Results 6601 - 6620 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6601 | Why? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 9026 | ||
Greetings Ezekiel! I hope you didn't mind if I butt in! The issue of baptismal formulas has been debated several times on this forum. I just wanted to ask one question. Since Mt. 28:29 clearly says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, since in Acts they clearly baptized in the name of Jesus, what is the big deal either way? I never have understood this debate. If I baptize in the name of all three members of the Trinty, or if I baptize in the name of Jesus, the person is still simply testify outwardly to an inward work of the Spirit. I honestly don't see the big deal. I happen to follow the Mt. 28:19 formula simply because it is the only one given to the church in a command form, but if someone wanted me to baptize them in the name of Jesus only, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Just Curious! Your Brother in Christ (and the Father and the Holy Spirit) :) Tim Moran |
||||||
6602 | Newcomer's response sabbath questions | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 9020 | ||
Greetings Zyph! Welcome to the forum! I just checked out your profile, we are becoming quite an international group! The verse you were refering to in your post is found in Mt. 15:9 and Mk. 7:7. I don't want to repeat all of JHVO212's post, so I would refer you back to the points he made. However, I will respond to your post by saying that there are two primary reasons why the Church no longer keeps the Sabbath. First, there is no specific command anywhere in the New Testament that Christians must keep the Sabbath. While there are plenty that say it is not necessary. Second, from the time of the foundation of the early Church, the Lord's Day has been our day of worship, not the Sabbath. This isn't a new belief. The early church fathers even wrote that the Sabbath had been abolished in Christ. p.s. - I have always wanted to visit Australia. From what I have seen in pictures, it is a beautiful country. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6603 | A proper approach to studying scripture? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 9019 | ||
Greetings Zyph! I think you have hit the nail right on the head! In my exprience, the biggest problem facing people when they try to interpret a verse is a lack of context. We live in a society of instant everything, so we don't want to take the time to dig into the passage and find what the author was saying. So, when we examine a verse, we should first start with the context of the book or letter. Read the entire book - in one sitting if possible (I recommend a total of at least three readings to my students)! Outline the flow of thought! Then examine how the passage in question fits into the larger context of the book or letter. Once that is done, compare the passage with the even larger context of the entire Bible. This doesn't necessarily mean that no one will ever again disagree on how a verse or passage should be interpreted, but at least we will have made an attempt "to rightly divide the Word of Truth!" Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6604 | Why do so few Scriptures mention baptism | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 9018 | ||
Greetings Sharp! I'm really not trying to be a wise guy, but would you clarify what you were trying to say in your last post? The only part I really followed was your first paragraph. You said: "I never said baptism produces repentance, it follows repentance. Maybe we should take a step back. Is repentance essential to salvation?" I never said that you thought baptism produced repentance. What you seem to be saying, based on Acts 2:38, is that repentance plus baptism produces salvation! But, I like your idea of taking a step back, so let me summarize where I stand on this issue. When someone repents, they are saved - Rom. 10:13. This salvation is not earned in any way. It is based entirely upon the completed work of Christ at Calvary. If we stopped at this point, that person would still be completely and totally saved. This is what I mean when I say that baptism is not essential to salvation. I don't mean that baptism is unimportant or unnecessary. I simply mean that baptism does not in any way contribute to our salvation. After a person is saved, that person has an obligation to obey Christ and Scripture. That person should be baptized. That person should read their Bible. That person should attend church. That person should pray. That person should share their faith with others. However, none of these activities make them a Christian. This is the point that I have been trying to get a clear answer about. Do you believe that baptism is essential to salvation? If a person is not baptized, are they still saved? To say that baptism is essential to salvation makes Eph. 2:8-9 false. If you will clarify the point of your last post, I will try to respond better. Thanks for the discussion and your sweet spirit! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6605 | Mark, Couldn't of been God.... | Gen 18:2 | Morant61 | 8978 | ||
Greetings Hank! I agree with you. I think the key to John 1:18 is that no one has ever see God in the fullness of His glory. Ex. 33:20 seems to indicate that anyone who ever saw the entirety of God's glory in the flesh would not live through the experience. John 1:18 also explains that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God yet given to man. Thus, in the Old Testament, people did see God, but just not in the fullest expression of His glory. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6606 | "...you are so slow to understand" | Heb 5:11 | Morant61 | 8939 | ||
Greetings RadioMan! My mentor had a great saying about this issue. He always told me that God doesn't mind giving milk to a baby Christian, but when He has to part the mustache to get the bottle in the mouth, it is time to grow up! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6607 | Mark, Couldn't of been God.... | Gen 18:2 | Morant61 | 8938 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Another possibility in Exodus 24:9-11 is that they saw a vision of God's glory, similar to when God allowed Moses to see His glory passing by - Ex. 33:18-23. Concerning the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ (Christophanies), there are a total of 66 references in the NIV to the "Angel of the Lord." Many scholars feel that He is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ Himself, similar t the appearance before Abraham. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6608 | in John 21:15-17 What 3 words for love | John 21:15 | Morant61 | 8937 | ||
Greetings LJW! The words translated ‘love’ in John 21:15-17 are all verbs, but their meaning is similar to the noun forms. I have included the text of John 21:12-17 along with the transliteration of the verb form used in each instance (in parenthesis.) John 21:15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘‘Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao - Strong’s # 25) me more than these?" ‘‘Yes, Lord," he said, ‘‘you know that I love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) you." Jesus said, ‘‘Feed my lambs." 16 Again Jesus said, ‘‘Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao - Strong’s # 25) me?" He answered, ‘‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) you." Jesus said, ‘‘Take care of my sheep." 17 The third time he said to him, ‘‘Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, ‘‘Do you love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) me?" He said, ‘‘Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) you." Jesus said, ‘‘Feed my sheep. It is unclear whether or not there is any great distinction to be made in the various verbs used. It is possible that Jesus was challenging the depth of Peter’s love and that Peter was unwilling to say that he ‘agapao’ed Jesus. He would only say that he ‘phileo’ed Him. Thus, in the third question, Jesus is challenging even that level of commitment in Peter. However, there is no clear distinction between the two verbs in Scripture, so most scholars simply see a stylistic difference here. Whatever the case may be, there is a clear allusion to Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ. Just as Peter thrice denied Christ, in this passage he thrice affirms his love for Christ. Many see here an affirmation of Peter by Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6609 | Cities of Judah or Cities of Demons? | Genesis | Morant61 | 8936 | ||
Greetings Kimberly! I pray that God will richly bless you in whatever ministry to which He calls you! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6610 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Morant61 | 8883 | ||
Greetings Joseph! I would recommend the following approach to this verse when dealing with Jehovah Witnesses. They are trying to say that coming with a voice of an archangel means that Jesus is an archangel. The easiest refutation of this view (though I doubt they will listen) is simply this: There are three things said to accompany the coming of the Lord: a shout, a voice, and a trumpet. It is not said anywhere in this verse that it is Jesus doing the shouting, or giving voice, or sounding the trumpet. The verse simply lists three things that will accompany His coming. In addition, take them to Hebrews where Jesus is proclaimed to be higher than the angels. So how could He be an angel? I hope this helps! Logic doesn't always work when dealing with cults. Your best bet is prayer and love. People are always more willing to consider what you have to say when they know that you love them. Ultimately, you must rely on the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to expose the lie that they have bought into. Our prayers will be with you! Your Brother in Christ! Tim Moran |
||||||
6611 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8880 | ||
Greetings Mel! Thanks for the input to the discussion! Allow me to briefly deal with the two passages you mention which deal with baptism (John 3:5 and Acts 2:38.) Then, I would like you to address two specific questions. As a preliminary, let me state once again that no one debates that baptism is important. It has been commanded by Christ for Christians. The only point being debated is whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. You, Sharp, and Ezekiel seem to be saying that baptism is essential to salvation - no baptism, no salvation. I, and the rest of the thread, are arguing that our salvation is not effected in any way by our baptism or lack thereof. With this is mind, let me address these two passages. 1) Acts 2:38: There are two points that I think argue against baptism being essential to salvation in this passage. a) There is a grammatical anomaly in this verse. The command to repent is a second person plural imperative - in other words a plural you. Unfortunately, there is no way in English to distinguish between a 2nd person plural and a 2nd person singular. To use the King James method of ‘you’ and ‘ye,’ the command here is ‘Repent Ye!’ The phrase ‘for the remission of your sins’ is also a 2nd person plural as indicated by both the definite article and the personal pronoun. So, obviously, the command to repent and the phrase concerning the forgiveness of sins belong together. However, the command to "be baptized" is a 3rd person singular imperative. This simply means that the phrase "for the remission of sins" does not go with the command to be baptized at all, rather it belongs with the command to repent. b) Secondly, the phrase "forgiveness of sins" is used four other times in Acts (5:31, 10:43, 13:38-39, and 26:18) and none of them mention baptism. If baptism is essential for salvation, why don’t all of these other verse include references to baptism? My answer is that there is no command in Scripture to be baptized for the remission of sins. The command in Acts 2:38 is a command to repent for the remission of sins, with a parenthetical statement thrown in that each one should then be baptized. 2) John 3:5: Concerning this passage, my first observation is that Christian baptism is not mentioned directly anywhere in this passage. In fact, it would be unusual for it to be mentioned, since Christian baptism hasn’t even be instituted at this point. Your assuming that "born of the water" means baptized. However, the context makes it much more likely that "born of the water" is a reference to natural birth in contrast to spiritual birth. Notice the flow of the passage. Jesus says in Jn. 3:3 that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. In verse 4, Nicodemus immediately assumes that Jesus must means that we have to re-enter the womb and be physically born again. Verse 5 is Jesus’ attempt to correct Nicodemus’ false assumption. In it, He says that we must be born of water and of Spirit. Is Jesus talking about baptism when He says "born of water" or is He talking about natural birth. I believe the later. Why? Because in verse 6, Jesus directly contrasts physical birth and spiritual birth by stating that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So, even if my interpretation of this passage is in error, you would have to assume that Jesus meant baptism when there is nothing in the context that even deals with baptism. Every text used in this thread to support the idea that baptism is essential to salvation has some serious difficulties attached to it. Furthermore, the concept itself goes against everything Scripture says about salvation being through faith alone! I have tried to answer your questions, and I will expand on my answers if you wish. Now, I would like you to answer two questions. 1) In Acts 10, Peter is preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius. As he was preaching, Acts 10:44 tells us that the Holy Spirit came upon all those who heard the message and they spoke in tongues, just as the disciples had in Acts 2. This is an important sign that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles. Notice however what Peter says in v. 47, ‘‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Were these people saved at this point? They had already been filled with the Holy Spirit! How could this be true if they were not saved? Yet, if baptism is essential to salvation, how could they have been saved without being baptized? 2) What about the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43)? Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, today! Yet, he had never been baptized! Was he saved? I look forward to your response and I appreciate your kind spirit! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6612 | Why do so few Scriptures mention baptism | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8823 | ||
Greetings Sharp! Thanks for the response! Here lies the concern that I think most on the forum, including myself, have. Scripture makes it very clear that salvation is by faith, not faith plus baptism. So I ask my original questions about Acts 2:38 again! I would appreciate it if you would respond to these original points: I have been following this thread with interest. Is baptism a necessary for salvation? You seem to be arguing that it is based upon Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Thus, you must be taking the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" as expressing the result of repentance and baptism. However, there are three very good reasons to avoid this interpretation of this verse. 1) The rest of Scripture does not make baptism necessary for salvation, including Acts. Consider the following verses from Acts where forgiveness is mentioned and notice that not one of them links forgiveness with baptism. a) Acts 5:31 - "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." b) Acts 10:43 - "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." c) Acts 13:38-39 - ‘‘Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." d) Acts 26:18 - "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Notice that none of these other verses in Acts tie baptism in with the forgiveness of sins. If baptism were essential to salvation, you would think that it would be mentioned in these other verses as well. 2) There are reasons to believe that "for the forgiveness of sins" does not express result, but rather expresses the ground or reason for baptism. The preposition translated as ‘for’ in Acts 2:38 is sometimes used in this way. Consider the following examples and notice that two of them involve baptism (additional evidence that Acts 2:38 should be translated as "on the basis or grounds of the forgiveness of your sins): a) Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." b) Matthew 12:41 - "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." Allow me to address Mt. 12:41 first. The phrase "repented at the preaching of Jonah" uses the same preposition (eis) as does Acts 2:38. Obviously, the preaching of Jonah was the basis of their repentance, not the other way around. The other example illustrates the same thing and it involves baptism. In Mt. 3:11, baptism did not produce repentance. Rather, repentance was the grounds for baptism. 3) Finally, there is evidence in Acts 2:38 that the middle clause (involving baptism) may be a parenthetical statement. The command to repent is plural. The command to be baptized is singular. This would seems to indicate some break in the chain of thought. If this is the case, the phrase "for the remission of sins" may not even belong with the command to be baptized. No one would debate with you that baptism is important to a believer. However, I just can’t see that baptism is necessary for salvation. There are only a couple of debated Scriptures that even seem to make that case, while the vast majority of Scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is through faith alone. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6613 | Are we saying the same thing? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8797 | ||
Greetings Sharp! You said in your post: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation." It may be that we are saying the same thing, but simply aren't making ourselves clear. Let me state again what I am trying to say: 1) Baptism is important, since it was commanded by Christ. I don't think anyone on this forum is saying that baptism is unimportant. I know I'm not! 2) Baptism does not in any way contribute to or take away from our salvation. In other words, one does not have to be baptized to be saved. 3) Baptism is a outward testimony of what God has already done in saving us. If this is what you are saying as well, then I agree with you one hundred percent. However, if you are saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, then I would disagree with you one hundred percent. That would be making a work necessary for salvation and Scripture is clear that we can do nothing to earn salvation. Let me know if you agree with the above statement, then we can proceed from that point. p.s. - I think your reference is Luke 7:30! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6614 | Who was he? | Gen 37:15 | Morant61 | 8791 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Scripture never names the man, nor gives any details about him. My personal opinion would be that he has no special significance other than as an example of the level of historical detail included in the narratives of Scriptue. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6615 | Why did he bury them? | Gen 35:4 | Morant61 | 8790 | ||
Greetings Prayon! I think that Gen. 35:5 may be a clue as to why Jacob buried the idols. It states that God caused terror to fall on all the cities around them so that no one pursued him. It may be that they had to leave in haste and that burying the idols was quicker than any other option. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6616 | Judah's motive? | Gen 37:26 | Morant61 | 8789 | ||
Greetings Prayon! I think that Judah's motives in Gen. 37 were mostly selfish. He probably couldn't bring himself to actually killing his half-brother, but he didn't really care about the pain and grief he would be causing both his half-brother and his father. However, by Gen. 44, we see a Judah that seems to have matured. At this point, he is willing to become a slave himself rather than let his father suffer the loss of another beloved son. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6617 | What did Er do? | Gen 38:7 | Morant61 | 8788 | ||
Greetings Prayon! I searched and searched, but there is nothing in Scripture about this man, other than the fact that he was a son of Judah and that we was so wicked that God put him to death. The verses that mention him are: Gen. 38:3, 6, 7, 46:12; Num. 26:19; and 1 Chron. 2:3. Two other verses refer to another Er: 1 Chron. 4:21 and Luke 3:28. If I had to guess, I would say that his sin probably had something to do with blasphemey. However, that would only be a guess. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6618 | What is the mission of the church? | Matt 28:19 | Morant61 | 8759 | ||
Greetings Hank! This is a great question. My short answer is that Mt. 28:19 tells us what the mission of the church was and should be for all time. There is only one command in Mt. 28:19. The English text obscures this point. "Make disciples" is the only command. The others, a) While going... b) Baptizing... and c) Teaching... are all participles which describe the process of making a disciple. Thus, a disciple is someone who has been won, baptized, trained, and then who goes out a repeats the process in the lives of others. Has this mission changed in actual practice? I would say yes. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6619 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8756 | ||
Greetings Steve! I whole heartedly agree with your main points. However, I did want to clarify one small problem regarding the tenses of the verbs in Acts 2:38. 'Repent' is an Aorist, Active, Imperative, 2nd Person, Plural. This would indicate a command to do something that would occur at a point in time regardless of the time of the action. 'Be Baptized' is an Aorist, Passive, Imperative, 3rd Person, Singular. This would indicate a command to allow something to be done to you at a particular point in time regardless of when the action occurs. "Forgiveness" is actually a noun. Hence, it does not have a tense. However, I agree with the thrust of your argument. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6620 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8755 | ||
Greetings Sharp! I have been following this thread with interest. Is baptism a necessary for salvation? You seem to be arguing that it is based upon Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Thus, you must be taking the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" as expressing the result of repentance and baptism. However, there are three very good reasons to avoid this interpretation of this verse. 1) The rest of Scripture does not make baptism necessary for salvation, including Acts. Consider the following verses from Acts where forgiveness is mentioned and notice that not one of them links forgiveness with baptism. a) Acts 5:31 - "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." b) Acts 10:43 - "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." c) Acts 13:38-39 - ‘‘Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." d) Acts 26:18 - "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Notice that none of these other verses in Acts tie baptism in with the forgiveness of sins. If baptism were essential to salvation, you would think that it would be mentioned in these other verses as well. 2) There are reasons to believe that "for the forgiveness of sins" does not express result, but rather expresses the ground or reason for baptism. The preposition translated as ‘for’ in Acts 2:38 is sometimes used in this way. Consider the following examples and notice that two of them involve baptism (additional evidence that Acts 2:38 should be translated as "on the basis or grounds of the forgiveness of your sins): a) Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." b) Matthew 12:41 - "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." Allow me to address Mt. 12:41 first. The phrase "repented at the preaching of Jonah" uses the same preposition (eis) as does Acts 2:38. Obviously, the preaching of Jonah was the basis of their repentance, not the other way around. The other example illustrates the same thing and it involves baptism. In Mt. 3:11, baptism did not produce repentance. Rather, repentance was the grounds for baptism. 3) Finally, there is evidence in Acts 2:38 that the middle clause (involving baptism) may be a parenthetical statement. The command to repent is plural. The command to be baptized is singular. This would seems to indicate some break in the chain of thought. If this is the case, the phrase "for the remission of sins" may not even belong with the command to be baptized. No one would debate with you that baptism is important to a believer. However, I just can’t see that baptism is necessary for salvation. There are only a couple of debated Scriptures that even seem to make that case, while the vast majority of Scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is through faith alone. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 ] Next > Last [339] >> |