Results 6921 - 6940 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6921 | Who hardened Pharaoh's heart? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88461 | ||
Both. | ||||||
6922 | Doesn't this seem like a contradiction? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88495 | ||
John Reformed: Friend, you and your predestined Calvinist brethern seem to take great delight in emphasizing that God hardened Pharaoh's heart "as part of his eternal purpose" so you say. But it seems to me you emphasize one set of facts while ignoring another. There are 18 references in Scripture to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. In nine of them it is attributed to God's actions. That's half of the references. Now to whose actions do suppose Scripture attributes the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in the other half of the references? --Hank | ||||||
6923 | Can the "natural man" desire Christ? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88615 | ||
So who, John, are "all the Father sent Him (Christ)?" Are they not all who hear and CHOOSE to respond to the gospel call? If you say they are the "elect" then who are they but those who hear and believe? Are you saying that man does not have any option whatever whether to believe the gospel and respond to it or reject it? You say that Adam and Eve reponded negatively. What does this do to Calvinism's "I" petal of the TULIP -- irresistible grace? And did Adam and Eve make any theological choices not only before but also after their fall? And did they exhibit that they had any measure of free will? What do the "elect" have to do to be saved? Do they have a choice in the matter or is God going to save them whether they want to be saved or not? --Hank | ||||||
6924 | Can the "natural man" desire Christ? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88756 | ||
Dear John: While I may not always agree with all of your arguments (as you doubtlessly already are aware :-), I want you to know that I do appreciate and applaud the obvious care with which you constructed your response and the kind spirit in which you delivered it. It is refreshing -- and a fairly rare experience on this forum -- to feel certain that the user we're involved with has read and carefully considered your points and questions before rushing to dash off some sort of half-cocked response. I see so much of that on this forum. Yours was decidedly not of this stripe and, again, I'm grateful for it. I generally refuse to continue to dialogue with forum users who dodge questions and evade issues. But the proof of the pudding that I don't place you in this sad category is the fact that you and I have dialogued for a long time -- and rather peppery dialogue it has been on occasion :-) -- and I wouldn't be displeased at all to dialogue with you again from time to time. It is with these people who insist on their opinions being right and have such little regard for God's word that they don't bother to "rightly divide" it that my patience runs thin. We may disagree on some things, John, but I do believe we agree on more things -- and possibly more important things -- than we disagree. Blessings and grace to you, John. --Hank | ||||||
6925 | Can the "natural man" desire Christ? | Rev 13:8 | Hank | 88774 | ||
Dear John Reformed. And thanks to you for your fine response! The more I reflect on the different points of view of so-called Calvinism and Arminianism -- and here I'm speaking of the classic, historical points of each one and not of the extremism that has, alas, crept into both camps -- I see both points of view as having a high view of the divine authority of Scripture and of the absolute sovereignty of God. Both are in essential agreement on the Trinity, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the depravity of man and his hopeless condition without a Savior. the means of grace which God provided through the shed blood of His Son on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. So I don't really "see red" when I read a sensible, well-reasoned and well-documented Calvinist post or an Arminian one. I really don't stake a claim on being a true-blue Arminian any more than I claim to be a Calvinist. There are those who think that if one isn't a Calvinist he's an Arminian by default, but I believe they're wrong in thinking that. Calvinists believe their doctrine can be found in Scripture. So do Arminians. Are they both right? To some degree and in a certain sense I think they are. If therefore certain points of Calvinism are contradictory of certain points of Arminianism, and both the Calvinist and the Arminian is able to cite scriptural proof for his views, does it then follow that the Bible itself is contradictory? No, that is not the right conclusion to reach, not, that is, if we accept Scripture as God's inerrant word, (and I know I do and certainly have every possible reason to believe you do too) for God cannot lie or contradict Himself. So the fault doesn't lie in God's revealed truth but in our imperfect understanding of it, which can surely include our reading into it more than it really reveals (or less). Whether in this life you or I or any other Christian will ever gain perfect understanding of all that God's word has to teach us about His predestination, His foreknowledge, or His election is most doubtful. If I claimed to know all about these things, chances are I would lie to you about other things too :-) So Calvinism and Arminianism have different points of view on some subjects but on many others they are in accord. There is no doubt in my mind that there are redeemed children of the King among both Calvinists and Arminians and in heaven they will be bonded together as one, united in praise and worship of Almighty God and His Christ. What worries me far more than the doctrinal differences between Calvinists and Arminians are the modern fads, cults, and secular humanism organizations masquerading as New Testament churches -- the fads that teach unscriptural stuff such as the 'word of faith' heresy, the 'feel-good' brand of false Christianity, the experiential faddists who place their 'experiences' above what Scripture teaches, the claimants to 'special revelation...and the cults who deny the deity of Christ or introduce another 'bible' claiming it to be the inspired word of God...and the secular humanism organizations who condone and promote homosexuality, abortion, and evolution, deny the inerrancy and relevance of Scripture, the virgin birth and even the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. These are the real enemies of the church. Not Calvinism. Not Arminianism. --Hank | ||||||
6926 | Comparison of Revelation to John | Rev 13:18 | Hank | 111972 | ||
Markk: Revelation 13:18, "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty six." ... John 6:66, "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." .... What possible connection between these two verses of Scripture makes the juxtaposition "cool" in your eyes? I fail to see it. Connect me. --Hank | ||||||
6927 | What Does 666 Mean? | Rev 13:18 | Hank | 149951 | ||
Tom: Commenting on Revelation 13:18, John MacArthur wrote, "'His number is 666.' This is the essential number of a man. The number 6 falls one short of God's perfect number 7, and thus represents human imperfection. Antichrist, the most powerful human the world will ever know, will still be a man, i.e., a 6. The ultimate in human and demonic power is a 6, not perfect, as God is. The 3-fold repetition of the number is intended to reiterate and underscore man's indentity. When Antichrist is finally revealed, there will be some way to identify him with this basic number of a man, or his name may have the numerical equivalent of 666. (In many languages, including Hebrew, Greek and Latin, letters have numerical equivalents.) Because this text reveals very little about the meaning of 666, it is unwise to speculate beyond what is said." --Hank | ||||||
6928 | Belief in "progressive revelation?" | Rev 14:16 | Hank | 149620 | ||
Hi, Ray. "How much should we believe in progressive revelation?" Only as much as Scripture itself teaches! :-) I think one will find that Hebrews 1:1,2 gives reasonable proof, as well as a good synopsis, of what is commonly called progressive revelation. --Hank | ||||||
6929 | "...these necessary things: ..."??? | Rev 17:5 | Hank | 64562 | ||
Pastor Glenn, warm greetings, and may I butt in? Not that I have all the answers, but your question interests me, and being from Arkansas, when the subject of pigs comes up, I perk up my ears because I'm an avid Razorback fan and don't want the genetic scientists monkeying around with 'them hogs' as we fondly call them! ..... Back to the serious topic addressed by your question. Some questions are easy, some pointless and trivial, while others -- the best kind, the kind Socrates posed -- are designed to make us think. Yours falls in this latter category, for it is indeed an excellent one. The fear of the unknown is common to man, and even Christian believers are not immune to this fear; but believers have access to mighty resources that are denied unbelievers, chief among which are faith in the absolute sovereignty of God and prayer..... Each milestone of change has been accompanied by dire predictions that this or that new invention, discovery, theory or philosophy signaled the beginning of the end of life as we know it. When the automobile was invented there were naysayers who were convinced that the human body would never be able to withstand sustained travel at the reckless speed of 25 miles an hour. When Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species" the talking heads of that day predicted the death of the Christian faith because the book, so they said, put to the lie the Genesis story of creation. In the wake of the discovery of atomic energy and the manufacture of nuclear weapons came those who saw this event as the prelude to the utter annihiliation of mankind..... But people travel far in excess of 25 miles an hour; Darwin's theory is now viewed as bunkum by vast numbers in the scientific community and it has not wiped out Christianity by any means; and nuclear weaponry, while still posing a serious threat, has not done away with life on this planet..... Genetic engineering, even human cloning, looms ever nearer on the horizon, and I believe it (parts of it at least; I would exclude human cloning) like nuclear energy, has at least an equal potential for good as for evil. While I would never promote the idea that the Christian should take the ostrich approach to human problems, hiding his head in the sand and hoping a weak hope that somehow the problem will either solve itself or go away, neither would I promote the idea that Christians must become activists to the extent of taking matters into their own hands. We must surrender first and foremost to the sovereign Lord. It is He, not we, who is in charge. We can be instruments for change in the world, but we must be His instruments. We must seek His will through much prayer.... We know not what the future holds for us on this earth -- whether cloning or wars, whether plagues of terrorism or pain of persecution, whether sickness or health, whether fortune or famine.... This much we do know: If God is for us, who is against us? Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. Nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord..... Not genetic engineering. Not cloning. Nothing. [Scriptural extracts from Romans 8] --Hank | ||||||
6930 | "...these necessary things: ..."??? | Rev 17:5 | Hank | 64564 | ||
"Should Christians remain silent on these? is the question I meant to address in my former post and so my answer, if it makes any sense at all, will likely appear to make a trifle more sense if viewed as a response to that question and not to the one to which it was attached through my error. You do understand that I'm new to this forum? It takes a slow learner considerably more time than a year and a half to find his way around. Perhaps in another 10 years or so I will be able to stumble around without falling on my face so much :-) --Hank | ||||||
6931 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59876 | ||
Pastor Glenn: By no means do I wish to enter the fray and debate eschatology, for I would soon find myself in water over well over my head! But I would like to make a casual observation on the subject if I may. There was in the days of my youth a radio preacher who not only claimed to be an authority on end times but who actually reckoned a date for the Lord's return and advertised it on his daily radio show. When the date came and passed into history without his prediction having materialized, he was not particularly abashed by his failure and so he set another date, and then another. Eventually he became the object of jokes and ridicule, even his most loyal followers deserted him, and he drifted off into obscurity. My point is that Christians should be extremely careful in their interpretation of the apocalyptic literature of the Bible. It is tempting and all too easy to jump to conclusions about what it is saying. Men have made egregious blunders in their interpretaions of apocalytic passages in the past and continue to make them still. Our burden, as the Lord Jesus himself taught, is to watch and be ready. It is to work in His vineyard as obedient disciples and not concern ourselves unduly about when and how God will work His purpose out. We should, in short, be concerned with the duties we have been assigned and be content to let God take care of the rest. He's far more skillful at running His universe than we are anyway! --Hank | ||||||
6932 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59877 | ||
And, John, we can have full confidence in and believe everything we read in God's word. But what we read in the newspapers, or see on TV, or read in school science textbooks these days... well, "It ain't necessarily so!" --Hank | ||||||
6933 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59880 | ||
John, strong language but appropriate and well stated, and I agree with every word you said! Three cheers for having the guts to stand by your convictions in condemnation of idle speculation and defense of the proper handling of the truth of God's word. --Hank | ||||||
6934 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59881 | ||
Well, John, there is a time for straight talk -- call it dander if you wish -- and we have two unimpeachably reliable role models who could, and when the occasion warranted it, certainly did engage in some straight and rather blunt language. One of the models is Paul. The other? The Lord Jesus Christ! --Hank | ||||||
6935 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59902 | ||
To: EdB, Pastor Glenn, Debbie, John and other participants in this little discussion we are enjoying :-) : Greetings! I am NOT advocating the setting aside of the Revelation or any other apocalyptic writings that are a part of Scripture, and neither, I am convinced, is John Reformed suggesting any such measure as that. What I am opposed to for reasons that I believe are justified is any attempt to put a specific tag on world events and teach with the air of certainty, "Aha, see here, this or that event or this or that person is exactly what the Revelation is speaking of -- so and so is the antichrist or this very event is spoken of in Chapter so and so of Revelation -- or it won't be long now, probably less than six months, before Christ returns. We simply can't KNOW the specifics simply because God has not revealed them right down to the name of the person, the exact day and hour, the minute detail concerning persons, places, events and times. It is thus fatuous and inane that we should take it upon ourselves to paint in the details upon God's broad canvas. It is not handling the word of God properly when we try to make it say what it in fact does not say.... In his introduction to Revelation, John MacArthur says in his Study Bible (Word Publishing): "No other New Testament book poses more serious and difficult interpretative challenges than Revelation. The book's vivid imagery and striking symbolism have produced four main interpretative approaches." MacArthur lists these as [1] preterist [2] historicist [3] idealist and [4] futurist. He describes the main points expressed in each view, assesses each view, and gives his reasons for leaning toward the fourth view, futurist, which also happens to be the view I favor..... Will we ever understand this side of heaven all that is revealed in the Book of Revelation? The answer is obvious, isn't it? But are you the man or woman who understands everything there is to know about the other 65 books of the Bible, or have you ever met anyone who does? But our imperfect understanding does not give us the license to give up and cease to learn as much as the Spirit wills to reveal to us of the perfect word of God, now does it? --Hank | ||||||
6936 | Does this mean that it is wrong to ask? | Rev 17:16 | Hank | 59904 | ||
Ed, the Latin phrase is, "Et tu, Brute." [And thou, Brutus] spoken by the dying Caesar to Brutus, one of his conspirators. I do trust that you don't view me in the same light! --Hank | ||||||
6937 | Did Jesus have a tatoo on his thigh? | Rev 19:16 | Hank | 176288 | ||
m8mida - Verse 11 of this 19th chapter of Revelation begins an account of our Lord's Second Advent, i.e., His second coming to earth. Therefore, the events are all cast in the future tense. I believe it is too great a stretch to say that our Lord will return wearing a tattoo; that hardly appears to be the meaning of the passage. Perhaps Dr. John MacArthur says it as accurately and succinctly as anyone when he writes of the phrase "on His thigh" that "Jesus will wear a banner across His robe and down His thigh with a title emblazoned on it that emphasizes His absolute sovereignty over all human rulers." ..... And that title, as we know from the text, is KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. ..... The verses that follow (Rev. 19:17-21) depict a mighty event unparalleled in human history, the Battle of Armageddon, in which Christ will be the victor and in which all who oppose Him will be slain. ..... A note concerning commentary on a single verse of Scripture: It's risky to attempt to exegete a single verse of Scripture and much better to view it in its natural setting, that is, its context. It's better to get a feel of the depth and overall appearance of the forest before one begins a minute examination of the individual trees. .... Thanks for your question, and I do hope this attempt at a response will help you in some measure. --Hank | ||||||
6938 | Why will Satan be bound then loosed? | Rev 20:1 | Hank | 103025 | ||
Michael, you may be right about the end times -- I don't know much about the future. But mankind for the most part is going to hell in a hand-basket and always has. That isn't Hank's opinion, it's Jesus' own teaching: "Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13,14 NKJV). --Hank | ||||||
6939 | Number of the deceived | Rev 20:1 | Hank | 103033 | ||
Michael Draves - The other Michael, Michael Servant, with his lone post of more than a year ago, wasn't among the most prolific posters of the Forum, that's for sure. We get several One-Post Wonders who drop by from time to time. Then there are those Many-Post Blunders -- Hank for instance :-) | ||||||
6940 | "beheading" in modern times? | Rev 20:4 | Hank | 124773 | ||
Pastor Glenn, how right you are: times, they are a-changing and one would have to be either hyper Pollyannaish or just plain dull to think they are changing for the better. We live in a fallen world, brother. This is not the Garden of Eden. Jesus said there would be bad times ahead. But Jesus Christ be praised! We who are sheep of His pasture have the promise of the Shepherd himself that He will be with us always, even unto the end of the age. (Matthew 28:20). Pastor Glenn, many times I have said to the adult Sunday school class I taught for years, "America is at the crossroads. It has a choice of whether it will continue along the paths of its God fearing founders or deviate from those paths." This I said back in the 70's and 80's. No longer do I say this, because I'm not convinced that America is still at a crossroads. The leading indicators seem to be saying that we are beyond the crossroads and have taken the wrong path. The question now before us, and especially before the Christian community of believers, is, "Do we have the courage and fortitude to back up, go back to the crossroads and take the right path?" And my answer to that question is, "I simply don't know." But God is sovereign, He is in control, and our big challenge as Christians is to trust Him totally and to pray fervently and without ceasing. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 ] Next > Last [349] >> |