Results 681 - 700 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
681 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80493 | ||
Don't believe everything you read on the World Wide Web. I, too, went surfing for info on CRI. This is what I found: The website www.rapidnet.com has nothing good to say about CRI. They have leveled serious accusations against CRI in their many postings that bash the organization. Oh, I almost forgot to mention: The above anti-CRI website is also opposed to and strongly critical of the following: Benny Hinn; National Assoc. of Evangelicals; Tim and Beverly LaHaye; Larry Burkett; the Evangelical Free Church of America; Pat Robertson; D. James Kennedy; RC Sproul; Billy Graham; John MacArthur; Radio Bible Class and its principal publication "Our Daily Bread"; Campus Crusade for Christ; and Dr. James C. Dobson. Did they leave anybody out? Oh, yeah. They sound like a reliable, credible source of information, don't they? (Go to www.rapidnet.com Then in the Search field type Biblical Discernment Ministries) ad hominem. marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. |
||||||
682 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80498 | ||
Tim: You provide two excellent reasons not to view the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable. Unfortunately, well-trained JWs have heard this argument before, but reject it. In their indoctrination, they are trained to have an answer for everything, unaware that their answers don't answer anything. Yet to their credit, the JWs' answers consist of something other than ad hominem attacks. Radioman2 |
||||||
683 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80500 | ||
Does God Always Heal? 'We have been made disturbingly aware of a number of problems that predictably arise wherever the healing/prosperity/confession movement spreads. It finally reached a point where we no longer had any choice but to do something about it. 'One very real problem is that the emphasis that is placed upon Christ bearing our diseases at Calvary undermines the biblical emphasis upon Christ bearing our sins. Whereas the preaching that we read in the New Testament is always centered around Christ’s death or our sins and resurrection for our justification (Romans 4:25), one finds that the preaching, and even the casual conversation of this current movement is dominated by the subject of bodily healing. Followers of the movement display practically an obsession with the topics of healing and “confession,” as though these subjects were the gospel and there’s little else in the Bible worthy of much discussion. Even if these doctrines were Biblical many who hold them would be guilty of being extremely unbalanced, not giving enough attention to many important aspects of Christian faith and living. 'Another unfortunate result of the preaching of these doctrines is that people lose their victory in Christ, and become shaken in their faith, because someone gave them a “biblical” formula for success, and it didn’t work. (...) 'To have the audacity to tell one of God’s children that if they are sick it is because of their own sin or lack of faith is to abound in presumptuousness, and be bankrupt in compassion. I’ve known of more than one person who demonstrated this insensitivity until God dealt with him by laying him flat on his back, and when none of his “principles” would work he suddenly developed an empathy of those he had once judged. We never see it portrayed in Scripture that perfect health is the sign of spirituality. To set up such a standard is to divert God’s people from the spiritual standard that Scripture does set forth (such as in 2 Peter 1:5-9). 'Ken Copeland and others teach that we must resist sickness in the same way that we resist sin. This also disturbs us. We’ve seen too many good Christians striving to “believe” their sickness away, and finally collapsing into self-condemnation and utter discouragement over their “lack of faith” or the “sin” in their lives. Most likely, there was a divine purpose for that sickness in their lives, and it would have been a lot easier on them, after they prayed in faith and nothing happened, to have ceased striving and simply rested in the comforting sovereignty of God. 'After being forced to go to this extent to prove that it is not always God’s will to heal, we do want to close on the positive note that we do believe that divine healing is for today. We see no Scriptural basis to doubt that we can expect to see healing take place here and now. Healing should be a regular part of the life of all churches (James 5:14-16). We also believe that faith plays an important part in receiving healing, and that the Church has much to learn about faith, and how to more effectively receive it for healing. We feel that many who saw this need embraced the “healing in the atonement” doctrine because it seemed to offer a more solid basis for faith. Unfortunately, however, this basis is not the Scriptural basis, and therefore it has created more problems than was hoped it would solve.' - Elliot Miller (This article has been edited due to space limitations. To read the entire article, see STATEMENT DH018, Healing: Does God Always Heal? [www.equip.org]) |
||||||
684 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80525 | ||
Gospel according to Price Joe: You have so correctly pointed out: "Things that Jesus verbalized are not any more or less true than the Psalms or Pauls' teaching in 2 Corinthians." If I may, I would like to expand a bit on your point here. - - - - - - - - - - 'Another case in point is that God allowed affliction to come upon Paul, not answering his prayer for deliverance, so that Paul would not become too high minded as a result of the visions and revelations he had (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). [Frederick] Price’s response to this passage, which is typical of the movement, is: “Now that was Paul’s estimate of the situation. God didn’t tell him that He gave him that to keep him humble, but Paul was a man who was prone to brag and boast. Therefore he took it upon himself to believe all of this that was coming upon him was going to help him to stay humble.”[3] 'In this statement we find a disturbing lack of concern for the authority of the inspired authors of Scripture. There is nothing within the context of this passage to qualify this statement of Paul’s as being merely his own, possibly errant, opinion. Paul makes the statement with the full authority that, by virtue of inspiration, was rightfully his. If by our human rationalizing that Paul was one prone to boast (which finds no basis in Scripture), we have the freedom to dismiss his declaration in verse 7 as being misguided, then we may also dismiss anything else he said that does not fit into our doctrinal scheme. Once this happens, our basis of trust in the Scripture become effectively undermined. However, we find that Paul derived this estimate of the situation from the Lord’s answer to his prayers: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is perfected in weakness” (verse 9). 'Paul learned to be content with this abiding affliction, for the Lord taught him that at the very moment that he was weakest in himself, the power of the Lord would be most evident through him, bringing glory to God rather than Paul (verses 9, 10). This lesson desperately needs to be learned by many who are being influenced by the false unlimited healing/prosperity doctrines today. 'Affliction can certainly be a tool for good in God’s hands. In Psalm 119 we read the following: 'Verse 67: Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Thy word. 'Verse 91: It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn Thy statutes 'Verse 75: I know, O LORD, that Thy judgments are righteous, and that in faithfulness Thou hast afflicted me. 'There has been times, even in the Bible, when God’s people have had to accept and live with illness. Rather than telling him to “claim his healing,” Paul gave medicinal advice to Timothy: “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments” (1 Timothy 5:23). 'This verse should have special significance to all who think the Bible supports some of the extreme teachings of our day. Where is Paul’s “word of faith” and “positive confession”? By giving medicinal advice, and telling Timothy he has frequent ailments (thus acknowledging their ongoing existence rather than “speaking healing into being”) Paul is completely out of line with the current wind of doctrine.* As Kenneth Hagin puts it” “People confess their lack and build up a sense of lack in themselves. As they confess these things, these lacks gain ascendancy in their lives.”[4]' [1] Price, Frederick K. C., Is Healing For All? Harrison House, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1976, 9. [2] Ibid., 10. [3] Ibid., 12. [4] Hagin, Kenneth E., Right and Wrong Thinking, Kenneth Hagin Evangelistic Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 24 (http://www.equip.org/free/DH018.htm) |
||||||
685 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80604 | ||
"...Codex B or Vaticanus (Vatican 1209) of the fourth century CE, which is one of the few Greek texts that actually contains punctuation." That some copyist ADDED punctuation to a COPY of the Greek text proves what? 'If you think you're on safe theological ground because of a pet verse, better look twice. Simple prooftexting has its perils.' --(Gregory Koukl, Stand to Reason) One of the Watchtower organization's favorite tactics is to isolate a verse of Scripture from it's context (and re-translate and re-interpret it to fit their teachings) in order to proof text a particular doctrine of theirs. |
||||||
686 | why do you think that jesus went to hell | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80671 | ||
Did Christ take back the keys? Nowhere in the Bible is there a clear verse of Scripture to indicate that Christ TOOK BACK any keys or that Satan had possession of keys. In the entire King James Version of the Bible, the word "key" appears in 6 verses. The word "keys" appears in 2 verses. Thus, "key" and "keys" appear a total of 8 times in the KJV. The following is ALL the Bible has to say about key(s): Jud 3:25 And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened them: and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth. Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. Lu 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Re 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Re 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. Re 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Re 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. |
||||||
687 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80763 | ||
You have some good ideas here. I agree that dumping all these digressions under one thread leads to confusion. It also leads to a long, long cumbersome thread in which it is difficult to find what one is looking for. Rather than go off on tangents under an existing thread, it would be better if people who have a subtopic would start a new and separate thread for it. There is a risk of such a separate thread getting lost in the shuffle and having no one respond to it. This is because often an individual will not respond to a question or note that is not addressed directly to him/her. As a result, one risks starting a new thread (instead of piling on posts to an existing thread) and then having no one respond to it. I suppose it's human nature for folks to do things the way they've always done them, even when it no longer works. Thanks for your input on this problem. |
||||||
688 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80766 | ||
Amen. Common sense rules -- especially when combined with the scriptures and reason. | ||||||
689 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101166 | ||
John: Good point, John, and I agree with you. I was in the United States Marine Corps. My M.O.S. was Field Radio Operator. (My brother, Sonarman, was in the Navy. He was a sonar technician.) Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
690 | sons of god as in early gen | 1 Pet 3:19 | Radioman2 | 80187 | ||
"Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." - - - - - - - - - - The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)". (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
691 | sons of god as in early gen | 1 Pet 3:19 | Radioman2 | 80188 | ||
You write: "We find a few references to these spirits throghout the bible as in the case of Peter 3:19-20. Having served their sentence they were relesaed from spirit prison." Have they served their sentence? Were they released from spirit prison? No, they were not. Instead they have been "kept in ETERNAL BONDS under darkness FOR (until) THE JUDGMENT of the great day." AMPLIFIED Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep (care for, guard, and hold to) their own first place of power but abandoned their proper dwelling place--these He has reserved in custody in eternal chains (bonds) under the thick gloom of utter darkness until the judgment and doom of the great day. NASB Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, |
||||||
692 | Please explain this "pure blood line". | 2 Pet 2:4 | Radioman2 | 96931 | ||
Only 1 of 4 translations I consulted uses the word "replenish". All 3 of the others use the word "fill." . . . Gen 1:28 (KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *replenish* the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. . . . Gen. 1:28 (Amplified) And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply and *fill* the earth... . . . Gen 1:28 (NASB) God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and *fill* the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." . . . Gen 1:28 (The NET Bible) God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! *Fill* the earth and subdue it! |
||||||
693 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81238 | ||
You write: "DON'T debate Arminian / Calvinist views..." I ask you: Who is debating Arminian/Calvinist views? Am I? You write: "Radioman2 and others ... just answer the question of how you see God's wish(es) apart from your Arminian or Calvinist view." I ask: Which view do I hold -- Arminian or Calvinist? If you tell me which I am (Arminian or Calvinist), then we'll both know. What makes you assume I am either Arminian or Calvinist? Radioman2 |
||||||
694 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81290 | ||
Searcher: I am no adherent to the TULIP doctrine. You have problems with both Calvinism and Arminianism? So do I! Lots of problems! :-) For the record, if I have taken a position for one view and against the other, it's news to me. I am not now, nor have I ever thought of myself as, either a Calvinist or an Arminianist. Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
695 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81292 | ||
Is there a question in my post, ID# 76752? No, there is not, just as I said in my post. | ||||||
696 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81299 | ||
ROFL! Good one, Joe. That might not be a bad idea. I'll have to think about what I should call myself in order to identify myself theologically. Radioman2 |
||||||
697 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81311 | ||
"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hank: You write: "One is pressed in today's world to accept one label or another, and if he refuses to do so, along will come the label makers and slap one on him anyway." How very true! If I am an advocate of neither Calvinism nor Arminianism, then what do I believe? I believe: NASB Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. AMPLIFIED Ephesians 1:4 Even as [in His love] He chose us [actually picked us out for Himself as His own] in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (consecrated and set apart for Him) and blameless in His sight, even above reproach, before Him in love. NASB 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Radioman2 |
||||||
698 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81315 | ||
TULIP T - Total Depravity U - Unconditional Election L - Limited Atonement I - Irresistible Grace P - Preservation of the Saints 'T.U.L.I.P - This is the Acronym for the Calvinist Perspective, for an in depth view of this perspective see: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html This site explains it quite well!' (Quoted from ID# 17873 by user: lovetosign) (I found this information by using the Search feature at StudyBibleForum.com and searching for the word: T.U.L.I.P.) |
||||||
699 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81437 | ||
Joe: You ask: "Did Radioman2 provide the post which started the silliness or did I?" I adhere to the motto "Give credit where credit is due." Obviously, Joe, it was you who started the silliness. (I'll have to owe you the scriptural support for my answer.) Signed, A completely unbiased and impartial observer |
||||||
700 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81938 | ||
EdB: You write: "Then the question arises who should choose what is right and the answer is the Church! Not the church of Methodist, not the church of the AoG, not the church of the Baptist, not the church of Calvin, but the church of Jesus Christ." If I had the email address or phone number of "the church of Jesus Christ", I would contact them so that I, too, could know what was right. I know this sounds sarcastic and for that I apologize. My intent here is not to be sarcastic. Yet, if the above quote is the answer, then how can one gain access to what is right and true? I agree with you, Ed, that no denomination has the copyright on THE TRUTH. Yet, my question remains. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ] Next > Last [40] >> |