|
| |
Paul wanted to be a martyr? |
|
|
|
Phil 3:10
|
| |
I BELIEVE THAT PAUL WANTED TO BE WITH JESUS, FOR HE SAID IN PHIL 1:21 for to me, to live is christ and to die is gain. in verse 23 of the same chapter paul was struggeling within himself as to be with christ or sacrifice his desires for the furtherence of the gospel. |
| |
Author of James, brother of Jesus? |
|
|
|
James
|
| |
In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6 verse 3 identifies James as the brother of Jesus, also he names Joses, Judah, and Simon as brothers of Jesus and he also eludes to sisters of Jesus, although he doesn't name them or say how many there are.
|
| |
What is Pentecost and its significance? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:1
|
| |
Acts 1:8 says,"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
Jesus had told them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father,which ye have heard of me.
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days heance. Acts 1:4-5
Pentecost was this baptism of the Holy Spirit on the ones that it had been promised.
It's significance was to spread the Gospel to everyone that was in Jerusalem on that day, for they all heard in their own language.
This caused the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be spread abroad very quickly. |
| |
Is this |
|
|
|
Rom 6:3
|
| |
No, you do not need to be "water" baptized to be saved. The word translated "baptized" (in most texts) literally translates as "immersed" which is to "completely dip, plunge under".
The 1 Peter 3:21 here equates “baptism now saves you” to “but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”. This word appeal is the action word in the phrase and has nothing to do with “water baptism (immersion)”. Baptism here is the same as the Romans 6 comments below.
Some Jews of that day "water baptized (immersed)" themselves as an act of spiritual cleansing, purification. This was a normal thing for a religious person to do. Sometimes this was done more than once a day. Note that the Ethiopian is likely Jewish: for he worships at Jerusalem. Nothing is said in the Acts passage that “water baptism” is required for salvation. This was not the message Philip preached. The Ethiopian requests to be baptized. Baptism was something a repentant person did, so this is completely normal for the day.
As for Romans chapter 6: This speaks about believers being "buried with Him through baptism into death". One needs to read the context of this passage to understand what Paul meant by this. I think it is clear that believers are alive in Christ through His death and through His death we are saved. The baptism or immersion here is a reference to being immersed in His death, not a water baptism. Reason being that if we are in Him, we will also be raised up from the dead just as He was. Paul is using a logical argument in this chapter speaking about the believer and sin. Notice how Paul connects the points of his argument throughout the whole chapter, too.
Also note that, in the gospels, John baptized with (in) water but Jesus baptized with the Spirit. See: Matt. 3:11-12; John 1:32-34; Luke 3:16.
|
| |
Is Hades also the lake of fire? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I couldn't help but notice that you're not entirely satisfied with all the replies you've received to your question regarding Hades. If you would like to do some research on this or any other Bible topic, may I suggest some invaluable websites to aid you in your search? They are: www.goshen.net; www.gospelcom.net; www.crosssearch.com; www.crosswalk.com |
| |
What does Matt 24:34 mean? |
|
|
|
Matt 24:34
|
| |
If you type in "Matt 24:34" at [bible.gospelcom.net] it alternately translates this word as "race". The Greek here is genea, sometimes translated as "men of the same stock" [gnt.greekbible.com]. The English word "genealogy" comes from this Greek word. |
| |
God's promises are in Christ |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
It is stated in the bible(NT) that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto our lord and savior Jesus Christ.And also,God has promised to watch over His word.We discover from the book of revelation and also from the gospel according to john that Jesus Christ is God's spoken word.In the same vein, we are told that God's promise was to Abraham and his seed and we are told in the bible that this seed is Christ Jesus.In this case, it is clear that we can only partake of God's promise if we are in Christ.Also when we embrace Christ, that is to say, if Christ lives in us as individuals,God will also watch over us and our affairs.
God bless! |
| |
How do you then interpret the verses... |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
How do you then interpret the verses I listed (and the many others) that talk about "our choice"? I've talked to other Calvinists and they all ignore the verses about our choice in the Bible and quote out a few verses that can be interpreted to fit their needs. The "Free Will" theory holds up throughout the Bible while the "Predestined" theory holds up only in a few parts of the Bible and each of these parts can also be interpreted using the "Free Will" theory.
----------------------------------
You mentioned John 6:44. I agree that no sinner can make the first move in the salvation process. Fortunately, God has already made the first move through Jesus. It's now up to us to accept this. Also, if you put John 6:44 in context and read the entire section, you'll see a whole different meaning. John 6:38-40 - tells us that Jesus is sent to do the Father's will which is that EVERYONE who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. John 6:44 in simply saying that no one is going to Heaven unless God Allows it. God wants everyone to be saved (this is backed up by other verses I'll supply if needed). John 6:45 "...EVERYONE who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." It doesn't say "only those I choose will come to me" John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:51 "...This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." He's saying that he will give his life for the world, not a elect group in the world.
-------------------------------------
Eph 1:4-5,11. Again, put it in context. God predestined us as a whole not a group to have the opportunity to be saved. When it talks about us being predestined for foreknew, it's talking about God's plan - that through Jesus we can be saved. When it talks about the Elect, that's simply another way to talk about the people that have accepted Jesus. Today, we use the terms Christian, born-again, believers, etc... Back to Ephesians, at the end of chapter 1, Paul tells them that they were included in Christ when they heard the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation. In other words, when they heard about Jesus, they were included in God's plan. Paul next states that "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,..." Notice the "Having believed" -- this implies that they had a choice to believe or not.
------------------------------------
A couple other question to ponder: If God chooses only some people to be saved and not others and we have no control over that then why did Adam and Eve eat the fruit? Why did God flood the world to remove all the evil people? Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? If God decides alone who will and will not go to Heaven, why did these things (and others) happen? But if God wants everyone to be saved, but through his great love allows us to make the choice, then these things are easily explained. |
| |
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) |
| |
Wife or wives? |
|
|
|
Deut 7:3
|
| |
No that's not true. You can only have one wife now. He allowed in the OT to populate the world. Now in the NT (the covenant that we are under) we can only have one husband or wife. Read the gospels where it talks about this and Epesians 5:22-25. I know some religions still believe in the wives thing but that is called adultery now. I hope that helps. |
| |
Are the unevangelized people really lost |
|
|
|
Rom 2:15
|
| |
Yes, we need to fulfill the Great Commission at all costs! Because people have sinned, and even thou they have never heard of Jesus, they still have the law written on their hearts. Once the one goes against the law written on their heart, they have sinned (and we all do).
Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (NAS) |
| |
Is there no volition? |
|
|
|
John 15:4
|
| |
"...work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" PHI 2:12 "...let us run with endurance the race that is set before us," HEB 12:1. Dear fellow, these are not intellectual exercises or academic processes. Let me explain: The original question was 'How do you abide in Christ?' (not, "what is the theory behind abiding?") My answer was that various willing actions of faith (submitting to the commands of Christ) would produce (sorry, bear) fruit. Your note indicated that faith, obedience, fellowship and sharing the gospel were fruit of the Holy Spirit, that we had no volition in the matter. Your above answer makes it clear that you believe salvation has little to do with life on earth. All our works are only a result of God's election. We indeed become merely puppets. This sounds so much like 'karma' that it is eerie. Are we simply products of the 'fate' that God decided. In the same way we credit Adam with willful sin (or was he just a tool to bring sin to mankind), give us all a little credit for abstaining from sin after we come to know Jesus (post-salvation grace and works). Apparently, 'proper understanding" of James is that he was wrong, works are not essential. I keep talking about how to serve Jesus here, now, in our present state, in the world we now occupy, and you keep answering in nebulous, prehistoric, and eschatological terminology, quoting dead people that agree with your doctrinal leanings. "To abide in Christ...is to have no known sin unjudged and unconfessed..." Does this mean that if you don't know it, it's not sin? Do you actually know anyone who has correctly judged and confessed every one of his sins? I haven't yet met such a person (except maybe in his own mind). Again, God initiated our walk in Christ by sending the gift of faith, but desires that we choose to continue that walk from our volition. He sent His Spirit to help us, and comfort us, and encourage us. Thank You, Jesus! |
| |
How best to translate Ps. 45:6? |
|
|
|
Psalm
|
| |
Clearly the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong again. I don't know if you know about their "Bible" the "New World Translation" or "NWT"? They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) change quite a few verses to suit their false teachings. Like in John 1:1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [NAS]), the NWT changes the text to read something like this; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." ..... That verse the JW's translate into their "Bible" is changed so that it reads like Jesus is not God. (sigh)
Well, it sounds like the verse you quoted sounds like another "mis-translation", and most likely is that way to support their false gospel.
I don't know if this helps any, but I see you are on the right track!
In God's Grace,
Ric
|
| |
That's an interesting belief. |
|
|
|
Luke 23:43
|
| |
I have searched several commentaries.
John wrote this letter to urge discernment in supporting Gnostic traveling teachers. (See Title and Background in Bible.) He was warning Christians not to be fooled by false teachers and allowing themselves to be sympathetic to a false cause and risk losing all that they had accomplished in their faith, thus losing their FULL REWARD.
The Gnostics claimed to have knowledge that was higher than the Gospel. John was warning that if anyone comes with anything more than the Gospel, it was truly not the Gospel and to not run ahead of the teaching of Christ which would not result in a good relationship with God.
These verses do not say anything about NOT having the Son.
|
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
The Urantia Book is believed to be a revelatory book. My opinion is that it could be the "book" that God said would be sealed up until the end as reported in the last chapter of Daniel. The Urantia book also could be one of the two witnesses noted in the book of Revelations. The Bible is the first witness and the Urantia Book is the second witness. The Uranita Books covers the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and uses many sources of information including the notes and diary maintained by the apostle Andrew. I believe the narrative of Jesus that is covered by the Urantia Book lines up with the words of Jesus as quoted in the four Gospels. This is the good news. The bad news is the Urantia Book is also a dangerous book. Because of the amount of information contained in the book, the reader's brain can be overwhelmed and short-circuited if the reader is not grounded in the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God. Except for the pages devoted to our Master, the rest of the book is information we do not need to know. I use the book at a Bible commentary because it goes into greater detail about the events that took place in the life of Jesus. If you have other questions, please ask. |
| |
Lowest Common Denominator |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Great comments! I am in no way suggesting we stop discussion of the whole in order to arrive at the kernel. In fact that is my purpose, to arrive at the kernel. I do not believe we should 'agree to disagree' and ignore faults, then slap eachother on the back and say, "brother!" The purpose of holy discussion should be to review what we say and what we hear in prayer before God, the ask for the simple truth. I am convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simpler than many portray it, or live it. L.C.D. could also be applied in this mannner. Dr. Lloyd-Jones once warned us not to preach a sermon for the sake of a few eminent colleagues, but for the 'cleaning woman in the back row.' If our words are not for the majority, we run the risk of spiritual arrogance, which often blinds the bearer. |
| |
IS PETER |
|
|
|
Matt 16:18
|
| |
Yes. In Matt 16:19, Peter was given the keys (the authority to open the doors to Christendom). He used this authority for Jews on the Day of the Pentecost and for Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10). The church began on the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2). When Christ said, "I will build...", this shows that the formation of the church was still in the future. The word church appears in the Gospels only here and in Matt 18:17. |
| |
Did Jesus cleanse the temple more than o |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN IS THE SAME ACCOUNT FOUND IN MATT 21:12-17 MARK11:15-19 AND ALSO LUKE 19;45-48 ONLY ONCE DID CHRIST CLEANSE THE TEMPLE . THESE ARE DIFFERENT GOSPEL WRITERS MEMORIES.COMPILE ALL THESE TOGETHER AND YOU WILL HAVE A CLEARER VIEW OF THE ONE ACCOUNT.LOVE IN CHRIST RC.SCROLL |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
The Urantia Book in my opinion is a two-edged sword. The information in the first three sections devoted to what takes place in our universe and how we were created is information that we do not need to know. If a reader of the book in not grounded on the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord, the reader will be led astray and follow the path of darkness and his brain circuits will follow the path of the Evil One. If the reader is grounded in the faith of Jesus Christ, the fourth section devoted to the life and teachings of our Master, Friend and King will enhance the reading of the Gospels. The scenes of the life of Jesus unfold before our eyes. I use the fourth section as a Bible commentary to enahance my study of the Scriptures. I have found that the fourth section lines up completely with the words of Jesus in the four Gospels. However you are right. Satan is a master counterfeiter. So unless you go to only the fourth section in the book, you should not go there. Unless you are not grounded in unconditional love, you should not go there. If you are grounded, go to one chapter in section four, read it, and see if it lines up with the Word of God. Have a wonderful Wednesday. |
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative.
I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account.
There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Thank you for your opinion and judgment about me. Jusus came to show us the way to the Father. Worship God becasue Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophesy (Rev. 19). Thank you for putting me down so you can build yourself up. Yes, the Scriptures are man-made. However, the words of Jesus that are printed in The Bible are accurate and true. In the beginning was The Word. And The Word was made Jesus and lived with us. The Word was not made "book". Jesus is The Word. And the words that Jesus said are true. I live my life by the words that Jesus said that are reported by the four Gospel writers. If I live my life according to the teachings of Jesus and only Jesus, I do not think I will wind up in Hell. Do you agree? |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
I'm not putting you down, bobmoy. I'm simply saying that if you believe the heretical teachings of the Urantia Book then you are lost. That's not a put-down, that's just the facts. Living by the words of Jesus is indeed the path to eternal life, but if you include in those words of Jesus the ones supposedly attributed to him by the Urantia Book then you are in error.
In one of your other messages, you said, "I use this half of the book [referring to section 4 of the Urantia Book] as a commentary that helps me with my own Bible study and teaching." In another message, you claim that the Bible is the first of the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation, the Urantia Book being the other. Both of these seem to indicate that you believe the Bible to be God-inspired. At the very least you put the Bible and the Urantia Book on par with one another as co-witnesses. But then in your most recent response to me you said, "Yes, the Scriptures are man-made." I can only take this to mean that you agree with the Urantia Book's denial of the God-inspired authenticity and accuracy of the Bible since that's what I was talking about. But then you go on to say, "However, the words of Jesus that are printed in The Bible are accurate and true." Can't you see that this is double-talk? If the Scriptures are simply man made documents, devoid of divine inspiration, then how can you cherry-pick the recorded words of Jesus out and say that they are accurate while at the same time denying the accuracy of everything else? If the Bible is simply man made then none of it can be trusted. And if the Bible is man made while the Urantia Book is God-inspired (you said as much when you claimed it was the sealed scroll mentioned in Daniel), then how can the Bible be co-equal with the Urantia Book as one of the two witnesses? How can something man made be a witness to God's word and works? Finally, if the Bible is simply man made while the Urantia Book is God-inspired then why do you use the Urantia Book as merely a commentary while studying the Bible? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
You said, "The Word was not made 'book'." This is an attempt to twist the argument by hanging the whole thing on a single definition of "word". The term "word" has several different but closely related shades of meaning, especially in Greek thought (remember that the New Testament was written in Greek). When John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," the Greek term for "word" has other meanings as well. To quote from a study note in my NIV Study Bible: "'Word.' Greeks used this term not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind -- the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational principle that governs all things. Jews, on the other hand, used it as a way of referring to God. Thus John used a term that was meaningful to both Jews and Gentiles." So the fact that the Word was made flesh and lived among us does not mean that the word in another sense could not also be recorded on paper for posterity. You are attempting to deny the God-inspired origin of the Bible by playing word games.
In one of your other responses to me, you said: "Yes, all of The Urantia Book is valid and accurate." I can only take this to mean that you don't believe in a single Trinity, you don't believe in original sin or the fall of man, and you don't believe in the redemptive death of Jesus, since all of these denials are taught by the Urantia Book, which you claim is entirely valid and accurate. You say that you believe the words of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels? Then how do you reconcile the Urantia Book's denial of the redemptive death of Jesus with Luke 24:45-47: "Then he [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations....'" (NIV). For that matter, the fact that Jesus caused them to understand the Scriptures demonstrates that He thought the Scriptures were authoritative rather than man made.
I must confess bobmoy that I don't understand you. Between your self-contradictory statements, your attempt to villify me, and your highly improbably claims (like the Urantia Book driving people insane), I strongly suspect that you are a troll. At the very least you are trying to lead others into the Urantia Book heresy. But whatever the case may be, I think it is apparent that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything so I suggest that we quit trying. |
| |
Any consequences for the bad? |
|
|
|
2 Cor 5:10
|
| |
Radio man said it better than I could have, and I concur totally. Christ forever judged sin at the cross, and the only judgement on that issue that will take place is reserved for those who reject the message of the gospel. The Judgement Seat is all about the activities that believers have taken part in since there conversion. I have littel doubt that it will be a sad, certainly embarassing time as the Lord shows us all the worthless things that we did, and it will result in the loss of reward. The knowledge of it should help to "stimulate us to love and good deeds", don't you agree? Its definatly noe a concequence issue, except for the loss od rewards. Thanks slillis20 Emmaus Bible College |
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Most people that have a problem with the doctrine treat it as if the Bible doesn't teach it at all or that it's an isolated subject. When I first studied it, I found that every time I did research, I kept finding verses all over the New Testament - from the Gospels, thoughout Acts, and scattered all throughout the Epistles. And the Calvinist were just too dogmatic about Calvin (TULIP, Institutes, etc.). Don't get me wrong. It's good to have supplemental study guides and resources from the reformers on up to assist in doctrinal studies, but not so much that you put greater emphasis on the reformers themselves and their teachings over the Scriptures and the illumination of the HOLY SPIRIT.
But, what about "agorazo" or just the entire verse? |
| |
Eternal Security and 2 Peter 2:20 ??? |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Since you brought up the topic of Eternal Security, could you please interpret how 2 Peter 2:20 suggests Eternal Security?
(2 Pet 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.)
To me, this is clearly saying that a believer can lose his salvation.
Also, I can't speak for everyone, but everyone that I know that believes that it is possible to lose your salvation also believes FIRMLY that you are saved by faith alone and NOT by any works. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you cannot lose your salvation because you are saved by faith alone. Those are two completely different thoughts. Since the above verse says that a believer can fall away and since Jesus says that no one can steal your salvation away from you, then the only way that I can see of losing your salvation would be for a believer to (for some strange reason) renounce Jesus and turn back to the ways of the world. And since a believer can fall away then that kind of blows the election doctrine as you believe it.
As far as the 250 times you quote that "elect" type words appear, Are you kidding? Did you actually look them up. (it's really easy to do using this site - try it) I personally think you just read a post from another user and took for granted that it must be gospel - probably the same way you came to believe in the Doctrine of Election. Of those 250 times, you will actually only find a few that can be used to support the doctrine (until you read it in context). As far as "Free Will" goes, this is a term used to describe all the examples throughout the bible just as Trinity is a word you won't find in the bible but is a word we use to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being separate and the same.
Yes, God has his Elect. They are called believers and ANYONE and EVERYONE can become one if they choose to accept Christ.
How about Romans 10:9-11? That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
Please re-read that last sentence a few times. How can you honestly, (logically and spiritually) not believe that ANYONE and EVERYONE has been given the opportunity to be saved? |
| |
In Jesus' name...except baptism? |
|
|
|
Col 3:17
|
| |
Let me add another thought. In Mat 28 the focus is the entire world, a group of people that needed to be taught that there is one God, and He exists in three persons. In Acts 2 Peter is speaking to those who worshipped the one true God. If someone who was already convinced that God is one, is ready to or just has received His Son as savior, they have already come to the understanding that God is a Trinity. Therefore Peter only needs to say "in the name of Jesus". Whereas Matthew was echoing a greater statement than just baptize them, he was saying disciple them in the fullness of the truth of who God is. That encompasses the Father, Son and Holy Spririt. I also don't see how with the limited revelation that we have that we can presume any formula to be exclusive. Baptism is a picture, a testimony of what already happened, so the words that accompany it are a testimony as well. As you can tell from the Gospels the truth can be told from different views and still be the truth. God warns us about "controversial questions and disputes about words" in 1 Tim 6. Here He is talking about depraved minds which I am convinced none of you have, but we should watch so that our desire to understand doesn't end up paralleling those with depraved minds, always searching but never coming to know the truth, because we think we need a level of revelation that isn't available. I still say that if one baptizes in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit it is one and the same. |
| |
WILL A BABY IN THE WOMB GO IN THE RAPTUR |
|
|
|
2 Thessalonians
|
| |
The rapture teaching started about 118 years ago by a man who wrote a fiction book, his intention was to keep people prepared at all times, but his good intention be came a cereus deception when the churches began to except that teaching as gospel |
| |
When are we saved? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
When are we saved? This seems to be the axis of the merry-go-round. I guess from God's point of view that we are saved from the eternal past to the eternal (glorious) future. Here, where I am now, I tend to think of my salvation experience starting (initially) when the gospel was presented to my heart for appraisal. Then there is the point at which I confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord of my life and Lord of all. (Here, there are many 'formulae' some of which are just plain legalistic and based on the traditions of man, and some that smack of 'cheap grace,' i.e. "After you repeat after me this little prayer, you are saved, born again, filled-with-the-Spirit, forever sinless, and going-to-heaven-no matter-what." I find these both a bit extreme. (Especially when someone is counting the 'decisions-for-Christ' for boasting in their pulpits and newsletters) Then there is the 'battle,' the 'race,' the 'walk.' I like to call this the Christian life. I consider this the present-day pilgrimage, the "...work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" of Philippians 2:12. I consider this to be a valid portion of our salvation experience. I understand that to someone who considers salvation to be an absolute in God's eyes, this smacks of 'works,' but the Bible does seem to say that we participate, though certainly all glory goes to God in Christ Jesus. In this life, I think you are right, a saved person can 'attempt' to renounce their salvation, and theoretically, could 'achieve' it by blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Indeed, many 'backsliders' or 'fallen' would appear to have accomplished the feat, at least on the surface. The reality is beyond what we can know for certain. Personally, I prefer to deal with real, normal people in the here-and-now. To tell them that they are (maybe) elected, but you have to wait until you die to find out for sure, is destabilizing for many people. It gives them no hope to overcome the sin that dogs them. They can say, "I guess I'm not saved after all," and give up serving the Lord. It also makes those who consider themselves to be 'relatively' sinless to get arrogant. On the other hand, the 'popular' Christianity of the day proclaims salvation to those who have shown absolutely no "fruit of repentance." They say, "I'm a baby on Daddy's knee," and never even attempt to grow in Christ. They continually sin from every 'orifice' of their being, at the same time being told by 'feel-good ministers' that they are perfect in every way. I tend to be wary of people who make 'decisions for Christ' almost every weekend. After all that 'preaching,' I will answer your question. It appears that 2 Peter 2:20 and the context are speaking of those who have believed in Jesus, but returned to their old ways, becoming even worse than before knowing Jesus. Though I agree that it speaks of 'renouncing' their salvation, only God knows if they truly 'lost' it. "But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down), or' Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." Romans 10:6,7 NASB Instead, I simply try to pursue Christ, speak Christ, and portray Christ. I pray this helps any who read. In Jesus' name.
|
| |
Another Angel Flying In Midheaven |
|
|
|
Rev 14:6
|
| |
Is this the same Gospel we are preaching today and does it "complete" the "Great Commission"? Does it connect to Matthew 24:14? |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
