Results 81 - 100 of 283
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Tongues a necessary sign of salvation? | 2 Cor 13:14 | kalos | 112721 | ||
Is speaking in tongues a necessary sign of salvation? ' The Oneness Pentecostal people teach that speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation of the Holy Spirit and without it a person is not truly saved.1 It is so important to them that one ex-oneness person told me that her church had altar calls for people to come up and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so they could speak in tongues. She said she never saw an altar call for people to come up and receive Jesus as savior. But, this is only one example and may not be typical. ' We see in Acts that many people who became Christians immediately spoke in tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). But is it a necessary sign of salvation? No. It isn't. Consider the following verses in 1 Cor. 12. '1 Cor. 12:7-11, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." '1 Cor. 12:29-30, "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" ' We can see that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He desires. He distributes them upon His people in the church as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11). It states in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 that different people have different gifts and we see in verses 29-31 that not all speak in tongues. Now, the Oneness person will state that all are supposed to speak in tongues, but that not all do. They maintain that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign gift of true salvation and that a true believer will speak in tongues. But, that is not what the text says. ' Paul asks the questions: Are all apostles? No. Are all prophets? No. Are all teachers? No. In other words, within the body of Christ, different people are called by God to have different gifts. If someone states that all are supposed to speak in tongues, but that not all do, then are all supposed to be apostles as well but not all are? Are all called to be prophets? Are all called to be teachers? No. Likewise, not all are called by God to speak in tongues. ' It is simple. Not all speak in tongues because God doesn't give the gift to everyone. Speaking in tongues is not the sign of salvation, but a sign. If anything, the fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God is listed in Gal. 5:22-23 is the sign of salvation. I would ask the Oneness person if the following fruit are what the true signs of salvation in his or her life rather than speaking in tongues: '"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Gal. 5:22-23). ' So, again I ask. What is the biblical sign of salvation, tongues or the fruit of the Spirit? _____________ '1. This paper is not dealing with the issue of whether or not the charismatic gifts are still in operation, but will assume, for this paper that they are.' (www.carm.org) 2cor1314 |
||||||
82 | The Trinity in John 14:11-26 (KJV) | 2 Cor 13:14 | kalos | 112646 | ||
The Trinity in John 14:11-26 (KJV) Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. [12] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. [13] And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. [15] If ye love me, keep my commandments. [16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; [17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. [18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. [19] Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. [20] At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. [21] He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. [22] Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? [23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. [24] He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. [25] These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. [26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 2cor1314 |
||||||
83 | The Trinity in Matthew | 2 Cor 13:14 | kalos | 112642 | ||
The Trinity in Matthew Matthew 3:16-17 (ESV) And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; [17] and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matthew 12:18 (ESV) "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. Matthew 12:28 (ESV) But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Matthew 22:43-44 (ESV) He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, [44] " 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'? Matthew 28:19 (ESV) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 2cor1314 |
||||||
84 | Oneness and the word "person" | 2 Cor 13:14 | kalos | 112640 | ||
Oneness and the word "person" ' Oneness theology denies the Trinity doctrine and claims that there is one person in the Godhead who has manifested himself in three different forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These "forms" are not three separate persons, but one person who occupied consecutive modes. The Trinity, on the other hand, is the teaching that there is one God who exists in three separate, simultaneous, persons. Please note, though, this is not saying there are three gods. ' In defending the doctrine of the Trinity and in examining the Oneness doctrine regarding the Godhead, it is first necessary to define the terms that are used. Since the Trinity doctrine states there are three persons in one God, and Oneness Pentecostal theology states there is only one person, we first need to know what a "person" is before we try to discover whether or not God is three persons or one. Therefore, what qualifies someone as having "personhood"? ' I offer the following analysis as an attempt to adequately define personhood. After the outline, I will attempt to show that the definition and/or characteristics of personhood can be applied to both the Father and the Son in a context that shows they both existed as persons at the same time, thereby proving Oneness theology is incorrect. 'What are the qualities and attributes of being a person? 'A person exists and has identity. 'A person is aware of his own existence and identity. 'This precludes the condition of being unconscious. 'A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc. 'A person can recognize the existence of other persons. 'This is true provided there were other persons around him or her. 'Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc. 'A person possesses a will. 'A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose. 'A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject. 'Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment. 'Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons. 'A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions. 'Persons do not need to have bodies. 'God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels. 'Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). ' God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will. ' The question now becomes whether or not there are more than one "persons" in the Godhead. '"Let this cup pass from Me." '"And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done'" (Luke 22:42). '"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'" (Matt. 26:39). ' In both Luke 22:42 and Matt. 26:39 (which are parallel passages), the context is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, right before His betrayal. He was praying to the Father about the ordeal He was about to undergo. Several points are worth bringing out here. ' First, in this passage, Jesus addresses the Father. He says, "Oh my Father..." Note that Jesus says "my" and "Father." These two words designate a "me and you" relationship. ' Second, "If it be possible" is Jesus expressing a desire, a hope. What is that hope or desire? It is that "this cup pass from me." The cup Jesus is speaking of is the immanent ordeal of betrayal, scourging, and crucifixion. Jesus did not want to go through this. He was expressing His desire. It was His will not to undergo the severe ordeal ahead of Him. If this was not so, He would not have expressed the desire to have the cup pass from Him. ' Third, in Matt. 26:39, Jesus says, "Nevertheless., not my will, but thine, be done." In Luke 22:42 he says, "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." With this, Jesus is expressing His will and contrasting it to the will of the Father. Yet, He is stating that even though He does not want to undergo what lay ahead, "Nevertheless," He would submit to the will of the Father. ' This shows that the person of Jesus had a separate and different will than the Father. Since we have two separate simultaneous wills, we have two separate and simultaneous persons and Oneness Pentecostal theology is incorrect.' ____________________ (www.carm.org) 2cor1314 |
||||||
85 | Did you know... | Deut 6:4 | kalos | 112622 | ||
"Oneness Pentecostal theology is a false doctrine that denies the Trinity, states there is only one person in the Godhead, that you must be baptized to be saved, and that speaking in tongues is a necessary sign for salvation. Oneness Pentecostal theology is not biblical." (www.carm.org) |
||||||
86 | Oneness: Hairsplitting or Heresy? | Deut 6:4 | kalos | 112621 | ||
Oneness: Hairsplitting or Heresy? (Note: the numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. within the text are footnote numbers.) Oneness Pentecostalism: Heresy, not Hairsplitting -------------------- “It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian.” -------------------- The June 1997 issue of Charisma features an article by executive editor J. Lee Grady entitled, “The Other Pentecostals,”1 reporting on the estimated 17 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide with 2.1 million in the United States.2 Grady calls Pentecostalism a “house divided.”3 While Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals alike trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of l906,4 Oneness Pentecostals have been “separated from their brethren by a nasty doctrinal feud that split families and churches.”5 Today younger leaders in the Oneness movement hope to end the feud and lead their movement into the mainstream church.6 It is disturbing enough to read that 17 million Oneness believers are following a theology that rejects the biblical doctrine of the trinity.7 Even more troubling is the article’s suggestion that among many evangelicals this Oneness error is not terribly significant!” Papering over Differences After discussing the Oneness rejection of Trinitarian language, Grady uses the phrase, “To split doctrinal hairs even further,...” to introduce Oneness’ insistence on baptism in Jesus’ name only.9 While Oneness Pentecostals may be “too sectarian to mix with other evangelicals,” he writes, “they are too orthodox to be compared with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Grady concludes, “No one really knows what to do with them.”10 He proceeds to juxtapose striking comments by two leaders, one from each camp. Trinitarian scholar and ex-Oneness follower Gregory Boyd is quoted as saying, “If you deny the eternality of the three personal ways God is God, you undermine the very essence of Christianity.”11 Oneness leader T. F. Tenney states, “We do not deny the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.... We believe Jesus Christ is wholly, fully, absolutely, and completely God. But no one is going to put us in the position of saying that there are three Gods.”12 Grady then offers an observation on our times, seemingly without recognizing its devastating ramifications: “The argument over whether God is three-in-one or one-in-three is a moot point for the average layman, who tends to view the doctrine of the trinity as an unexplainable mystery.”13 Grady implies that the Church should be more concerned with other issues. Concerning the baptismal view of the most rigid Oneness Pentecostals, he states, “It is on this issue, theologians say, that Oneness Pentecostals have drifted dangerously toward spiritual elitism and heresy.”14 Indeed, the Oneness view of baptism is lethally flawed. Oneness View Seriously Flawed Even to remotely imply, however, that corrections to the Oneness understanding of baptism would rescue Oneness theology is wholly misleading. Grady expresses cavalier confidence that a prominent leader within the largest Oneness denomination, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC), has a right relationship with the Holy Spirit. Referring to Anthony Mangun, a friend of President Clinton, Grady writes: “A good friend who has the Holy Ghost. That might be the best friend any president could have.”15 The problem is that a group’s denial of an essential biblical teaching excludes that group from Christianity. While there may be some Christians in Oneness churches, the movement as a whole is non-Christian. As CRI president Hank Hanegraaff has said, “It would be inappropriate to argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses or various other groups are non-Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but that the United Pentecostal Church can reject the Trinity and still be considered Christian.”16 -------------------------------- The Oneness denial of the true nature of God is heretical. Additional false teachings only compound their error. If you want to know more about the dangerous heresy know as Oneness Pentecostalism, CRI has several valuable resources available. CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Material found at: www.equip.org/search/ |
||||||
87 | Does translator translate the older... | 2 Tim 2:15 | kalos | 111983 | ||
Does the translator translate the older passage with a view to the clarification that the later passage brings, or does the translator concentrate solely on the native context of the older passage? "A very important concept for understanding the translation philosophy of the NET Bible and how these three contexts work together is progressive revelation. Simply put, progressive revelation recognizes that God reveals himself—his nature as well as his word, plans, and purposes—over time. He did not reveal everything about himself and what he was doing in the world all at once; instead he graciously revealed more and more as time went on. Later revelation serves to complement and supplement what has come before. "The relation of this reality to translation work creates a great deal of tension, especially as it relates to the theological context, because certain earlier passages are clarified by later ones. Does the translator translate the older passage with a view to the clarification that the later passage brings, or does the translator concentrate solely on the native context of the older passage? The translators and editors for the NET Bible have generally chosen to do the latter for a variety of reasons. "A translation which takes into account the progress of revelation will be true to the three contexts discussed above. It is also very beneficial to the Bible reader to have the progress of revelation accurately represented in the translation of particular texts. This helps the reader see how God has worked through the centuries, and it helps the reader to stand more accurately in the place of the original recipients of the text. Both of these are very instructive and inspirational, and they help the reader to connect with the text in a more fulfilling way." ____________________ See The NET Bible Preface, "What are some of the distinctive characteristics of the NET Bible translation philosophy?" at (http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm) |
||||||
88 | "Did I say that?" --B. Goldwater | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 111947 | ||
"Did I do that?" -- S. Urkel To EdB, Hank, and others: Please note that neither the Question nor my Answer was primarily about Isaiah 7:14. My answer was about certain principles of translation. Isaiah 7:14 is merely an example. My original Answer is not about which translation of that verse is the right one. Frankly, my dears, I don't care which version of Isa 7:14 is the right one. That was never my point. I posted an Answer about principles of translation and got a debate over Isa 7:14. To balance things, I guess I should post a Note about Isa 7:14. Hopefully, I would then get a discussion about principles of translation. I admit that I made a mistake. My mistake was to make any reference to Isa 7:14, which was used as an EXAMPLE, not as the main point of my post. I should have known that my mention of Isa 7:14 would trigger controversy and that as soon as people saw the verse in Isaiah, they would forget what the post was really about, just as quickly as snow melts when it hits warm pavement. Silly me! Color me Sorrowful (kalos) |
||||||
89 | In-laws: Mrs. Moses and Mrs. Cain? | Ex 2:21 | kalos | 111664 | ||
Does anyone know: Was the father of the wife of Moses in any way related to the father of the wife of Cain? | ||||||
90 | The myth of the hardhearted "innocent" | Matt 19:8 | kalos | 111635 | ||
The myth of the hardhearted "innocent" person Matthew 19:8 "because of the hardness of your hearts." 'The phrase underscores the truth that divorce is only a last-resort response to hard-hearted sexual immorality (v. 9).' (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) In asking this question, I appeal to our common sense. Who is the hard-hearted person: the one who divorces their spouse -- which is permitted by the Law and by the teachings of Jesus? Or is it the one who commits sexual immorality -- which is FORBIDDEN by both the Law and Jesus? What characterizes a hard-hearted person -- following the Law or disobeying it? NASB Matthew 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. AMPLIFIED Matthew 19:8 He said to them, Because of the hardness (stubbornness and perversity) of your hearts Moses permitted you to dismiss and repudiate and divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been so [ordained]. |
||||||
91 | Where is it written...? | 1 Cor 7:12 | kalos | 111628 | ||
Another thought: Where is it written that a woman must stay with an abusive spouse until she and/or her children end up dead as a result of the abuse? Where is it written that a woman must stay in a marriage where her husband is sexually abusing the children? The Bible clearly commands: Thou shalt not kill. Yet even Christians justify killing to defend themselves or their families. Likewise, the Bible prohibits divorce, with two exceptions -- adultery or desertion. But if killing in self-defense is justifiable, then so would divorcing in self defense be justifiable. You can't have it both ways. If it is not OK to divorce to protect the life and safety of the abused, then it is not OK to take up arms to defend one's family. In both cases we would just have to stand there and submit to violent abuse. |
||||||
92 | Messiah's name in OT period? | John 1:1 | kalos | 111471 | ||
Emmaus, Hank, Makarios, Morant61, EdB and anyone else who cares to reply: I believe with all my heart that the Son of God, the Logos (John 1:1), is eternal, that he was in the beginning. But I sincerely would like to know: technically, when did Jesus become Jesus? I.e., would it be technically correct to refer to the Son of God in the Old Testament as Jesus, since he was not named Jesus until after his incarnation, his birth? Again, I am not doubting the eternality or deity of the Son of God. I am just wondering, is it correct to refer to him in the OT period as Jesus, Messiah or some other name? Thank you in advance for your help. --kalos |
||||||
93 | Please recommend Apocrypha concordance | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110904 | ||
Emmaus and anyone else who cares to answer: I'm looking for a concise concordance to the Apocrypha. Could you recommend one? Or recommend an edition of the Bible that contains a concordance that includes references to the Apocrypha? |
||||||
94 | Please recommend Apocrypha concordance | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 110906 | ||
Emmaus and anyone else who cares to answer: I'm looking for a concise concordance to the Apocrypha. Could you recommend one? Or recommend an edition of the Bible that contains a concordance that includes references to the Apocrypha? |
||||||
95 | Just your interpretation? | Rom 4:3 | kalos | 109833 | ||
Can one dismiss a person’s exegesis of a given passage by simply saying, "That’s just your interpretation"? | ||||||
96 | Biblical warrant to engage in debates? | Titus 3:10 | kalos | 109826 | ||
Is there a Biblical warrant to engage in debates with non-believers or cult members? | ||||||
97 | Why are there disagreements... | 2 Tim 2:15 | kalos | 109621 | ||
With the Holy Spirit indwelling believers, why do we not all come to the same conclusions on the interpretation of various passages of Scripture? Why are there disagreements on the interpretation of Scripture? | ||||||
98 | How can we discern false teachers? | Matt 7:15 | kalos | 109620 | ||
How can we discern false teachers? | ||||||
99 | Do you have to believe the Bible is the | John 3:16 | kalos | 109616 | ||
Do you have to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God to be saved? | ||||||
100 | What is your point? | Is 11:12 | kalos | 105656 | ||
What is your point? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |