Results 81 - 100 of 108
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15456 | ||
I am going to have to remember that qoute. | ||||||
82 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15453 | ||
One of the greatest arguments against the Christian understanding of God (and I will say against God in general) is the concept of evil. If God is perfect, just, soveriegn (in complete control over his creation), and completly good how come there is evil in the world? Does he allow evil to exist? If he does and he is completly in control of his creation, does that nullify his goodness? These are questions Christians have to wrestle with and provide a cogent answers to in a post-Christian age. I minister to people who demand answers to these valid questions. I also agree with you that these questions have caused people to lose their faith (calvanistic: to show that they were never truly part of God's elect) and abandon the truths of Christianity. We need great thinkers to wrestle with these questions but realize that faith would not be faith if we had all the answers neatly wrapped up in a package and given to us. Got to get some work done. |
||||||
83 | followup | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13880 | ||
For now I agree with you wholeheartedly on this issue. I was asked a question by a skeptic and he didn't buy my/our explanation. He felt we adopted the term, anthorpormiphic, to 1.) help undue an obvious Biblica Contradiction and 2.) wedge "another" Bible verse into our theology and make God fit into our understanding. Disgruntled X-Preachers are the hardest to reach out too. |
||||||
84 | water into wine | John 2:1 | userdoe220 | 11729 | ||
In referring to the passage in question: "Wine is wine is wine is wine" Jeffery Sief, Phd. You said it correclty, "it can refer to fermented and unfermented." In this passage I believe it was fermented. Please read Alfred Erdshiem (also a Jewish scholar like Jeffery Sief) who would very strongly disagree with your conclusion on this topic. Real wine (the kind with alcohol in it) is used today, as it has for 1,000's of years, in Jewish weddings. Only shallow, legalistic American Christainity has made it a "sin" to partake of wine(alcoholic kind.) I would agree that wine can make one stumble if taken in excess--hence the many warnings about abusing it in scripture--but nowhere is drinking alcohol forbidden. I really liked you study in the Hebrew word for wine (still not sure what relevance Hebrew is to the Greek language or the passage in question; nevertheless it was a nice study). |
||||||
85 | water into wine | John 2:1 | userdoe220 | 11688 | ||
"Wine is Wine is Wine is Wine." Jeffery Sief, Ph.d | ||||||
86 | Jesus' early years? | Luke 2:52 | userdoe220 | 10572 | ||
One of my remarks (Jesus went to India) was actually directed towards a book titled, THe lost years of Jesus (I might have the book title a little crossed). This book was written recently, compared to the books I referenced, and is full of a ton of un-documented nonsense that people are taking for truth. Yes, I agree with you 100 percent: "The age of deception has not ended nor the capacity to deceive diminished." |
||||||
87 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9961 | ||
I would agree with most of what you posted, but for shock value would never teach a sunday school class on it in most church--I only feel called to crucify my flesh figuratively not literally. It is sad that many people take these instances (like how come in an O.T. battle scene exactly 20,000 or 5,000 men were killed not 20,001?) and say, "see, I told you the Bible was riddled with errors!" When most of the time the author just surveys the crowd and says, "Well, I don't feel like counting every dead person on the battle field, but it sure looks like 20k to me. And anyway, I don't care if they know exactly how many people died, I just want to record a military victory to show the blessing of being obedient to God." The hermenuetical Spiral covers many of these issues you have brought up and I think we are probably on the same page. Got to get back to work. |
||||||
88 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9877 | ||
Just read the passage in Acts 11. I rest my case. | ||||||
89 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9859 | ||
I think when you use literal, you have to look at the authors intent. Let me give you an example that you could apply to many of your examples above. Gospels (as a whole) were never meant to be a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of Jesus' life. Does it mean he is not literal because, like in Matthew's case, he chose to re-arrange some of the events in Jesus' life to shape the perception of Jesus to his readers? Because he did re-arrange some of the historical events, does that mean they never happened? Or, what if Matthew leaves out a piece of informaiton, does that mean we have to discard his testimony or doubt that the event even happened? If all the above were true, we would have to throw out every single history text book ever written! I speak as a history major. Every author takes their own slant or focus when writing history. In fact, every history book on World War 2 contains details about events that will not be in most history books. Does that mean we should discard the book. Of Course not. I think we would go a long way in this dialogue by first determining the purpose of the authors. Was the purpose in Matt's geneology meant to be a complete accurate tree of Jesus? No. Neither do I beleive he made up Jesus' lineage to prove his Messiahship. So, your might be right on your first, point and way off base on your second. Just because someone is using parables does not mean they are not speaking a factual truth. Every day individuals use stories to illustrate truth and sometimes those stories are not even true! I could take a Stephen King Novel and use it to illustrate truth. Does that mean I am not factual? Of course not. The second issue I would address is Jesus' and the writers use of Hyperbole. My son hit a ball and ran very fast to first base. When he finally got back to the dug-out I said, "Son, you ran as fast as a rabbit." Am I lying or trying to make people believe my son could actually keep pace with a rabbit? Of course not. Lets allow Jesus to use the same tactis that we use on a day-to-day basis and not accuse him or the gospel writers of lying. Or accuse them of speaking falsehood. There is a really good book entitled the Hermenutical Spiral that would greatly help you tackle some of these issues. I see where you are going and agree with some of what you are said, but I do not believe that the Bible is full of errors. I guess what I am saying is the Bible is literature and shouldn't be judged by a different standard. It seems like the Bible is held to a very high, hypocritical standard and nitpicked more than any other book in existance. |
||||||
90 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9857 | ||
Do you know what synonomouse means? When two different words share the same or similar meaning. You can't always go to Vines, just like we can't always go to Webster, to get a meaning of a word. Luke used the term "filling" and "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" to refer to the same event--Cornelius's salvation. If they were not the same, Luke would not have used that term It is almost like the argument of spirit soul. Each word (In Vines) has a different meaning or definition. However, there are some in Christianity that feel these terms are synonomouos. No, Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not conversion. The book of Acts CLEARLY states that this expereince comes after salvation. |
||||||
91 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9856 | ||
I guess Luke the author of Acts was mistaken and you are right. Do you know what synonomous means? | ||||||
92 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9813 | ||
The reason I feel they are synonomous is the events that surround the five instances are unique and the same. Might want to start with John's statement about the one who is to come who will "Baptize you in the Holy Spirit and Fire." Acts 2:4-6; Acts 8:1-22 (Does not mention tongues, but something very micraculous took place when the apostles, after they were saved, layed hands on them to recieve the "gift" of the Holy Spirit. What happened? Maybe tongues, maybe some other manifestation. don't know. But I do know it was after their salvation expereince). Acts 9:11 (Saul's conversion accompanied his Infilling with the Holy Spirit. Does not record tongues, but from 1 Cor 12-14 we know Paul regularly exercised this gift in his personal life. Could he have received this gift at this time? Maybe. The Bible does not tell us.) Acts 10:44-50 (How did Peter know they received the Baptism in the Holy Ghost? "For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God" verse 46. Acts 11: 15-18. (How do I know that Cornelious' expereince was the Baptism in the Holy Ghost? Peter Qoutes John the Baptist in verse 16. He is the one that equates the expereince to Spirit Baptism. Notice in Acts 10 he does not use the Term "Baptism in the Holy Spirit", but "Filling!" This shows that in Luke's mind these two events were synonomous. Notice he also refers to this expereince as the "gift of the Holy Ghost". Now, we have three terms each used to describe an expereince that Pentecostals-charismatics-Peter refers to as the Baptism in the Holy Ghost.) Acts 19:1-10 (notice they were saved first and than Paul "layed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit Descended and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." Unless you believe that salvation must be given through the laying on of hands,this event must be post-conversion. I am not saying that every event (Paul's conversion for example) just nails down the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to Salvation. But I hope you see that this is not some made-up idea with no support in scripture, but was the practice in the early N.T. church. |
||||||
93 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9811 | ||
The infilling and Baptized in the Holy Spirit are synonomous terms | ||||||
94 | What is Christianity? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9779 | ||
Good answer. I will only add one more statement: And the only accurate way we know who Jesus is and what he requires of us is through His teachings which are recorded in the Bible. | ||||||
95 | What is Christianity? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9778 | ||
Hate to tell you this, but the Westminister Confession of faith is not the Bible. | ||||||
96 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9775 | ||
In Acts 2 reference are you saying the diciples were not saved? The reason I ask is because you equate Spirit Baptism with salvation. There are 5 instances in the Book of Acts that mention the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Almost all--if not all-- occur after a believers conversion (In Acts 8 Phillip preached salvation to the Samaritans and the apostles came down later to administer the Baptisme in the Holy Spirit--Again, this was after their conversion expereince. In fact the scripture records that they believed and werer Baptized). This observation has led to two seperate but related theologies: 2nd work of Grace and Pentecostal/charismatic Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Can you show me in the Bible where the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit is directly connected to salvation? If is is there, I would love to see it. |
||||||
97 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | userdoe220 | 9712 | ||
When I got saved in 1988 I did not grow up in church and for the first 6 months did not attend a church anywhere (I am not condoning this, just stating the facts). I read through the entire N.T. twice during this period and never once got the idea that once we were saved we were "always saved." I read the Bible without any pre-concieved ideas (No Charles Stanley this is how you should interpret verses that contradict how I believe manuals). In fact (show you how niave I was), I believe every Christian believed that you could walk away from your faith. I mean if Paul felt he could and the author of Hebrews I felt I was in good company. Well, finally I became gainfully employed at McDonalds (I was 16 at the time) and ran across my first "Once saved always saved" believer. He was married, cheating on his wife, smoked like a race horse and drank profusely. I began to share with him the salvation message with him and he told me he was saved! I said, "You must be crazy to think you are saved living like that!" after the, "Judge not lest you be judged" passage was quoted, he began to tell me that his pastor told him he was saved because he went down the isle when he was 12 (the age of accountability) and was baptized later that year. I told him that he needed to go to a Bible-Believing church and not get wrapped up in some cult (again, I don't believe you are a cult, this is the way I saw things back than.). I thought his church was completly false and his pastor was way off base. After all, how could someone read the Bible (the 1st year I was saved I read the entire Bible 2x and a number of books in the N.T. more than 3x) and come to that crazy conclusion. Since that expereince, I have ran into many people who believe that once you are saved you are always saved (and please spare me the "he did not truly understand the 5 points of calvanism and he was never truly saved to begin with...") I have read a number of books on this topic from the other perspective: So Great a Salvation, Ryrie Systematic Theology, Wayne Gruden. Systematic Theology, Hodge Chosen but Free, Geisler (at least he admits to a problem with calvanistic theology. His book tries to wed the two concepts.) Countless commentaries that mangle the plain meaning of a text to force a passage into thier belief system! and will admit that there are a couple(emphasis) passages of scripture I have to scratch my head on and leave it to the Lord: Jn 6 and Rom 8. The other worn out passages are easily explained by context. Over my studies I have ran across more than two scriptures with very little explanation offered by my opponants on this matter: Galatians 1:6-8 Heb 10:26-31 Heb 6:4-6 II Pet 2:20-22 Mt 10:22 Mt 13:21 Rom 11:20-23 II Pet 2:15 Jude 21 Heb 3:6 I Tim 4:1 And I could go on, and on and on. These are passages, unaided from some commentary trying to tell me what they should say, that I beleive firmly debunks once saved always saved. |
||||||
98 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | userdoe220 | 9709 | ||
It is the very natural reading of the passage. | ||||||
99 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | userdoe220 | 9708 | ||
Continue reading past verse 27. Wow! context, context, context. No external force can drive me out of the fathers hand. Jesus was not convering the free choice of man. |
||||||
100 | what does Hebrews 6v4-6 mean? | Heb 6:4 | userdoe220 | 9692 | ||
Show me where these terms apply to a person who is not saved in the N.T. and I might look into this belief. The author of Hebrews is clearly talking about people who have "tasted of the heavenly gift...partakers of the Holy Spirit." If I read this passage without the aid of someone telling me what it is suppose to mean, I would never come up with a Calvanistic perspective. Why? I would choose the natural reading of the passage and not try to force it into a particular theological belief. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |