Results 661 - 680 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
661 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80130 | ||
Romans 6:4 'Whether the mode of baptism by immersion be alluded to in this verse, as a kind of symbolical burial and resurrection, does not seem to us of much consequence. Many interpreters think it is, and it may be so. But as it is not clear that baptism in apostolic times was exclusively by immersion so sprinkling and washing are indifferently used in the New Testament to express the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Jesus. And just as the woman with the issue of blood got virtue out of Christ by simply touching Him, so the essence of baptism seems to lie in the simple contact of the element (water) with the body, symbolizing living contact with Christ crucified; the mode and extent of suffusion being indifferent and variable with climate and circumstances.' Brown, David, D.D. "Commentary on Romans 6". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown) |
||||||
662 | Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Radioman2 | 80127 | ||
Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? - - - - - - - - - - 'If you think you're on safe theological ground because of a pet verse, better look twice. Simple prooftexting has its perils.' - - - - - - - - - - 'Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is it necessary to be water baptized after one's profession of faith before one can receive the gift of forgiveness and new life through regeneration? Or is baptism a proper act of obedience after one becomes a Christian? 'In the first case the order would be faith, then baptism, resulting in salvation. In the second case the order would be faith, resulting in salvation, followed by baptism. 'Verses seem to support both sides. In Acts 2:38 we read, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" If the repentant believer is baptized "for the forgiveness of sins," then repentance and belief are not enough. The order here appears to be faith, then baptism, resulting in salvation. 'This verse seems very straightforward. To some, simply quoting it is enough. The problem comes when one flips over a few pages to Acts 10:44-48. (...) 'Notice what's happening. Peter preaches the Gospel to Cornelius and his household. In the midst of Peter's sermon, the Holy Spirit falls on those listening and they manifest spiritual gifts. 'This is irrefutable evidence to Peter that these Gentiles have "received the Holy Spirit just as [he] did." Other verses make it clear that possessing the Holy Spirit in the New Testament sense is proof of salvation (see Ephesians 1:13-14 and Romans 8:9). 'After these Gentiles are regenerated, Peter announces it is appropriate for them to be baptized. The order in Acts 10 is faith, resulting in salvation, followed by baptism. 'Here's the problem. Apparently Acts 2 teaches that salvation comes after water baptism, and Acts 10 indicates it can come before. This is a contradiction. Unless these passages are harmonized, merely asserting one verse against another actually does violence to the authority of God's Word. 'This is when we must ask our question: Are either of the passages equivocal? That is, are there any legitimate alternative readings? 'The Acts 10 passage seems completely inflexible in its meaning. The sequence of events leaves no question (though I'm open to suggestions) that the order is faith/regeneration/baptism. Peter's response is unmistakable. 'Further, when the Jews later take issue with Peter about his involvement with Gentiles, he simply recounted the event and they were satisfied (Acts 11:1-18). In this passage regeneration clearly follows faith, not baptism: 'If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:17-18) 'Notice baptism isn't even mentioned here, only the salient details of regeneration: repentance, faith, and salvation. By all appearances, Acts 10 is unequivocal. Baptism isn't necessary for salvation. 'What about in Acts 2? Is it possible this passage means something different than it appears to at first? On closer inspection the answer is yes. The key is in the grammar. 'In Acts 2, the command to repent is in the plural, as is the reference to those who receive the forgiveness of sins (i.e., "All of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness"). The command to be baptized, however, is in the singular (i.e., "Each of you should be baptized"). 'This makes it clear that repentance, not baptism, leads to salvation, since an individual's baptism cannot cause the salvation of the entire group. Individual (singular) baptisms do not result in corporate (plural) salvation. 'As it turns out, then, the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" modifies repentance, not baptism. A more precise rendering might be, "Let all of you repent so all of you can receive forgiveness, and then each who has should be baptized." 'If there is any question about which translation of Acts 2:38 is appropriate, Acts 10 and 11 give us the answer. Clearly, Peter's Gentiles were not getting baptized in order to bring about their salvation. They were baptized as a result of salvation. The clear (unequivocal) teaching in Acts 10 and 11 informs the ambiguous (equivocal) nature of Acts 2:38.' - - - - - - - - - - To read the entire ariticle, go to: (http://www.str.org/free/solid_ground/SG9909.htm) |
||||||
663 | Only 144,000 virgins in heaven? | Revelation | Radioman2 | 80092 | ||
In plain English, The Watchtower organization (the Jehovah's Witnesses) is a cult. They deny the deity of Christ. They are teaching doctrine that is false and heretical. Their New World Translation of the Bible is obviously flawed and deliberately distorts scripture in an effort to defend their doctrines. They're not just another Christian religion. They're not a Christian religion - period. I've posted more than ample evidence to back up what I'm saying. (Use the search function. Under user name enter: "Radioman2"; under contain these words enter "Jehovah's Witness".) Moreover, you say "I find it sad that individuals listen to other people's opinions as to what other religions, who they haven't extensively studied (whether it be for just for research, to see why other's believe what they do, or out of their own personal search for the "true" religion) believe instead of researching it for themselves." Other people's "opinions"? May I point out that the sources I have cited quote Watchtower publications to show what JWs believe? If anyone believes my sources have misquoted anything or taken quotes out of context they need only to check out the references for themselves in the Watchtower publications cited. How one "feels" about the Bible is irrelevant. Being sincere in one's belief is not enough. One can take poison with the sincere belief that it is not harmful, but their belief does not change the fact that it is poison. If one has already decided that the JWs are just another religion, that their teaching is scriptural, then that person has a right to their beliefs. My motive and hope in posting the facts about the beliefs of JWs is to warn those who don't know any better, lest they, too, are deceived and caught up in error. I have no ill will toward you. Nor do I hate individual Jehovah's Witnesses. But the Watchtower organization is teaching lies that, if believed, will result in people spending eternity in hell. |
||||||
664 | How were Paul and Silas singled out? | Acts 16:38 | Radioman2 | 80053 | ||
Paul wrote: "I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (NASB Romans 11:1) NASB Acts 16:38 The policemen reported these words to the chief magistrates. They were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, Acts 16:38 does not say or mean that Paul was not a Jew. All it says is that he was Roman ("they were Romans" NASB). Speaking of himself, Paul wrote: NASB Romans 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 Cor. 11:22 (ESV) Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. Philip. 3:4-5 (ESV) though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: [5] circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; |
||||||
665 | Paul and Silas were not Jews. | Acts 16:38 | Radioman2 | 80052 | ||
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (NASB Romans 11:1) | ||||||
666 | Paul and Silas were not Jews. | Acts 16:38 | Radioman2 | 80050 | ||
Actually, Paul was a Jew. (See Holy Bible: New Testament.) | ||||||
667 | Luther, Calvin and Zwingli on Mary | Mark 6:3 | Radioman2 | 80045 | ||
God, Mary's Savior You are right. Here is more information on the subject. "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Luke 1:47 (NASB) "1:47 *my Savior.* Mary referred to God as 'Savior,' indicating both that she recognized her own need of a Savior, and that she knew the true God as her Savior. Nothing here or anywhere else in Scripture indicates Mary thought of herself as 'immaculate' (free from the taint of original sin). Quite the opposite is true; she employed language typical of someone whose only hope for salvation is divine grace. Nothing in this passage lends support to the notion that Mary herself ought to be an object of adoration" (note at Luke 1:47, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
668 | JESUS CHRIST | Matt 13:55 | Radioman2 | 79976 | ||
NASB Matthew 12:46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. NASB Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him. Matthew 12:46 "*brothers*. These are actual siblings (half-brothers) of Jesus. "MATTHEW EXPLICITLY CONNECTS THEM WITH MARY, INDICATING THAT THEY WERE NOT COUSINS OR JOSEPH'S SONS FROM A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE, AS SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS *IMAGINED*. "They are mentioned in all the gospels. Matthew and Mark give the names of 4 of Jesus' brothers, and mention that He had sisters as well." (emphasis added) (p. 1415, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) |
||||||
669 | JESUS CHRIST | Matt 13:55 | Radioman2 | 79975 | ||
Did Mary Have Other Children? Part 2 (continued from previous post) ' An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows: ' In Greek, the word for brother is ‘adelphos’ and sister is ‘adelphe’. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus. ' There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word ‘brother’ means ‘fellow Jews’ or ‘cousin’ in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means. ' Let’s briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus. ' Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." ' Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" ' In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter’s father? In other words, ‘mother’ here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though ‘carpenter’s son’ refers to Joseph, and ‘mother’ refers to Mary, ‘brothers’ does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers. (http://www.carm.org/catholic/brothers.htm) |
||||||
670 | Does following cost? | Luke 14:33 | Radioman2 | 79968 | ||
imuvhim: You write: "My Pastor when someone wants to be a born again believer is told beforehand what is the costs. Sounds like the bible way to me because that rich man was told cost beforehand." I would say your pastor is right -- this is the Bible way. John Macarthur writes: 'Salvation is not an experiment. Salvation is a life-long commitment. Salvation is not "try Jesus," see if He works. Salvation is a life-long transformation. Those who would tell us that a person can become a Christian without becoming a disciple do a great disservice to Scripture and they do a great disservice to people who then live under the illusion that they can be saved without following Christ in obedience. [That] they can be saved without giving up all they are and have and ever hope to be unconditionally to Christ. That's tragic. (...) 'Someone wrote, "I could not work my soul to save, that work my Lord has done. But I would work like any slave for love of God's own Son." 'I trust that's your heart, that you're a disciple who follows Christ. If not, then you better examine yourself to see whether you're genuinely in the faith.' "The Cost of Discipleship" (www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-23.htm) |
||||||
671 | What type of baptism is this? | Luke 12:50 | Radioman2 | 79902 | ||
The mode of baptism - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes [of baptism] may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" (http://www.equip.org/search/). |
||||||
672 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79853 | ||
Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I am a war veteran and was a radio operator. | ||||||
673 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Mark 16:9 | Radioman2 | 79842 | ||
Tim: Indeed this whole area is a fascinating study. Thank you for the additional information. Do I correctly understand that you are saying: '...the largest number of manuscripts were of a latter date and a lower quality than the minority of manuscripts' [which were of an earlier date and a higher quality]? (Here I am -- adding words for clarification or explanation, just as the later scribes did. :-) And without the authorization of the original author -- again, just as the later scribes did.) Thank you also for pointing out that 'there are several criteria which affect the reliability of a particular manuscript', criteria that must be applied with discernment. Thank you for once again giving us reliable and useful information. Radioman2 |
||||||
674 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Mark 16:9 | Radioman2 | 79840 | ||
Words were ADDED to later manuscripts that WERE NOT IN earlier manuscripts. - - - - - - - - - - 'An additional factor that contributed to the reliability and accuracy of the Greek text was advancement in the art of textual criticism itself. While this important subject can be complicated, its basic aim is quite straightforward. It is important to remember that the original manuscripts of the biblical books, technically called the autographa, have not survived, and the copies made from these original documents contain readings, called variants, that do not always agree with one another. The goal of textual criticism is to formulate and apply rules that enable an editor to select the variant reading to achieve the most accurate text. 'An illustration of the application of these rules of textual criticism may aid us in understanding what an editor does. For example, one of the rules of textual criticism is that a shorter reading is preferable to a longer reading. THE REASON FOR THIS RULE IS THAT A SCRIBE WOULD TEND TO ADD WORDS FOR CLARIFICATION OR EXPLANATION RATHER THAN DELETING THEM.' [Words were ADDED to later manuscripts that WERE NOT IN earlier manuscripts.] 'Another rule of textual criticism is that a more difficult reading is to be preferred to a less difficult one. A SCRIBE WOULD BE TEMPTED TO ADD WORDS OF EXPLANATION that would enable the reader to understand the meaning of a difficult text rather than leaving such a reading unexplained' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0002.html) (Emphasis added). ['A scribe would be tempted to add words of explanation' to a later manuscript -- words that WERE NOT IN the earlier manuscript. Words added to later manuscripts WERE PUT THERE BY SCRIBES, not by divine inspiration.] |
||||||
675 | What about a passage not in early ms? | Mark 16:9 | Radioman2 | 79812 | ||
You write: "I don't buy the earliest manuscripts are always the best." Are you saying that the last manuscripts are more accurate than the first? How could that be? I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong. It's just that I don't follow the reasoning that led to your conclusion. How can a later copy be truer to the original than the earlier, since the earlier would be closer in time to the original? |
||||||
676 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79755 | ||
Ed: It is I who should apologize. In fact, I did not mean to imply that you suggested I advocated trickery or misrepresentation. I know that you never said or implied that in regard to myself. I should have clarified that in my earlier post. Radioman2 |
||||||
677 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79752 | ||
Tim: Well said! Upon further consideration, I will amend my earlier question to read: Are we obligated to tell the enemy anything? Radioman2 |
||||||
678 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79748 | ||
Ed: You raise some good questions. However, I have never advocated tricking anyone into receiving the gospel or getting saved. Nor would I advocate misrepresenting the gospel in any way. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
679 | Robots? | Gen 4:7 | Radioman2 | 79741 | ||
Divine sovereignty AND human responsibility I agree. We need to bear in mind BOTH the sovereignty of God AND the responsibility of man. It isn't EITHER/OR; it's BOTH. To pretend that one exists without the other is to lead oneself or others into serious error. |
||||||
680 | ever neccessary/permissable to deceit? | Luke 24:31 | Radioman2 | 79738 | ||
Tim: Thank you for doing a thorough job of providing us with verses that we need to consider if we are going to discuss this issue. It seems to me that in this thread there are at least three questions that are being addressed: 1) Is lying a sin?; 2) Define "lie" or "deceive"; 3) Are we obligated to tell the enemy all that we know? Before we can answer question #3, we must answer questions #1 and #2. You have answered question # 1 rather clearly. I will attempt here to define "lie" and "deceive". (From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) to lie is '1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression' - - - - - - - - - - 'de·ceive 'Function: verb 'Date: 13th century (...) 'intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression (appearances can deceive) '- de·ceiv·er noun '- de·ceiv·ing·ly /-'sE-vi[ng]-lE/ adverb 'synonyms DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. 'DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness (tried to deceive me about the cost). 'MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional (I was misled by the confusing sign). 'DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth (we were deluded into thinking we were safe). 'BEGUILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving (was beguiled by false promises). ' |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Next > Last [40] >> |