Results 6961 - 6980 of 7096
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6961 | David's son named after the prophet? | 1 Chr 14:4 | Makarios | 5584 | ||
In 1 Chronicles 14:3-7, we see a listing of the children of King David. Among those is one named Nathan. Did David name his son Nathan after Nathan the prophet? Nathan the prophet is the one who revealed to him his sin with Bathsheba and was a primary source of counselling for King David. | ||||||
6962 | Should homosexuals be ordained? | Rom 1:27 | Makarios | 5582 | ||
Should homosexuals be ordained as pastors and church leaders in light of Romans 1:24-27 and other verses that condemn homosexuality? | ||||||
6963 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 5579 | ||
As I seek to become rebaptized this summer, the church that I attend uses the method of immersion to baptise. I have seen sprinkling, pouring, and immersion baptisms take place. According to scripture, is there are 'right' way to be baptised? Which way (immersion, sprinking, pouring) is best according to scripture? | ||||||
6964 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 5576 | ||
Is infant baptism Biblical? I was baptized as an infant and I am seeking to become rebaptized this summer at a Conservative Mennonite Church adhering to Anabaptist roots. Since I was baptized as an infant and had no clue whatsoever what was going on when it happened, should I seek to be rebaptized? | ||||||
6965 | Elder must be 'the husband of one wife'? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 5573 | ||
What does this verse (1 Tim. 3:2) mean when it says an elder of the church must be 'the husband of but one wife'? Does it mean that the elder must be married only once (no marriage is allowed even if the wife dies), or that the elder must be married to one wife at a time (polygamy is forbidden), a single person cannot be an elder in the church, or the elder must prove to be faithful to his wife, being a 'one-woman man' ? | ||||||
6966 | Is Beelzebul or Baalzebub Satan? | Matt 12:27 | Makarios | 5569 | ||
Is Beelzebul or Baalzebub really another name for satan or just the god of Ekron in 2 Kings 1:2,16? Beelzebul is also referenced in Luke 11:15. | ||||||
6967 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5564 | ||
Dear homer7000, I did not intend to argue with you nor did I want to get off the subject and onto the raging debate of 'election'.. I apologize if it appeared that way. However, I tried to answer your original question, "Did Christ die for just some people or all people" in the best way that I could. If Christ died for only the elect (which I have shown thoroughly that I disagree with that conclusion) then there is plenty of scripture to back that up (and to argue against my point of view).. If I was going to begin to gain an understanding of Christ dying for the elect only, then I would use: Matt. 1:21, 20:28, 26:28, John 10:15, Acts 20:28, Hebrews 9:28, and John 15:13 along with the two other verses that you mentioned to form a 'solid' scriptural base for your belief that Christ died only for the elect. See also Ephesians 1 and Romans 8:32-35 (NASB). John 17 could also be used in a way to support this idea. By using that scripture, then you could easily and persuasively argue for limited atonement. | ||||||
6968 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5563 | ||
Not at all. If you go back to the brief 'cute' post, then you can see that I wrote that to JVH2012, not to you. I believe that I have proven to you already that I am taking our discussion seriously. If this was taken as an offense, then I apologize. Blessings, Nolan | ||||||
6969 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 5533 | ||
Men have free will in two choices: to either choose the Lord or to not choose the Lord (in their own individual capacity) as Lord and Savior.Angels act only to carry out God's commands, and they do not act independently of God (Psalm 91:11, 103:20). God's angels cannot 'fall' or choose not to do His bidding. After the angelic revolt, God permanently confined the holiness of the angels who chose to remain loyal to Him (1 Timothy 5:21). God has apparently given them a special grace of perseverance to enable them to permanently retain their position as holy angels. So the question of free will does not apply to angels.The question of God having 'free will' is a little bit absurd. God is Ruler of all, Sovereign and Mighty God. He can do whatever He wants! There is no higher power or ultimate authority over God. He is the ultimate authority! And all of creation must answer to Him (Romans 14:11). | ||||||
6970 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 5531 | ||
Jesus' most common title for Himself is the "Son of Man", occurring 84 times in the Gospels and never used by anyone but Jesus. Daniel 7:13-14 picture the 'Son of Man' as a heavenly figure who in the end times is entrusted by God with authority and sovereign power. "Son of Man" is the Messianic title of Jesus Christ, occurring in Matt. 8:20, 9:6, Mark 2:10, 10:33, Luke 12:10, 18:31, John 6:27, 13:31 to name a few. This title correlates with Jesus' title as Son of God, showing that He was fully God and fully man, but yet did not sin. Translators need a 'Son of Man' not only because it is in the text, but also because it helps to explain that Jesus was fully man. As for why 'son' and 'child' are not capitalized, do you notice the separation or shift in the phrase of the first sentence? The first phrase begins by introducing the next phrase, which will expound upon and give the precise meaning for what is meant by 'son' and 'child'. In this way, a human child or son will be given (from the royal line of David) that will be wholly divine in nature, as seen by the capitalized titles that are given to Him in the second half of the sentence. So you can see that even the sentence structure of this verse shows the fullfillment of Christ as Messiah, King and Mighty God! But to deny either the undiminished deity or the perfect humanity of Christ is to put oneself outside the pale of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2-3). There are innumerable passages in the New Testament that confirm Christ's full humanity. For example, Hebrews 2:14 tells us that "he too shared in their humanity". Also, Romans 8:3 says that God sent Jesus "in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." Paul affirms that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).Scripture is clear that He experienced normal human development through infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood. In Luke 2:40, Jesus 'grew', 'became strong' and was 'filled with wisdom'. These are things that could never be said of His divine nature. Also, Luke 2:52 tells us that "Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Again, this can only be said of His humanity. However, Christ always did the will of God and never sinned. Hebrews 4:15 says "tempted in every way just as we are - yet was without sin." Christ is 'holy', 'blameless', 'pure' (Hebrews 7:26). Sorry I didn't get back with you a little sooner Ray, since I have been engrossed with other topics.. :) I hope that you have found 'my take' on things interesting.. God bless! Nolan (Sources: NASB Study Bible) | ||||||
6971 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5530 | ||
Believing in unlimited atonement by no means attempts to 'tie the hands of the Almighty'! I am not saying that Christ's work is in any way 'limited' or that there are 'limitations' for Him. There are not any hindrances or limitations for Jesus Christ. (Isaiah 55:11) Therefore, by supporting 'unlimited atonement' (that Christ died for the godly and the ungodly, for everyone), I am in no way saying or supporting: 1) That Christ wasted His time and lacked foresight by dying for those whom He had not chosen to salvation (Eph. 1), 2) That Christ is defeated if He died for all men and all men aren't saved, 3) That Christ has paid in full the sins of those that will be lost, 4) That Christ's prayer in John 17 was only for the elect. I hope that you are not misunderstanding what I am trying to say here: I do not support any of the above things, and there is no limit to Christ and His word, of fulfilling and succeeding in the matter that He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).To answer the above statements: Christ showed the ultimate foresight and wisdom by dying for all of man's sin on the cross so that not only could He release all humanity from the bondage of sin and provide, for each and every human being, a 'way out' of sin, but he could render judgment upon satan forever, who stands to accuse us as he makes war against those who believe in Christ. You see, Christ had to make this option, a choice to live- the Way to salvation, available to every single human being so that we could have the will to accept or to decline His lordship in our lives. How could the Lord single out certain people that He died for if He is 'no respecter of persons'? (Acts 10:34). It does not matter who you are or where you live, you have the option to accept Jesus Christ and live and reign forever with Him in paradise. The problem is, is that people do not realize that this 'choice' should not be taken 'lightly' and that they should not continue to live for themselves in this world (and so reject Christ) but to live for Christ (and so become one of the elect). Few are chosen (Matt. 7:14), but it is God's desire that more would find this Way of life and turn to Him (Luke 15:1-7). We must not lose sight of His love for us. He does not want us to perish! In this way, he has given every man every chance, every opportunity to come to Him, he died for every man's sins! But man is the one who makes the tragic, conscious choice to reject God, even though God knew beforehand who would reject Him (Luke 22:21-23) but He had His hand out, extended to the one who would reject Him (giving him every chance possible), even though God knew in His sovereignty beforehand who would reject Him. And even though He knows, I have to imagine that this breaks His heart! Do these people realize just what they are doing by turning away from Him? How can Jesus show His ultimate love for humankind if He has not extended to every man and woman who has ever been born the opportunity of salvation by dying for every person's sins? However, if people reject Him and His free gift to all humankind, then they will have chosen not to accept this free gift of Christ and they will die in their own sins. They will have revoked this offer, making Christ's offer void to them at the time of death, making it impossible for Christ to cover over their sins because they did not accept His free gift. So in rejection of Christ's gift, then yes, the atonement is then 'limited' because of man's choice. But Christ has made this choice free for all men to potentially accept, therefore making the offer of this atonement 'unlimited'. For if He had not made it open and free to everyone to accept, then satan would not stand condemned, since satan then could claim ownership of those whom Christ did not die for. In this way, Jesus has obtained the keys to both sin and death and pronounced victory over satan for all time by defeating him at the cross and making salvation possible for every human by dying for every human being's sins, and not just for those who will accept His free gift. | ||||||
6972 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5528 | ||
Hello, I always appreciate your sense of humor JVH! :) | ||||||
6973 | What's your point? | Matt 13:46 | Makarios | 5527 | ||
Thanks Jim.. I apologize if it seemed that I tried to interpret what you wrote for you, or if it seemed that I tried to put 'words into your mouth'. You had a very good point! God bless, Nolan | ||||||
6974 | What's your point? | Matt 13:46 | Makarios | 5525 | ||
Thank you Lionstrong! I must apologize and come to grips with why I have taken such a stance of animosity in my recent posts against you on the Forum, and I apologize and humbly ask for your forgiveness for that. I see where I have been short-sighted or ill-tempered, and I apologize. I realize that we will not see eye to eye on every subject and I appreciate your willingness to 'hammer things out'. I will be more open and share with you a spirit of love and sincerity as we continue to make our ways here on the Forum. I forgive you for anything that you have wrote that has caused me to doubt or think twice about your intentions, and I pray that you would do the same for me. I can see many things in which we do agree, and we can build from there. I also see you as an adept Bible scholar and I appreciate your contribution to the Forum. I pray that we can begin a new trust with each other, that we would interact in a spirit of love and peace. Thank you Lionstrong, and I am grateful for your brotherhood in Christ! | ||||||
6975 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5480 | ||
I believe that the doctrine of unlimited atonement is the scriptural view, and there are numerous verses that support it. In Luke 19:10, the "lost" refers to the collective whole of humanity, not just to the lost elect. In John 1:29, what is "the world" here? The world represents humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker. Reformer John Calvin says of this verse, "When he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race." Though Calvin is often cited in favor of limited atonement, here is a clear statement in which unlimited atonement is his view. In John 3:16, it is critical to observe that John 3:16 cannot be divorced from the context this is set in verses 14 and 15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21. In this passage Moses is seen setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that 'everyone who' believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance.In John 4:42, it is quite certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.1 Timothy 4:10 shows a clear distinction between "all men" and "those who believe". Apparently the Savior has done something for all human beings, although it is less in degree than what He has done for those who believe. In other words, Christ has made a provision of salvation for all men, though it only becomes effective for those who exercise faith in Christ.Hebrews 2:9 contains the word 'everyone'. However, this word (Greek - pantos) is better translated 'each'. Why use the word pantos (each) rather than panton (all)? The singular brings out more emphatically the applicability of Christ's death to each individual human being. Christ tasted death for every single person. Romans 5:6 says 'ungodly'. It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly among the elect. Rather the verse, read plainly, indicates that Christ died for all the ungodly of the earth.Romans 5:18, says "all men". Commenting on this verse, Calvin said, "Though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him". This sounds very much like Calvin was teaching unlimited atonement.1 John 2:2, Isaiah 53:6, and John 3:17 state CLEARLY that God has made the provision of salvation available to all human beings. In 2 Peter 2:1, we are told that Christ even paid the penalty of redemption for false teachers who deny Him. This passage seems to point out quite clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost; there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved. In keeping with the above verses, there are also many verses which indicate that the gospel is to be universally proclaimed to all human beings.Matthew 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come"Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (NIV)In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask, if Christ died only for the elect, how can an offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved in the process? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone? The fact is, those who hold to limited atonement cannot say to any sinner with true conviction, "Christ died for you".How then, do we put the 'limited' and 'unlimited' verses together so that, taken as a whole, all verses are interpreted in a harmonious way without contradicting each other? I believe that seemingly restrictive references can be logically fit into an unlimited scenario much more easily than universal references can be made to fit into a limited atonement scenario. The two sets of passages-one seemingly in support of limited atonement, the other in support of unlimited atonement- are not irreconciable. While it is true that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to as belonging to God's 'sheep', His 'people' and the like, it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them in order for limited atonement to be true. No one denies that Christ died for God's 'sheep' and His 'people'. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them. Certainly if Christ died for the whole of humanity, there is no logical problem in saying that He died for a specific part of the whole. | ||||||
6976 | wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove | Matt 10:16 | Makarios | 5464 | ||
It may be that your friend just misquoted the above verse, or that she said it in the way that she remembers it. I've been known to do that a few times.. :) | ||||||
6977 | What's your point? | Matt 13:46 | Makarios | 5462 | ||
Lionstrong, what I said was accurate, and you contradicted yourself in what you wrote as a follow-up. Am I right in concluding that you are arguing with me just for the pleasure of arguing? Do you continue to find fault with me based on no premise at all? Is there any reason for your divisivenss and malicious attitude to my post (in which I tried to set an example by being edifying)? You should read the posts that Hank, Joy and myself have posted (today 5/16) to your question about Eve sinning. If you are just trying to cause trouble or are in a spirit of divisiveness, then you should reconsider contributing to such a widespread medium as this, the Study Bible Forum, where all can see and discern the spirit of your writings. Lionstrong, I will pray for you. | ||||||
6978 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5456 | ||
Hello, homer7000. In Scripture, I see no reference to a verse that says that Christ died only for the elect. This premise is contrary to why the Son came to die for sinful humanity in the first place. If He only came to die for certain people, then what assurance do we have in our salvation? But Christ came to die for all people, taking the weight of the world's sins upon His shoulders. In Rom. 5:6 we can see that Christ died for the ungodly, therefore making it possible for the elect to become saved in the first place. | ||||||
6979 | What was Eve's sin? | Gen 3:6 | Makarios | 5454 | ||
Thank you both Hank and Joy! You have helped to voice a concern that has also been shared by myself. I find encouragement and understanding in both of your posts and I thank you Joy for 'coming forward' from being an observer only. Thank you, and I pray that you would seek the courage to contribute more since you have displayed a spirit that is welcomed and needed on this Forum!We should treat each others as brothers and sisters in Christ and to answer each other based on Scripture. I find it grevious to the Forum when a fellow member writes a post in response to mine that is divisive and has no clear end or agenda except to create controversy. If this is your intention, then you should not be on the Forum. We can disagree, but if you do, then every answer should be given with the utmost respect and backed up with plenty of Scripture. If this is not the case, then don't waste our time. We should examine ourselves to see what our motives are before logging onto the Forum. If they are only to cause trouble with nothing to give or share to the fellow members (that would be edifying), then you should reconsider your contribution to the Forum. | ||||||
6980 | Who hears Christ's voice? | Rev 3:20 | Makarios | 5446 | ||
Hey Sam, within the context of Rev. 3:20- Christ here is speaking to the Laodicean church and JVH2012 posted a most informative note on this passage here. However, I couldn't resist but to say that Christ is offering an invitation to everyone, both young and old everywhere to accept Him as Lord and Savior in their hearts! Every heart that has been transformed by Christ is a worker in the harvest, while every heart that has not been conformed to Him is a mission field. So Christ stands at the door of a person's heart and knocks on that door.. If they accept Him and let him in, then they will be saved! However, if they do not listen, then those 'knocks' get slower and fainter until their opportunity has passed them by. If anyone out there is not a Christian or is one who is struggling, then please, don't lose heart! I pray that you would accept Christ today in your hearts (or recommit yourself)!When He comes into our hearts, we cannot help but to feel zealous and be moved to repentance because of His presence! And this is exactly the transformation that the Laodicean church needed, to let Christ 'in' and repent of sin, so that they would no longer be lukewarm but zealous for Christ. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 ] Next > Last [355] >> |