Results 4261 - 4280 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4261 | Why five words? | 1 Cor 14:19 | Hank | 4961 | ||
Hello, Ray. Agree on both points, as I attempted to make clear in my note to which yours is a response. Sorry if it missed the mark. --Hank | ||||||
4262 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Hank | 4901 | ||
Hello, Joe. You understand modalism. I understand modalism. You understand Triunity. I understand Triunity. There have been many, many, many postings lately by some who may well understand neither. Let me post brief definitions of some terms relative to this controversy that has all but paralyzed this Forum in recent days. For starters, the term "Oneness" that has been bandied about is not a legitimate term in any theological lexicon I know of....First I am going to list four "isms" that orthodox Christian teaching has considered heretical since Apostolic times. (1) MODALISM maintains that there is one God who manifests Himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but who is not contemporaneously all three (2) SUBORDINATIONISM views the Son and Holy Spirit as essentially and eternally subordinate to the Father. (3) TRITHEISM (not to be confused with Triunity) asserts that there are three gods rather than one God who is in three Persons (4) UNITARIANISM rejects the Christian doctrine of the Triunity and of the full deity of Jesus Christ. With too high a view of human reason and too low a view of Scripture, this heresy also denies other important Christian doctrines.....The "Oneness" idea appears to be a confusing amalgam of various of the foregoing concepts.....What is left, then, is the orthodox Christian teaching, fully supported by Scripture: TRIUNITY, the distinctive and essential Christian doctrine that there is one God in three Persons. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is a disctinction between the Persons so that the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Spirit, and the Son is not the Spirit. Each is a Person. The Holy Spirit is not to be envisioned as a mere force or influence. This is the teaching of the Bible. This is the teaching that has been held dear by orthodox Christianity for nearly two thousand years....let us now move forward to other matters. Have we not had enough of this one for now?....Thank you, Joe, for your fine posts and for Biblical answers to Biblical questions. May God bless. --Hank | ||||||
4263 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Hank | 4877 | ||
So what do we do, RevC -- go through our New Testaments and take out all references that say Jesus is the Son of God? We want have much left, just a pamphlet. | ||||||
4264 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4832 | ||
Elijah, you use the words, speaking of Christ, "the Father created Him." When did this occur, before or after Adam? And did God make Christ out of the same clay, and with the same mold, He used to create Adam? If Christ was created, then He is not God, not Deity, but a creature like Adam was and like you and I are, is that correct? Or was He perhaps created as an angel of sorts? Surely you know. You must be privy to information than most of us don't have. Will you therefore enlighten us? We are in the same predicament and face the same question that troubled Pontius Pilate long ago, "What must I do with Jesus?" --Hank | ||||||
4265 | Is there another helper? | John 5:43 | Hank | 4794 | ||
Ray, the interpretation I gave in my original answer is that agreed upon by two of my most respected Bible commentators, Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur. I have read the context surrounding these verses and fail to see any other reasonable interpretation that squares with the text.....And I will add an additional thought to the matter of capitalization upon which you appear to place a great deal of weight and about which I am not attempting to be critical. Nonetheless, I don't share your views about its importance for reasons that I will now outline. In the first place, capitalization as we use it was foreign to the Greek manuscripts from which we get our best New Testament texts. They were written in what is called "uncials" which were somewhat like our capital letters. In a real sense, everything was capitalized. They were also written without spaces between words, called "scriptio continua". The manuscript books were not divided into chapters and verses such as we have in our Bibles today. The nearest I can come to illustrating what one of these manuscripts might look like in English is this: "FORGODSOLOVEDTHEWORLDTHATHEGAVEHISOWNLYBEGOTTENSONTHATWHOEVERBELIEVESINHIMSHOULDNOTPERISHBUTHAVEETERNALLIFE". That is, of course, John 3:16. The point is this, Ray, that capitalization itself is a fairly new invention in language. And certainly the practice of capitalization of personal pronouns that refer to the Deity is newer still. While the NASB and NKJV follow this element of style, the KJV did not and most other modern versions do not, including the NIV and RSV. It may in some cases add clarity. Some feel that it shows respect for the Deity. Both are a matter of opinion and taste; neither is vital to the comprehension of a text that is otherwise rendered in clear, standard English. In summary, capitalization is far down on the list of my priorities. Correct interpretation based on context is the premier issue in Bible study. --Hank | ||||||
4266 | What were Tabernacle and Temple? | OT general | Hank | 4706 | ||
Thanks once again, prayon, for another fine answer: Scripturally supported, without bias or controversy, complete, clear, and to the point. This is the kind of stuff this Forum should be made of. --Hank | ||||||
4267 | Demon possessed now? | Matt 8:16 | Hank | 4606 | ||
Brent, the question may seem odd; however, there is a reason for my asking it in the way I did. The Scriptures do speak to the issue raised, clearly and unequivocally, but no one has cited them yet. The clue lies in the defining of demons. --Hank | ||||||
4268 | Can a woman speak in church? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Hank | 4600 | ||
Nehemiah, man is not the head of the church. Christ is. (Ephesians 5:23) --Hank | ||||||
4269 | Is prayer of Jabez special? | 1 Chr 4:10 | Hank | 4463 | ||
Joe, my only "anger" towards you is that you said the words and I didn't! I believe you ventured into the realm of giving a powerful, moving testimony -- something we don't read often enough these days from believers. You "brought the barn down" in the style of some of the old-time gospel preachers, going as far back as the one who was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Paul, I believe his name was. Each generation has its own peculiar inventory of fads and gimmicks within the Christian community. Today it is the curious marriage of "feel good" religion and end-times stuff, or eschatology. A generation or two ago, the "positive thinking" sub-culture was the train to ride if one really expected to go places in this world. Its gurus went about chanting the mantra "think positive. think positive, go to church, pray positive prayers and you will be healthy, wealthy and wise. God was a tool in the positive thinker's tool kit to be used to make him succcessful. Eternal salvation was, if anything, an incidental benefit for those who might feel they needed it...In our time, reading entertaining Bible stories based on "fact" and so-called Christian fiction is a deplorable substitute for feeding directly upon the life-changing Word of God. I happen to know some people who devour avidly the latest release of this or that "Christian" book, and who can recall the minute details of many of these books, but who would be hard-pressed to name the books that constitute the Torah. I taught an adult Sunday school class for 25 years. I am amazed still by the scant knowledge that so many Christians have of the Bible. It reminds me of the story of some years ago, when Cecil B. DeMille was making all those epic pictures of Bible times. Just days before the release of his epic called "The Bible" two blue-haired old ladies were sitting in a church pew, chatting away before the beginning of the service. One asked the other, "Ethel, have you ever read the Bible through and through?" To which Ethel replied, "Well, Mildred, I've started it several times, but I can't seem to get much past Genesis. I suppose now I'll just wait and see the movie." Ethel is still among us. --Hank | ||||||
4270 | Are we like the Pharisees? | Matt 16:1 | Hank | 4440 | ||
Prayon, your comparison between the Pharisees and the Sadducees is astute. It was the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection (Matt 22:23). I shall never forget that, because some time ago our pastor pointed this out, adding, "That's why they were sad, you see." Jews in Jesus' time had become literally enslaved by their own self-made rules and laws -- legalisms, as they are called. They practiced keeping the letter of the law but forgot about the spirit. Can that be said of some churches in our time? | ||||||
4271 | What teacher read Isaiah? | Luke 4:18 | Hank | 4384 | ||
Joe, someone may try to nail me for this, but I think God gave His children a sense of humor for their mutual pleasure and enjoyment, and I thank Him for letting mine prevail for 66 years. So here goes. The Trinity is as simple as One, Two, Three. And divine elections are held on Sundays. It's obvious I have spent far too much time on the Forum today! --Hank | ||||||
4272 | What teacher read Isaiah? | Luke 4:18 | Hank | 4378 | ||
Reformer Joe, your answer rates a five-star review in my book! In few words you have given a complete and accurate answer. It is a model to which all of us on the Forum would do well to pay close attention. --Hank | ||||||
4273 | Are Jesus' Two Commandments Easy? | Matt 22:40 | Hank | 4376 | ||
Of course the sense of this passage, as well as the content and context of the remaining text of Holy Scripture, clearly indicate that there is additional teaching, but it is exposition of these two basic commandments laid down by our Lord. All the other teaching is encompassed by these two commandments. I did not imply, neither should one infer, that Jesus kicked everything else in Scripture out the door when he issued these two commandments. But they are the two on which hang the law and the prophets as He clearly stated. The Ten Commandments were, in the same sense, not the only commandments in the Old Testament. God gave a number of commands about other things, dietary laws, for example. You asked where did man get the idea that Jesus reduced His teaching to two commandments. I cannot answer for "man" but if you are asking me, I'll be happy to tell you. I used 'reduced' in the sense defined by Merriam-Webster as "to change the denominations or form of without changing the value." That's precisely what Jesus did. And I got the idea from the very same Scripture that you quote in your answer. --Hank | ||||||
4274 | significance of the number forty | Matt 4:2 | Hank | 4352 | ||
The number "forty" could well be tied in with purification or cleansing periods in the examples you cite, or even with times of testing, such as Jesus' forty days and nights in the wilderness. Your interpretation makes as good a sense as any if one presumes any symbolic significance to the number. It does not seem to be in serious conflict with John MacArthur's view -- that forty simply means forty, or that forty is a Hebrew figure of speech to indicate a period of time longer than a month. Whatever the specific meaning may be, we can be sure from the internal evidence that Noah's Flood was considerably more than a rain shower and that Jesus' fast involved significantly more than going without lunch for a day. At all events, the time frames are subordinate in importance to the stirring dramas that took place within them. --Hank | ||||||
4275 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Hank | 4207 | ||
Your answer is a fine one, well stated. I think much of the misunderstanding regarding the teaching on the eternal security of the believer stems from a misunderstanding of what grace really is, an outpouring of God's "agape" love that is unconditional and has nothing whatever to do with our good works. But at the same time we are not exempted from walking in the same manner as Christ walked (1 John 2:6) nor from making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19). We are not to continue in sin so that grace may increase (Romans 6:1). Clearly the Bible teaches that we are not to accept the generous offer of salvation by grace through faith and be done with it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this "cheap grace." --Hank | ||||||
4276 | Three different heavens in the Bible? | 2 Cor 12:2 | Hank | 4183 | ||
In my happy life I have made three sound and satisfying decisions (1) To accept Jesus as my Savior and Lord at age 14; (2) to marry the woman I fell in love with 42 years ago; and (3) to purchase the MacArthur Study Bible. How frequently he comes to my rescue when I come across a passage or locution in the Bible on which I need more light. Of Paul's difficult passage in 2 Cor. 12:2, John MacArthur says: "Paul was not describing two separate visions; the 'third heaven' and 'Paradise' are the same place (cf. Rev.2:7 which says the tree of life is in Paradise, with Rev.22:14, which says it is in heaven). The first heaven is the earth's atmosphere (Gen.8:2; Deut.11:11; 1 Kings 8:35); the second is interplanetary and interstellar space (Gen.15:5; Ps.8:3; Is.13:10); and the third the abode of God (1 Kings 8:30; 2 Chr.30:27; Ps.123:1" The "man in Christ" was Paul himself, as MacArthur points out in another footnote. --Hank | ||||||
4277 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4168 | ||
Lionstrong, I have read your postings and I do not remotely believe, or suggest, that you are anything less than sincere, or that your motives are base, or anything else of the kind. I, therefore, do not impugn your motives; I patently disagree with your conclusions about God being responsible for evil in the world. I truly believe your method of arriving at this conclusion is the major culprit. I will address that promptly, but first I will tell you that I did indeed look at how JVH defined "responsible" and at how my Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary defined it, and there is absolutely no difference between the way JVH used the word and the way the dictionary defines it. "Responsibile" is not really too difficult a concept for most of us to grasp. I think it fair to say that the average fourth-grade student has a working knowledge of what the word means.The Bible verses which you claim support your hypotheses are John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. The former merely states that "all things came into being through Him" -- Him being the antecedent of the Word in verse 1. The Word (logos) was, of course, Christ. The latter is a Christian affirmation of the Shema in Deut. 6:4; both are strong foundational statements that Judaism and Christianity are, both of them, monotheistic. From those two verses you were able to postulate that (1) God is the primary cause of evil (2) God is not liable to be called on to answer for evil (3) God is to blame for evil (4) Evil is all God's fault. Have you ever studied logic? Let's use a couple of examples.EXAMPLE 1 -- A car maker makes a car. A careless driver runs the car into a bridge abutment, destroys the car and kills himself. Therefore, the car maker is responsible for the driver's death, because if the car had never been made (or created, so to speak) the driver never would have had the accident. EXAMPLE 2 -- A carpenter builds a house. An airplane crashes into the house, destroying it and inflicting serious injury to the occupants of the house. Therefore, the carpenter is responsible for the injuries, because had he never built the house, the airplane could not have crashed into it, and obviously there would have been no occupants in a house that did not exist.What it is wrong with these examples? They have assigned the effect to the wrong causation. In the first example, the creator of the car had nothing to do with the car wreck. The driver did, by not obeying the rules. In the secod example, the carpenter (creator of the house) had nothing to do with its distruction and the injuries that ensued. The airplane (possibly the pilot) was the responsible agent in the destruction of the house.Let's put one of your hypothoses in a formula of logic. God created the world. There is evil in the world as the result of man's disobedience to God's laws. Therefore, God is responsible for evil. You see, the "logic" to your argument is not logical.Lionstrong, I do not blast you. I don't even know your name, and I bear no personal ill will against you in any manner. I echo your call to pray for each other, and I do pray. What I "blast" if that is a word you feel befits my former posting, is any statement, suggestion, or innuendo that says, in effect, that our pure and holy God is responsible for evil in this world. He is the God who sent His precious Son to die so that we, having our evils and sins cast on Him, might live eternally. Blessing and peace to you in Jesus' name. --Hank | ||||||
4278 | Did Hezekiah make the right choice? | 2 Kin 20:3 | Hank | 4138 | ||
Nolan, in my many years of reading and study, I have discovered in the Bible many things that I do not understand completely, if at all. I'm like Job. I just don't get it all. And God is still the God who spoke to Job, beginning in Job 38, in which He employed a series of more than 70 questions to Job directly to show Job his ignorance and God His greatness. Yes, there are a large number of imponderables and mysteries in the Bible, but there is at least an equal number of things that are as clear as crystal. There is no doubt that God loves us so much that he gave us His only Son so that, believing on Him, we may have eternal life. And Nolan, I am assured that you know about Jesus, and I am equally assured that you know Him. Your zeal for Him comes through in your writing.As for the mysteries? My mother was so fond of the old hymn that has the line, "We'll understand it better bye and bye." My pastor once remarked that perhaps he should keep a notebook of all the questions he wanted to ask God when he got to heaven, and to take the notebook with him when he died so he wouldn't forget any of them! God bless you and keep you, my young friend. --Hank | ||||||
4279 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4101 | ||
God is responsible for evil. It's all his fault. He's to blame for it. Is this what you are saying? Pardon my bluntness, but this is the most convoluted theological statement I have ever read. How can you possibly find Scripture to support your thesis? --Hank | ||||||
4280 | A life-long lesson from my mother | Gen 3:4 | Hank | 4098 | ||
There has been much discussion on the Forum about Satan -- who he is, where he came from. and the like. I learned about Satan first from my mother, then from the church, and lastly from the Bible. But what I learned from the church and from Scripture has not materially modified what my taught me a half century ago when I was a little boy. I asked her one day, "Mother, who is Satan?" She said, "Son, just remember this, he's as mean as a snake and tries to make you think he's your friend, but he's the biggest liar that ever lived. Always trust Jesus, but never trust Satan." How can I improve on that? --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ] Next > Last [217] >> |