Results 4161 - 4180 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4161 | The Unpardonable Sin | Matt 12:31 | Hank | 8427 | ||
This note is an attempt to re-define what the unpardonable sin actually is according to the words of Christ himself. I say "re-define" because much discussion and defining have heretofore been posted on this forum. The key passages that address this topic and put it in proper context are Matthew 12:15-31; Mark 3:22-27; and Luke 11:14-23..... C. I. Scofield summarized the teaching on the unpardonable sin as follows: "The blasphemy against the Spirit" consisted in ascribing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit (cp. Matthew 12:24). Such a sin was unpardonable because of the unusual cicumstances of their rejection of Christ. This most serious sin of the Pharisees was the climax of their continual denial of the obvious truth that the miracles of Jesus represented the power of God (e.g. Matthew 9:33-34), so that Jesus' message was heaven-authenticated. Their folly in deliberately apostatizing by ascribing to the devil the mighty works of Christ by the Holy Spirit is summarized by our Lord in Matthew 23:13-36 and Luke 11:52. Anyone who is concerned about his rejection of Christ has obviously not committed this 'unpardonable sin' and can still come to Christ." ..... Therefore, the unpardonable sin encompasses a great deal more than the unbelief of John 3:18. If not, Paul would never have been forgiven for his persecution of members of the Way. There are agnostics and atheists, past and present, who, having been cleansed and fully forgiven, attest to the saving power of the gospel. Mere unbelief does not constitute an unpardonable sin in and of itself. All of us "stand condemned already" who have "not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son" (John 3:18) but "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Unbelief in Jesus is one thing, but ascribing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit is quite another. --Hank | ||||||
4162 | Is suicide a sin? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 8422 | ||
Tim, your remarks on suicide bear your enviable trademark of reasonableness and balance, as well as a careful, conservative interpretation of Scripture. And regarding your testimony, "My salvation is based totally upon the mercy and grace of God," I would respond, "Amen. So is mine, and so is the salvation of us all."...... Now for a personal, subjective note about suicide. My wife has a niece who is only 38 years old but confined to a nursing center with a disease that is medically considered terminal. The disease, Huntington's, is hereditary and characterized by degeneration of the central nervous system. Severe depression often accompanies the disease and the rate of suicide among its victims is fairly high. While the niece thus far has not, so far as we know, attempted to take her own life, it is nontheless a clear possibility, so we have been informed by the professionals in charge of her care. What I am saying is that, in this case and who knows in how many other cases, the victims of suicide may not be really responsible for their deed..... I know you have been not in any way judgmental, Tim, and not the slightest hint of that is directed toward you. But I include the broad spectrum of all of us -- every Christian -- when I say that we would do well, I believe, to assign judgment to the only true Judge of the human heart. to Him whose love and mercy passes our understanding. It is never our burden to play God. We are singularly ill-equipped for that role. The taking of a human life, whether one's own or someone else's life, is an ignoble act against which Scripture clearly commands. But to equate it with the "unpardonable sin" as now and then we find someone suggesting, is going rather far afield and hardly in accord with scriptural teaching. --Hank | ||||||
4163 | Cities of Judah or Cities of Demons? | Genesis | Hank | 8391 | ||
There is no way, shogun, that I am willing or even prepared to post an expansive argument on the theological positions of the "Benny Hinn crowd" or the "stodgy Calvinists" as you have colorfully tagged each camp. Your tags of each communion are interesting in the way you have placed them in juxtaposition. Having known no adherents to the Benny Hill camp personally, I disqualify myself to post any comment on them. But with Calvinists I am quite conversant and have many dear friends among them. I've yet to meet a really "stodgy" Calvinist. I find most of them warm, caring, bright and quite likeable. I don't know of a single one who would subscribe to the notion that "God ... is pretty much done with what He's going to do." If I asked such a question of a Calvinist, I rather guess he would look at me quizzically and ask me what in the world I was talking about. To which I would feel compelled to answer, "Well, I'm not really sure myself what I am talking about." And as for your other tag, that Calvinists "portray God as one who picks and chooses," well, the Calvinists are by no means the first to portray God as being Sovereign and thus quite able to pick and choose as He pleases. God Himself, I submit to you, beat them to the draw. --Hank | ||||||
4164 | What Cities are Refered to in Jer. 4:26? | Genesis | Hank | 8390 | ||
DocSpock, as one of the "senior members" of the forum (among the seniors in age as well as in longevity on the forum), I extend my hand in welcome and fellowship.I appreciate your concerns as you've expressed them in your post. You have every right to express your thoughts and feelings.... and, as for that, so do our colleagues on the forum....... What I hear my brothers and sisters saying on the forum in regard to Benny Hinn does not constitute, in my view, an attack on the person of Benny Hinn, but rather an exceedingly strong rebuke of his teachings. I would rather doubt that anyone who has voiced his views about Hinn's teachings knows the man personally. But I defend the right -- beyond merely the right, the duty -- to speak out loud and clear against false teaching when such false teaching can clearly be shown by the Word of God to be patently wrong, deceptive, misleading and heretical. It is by no means out of line or in poor taste to identify the false teacher by name when it can clearly be demonstrated by example upon example wherein the error of his teaching lies. In this, I surely do believe, our good colleagues on this forum have posted ample and convincing documentation to support their position. --Hank | ||||||
4165 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Hank | 8332 | ||
Saga, shogun? I'm not quite sure what you mean, but perhaps you want me to answer why I used the word in connection with the discourse between Mark and me. A saga is not restricted to mean a Nordic or Icelandic prose narrative. It can mean any long detailed account. If you add our combined posts together, you will surely agree that they are both long and detailed :-). But fruitful, I trust. I echo your cheers of Mark. --Hank | ||||||
4166 | Truly this Man was the Son of God.Mk 15 | Luke 4:23 | Hank | 8319 | ||
Steve, you are absolutely right about Luke 4:28,29 and I absolutely wrong. I misread your answer by attempting to put the two things, the thief on the cross and the crowds desire to kill Jesus, in the same train of thought. I now see wherein I made the blunder. You were speaking of the crowds in Nazareth at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, not the crowds in Jersusalem at the end of it. So sorry, Steve. I stand corrected. --Hank | ||||||
4167 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Hank | 8317 | ||
And so, Mark, our saga endeth. We survived. No harsh words were uttered. We are still friends. We are still brothers in Christ. And we end our discourse far more in accord than in anything else. God's blessings on you and those dear to you. --Hank | ||||||
4168 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Hank | 8313 | ||
Oh yes, oh yes, JVH, you are 100 per cent right in your observations, and in the wake of making my post to Mark I did an "Oops, I may have come across as seeming to say that the Bible is the sine qua non for the Christian walk but not vital to the first step, which is salvation. ..... That is most assuredly not where I stand. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. I was so intently concentrated on trying to get one thing right and ended up, I fear, dropping the ball on the other. A million kind thanks, JVH, for calling this swiftly to my attention. I am in your debt. --Hank | ||||||
4169 | What is Christianity? | Acts | Hank | 8311 | ||
Thank you, Nolan, for your fine answer. You used an interesting phrase in your answer, "the full measure of Christianity." I like that. For some 52 years I have been engaged in some feeble attempt to measure it out, to plunge into its depths, to understand fully what it means. My success so far could be compared with trying to measure the amount of water in the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Up to now I have measured only a teaspoonful, maybe two if I stretch it a bit. Clearly I have a ways to go yet. The unsearchable riches of Christ are beyond our ability to comprehend in all their glorious fullness. --Hank | ||||||
4170 | Was Pilate guilty for Christ's death? | Matt 27:24 | Hank | 8306 | ||
Thank you, JVH. I suppose everyone who posts a question that attracts multiple answers picks his favorite, and your answer is far and away my favorite thus far. --Hank | ||||||
4171 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Hank | 8305 | ||
Well, thanks for the ear back, Mark. You returned it fuller than when I lent it! And if I hear you right, I cannot really disagree with you, and as for that, don't really want to :-) I think I hear you saying in effect that one does not need to be a Rhodes Bible Scholar (if any such thing exists) to answer the call of the Spirit and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as one's Savior. If that's about the nuts and bolts of it, we have essentially no difference of viewpoint whatever. I was saved when I was 14 years old, hardly knowing the difference between and apostle and an epistle, and not being able to give you a very scholarly definition of either. But salvation and sanctification (growing in the faith) are not one and the same, although the former is certainly prerequisite to the latter. The "sincere milk of the word," as the old King James puts it so beautifully, is the indispensible yardstick by which we must measure our progress as we attempt to walk with Christ. --Hank | ||||||
4172 | A Lesson from Abraham Lincoln | Eccl 7:9 | Hank | 8302 | ||
Abraham Lincoln is on record as saying that when he became angry at a man he sat down and wrote him a letter, and in frank terms told the man that he was an unreasonable, stupid fool. "Then" said Lincoln almost as an after thought, "I tore up the letter." ...... Any lesson here for those of us who regularly post on the forum? --Hank | ||||||
4173 | Truly this Man was the Son of God.Mk 15 | Luke 4:23 | Hank | 8299 | ||
Steve, perhaps I'm misreading the second paragraph of your post, but aren't you getting your thieves on the cross crossed? The thief of Luke 23:39 is not the thief of Luke 23:42 who said, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom." ..... You also say, in paragraph three, "The people of Nazareth wanted to kill him." The place of the crucifixion was "The Skull" (Calvary, Golgotha), which is in the environs of Jerusalem. How is it then that they were Nazarenes? --Hank | ||||||
4174 | What is Christianity? | Acts | Hank | 8294 | ||
Lionstrong, I've read your answer several times and must confess that I have no more idea than the second Monday in July what it means. Could you perhaps simply your answer for the benefit of an old Arkansas rube like me? --Hank | ||||||
4175 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Hank | 8288 | ||
Mark, by and large, I agree with what you say, but would like to emphasize and re-remphasize that the Word of God is, first, last, and always the fundamenal assay tool to be employed when we test our beliefs and examine our hearts. This is not to say that our deepest feelings or our spirtual experiences are to be cast aside, but that the plumb line for measuring their reliability must in the end be the Word. I believe this is basically what you have said. I merely wish to underline some of your words. --Hank | ||||||
4176 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Hank | 8285 | ||
Thanks for the kudos, Tim! Flattery is always an acceptable form of communicaton. :-) ...... But I'd like to turn the tables on you .... you have been a distinct asset to this forum from the day you first logged in. Keep logging. --Hank | ||||||
4177 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Hank | 8282 | ||
Tim, if I may, I'd like to add a thought or two that may relate in some way to your statement, "I do not believe that education or learning are bad things." Well, neither do I and certainly agree with you. Christians are nowhere commanded to check their brains in at the door when they enter a church building, as C. S. Lewis once pointed out. ..... But regarding education and learning, their worth and trustworthiness depend in good measure upon who does the educating that leads to the learning. Or, one could say, the kind of crop harvested depends in no small measure on the kind of seeds sown. In many of our universities today -- and, yes, in our seminaries as well -- secular humanism is being taught instead of orthodox theology, evolutionism is taught as fact and creationism as a myth, practices the Bible calls perversion are being defended as being acceptable alternate lifestyles. The list goes on. ..... Perhaps the greatest threat -- the real Achilles' heel -- to sound doctrine in the churches today is the pandemic ignorance of Scripture found among a great many church-going Christians. For nearly a quarter century I taught an adult Sunday School class and was overwhelmed by the woeful lack of basic Bible knowledge among class members, even though the majority of these people were quite intelligent and literate, many of them having advanced degrees. They had a little knowledge about the Bible, but as Alexander Pope put it, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." ..... It's easy enough to assume that an otherwise literate person knows the Bible well. What Mark Twain said when asked to give his definition of a classic of literature might appropriately be applied to the Bible as well: "Something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read." It was from the witty pen of this humorist that we get another wry observation: "Nobody is more ignorant than the educated person when you get him off the thing he was educated in." --Hank | ||||||
4178 | Time lapse between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3. | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 8271 | ||
Dear DocSpock: My comments regarding the "Gap" and other theories relating to the genesis of the universe were not in any manner directed, or intended to be directed, toward you personally. I'm keenly aware that you in your post included a disclaimer and that you are not offering your thoughts as didactic scriptural exegesis. My point was, and is, that as far back as written records can take us, man has gazed into the heavens and wondered how it all began. He has postulated any number of theories born of his desire to understand his origin and the origin of the universe in which he finds himself. Some of his theories presuppose a Creator, some do not. Few, if any, of man's theories are in full accordance with or parallel the Gensis account of creation. My hypothesis is, as a believer in the God of the Bible, that it is enough to take the Gensis account for what it says and be done with it. Secular humanists and skeptics engage in all manner of debates and speculations, but in my view it is a venture into which the Christian should proceed with caution if at all. I believe God still asks of His people as He asked of Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding." --Hank | ||||||
4179 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Hank | 8264 | ||
Tim, thanks for your fine word study of the Hebrew term translated "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 (and elsewhere) in the KJV .... This translation, coupled with the common definition of "replenish" as meaning "to replace or refill" has lent a measure of confusion to what really is a simple command, "to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Contemporary English is quirky enough, but it is quirkier still when we are dealing with its usage in 1611. Even today the word "replenish," in addition to meaning replace or refill, can and does also mean simply "to fill with persons or animals." (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). The same dictionary gives an archaic meaning of "to supply fully; to perfect." It is the prefex "re" (again) that throws us. A rough analogy could be cited in the words "flammable" and "inflammable" -- both mean the same thing. In fact, you will always see "flammable" in bold letters on trucks hauling gasoline, never "inflammable" lest the intended warning be misunderstood. --Hank | ||||||
4180 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | Hank | 8240 | ||
Right you are, shogun, the old pre-adamic race theory did roam the hills years ago. One would have hoped it had lost its way in the hills and silently passed away. This theory was nutty and unscriptural when it was first conceived, is now, and ever shall be. But since like seems ever to attract like, a crackpot theory like this will probably enjoy some sort of half-life as long as there are crackpot preachers around to espouse it. Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 ] Next > Last [217] >> |