Results 61 - 80 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97126 | ||
Darcy, I most certainly agree! But Cajam might not agree with us. :-) Makarios |
||||||
62 | What about Christians swearing? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97134 | ||
Yes, it is over with. | ||||||
63 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97142 | ||
Darcy, We have encountered those who hold to this "oneness" belief before on this Forum, and Reformer Joe is one member who had quite an exchange with one who held to this belief and has long since left this StudyBibleForum. Perhaps the Archives would be of interest. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
64 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97179 | ||
Greetings Cajam, There is God the Father (1 Peter 1:2), God the Son (John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3,4; Luke 12:10). All three are ascribed Deity in the Bible. However, Scripture is clear that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. Scripture tells us that the Father sent the Son (John 3:16,17), the Father and Son love each other (John 8:47; 11:41,42). Also, the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father (John 10:15), and Jesus is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). Also, it is clear that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Luke 3:22). The Holy Spirit is said to be another comforter (John 14:16). Jesus sent the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). And the Holy Spirit seeks to glorify Jesus (John 16:13,14). Therefore, it is impossible to argue that Jesus is the Father is the Holy Spirit. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
65 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97180 | ||
Greetings Cajam, God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will. The question now becomes whether or not there are more than one "persons" in the Godhead. "Let this cup pass from Me." "And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, [42] Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done'" (Luke 22:42). "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'" (Matt. 26:39). In both Luke 22:42 and Matt. 26:39 (which are parallel passages), the context is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, right before His betrayal. He was praying to the Father about the ordeal He was about to undergo. Several points are worth bringing out here. First, in this passage, Jesus addresses the Father. He says, "Oh my Father..." Note that Jesus says "my" and "Father." These two words designate a "me and you" relationship. Second, "If it be possible" is Jesus expressing a desire, a hope. What is that hope or desire? It is that "this cup pass from me." The cup Jesus is speaking of is the immanent ordeal of betrayal, scourging, and crucifixion. Jesus did not want to go through this. He was expressing His desire. It was His will not to undergo the severe ordeal ahead of Him. If this was not so, He would not have expressed the desire to have the cup pass from Him. Third, in Matt. 26:39, Jesus says, "Nevertheless., not my will, but thine, be done." In Luke 22:42 he says, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With this, Jesus is expressing His will and contrasting it to the will of the Father. Yet, He is stating that even though He does not want to undergo what lay ahead, "Nevertheless," He would submit to the will of the Father. This shows that the person of Jesus had a separate and different will than the Father. Since we have two separate simultaneous wills, we have two separate and simultaneous persons and Oneness Pentecostal theology is incorrect. Questions to ask a Oneness person: Is Jesus His own Father? If Jesus' will and the Father's will were identical (in an attempt to demonstrate that there is only one will), then why did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but the will of the Father? Was Jesus praying to Himself at this point? Was Jesus saying, "Not My will, but My will be done?" if there is only one person and one will involved? [Courtesy of http://www.carm.org/oneness/3persons.htm] - Makarios |
||||||
66 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97181 | ||
Must baptism be "in Jesus' name"? Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains that baptism must be by immersion using the formula "in Jesus name" and not the formula "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as is found in Matt. 28:19. They reject the Trinitarian formula because they reject the Trinity. To support their method, they cite various Bible verses that reference baptizing in Jesus' name and claim that this is proof for their doctrine. Following are some of the Bible references they quote. Acts 2:38," Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 8:16, "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." The phrase, "in the name of the Lord" is not a reference to a baptismal formula, but a reference to authority. It is similar to hearing someone say, "Stop in the name of the Law!". We understand that the "name of the Law" means by the authority of the Law. It is the same with baptism "in Jesus' name." Consider the following: "And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" [8] Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, [9] if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, [10] let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead — by this name this man stands here before you in good health" (Acts 4:7-10). (See also Acts 4:17-18; 5:28; 5:40-41; 8:12; 9:27-28.) We can see that the phrase is used in the Bible as an expression of authority. This is also verified in Acts 16:18 which says, "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." We also see that when people were being baptized that they did it calling on Jesus' name (Acts 22:16); that is, they were calling upon Jesus who has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). The church is supposed to "call upon the name of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2) because it is by His authority (John 1:12) that we Christians have the hope and right of forgiveness of sins and adoption as His children (Rom. 8:15). Therefore, the Oneness Pentecostal people are simply in error by demanding that baptism be done with the formula "In Jesus name." Instead, it should be done as Jesus commanded: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19 [Courtesy of http://www.carm.org/oneness/inJesusname.htm] |
||||||
67 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97182 | ||
Is Baptism necessary for Salvation? Oneness Pentecostal theology states that baptism is necessary for salvation. It asserts that without it, a person cannot be saved. Is baptism necessary for salvation? No. It is not. The Oneness theologians are in error. Nevertheless, disagreeing with them does not make it so, particularly when we have verses like the following: John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21. The problem with baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism is part of salvation and necessary for it) is that it contradicts other scriptures that state we are justified by faith. Justification is God's declaration upon a sinner that the person is declared righteous in God's site. In other words, only Christians are justified; only Christians are saved. Please consider the following verses: Rom. 4:3, "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Rom. 5:1, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Gal. 3:8, "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Eph. 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." See also Rom. 4:5; 9:30; John 5:24; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 3:11-14; and Phil. 3:9. There are other verses, but these are sufficient to show that we are made right in God's eyes -- justified, forgiven -- by faith, not by faith and baptism. If baptism were necessary for salvation, then these verses would state that we are justified by faith and baptism. But they don't. In fact, that is not what Paul says that the gospel is, and it is the gospel that saves us. The Gospel is what saves "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (NASB) (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. Baptism is not mentioned here. Paul said that he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Additionally, in Acts, Peter was preaching the gospel, people got saved, and then they were baptized. Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God..." These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Cor. 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This simply isn't an exception. It is a reality. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Titus 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12). One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary? [Courtesy of http://www.carm.org/oneness/onenessbaptism.htm] - Makarios |
||||||
68 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97195 | ||
Thank you Colin! Yes, it most certainly does! Makarios |
||||||
69 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97196 | ||
Greetings Darcy, Are you disagreeing with what I posted regarding the beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals? Makarios |
||||||
70 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97202 | ||
Greetings Darcy, Thank you! I just wanted to clarify.. :-) I wanted to avoid the miscommunication that we have had with each other in our posts. Makarios |
||||||
71 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97225 | ||
Cajam, Sorry, but I did not forget anything in my last post.. :-) You said, "..and Yes, He had to pray to the Father." Therefore, you ADMIT that Jesus had to pray TO THE FATHER! You admitted that there was communication between Jesus and the Father! Therefore, that designates TWO SEPARATE PERSONS! :-) If you go back on what you said now, then you are violating your own statement, and contradicting yourself! Makarios |
||||||
72 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97226 | ||
Cajam, As they say in the game of Chess, "CHECKMATE!" Makarios |
||||||
73 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97229 | ||
Sorry Cajam, But you've already admitted that Jesus prayed to the Father. :-) Therefore, you have admitted that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons of the Trinity. I've got you. :-) Makarios |
||||||
74 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97239 | ||
Cajam, You see: If you admit that Jesus prayed to the Father, than you are ALSO admitting that Jesus and the Father ARE NOT one in the same!! There is no way around that, my friend! To admit the one is to Admit the other! Also, as Darcy has already said, where is there a single Bible Verse in all of the Bible that proves your point of view?? I've already proved your view wrong. You have already admitted that the Oneness view is wrong. Makarios |
||||||
75 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97240 | ||
Darcy: I know. *wink* | ||||||
76 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97242 | ||
Greetings Cajam, We are not saying that God has a "split personality." As for Hebrews 1:8, God the Father is ascribing Deity to Jesus Christ. If you notice: But unto the Son, HE SAYS, (in other words, God the Father is saying something about the Son), "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.." Therefore, you are proving our point that God is One in Three Persons, a blessed Tri-unity. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
77 | Jesus name of the Father, Son and H/Ghos | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97243 | ||
As for Isaiah 45:5, or any other Scripture verse.. "Does John 10:30 teach that Jesus and the Father are the same person?" "No. In John 10:30 Jesus affirmed, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). This verse does not mean that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person. We know this to be true because in the phrase, "I and the Father are one," a first person plural-"we are" (Greek: esmen)- is used. The verse literally reads from the Greek, "I and the Father we are one." If Jesus intended to say that He and the Father were one person, He certainly would not have used the first person plural, which clearly implies two persons." "Moreover, the Greek word for "one" (hen) in this verse refers not to personal unity (that is, the idea that the Father and Son are one person) but to unity of essence or nature (that is, that the Father and Son have the same divine nature). This is evident in the fact that the form of the word in the Greek is neuter, not masculine. Further, the verses that immediately precede and follow John 10:30 distinguish Jesus from the Father (John 10:25,29,36,38)." Isaiah 45:5 is no different. Isaiah is affirming that there is only one God. I agree with you. The Trinity does not teach that there are multiple gods. But you have already admitted that there was communication from and between God the Father and Jesus, so Isaiah 45:5 is another verse that strongly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. Blessings to you, Makarios [Quoted portion taken from "The Complete Book of Bible Answers" by Ron Rhodes, 1997, Harvest House Publishers, pgs. 127-128] |
||||||
78 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97248 | ||
Cajam, You stand by what? That you said that Jesus prayed to the Father? Is that what you are standing by? Very good! :-) You stated, (I am quoting you): "..and Yes, He had to pray to the Father." If that is what you are standing by, then you are correct! Makarios |
||||||
79 | Cajam Please explain | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97249 | ||
Cajam, I am not going to let you off the hook on this one. You admitted that the Oneness view is wrong. Makarios |
||||||
80 | What Happens To Animals when they die? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 97768 | ||
Thats Ok. :-) It happens from time to time, a simple thing to do that has happened to us all to be sure, and you are no "trouble" at all, my Brother in Christ! If you would like to correspond by email, then that is perfectly fine! You, of course, will receive the same answer, or possibly an even better answer through email, as you would here at the Forum. My email address can be found in my profile. Makarios |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [185] >> |