|
| |
Exasperate - examples? |
|
|
|
Col 3:21
|
| |
Clearly we cannot, as parents, not set limits or rules. I believe the context here is that we shouldn't set rules that we, as our children's role models, don't follow. We should not have the "Do as I say, not as I do" rule in affect. This causes our children to be confused as to what to do. The best way to raise a child (in the ways of the Lord) is to be the example for them. I also believe 'exasperate' means we should not set unattainable limits or rules for our children, then punish them when they CAN'T follow them. Additionally, I think that parents should always explain to their children what they've done wrong and remind them of the consequences. It is unfair, and exasperating, for a child to be punished without any idea that an action was wrong, or not even knowing what they did wrong. Being a parent is difficult. As a parent, especially a father, you set the ground rules of how your child perceives and understands God. What a frightenening and awesome, and exciting, responsibility! As far as an example of some of this: We have some friends who have set limits on their teen that cannot possibly be followed. He has to sit still, not flip through TV channels, and is basically treated the same as the younger kids. I've seen him explode more than once with, "What am I doing wrong? It's not fair!" and similar statements. When we 'box' our children in too tight, they will explode and we may lose them. Be kind, gentle, but firm. Let them know their limitations and boundaries. Never punish in anger and always explain what they did wrong, remind them of the rules and consequences, and love them with your whole heart. Make sure you tell them that often! 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. |
| |
Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:38
|
| |
Does it not seem that the "fuller" formula does not call upon the name of Jesus? Col 3:17 says '...do all in the name of the Lord Jesus...' Fuller seems neuter, and TV agrees. Father-Son-Holy Spirit is not metioned after Christ's resurrection, But Jesus' name invoked often. Though brief, Jesus' name seems powerful, and apparently satisfies Jesus' command in Matthew. |
| |
Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:38
|
| |
Dear JVH0212 (again), Though I agree that Jesus Himself commanded that we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this command was pre-church. The church was created when the Holy Spirit was poured upon the gathered believers in Acts 2. Thereafter, I find no reference to any act being done in any other name than that of the Lord Jesus, the Christ. I find no action 'in the name of God,' or 'in the name of the Holy Spirit.' (Rom 2:24 is OT quote) Rather, I find that the name of Jesus (or Christ Jesus, or the Lord, etc.) is used extensively. I can't think of this as a 'formula.' Was Luke being brief or flippant? Were the apostles being disobedient to Jesus' command? I find it interesting to note that on TV we often hear 'in the name of God' or in a wedding scene 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' but never hear 'in the name of Jesus.' Is this because Jesus is a 'rock of offense' as the Bible (OT and NT) so clearly states? I well understand that abusing the name of Jesus by heartless and mindless utterance or meaningless repetition is not holy. However, the simplicity of His name should not be underestimated, nor should we become too 'religious' in our interpretation of scripture. I am not 'Jesus only' and I believe strongly in the Trinity, or triune nature of God. But that cannot negate the authority and the power of the name of Jesus, in fact it bolsters and confirms it. |
| |
Do those in heaven know what's happening |
|
|
|
Heb 12:1
|
| |
I don't think that this was meant to be interpreted that way and since there are no other passages that mention that we are watched from Heaven (at least none that I am aware of), I would tend to interpret it more as way to mention all the great and faithfull people mentioned in the previous chapter.
Although I don't think this verse talks about it, I am posting a question about a similar topic in reference to a tv show called "Crossing Over". |
| |
Entertaining? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
By entertaining I mean "providing entertainment." This is what Van Impe does -- he provides entertainment. His TV show is about selling and sensationalism. |
| |
The sensational or the reliable? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
You lucky Americans, you get ALL the good TV! |
| |
The sensational or the reliable? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
I knew this reply was written by you, even before I scrolled down to look at the tree. Good one, Charis! But you need not be envious. If you want my TV set, you can have it. I'm finished with it. (smile) |
| |
Spiritual beings procreate? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Dear inhzsvc, Let me first state that I really liked your answer. Well thought out and presented, but not 'case closed.' As I stated in my above and below postings, I have not set this 'speculation' into my theology or doctrine. I merely state that this would answer a few pertinent questions which have not been fully answered for millennia. To call it heresy would mean that I attach it as a bulwark to my faith, which I do not. Nor do I continue to dwell on it as an 'answer to mystery.' Indeed Genesis 3:20 uses the same word for living as Genesis 2:7, so it isn't conclusive, though a very good point.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that spiritual beings being capable of procreation with humans is exactly where the extremist Charismatics, exorcists, and 'healing ministries' base their premises. Fortunately, I live in Japan, and we don't get all the wonderful 'Christian TV' that you fellows enjoy :-) I have never heard of 'raping demons' until today, but I know where it came from. I still do not see conclusive evidence that spiritual created beings are capable of relations with humans, nor do I see any evidence that they had at one time, but now cannot.
As to the 'proprietary' nature of Adam and Eve, I have never stated that I do NOT believe them to be the first human beings, I simply state that this has been an area of confusion to many for a long time. Dogma never saved anyone, but the love of Christ Jesus does every day.
Blessings in His name, charis |
| |
Why not recommend SBForum to others? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I thank you for your reply. And I do understand your point. If only we were all Bible scholars who used logic and knew how to research the questions so as to give Scriptural answers, instead of just blurting out whatever comes to mind when we read a question.
. . . In your reply you say: "if a subject is such that a mutually agreeable conclusion can not be reached then there should be a summation of the various points. There is a real danger of people being lead astray by opinion, conjecture and mis-information. God did not give us his word to speculate over he gave it us to live by."
. . . But, the same could be said of certain pastors, teachers, preachers, televangelists, etc. There is a REAL danger of people being led into error when they are exposed to every wind of doctrine blown across the airwaves by various and sundry TV preachers. Many of them teach sound Bible doctrine. But not all. Many of them teach serious error. And many of the teachers of error have a regular TV empire built upon the vulnerability and enthusiasm of their sometimes large number of followers and fans.
. . . I agree -- there is a real danger of people being fed mis-information and being led astray. However, in a democracry any forum in which there is a free exchange of ideas is vulnerable to a wide range of answers: the good, the bad, the ugly, the sublime, and the absurd.
. . . I don't disagree with your concerns for what might and does happen at this website. Yet, is this website not a mirror of the [Christian] culture in which we live? That is, would you not run the risk of mis-information being presented, whether the format was an online forum, a radio call-in show, a home Bible class, or an impromptu discussion among friends? Basically, I don't think it's the format for discussion that is at fault. Regardless of where and how discussion takes place, wouldn't all the speculation, all the various ideas, opinions and conjectures, stem from imperfect human nature and not from any particular format or structure or lack of same?
. . .Someone or some committee charged with the job of moderating what is posted here might not be a bad idea. But then you'll get complaints that the moderators are biased or that they don't know what they're talking about. You can hear this on Christian call-in radio programs every day.
. . . I say again, I do know what you're talking about. At times some of the answers are so outrageous and uninformed, that frustration ensues. If one is so turned off by some of the foolishness he reads at this website, then let him delete the link from his Favorites folder. But if anyone truly enjoys participating in the site, with all the user shortcomings, then let him spread the word.
. . . Again thank you for your reply. I suspect that you have expressed concerns that many of us have regarding the use and misuse of this forum.
|
| |
Stars do cease to exist...Isa 40:26? |
|
|
|
Is 40:26
|
| |
Do stars really cease to exist? How do you know? I really don't know if they cease to exist or not. Anyway, even if they do, this verse does not say either way. It simple says "not one of them is missing" (faileth-KJV lacking-LITV). In another words, there under the control of God and not one gets lost and are all in the arrangement as God desires. |
| |
where do blacks come from? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I would like to be clear that in NO way do I think one color of people is better than another, that's why I ended my previous post with Galatians 3. What I do feel is of importance when witnessing, is that my Black brothers and sisters need to know that they are not an afterthought in the mind of God! Satan has used racism, especially in America, to portray Christianity as a white man's religion. I've had many people tell me that. So many of our brothers and sisters have been tricked into other religions, especially the Nation of Islam, with this lie. Also, we see pictures based on scenes in the Bible, that are based on the drawings of Michealangelo. Which, there is nothing wrong, because that is one man's rendering and I wouldn't expect anything else. If I was a artist I might be tempted to draw everybody Black, because that's what I am. Therefore, I can see why Michealangelo drew everybody as Italians. Yet, our young brothers and sisters, especially in the inner city, see these faces and don't see themselves as part of God's plan. They see movies and tv shows based horribly on the Bible and see no actors of color, and if there are they are the Egyptian slaves. So they flock to false teachers, with black militant or feel good positive thinking messages. Yes race is not important, that's why God didn't discuss it. It's not essential to salvation. In fact the classification of seperating people, by color(race) is less than a 1000 yrs old. But to ignore, trivialize, or spiritualize the answer, when dealing with an unbeliever is a missed opportunity. |
| |
Women starting churches....???? |
|
|
|
1 Tim 2:12
|
| |
What of cases where women have gone out and started their own church...(for whatever reason)are they not overstepping the boundaries....eg: Gwen Shamblin (Weigh Down Workshop Fame) who has recently started her own church to teach/preach her messages???? According to a recent TV documentary here in Oz she has started her own brand of church! |
| |
angels have no forgiveness when they sin |
|
|
|
1 Pet 3:18
|
| |
Sundrop: regarding Blaze's answer.
Someone's been watching too much TV. There's no biblical evidence for God turning angles into men. And that last bit of alphabetical mumbo-jumbo is game playing with the Scriptures. But the biblical evidence given for the salvation of our first parents was good.
And, by the way, I Pet. 3:18 is one of my favorite verses:)
Lionstrong. |
| |
Do the italicized words clarify? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Thanks Koinekid, for you input. Jesus be with you, and give you some relief with that tooth. Amen
I realize the few verses I mentioned are not required to prove the deity of Jesus. However, if the added italicized words are taking anything away from the words Jesus actually said, this is not a small thing.
Compare John 8:24 as you mentioned, with verse 58 in the same chapter. Both verses say "I AM" ("ego eimi" right??). If "the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought", what happened to the noun to complete the thought in verse 58? If there actually does NOT have to be a noun added, which seems to be the case here, then verse 24 seems to be an interpretation decision, rather than a clarity decision.
You seem to up on your Greek. I am not. The only Greek I know is "Greek salad" and "baklava", so don't think I know enough Greek to ask an intelligent question about it. If I knew Greek, I could probably appreciate a Greek to English bible translator more, so I realize there could be something I am missing here.
I use the NKJV instead of the NASB (sorry, not a critical text fan). The NKJV (and KJV) also add an italicized “he” in the places I mentioned, so I am not trying to pick on any particular translation. The LITV and the MKJV are the only translations I know of that do not add “he”, so I suppose a Greek to English translation without adding “he” is possible, if not even correct.
I can not help but think that these words were added to what Jesus said as a carry over from years past, not something to add clarity, as was the real intent of italicized words. Let me put it this way. If the KJV had translated these scriptures I AM, instead of I am (he), would the later translations have intentionally ADDED words to produce a WEAKER reading? I don’t think so.
Jesus is Lord! |
| |
Baptism, Trinity, and Teachers? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:38
|
| |
Hello anybody following Baptism, Trinity and Teachers, Jim, let me pick on your choice of words just in order to make a point. You spoke of the way to "get the job done". This reminded me of the fact that baptism isn't a work that I have to have accomplished. It isn't a work that a preacher can do even "in Jesus' name". I've considered immersion because of a TV preacher, Charles Stanley, and because my wife found it meaningful years ago, and I know the symbolism of it all is great, and it is a good tradition and opportunity of profession of faith on a person's part. Jim, when I was looking at your Ephesians reference I read chapter 2:1, "And your were dead in your trespasses and sins...v.4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),...not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." So even without the washing away of our sins symbolically by baptism we are saved by God's love. This may still be a "good work" that I could do, but I haven't decided if it's something I should do. It is something that I would have done. See Ephesians 2:10
Ephesians 4:4 says,"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." So if I have a choice of baptisms, I would choose the one Spirit's, if you please. Later, Ray P.S. Please consider answering a question I will be posting. Sorry, it will be about capitalization of a verse. |
| |
Who are the scribes? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
charis, isn't it interesting to follow the metamorphosis of the Biblical scribes from being only secretaries -- we might even venture to call them stenographers -- to being the co-conspirators with olther Jewis groups to do away with Jesus? They relied on tradition for their authority and, of course, Jesus had no "credentials" as an official teacher in their system. Being, as they were, the credited expounders of the, by this time complex, Hebrew system, they sought to discredit and expunge by every possible means those radicals who, like Jesus, would dare challenge their tradition and their authority. What a change from the simple scribe of times past!.....The early church of Apostolic times was shepherded by simple men, commoners for the most part, whose qualifications and credentials were measured not by degrees from academia but by degrees of moral uprightness and by their zeal for Christ and His church. They held their assemblies wherever they could, frequently in one another's homes. They had no creed but Christ, no name but Christians, no complex hierachy, no catechisms to memorize, no ivy-covered seminaries, no massive stained-glass cathedrals, no TV "evangelists" selling books and video tapes, no sacred-cow church traditions -- in short, their lives were simple and their mission clear, to follow Jesus and exhort others to follow Him....The scribe -- the story of the evolution of a simple secretary to a bitter enemy of the lowly Jesus and His teachings. The Apostolic church -- the story of the evolution of a simple, united people to the structured, complex, and highly divided conglomeration it is today. Indiviual factions of the segmented church today all appear to be convinced they are right. The irony and the paradox is that the scribes in Jesus' day were sure they were right too. But they denied the power and authority of the Lord Jesus and sought to superimpose their will and their teachings upon His. Who then are the scribes today? Who indeed? --Hank |
| |
How did evil arise? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
You want to know the truth and need to know, but banging you with doctrine won't help? Pray tell, what will help? If the answer to your question is not to be found in Bible doctrine, then where is it to be found?
What would you like folks to be banging you with? Reader's Digest, Popular Mechanics, Southern Living, TV Guide, philosophy, New Age crystals, opinions off the top of people's heads with no supporting Scriptural reference?
If you truly do not want Bible doctrine and a clear explanation from Scriptue, I can recommend about a dozen posters on this Forum who will be glad to oblige you. |
| |
Should Benny throw the Holy Spirit? |
|
|
|
1 John 4:1
|
| |
Benny Hinn in His Own Words.
- Quotes -
I am a 'little messiah' walking the earth
Benny Hinn, "Praise-a-Thon" on , November 6, 1990
Adam was a super being when God created him. I don't know whether people know this, but he was the first Superman that really ever lived. First of all, the Scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea - which means he used to fly. Of course, how can he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do? The word "dominion" in the Hebrew clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject, that you do everything that subject does. In other words, that subject, if it does someting you
cannot do, you don't have dominion over it. I'll prove it further. Adam not only flew, he flew to space. He was-with one thought he would be on the moon.
Benny Hinn, Praise the Lord program on , December 26, 1991
Man, I feel revelation knowledge already coming on me here. Life your hands. Something new is going to happen here today. I felt it just as I walked down here. Holy Spirit, take over in the name of Jesus... God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person; and He is a triune being by Himself separate from the Son and the Holy
Ghost. Say, what did you say? Hear it, hear it, hear it. See, God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person. But each one of them is a triune being by Himself. If I can shock you - and maybe I should - there's nine of them. Huh, what did you say? Let me explain: God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with his own personal spirit, with his own personal soul, and his own personal spirit-body.
You say, Huh, I never heard that. Well you think you're in this church to hear things you've heard for the last 50 years?
Benny Hinn, Benny Hinn program on October 3, 1991
God came from heaven, became a man, made man into little gods, went back to heaven as a man. He faces the Father as a man. I face devils as the son of God... Quit your nonsense! What else are you? If you say, I am, you're saying I'm a part of Him, right? Is he God? Are you His offspring? Are you His children? You can't be human! You can't! You can't! God didn't give birth to flesh. You said, "Well, that's heresy." No, that's your crazy brain saying that.
Benny Hinn, Our Position in Christ #2-The Word Made Flesh (Orlando: Orlando Christian Center, 1991),
videotape #255.
And let me add this: Had the Holy Spirit not been with Jesus, He would have sinned. That,s right, it was the Holy Spirit that was the power that kept Him pure. He was not only sent from heaven, but He was called the Son of Man - and as such He was capable of sinning... Without the Holy Ghost, Jesus would have never have made it...Can you imagine Christ headed for the grave, knowing He would remain there forever, if the Holy Ghost would change His mind about raising Him from the dead?
Benny Hinn, Good Morning, Holy Spirit (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 135-36.
Ladies and gentlemen, the serpent is a symbol of Satan. Jesus Christ knew the only way He would stop Satan is by becoming one in nature with him. You say, "What did you say? What blasphemy is this?" No, you hear this! He did not take my sin; He became my sin. Sin is the nature of hell. Sin is what made Satan... It was sin that made Satan. Jesus said, "I'll be sin! I'll go to the lowest place! I'll go to the origin of it! I won't just take part in it, I'll be the totality of it!" When Jesus became sin, sir, He took it from A to Z and said, "No more!" Think about this: He became flesh, that flesh might become like Him. He became death, so dying man can live. He became sin, so sinners can be righteous in Him. He became one with the nature of Satan, so all those who had the nature of Satan can partake of the nature of God.
Benny Hinn, Benny Hinn program on (December 15, 1990).
My, you know, whoosh! The Holy Ghost is just showing me some stuff. I'm getting dizzy! I'm telling you the truth - it's, it's just heavy right now on me... He's [referring to Jesus] in the underworld now. God isn't there, the Holy Ghost isn't there, and the Bible says He was begotten. Do you know what the word begotten means? It means reborn. Do you want another shocker? Have you been begotten? So was He. Don't let anyone deceive you. Jesus was reborn. You say, 'What are you talking about?'... He was reborn. He had to be reborn... If He was not reborn, I could not be reborn, I would never be reborn. How can I face Jesus and say, "Jesus, You went through everything I've gone through, except the new birth?
Benny Hinn, Our Position 'In Christ,' Part 1 (Orlando, FL: Orlando Christian Center, 1991), videotape #TV-254.
(Apologetics Index
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h01.html) |
| |
Should Benny throw the Holy Spirit? |
|
|
|
1 John 4:1
|
| |
I'm not of Benny Hinn's tradition although I read one of his first books and watch him very rarely on TV. I think that he most often gives glory to God after he does an activity, whatever it may be. I think it is more meaningful for the unbeliever.
As far as his quotes, I find little to find fault with at first glance and since he is such a visible preacher it is common to talk about him, (maybe someone can tell him if he needs to contribute or defend). My preacher dad taught me long ago when I came under fire for a minor incident in my childhood that I can't please everyone and that the only One I had to please was God.
It's hard to come up with a good sermon every Sunday and its hard for a media person not to be tempted to tickle the ears a little bit.
At least the little messiah was printed in the lower case, JVH. The Superman example was a tickling I think that would be hard to back up biblically.
The next quote about the Trinity is what I was studying five years before him and still believe as one could see by my posts. I would disagree with him if he makes the Son in His triuneness into a man.
Thus, I disagree with Benny in that he says that God became a man.
The other thing that we should remember as we're reading these quotes is that Benny Hinn may have changed some thoughts, and maybe would not agree with his quotes today. I think he does the best he can, and you can't deny his ministry.
My wife says I am "wasting a beautiful day" and maybe I have been. I'll leave the rest of the quotes for someone to "test" if need be.
|
| |
Should Benny throw the Holy Spirit? |
|
|
|
1 John 4:1
|
| |
Benny Hinn is controversial for his theology, his practices, and his claims.
Christianity Today on Benny Hinn
Benny Hinn is controversial for his theology, his practices, and his claims. While he at one point denounced the word-faith message, he later picked it up again.
Representatives of CRI and other evangelical apologetics ministries say they have noticed a pattern of Hinn telling people behind the scenes that he has changed, but then going on as before.
(...)
Indeed, for those who have been keeping an eye on him, Hinn has proven to be difficult to pin down. Not long after telling Christianity Today that the ''faith message'' (as articulated by such teachers as Kenneth Copeland ) does not ''add up,'' Hinn said that speaking out against Copeland was tantamount to ''attacking the very presence of God.'' Also, though affirming the concept of a triune God , he continues to maintain that the Holy Spirit has a ''spirit-body.''
In last year's interview with CT, Hinn said he would no longer use the term revelation knowledge in reference to some of his teachings because of the implication that those teachings were directly from God and thus infallible. While he has shunned the term revelation knowledge, just a few months ago on TV Hinn said that the Holy Spirit was at that moment teaching him that God originally designed women to give birth out of their sides.
(...)
According to Hanegraaff , Hinn several times denied to him having made the statement about women and birth. Hanegraaff said he finally told Hinn where he could find the disputed remark on the videotaped sermon. Hinn later acknowledged making the statement, calling it ''dumb.'' Hanegraaff said that when he reminded Hinn that he had credited the Holy Spirit with the teaching, the evangelist chuckled and said he had actually picked up the teaching from the (1963) Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.
(...)
Critics have also questioned Hinn's account of his testimony. Hinn says he was miraculously cured of stuttering, but PFO claims it has talked to several people from Hinn's youth who do not recall him stuttering. And in an article in PFO's next newsletter, Fisher challenges Hinn's claim that his father was the mayor of Jaffa, Israel. Hinn acknowledges that his father did not have the title of mayor, but says he performed the functions of mayor. Fisher says Hinn's father, who is now deceased, was ''a clerk in an Arab labor office.''
Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1992
(http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h01.html) |
| |
Holy Spirit's power of Conviction |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
20 Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this?
21 Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor?
Please give me the answers to these questions, can the thing formed speak back to the one forming it? NO! Is Paul accusing the Jewish readers of questioning GOD? YES! Therefore, if the clay cannot question the potter, but the Jew can question GOD, I would say that the Jew (or anyone else) can resist GOD's will! You say, but the rest of verse 21 clearly shows that His will is to honor some and dishonor others! I disagree, I believe Paul is suggesting to the reader (Jews) to submit themselves to the authority of GOD (Salvation through Jesus Christ), because He does have the right over them! Why do I believe this? Why does v. 21 start with ‘Or'? When we use the word ‘or' we are offering an alternative to the previous statement. So, I believe he is saying, since GOD does have the right to honor (salvation) or dishonor (judgment) put yourself under His will and accept Jesus Christ! Does GOD will that all Christians, who are given opportunity, mature? YES! Do they all mature? NO! Did GOD want Job to question Him for Job's suffering? NO! Did Job question GOD? YES! Forgive me these are weak examples, but there are many such examples, and even circumstantial evidence can convict when is it is abundant enough.
22 But if God, desiring to show forth wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction,
23 and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory,
Why doesn't Paul use the same Greek word for ‘fitted out' verses v. 23 ‘prepared'? The word prepared has a definition, "to prepare before, to make ready beforehand"(Online Bible Greek Lexicon), whereas, ‘fitted out' has the definition,
1) to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete 1a) to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair
1a1) to complete
1b) to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust 1b1) to fit or frame for one's self, prepare
1c) ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be
Also notice that the word ‘prepare' is done by GOD, whereas there is no such suggestion for ‘fitted out', why do you suppose that is? As to self-preparation, I assume you have more training that the writer of the above mention Lexicon, Online Bible Greek Lexicon. Also, I assume you have more expertise that the note writers in the Nelson Study Bible, "The grammatical structure of the first ‘prepared' (in our discussion, ‘fitted out'), referring to the vessels of wrath, is different from the second ‘prepared', referring to the vessels of mercy. The first literally means "prepared themselves," while the second is "which He prepared."
24 whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations.(LITV)
Who is us? Vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, who submit themselves to the will of the potter! Whom He also called? Though this is not my view, one could make the argument that He called those who did not prepare themselves for destruction, or those who continue to ‘answer back to GOD!'
GOD bless!! |
| |
giving your tithe |
|
|
|
1 Cor 9:16
|
| |
I will not dispute any comments made here but I want to make a comment. Where ever you give the money make sure it is going for the purpose you intended. Many many ministries have huge overheads, and while you think your giving to some needy cause you are really giving to fat fund raisers and bureaucrats running the program. Many TV solicitors fall into this group. That is why I believe giving to the church and let them funnel the money directly to the need is often the preferred. |
| |
gender ,yes |
|
|
|
Gal 3:28
|
| |
Part 2 (continued from Part 1)
RCSCROLL says:
this chapter does by inferance refer to the fact that we all can now enter into the holy of holies by our selves with no need of a priest,
JVH0212 says:
With all respect, I do not agree with you that what you say is what this chapter is talking about, since the chapter in Galations makes no mention whatsoever of the priesthood or the holy of holies. (In a previous posting, I have already given my reasons for not being able to agree.) I
If we start arbitrarily deciding that such and such a passage by inference refers to a particular fact or subject without making mention of that subject, then we begin to depart from what the Bible SAYS in that passage. Using that approach in every case would open up the Bible to all sorts of private interpretation. If the words do not mean what they SAY but instead refer to an entirely different, unmentioned subject, then we can never be sure of the meaning of any scripture.)
RCSCROLL says:
lets remember that the bible is of no private interpretation, and please never grasp anyones commentary as absolute truth , their not the word of God,try not using one for awhile and see if what you came up with lines up to them.
JVH0212 says:
Amen, the Bible is of no private interpretation, which, by the way, does not refer to interpreting the meaning, but in the context refers to the inspiration of the Bible.
Again I did not use anyone's commentary in my previous posting. Except for quoting you and the Bible, the writing was entirely my own.
I never have "grasped" at any commentary as absolute truth. I have said over and over and over again on this Forum that no man, no commentary, no study Bible notes, no TV preacher, no author, no human institution is infallible. Only the Bible is infallible and only IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. I am a Berean in the sense that I check out everything for myself. The Bereans "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
RCSCROLL says:
May our Lord Jesus richly bless you in your understanding . P.S. anytime you talk about the law the priesthood is allways incorporated and so implied that women slaves or greek are not.
JVH0212 says:
And may He richly bless you as well.
I'm not sure what the following phrase means: "and so implied that women slaves or greek are not." Who? And they are not WHAT?
RCSCROLL says:
Go all the way back to vs 19.About faith vs 23 faith allways has been only now we see it completely in Christ as in times past it was hid.Heb 11:27-31 love in Christ RCSCROLL
JVH0212 says:
Sorry, but I don't really don't know what you mean by the above or how it pertains to the subject at hand.
Again, no offense to you personally, but I don't intend to debate this endlessly. I wouldn't have anything new to add to what I've already said.
Sincerely,
JVH0212 |
| |
Performance or Preaching? |
|
|
|
Acts 5:34
|
| |
Hank, how nice to have you back! Without a doubt many times it is entertainment. Too many people think attending church gives them entrance to heaven. Therefore they feel that since they must attend they might as well find the most entertaining to attend.
There is one church that the Pastor raises from below the platform in a cloud of smoke and flashing lights. He then preaches his sermon and at the end he ascends up and out of sight again surrounded by smoke and flashing lights.
Watch any Christian TV network for a day or two and you will probably see much more.
However the thing that has me concerned is the heresy that is being taught. There is more junk in many of our churches than there is in the neighborhoods that surround them.
I have seen just about every form of heresy taught/preached from pulpits and the people walk out raving about the what a mighty man of God the preacher is.
When will the people learn that just because the man says Jesus a few times doesn’t make him a disciple or even a believer. I have seen men give all kinds of credit to Jesus however their Jesus is not the son of God but rather an deity of their own invention. No wonder Jesus responded the way He did.
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart From Me, you who practice lawlessness.' Matthew 7:22-23
Are others seeing this same lack of discernment?
|
| |
Is it just charisma? |
|
|
|
Acts 5:34
|
| |
I don't go much for charisma or Hollywood. I love for a man to teach and preach the Word and let the people decide. I should be able to question if i desired and i know that is not common but anymore i will check out each teacher i listen too. I don't listen to too many and never watch any on tv. I'm mostly from the old school where you could trust what a person would tell you. These days i check it out myself. Watch, Listen and Stay alert in these Last Days. Jesus will be back after His Church. Thanks for input. Jim |
| |
Do you do something that are not "good"? |
|
|
|
Ex 20:8
|
| |
True ... but, does that mean we watch TV, go out to eat, a game, do chores on the Sabbath or the day we choose to keep holy? |
| |
Mark why do you say that? |
|
|
|
John 10:27
|
| |
Dear EdB,
You pick a sore with me on this. If you look at my bio you will notice that I've walked with many fringe groups (more than listed). I've never felt like a part of such groups, but my attraction is their many outlandish yet totally committed members. I like people who sweat and bleed what they believe. My only complaint has been; I wish they would think as hard as they believe. But so often I saw people who acted on slightly wrong belief being cared for by God. It's long been a warning to me not to think that God's loving care is based on my sound intellectual knowledge of the Bible, theology, history, or the power of careful thought (all things which lead to boasting).
I must clarify that all of these groups were believers in the infallible Scriptures, the Lordship and divinity of Christ, the Lordship of the Holy Spirit and prayed to the Father God. They all believed that it was their mission in life to make the Gospel known to all men. I add this to make it clear that these are in my opinion necessary for a genuine faith--the kind God acknowledges with His presence. So I am not talking about J.W., Mormons or the various expression unitarians....
Now imagine me when I know these people personally and hear a trusted defender of the faith vilify them without mercy. Imagine my feelings when I find out a personality widely trusted/widely published contacts us and says if we don't change our teaching, he'll tell everyone we're a cult. Imagine again that we know that his personal life is in a mess: making a living as a fruit inspector all the while his orchard is worm infested. Should we fire back? In this case we did not, for the supposed evil teaching was not that big a deal to us. Anyway, where could we find a platform big as his?
I've often taken the same criteria of judgment the defenders of orthodoxy use and applied them to historic denominations and seen that it's possible to make them look like cults.
This gets to a more basic problem. Throughout the history of our faith, there have been defenders of orthodoxy who whipped up powers that be to punish those whom they judged enemies of the faith. Not infrequently we call such a person Saint, Reformer... or some title of dignity, but history has proven that the ones persecuted were holding opinions we consider acceptable today. Now if it just stayed in the boundaries of words, maybe I wouldn't care, but many cases ended up killing people (even their children) for what we today relegate to a difference of biblical interpretation.
When I hear attacks on groups (even Mormons, J.W.,...) by these on the radio, I wonder why we continue to defend the faith in this way.
My objection is simple: We do not need such men to protect us, for The Holy Spirit and The Holy Bible together are our guide. Any person who caught up in a deception is there because they've 1st silenced the Voice of God, thus 2nd blinded themselves to the Word of God. The maintenance of orthodoxy is between the believer and God: that's why the Scriptures say, you need that no man teach you (and don't take that as a denial of the role of teachers in the church).
Now should we talk about right doctrine? Yes, but in the free market place of ideas. We must attempt to extract personalities from discussions and center on the core issues. Admittedly, we often can't tell the difference between core and fringe, but fair/courteous discussion can't hurt. And most of all, never draw the sword over differences of practice--tongues, raising hands in church, infant baptism, church government, laughing, dancing, litergy, KJV-vs-NASB-vs-NIV...get the idea.
And just incase you think I go along with some bizarre interpretation of scripture which the faith teachers teach; I do not. There is one in particular who came to my Bible School in the 70's which a voice inside said "be very careful." Now you can read that man's extremely weird beliefs when reading about the errors of the faith leaders. But I always have to say, be sure you really understand what a man means before you judge his words. Many fringe leaders do not have knowledg of the history of doctrine, and don't realize what their words mean to those how have the benefits (and weaknesses) of such study. Think and ask before judging. Give time a chance to expose hearts, and remember ours is a vital faith, not a stone monument.
Finally: I ask people to turn off their TVs and radios, reducing their diet of opinion, which passes for learning. If you want to know more of God, seek Him in a quiet place, in unaided Scripture study and with your dear friends. After all, the world you effect is where you live, not hundreds of miles away were TV/radio originate. If you're like me, I can't tell if I listen or watch because I want to know more, or want to take in opinions to strenghen my own to fuel self-complacency and arrogance
There you see the puss under this scab
Imperfectly His,
mrk |
| |
Mark why do you say that? |
|
|
|
John 10:27
|
| |
Mark: You are no fan of CRI? Somehow I doubt that CRI is a fan of Mark Sutton.
So you're another one of those unteachable spirits who don't need any man to teach you? Does this attitude not strike you as arrogant, as well as foolish? You've walked with many fringe groups, some of which hold beliefs or practices that are controversial? It's OK to listen to fringe groups, but not OK to listen to widely known, widely respected teachers? I can only imagine what your belief system consists of. What could it be but chaos and confusion? I haven't heard you say anything on this Forum that represents sound Bible doctrine.
Those in the first century who rejected or disobeyed the truth were not rejecting the very words of the New Testament, since it was as yet not completed. What they rejected were the teaching of men (oh, I thought we didn't need men to teach us). They rejected men who were apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers, etc.
So much for the theory that all teachings of men should be rejected. Instead of rejecting such teachings, it would be far more appropriate to test those teachings against the written Word to see if they line up.
As someone here has posted previously, if all we need is the Bible and no teachers, then why did Jesus instruct his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel? According to your logic, wouldn't it have been just as effective to keep the disciples in Jerusalem, mail copies of the Bible to nonbelievers, and let them figure it out for themselves?
Whoever despises and distrusts most, if not all, of the teachers that Christ has given to the church is a fool. But whoever despises and distrusts outstanding leaders and teachers of conservative evangelical Bible doctrine shall have to answer for it to God. To malign the character of someone who can see through false doctrine and speak out against it is to stand on very thin ice.
It is the duty of every teacher to warn others against false doctrine. The problem with many people is that they base their beliefs, not on the Bible, but on what their Sunday School teacher taught them in the distant past, what their parents said was true, what they hear on TBN, and who knows what else.
When a teacher who is thoroughly grounded in the Word and unemcumbered with superstition and bad doctrine comes along to fulfill his duty to warn others to turn away from error, heresy, apostasy or whatever term fits, all the pious self-appointed experts want to do to him what others did to the prophets and to Christ himself, which is to arrange a violent and speedy death or exile for the true prophet.
It's not right for someone who really does know basic Bible doctrine to appraise the controversial teachings of a group of men? (Men, you know, the plural of man, as in i need no man to teach me. By the way if one needs no man to teach him, why join up with some fringe group in the first place? I have a problem with those who are condemning those who are most qualified to preach the truth of God's word and then defending those who have questionable beliefs.)
Surely you are not suggesting or implying that "trusted defenders of the faith" are out to persecute, whip up powers against and kill people who are in error as to their doctrine, are you? Bad enough to slander a man's character with lies and slander, but worse still to accuse him of nurturing murder in his heart.
Verbal "attacks" on false doctrine are entirely essential and fitting in this age of bad teaching, no teaching, and deceptive teaching.
As far as understanding what a man means before you judge his words, your assertion is full of confusion and illogic. When a man speaks or writes, we determine what he means by what he says. Words have meaning and by a man's own words he will accuse or excuse himself. If a fringe leader or anyone else has insufficient knowledge of the Bible and the doctrine it contains, he'd best stay off the platform and away from the pulpit, the camera and the microphone.
I admit there is a lot of bad teaching on TV and radio and one must use a great deal of discernment to know which to turn on and which to turn off and leave off. But, if one looks for it, he will find many trustworthy ministries whose teaching is uncorrupted by strange and outlandish false doctrine. A good example of TV to beware of is the so-called Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Why do they even call it the Trinity Network, when they allow on the network people who do not even believe in the Trinity?
You may or may not be open to reproof, correction or instruction. But it is hoped that someone will read this post and wake up and be warned.
To summarize: a cult is a cult is a cult. False doctrine does much harm to many people. If anyone exposes false doctrine, he should be commended, not condemned, for doing so.
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
