Results 4281 - 4300 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4281 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159695 | ||
David, your premise that "Michael and Jesus are one and the same person" has no sound biblical support at all; therefore, your "proof" fails utterly. Please state your belief on the triunty of God. .... Michael is an archangel. Why therefore is he not to be considered an angel himself? Angels are created beings, do you agree? So show us where there is any indication in Scripture that the archangel Michael is not also a created being? Where did your ideas about Jesus being Michael come from? From what teacher, group, sect, or cult did you learn this? --Hank | ||||||
4282 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159777 | ||
Bows, "facts" on internet websites are often distorted! You need to dig deeper into the question of the origin of Jehovah's Witnesses. ..... The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society changes doctrines on a moment's notice. We see in those doctrines a metamorphosis from original Russellism, not correcting any of Russell's theological errors but adding some of their own. There is a current remnant of Russellites called "Bible Students" who disavow any connection with Watchtower, but such a disavowal does not change the historical fact that both they and Jehovah's Witnesses share a common root in the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. ..... Russell had some fine thoughts on biblical research; however, they are completely overshadowed by unorthodox interpretative teachings that are wholly off the wall. They are in many respects no different from other religious movements of the 19th century. Russell was in the same league with other false teachers of the period -- people such as Joseph Smith (Mormons), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), and Ellen White (Adventists). All of these individuals had some fine teachings -- false prophets have an art of mixing just the right amount of truth in their batch of lies to make the whole package look appealing -- but all of them were also off the deep end Cults, their teachers and followers alike, are masters of deception and destructive and detrimental to orthodox Christianity. ..... Whether Russell was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses is really academic and not worth arguing about. What is worth considering is that much of what Russell taught and Watchtower teaches is false and heretical and many continue to be led astray by them. --Hank | ||||||
4283 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159813 | ||
David, you are being presumptuous with BradK; you mention 100 verses without specifying even one of them and then have the audacity to ask him which of these unnamed verses he is having trouble with. ..... David, you have been asked to support your claim about Jesus and Michael being one and the same, which you have not done. You have been asked about any connection you may have with Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctrine, which you have not responded to. People who keep their religious affiliation to themselves have some reason for doing so, and more often than not that reason is that they have something to hide. If you wish to remain an active user of this Forum, you are advised to follow the rules and play straight with the other users and to stop playing silly games such as the one you just played in responding to BradK. Other users have posted what the Bible teaches on angels, archangels, and Jesus Christ. You have posted nothing of what the Bible teaches on any of these topics, but instead have concentrated on pushing an idea that has been condemned as unbiblical and heretical by the orthodox church for years. ..... Now, please answer this question directly: Are you a Jehovah's Witness or do you endorse any of their their views, especially those involving Jesus Christ and Michael? I expect you to answer this question as soon as possible. --Hank | ||||||
4284 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159824 | ||
forwwjd: You make it sound as though theologians and apologists are not lovers of Jesus! Is there anything wrong with serious Bible study? (See 2 Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11; and Psalm 119:11). .... Or should we just "Honk If You Love Jesus," and fly around as unanchored as a tumbleweed, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine? (See Ephesians 4:14). ...... As is the case with virtually everyone who comes on this Forum bearing scriptural error, he is given what the Bible teaches on the subject. Whether he is willing to investigate, believe and accept scriptural truth or remain in error is up to him. What you call "attacking" is not what most seasoned users of this Forum do. They are not actually "attackers" of the person or his theological position but are instead defenders of the gospel of Christ. (See Philippians 1:17; Romans 1:16 and 2 Timothy 3:16; and 2 Timothy 4:1-4) --Hank | ||||||
4285 | Scriptural Support? | Rev 12:9 | Hank | 159827 | ||
forwwjd: I have to admit that it seems quite ambitious of you to tutor Doc in Forum guidelines and behavior -- he who has made 2758 postings in 15 months and you who have made 4 postings in 13 days. Had your tutelage been made available to Doc during all his 15 months on the Forum, he might have turned out pretty good. But we can breathe easier now and gather renewed hope for Doc, knowing that finally, and in just the nick of time, Doc is in good hands. :-) --Hank | ||||||
4286 | Our name erased or added to Book of Life | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 87720 | ||
Now really, John Reformed, what's new in your post that you haven't posted umpteen times already? EdB was right after all: "We have both heard it all." (What WOULD you Calvinists have to talk about if it weren't for Romans 9 ?? !! :-) ..... Note to new users: If you really want to read several hundred posts on the Forum's Famous Calvinism Debates, hit Search and type in Calvinism. --Hank | ||||||
4287 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88095 | ||
John Reformed: So your argument is that it was God's will that the fall of Adam and Eve would occur? Was sin involved in the fall? Was it God's will that they should sin? How does this line of reasoning prevent God from being, in fact, the author of sin? And how is it that Scripture says that God is not willing than any should perish? (see 2 Peter 3:9). How do you fit that in with your assertion that God willed the fall of Adam and Eve? You do say in your post that God created Adam and Eve with the freedom to choose to obey or disobey His commands. Yet you say in the very same paragraph that it was GOD'S WILL that they should fall. How can you possibly unify this glaring dichotomy without dancing around with some fancy semantic footwork? --Hank | ||||||
4288 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88118 | ||
John Reformed: You still have not answered the question that I asked you in Post 88095 which was prompted by two of your statements in Post 88091. So let's go back and review your statements: "God created Adam and Eve with the freedom to choose between obedience to His command or to disobey His command." You follow with this statement, "His will was that their fall should occur." The Question: If Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose (as you have stated), was it Adam and Eve's will, or God's will, that resulted in their decision (choice) to disobey God's command? Please provide a biblical answer. --Hank | ||||||
4289 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88139 | ||
John, it is my view that Tim was fully justified in saying what he said in Post 88126 in response to your Post 88125. I would have drawn essentially the same inference as Tim did. Could it therefore be that it is not so much a case of Tim's not paying attention as it is of John's being a trifle vague and rattled in his exposition of the circular reasoning and eccentricities of Calvinism? --Hank | ||||||
4290 | Doesn't this seem like a contradiction? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88495 | ||
John Reformed: Friend, you and your predestined Calvinist brethern seem to take great delight in emphasizing that God hardened Pharaoh's heart "as part of his eternal purpose" so you say. But it seems to me you emphasize one set of facts while ignoring another. There are 18 references in Scripture to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. In nine of them it is attributed to God's actions. That's half of the references. Now to whose actions do suppose Scripture attributes the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in the other half of the references? --Hank | ||||||
4291 | Can the "natural man" desire Christ? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88615 | ||
So who, John, are "all the Father sent Him (Christ)?" Are they not all who hear and CHOOSE to respond to the gospel call? If you say they are the "elect" then who are they but those who hear and believe? Are you saying that man does not have any option whatever whether to believe the gospel and respond to it or reject it? You say that Adam and Eve reponded negatively. What does this do to Calvinism's "I" petal of the TULIP -- irresistible grace? And did Adam and Eve make any theological choices not only before but also after their fall? And did they exhibit that they had any measure of free will? What do the "elect" have to do to be saved? Do they have a choice in the matter or is God going to save them whether they want to be saved or not? --Hank | ||||||
4292 | Can the "natural man" desire Christ? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88756 | ||
Dear John: While I may not always agree with all of your arguments (as you doubtlessly already are aware :-), I want you to know that I do appreciate and applaud the obvious care with which you constructed your response and the kind spirit in which you delivered it. It is refreshing -- and a fairly rare experience on this forum -- to feel certain that the user we're involved with has read and carefully considered your points and questions before rushing to dash off some sort of half-cocked response. I see so much of that on this forum. Yours was decidedly not of this stripe and, again, I'm grateful for it. I generally refuse to continue to dialogue with forum users who dodge questions and evade issues. But the proof of the pudding that I don't place you in this sad category is the fact that you and I have dialogued for a long time -- and rather peppery dialogue it has been on occasion :-) -- and I wouldn't be displeased at all to dialogue with you again from time to time. It is with these people who insist on their opinions being right and have such little regard for God's word that they don't bother to "rightly divide" it that my patience runs thin. We may disagree on some things, John, but I do believe we agree on more things -- and possibly more important things -- than we disagree. Blessings and grace to you, John. --Hank | ||||||
4293 | Can the "natural man" desire Christ? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88774 | ||
Dear John Reformed. And thanks to you for your fine response! The more I reflect on the different points of view of so-called Calvinism and Arminianism -- and here I'm speaking of the classic, historical points of each one and not of the extremism that has, alas, crept into both camps -- I see both points of view as having a high view of the divine authority of Scripture and of the absolute sovereignty of God. Both are in essential agreement on the Trinity, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the depravity of man and his hopeless condition without a Savior. the means of grace which God provided through the shed blood of His Son on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. So I don't really "see red" when I read a sensible, well-reasoned and well-documented Calvinist post or an Arminian one. I really don't stake a claim on being a true-blue Arminian any more than I claim to be a Calvinist. There are those who think that if one isn't a Calvinist he's an Arminian by default, but I believe they're wrong in thinking that. Calvinists believe their doctrine can be found in Scripture. So do Arminians. Are they both right? To some degree and in a certain sense I think they are. If therefore certain points of Calvinism are contradictory of certain points of Arminianism, and both the Calvinist and the Arminian is able to cite scriptural proof for his views, does it then follow that the Bible itself is contradictory? No, that is not the right conclusion to reach, not, that is, if we accept Scripture as God's inerrant word, (and I know I do and certainly have every possible reason to believe you do too) for God cannot lie or contradict Himself. So the fault doesn't lie in God's revealed truth but in our imperfect understanding of it, which can surely include our reading into it more than it really reveals (or less). Whether in this life you or I or any other Christian will ever gain perfect understanding of all that God's word has to teach us about His predestination, His foreknowledge, or His election is most doubtful. If I claimed to know all about these things, chances are I would lie to you about other things too :-) So Calvinism and Arminianism have different points of view on some subjects but on many others they are in accord. There is no doubt in my mind that there are redeemed children of the King among both Calvinists and Arminians and in heaven they will be bonded together as one, united in praise and worship of Almighty God and His Christ. What worries me far more than the doctrinal differences between Calvinists and Arminians are the modern fads, cults, and secular humanism organizations masquerading as New Testament churches -- the fads that teach unscriptural stuff such as the 'word of faith' heresy, the 'feel-good' brand of false Christianity, the experiential faddists who place their 'experiences' above what Scripture teaches, the claimants to 'special revelation...and the cults who deny the deity of Christ or introduce another 'bible' claiming it to be the inspired word of God...and the secular humanism organizations who condone and promote homosexuality, abortion, and evolution, deny the inerrancy and relevance of Scripture, the virgin birth and even the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. These are the real enemies of the church. Not Calvinism. Not Arminianism. --Hank | ||||||
4294 | What Does 666 Mean? | Rev 13:18 | Hank | 149951 | ||
Tom: Commenting on Revelation 13:18, John MacArthur wrote, "'His number is 666.' This is the essential number of a man. The number 6 falls one short of God's perfect number 7, and thus represents human imperfection. Antichrist, the most powerful human the world will ever know, will still be a man, i.e., a 6. The ultimate in human and demonic power is a 6, not perfect, as God is. The 3-fold repetition of the number is intended to reiterate and underscore man's indentity. When Antichrist is finally revealed, there will be some way to identify him with this basic number of a man, or his name may have the numerical equivalent of 666. (In many languages, including Hebrew, Greek and Latin, letters have numerical equivalents.) Because this text reveals very little about the meaning of 666, it is unwise to speculate beyond what is said." --Hank | ||||||
4295 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59877 | ||
And, John, we can have full confidence in and believe everything we read in God's word. But what we read in the newspapers, or see on TV, or read in school science textbooks these days... well, "It ain't necessarily so!" --Hank | ||||||
4296 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59880 | ||
John, strong language but appropriate and well stated, and I agree with every word you said! Three cheers for having the guts to stand by your convictions in condemnation of idle speculation and defense of the proper handling of the truth of God's word. --Hank | ||||||
4297 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59881 | ||
Well, John, there is a time for straight talk -- call it dander if you wish -- and we have two unimpeachably reliable role models who could, and when the occasion warranted it, certainly did engage in some straight and rather blunt language. One of the models is Paul. The other? The Lord Jesus Christ! --Hank | ||||||
4298 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59902 | ||
To: EdB, Pastor Glenn, Debbie, John and other participants in this little discussion we are enjoying :-) : Greetings! I am NOT advocating the setting aside of the Revelation or any other apocalyptic writings that are a part of Scripture, and neither, I am convinced, is John Reformed suggesting any such measure as that. What I am opposed to for reasons that I believe are justified is any attempt to put a specific tag on world events and teach with the air of certainty, "Aha, see here, this or that event or this or that person is exactly what the Revelation is speaking of -- so and so is the antichrist or this very event is spoken of in Chapter so and so of Revelation -- or it won't be long now, probably less than six months, before Christ returns. We simply can't KNOW the specifics simply because God has not revealed them right down to the name of the person, the exact day and hour, the minute detail concerning persons, places, events and times. It is thus fatuous and inane that we should take it upon ourselves to paint in the details upon God's broad canvas. It is not handling the word of God properly when we try to make it say what it in fact does not say.... In his introduction to Revelation, John MacArthur says in his Study Bible (Word Publishing): "No other New Testament book poses more serious and difficult interpretative challenges than Revelation. The book's vivid imagery and striking symbolism have produced four main interpretative approaches." MacArthur lists these as [1] preterist [2] historicist [3] idealist and [4] futurist. He describes the main points expressed in each view, assesses each view, and gives his reasons for leaning toward the fourth view, futurist, which also happens to be the view I favor..... Will we ever understand this side of heaven all that is revealed in the Book of Revelation? The answer is obvious, isn't it? But are you the man or woman who understands everything there is to know about the other 65 books of the Bible, or have you ever met anyone who does? But our imperfect understanding does not give us the license to give up and cease to learn as much as the Spirit wills to reveal to us of the perfect word of God, now does it? --Hank | ||||||
4299 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59904 | ||
Ed, the Latin phrase is, "Et tu, Brute." [And thou, Brutus] spoken by the dying Caesar to Brutus, one of his conspirators. I do trust that you don't view me in the same light! --Hank | ||||||
4300 | Why will Satan be bound then loosed? | Rev 20:1 | Hank | 103025 | ||
Michael, you may be right about the end times -- I don't know much about the future. But mankind for the most part is going to hell in a hand-basket and always has. That isn't Hank's opinion, it's Jesus' own teaching: "Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13,14 NKJV). --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ] Next > Last [217] >> |