Results 81 - 100 of 146
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | explain the first four verses of luke 4 | Luke | benjamite | 35642 | ||
Which question do you want to ask? The first four verses of Luke 4 - To show that He was God, Jesus needed to be tempted and be proven sinless. If He sinned, His ministry would be null and void. The first four verses of Luke - The first four verses of Luke indicate that this gospel was a letter written to Theophilus. Although Luke was not an eyewitness of Christ, verse 2 says that his information was given to him by eyewitnesses. Luke, however didn't just take for granted what was given to him by the eyewitnesses of Christ's life, but researched it (v. 3) and wrote it down from start (the birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1) to finish (the ascension in Luke 24). The first four chapters of Luke - Could you be more specific on the chapters? What needs to be explained? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
82 | Why is Me capitalized? | Zech 2:9 | benjamite | 35640 | ||
"From verse 8, we see that the text reads, "For thus says the LORD of hosts..." In my Bible, the quote continues through verse 9 into 10, then picks up again with verses 11-13. It does not refer to Zechariah, but to God. It is interesting to note however that the Lord of hosts (from verse 8) is sent by the Lord of Hosts in verse 9. Do you think that this could possibly be an Old Testament revelation of the Trinity? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
83 | What is the lesson from Lk 18:9-14 | Luke | benjamite | 35637 | ||
What is the lesson? It isn't the tithes and offerings that matter the most. It is the condition of the heart. "To obey is better than sacrifice" 1 Sam. 15:22 (The Pharisee thought he was righteous, but the Bible says that there is no one righteous Ps. 14:1-3; 53:1-3; and Romans 3:10ff.) "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5) "It is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12) "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom 4:5) That seems to be the lesson I get from these verses. What kind of audience will you have? (Perhaps that will help with the illustrations.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
84 | would like to know more on these words | Rev 20:1 | benjamite | 35555 | ||
Gog and Magog are places named for people (and some might see Gog as the ruler of Magog - Ezek 38) I believe them to be somewhere around Russia. "Millennial" refers to the future earthly reign of Christ on the earth, see Rev 20:1-10. Called "millennial" because here in Rev 20 it is given the length of 1000 years. See also Isaiah chapters 11, 60-66, and Romans 8:18-22. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
85 | What does this verse mean?Mark 16:16 | John 3:18 | benjamite | 35531 | ||
There is a lot to be said about baptism. (So please forgive the length.) First, notice the contrast between "believes" and "does not believe". Unbelief is what condemns. In Scriptre, water baptism usually went along with belief - note Acts 8:36ff. What does "baptized" mean? What kind of answer are you looking for? In the Greek (the original language) the word is baptizo (in other words, different people will say different things - sprinkling, emmersion, etc.). My understanding of early church practice is that it meant imersion. See Mark 10:38-39, I think that in that passage Christ is speaking of His death. What does water baptism symbolize - Rom 6:3-4, "baptized into His death" (In my opinion, immersion is a better picture.) Depending on your background, baptism can mean a lot. I know of some who, when they got baptized, were shut off from their family, because baptism was seen as a stand against their heritage. I hope some of this helps, I would reccommend doing a search on "bapti" (without quotes) in either the New Testament or the whole Bible, to see how it is used in the various places. (this would give you baptism, baptize, baptized, and baptist (as in "John the")). I would also encourage you to look at those verses which do not link baptism with belief. (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; among others.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
86 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35217 | ||
I accept what you are saying and will comment on this point "Premillennialists maintain that neither Antiochus Epiphanes nor the Romans under Titus in A.D. 70 AD exhausted Daniel's prophecy, which still awaits fulfillment." I would say that the part from 11:36 onward awaits fulfillment. By the way, three (maybe all four) of the references I cited are, in fact, pre-mil - Ryrie, Walvoord, and Gaebelein. Gesundheit, Benjamite |
||||||
87 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35197 | ||
This is a short follow up to my last response. How do we know that in v. 21 it is the antichrist who is called a "vile person" (KJV) or "despicable person" (NASB)? Why must this refer to him and not Antiochus IV? You say that it is one of twelve titles given to the Antichrist, where else is this title given to him? (Assuming that I see "despicable" or "vile" as referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes in this verse.) A follow up to that question is, must the Antichrist have 12 titles? | ||||||
88 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35189 | ||
Blessings Makarios, I copied and pasted much of my response to "Love Fountain". Charles C. Ryrie, in his Study Bible - Antiochus through v. 35, and then Antichrist 36ff (notes on Dan 11:21-35, and 36-45) Of v. 32, 33 - "Some Jews resisted [Antiochus] and were martyred". Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown, in "Commentary on the Whole Bible", on Dan 11:21ff, and 36ff, basically says the same. (Although, they say of v. 36ff, "The willful king here, though primarily Antiochus, is antitypically and mainly Antichrist." The people of verse 32-33 are "the Maccabees and their followers". A.C. Gaebelein, in his commentary "The Prophet Daniel: A Key to the Visions and Prophecies of the Book of Daniel" (19th edition), says, "While there is no difficulty to prove the historical fulfillment of verses 2-35 it is impossible to locate anything in history which corresponds to verses 36-45." (p. 179-180) Of v. 32ff, "This has reference to the noble Maccabees. There was also suffering and persecution." John F. Walvoord, in "Daniel: the Key to Prophetic Revelation" (c. 1971, 1989 Moody Bible Institute), sees 11:21-35 as referring to Antiochus IV, followed by 11:36ff as referring to the Antichrist (see notes on 11:21-23 and 11:36). Of verse 32, he says, "The continued opposition of Antiochus to the Jewish faith is prophesied in verse 32, indicating how he attempts to corrupt them; but the strong reaction of the Jewish people is indicated in the expression 'but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.'" I hope you don't mind "4 for the price of 2" - I had a little more time to do research for my response. Benjamite |
||||||
89 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35186 | ||
Charles C. Ryrie, in his Study Bible - Antiochus through v. 35, and then Antichrist 36ff (notes on Dan 11:21-35, and 36-45) Of v. 32, 33 - "Some Jews resisted [Antiochus] and were martyred". Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown, in "Commentary on the Whole Bible", on Dan 11:21ff, and 36ff, basically says the same. (Although, they say of v. 36ff, "The willful king here, though primarily Antiochus, is antitypically and mainly Antichrist." The people of verse 32-33 are "the Maccabees and their followers". A.C. Gaebelein, in his commentary "The Prophet Daniel: A Key to the Visions and Prophecies of the Book of Daniel" (19th edition), says, "While there is no difficulty to prove the historical fulfillment of verses 2-35 it is impossible to locate anything in history which corresponds to verses 36-45." (p. 179-180) Of v. 32ff, "This has reference to the noble Maccabees. There was also suffering and persecution." John F. Walvoord, in "Daniel: the Key to Prophetic Revelation" (c. 1971, 1989 Moody Bible Institute), sees 11:21-35 as referring to Antiochus IV, followed by 11:36ff as referring to the Antichrist (see notes on 11:21-23 and 11:36). Of verse 32, he says, "The continued opposition of Antiochus to the Jewish faith is prophesied in verse 32, indicating how he attempts to corrupt them; but the strong reaction of the Jewish people is indicated in the expression 'but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.'" I hope you don't mind "4 for the price of 2" - I had a little more time to do research for my response. Who are the "many scholars" that believe the split is in v. 31? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
90 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35150 | ||
Did you miss this statement? "11:36 then begins the description of the Antichrist's career." This is still future from OUR standpoint (as the rest of it was also future from Daniel's). This actually continues through the end of the chapter, and is prophetic, in relations to the end time. The reason why I mentioned the commentaries is because there are so many different viewpoints regarding Daniel's prophecies. I have not checked all the commentaries (which should be obvious), but most of the more reliable ones which I have read agree on the history so accurately depicted in Daniel (but written several hundred years beforehand). The "history" part - from our standpoint - continues up through 11:35. Benjamite |
||||||
91 | Where are the people of Dan 11:32 in NT? | Dan 11:32 | benjamite | 35126 | ||
According to two distinct commentaries, Daniel 11:21-35 refer to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes - during the time of the Apocryphal Writings - I believe in the Maccabees (c. 175-150 BC). 11:36 then begins the description of the Antichrist's career. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
92 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34917 | ||
Hi Zach, I agree with you about the Limited Atonement (and therefore won't take much time here). I do have a couple of quick questions. In Luke 14:23, what does it mean to "compel"? How are we to understand John 6:44-45, 64-65? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
93 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34823 | ||
Since you reject all but point 1, since according to Romans 3:10ff, nobody is righteous, nobody seeks after God, how then is anybody saved? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
94 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34820 | ||
Dear John, I admit, I have not read all the postings yet, but I assure you, I am not confused by the term. To quote James White, (in his defense of Calvinism, "The Potter's Freedom"), Limited Atonement says that, "The intention of Christ in His cross-work was to save His people specifically. Therefore, Christ's sacrifice is perfect and complete, for it actually accomplishes perfect redemption." I strongly disagree with the premise. Christ did die for, and was good enough to save, everybody - the world. 1 John 2:2 "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly (all of them)." Romans 5:8 may personalize this, but 5:6 says for "the ungodly" without qualification. John 3:16 "God so loved the world, that whosoever..." Hebrews 2:9 "He might taste death for everyone" 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false prophets, "denying the Master who bought them" In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
95 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34812 | ||
Hello Tim, You say that my view is logically inconsistent. I have presented what I believe to be solid Biblical support for the other four points of Calvinism, but I am willing to be corrected. I don't see Biblical support for Limited Atonement. You say that Calvinism is consistent if, and only if, one holds to all five points. This, in itself, is a difficult claim to make, because as proof of an "if-and-only-if" statement, you need to show how it is false with one side ("Logical consistency") matched with all other options of the other side (each point individually, any two points, any three points, or any four points). I do not expect that from you. That is really beside the point because whatever logic dictates, I care more about whether my view is Biblically consistent. Christ did die for all 1 John 2:2 "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly (all of them)." Romans 5:8 may personalize this, but 5:6 says for "the ungodly" without qualification. John 3:16 "God so loved the world, that whosoever..." Hebrews 2:9 "He might taste death for everyone" God chose to save some - Romans 9 Man cannot and will not come to God of his own "free will" - Romans 3:10ff Once saved, saved forever - one cannot lose one's salvation - Romans 8:28ff; Philippians 1:6. Well, what do you think? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
96 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34782 | ||
Zach, I love the way you phrase your questions. (By the way, they ususally end with a question mark - ? .) Growing is a process, agreed. As our conversation continues, you seem to be wanting to be steered in different directions. Originally I might have sent you towards Romans 6-8. Now, however, I hear a lot of 1 Corinthians in your "questions". In Corinth, there were many who had been believers for some time, and they should have grown. Paul, however calls them "still fleshly". They should have been ready for solid food, and yet they were not. They still needed milk. (1 Cor 3:2ff) It should be noted that Paul rightly rebukes them for this. At the same time, it is not the planter, nor the waterer, but it is God who causes the growth. I still see the Bible preaching both 1) that it is God's work entirely 1 Thess 5:23-24; Phil 1:6; Rom 8:28ff; Gal 5:22-23; Eph 2:10 2) that it appears that we must have some part in it. (Otherwise, why the rebuke in 1 Cor 3?). cf. 1 Peter 1:13-16; 2 Cor 5:10; etc. (not meant to be "unbalanced" - but it is getting a little late) To answer Tozer's quote, "Tanning salons aside, one cannot get a suntan at night." (I must have heard it from someone, but I don't remember from whom.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
97 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34723 | ||
Zach, I enjoy questions. (As long as you don't ask how much I ate for dinner.) Judging from the last two questions, I take it that you see the answer to your first question as "Yes". Romans 6:11 says, "Even so, consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ." From my understanding of the how "consider" is used, in the Greek, it is a "present imperative" meaning basically that 1) it is a command or a request, and 2) the considering is an ongoing process. Now lets look at James 4:7 - "Submit therefore to God...." Here (and in the following verses) we have an "aorist imperative" - meaning that it is a command that doesn't carry with it the idea of an ongoing process. Rather than "keep doing it", it just says "do it". "Submit", "resist", "draw near", "cleanse your hands", "purify your hearts", "Humble yourselves". Do we do these once? I don't know about that, but if we aren't doing them, we must do them. Can we refuse to daily submit? Do we still sin? Yes. 1 John 1:5-10. I would, however make a distinction between what God would like to accomplish in us, and what He intends to and will do, Philippians 1:6; 2:13. I could say more, but I have to go now and this is enough to start with. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
98 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34696 | ||
Does the believer have to cooperate? Argument from individual passages of Scripture: I would look to Philippians 2:12ff to answer this. Paul says "work out your salvation" (side note: this is most definitely NOT to be confused with "work FOR your salvation"). He then gives practical "advice" as to how to work it out (stuff that we must do for sanctification). Argument from reason (and Scripture as a whole): From our standpoint, sanctification might be seen as a two way street. Otherwise, why would we need the bulk of Scripture? Does Scripture only give sound doctrine, or does it also give practical application? It gives both. If sanctification were entirely of God (from our standpoint), why would He need to tell us what to do, instead of just doing it in us, for us? On the other hand, from God's standpoint, "He who began a good work will perfect it." and "We are His workmanship" to do the deeds that "God prepared beforehand". (Phil 1:6; Eph 2:10) I guess, and you probably won't like this, my answer to your question is "yes". Sanctification is entirely a work of God and the believer will co-operate in the sanctification process. I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
99 | Is sanctification a joint effort? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34674 | ||
Hello Again Zach, I just chimed in on your "Limited Atonement" discussion, elsewhere. 1) I think the answer to this is "Yes" and "No" 2-4) Positional sanctification - we are justified (declared righteous), Romans 4:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 1:2; Heb 2:11 (complete) Progressive sanctification - Philippians 1:6 "He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus..." (incomplete, cf. 1 Thess 5:23) 5) If we have the ability to be holy apart from God's help (1 Peter 1:15-16), then Romans 3:10ff isn't true. Eph 2:10, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." In my mind, the answers to your questions are found in the scriptures given, without much more comment from me. (However, since you cannot read my mind, feel free to ask for further clarification if you would like it.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
100 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34672 | ||
Hello Zach, I will answer your question, but I will say that this will never be resolved here. It is too easy for emotions to get in the way (for those on all sides). I do not intend to persuade you. I only want to present my view. (Do watch yourself, you are not at fault, but you aren't the first person to bring this up.) I do not agree with those who hold to particular redemption (aka "limited atonement"). I base this on verses like John 3:16; Romans 5:6; 1 John 2:2; et al. I do, however see strong Biblical support for the other four points. The definitions come primarily out of "The Potter's Freedom" by James White (good author, and I thought the definitions were good, but I disagree with his view of Particular Redemption). Total Depravity - Man is dead in sin, with every aspect of his being affected by the fall, unable to save himself. (Romans 3:10ff; Ephesians 2:1) Unconditional Election - God's choice is not based on anything man has done, but on Himself, alone. (Romans 9:15-16,18) Limited atonement - I touched on why I disagree with Particular Redemption at the top. Irresistible Grace - Luke 14:23, John 6:44. Note that God "compels" them to come in. "nobody comes to me unless he is drawn by My Father" Perseverance of the Saints or Eternal Security - Philippians 1:6 - He who began a work will perfect it until the day of Christ. Romans 8:28-39 - As far as God is concerned, even our glorification is assured, and that hasn't happened yet. (I view "glorified" as being proleptic (past tense to describe something that is assured, even though still future)). I would love to hear your thoughts. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |