Results 81 - 100 of 196
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Lookn4ward2Heavn Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187954 | ||
InGod, 1. Are you assuming that because they are on a Catholic webpage, called saints by the RCC, the fathers of the Church you cited are Roman Catholic? 2. Are you saying that "many Christians" who "were not at all part of the system then known as the church" were the true Christians while those in the "system" were not? Let me just note that: (a) The first 300 years had no "system"; no form of institutional organization existed. (b) The early "universal church" of the first 300 years was not the same as the RCC as it developed after Constantine's rise and as it is today (and I have no idea what you mean by "original"). I think that such an assessment of the early Church, as stated in the last two sentences, is mistaken. To be sure, the RCC laid it's foundation from the early Church, but it drifted far away from early Church teachings in many respects as the Protestant Reformation, in seeking to protest against the abuses of the RCC, went too far the other extreme at certain points; instead of returning to apostolic doctrine and traditions as revealed in the Scriptures and understood by the early Church, the Reformation ended up with their own brand of erroneous teachings, e.g. the subject of free will and predestination. At least, that is my assessment of church history from the little I've read. |
||||||
82 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187928 | ||
InGod, Unless I am mistaken, you may have misunderstood how the word "catholic" was used in the early church (at, least for the first 300 years); it did not mean the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. It merely meant "universal", that is, Christians from all over the world. The Church having borders, institutional organization, or denominations was unheard of back then; Christians considered themselves members of a universal (catholic) body. |
||||||
83 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187927 | ||
WOS, I was responding to what I believe was a misreading in Ep 1:13 made by Ps25. My response is related to the issue of "eternal security" because Ps25 used it as "proof-text" for it. |
||||||
84 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187861 | ||
We need to resolve the issue of Ep 1:13 as to what it actually reads. You're just clouding the issue with what you call "proof-texts" and conversations between pastors you may have overheard. | ||||||
85 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187859 | ||
1. I hadn't discussed church history (whatever happened to sola scriptura?") except for menyioning Acts. That's jumping over the issue. I was discussing how the Bible reads. 2. Neither was I discussing "free will" or the lofty notion of "eternal security". Again, I was discussing the reading of Ep 1:13, the Bible. |
||||||
86 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187852 | ||
Ps25, Are you familiar with or a scholar of NT Greek? 1. Apparently, you have not read my note correctly regarding Ep 1:13. The main point is that the verse does not read that God Spirit-sealed us "before the foundation of the world." That is you interpretation, which goes beyond the text. As I stated, "A simple reading of the verse shows the sealing occurs after hearing and believing." Your contention that "the scriptures are clear that it was done 'and sealed' in our case, thousands of years before we were ever born" has no support in either vs.13 or vs.4 of Ep 1. The phrase in v.4, "chosen before the world was made" (TEV), contemplates (1) believers, not specific individuals, and (2) within the context of purpose, sealing. There is no reference to sealing. 2. You say, "what God 'seals' cannot be 'unsealed'." Well then, it should also hold true to say, "What God 'grafts in' cannot be 'ungrafted'," which flies right smack against Romans 11. 3. That "that no man has ever sought God on his own," is off the subject and has no bearing on this issue. 4. You're appeals to logic seem to be attemps to squeeze a round peg into a square hole, which effectively results in illogical jumps to conclusions that have no bearing on how the text in question actually reads. 5. With all due respect, if this discussion is to go forward, the first three points in my note #187838 need to be answered, which you totally ignored, having gone through some other unrelated avenue of argument. |
||||||
87 | E-Security only for true believers? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187851 | ||
ebrain, 1. Please show in the Bible where an infallible assurance of final salvation is essential in order to be saved. 2. It is possible for one to look forward to heaven - that is, to be assured of salvation - without having the certainty that at the end of life they will remain saved. 3. And again, the question remain unanswered, how can one know with certainty that they are saved? |
||||||
88 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187838 | ||
Please note, the KJV reads, "after ye heard...after that ye believed, ye were sealed". (1) It looks "past tense" to me but that's no indication of "before the foundations of the world". A simple reading of the verse shows the sealing occurs after hearing and believing. (2) The book of Acts gives practical demonstrations of the Spirit's reception (and, therefore, sealing) occcurring after one has heard and believed the message. Also, none of the apostles are shown in Acts to have preached a sealing - the receiving of the Spirit - occurring from eternity past as you suggest, but clearly shows the opposite. (3) Ep 1:4. It seems to me you are misreading the verse, effectively ignoring the testimony of v.13 (as it reads) together with that of the whole epistle. (a) The "us" refers to believers, that is, those who after hearing, believed the gospel. (b) The stress of the divine choice refered to here is not of specific persons but of a specific pourpose: that believers should be "holy" and "without blame" in order to stand before "him in love". (4) An interpretation, as you suggest,(1) upends the clear reading of the verse; (2) reverses the way in which the text shows salvation is to be procured ("order of salvation" as some call it); and (3) proposes what seems to be an invented explanation of the Greek grammer to support an otherwise foreign understanding of the the plain reading of the verse in question. (5) What can be "biblically refute(d)" is not "what this verse says" (since the translation is not ambiguous) but your interpretation of it. |
||||||
89 | E-Security only for true believers? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187835 | ||
CDBJ, (1) It seems the belief is that there is no indication of who, among the professing, are genuine Christians. Therefore, I say "professing Christians", which assumes all who confess the name of Jesus, whether or not, in reality, they are true believers. This assumption seems to be the consistent judgment of the NT (at least, the epistles were written on the assumption that the churches or persons reading them were genuine believers). Also, that "Jesus is the ultimate and there are no ifs ands or buts; Jesus paid it all!" is not being challenged. (2) Ep 2:8; Jn 3:36. That salvation is by grace and God gives eternal life to believers are not being denied, and neither are these the questions being discussed here. (3) Jn 5:10-13. If one professes to believe this, what assurance is there that their profession is genuine, that is, how can they be certain that they are included in what the 20 percent (as you surmise) of true believers? In any case, since it is agreed we are not to pass judgment, we must assume "professing Christians" are genuine believers. However, then, let me rephrase the question: How can one who believes in Jesus know for certain that they are now saved with the result that they will never fall away? (4) That the "true believer in Christ puts all of the responsibility for their eternal future in Jesus hands" is not in question; the fact of one the one professing being a true believer is the question. (5) Unfortunately, it seems to me that your response misses the point of my question and offers answers that, while they may be true in themselves, do not address the issue. |
||||||
90 | Can you lose your salvation? | John 5:24 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187811 | ||
... | ||||||
91 | Can you lose your salvation? | Eph 1:13 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187808 | ||
Ps25, You said, "Those who are genuinely born again, have been sealed, by the Holy Spirit, before they actually were saved." Unless I am reading it wrong, the verse in the KJV actually reads the opposite: "after ye believed, ye were sealed." The NAS reads: "after listening to the...gospel...having believed, you were sealed." This verse, at least to me, shows God's act of sealing in the Holy Spirit as occurring after one listens and believes in Christ and not before. |
||||||
92 | E-Security only for true believers? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187807 | ||
I'll answer with two questions: Are not professing to be a Christian and assurance of final salvation two different things? Can one be a Christian and yet not have absolute and infallible assurance of final salvation? |
||||||
93 | Good Works Equal Born Again? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187669 | ||
I'm sorry. I don't understand how all you have written is an infallible assurance that one is saved. Please briefly explain how you interpret each verse you cited as infallible assurance of salvation. |
||||||
94 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187668 | ||
Mark, It seems we are in agreement and it is because of verses like Matt 18:6 that we clearly see that "God clearly has a heart for children" (see my note ID# 187667). |
||||||
95 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187667 | ||
WOS, I actually don't think there is a misinterpretation per se. I think the text does refer primarily to discipleship but can also be applied to the subject of child abuse specifically or, in general, to the subject of children. There are many verses that, although having a specific interpretation, allow for a wider application without damaging the verse itself or its intended meaning. As such, I don't believe I am applying the verse in question incorrectly or corrupting it. The fact is God loves his children, whether they are figuratively mentioned as those who are his disciples or, literally, children; and to stumble either one is to incur his wrath and find the stumblers would be better of with a "noose around the neck and thrown into the sea" bit. Love covers a multitude of "misinterpretations". Therefore, as far as this particular issue is concerned with the verse, I respectfully submit that much ado about nothing is being made. P.S. I enjoy Barnes' Notes but I don't see how his warning can be applied to my understanding and application of Matt 18:6 as I am not "fritter(ing) away its (specific) meaning" but only widening its application in a manner consistent with the heart and spirit of the verse. |
||||||
96 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187666 | ||
CDBJ, I agree all the way... |
||||||
97 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187607 | ||
See my comment ID #187605. | ||||||
98 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187605 | ||
CDBJ, Good point. But I'm not arguing that the main subject is discipleship, however, neither will I argue that it is "bad theology" to us it as Jesus' response to the problem of child abuse. Today I just heard on the news how a 5-year-old child was raped, beaten, and hung with her own jump rope in a closet. Makes me wonder why the need to be so precise in Biblical "interpretion" and argue over the insignificant "misuse" of a verse for reasons, which God can only approve: to prevent child abuse. Acts of love transcends "correct" Biblical interpretation. |
||||||
99 | Looking into the heart for assurance? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187603 | ||
You conclude, "Ultimately, the question becomes: what is the truth, which is Jesus?" The question, "What is the truth?" is not my point. The assumption is that truth is already known. The question may be put, "How can one be certain that they are on the path of what is, in reality, truth?" The question is not, "Is Jesus the truth?" The question is, "How can one be certain that they are in the truth?" |
||||||
100 | Good Works Equal Born Again? | Matt 7:21 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 187602 | ||
I did not ask how one can know if someone else is a genuine Christian, that is, have the assurance that they are saved. I ask how con one know for certain that they themselves are saved. However, some questions: 1. What do you mean by "whose sin nature has been crucified? Are you suggesting one who no longer sins at all? 2. If good works are mixed with bad works, can one know for certain that they are born again? If so, how? Is it be weighing or counting out if one's good works are more than their bad works? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [10] >> |