Results 4141 - 4160 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4141 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Hank | 101195 | ||
John Reformed - Three things emerge on this thread: [1] That you have no intention of answering my question about what John 3:18 actually says, [2] that you prefer instead to introduce all sorts of other material in an effort to evade the question, and [3] that you don't know how to end a thread. I give up. --Hank | ||||||
4142 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Hank | 101196 | ||
John Reformed - If you wish to quote from my posts, fine. But please be honest enough to quote it in context. --Hank | ||||||
4143 | Ten commandments should be obeyed . | 1 John 2:4 | Hank | 53779 | ||
Reasnerm, good post. Although I surely do believe we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works, I am not a proponent of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace." When I hear someone yell "legalism" to the faithful soul who is struggling to keep the commandments laid down by our Lord, I cringe. When I hear of a preacher (as in your example) telling his parishioners that they can profess faith in Christ and subsequently go about their lives as usual, I despair. Where there is no repentance, there is no regeneration. Where there is no regeneration there is no changed life. Good works don't save anybody. Only the shed blood of Christ on the cross can do that. But good works, changed lives, are the fruits of the new birth in Christ, and as the Lord has said, "By their fruits you shall know them.".....In summary: Obeying the commandments of the Lord is not legalism. Profession of faith by mere lip-service unaccompained by true repentance is the kind of faith James spoke of, dead faith, and that kind of faith that does not result in works, in changed lives, is dead, being alone. --Hank | ||||||
4144 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | Hank | 54680 | ||
Brad: Now and then out of the purple haze of cyberspace rides in a "Lone Ranger Theologian of the Internet" and ties up his horse on the hitching post of Study Bible Forum. Invariably we learn from this Lone Ranger that he or she has been made privy through some arcane form of spiritual osmosis to revelations and biblical truths that have escaped the notice of men and women of God -- learned scholars, keen theologians, dedicated saints of immense spiritual depth -- down through the halls of time, as far back as the day when Abraham was a boy or even the day when Cain married his famous wife. They are given to wonder why on earth some of the brightest and best-informed biblical scholars were so obtuse that they couldn't see what is as plain as day to the Lone Ranger. And it comes as no surprise to the Long Ranger that all of us allow ourselves to be blinded and deceived by the teachings of the church (any church, all churches), because it is perfectly obvious to him or her that we all are as blind as bats and as dumb as oxen, and the gurus of the churches who have deceived us and poisoned our minds are blinder and dumber still. We are told, thanks to the great insights afforded to these Lone Rangers, that we are to heed only the words of the New Testament that are printed in red, because Paul and his minions had an axe to grind, were biased, possibly perverts, and didn't know whether they were pitching or catching. There is no end to the pearls of great price we can glean from these Lone Rangers, fountains of wisdom, knowledge and truth -- and quite possibly the most gifted genre of cowboys in the Western Hemisphere. How do you know when you've met one of them? Well, here's a clue: To whom did you respond in your post to which I am responding? --Hank | ||||||
4145 | What commandments to keep? | 1 John 2:4 | Hank | 54687 | ||
Brad, let's just say that another Lone Ranger mounted the ever-faithful horse and rode off into the sunset. --Hank | ||||||
4146 | What does 1 John 2:27 really mean? | 1 John 2:27 | Hank | 171243 | ||
Kalos, may I append a solid 'amen' to your post and urge all users of this Forum to read the rest of Dr. MacArthur's article by going to the link you named. In fact, I'll repeat it here for convenience of Forum readers: www.nonprofitpages.com/elm/jm_reckless.htm. --Hank | ||||||
4147 | Is it possible to sin in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Hank | 119216 | ||
Jephthae: Please stop guessing and provide biblical references, properly exegeted, to support your statements. I have in mind particularly the following: "Satan is not a name, it is a descriptive term." [Descriptive of what? and prove it with Scripture]. .... "Anyone can be a satan or devil" [Prove it with Scripture.] ..... "Peter turned into Satan." [Prove it with Scripture]. ..... "That is a type of false religon." [What is? and prove it with Scripture.] ..... "The same system that fooled John in revelation." [What system was that? Explain how John writing under the inspiration of God was fooled. Prove it with Scripture.] ..... Are you beginning to get the idea of how things are done on this Forum? The Forum standards call for scriptural proof of theological statements. Theological guesses that are not and cannot be supported by orhodox exegesis of Scripture are most unwelcome on this Forum. It's better to be candid with you now in order to avoid more serious problems later on. --Hank | ||||||
4148 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | Hank | 144333 | ||
M. J. Head: :: If your thesis be true, that the regenerate is rendered incapable of sinning, how then were such regenerate worthies as David the King and Peter the Apostle able to sin so outstandingly? --Hank | ||||||
4149 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | Hank | 144431 | ||
Bad Dog :: The sense conveyed throughout John's first epistle is not that the redeemed leads a life of complete cessation of sin but a life that is not characterized by sin. Proof of John's thinking on the subject lies in 2:1: "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin." He continues by opening the possiblity of sinning and offering the remedy: "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." ..... John continues to expand on the topic in 2:4: "and He Himself [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins [John was writing to regenerate believers]; and not to ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Propitiation refers to the turning away of God's wrath [see also 4:10]. The holiness of God demands punishment for man's sin; therefore, God, out of love [John 3:16], sent His Son to make substitutionary atonement for the believer's sin, thus propitiating [satisfying, appeasing] the wrath of God against the Christian's sin, turning it away and directing it towards Christ, who, on the cross, finished the work that He came to earth to do. ...... To interpret John's epistle to mean that disciples of Christ always live absolutely perfect and sinless lives renders Christ's words in Matthew 6:12 meaningless: "Forgive our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." A man who has no sin has no reason to pray for forgiveness. And we should bear in mind that Christ's words of instruction on prayer were given for the benefit of regenerate believers, His disciples. --Hank | ||||||
4150 | One born of God cannot sin? | 1 John 3:9 | Hank | 144929 | ||
Ed ::: You are perfectly right in having concerns about what effect this fetal theory may have on the abortion issue. I don't know Dr. Thieme and I don't know his views on abortion, but this much I do know. The church of which I used to be a member for 25 years hired two new pastors, both of whom held this very same view and both of whom were staunch pro-choice advocates. This and other non-biblical views promulgated from the pulpit by these two liberal pastors split the church. My wife and I were two among many who went elsewhere. The two pastors are still there, but the church is struggling to keep its bills paid and its doors open. This theory that the fetus does not achieve personhood until it has breathed air outside the mother's womb is not corroborated by Scripture. It's a neat non-truth that sounds plausible enough to give pro-choicers an excuse to do what they have made up their minds to do anyway. But it falls as flat as the theory that gays are born that way because of a defective gene. There is neither scientific nor scriptural support for either theory. They should be tossed in the junk heap where all garbage belongs. While we're at it, let's toss the theory of evolution in the same junk heap! --Hank | ||||||
4151 | How to love others as commanded | 1 John 3:11 | Hank | 108885 | ||
Colin, this user has been kicked off the Forum by Lockman but somehow manages to continue to post. The matter is being referred to Lockman for further investigation. FYI. --Hank | ||||||
4152 | Are silent protests scriptural? | 1 John 3:17 | Hank | 155867 | ||
Dear Bows: I must confess that I simply don't know whether these protestors' claims of being ordained by God to protest abortion in the manner that they are going about it are, as they claim, valid and reliable. It may be so. I can tell you this. God has spoken: You shall not murder. And I can also tell you that I believe there is nothing whatever wrong in using our influence as citizens to elect godly men and women to the elective offices in our land who are committed in turn to appoint godly judges who will interpret the Constitution instead of rewrite it. ..... Abortion is horrid! In the United States alone, abortion has terminated the lives of 46 million pre-born babies since January 22, 1973, the date of the U. S. Supreme Court's infamous Roe v. Wade ruling. One baby has been killed every 24 seconds over the course of these 32 years since the Roe v. Wade ruling. For every two babies born, one is surgically aborted. Butchered. Slaughtered. Murdered in cold blood. ..... And yet, in the face of this, we stand by silently and even have the stupid audacity to print on our coins, "In God We Trust" and to use the phrase "One nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance to the flag. Surely this blatant and superlative example of the magnitude of our national hypocrisy must reach the gates of heaven with an indescribably foul stench that offends the nostrils of the Holy God. --Hank | ||||||
4153 | Are silent protests scriptural? | 1 John 3:17 | Hank | 155870 | ||
Bows, you mention three things that most Christians have the ability to do: preach/teach the gospel, elect godly leaders, and pray. This is a noble triad than which I can think of nothing more excellent or more likely to produce good fruit. But how many Christians do all three, or even one, diligently? Aren't we somewhat like the old farmer who refused to attend classes on agriculture, saying that he already knew how to farm a heap better than he was doing but was just too lazy to do it? --Hank | ||||||
4154 | How do we know that we are truly saved? | 1 John 3:24 | Hank | 141660 | ||
Russ, do I wish to burst your bubble about having the "warm fuzzies?" Indeed I do! And I'll attempt it by asking you to search the Scriptures and copy down every verse that mentions the "warm fuzzies"! Friend, there ain't no such animal mentioned in God's word. Read and meditate on the Scripture selection that BradK cited for you, i.e., 1 John 5:11-13. Read what Paul and Silas said to the Philippian jailor who asked them what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:25-32). For that matter, read the New Testament and keep on reading it. Saturate yourself with it and you will surely come sooner or later to the sure knowledge of what the Bible teaches about what it means to be saved and what it means to be lost -- and the spiritual wisdom to know the difference. I challenge you to begin to exchange your "warm fuzzies" theology for New Testament theology, and you can do this only by spending many hours immersed in God's word. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can expect to grow spiritually unless he is willing to consume large servings of spiritual nourishment over a long period of time -- the kind of nourishment that can be found in God's word and nowhere else. The faith that is strong, the faith that endures, the faith that saves is in Christ, and founded solely upon the word of Christ, the Scriptures. Never is it founded on the nebulous, shifting sands of subjective and fickle feelings, which is all that the "warm fuzzies" are composed of. --Hank | ||||||
4155 | How do we know that we are truly saved? | 1 John 3:24 | Hank | 141775 | ||
A student of Charles Haddon Spurgeon would never conclude anything about the Prince of Preachers if he did not conclude that Spurgeon had an exceedingly high view of Scripture. Sola Scriptura was Spurgeon to the core. No warm-fuzzies for him! --Hank | ||||||
4156 | How do we know that we are truly saved? | 1 John 3:24 | Hank | 141778 | ||
Amen, Brad. One must for good reason hold suspect anyone's theology which is based on anything else but Scripture. What Texan John Garner, who served as vice-president during FDR's first term, said of the vice-presidency, I would say of any "warm-fuzzy" theology: "It's as useless as a bucket of warmed-over spit." --Hank | ||||||
4157 | How do we know that we are truly saved? | 1 John 3:24 | Hank | 141821 | ||
Emily, welcome! I like your post, particularly the concluding two sentences. I agree that the message of the gospel is simple. And yet profound. But man likes to toy with the simple message of the gospel of Christ. Believing that he is being profound, he is being merely complex and abstruse and, shall we say, mudding up the water? The message of the gospel is clear: Man is saved by God's grace through faith in His Son; it is the gift of God, not man's works (cf. Ephesians 2:8,9). But we mortals oftentimes like to try to get ourselves into the salvation picture. We're not unlike the little group of small-town people I met in Italy years ago when I was in military service. I was a camera buff in those days and was trying to take pictures of the town's interesting street scenes and quaint old buildings when this group of people kept running in front of my camera lens in order to get themselves in the picture. We're like that with God and His plan of salvation. We keep trying to run in front of the lens; we want to put ourselves in His 'picture of salvation.' We are not content to let go and let God. We want to help Him save us by performing good deeds, but what we are really saying is that His plan is incomplete and insufficent, and it needs us, our good works, to make it complete. We are effectually saying that Christ's atoning work on the cross is not enough to save us. And so we add works, we add all sorts of complex and quirky ideas of our own, not one of which has anything to do with the pure and undefiled message of the gospel of Christ. The addition of anything to the gospel message that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus is a corruption of the message. The Bible is very clear on what we must do to be saved: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The promise of eternal life hinges on this one thing. The Bible doesn't promise a "sign" such as the 'warm-fuzzies' (whatever they are!) -- and we don't need a sign. But we do need to believe that the Bible is the inspired, plenary word of the living God, and we need to believe that the word of God says what it means and means what it says! --Hank | ||||||
4158 | How do we know that we are truly saved? | 1 John 3:24 | Hank | 145220 | ||
Greetings, Ray ::: "Hopefully you don't require every person that expresses and opinion to be a Greek scholar" .... Here's how I see it, Ray, if I may be permitted to intrude upon this discussion. When someone expresses an opinion on the proper rendering of a passage of Scripture (or of anything else) from the original language into a receptor language (in this instance, from biblical Greek to contemporary English), I should find it much more convincing if the one giving his opinion were thoroughly schooled in both languages, i.e., if he were a bona fide scholar of both ancient Greek and contemporary English and thoroughly fluent in both. Being able to pick up a Greek-English dictionary and read definitions does not of itself make one a scholar of either language any more than reading medical books makes one a board-certified physician. As I would not not wish to place my body in the hands of someone whose claim to medical expertise was based solely on the fact that he had read some medical dictionaries, neither would I entrust someone with little more qualification than the possession of a Strong's to translate Scripture for me. --Hank | ||||||
4159 | How do we know that we are truly saved? | 1 John 3:24 | Hank | 145560 | ||
Ray ::: It is impossible for me to see what direct role "the love of Christ" plays in an honest disagreement between two men on how a word should be translated. Do you not feel it more noble to address the issue itself instead of resorting to innuendo bordering on ad hominem about "the love of Christ," which seems to be loading the issue with extraneous baggage. Sorry, Ray, but I must be honest: your post to Kalos strikes me as being well below your normative standards. --Hank | ||||||
4160 | Should Benny throw the Holy Spirit? | 1 John 4:1 | Hank | 5854 | ||
JVH, thanks for sharing this additional information on Hinn, whom many already view as a fake, quack, and charlatan. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 ] Next > Last [217] >> |