|
| |
Who is God referring to? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:26
|
| |
God is referring to the
Trinity of the Godhead:
1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit |
| |
Who is God referring to? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:26
|
| |
I have learned that often kings refer to themselves in a plural way. The word for God in Hebrew (Elohim) is plural, so the statement likely indicates that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity - in the unity of God there is plurality. Some believe this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels. |
| |
Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? |
|
|
|
Heb 11:4
|
| |
Heb. 11:4 says that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. That is a clear statement in Scripture. We next need to ask, "Why was Abel's offering better?" It is clear from the Gen 4 account that first each person's offering is described and then the text says the LORD had regard (or did not have regard) for that person AND their offering. So, the person was connected to the offering because -- as Hebrews points out -- the kind of offering brought was a clear demonstration of the person's faith. Finally, if one studies the nature of sacrifices made throughout Scripture, it is clear that God requires a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of His people. It is completely a sound inference to say that Abel's offering was pleasing because it was a blood sacrifice. In the previous chapter, God kills an animal (blood) to get the skins for Adam and Eve's clothes. Later, Abraham is about to make a blood offering of his son Isaac, (though he substitutes a ram instead). This is the most important reason for understanding that - IN CONTEXT - Abel's offering was preferred was because it was a blood offering: because it was a type of the ultimate blood sacrifice and substitute, Jesus Christ. Abel's blood even cried out from the ground! Abel himself was a picture of Jesus Christ: though innocent he was killed, and the Lord replaced him, "resurrecting" the line of the promised Seed of the woman, by causing Eve to give birth to Seth. Just like the word "trinity" is not in the Bible but is clearly taught, so it is legitimate to infer the meaning of something like this when so much of the rest of Scripture in totality is in support of it.
|
| |
Who is God referring to? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:26
|
| |
Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. " (NIV) ...................
Reading this verse rules out the idea that man has been created in the image of God and his heavenly court of angels. It does show us that man is created from the image of God alone, so there we have a plural reference of God being two or even three persons. I believe this is one of many supporting arguements for the Trinity of God. |
| |
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) |
| |
The angel of the Lord is it really God? |
|
|
|
Gen 32:24
|
| |
" . . . Traditional Christian interpretation has held that [the Angel of the Lord] was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be, however, that, as the Lord's personal messenger who represented Him and bore His credentials, the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One who sent him . . . Whether this 'angel' was the second person of the Trinity remains therefore uncertain." (Zondervan NASB Study Bible, p. 26) |
| |
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. |
| |
Jesus' name baptism? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:38
|
| |
'According to Jesus [in Matt 28:19], baptism is to be administered "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" . . . Evangelicals accept this verse as Jesus' words and agree that the Trinitarian formula was spoken by the Son of God himself.' (NRSV Harper Study Bible, note at Matt 28:19) Acts 2:38 is 'not a contradiction to the fuller formula given in Matt 28:19. In Acts the abbreviated form emphasizes the distinctive quality of this baptism, for Jesus is now included in a way that He was not in John's baptism . . . ' (Zondervan NASB Study Bible, p. 1576) |
| |
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. |
| |
Is "Paradise" the same as heaven? |
|
|
|
Luke 23:43
|
| |
I believe that's what Jesus was referring to. You could argue that Jesus didn't go to Heaven that day but if you believe in the Trinity then Jesus could have been talking about being in Paradise (Heaven) with God. If you don't believe in the Trinity (or don't like that explanation) then you could intrepret his statement that because he chose to believe in Jesus that day, he will be with him in Heaven. If you believe that time doesn't exist in Heaven like it does here on earth (a year is like a thousand years) then by saying today doesn't really mean much to God but it would to the dying person on the cross. |
| |
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) |
| |
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. |
| |
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. |
| |
Is the Holy One Jesus of the Father? |
|
|
|
1 Pet 1:15
|
| |
I think this is the Father, although neither are wrong. Jesus and the Father are part of the whole Trinity which stays the same for eternity. |
| |
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. |
| |
TRINITY |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHERE THE WORD TRINITY IS FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES? ALSO, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE TRINITY IN SIMPLE TERMS SO THAT IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE TO THE AVERAGE PERSON. |
| |
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
|
| |
"...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! |
| |
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. |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
