Results 61 - 80 of 150
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167631 | ||
Lionheart, I cited the incorrect posting for your review. The correct post is ID#167082. Some verses are cited to support my view regarding repentance. My apologies. Also, I can agree with your comment, “The unbeliever will never [repent] till they come to Jesus Christ with a saving faith, which goes way beyond worldly sorrow” and add only that “saving faith” involves repentance, which, in turn, may or may not involve sorrow (godly or otherwise, at least, at the time of conversion) but necessarily involves obedience to God. I say that it may involve sorrow bot not necessarily based upon my own conversion experience. When I came to Christ, I did not have a sorrow for sin; all I was only aware of a strong desire to know God and realized it is only through the Cross of Christ that God is known and experienced. (Just as an aside, I was not even aware that I possessed eternal life until some weeks after my conversion). |
||||||
62 | Are these essentials for Salvation? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 167633 | ||
WOS, In the first place, what gives you the notion that I am "playing"? You asked, "Or are you suggesting that there is repentance unto life before regeneration?" Your question is confusing because regeneration is the act of God imparting new life. Therefore, you are asking if "repentance unto life" (i.e. the repentance that leads to new life) is before new life (regeneration). My question is, how can repentance be "unto life" if the life is already imparted before repentance is acted upon? Should it not rather be phrased, "regeneration unto repentance"? In the second place, my point is what repentance is - how it is Biblically defined - which is not different in activity between the believer and the unbeliever. That is, repentance is turning in obedience to God. There need be no denial that sorrow and a change of mind is involved but the change from disobedience to obedience is necessary in order for repentance to be genuine. Example. An unbeliever is in disobedience to God. What God requires of him is that he cease from sinning and turn to Him in faith or, if you'd rather, he turn to God in faith and cease from sinning. A believer may be involved in sin. What does God require of Him. God requires the believer to also to cease from sinning and turn to Him in faith or, if you'd rather, he turn to God in faith and cease from sinning. That the former act of repentance may lead to salvation and the latter to restored fellowship is immaterial with respect to how the word "repentance" is understood. In the third place, I am not discussing how repentance works upon or in the believer or unbeliever, whether or not God plays a part in it, or its relation with, if any, regeneration; I am only stating what it is (as far as I understand it in the Bible). In the fourth place, I do not think "repentance requires faith" for there are those who may be truely repentant for their wrongdoing, nevertheless, do not turn to Christ in faith for their salvation. In extreme cases, you may meet a recovering alcoholic or a drug addict who quit their respective addictive behavior for one reason or another and are leading productive, as far as worldly values are concerned, lives. However, faith (if it is to be genuine and result in God's salvation) necessarily requires repentance. |
||||||
63 | Does my view violate context or grammer? | Gen 27:33 | atdcross | 185092 | ||
Thank you Tim and Mark for your responses. Please consider further thoughts and questions. First, Note how the TEV translates the verse: “Afterwards, you know, he (Esau) wanted to receive his father’s (Isaac, by implication) blessing; but he was turned back, because he could not find any way to change what had been done, even though in tears he looked for it.” The TEV seems to suggest that a reason outside of Esau was why he could not obtain back the blessing; that is, he could find no way to undo the blessing given to Jacob. Said another way, it might be that Esau was unable to: (a) get back his birthright (b) change Isaac’s mind and, thereby, retrieve the blessing. In both cases, the text seems to suggest to me that the blessing was irretrievable, not by virtue of Esau, although he caused its forfeiture, but ultimately because God would not remove it from Jacob to whom it had already been given by Isaac, and Isaac's refusal to change it was in recognition of God's mind in the matter. Does this make sense? Does such an interpretation as I suggest seem compatible with the text, at least, as an alternative interpretation? Second, Tim, you said, "God is not mentioned in these verses..." I agree. But neither is Isaac except by implication (cf. Interlinear). It seems an analogy is being made between those who fail to receive God’s grace (vs.15-16) and Esau’s failure to receive the blessing. Could it be that the neglect to make mention of Isaac was because the author of Hebrews was seeking to direct the reader to the ultimate cause of blessing (or cursing), that is, God? Third, Mark noted (ID# 185033) that, “Esau makes his appeal to Isaac, so I would answer that it was Isaac's repentance, change of mind, that Esau sought. Isaac demonstrated the belief that this blessing followed an established order that once given it remained.” I can agree that it was Isaac’s “repentance” that Esau sought. However, that does not seem to exclude the idea that the text is attempting to show that the blessing was irrevocable on God’s part, thus making God the reason why Esau was rejected. Further questions: 1. Mark: Was this “established order” determined by culture or God? And, in either case, did Isaac believe that God would rigidly follow the “established order”? 2. Mark, if you are correct, and Isaac believed the blessing was irrevocable, was it not because he knew God would not change his mind? 3. If question two is answered “yes”, then can one still not say that, although “repentance” may refer to Isaac, he reflects God’s will in the matter? 4. Therefore, would it still be fair to say that the reason why Esau did not obtain the blessing was not because his repentance was not genuine but because God forbid the blessing administered by Isaac to Jacob to be rescinded. 5. Finally, does my interpretation of the text violate either the context or Greek grammer? How? All other responses are welcome, especially one who has knowledge of Greek. |
||||||
64 | Does my view violate context or grammer? | Gen 27:33 | atdcross | 185104 | ||
Hi Tim! You said that the emphasis of Heb 12:17 is to "a decision that cannot be changed." I agree. That was my jist, which I may not have made clear. And I added that it has reference ultimately to God, that is (as I stated in point #2), "Isaac's refusal to change it [the blessing] was in recognition of God's mind in the matter." |
||||||
65 | Healing | Ps 115:3 | atdcross | 161443 | ||
Hypocrites in the Church do not disprove the enabling power of God to live godly. That history shows dark times when christians persecuted Christians does not disprove the existence of God. In the same way, although there have been or are those who have not presented the doctrine and practice of healing in a positive and Biblical light, that does not mean that healing (as Jesus and the apostles practiced it) is not for today. Allow me to respectfully submit that I do not see where the Bible portrays Jesus' power to heal as "incidental to his mission." Healing was essential in identifying Messiah. When asked if he were the Messiah, Jesus told them to look at his credentials. What were his credentials? Healings (Luke 7:22)! Jesus quoted from Isaiah 35:5 and 61:1, which gave the description of Messiah; this was how the Jews would be able to identify the true Messiah, by these "signs and wonders" performed. If Hank's assertion is true (and I believe it is) that the healings were in order to "authenticate who He was, the Messiah," how could they be "incidental"? To answer Jason's questions: 1. We don't have the same power because we do not believe that God desires to heal. Where there is doubt of God's will, faith is uncertain. 2. As a consequence of unbelief, we do not ask for healing: "you do not have because you do not ask" (James 4:2). 3. On the whole, the teaching about healing is misunderstood, many times taught with an apparent erroneous emphasis, and poorly put into practice. 4. Concerning your grandmother, my question is, when is it ever wrong to pray for God to heal the sick? |
||||||
66 | How do I ask? | Ps 115:3 | atdcross | 161446 | ||
Allow me to offer my observation of your question. 1. Jesus can heal a person in your family (Mark 9:22-23; Heb 13:8). 2. With asking, seek, knock, and believe (Matt 7:7-8). 3. God does not inflict sickness for the mere sake of "testing" (Psa 103:13-14). |
||||||
67 | Where did evil come from? | Prov 16:4 | atdcross | 168580 | ||
DAW By "evil" I assume you mean primarily "sin". As such, evil originated in Lucifer (Ezekiel 28:15). God did not create evil. He did create the angel Lucifer. Lucifer's desired to be like God and, acting upon that desire through rebellion against God, he sinned (Ezekiel 28:17; Isaiah 11:13-14). Why ultimately God allowed sin is not known for certain, I least, I don't know the answer except to say that, with respect to mankind, he loved man and desired fellowship with those whomever he could save, if not all (John 3:16). |
||||||
68 | Is Isaiah 53:4,5 for today | Is 53:4 | atdcross | 168316 | ||
... | ||||||
69 | Missing Postings | Is 53:4 | atdcross | 168505 | ||
Please advise why were my postings removed. Thank you. | ||||||
70 | God being lonely? | Mal 4:2 | atdcross | 164027 | ||
The last book in the Hebrew canon is 2 Chronicles wherein some glimmer of hope is given after seventy years of prophesied Israel's deportation and desolation in the land. But with that hope came 400 years of silence; no prophets arose, no judges arose. The poem is sad and although I cannot approve of its theological implications, that it portrays, however faulty, a feeling of divine loneliness for man's fellowship that is real cannot be altogether ignored; not that God needs us but he does desire us. So strong is that desire that it verges, from a human perspective, on need; such a divine longing that he sacrificed his most valued intimate in order to gain sinful men and women. Although, I'm not sure I understand the question, I would venture to say that the God characterized in this poem is foreign to Biblical revelation. If anything, it reflects the poets assumption that God is as lonely as he is and characterizes, not God, but the poets own loneliness. Allow me to switch the poem around: I am Man - "Without one friend, Alone in my impurity Until I'm dead. Above me divine love Like eagles freely soar - But I am only Man - Nailed to the floor. Spring! Life is love! (Although this love is phoney!) Better is Human love Than God's who left me lonely." |
||||||
71 | Define "Sun of Righteousness"? | Mal 4:2 | atdcross | 164028 | ||
Hi Helen, It's just a metaphor, a picture in words. It's not intended to be taken literally but it does reflect the Jesus' ministry. It's like someone saying to another, "You are my sunshine and you give wings to my joy." I'm sure someone else can answer better but I think that's the jist of it. |
||||||
72 | God being lonely? | Mal 4:2 | atdcross | 164041 | ||
My apologies. I had absentmindedly responded under your post. I meant to answer Greekbabe and was just adding a different perspective (not intended as a disagreement from what you stated) for Greek's consideration. Regarding the "verses", it was just my own spin on the poem being discussed. |
||||||
73 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163644 | ||
Regrading Jn 17:9. First question: "Did Jesus know at that time who was His Father's and who wasn't?" Response: There is no indication at all that this is an issue contemplated in the verse. Second question: "If Jesus didn't pray for the 'world', should we? Or should our prayer be for the elect only?" Response: Tim Moran has provided an adequate answer to this question in his post ID#163556. Third question: "Is it futile to be praying for someone to be saved when 'before the foundations of the world' they were already known." Response: It seems you left more out in the question. Do you mean it is futile to pray because they were already known by God to be damned? On the assumption that this is what you meant, whether God foreknows one's eternal destiny is not the issue nor is any indication given in this verse one way or the other. Again, I refer you to Tim's post cited above regarding whether ot not we ought to pray for the "world". Unfortunately, what you are being taught, that 2 Peter 3:9 refers to "His Chosen," seems to be a total distortion of its clear and intended meaning. 1. If one wants to argue that the context - "is patient toward you" - demands that "the chosen" are understood, then it must be understood that Peter is writing to those who are not saved at the time his letter is being read (or else why does God need to be patient with them and why does will that they not perish if they are already saved?). 2. To change the meaning or interpret "any" to refer to "the chosen" is totally unwarranted in the text and, although I am not a Greek scholar, my references give no indication this is the case. The "any" includes the "God-mockers" of v.3; God desires their repentance also and that is why he delays his return. Respecting your desire not to debate the issue (nor do i want to argue it or attempt to prove anything), I only add my understanding of the Bible for further thought. |
||||||
74 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163692 | ||
Hi Doc, I agree the letter is to believers but that does not demand “any” be understood as confined to them or a group called “the chosen”. It is not denied that the letter is encouragement to its readers but it is still no reason to confine “any” to the aforementioned group. In my initial comment, I attempted to show that if “any” is understood as having reference to only “the chosen,” then they must not have been saved at the time of reading, or else why would God need to have patience with them and desire their repentance and salvation (cf. v.15) if they are already saved? The plain sense of “any” seems to be “any”, not a specific group at the exclusion of another. John Calvin on 2 Peter 3:9: Maybe “no mention of the purposes of God” was hidden from Calvin but it is not a mystery to me why some are saved and others not since the Bible makes it clear (e.g. John 3:36; Mark 16:16). Furthermore, the last sentence quoted seems contradictory since “stretch[ing] forth His hand” with the intention of laying hold of some and not all is in itself making a difference between one and another. John Gill: I cannot see any warrant for Gill’s exclusion of those outside the community of the Church (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:11; Jonah 4:11). John Hendryx: Regarding the “simplest…solution”, I am unaware of this verse being hard to understand in the first place; that “any” means all men was a given, at least, to me. Wilhelmus a Brekel: No argument except to say that prior to salvation, the elect are not "elect" but sinners and God is patient with all sinners (Ps 145:8-9a; Nahum 1:3a; Matthew 5:45). Alexander Nesbit: If he is correct, then it must be because the readers were not yet saved; if saved, no delay for Jesus’ return was required for their sake. Most likely, if they had it their way, they wanted Jesus to come while they were reading the letter (cf. v.15a)! With all due respect to John Owen, Thomas Peck, A. W. Pink, James H. Thornwell, Francis Turretin, as well as the persons cited above, the Bible shows me they are mistaken. Just because my argument is weak does not necessarily mean my conclusion is faulty and “unpopular” as it may be “among the learned of the church” is no reason why I should go against what God has revealed to my conscience and agree with them. Not being universalistic, I am not certain why they would find it so appealing. I know why I do. I pray my comments have not “sounded” rude and that you have not been personally offended by my admission of disagreement. |
||||||
75 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163739 | ||
Hi Sonlit, Maccarthur and Piper demonstrate that (1) their interpretation of scripture is open to error, and (2) what they teach in general is not necessarily Biblical truth. May I offer a few suggestions? Whenever you read a book, don't take the writer's word for it. Just read and glean what you believe is consistent with the Bible and the rest discard. Just because one is a theologian or a scholar does not mean he is either a good scholar or is correct in his theology. To briefly answer your two last questions: You can know, as far as possible, the correctness of one's interpretation by the plain speaking of Biblical revelation; Father does not hide truths necessary for his children to know. And truth is known by faith in the Spirit's guidance if we are intending to seek his glory and obey (John 7:17; 15:13). The Bible is read to seek God and deepening relationship with him, not doctrines. Of course, doctrines will necessarily be found but they are subservient to knowing God through faith. Which leads to the second suggestion, read the Bible through faith in God’s promises (cf. Hebrews 11:6; Jeremiah 29:13; John 7:17. Be as comfortable with not understanding as you are with understanding. What you know take firm hold of it and let it increase your faith. What you don’t understand just set it aside. You need not know without a doubt on a certain subject. Embrace as much as you can understand about what you don’t fully understand and the rest, allow God to bring wisdom in time. Direct your "faith without a doubt" on God's character and word, not on doctrines. Doctrine is important but doctrine tells us about God; doctrine is not God, at least, doctrine as we finite creatures are able to comprehend. Remember, we all know “in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Better than just knowing is the one who loves through what he knows (1 Corinthians 13:13; 3 John 4-5). Anyone who claims that their doctrinal teachings are either something like an “accurate reflection of Bible truths,” “the gospel,” or phrases like these, be very wary. More than likely they hold erroneous if not heretical notions of God. And remember, it is through faith in Christ that the full knowledge of God is received. Any form of knowledge that either ignores or sets him to the side is false. A good Bible to use for intimate studying with the Lord is the “Thompson Chain Reference” Bible and I believe it comes in the New American Standard, which is a translation I personally recommend (although, again, I am not a scholar). I suggest this study Bible because it has no explanatory notes but many cross references and topical studies; therefore, it helps to keep one as objective as possible in studying. I’m sure others can add, give better, and more helpful suggestions but these are some that have helped me |
||||||
76 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163870 | ||
I believe, Tim's provision of a "slightly different perspective," is valid and more in line with accessing the intended meaning of the Biblical writers. There are those who say Jesus died but for a few By a sovereign decree No man can view God made the choice Who was to win Who was to lose But I believe Jesus dies for all men The Word says what it means And it means just what it says Every man of Adam's fall Can come to the Cross And be restored The mystery is not For whom Christ died But that he died For us all They say "the world" means "The elect" and not "all men" And "all men" just means "The chosen" before the world began God made the choice To save a few And damn the rest But I believe Jesus Atoned for all men And no one is beyond The reaches of God's arm Every sinner can hear the call And believe for Jesus Shed his blood for all The mystery is not For whom Christ died But that he died For us all |
||||||
77 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163909 | ||
Hi Tim... You're welsome. The poem, actually a song, is mine. I am aware that it has no Bible references to support it but figured it would help stimulate some thought. |
||||||
78 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163927 | ||
Greetings Kalos, Relationship with God is the goal; doctrine is the means. We should not read the Bible for the purpose of formulating doctrine except to deepen our relationship with God. Notice, for one example, the apostle Paul encourages Timothy to "Hold fast the pattern of sound words" (i.e. doctrine)...in faith and love" (i.e. in relationship)...with Christ" (2 Tim 1:13). In v.14, Timothy is instructed to keep the things that we committed to him in relationship with the Holy Spirit. It seems there are patterns in Timothy, which show, in one way or another, that what one learns is for the purpose of maintaining relationship with God and not for learnings sakes or just to be doctrinally correct. I think I have clarified my position in a way that is agreeable to you. |
||||||
79 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | atdcross | 163952 | ||
Please read my note ID#163927. There was no suggestion that doctrine is not derived from the Bible; but, please note, that the fact of doctrine derived from the Bible does not necessarily mean one has it correct. False doctrine can also be extracted from the Bible (2 Peter 3:15-16). Also, there was no intention to devaluate the importance of doctrine but just to place it in a - and I believe, Biblical - proper perspective. Allow me to repeat, relationship with Father, not doctrine, is the goal when studying the Bible. |
||||||
80 | Is this invitation open to everyone? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 164515 | ||
Yes. Each and every person aware of their need is invited. The only ones to whom it does not apply are to those who do not feel their need. However, their exclusion is conditioned by their refusal to admit their need; it is not because Christ excludes them but because, having no feeling of need, they have excluded themselves. Wre one - anyone - to feel their need and have a desire for a stronger one than they are to releive them, Christ invites them to his side. My reasons for this interpretation are: (1) Unless "all" means something other than "all" (and, I by no means am a Greek scholar; I only go by the reference works) the meaning is clear. (2) There seems to be no warrant in the context to limit the meaning of "all." (3) The context clearly implies that no one is excluded on a basis other than their refusal to admit their need. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |