Results 61 - 80 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reformedreader Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Conscience? | Matt 28:20 | reformedreader | 3560 | ||
charis, I apologize for the name exchange. My eyes must have been looking where my brain was not thinking. When you use the phrase "acceptable to God" be careful. I think I know what you mean but it can be misunderstood. Some might take that to mean God accepts us on the grounds of what we do. I know, I've had some to accuse me of implying that. However, much like the worship of the priests of the Old Testament, the worship of the priests of the New Testament must also be acceptable by God. This is very strange to many Christians who think worship is just doing something religious. God has not changed His standard for worship and ours must be done so as to be acceptable by God, otherwise, we worship in vain. Our prayers will be attended to by God only if we approach God in the same manner as the Old Testament priests. We must approach Him on the grounds of a clean heart, meaning our sins must be confessed. We must approach the throne of God in no less a manner of holiness than our Old Testament priest equivalents. Yes, I believe the term 'conscience' is a good word for the natural ability to know right from wrong. But don't forget, just because we all have a conscience doesn't mean we all come to salvation. "These Commandments", as you call them, need to be sharply defined. Antinomianism is rapant in most Arminian congregations, so laws, to some extent, would not mean anything to them. Do God's laws divide? You bet they do. They divide the obedient from the disobedient. They divide the learned from the unlearned. You are absolutely correct that many "law" questions would undermine the traditions of men. Antinomians would disagree with you as well as those that support New Covenant Theology. If you would like to discuss this further, these "laws" need to be defined so we can be called legalists and grace rejecters. (know what I mean) Sam Hughey |
||||||
62 | Commandments absolute? | Matt 28:20 | reformedreader | 3510 | ||
Chris, You have asked a very major question not many Christians are willing to discuss. There is really only one way to view what our Lord stated. Whatever He taught the Apostles and other followers, they are lawful commands from God Himself. Therefore, since they have not been rescinded anywhere else in the New Testament, they are still binding on all New Testament believers today. They are set in stone in the respect that they are solidly God's law for us to obey. They are set into the hearts of all believers in the respect they are the believers Christian duty and obedience from a loving heart for their Lord. "Are all commandments knowable by man"? No, not all. But that does not exclude any from being known by all men. Paul said all men are without excuse for all men have "a" knowledge of God. "A" knowledge of God is not a salvific knowledge, in that it is not the calling of God to receive salvation. Even though it is not a salvific knowledge, it is still "a" knowledge that God exists and they are without excuse. From what are they without excuse? Their sins. All men are endowed with the natural ability to know not only that there is a right and wrong, but also what that right and wrong is. God requires all men everywhere to obey His laws. Therefore, all men everywhere are without excuse when they sin for all have sinned and failed to glorify God. Sam Hughey |
||||||
63 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3509 | ||
JVH0212, I agree and I realize some might think of this as trivial, but if one is a Christian then one must take seriously the accusations they make (Ex. 20:16;Eph. 4:25). It seems to me that many Christians today want to be "Bible-Believers" but not "Bible-Doers". I would be more than willing to discuss this at length with Elijah, but only on the grounds of true statements or at least statements he would be willing to say he truly doesn't understand, as with any believer. Sam Hughey |
||||||
64 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3472 | ||
LVDTHELORD, I'm certain there is much where we would agree, however, our concern should not be centered on agreeing or disagreeing with each other but, rather, scripture. If dispensationalists truly do not want to insert gaps of time into scripture, then they should simply stop doing so when scripure gives no warrant for so doing. The only reason you believe "those" events have not yet occurred is because dispensational theology is the light by which you interpret scripture. However, scripture never depends upon the created light of men in order to determine the interpretation of scripture itself. The "supposed and imaginative" absence of an event which is based on the demands of a man-centered theology in no way whatsoever proves a gap in scripture where scripture itself never intended one to be. This is precisely what I was saying about inserting whatever one needs to be there. The insertion is not derived from scripture but, rather, from a man invented theology that forces scripture to mean whatever it wants it to mean. If the gap has so much clarity, why then is scripture completely ignored and dispensationalism becomes the only light by which scripture has any meaning? 2 Thessalonians 2:2-7 are time-specific related verses. Paul did not write to the believers at Thessalonica in the 1st century to warn them of an event or a person that would "never" have any impact on them at all and would only happen in some unknown future time that is continually forced to be further into the future because of the continually failed prophecies by dispensationalists. Paul wrote to a specific group of people, concerning a specific event, a specific person and in verse 5 he reminds (them specificially) that he told (them specifically) about these specific events and this specific person. Paul also goes onto specifically relate these specific events with the appearing of the Lord's coming (verse 8). Yet in spite of all the specific verses of scripture, dispensationalists come along and reject and deny any specificity at all. The clear and unambiguous words of our Lord are watered down to the imagination of men. We do not come from two different perspectives, we merely view scripture from two different perspectives. One is from a scriptural perspective and the other is from a non-scriptural perspective. Sam Hughey |
||||||
65 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3460 | ||
Elijah, You have twice not answered my question about the source of the alleged changes you claim to have been made in the Bible. So, I will suppose you do not have an answer and the accusation is false. Do you understand the seriousness of such an accusation? Also, I never said anything at all about God not using women in ministry and you should discover much more about Aimee Semple McPherson before you associate the name Christian with her. Sam Hughey |
||||||
66 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3458 | ||
Chris, There is nothing to forgive. I was not offended in anyway at all and if I was I would not hold it against you. Chris, they were wrong for believing in something that neither existed nor was taught from Holy Scripture. Nowhere does our Lord ever teach that His return to call out His church would be an any-moment event, meaning God has never concluded exactly when He would return. What we commonly call the rapture, is a definite and determined event that will occur but once and is only an "at one-moment" event. Our Lord knows precisely when He will return because it is an already fixed event in the mind of God. Humans cannot change that event simply because they do not know when it will happen. Saying it is an "any-moment" event contradicts the foreknowledge of God in that it will happen only once and cannot happen at any other time in our history other than the predetermined and fore-ordained time God has already fixed for it to happen. "Assuming" what God can do is not the same as "proving" what God will do. Out of the ANYTIME He was free to choose, He only determined that event to happen at one particular time in history and not before or after that time. Chris, the very fact that our Lord has not returned is the evidence that proves the Father had not ever determined to send His Son until some future time and no time in the past (to us) could ever have been the time the Father had pre-determined to send His Son back for His Church. Again Chris, your view undermines the foreknowledge and pre-determination of God in fore-ordaining the events only He would cause to happen at the appointed time. I don't know if you are familiar with the term "Open Theism", but your view is very close to it. No disrespect intended Chris but not IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD is a common "catch-all" phrase Chrsitians enjoy using when we have no other "biblical" answer. Whenever we can't defend a particular position in which we believe, we just simply say that God can do anything He wants to do and that is supposed to settle the issue. It doesn't and furthermore, it only confuses and further contradicts the issue. Of course I believe nothing is IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD, but that doesn't prove anything. It's not impossible that God could have re-grown all the hair on my head 10 years ago, being almost bald now, but He didn't. Obviously, it was not His will to do so even though it is not impossible. Get the point? If our Christian forefathers truly expected the return of Christ to happen, then they surely believed it would happen. If they surely believed it would happen, they must have had sound biblical warrant for such a belief. However, they were mistaken because it never happend and could not have happened since it was obviously not the Father's will for it to have happened. The false assumption of an unbiblical teaching of an immanent return is VERY MUCH responsible for past and present faulty predictions of our Lord's return. Faulty predictions are the result of faulty understandings which come from a faulty view of scripture. Actually Chris, the idea of a supposed immanent return does indeed espouse a date for the return of Christ. Isn't the very moment you are reading this response considered an "any-moment" in our history? So then, Christ could return at the very moment you are reading this and that is most definately espousing a specific date. However, we leave ourselves an easy-out since we do not specifically name a calendar date. But what's the difference? Isn't the very moment you are reading this a calendar date? The very fact the we not only CANNOT know, but also WILL NOT know, proves the "any-moment" idea is false. You cannot say the rapture will be at any moment, yet I do not know if it will be at any moment. And for what should Christians be "looking out" Chris. Will a sudden, immanent return change anything at all about our relationship with Christ, our salvation, our redemption, our eternal destiny? If "looking-out" means we should live holy lives, then our Lord has already given us a clear, unambiguous and distinct command to do this without any reference to a future rapture. I look forward to hearing from you Chris. Sam Hughey |
||||||
67 | Isai 41:2 referring to Christ or Cyrus? | Isaiah | reformedreader | 3400 | ||
JVH0212 and Ray, It appears as though there is little doubt that Isa. 41:2 is referring to Christ. Obviously 41:4 clearly concludes the discussion, at least referring back to verse 1, and "I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he" certainly seems to be point to Christ Himself. However, I would like to hear other views. Sam Hughey |
||||||
68 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3266 | ||
Elijah, In reference to your statement; "These scriptures have been change in every Bible that I know of, but one, they were change to look as though they were speaking of Jerusalem. This was done through Satins religions as an attempt to keep the women from knowing what they must do and what has to take place just before the end", could you tell me what the original statements were and who precisely changed them and in what translations/documents were they changed? Thanks, Sam Hughey |
||||||
69 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | reformedreader | 3265 | ||
dpettway22, Galatians 3:28 is referencing superiority standing within the realm of salvation which none have. We are all saved equally and have an equal standing in the Kingdom of God. A Jew does not have any greater position simply because he is a Jew. The same goes for Gentiles over Jews, men over women or women over men. It does not reference either a right or forbidding for women to be involved with a ministry. There are other scriptures that clearly cover that isse. Sam Hughey |
||||||
70 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | reformedreader | 3264 | ||
granma ota, The daughters of men is obviously referring to human women since they had the ability to bare children. The Bible is completely silent on the idea of them being the daughters of Cain. Sam Hughey |
||||||
71 | What happens to Non-Christians? | John 14:6 | reformedreader | 3261 | ||
TruthSeeker, Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (NASB) Now, this is what God says, but you will receive slightly different answers from other Christians ranging from God saves everybody who doesn't have a chance to be saved all the way to nobody really knows for sure. You decide who and what is for a TruthSeeker. Sam Hughey |
||||||
72 | lets stick to original text! | Luke 24:1 | reformedreader | 3201 | ||
eddy, Ok, you make a good point of sticking to the original text. However, can you, or anyone responding to your question, actually produce the "original" text here so we may observe it? If you could direct me to the manuscript document used by the NASB translators to translate the term "first day", we could better judge how to answer your question. I will certainly start looking. Sam Hughey |
||||||
73 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | reformedreader | 3190 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I would have said precisely the same thing. It is when Christians, for whatever reason, cease thinking, reasoning, speaking, etc. biblically, then we are no less guilty than the Pharisees who distorted the Word of God to suit their own minds. While we say we intend no harm, I'm sure the Pharisees said the same. Sam Hughey |
||||||
74 | Protestantism challenged? | Matt 18:17 | reformedreader | 3188 | ||
jim, It seems as though you have the basic principle and practice correctly, however, what you stated is not always as simple as it sounds. Having ought against a brother could involve many things of which disfellowship is not an option. Since you are being general in your statement, my response can only be general also. Don't forget that we are to still love and forgive those who have wronged us. Can you reconcile forgiving and disfellowshipping at the same time? I think that will be difficult while remaing biblically accurate in your assesment. Also, I still don't understand how this challenges Protestantism. Could you be a little more specific in that regard? Sam Hughey |
||||||
75 | What was the Lord's expectation? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3186 | ||
Mike, Thanks Mike for two refreshing details; 1. A real name and 2. "I do however believe for us to say that we are that generation would be presumptuous at best". Every generation for the past 2000 years has believed in an imminent return of Christ, signs describing it is about to happen and that they were the rapture generation. They all share one thing in common which is; "They were all wrong"! Presumptuous belief is not honoring to God and does little to aid our hermeneutical abilities and has caused Christians to adopt an attitude of believing in a doomed and defeated church. Nothing can be further from the truth of our Lord's own words when He stated that not even the powers of hell can prevail against His church. Christ did not die to present a defeated church to His Father, He died to present a glorious and victorious church to His Father. If Christians have an attitude of defeat, it is found only in their own hearts. This is the main reason why a Biblical Reformation of thought and study are so seriously needed in the body of Christ as never before. Sam Hughey |
||||||
76 | The Rapture, when will it be? | Bible general Archive 1 | reformedreader | 3179 | ||
LVDTHELORD, With all due respect, this statement is not correct. Dispensationalism may want to insert a gap in this prophecy but scripture does not. Nothing in these verses, including Daniel speaks of any gap. We do not have authority to create gaps or break down a whole period of time into lesser periods of time and say it is biblical unless scripture itself is crystal clear on this matter. Now, if anyone can show the gap without "assuming" it, then I will accept it as biblical authority. Is that fair? Sam Hughey |
||||||
77 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | reformedreader | 3173 | ||
HeirofGod, Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand anything you are stating, so please correct me if I am wrong. I'm assuming your conclusion is that in John 3:16, the word "world" should be interpreted as "all humans without exception" and this would refer to all humans from Adam until the end of the world and would include every soul in the grave (or hell) at this time and every human ever mentioned in scripture. Is that correct? Sam Hughey |
||||||
78 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | reformedreader | 3143 | ||
RWC, To your statement, "If Jesus' divine nature prevents His human nature from being "tempted to the point of sin," then would it not also prevent Him from being truly tempted at all"?, Why must that be the logical conclusion? God does not need to eat, sleep or feel physical pain, etc, yet Jesus did while in His humanity. The Divinity of Jesus is not the same as was His humanity, therefore, it is not necessarily logical to "assume" Jesus should have not been tempted at all. Sam Hughey |
||||||
79 | Is John 6:66 the answer to 666 riddle? | John 6:66 | reformedreader | 3142 | ||
DidymusMB, I was under the impression that the 1560 Geneva Bible was the first to create chapter and verse divisions. Is this not true? Sam Hughey |
||||||
80 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | reformedreader | 3141 | ||
JVH0212, Great question. However, it is not such a simple one. For instance, the word Sabbath does not always mean the same thing. Sabbath is used in different ways and for different reasons. Not all Sabbath laws pertain to the same word "Sabbath" everytime it is used. We would first need to be certain we are using the correct word in its proper context and able to correctly define the differences. Sam Hughey |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |