little forgetful :-) ) | ||||||
4103 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2319 | ||
To whom it may concern: . . . It's OK if Charis (and Charis only, please) calls me dummy. :-) He knoweth whereof he speaketh. |
||||||
4104 | 3 days and 3 nights as a Hebrew idiom | Matt 12:40 | kalos | 2306 | ||
Wow! Your answer is awesome. It is such a thorough and easily understood explanation. I not only agree with your answer, I am very impressed by the detail and the data you provided to support your answer. | ||||||
4105 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2302 | ||
Dear Charis: Fear not. I'm not going to blow a gasket. I like to think that usually when I blow a gasket, it is because the reply is neither logical nor Scriptural, but a rambling diatribe against my position. I respect your views not only because I know the quality of them, having read so many at this site, but also because they are well-thought-out and presented so calmly and reasonably. However, after serious consideration of your reply, I still stick to my original position on this issue. . . . With regard to MacArthur's opinion(?) (if it's an opinion, it is a highly educated one), please note that he quotes Heb 4:12 and 1 Thess 5:23 to support his answer, just as you do to support yours. . . . If indeed the soul and spirit are two separate entities, I would like to see a clear verse of Scripture defining soul and another defining spirit. Then I would like to see a verse that clearly defines the distinction between the two, not a verse that merely lists the two without differentiating between them. I am not trying to test or tempt anyone. I feel that my question is a reasonable one that deserves clear verses of Scripture to establish some distinction between spirit and soul. One thing no one can deny is: I cannot spell or type in the morning. This website needs a spell checker. Amen? |
||||||
4106 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | kalos | 2298 | ||
Dear geoffc: I have been to your website and checked it out. Sir, while I do not agree with you on the subject of the Believer's Security (or lack of same), I do heartily commend you on well-researched, articulate answers to this and related questions. You set an excellent example for providing a clear, orderly presentation of your beliefs. (For what it's worth, everyone else (exluding me) in my local church and entire denomination would agree with you that it is possible for one to fall from grace and lose his salvation.) Welcome to this website. Be patient with us. Some of us, on either side of any given issue, tend to get a little heated when debating doctrine. (smile) --JVH0212 | ||||||
4107 | what is baptized in the Holy Spirit | John 14:16 | kalos | 2216 | ||
With all respect to you, sir, I would have to amend your answer as follows: the baptism with the Spirit is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body. . . . 1 Cor 12:13 NASB "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." . . . The same verse in the Amplified Bible reads: "For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all...baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit." |
||||||
4108 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | kalos | 2214 | ||
Dear Ray V.H.: Greetings! I read with interest your posting, "Dear Minister, Thank you for your input..." It is not my intent to take issue with you, but I would just like to point out one or two things. . . . Regarding your sentence: "Not only then is Jesus the Son of Joseph in the spiritual sense..." I would like to know: Who ever accurately and correctly called Jesus the son of Joseph? Luke 3:23 New King James Version: "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..." "*as was supposed.* Luke had already established the fact of the virgin birth (1:34,35); here he made clear once again that Joseph was not Jesus' true father" (p. 1529, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . You wrote concerning Adam: "In a sense then, he became a man." I would have to disagree with you. God *created* Adam as a man. I cannot agree that sometime subsequent to his creation, Adam *became* a man, since he was a man from the moment of his creation. . . . You wrote: "In Adam's case also there didn't have to be a father, just a Creator." Please note what it plainly says in Luke 3:38: "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Repeating: "Adam, the son of God." If one wishes to debate whether the meaning of "Adam, the son of God" is literal or metaphorical, one may do so. But in the Scriptures, when the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it be nonsense. . . . (Yet it is true that not every statement in Scripture was meant to be taken literally. No one can deny that often Scripture uses figurative language. Care must be taken to distinguish the figurative from the literal. Notice that in the above paragraph, I did not say "literal sense." To be safe, I prefer to use the term "the plain sense.") . . . Again, thank you for a most interesting posting. In Christ, JVH0212 |
||||||
4109 | God warns: disobey and see consequences | Zech 7:12 | kalos | 2212 | ||
I appreciate your note. However, I would never accuse God of vindictiveness (not saying that you did that). Instead, I would point out that one of God's many attributes is His JUSTICE. Justice is defined as: "2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS." It seems that many of us Americans have a real problem recognizing and reverencing the justice as well as the sovereignty of God. (Again, this is not directed at you. I am just commenting on Americans in general, including some Forum members in particular.) |
||||||
4110 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2210 | ||
So far I have heard, "It is my conviction...," "I believe...," and "I believe..." Scripture, please. | ||||||
4111 | Heaven | Matt 22:30 | kalos | 2201 | ||
Dear Hugger: . . . In general, I tend to agree with you when you write: . . . "I think (and this is not from scripture but by the witness of the Spirit that lives in me)that we will not need the physical expression of sexual relations in heaven because we will be in love with the Lord and we will be the bride of Christ. The pure joy and ecstacy of being in heaven with the Lord is much more satisfying that anything we can experience with our bodies in sexual relations." . . . To add to my earlier answer, our bodies in heaven will be *capable* of eating and drinking, but I don't see where we will *need* to eat and drink. The same could be true of sexual capability vs. sexual need in heaven. Maybe we will be *capable* of sexual activity, but will not *need* it because of "the pure joy and ecstasy of being in heaven with the Lord." . . . To all our master debaters let me say: Save your angry postings to me, folks. I started out by saying that what I originally wrote re this question is neither doctrine nor dogma, but is merely my observation on the subject. I do not claim to have the one right answer to the question. As Americans we have the right to debate this topic endlessly, but, frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to. . . .Your brother in Christ, JVH0212 |
||||||
4112 | Apostasy vs. heresy. | 2 Tim 4:3 | kalos | 2155 | ||
Apostasy and heresy. "Apostasy, 'falling away,' is the act of professed Christians who deliberately reject revealed truth as to (1) the Deity of Jesus Christ, and (2) redemption through His atoning and redeeming sacrifice. Apostasy differs, therefore, from error concerning truth, which may be the result of ignorance, or heresy, which may be due to the snare of Satan (2 Tim 2:25-26), both of which may exist with true faith. The apostate is perfectly described in 2 Tim 4:3-4. Apostates depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession of Christianity (2 Tim 3:5). ... Apostasy in the church, as in Israel, is irremediable and awaits judgment." (p. 1304, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967) | ||||||
4113 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | kalos | 2147 | ||
Dear RElderCascade: I want to thank you for all the encouragement and support you've been giving me. How kind of you to write and encourage me. I just read your Personal Profile and agree with you on your choice of favorite authors. I have spent much of my life in a church that not only rejects the Bible doctrine of election (having formulated their own doctrine which they find easier to accept), but one in which the average member neither knows nor wants to know any Bible doctrine about anything. As such, I never "saw" or understood the Bible doctrine of election until fairly recently. Now that it's been well explained to me, I find it instantly logical and Scriptural, as I did the doctrine of Eternal Security when, at long last, it was defined and explained for me. Thank you again. May God be with you and bless you in all your service for Him. Yours, JVH0212 | ||||||
4114 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | kalos | 2146 | ||
Thank you for your reply. I would like to add to what you are saying in your reply: Election is the Bible doctrine that (Eph 1:4 and 2 Thess 2:13) God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world for salvation. And he merely left the rest in their sinful condition. Nowhere does the Bible or its doctrine of election say "God chose for some to be saved and others not to be saved." He chose some for salvation and left the rest as He found them. Is God unjust to do this? No, never. Scripture abundantly affirms that God is never unjust or unfair. God is sovereign and is under no obligation to explain to man the why of every last thing He does. | ||||||
4115 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | kalos | 2145 | ||
I am sorry that I did not make my answer clearer. That is, I should have taken all that exposition on the purpose of the law and applied it specifically to your question. I'll try it again. The short answer: . . . In us, that is in our flesh, dwells no good thing. In ourselves, without Christ, we would find this command impossible to keep. But the Holy Spirit in us gives us the power to obey it. . . . Regarding the Mosaic Law, including Deut 6:4, "every unbeliever is still under its [the Law's] requirement of perfection and its condemnation, until he comes to Christ (Gal 3:23-25) and every believer still finds in it the the standard for behavior. . . . *fulfilled.* Although the believer is no longer in bondage to the moral law's condemnation and penalty (Rom 7:6), the law still reflects the moral character of God and His will for His creatures. But what the external, written code was unable to accomplish, the Spirit is able to do by writing the law on our hearts (Jer 31:33,34)and giving us the power to obey it" (p. 1707, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . Consider Rom 8:3 and following: "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfillled in us" -- IN us not just FOR us. . . . See also 1 John 3:4-9. Read this in the Amplified Bible, if possible. 1 John 3:9 Amplified Bible "No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him...and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God." The key words are: "[deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin" and "he cannot practice sinning." This phrase once again conveys the idea of habitual sinning (see 1 John 3:4,6). The emphasis here is on the first part of v. 9: "No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him." The application is that yes, it is possible for the believer to keep this command (see also Gal 2:20). As surely as I quote from 1 John 3, someone will write in accusing me of using that Scripture to prove this or that. To such a person I would say: I am not trying to prove anything. I merely point out WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS in this passage. Please don't try to tell me how I am interpreting 1 John 3. And you don't need to explain it away until the words no longer mean what they say. For once, just take bare words of Scripture, and accept them for what they say. |
||||||
4116 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | kalos | 2130 | ||
Let me begin by saying that nothing I write in this reply is intended in any way to appear argumentative. I very much respect your interpretation. I present my understanding of the verses for your consideration. . . . You write: "MacArthur is convinced that the Holy Spirit was not actually given until Pentecost." May I point out a couple of things to take into account? . . . Luke 24:49 ASV "And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high." In 24:33 the text makes it clear that in v. 49 Jesus is adressing "the eleven [apostles] and those who were with them gathered together." Question: If the Apostles had previously received the Holy Spirit (John 22), then why does Jesus command them "tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high"? . . . Acts 1:8 ASV "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Question: Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past? . . . It is generally understood that the church was born on Pentecost Sunday when, for the first time, believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. . . . Let me clarify something. The Bible in 1 Cor 12:13 says: "By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..." This is how we were initially placed into the body of Christ. It occurred when we received Christ as Savior and were born again. If we were "baptized by one Spirit" when we were placed into the body of Christ, then what else could the baptism in or of the Holy Spirit be? Surely there are not 2 or more different kinds of Holy Spirit baptism, are there? . . . Also note that in Acts 2:4, the text there does not say: "And they were all baptized with the Holy Spirit." It uses the word "filled". "And they were all FILLED (emphasis mine) with the Holy Spirit." Filled, not baptized. Not according to the plain text of the Scripture. . . . Don't misunderstand me. I have not taken a stand for or against the gift of tongues. So far I have not said one thing about tongues. What I am talking about is, as you picked up on, the difference between "baptized" and "filled." . . . Then you state: "I'm not convinced that the term "filled" with the Spirit isn't used in two distinct ways -- one referring to a temporary condition of supernatural empowerment (as in Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9 etc.) and another one describing an ongoing condition (Acts 6:3,5; 11:24; 13:52; etc.). " I don't see how any reasonable Bible student could not agree with you on this. It seems quite plain from the Scritpures you cited that, indeed, the Holy Spirit comes upon people at different times to empower them to perform certain ministires or specific tasks. Good point! . . . Surely extremists from one side or the other (tongues speakers or non-tongues speakers) will deliver a tirade against one or both of us telling us how wrong, confused, and inept we are for not taking their side. If I understand you correctly, your aim is the same as mine. I want to base my beliefs on the clear teachings of Scripture and not just blindly accept the teacings, leanings, biases, or filters of any church, denomination, doctrine of men, or alleged teaching ministry. (On the other hand God did give gifted people to the church, including teachers. Let's all use a little common sense and realize that somewhere there may be someone who's studied the Bible a little longer, deeper, and more intensively than we have.) For example, John MacArthur does not claim infallibility for himself. But the fact that he has studied the Bible 30 hours a week for 30 years in the original languages -- that fact may prompt us to consider the possibility, however slight, that just MAYBE he has a better background and skill in interpreting the Bible than most of us do. I know Americans in general and fundamentalists in particular have a distrust of formal education. Except of course when they need a physician or an attorney. Then forget self-taught practitioners. They want a "real" doctor or a "real" attorney. Funny how there's a double standard there. It seems that who handles their body or their financial interests is more important than who shepherds their souls and breaks to them the bread of life. Much more could be said on this topic. And I'm sure it will be. But I'll reserve any further comments until another day. Thanks for your posting, your interest, and the care you've taken to post a reply that is well worth reading. ---JVH0212 |
||||||
4117 | Define the word "cult". | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2122 | ||
I feel that all three of you -- HolyGman, EdB, and prayon -- have given most excellent, well researched answers to my question. Going along with prayon's answer (Items No. 4 and 5), I would like to add an indirect quote from the teachings of Pastor M.C. Johnson, Calvary Temple, Springfield, Illinois. Once while teaching on the subject many years ago, he said: Typically a cult is characterized by abuse. Abuse of authority, abuse of the followers' time, abuse of the followers' financial resources (money). Again I say to the three of you, I am delighted by each of your answers. Again I thank you all. | ||||||
4118 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | kalos | 2086 | ||
Was God somehow responsible for the sins of Pharoah? Jas 1:13-14 ASV (1901) "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed." |
||||||
4119 | Steward of the mysteries of God? | 1 Cor 4:1 | kalos | 2057 | ||
What an exciting Bible discovery you've made. I would never have seen the connection between those verses. Good work! Thanks for sharing that with me. God bless. Yours in Christ, JVH0212 | ||||||
4120 | What are the Nephilim? | Gen 6:4 | kalos | 2048 | ||
On 03-29-2001 I did more research on Gen 6:4 and found the following. I hope this helps answer the question you asked me. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to send me another note. Thank you, wdc, for your input. . . . Can angels father or give birth to human babies? Are unicorns real? How about leprechauns? How many procreating angels can dance on the head of a pin? . . . The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) . . . "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)". (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) . . . "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 ] Next > Last [212] >> |