Results 61 - 80 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Are you in the faith? | 2 Cor 13:5 | Radioman2 | 79726 | ||
Are you in the faith? Have you examined yourself? Examine and test and evaluate your own selves to see whether you are holding to your faith and showing the proper fruits of it. Test and prove yourselves [not Christ]. Do you not yourselves realize and know [thoroughly by an ever-increasing experience] that Jesus Christ is in you--unless you are [counterfeits] disapproved on trial and rejected? (AMPLIFIED 2 Corinthians 13:5) 'The Bible says "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" (2 Cor. 13:5). Well, are you in the faith? Have you examined yourself? It is easy to ask and sometimes difficult to answer. (...) 'You are to examine yourself, to test yourself to see if you are in the faith. This means that you must first know what the Christian faith is and what it means to enter into that faith. Furthermore, you must know and acknowledge that there is only one God in all existence, that Jesus is God in flesh, that you are a sinner, that you need to repent of your sins, and that the only way to find forgiveness is to trust in Jesus alone, by faith alone, through grace alone.' (CARM NEWSLETTER 03/13/2003, The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, www.carm.org). |
||||||
62 | What is the definition of porneia? | 1 Thess 4:3 | Radioman2 | 77316 | ||
NASB 1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; AMPLIFIED 1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, that you should be consecrated (separated and set apart for pure and holy living): that you should abstain and shrink from all sexual vice, srwoland: Your question: What is the biblical - New Testament definition of fornication? Answer: porneia [Strong's #4202] Definition: 1. illicit sexual intercourse a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11 |
||||||
63 | Where do you find individuals seeking | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96217 | ||
If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? --Radioman2 [DO077-1] |
||||||
64 | Where in Acts do you find individuals... | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96247 | ||
If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? This is a SPECIFIC question that calls for a SPECIFIC answer. Cite the chapter and verse in Acts where one finds *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. If one cannot back up their answer with chapter and verse, then one has not answered the question. --Radioman2 [DO077-1] |
||||||
65 | Where in Acts do you find individuals... | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96404 | ||
If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? This is a SPECIFIC question that calls for a SPECIFIC answer. Cite the chapter and verse in Acts where one finds *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. If one cannot back up their answer with chapter and verse, then one has not answered the question. --Radioman2 [DO077-1] |
||||||
66 | As you say, "there is nowhere in scriptu | 1 Thess 5:21 | Radioman2 | 96431 | ||
As you say, "there is nowhere in scripture that an individual SEEKS the Holy Spirit and there is also nowhere in scripture where an individual is expecting to speak in tongues as evidence that He has come." Since this is not in Scripture, then WHY are there, in this day and age, *INDIVIDUALS* SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? --Radioman2 |
||||||
67 | Are we back to the absurd view...? | 2 Timothy | Radioman2 | 80908 | ||
Are we back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles? Many people, such as the KJV-Only advocates, are scared to death that someone might get hold of a so-called corrupt Bible translation that will somehow deceive them into committing apostasy or heresy. The inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, God's plan of salvation, the Second Coming of Christ, etc. can be proven using the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, RSV, NASB, or any number of other translations. The idea that the same passage in one version will be translated to have an opposite meaning in another verison is pure nonsense. I see no need for people to become hysterical in their fierce opposition to this translation or their fanatical defense of that translation. Moreover, the differences in the wording of various translations is due more to the aim of the translators (to produce a word-for-word or thought-for thought translation) than to differences in the underlying Greek texts, which are minor. |
||||||
68 | Trifling, unedifying, stupid controversy | 2 Tim 2:23 | Radioman2 | 96214 | ||
Trifling, unedifying, stupid controversies AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:23 But refuse (shut your mind against, have nothing to do with) trifling (ill-informed, unedifying, stupid) controversies over ignorant questionings, for you know that they foster strife and breed quarrels. Once again here on the forum someone -- in this case several someones --(Person X) takes a stand on their interpretation of one verse of Scripture or one doctrine. They cling to it no matter what. Others on the forum do all they can possibly do, using both Scripture and reason, to point out that the stand the person has taken is neither Scriptural nor logical. Person X apparently ignores every point made by every other poster. Person X quotes the same question or argument again and again. Other posters try in every way possible to make their points as clear and plain as they possibly can. Time after time Scripture and reason are totally ignored. After the other posters have repeatedly made their point as plain as day, Person X continues to repeat their one misinterpreted verse or point, saying it again and again, like a mantra. After days or weeks have gone by and 100 or more posts are made to the same thread, one or both sides finally give up. Someone finally admits they've reached a stalemate. In vain one hopes that it's finally over and good riddance to the debate. Lo and behold, a month goes by and here comes the same issue all over again. Only it's someone else asking the question this time. Sometimes the postings here are like a dog going round and round chasing his own tale. It should come as no surprise that many former Forum members eventually give up and leave the Forum in disgust, never to return. What is my point? What difference does it make? If my point was that night is dark and day is light, someone would write in and give me 10 arguments why I am wrong. Though we or an angel from heaven stood before that person for 6 literal, 24-hour days trying to reason with them, the person would close their mind and resist the truth. --Radioman2 |
||||||
69 | KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98776 | ||
KJV vs "New Age Bible Versions"? 'STATEMENT DB015 'A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House 'Another book against modern versions of the Bible has entered the marketplace. Like previous works by King James Version (KJV)-only advocates, it argues for the KJV and/or majority text-type as being truer to the original manuscripts than the modern critical Greek texts and their underlying textual traditions. It goes beyond previous works, however, by developing a conspiracy theory for the KJV-only view. Author G. A. Riplinger believes that lying behind modern versions (especially the NASB and NIV, apparently) is New Age influence. 'Until the late 19th century, the texts used by scholars generally were built on a manuscript tradition begun in the seventh century of the Christian era (though I would concede that some readings found in this tradition date back before the fourth century). With the discovery of older Greek manuscripts, and other New Testament manuscripts, critical texts began to be built on manuscripts developed in the fourth and fifth centuries — in addition to a number of ancient papyri, some of which date into the second century. Riplinger rejects these earlier manuscripts and urges us to return to the Bible of the precritical era. 'If there is anything good to say about Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (hereafter NABV), it is that the book is not any longer than it is and that the foolishness of its various claims are transparent when one takes the time to study them. Unfortunately, NABV has received considerable praise from many popular authors who either did not really take the time to evaluate the book or apparently share Riplinger’s ignorance of the issues of textual criticism and translation. 'NABV is replete with logical, philosophical, theological, biblical, and technical errors. Riplinger lacks the proper training to write this book (her MA. and M.F.A. in “Home Economics” notwithstanding). Many of her errors arise from a lack of understanding of Old and New Testament textual criticism as well as biblical and theological studies. In a two-hour debate I had with her, I found her very able to articulate her position. But she repeatedly mispronounced terms used by biblical scholars and did not seem to understand the development of the textual tradition from the Byzantine/“majority” manuscripts to the Erasmian text used by the translators of the KJV. Moreover, I had to ask her four times before she hesitatingly admitted that she really could not read Greek. 'A seminary degree is not required to understand the matters of Bible transmission and translation. But one must learn the history and methodology of textual transcription and transmission, and gain a good grasp of the Hebrew and Greek languages, before one “pontificates” on the subject as Riplinger has done. Simply comparing the KJV with the NIV and NASB through endless charts does not prove a thing. She needs to demonstrate that the specific translations she accepts are really better textual renditions than the alternatives she rejects, rather than merely assuming the superiority of the majority text type or the KJV. 'I have no personal interest in defending the NIV or NASB. I prefer to use the NKJV (New King James Version), though I adopt a more eclectic view of textual criticism than its translators, who hold to the majority text theory. (...) 'The bottom line in Riplinger’s mind is that the King James Version of 1611 is alone the Word of God. Anything prior to or after that specific translation is in some measure not really the Word of God. We are back to the absurd view that the KJV is the Bible of Paul and the apostles. 'A volume the size of NABV would be required to point out Riplinger’s misunderstanding of theology, translation technique, and her fascination with New Age conspiracy and its association with modern versions. This book will cause a temporary stir. Hopefully, however, most Christians will recognize NABV as an ill-begotten book and will turn back to a study of the Word of God in the language of the people today. In so doing they will fulfill the prayers of godly translators of centuries past, including the very ones who translated the King James Version of the Bible.' — H. Wayne House H. Wayne House, author, lecturer, and professor-at-large at Simon Greenleaf University School of Law, holds earned doctorates in theology and law, and a master’s degree in biblical and patristic Greek. [This article has been edited to fit here within space limitations. To read the entire article, see (www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)] --Radioman2 |
||||||
70 | IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 98777 | ||
IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White 'Summary 'King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) 'The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. 'Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. 'Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer.' ------------- To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates Also recommended, James White's book: "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Translations?" James R. White/Bethany House Publishers/1995 (Type: Trade Paperback) |
||||||
71 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84481 | ||
"Why are you attacking Christians?" "Why are you dividing the Body this way? These people love the Lord." "Why don't we stay unified?" [These are questions that I am asked repeatedly, especially when I dare to question the teachings of certain TV preachers and others who "end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird." --Radioman2] "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl 'I think the medium of TV lends itself to excess, such that people who are not well trained in theology can be launched into positions of high influence and authority, and end up teaching things that are a bit bizarre and weird. When that happens I take exception and try to be a defender of the truth, as I understand it. But then people call in and say, "Why are you dividing the Body this way? Why are you attacking Christians? These people love the Lord." 'If you've been around for a while and understand the issue of tactics here--especially the suicide tactic-- you notice that this objection immediately defeats itself because this person is calling me on the air and publicly telling me that I am wrong for speaking on the air about other people who are wrong. In other words, they are accusing me of doing the very thing that they are in the process of doing. It doesn't bother me because I don't think there is anything wrong with that, per se. But their whole point is that I'm so divisive. Why don't we stay unified? After all, we're all Christians. We all love Jesus--as if there is something magical about this sound "Christian," or this sound, "love Jesus," such that those who have a commitment to the sound should therefore not have any meaningful differences between them. 'My view is that "Christian" is not a sound, it's a word. And the phrase "loving Jesus" is not two sounds, it is two words. The difference between a sound and a word is that a sound is a noise and a word means something. It has particular and peculiar content. 'I would be the first to agree that sometimes we major in the minors. Christians get all hot and bothered about minuscule theological issues, and Paul himself says don't fuss about it; don't waste your time with the silly things. I think one characteristic of an ill-educated church is that they create a tempest in a teapot. They fuss over the things that mean very little and they ignore the things that are really critical. 'What's the difference? If you know anything about church history, you know the difference. It is easy for someone to say, "Koukl, you think that what's important to you is really critical, and the rest is insignificant. Well, maybe you're wrong." 'Well, maybe I am wrong, but I'm trying to line up my understanding of what is critical with what the church has characteristically lined itself up with over the last 2000 years. I'm trying to maintain a historical perspective and not simply play my own evangelical joy-toy, my own hobby horse. A historical perspective will help protect you from doing that. 'I'm deeply concerned about any rush to unification just for unity's sake. This is the problem with the World Council of Churches. Their idea is, "Let's just ignore our differences and get together." But any love that is not based on truth--as a teacher of mine once said--is not love, but adultery. 'I want you to think carefully about this for a minute. It really hinges on the distinction between the sound and the word. 'I might ask you then, "What unites us?" And you say, "We all love Jesus. That's really what is important here. Not all those little theological minutiae." My response is going to be, "Why do you want to be so divisive?" You'll say, "What do you mean?" I say, "Why would you exclude all these people who call themselves Christians, but who don't feel about Jesus the way you do? In other words, they don't 'love Jesus.' Why do you want to impose this doctrinal standard of 'loving Jesus' on them? That's very divisive. You probably want to start your own denomination of people who are the 'Love Jesus' denomination, excluding all those who don't love Jesus."' ____________________ "Christian:" A Sound or a Word? by Gregory Koukl. This post is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm). |
||||||
72 | Does God try to speak and not get heard? | Heb 1:2 | Radioman2 | 94591 | ||
Does God try to speak and not get heard? Does God Try? Some hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way. 'God doesn't try. He is all-powerful. God doesn't attempt. He knows everything. Whatever He intends to accomplish He does, in fact, accomplish. 'Now I've got another question. What about this sense in many evangelical circles, especially in charismatic ones, that God is working hard to speak to individuals, but they don't "hear His voice" because they simply aren't listening? What of the notion that the ability to hear the voice of God requires we simply quiet ourselves and get in tune? 'Many have bought the idea that optimal Christian living involves "experiencing God" in a special manner: hearing His voice and getting special directives or assignments from Him. For those who say, "I don't hear God," the rejoinder is often, "He's been trying to talk to you, but you weren't listening." ( . . . ) 'I know of no place in the Bible, ladies and gentlemen, where God attempted to speak and He wasn't heard. Frequently, He wasn't obeyed, true enough. Certainly, people hardened their hearts against the revelation–which itself was clear–and refused to believe that which was spoken. But I know of no case where God was speaking and He just couldn't get through because people were not listening. 'For goodness sake, we're talking about special revelation. Paul's says in Romans 1 that even general revelation is so obvious and so forceful that people must actively suppress the truth in unrighteousness in order to ignore it. 'As far as I can tell, the Bible knows of no such thing as God trying to speak, but is incapable of being heard because fallen men and women have somehow closed Him off, denied His ability, and so can't hear Him or are just simply too busy to hear the still, small voice of God. 'This is simply a matter of consistent reasoning. It seems to me that if we hold that God can be trying to speak to someone, but some human limitation gets in His way, then we have to accept as valid the same objection against the authority of Scripture and surrender our confidence that God could guarantee the outcome of the writing of the Bible. 'If, however, we say that God is big enough to overcome any human limitations so He can guarantee the word-for-word accuracy of the Scripture, then the same sovereign power is available to God to speak to any individual when He so chooses. God doesn't "try" to speak and not get heard. 'Now, if that's true, then we don't have to spend any time quieting our lives to hear the voice of God as He "tries" to penetrate all the clamor. Instead, we can simply turn our gaze upon the only voice of God we are ever commanded to hear, to know, and to obey. That is the written, fully inspired, fully accurate Word of God: the Bible.' (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/doesgodt.htm) --Radioman2 |
||||||
73 | I refuse to deal with it??? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77742 | ||
I don't care to deal with the question of how many of the 10 Commandments are in force? I did deal with it on Fri 03/7/03. Following is a repost for those who missed it. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
74 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101160 | ||
A Logical Defense But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone. It's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever your reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
75 | Should one try to be clear or muddled? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101171 | ||
Should one try to be clear or muddled? 'There's another problem, and it's a practical one. I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, apparently. Then what am I to do? If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? What do I say then when communicating my faith? If I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, then what am I to do? Should I work at being clear when I communicate? Or should I try to be muddled lest I depend on clarity and not the Spirit to make the difference? Should I give reasons for what I believe or only gently make assertions with a smile on my face being careful not to respond to challenges someone might raise lest it sound like I'm trying to argue for the Gospel and not depend on the Holy Spirit?' ____________________ Quoted from the transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. |
||||||
76 | What are we to say? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101679 | ||
Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone; it's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever the reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. John Reformed, I appreciate your clear and relevant answer. However, if other answers are muddled and not clear, then you all will have answered the question by default. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
77 | Why will God judge the church? | 1 Pet 4:17 | Radioman2 | 97386 | ||
Will God judge the church? And if so, why? Aren't we promised to be spared God's wrath in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9? Aren't we told in Romans 8:1 that those who are in Christ Jesus are not subject to condemnation? What does the apostle Peter mean in 1 Peter 4:17? |
||||||
78 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 76752 | ||
2 Peter 3:9 (NET Bible) The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any[4] to perish but for all to come to repentance. Footnote 4. "He does not wish for any to perish." '...the literary context seems to be against the Arminian view, while the historical context seems to be against (one representation of) the Calvinist view. The answer to this conundrum is found in the term "wish" (a participle in Greek from the verb boulomai). It often represents a mere wish, or one's desiderative will, rather than one's resolve. Unless God's will is viewed on the two planes of his desiderative and decretive will (what he desires and what he decrees), hopeless confusion will result. The scriptures amply illustrate both that God sometimes decrees things that he does not desire and desires things that he does not decree. It is not that his will can be thwarted, nor that he has limited his sovereignty. But the mystery of God's dealings with humanity is best seen if this tension is preserved. Otherwise, either God will be perceived as good but impotent or as a sovereign taskmaster. Here the idea that God does not wish for any to perish speaks only of God's desiderative will, without comment on his decretive will.' (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_3) * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Although this post is not a question, I have chosen to post it under the heading of Questions for this reason: Often a person will not respond to a Note unless it is addressed specifically to that person. However, the same person may respond to a post that is labeled as a Question. In other words, I posted this as a question in hopes that it will not be ignored or overlooked.) Radioman2 |
||||||
79 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81288 | ||
Searcher56: You write: "DON'T debate Arminian / Calvinist views..." I ask you: Who is debating Arminian/Calvinist views? Am I? You write: "Radioman2 and others ... just answer the question of how you see God's wish(es) apart from your Arminian or Calvinist view." I ask: Which view do I hold -- Arminian or Calvinist? If you tell me which I am (Arminian or Calvinist), then we'll both know. What makes you assume I am either Arminian or Calvinist? Radioman2 |
||||||
80 | Is sinless perfectionism Bible doctrine? | 1 John 1:8 | Radioman2 | 82055 | ||
Is sinless perfectionism biblical doctrine? 'THE ERROR OF PERFECTIONISM 'Some people actually claim that they have reached a state in the Christian life where they just don't sin anymore. Wait a minute, doesn't the Bible say that if we actually think something like this we are deceiving ourselves and are, in fact, calling God a liar? 'Sinless perfectionism is not biblical doctrine. 1 John 1:8 clearly states: 'If we claim to be without sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.' While willful sin ought not to characterize our life, sin will remain a part of human experience until we lay aside our physical body at death (Rom. 7). In fact, the wisest man who ever lived (Solomon) said: 'Who can say, I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin?'' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0609.pdf) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |