|
| |
What is "First Fruits Rapture? |
|
|
|
1 Thessalonians
|
| |
The phrase "first fruits rapture" does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Whenever someone mentions a phrase or a doctrine alleged to be in the Bible, ask that person to give you the book, chapter and verse where it is found. If you check 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, and related passages, you will find no mention of a first fruits rapture. |
| |
Can anyone give me more reasons? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
More Reasons .. ok
1.Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is only in Latin.
2.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.
5.The Apocrypha contains statements which not only contradict
the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
(2Maccabees 12:43-45), 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
(Ecclesiasticus 3:30), Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
(Tobit 12:8-9, 17), It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
(Tobit 6:5-8), If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
(Wisdom 8:19-20), And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
|
| |
Is Hades then Purgatory? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I am not sure if this will answer your question, but it may help.
"Purgatory in Roman Catholic thought developed during the Middle Ages and hardened into dogma in reaction to the Protestant rejection of it. The Council of Trent (1545-63) declared that those who reject the doctrine of purgatory are 'anathema,' accursed....The doctrine can be seen as a distortion of biblical truth for several reasons: (1) Clear scriptural warrant is absent. The only possible supportive text is in the Apocrypha (II Macc. 12.43-45)." (Taken from the EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY. Walter A. Elwell (ed.). Baker Books) |
| |
So then, what is Hades? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"In the Septuagint, Hades is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol, the place-name of the abode of the dead. Thus, the word has in itself no doctrine of reward or punishment: see Ac. 2.27; Rev. 20.13. It appears, however, in Matt. 16.18 as the locus of opposition to the church, and this leads on to Matt. 11.23 (Lk. 10.15) and Lk. 16.23 where Hades is the place of punishment of the wicked dead." (Taken from - - EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY. Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Baker Books).
It would seem that Hades and hell are synonymous. |
| |
Must a woman have long hair |
|
|
|
1 Corinthians
|
| |
Here are my thoughts on this issue. People look at it in several ways, some even make it a doctrine. I think it is a none issue because of what Paul says in v. 16 of the same chapter. "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God." The problem they were having was with the temple prostitutes from the pagan temples in Corinth. Some of the practices from these temples were being brought to the church, and that was because some of the new converts were from some of these temples. Apparently hair length was an issue, or the lack of it, since the prostituted normall shaved their heads.
But to answer your question, I believe Paul is saying that hair length should not be an issue, there are many more important things we need to be concerned about, such as lost souls, then how long someone's hair is.
Hope this helps. |
| |
What is an apostate? |
|
|
|
2 Thess 2:3
|
| |
The apostasy refered to in this passage refers to the predicted great falling away of those who have professed to be christians.Hence, apostate. Heresy is the false teachings that leads someone to leave the truth and believe a lie.Warning:beware of the so called doctrines of TV evangelists. The basic message is usually true, but they twist much of the "meat" of the knowledge of God. Also get an amplified bible. It will answer many of your questions before you ask them. |
| |
Predetermined or Free Will |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
"Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. . . .
No sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him."
. . . Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." . . . (www.gty.org(slash)IssuesandAnswers(slash)archive(slash) See this website for more information on the Bible doctrine of election. |
| |
How do you then interpret the verses... |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
I want to thank you for the dialogue we've been having. I do appreciate your views and I hope I can be of some help. Of course, the Calvinism vs. Arianism debate has been raging for centuries. It is said that every Christian believes in Election; but not every Christian defines Election in the same way. Because of the length of my answer, I will send this in 2 parts.
. . . WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT ELECTION?
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence.
. . . The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
. . . The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him."
. . . This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
. . . Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
. . . Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
. . . Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
. . . Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."
. . . Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."
. . . (article by John MacArthur at www.gty.org - listed in Issues and Answers archives) To be continued in next message.
|
| |
How do you then interpret the verses... |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT ELECTION? (continued from previous message)
Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
For further study:
John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word, 1996).
J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961).
© 2000 Grace to You
. . . (article by John MacArthur at www.gty.org - listed in Issues and Answers archives) |
| |
Predetermined or Free Will |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
You wrote:
'1: Where does it say that Jesus is omnipotent? Jesus says in Mat 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father." If Jesus were omnipotent as you say, He would have known the day and hour.'
My reply:
You are confusing omniscience with omnipotence. What you are describing is omniscience -- having all knowledge. I was speaking of omnipotence -- having all power. If you study the doctrine of Christ in more depth, you will learn that Jesus was one Person (of the Trinity) with two natures, fully man and fully God. Being fully God, Jesus would be fully omnipotent and omniscience. The verse you quote is obviously Jesus speaking as fully man.
|
| |
Just as if I had never sinned? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 6:11
|
| |
Some believers find it useful to remember complex doctrines of the Word with small, easy to remember anecdotes. My motive...to get opinions regarding the one I had heard regarding justification.
After reading the postings, I am reminded of how one must be careful in the way they handle the truths of God, and to realize the importance of struggling with the Word until it has become a part of who we are and why we believe. Thanks for your comments. |
| |
Seventy Weeks? |
|
|
|
Dan 9:24
|
| |
The following may not be the answer you're looking for, but I don't know how else to adequately answer your question without quoting 300 pages on the subject.
. . . The short answer to your question is yes, we can make sense out of Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks -- but not in 70 words or less. There are some excellent study Bibles and Christian books out there that give an accurate, reliable interpretation of the Book of Daniel. And then, of course, there are the usual works of sensationalism and teachers of false doctrine (many of them on the bestseller lists) to beware of.
I would like to recommend a few excellent study Bibles, published by reputable publishers and written or edited by qualified teachers of the Bible whose teaching is in the mainstream of the historic Christian faith.
. . . Of course any list will have its critics and detractors. I am not a Bible scholar. What I am is a lifelong student of the Bible. My top recommendations, in alphabetical order, are:
. . . The MacArthur Study Bible ( Word Publishing, edited by John MacArthur)
. . . NASB Study Bible (Zondervan)
. . . NIV Study Bible (Zondervan)
. . . The Ryrie Study Bible (Moody Press, edited by Charles Caldwell Ryrie)
This list is by no means comprehensive. It is based upon my personal study of the Bible for over 30 years. My sincere apologies to whoever may be offended by the omission from this list of their favorite study Bible.
|
| |
Do all Christians agree on the rapture? |
|
|
|
1 Thessalonians
|
| |
There is more than one interpretation of the doctrine of the rapture, as is the case with many Bible doctrines, especially when it comes to the doctrine of future things (prophecy).
. . . The main differences of opinion concern the time of the rapture. The primary theories are: 1) Pretribulation rapture; 2) Midtribulation rapture; 3) Posttribulation rapture; 3) Partial rapture, which is sort of a Marine Corps rapture where only the perfect, only the brave, only the few are worthy to be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out; 5) Postmillenial rapture; and 6) Amillenialist rapture. Take your pick.
(. . . There is also the new theory of No Rapture.)
. . . For detailed explanations of the above views of the rapture, see the Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, in Ryrie's article A SYNOPSIS OF BIBLE DOCTRINE, The Doctrine of Future Things. |
| |
Is there no volition? |
|
|
|
John 15:4
|
| |
I'm not sure what my answer regarding the fruit of the Spirit has to do with the doctrine of election. I fail to see the connection.
. . . Of course man has limited free will. Believing on Christ (commiting oneself to Him) for salvation most definitely involves an act of the will on the part of the individual.
. . . As far as unconditional election, I do not believe I mentioned any such thing in my answer re John 15:4.
. . . I know of no one who believes that if someone sins it is because he was not truly chosen. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, including the elect, who exist, regardless of how one defines election.
. . . "Is it possible the elect cannot see their own sin?" No, because no one can be saved unless and until he sees his own sin.
. . . "Post-election grace" is a term I am not familiar with.
. . . Yes, I agree with you that obedience has something to do with it. Our obedience is an evidence of genuine saving faith. However, obedience is the result, not the cause, of our salvation.
. . . Works are not essential to salvation. Rom 3:28 NIV "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." See also Eph 2:8-9. Properly understood, James and Romans do NOT contradict each other. However, proper understanding of the Scriptures does not come from a casual reading or dogmatic interpretation of them.
. . . Works are not essential to salvation -- they are the result of salvation and evidence of genuine saving faith. "Not of works lest any man should boast." This remains true no matter what Scriptures or human reasoning one uses to contradict it. |
| |
Explanations of difficult verses |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Difficult Verses on Baptism
Mark 16:16
Some say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. This doctrine flies in the face of salvation by grace through faith alone. What then does it mean? The two possible answers are:
It is not speaking of water baptism at all, but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This occurs at the time of our conversion, the time of our belief, and hence could be linked directly with belief in the verse.
The other possibility is that since baptism is so closely linked to the our belief in Christ that it is listed here as part of that process. This verse does not say that we must be baptized to be saved, but that when we are saved, we should be baptized. If it were saying that both belief AND baptism are requirements for salvation, it would have to list "not believe OR not been baptized" as the reason for condemnation. In fact, the grammatical construct of this sentence in Greek does not require that both parts on the left be true for the result on the right to be true. While this is not definitive proof that only belief is required to be saved, it leaves open that possibility. We can prove the interpretation with the rest of Scripture.
Luke 7:29-30
These two verses seem to indicate that someone's baptism has some effect on their ability to discern certain things. It is more likely that the condition of their heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit which led them to be baptized or not be baptized is the driving force in their discernment.
Acts 2:38
Some say that since receiving of the Holy Spirit occurs when we are save, then since baptism is required to receive the Holy Spirit, it is required to be saved.
This verse falls into the same Greek construct of not requiring both parts on the left to be true for the right of the equation to be true, again leaving open the possibility of repentance being the only requirement. Repentance (turning away from our sin), in the name of Jesus can only happen to those who receive Him as their Savior. It is when we receive Jesus, that our sins are forgiven. This verse shows once again how closely the time of a new Christian's baptism should be to the time they are saved.
Acts 8:14-17
Here we have an occurrence where people have been saved (Samaria had received the word of God), and yet had not received the Holy Spirit. Why?
The Holy Spirit typically comes to live inside of someone at the moment they are saved. But in this case, in order that God's acceptance of the Samaritans would be fully evident, the gift of the Spirit was delayed. God needed to show that His grace was available to ALL MEN. He needed to show it in a mighty way to the Jews. What better way than to have them actually see the Holy Spirit being received by the Samaritans, people whom the Jews loathed.
1 Corinthians 15:29
Some attempt to be baptized for someone who has already died, so that they may have eternal life and be saved. Such doctrine is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. Baptism, which comes after we receive Jesus as our Savior and Lord, looks forward to our eternity in heaven. If none of this is true (heaven, eternal life, etc.), then our belief and baptism would be foolish. Praise be to God, that it ALL IS TRUE! Some early Christians may have dedicated their baptisms to those who had led them to Jesus who may have died or been killed.
1 Peter 3:21
Some find support for the idea that baptism is a requirement for salvation, in fact is the major requirement. This is simply not true. Peter specifically indicates that it is not water baptism he is speaking of (-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--), but Spirit baptism. Water baptism does not save us, but symbolizes that we are saved. The waters of the flood brought death to those who did not believe, but life to Noah and his family. Yet in it all, it was God who provided the way of escape in the Ark, In the same way, God provides a way of escape for us in the cross of Jesus. The waters of baptism are for us a symbol of God's provision through the cross, just as the waters of the flood symbolize his provision for Noah's family through the ark.
Acts 16:31-34
Some claim that we may believe in Christ for the purpose of saving our infant children and that the Bible supports infant baptism for salvation of those infants.
This verse does not indicate that the belief of the jailhouse guard would save his household, but that salvation through belief was available to everyone in his household. Each of them must believe on their own as seen in verse 34 "with his whole household", as opposed to" for his whole household". Also, there is no indication here that this man had younger children who were too young to make their own profession of faith, hence there is no support for either believing or being baptized for the purpose of saving our infant children. |
| |
TRINITY |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Basically the Trinity is one What (God) and three Who's (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Can the Trinity be explained? Not by me. I never try to explain that which cannot be explained. However, I'll do my best to simplify the definition of the doctrine. I make no attempt to explain the Trinity, only to define it.
"V. THE TRINITY
. . . "A. Definition. There is only one God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three eternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.
. . . "Proof. 1. O.T. intimations. The O.T. does not reveal the Trinity but it allows for the later revelation of it." See Gen. 1:1, 26; Isa. 6:8; Gen 22:11, 15-16.
. . . "2. N.T. confirmation. In the N.T. there is clear revelation that Father, Son, and Spirit are God; thus a Triunity or Trinity (neither is a biblical word)." See John 6:27; Eph 4:6; Heb 1:8; Acts 5:3-4. These Scriptures indicate that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Spirit is God. One God -- three persons. "The three Persons are associated equally and as one (Matt 28:19; "name"; 2 Cor 13:14)."
(All quotes are from The Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1936, Moody Press) |
| |
What does Bible teach on election? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Please be very careful here not to just jump into this doctrine. The study of election requires a careful and detailed study of many topics including the sovereignty of God, the fall of man, The work of salvation (man's capabilites, God's will and God's work) before one should even begin to think about election, predestination and free will. I taught a Sunday School class on this. It took a full year to complete. I would be happy to post it here a little at a time, if you would rally like to investigate, or we can work out a way for me to send you the entire set of notes from the class. |
| |
Is there no volition? |
|
|
|
John 15:4
|
| |
The Bible does indeed say "...work OUT (emphasis mine) your salvation." However, it does not say: "...work FOR your salvation."
...Re Heb 12:1, we don't win our salvation in a race.
...I thank you for condescending to explain things to this dear fellow.
My previous reply answered the question 'How do you abide in Christ?' (not what is someone's pet theory for or against the doctrine of election?)
You wrote: "Your note indicated that faith, obedience, etc. were fruit of the Holy Spirit, that we had no volition in the matter." Apparently, that's what you inferred, not what I indicated.
...Thank you for telling me what I believe. If I need further clarification on what I believe, I'll be sure to ask you.
...Why do you insist that I said our works are only a result of God's election? I never used the word or the concept of election with regard to works. What I said was good works are evidence of genuine saving faith. Good works are the result, not the cause, of our salvation. When did I EVER mention good works in relation to the word election?????
You want "a little credit for abstaining from sin . . ."? I think not. If one makes the choice to abstain from sin after coming to know Jesus, what credit is that to him? The only reason a believer would have the ABILITY to abstain from sin is because of the shed blood of Jesus and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Credit for us?
It is not apparent to me that James was wrong. What I said was "James and Romans do NOT contradict each other." It would be idiotic for anyone to assert that one portion of inspired Scripture was "wrong" and another was "right." We may not agree with each other, but I'm no idiot. Niether are you, for I can tell that you have a keen, inquiring mind. I mean that sincerely. I don't ridicule your questions and answers. Why do you ridicule mine by calling them "nebulous, prehistoric, and eschatological terminology"?
If one cannot quote "dead people," then let's stop quoting Moses, Isaiah, Peter, James, John, Paul, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Scofield, Andrew Murray, Oswald Chambers, etc. Or I could quote a certain living author that has studied the Bible 30 hours a week for 30 years in the original languages. Such study does not involve intellectual exercises or word games. Nor is it about gaining Bible knowledge so that one can win arguments. Is there not the slightest possibility that he may, just may, know a little more about the Bible than MOST professing Christians and churchgoers?
...You say: "Does that mean that if you don't know it, it's not sin?" If ignorance were a sin, then most of us would be without hope.
You say: "...God...desires that we choose to continue that walk from our volition." That is correct. I couldn't agree with you more.
Yes, God did send His Spirit to help us, comfort us, and encourage us. He also commands us to be "filled with the Spirit." Filled means controlled and empowered by. (Look it up in Vine's Expository Dictionary or any Greek word study, unless of course Vine is regarded as just another ignorant heretic.) So God commands us to be controlled and empowered by the Spirit.
Hopefully replies to this message (if any) will focus not on what I did not say or what I meant. Hopefully they will focus on what I SAID. Likewise, we know what the Bible means BY what it says. |
| |
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER |
|
|
|
Matt 22:37
|
| |
Jesus said that "No one can serve two masters" and that any attempt to serve 2 masters would result in choosing 1 over the other at some point. The example he then gives is God vs. mammon (material wealth). However, material wealth is not the only competitor he is concerned with. He also says that unless one "hates" his or her mother, father, sister, brother, wife, children and even one's own life, that person can not be His disciple. The Lord must be our first love, thus the choice being made (by his grace) to love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This is comparable to Wesley's doctrine of "Christian perfection" as a "perfect" love for God as exercised by a "complete" disciple; this is what the Christian should desire. |
| |
rapture question |
|
|
|
Matt 24:27
|
| |
You write: "The coming of the Son of Man can be an individual experience in each of our spiritual journeys as well as a collective experience near the end of the age." No, it can't. Your answer is more poetic than scriptural. In all the Bible teaching on the doctrine of the rapture, there is one and only one rapture, one event as described in 1 Thess 4:13-18. I am sincerely glad for the spiritual experiences you've had. God is the God of experience and emotions sometimes are a part of our experience. But to say that there is more than one rapture could mislead babes in Christ or seekers, who are new to the church and the Scriptures. |
| |
Lowest Common Denominator |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is a difficult question to answer because it's hard to determine exactly what you're suggesting and what prompted the suggestion. Is this a reaction or response to something that was said on the list, or simply a general suggestion that we should not take the Bible too literally or too seriously in judging the merit of theological "truths"? If this is a reaction to someone dismissing a biblically orthodox view based on their interpretations, I would agree that we should practice humility in recognizing our fallibility (as well as that of Calvin, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, etc.). However, if you're suggesting that (in the name of tolerance and good will) we ignore contrary arguments or retreat from using Biblical texts to test someone's theological claims, I think you're way off base. When (you or) I find that my (or my most respected theologian's) understanding disagrees with God, I need to have the humility to acknowledge that He is infallible (and therefore correct) and that we are fallible (and therefore wrong). Likewise, if you and I agree to usurp the authority of Scripture and place our own sensibilities over those of the Scriptures, we have rejected the only authoritative source by which to test doctrine. We become "like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind" and simply go after the doctrines that "tickle our ears" most. This is anathema to the discovery of Truth; this would be futile and foolish. |
| |
Is God responsible for evil? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
There is room for a wide range of interpretation on what is meant by the "sovereignty" of God -- particularly in the realm of the degree in which he chooses to exercise his power and authority; many great theologians more learned than I am have traced doctrines throughout the Scriptures on this, but I would like to make a few observations from Romans 8 and 9 that do much to resolve this without delving too deeply into the fray. First of all, Romans 8:28-30 declares that we can be confident of God overseeing all (as an entire synergistic whole) that enters the life of each one who loves him to his or her good. He specifically confirms that this is "because" he first foreknew those who would love him then predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son. It is this predestination (to conformity to Christ) of those whom he foreknew that he uses to sovereignly direct the overall entirety of what comes into our lives. In addition, those whom God thus predestines, he then calls, then justifies, then finally glorifies.
Another sense in which we see God exercising his sovereignty is in his endurance of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" as in Romans 9:22. One solid interpretation (among others) is that God knows that their end is destruction prior to their (or any of their ancestors') creation but(contrary to the human wisdom of many parents who exercise their power to terminate the life of an unwanted or imperfect pregnancy, or who might if they knew in advance that the child would be a criminal) God does not choose to exercise his sovereignty by refusing their existence. He allows them to be made, live, rebel, blaspheme any and all loving conviction of his Spirit, and finally go on to the "destruction" that they will and do thus bring upon themselves.
These examples of God's exercise of his divine sovereignty give partial indication of both his attitude toward evil (something to be temporarily endured and then destroyed) and his deliberate limitation of its ability to prevent the spiritual growth of his children. There is much more to say, but this is already a long posting. |
| |
BOOK OF LIFE |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
"Once saved, always saved." This statement is not in the Bible. Nor is it a phrase used by Baptist preachers. The only people who use this phrase are the ones who reject the Bible doctrine of Eternal Security, the opposite of which would be Eternal Insecurity.
. . . I realize this is not precisely your question, but your question does bring the old "Once saved..." controversy to mind.
. . .While "once saved, always saved" is hotly debated, one thing is for certain: Once lost, salvation is always lost.
" . . . logically Heb. 6:4 implies that if salvation were to be lost, it would be impossible for that person to be born again, lose it, and then be born again again. This much is clear: whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved ealier." Whether he had lost his salvation or never had it to begin with, "either way, the result is identical." (note at Heb. 6:4ff, NRSV Harper Study Bible)
|
| |
when did it rain for the first time? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is certainly not a doctrine to die for, as there is no direct statement that rain did not start at some time after man and cultivated plants appeared but prior to the flood. However, there are enough descriptions (like this one, as well as the statement that there was water on the earth and water above the earth separated by the air in Genesis 1:6-8, and the drastic drop in lifespan after the flood) that indicate some kind of major increase in aging after the flood that was probably caused by the changes surrounding the event. The theory of a protective thick vapor "firmanent" that was opened and emptied out during the flood is the most logical and conceivable explanation I have heard given the information available from the Scriptures. |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Thank you for challenging me to look the urantia book up. It was very informative. It kind of reminded me of L.Ron Hubbard's Dianetics mixed with the teachings of the church latter-day saints (mormons). I can't say that I agree with your assesment of it value, however. 2 Cor 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (NAS;lockman foundation)
The most effective lie, is that which contains some truth in it. I believe that the Urantia Book is clever scheme of our adversary, the devil, to distract us from truly finding the truth. John 8:31-32 ( So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." NAS;lockman foundation)
Joseph Smith had a vision. He was visited by the angel moroni, this angel gave him instructions to write what became known as the book of mormon. I believe Joseph. I think he did see an angel. However, I believe he saw a fallen angel, a demon. 1 Tim 4:1 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (NAS;lockman foundation)
We need to be carefull what we accept as truth and test everything.
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."(NAS;lockman foundation)
I am willing to listen to any biblical evidence that you have that might support your theories on the book of urantia being part of "Holy Scripture".
|
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
I think that this is an excellent forum to discover truth, and to disemminate it. I don't think that we should limit our membership rolls to those who have "the correct doctrine". I do think we should have a ready defense for the hope that we have.
1 Pet 3:15 "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence"(NAS;lockmanfoundation) |
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is a fascinating question for fantasy, but there is really nothing clear about it in Scripture. Since any other story one may find is simply a story, we have no way of knowing. If Adam and Eve were there a long time, however, it brings up all sorts of difficulties that the Scriptures do not address. For example, the command to be fruitful and multiply was given from the beginning, so what became of the children born before the fall. They would not have inherited original sin (so would presumably remain sinless unless they foolishly ate of the fruit as well). What would have become of them? Are the males the "Sons of God" (adopted by God since they couldn't be under Adam's authority)? You see how this leads to complete abiblical fantasy. If left without recognition of its lack of root in any direct truth, this kind of speculation could open the way to all sorts of gruesome heresy (Christ merely a "Son of God" rather than the one who "was with God in the beginning" and "through whom all things were made". I do not suggest it is forbidden to fantasize on the possibilities of this or other such questions (as I obviously have), but such fantasy should never be mistaken as theology, doctrine, or an actual answer to such a question.
The real answer is, "We don't know how long they were there." It was either a very short time, or God decided that it was not important for us to know in this earthly life about the interim. |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Dear bobmoy, Of course you are free to express any opinion you like. I only meant that as this is generally considered to be a Bible-based discussion, it might be difficult to find others willing to discuss Urantia as truth. I have bothered to look into the information available on the internet, and cannot find any hard evidence that this is revelation or prophecy in accord with Scripture, except as noted by soladescriptura. I would also be interested to hear your defense of this spurious doctrine. |
| |
What does Bible teach on election? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
First, thanks for the excellent idea of setting up a temporary hotmail email account to communicate with other members of this website. Good work!
. . . Second, please note: what people usually call predestination is actually the doctrine of election. The two terms are not synonymous. "Divine predestination means that God has a purpose that is determined long before it is brought to pass. It implies that God is infinitely capable of planning and then bringing about what he has planned, and Scripture speaks of him as doing this" (p. 628, Baker's Theological Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by Walter A. Elwell, Baker Books). For example, Rom 8:29 (NASB) "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;"
. . . On the other hand, "Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. . . .
. . . "In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen (elected) you from the beginning for salvation."
. . . "In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice." (John MacArthur at www.gty.org, under Issues and Answers, "What Does the Bible Teach About Election?")
(. . . For further study: John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word, 1996); J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961). © 2000 Grace to You)
. . . Third, while all Christians do believe in election, not all Christians define election in the same way.
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
