Results 41701 - 41720 of 42010
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions On or After: Wed 02/16/00 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41701 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 1019 | ||
Thank you for your answers. I do appreciate them. You said that "I also agree with your statement that ANYONE who ... believes in God's Son and turns to him for salvation SHALL BE SAVED" Do you believe that EVERYONE has the opportunity to believe or are you agreeing because ONLY THE ELECT have the opportunity to believe? I was told by an elder that only the only the elect have the opportunity to believe and the un-elect have no chance for salavation. This is my biggest problem with election. Not because I don't think it's fair but because I don't think that is what the bible teaches. |
||||||
41702 | making wine.Did Jesus make a mistake. | Bible general Archive 1 | laughlin | 1024 | ||
touch not the wine. Did Jesus make a mistake. | ||||||
41703 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | KBurgee | 1013 | ||
What would be considered the age? So is there no age where a person is considered responsible for their actions? I know we are all born of the knowledge of good and evil, but does it mean that a child is directly responsible for their actions? Or are the parents? I'm not sure if I'm wording this right, but a lot of help on this topic would be greatly appreciated. | ||||||
41704 | Lure or Norse demon? | Rev 19:4 | charis | 997 | ||
Dear dlnash. Great answer! You had more courage than I to study about the Urantia baloney (bologna?). Thank you. By the bye, How did you mean 'troll?' I suspect you meant 'lure.' Bring it to the light, friend. (could you have meant Norse demon?) In Christ Jesus. | ||||||
41705 | Is there an age of accountability? | Bible general Archive 1 | Joseph | 1000 | ||
Is there a scriptural age of accountability before which [Arminian]children are saved and [Calvinist]children are lost? |
||||||
41706 | Acts 2:38 not water baptism? | Col 3:17 | charis | 988 | ||
Acts 2:38 not talking about water baptism? Whoa! Ric, you are brave:-) More than a few Christians might take issue with that statement. So Peter was saying that 'be baptized' and 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' were two separate things? Look at "For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 8:16, and "And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?""Acts 8:36. In any case, you are still focusing on my question being a dogma of water baptism. I am asking about the power and efficacy of the name of Jesus. So, your answer is that we are to do all things in Jesus' name but water baptism? Are there other (optional, non-salvational) things we should do in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Friend (truly!), I am only taking your opinions to the next logical step. I am not making fun of you any more than I try to look at myself with honesty. On a side note, my study of the UPC and the 'Oneness' people, shows their view to be that Jesus superceded the Trinity. I do NOT believe this. I, too, am not a 'professional' Christian. I pray that I will never become one. Jesus and the disciples encouraged all believers to be ministers (servants), but did not have a lot of good things to say about 'professional religious persons.' With love in Jesus' name. |
||||||
41707 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | laughlin | 987 | ||
Did Jesus turn the water into wine.As we know the wine of today? | ||||||
41708 | When is a plumb line true? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 980 | ||
When is a plumb line true? "And the Lord said to me, "What do you see, Amos?" And I said, "A plumb line." Then the Lord said, "Behold I am about to put a plumb line In the midst of My people Israel. I will spare them no longer."" Amos 7:8 To answer my own question, a plumb line, according to a carpenter or a plumber is true when it stops moving. It is swayed by wind (empty breath, not the Spirit) and swayed by an unsteady foundation. It seems to me that "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..." ROM 3:4 speaks of a plumb line working in the church today. Nobody can claim to be 'right.' Not Calvinists, Arminists, Catholics, Charismatics, not anyone. Not even Baptists :-) It is our job to stop the swinging, through rational discussion, mutual respect, a sincere desire for understanding, and conviction of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Bible is a gift from God, given to assist us in this quest, not confirm OUR thoughts or traditions. Any answer that is from God will be simple, and carry authority, Just like Jesus answered the Jews. Personal rancor, prejudice, arrogance and stubbornness do not become us, although, I must admit, it is very entertaining at times :-) Overall, I am very blessed by this forum, and honored to participate. Let us all endeavor to find 'true' by arresting the 'swings' of flesh and soul, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Love and blessings in Jesus' name. |
||||||
41709 | What is Annals of the Kings of Israel? | 2 Kings | dgroves1 | 977 | ||
Where can I find out more about the Annals of the Kings of Israel and what are they? | ||||||
41710 | Problems with Election Theory - Part One | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 975 | ||
Thank you for the rather long reply (although you still refuse to interpret how the 3 questions I asked in the original posting relate to the idea of Election.) In Part 1, you accuse me of not having any knowledge of Election. You are greatly mistaken. I may not have as many years mainly because I can't as easily believe in something that I don't feel is biblically sound. You also asked why I "branded" this as Calvinism. Mainly because this is one of the points that Calvinist believe. Assuming that there are Non-Calvinists that believe in Election then I will use the term Election believers rather than Calvinists. You also stated that because the word "Free Will" is only used two times and only then in reference to offerings that it must mean the the doctrine of election is true. I assume then that you don't believe in the Trinity because that word is never used. You have mistakenly assumed that since the term we call "free will" is not mentioned that it must not exists. What you fail to see is all the examples of "free will" that do exists. The same is true for the Trinity. Although the word we use to describe it doesn't exist, examples that show it does. As far as the count of the words elect, election, chose, and chosen you include many accounts that talk more of free will than election. James 4:4 Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. John 7:17 If anyone chooses to do God's will... and many more. In fact, of the 66 times you say "choose" is mentioned, There are only three that when taken out of context could be used to relate to election. Please don't overinflate your numbers to make your point hoping that people will just take for granted what you say. Then then said that there was not one word that contradicts the teaching of election. You were right. There are many, many words. Examples were the three questions that you nor anyone else I've asked seem to be able to explain. If you'd like more examples, let me know. In your last paragraph in part one, I think you are really referring to the way people that believe in Election are. I have explained what I'm opposed to and defined it. I've shown (in other postings) how the typical election verses are taken out of context. I've tried to see the Election viewpoint but have had all my questions go unanswered. You also seem to imply that the only people that will understand Election are the people that accept it. I assume that I misinterpreted what you wrote because that statement would be absurd in trying to prove your point. (Continued in Part Two) |
||||||
41711 | I DO NOT KNOW | Bible general Archive 1 | laughlin | 983 | ||
Why did Jesue say when asked a question I DO NOT KNOW? | ||||||
41712 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 970 | ||
If you are new to this thread, please read the prior two postings before this one to understand where I am coming from. Thank you. Why is it that when something in the Bible doesn't fit with your interpretation, you feel you must either horribly twist it out of context or in this case give the simple answer that since it doesn't make sense then it must just be because we don't know everyting God does? Couldn't this mean that your interpretation doesn't hold up and that Calvinism is no better than the other religions or cults that base their entire belief structure on a few verses taken out of context so that the can separate themselves and "Feel" superior to others? Why can't you see that the whole bible fits in with the "Free Will" theory while only a small portion can be used to justify "Election". Is there anyone out there can interpret this without the standard "It's just one of those mysteries"? I'm sorry if I come off as being harsh, but it's just that I'm getting frustrated trying to understand how someone can honestly read and interpret the whole bible and come away thinking that God chose some people to be saved and chose others that would not. I am willing to admit that I could be interpreting this incorrectly, but as of yet, have not been able to see where my interpretations err (on major subjects) when taking the whole bible into context. |
||||||
41713 | (again) Apostles mistaken? | Col 3:17 | charis | 968 | ||
Dear Ric, Are the examples of water baptism recorded for us in the book of the Acts of the Apostles then invalid or mistaken? I know, deja vu. But I really am asking the same question again. So far, I have been likened to the 'Jesus Only' or 'Oneness' people, and accused of attempting to break up the Trinity, but no one has answered my question from the Bible. I seem to be getting into the emotions and traditions of man. The beginning of this line of questioning is the validity and efficacy of the name of Jesus. Please answer without giving me your opinion of the correct manner of baptism, or making suppositions of my motive or doctrine or accusing me of being attached to some denomination. In Christ Jesus. | ||||||
41714 | where has this verse gone | 1 John 5:7 | melchizedekau | 958 | ||
why do most traslations of the bible swallow this verse up? | ||||||
41715 | Questions for my Calvinists friends. | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 960 | ||
I'm having problems seeing the Calvinist viewpoint on Election. I've read the verses and studied documents and have found too many problems with the interpretations. I'll discuss these verses again if requested but a couple things that I don't see how they fit are: 1) If God pre-chose only some individuals that were to be saved, why did he destroy them in the flood? I guess you could always say the Noah and family were the only ones he chose but why then go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood? 2) If God had his "Elect" already in mind and knew they were going to be saved because the could not resist God, why then did Jesus have to die? 3) Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kindgom of Heaven? My view on this is that God wants us all to be saved and has provided (initiated, given us, predestined, etc...) the way to salvation through his son. 1) In the time of Noah, the people "went away" from God and the only way at that time to get them back on track was to "start over". 2) In Jesus' time, the people were getting too lost in all their laws and was losing the true meaning of God (Love) and sent Jesus, as a final statement, to show us the path. 3) Because God wants us to chose to worship him and believe in his son and to not follow the "ways of the world", then it would be harder for a rich man because there is greater temptations to sway him away. Although I do believe we have "Free Will" to choose, I also believe that our Will can be overriden by God, if necessary, for his plan to be fulfilled. I also believe that there could not have been anything we could have done to enter Heaven, but fortunately, he invited everyone free of charge with only one string attached -- you must believe. |
||||||
41716 | Irreverence not cause enough? | Genesis | charis | 947 | ||
Dear melchizedekau, Is not irreverence also a great offense in the Old Testament? A stubborn son is to be stoned to death according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. There is just cause according to scripture. To assume homosexuality without some support is not very scholarly. With all respect in Christ Jesus. | ||||||
41717 | (still) God created evil? | Genesis | charis | 946 | ||
Dear melchizedekau, Though fully aware that I can never purchase my salvation or repay the debt incurred, I continue daily to give myself to my Lord Jesus, and invest in His kingdom. Please understand, good fellow, that it is your interpretation that I refuse to buy. Frankly, it seems to be an emotional issue, rather than a holy conviction. Your argument is shallow, though you seem to claim full understanding of the 'deep' things. I would still like to see where in the Bible it says that God created evil (sin, lawlessness), which can be described as 'against God,' and how you so easily dispose of I John 1:5 (et al)? Blessings in Christ Jesus. | ||||||
41718 | Apostles mistaken? | Col 3:17 | charis | 940 | ||
Dear Ric, Are the examples of baptism recorded for us in the book of the Acts of the Apostles then invalid or mistaken? If everyone agrees on the 'formula' and the 'into the Trinity' theory, then why does so much controversy exist in almost every other area of the 'method' of baptism, including whether to baptize at all or not? I must tell you that it is uncomfortable to be 'swimming against the tide,' but I still find these arguments to be traditional, emotional and shallow. Without the single scripture, Matt 28:19, anyone doing a word study on baptism would come to the conclusion (and conviction) that it is proper to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Please, convince me with the Bible. In Christ Jesus. | ||||||
41719 | Who are the seven spirits... | Rev 1:4 | Ric | 932 | ||
Who are the seven spirits before God's throne in Revelation 1:4? | ||||||
41720 | In Jesus' name...except baptism? | Col 3:17 | charis | 929 | ||
"...do all in the name of the Lord Jesus..." COL 3:17 Except water baptism? I ask this question seriously. I am not Jesus Only. But it seems to me that this issue is very emotional. I asked before and got the patent answer, "The Lord Himself said..." I have heard others base their belief upon tradition. Admittedly, even some early church fathers baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). I also heard that the name of Jesus is an abbreviation of a 'fuller formula.' Fine. But that does not answer why we use one scripture to supercede many other scriptures. If we are to baptize according to the 'fuller formula,' should we not then do all things in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? How is this reconciled with the numerous actions of the apostles in the name of Jesus, and the commands to use His name? Were our predecessors disobedient to the command of the Lord? Perhaps they were running out of time, and used the abbreviation? My friends and colleagues, I am not trying to be irreverent. These are valid questions. Whenever we study the Bible, we give weight to such arguments when discussing other topics. Please, answer from the Bible, trying not to be led by tradition or the commentary of others. My intent is unity, not division. I believe in the power of the name of the Lord Jesus. On a side note, please notice that it is not only the 'formula' that is an area of division concerning water baptism. Method, age, place, baptizer, etc. are all subject to 'differing views.' (i.e. division) I look forward to some good answers. (p.s. please don't SHOUT) In Christ Jesus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 ] Next > Last [2101] >> |