Results 101 - 120 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232660 | ||
EdB, I keep writing replies and deleting them because they all sound insulting and condescending. I really am sorry for that. But I no longer know how to give you a reply that is not so. I can not believe that you can look at that post and not identify the correct paragraph. I am even more dumbfounded that you can not understand that I am telling you to look at a different paragraph in the post other than the one you are looking at. I can not communicate with you. Do you not think this thread has gone long enough and perhaps we should just let it die? Yet rest assured, somebody will come along and read this thread and think to be able to speak to you. You will not be satisfied with their answer and you will restate your entire case all over again. I plead with you to resist doing so. Lets let the thread die. Surely you see nothing edifying will likely come from it. We have answered you, you find the answers unconvincing, why go on? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
102 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232653 | ||
EdB, Read the post again. That's not even the right section. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
103 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232651 | ||
EdB, For the record I answered this question in post 232604. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
104 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | Beja | 232638 | ||
elder4yhwh, That door swings both ways. When Paul says that nobody is to judge us with regards to a Sabbath, we can not suggest that only means for people not to judge us for observing one. We must also apply it the other way around. This means that nobody is to judge us if we do NOT observe a sabbath. And in the context this is clearly grounded upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. So the passage very much says that nobody is to judge a person for not obeserving the sabbath because of what Christ has done. Now granted, this does not explicitly spell out "Jesus has done away with the Sabbath." But how else are we to understand it? We no longer have the moral obligation to observe it due to the work of Christ. Call that what you will. I find it very relevant to your original question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
105 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232609 | ||
EdB, Having given a little prayer to the matter, and reflected some on past interactions involving you on the forums, I believe that your last post to me makes a little bit more sense. I understand that you think this forum is a haven for calvinists in which we chase off those who are not calvinist. So it begins to make sense to me why you somehow think reformed theology is the issue. This also sheds some light as to why you thought it needed to be defended that Christ being preached is a necessity, which I agree with and always have. But under the light of you thinking I was trying to censure your departure from calvinistic/reformed theology this statement at least seems to have some ground for you to bring it up. So, without engaging in the actual subject again, let me say just a couple things. 1. At no point was anything I was trying to explain about calvinism or anything unique to reformed theology. At least not to my knowledge. 2. At no point in any of our conversation was I trying to police or censure your posts due to their departure from reformed or calvinistic theology. 3. I in no way claim any right to censure you based upon your disagreeing with reformed/calvinistic theology. 4. I deny any notion that this forum is reserved only for those who hold to reformed/calvinistic theology. 5. I believe that all theologies within the terms of the TOU should have fair and open opportunity to be discussed and evaluated in light of scripture on this forum. 6. I reject that any theology has the right to be protected from evaluation in light of scripture on this forum from some mistaken sense of equality or tolerance. Neither reformed, arminian, Catholic or any other interpretation of scripture gets to ignore either inherrant contradictions or conflicts between it and scripture on the basis of this forum "being open to all." We are here to pursue truth together and that involves discovering errors. Again, I will not re-enter the previous discussion regarding judgment for those who have not heard of Christ. I simply wish to make the above points clear now that I think I know why you responded to me in the way you did. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
106 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232608 | ||
EdB, You have said, "you have ignored what I say actually prevents us from going to eternal damnation." Do you take what I have said to deny that we are saved by Christ's work on the cross? I have made no such denial in any of our discussion. You have said, "For Jesus to be understood the Eunuch said he needed some one to teach him or else this eunuch spoke a lie. Why would we consider others to be different?" When have I at any pointed suggested that Christ has no need to be taught? You have said, "you want to find exceptions in what I'm saying. I can think of no reason except for your personal knowledge of my perspective of reformed theology" You yourself thanked me for my exposition of Romans 1 and now you act as if my points are purely from a personal bias??? I have taken care to carefully explain the nature of your every error and yet you say it is not from any real solid ideas but just a bias? I don't know how to respond. You have said, "Reformed. And the last I checked the forum guidelines this is still a forum where one theology does not over rule another just because someone insists it should." As if I have not been discussing scripture and its right interpretation from context but merely saying you are wrong because you don't match some abstract dogma??? I wash my hands of the discussion. I said from the very beginning I did not wish to discuss any of it with you put merely provide a passage for other readers of this thread to reference. This is why I did not want to. May God and the careful reader judge for themselves the truth or error of what has been said. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
107 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232604 | ||
EdB, I struggle with how to respond to you. You are bringing so many assumptions to the text that make it impossible for you to see things rightly. I just don't know how to systematicly address all of it. Everything you are saying so far outside the historical Christian view of so many things. Let me at least give a couple examples. You said, "I’m talking of the person that truly loves God but for whatever reason has never heard of Jesus Christ." You are first assuming a situation which scripture is categorically denying the existence of. That is the point of Romans 1, there is no such human being. Every person in the entire world through sinful depraved hearts has either out right rejected what is universally known about God, or they have altered it to suit their own notions of what they want God to be. The reason you can't see scripture addressing what happens to a God loving person in ignorance is because there is no such thing as a God loving person in ignorance. We love because he first loved us. Any true love we have towards God is first prompted by a true understanding of God's grace towards us. Now your objection to this is to point to various devout people within false religions. But that is the exact thing which Romans 1 does indeed address. These people in false religions have no love for the TRUE God, but rather they have shaped God to fit their on "fuitile speculations" and have created a God in their own images in the "image of corruptible man." They have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie." There is none who love the true God outside of the revelation of God in scripture and the grace given from him for us to do so. When he grants us "repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). A second major error in your thinking, and where you depart from historical Christian thinking is your failure to see the promises of the Messiah as the Old Testament means of trusting in Christ. Christianity has taught that as the Old Testament saints trusted upon the coming Messiah they were trusting upon Christ. No, they did not know that his name would be Jesus but they still were trusting upon him. The promise of the coming seed extends all the way back to the fall of mankind as God held forth Christ as the promised seed of the woman to those who would hope upon the promise and be saved. Your failure to accept this biblical and historical Christian teaching forces you to look to strange ideas to speculate how an Old Testament Jew was saved. These are two major missunderstanding you have which makes any discussion over specifics built about sound understanding in these errors completely impossible. You presumptions are simply foreign to the historical Christian faith and contrary to what scripture teaches. In addition you threw out all my careful explination of Romans 1 and simply told me how you feel it should be interpreted with no real exegesis defending your statment. Your responses were full of statemetns such as... "I see the passage you pointed to in 2 Cor 5:10 as speaking..." "I see Jesus dying for the sins of the world and judgment for the unsaved at the..." "I don’t think he fits in the same category." "My view of Romans 1:18-32 is..." "because to me this situation..." Everything you say is defended by how you think, see, or feel. No conversation can be constructive until you take your views, thoughts, and feelings and put them forward for scripture to utterly anhilate if it contrary to it. I say all this for the sole purpose of trying to explain why I can not answer your questions. There are too many things keeping you from the answers. I'm sorry. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
108 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232597 | ||
EdB, RESPONSE PART 2 Now, with regards to Romans chapter 1. I can think of nothing but to walk you through it. Romans 1:18 says, "the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth" Please note that beginning of this section is showing what the wrath of God is being displayed against. God is angry about men "who suppress the truth." Now it says that they do so in unrighteousness but the people who are the object of his wrath are those who "suppress the truth." Now Paul explains what he is talking about... Romans 1:19 and says, "BECAUSE that which is known about God is evident within them for God made it evident to them" So Paul begins to explain what he means by those who "suppress the truth" whom God is wrathful towards. He says concerning them that that which is known about God is evident within them. Now he will explain that statment. Please note the words beginning the verses evidencing each verse as the grounds for the previous one. Romans 1:20 "FOR since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" Now lets follow the chain links. God is angry at those who "suppress the turth." Why? Because that which is known about God is known to them. How? Because it is evident in creation to everyman without special revelation. So God makes himself known in creation. Men in their wickedness reject what is evident, and therefore God is angry. Now be careful because this is where I think you go wrong. They are not being judged on whether they reject Christ. Christ is not revealed from nature. A coming messiah is not revealed from nature. Simply certain turths, not all truths, about God our revealed from nature. And God is wrathful that sinful men have turned from those truths. What we are going to discover in this passage is that at the conclusion men are sufficiently guilty to be sent to hell having never heard of Christ. Now verse 21b where it declares them without excuse is a bit of a watershed moment in this passage. 21b declares them "without excuse." That is the point of what he has been saying so far. But note the starting word of verse 21 and you will see he is giving a second ground for why they are without excuse. So first they are without excuse because ENOUGH truth is evident that hey are accountable for it and second Paul is going to explain that the second grounds of their lack of excuse is how they handled what turth they were given. Romans 1:21b-23 "so that they are without excuse. FOR even though they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man, and of birds, and four footed animals, and crawling creatures." All right it says what about them? They have no excuse because... 1. They knew God and inspite of this... 2. They did not honor him, nor give thanks 3. They became futile in their speculations. In other words they ignored what was revealed by God about themselves, and began to imagine who and what God was from their own sinful imaginations. They did not deny that there was a God, they created their own versions of God. This is not about Atheism, it is about idolatry and false ideas of who God is. 4. They exchanged the truth revealed for an image in some other form, what that form was doesnt matter. So do you see what its saying? God's wrath is against all mankind who have not yet had written revelation brought to them and this wrath is just because they have sinned against the natural revelation which they have been given by producing their own false ideas of who God is. They are guilty enough for Hell...and they will be judged so by God. Paul is purposely locking those who have never heard the gospel up as guilty before God on this basis so that beginning in chapter three he can began declaring the gospel as their only hope. There is much more in Romans 1:18-32 but this is sufficient. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
109 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232596 | ||
EdB, RESPONSE PART 1 I'm the one at fault. Yesterday I drove a two hour round trip to take a 3.5-4 hour exam. My responses to you were shortly after I had returned home and apparently all of my patience was spent. I did not actually feel angry in every way. But every time I had finished writing a reply I couldn't help but notice that my exhausation was evident in my tone no matter how much I didn't intend for it to be. I finally decided it best that I didn't reply. So I am the one who has need to apologize, and I do. Let me say what I think the root of your error is, and perhaps that will explain why I don't have much desire to entire a large discussion concerning this. Your root mistake is that you think people will be judged only on accepting or receiving Christ. This is an error. Those who are judged to eternal condemnation will be judged for their sins. Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death. Paul does not present this as something that has pased away with the work of Christ. It is present tense. Both before and after Christ we are judged for our sins. 2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. It is my theory that because you reject this notion before you ever come to Romans 1:18-32 therefore you can not read it for what it plainly says. Because its plain sense goes against your previous notions. The reason I do not wish to get into a debate over this question is because we have done so once before on this forum if I am not mistaken. There is no merit to hashing it out all over again. I'm writing my exposition of Romans 1 and its relevence in a following post, it made this one too long. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
110 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232588 | ||
EdB, Here is a conclusion Paul draws from what he has previously argued in Romans 1:18-32 Rom 2:2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. Based on Romans 2:2 would you still argue that we see nothing regarding God's standard of judgement on these people from this section of Romans? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
111 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232587 | ||
EdB, I can't come up with a reply befitting of Christ, therefore I will remain silent. Only note that I have not simply referenced verse 18 but rather I pointed you to the entirety of Romans 1:18-32. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
112 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232583 | ||
EdB, I would recommend reading the passage again. The passage is not about atheists. The people in the passage are indeed worshiping. I won't go deeper than that as I disagree with you on the very assumptions you are bringing to the discussion. I only wish to affirm that scripture does deal with the issue for those readers who wish to look into it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
113 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232571 | ||
EdB, I would suggest that scripture addresses specificly that question in Romans chapter 1:18-32. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
114 | Does Is.66:23 mean sabbath still stands? | Is 66:23 | Beja | 232441 | ||
Elder, I don't think there is any way that Hebrews 4 is speaking of the weekly sabbath. The context of the passage makes that interpretation basically impossible due to statements such as: Heb 4:1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. and Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; Heb 4:5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Heb 4:6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, We could go on unpacking the context to show that referring to the weekly jewish sabbath makes absolutely no sense in the context. Rather what the writer was discussing is the eternal final rest of God's people which the weekly sabbath pointed to. However, this does not at all show that the sabbath is done away with. It merely is to say that Hebrews 4 does not at all address the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
115 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232353 | ||
loavesnfish, Wow, very old posts you have brought up. I will respond to this one but not the other. On the other passage my mind has both become resolved on in the three years since I asked the question and I have learned that it is a passage that causes much friction. With regards to this passage. 1. I never meant to suggest anything other than salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. 2. I think the basis of your point hinges on the word "rewarder." If I understand right you are suggesting that the notion of reward implies merit. We affirm that we in no way merit our salvation and therefore the passage can't be speaking of salvation. However, I think we must not import the notion of merit into this greek word in this particular passage. I'll show why in point three. 3.) The author is very much speaking of salvation by faith in this passage. Here is the evidence. ....in verse 3 abel by faith acts and receives the testimony (martureo) that he was righteous. So we see faith evidenced by works resulting in God declaring Abel righteous. ....verse 5 and 6 we see by faith that Enoch received the witness (Martureo) that he was pleasing to God. So again, faith receiving God's acceptance. ....verse 7 by faith Noah acts and builds the ark and is saved from the judgement upon the entire world. Specifically said to beecome an heir to the righteousness which is through faith. So again we see faith resulting in being saved and that faith is evidenced through works. ....verse 39 sums up the entire chapter saying that all these people gained approval (martureo) through faith. This word means testimony most literally. Testimony of what? The account of Abel sets our context. The testimony from God that they were righteous. So the entire chapter which illustrates verse six is all about individuals being declared righteous by God and receiving acceptance from God because of their faith which was evidenced by their works. 4.) This fits perfectly with the purpose of the book of Hebrews. The readers were being tempted to abandon faith in Christ so that they may avoid escalating persecution. Chapter 11 shows them those who because of sincere faith, held to their faith and endured hardship and received the ultimate reward. Likewise, the readers should through sincere faith endure the persecution thus evidencing the sincere faith and receiving salvation through faith as a result. Salvation through faith evidenced by obedience and enduring is what is being taught here. 5.) We must let the term "rewarder" be flexible here as we are guided by the entire chapter to understand that salvation is very much in the author's mind. We must believe that in God there is a great salvation which is valued above all this world and that it is worth enduring the many trials and tribulations through which we must pass in order to receive this salvation. Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." We must believe that God is a rewarder of those who seek him. There is no notion of merit here rather simply the declaration that not only must we believe that God exists, but despite all the current hardship and all the lying deceits of the lusts of this world, we must also firmly believe that in God alone is our good and hope in Him. That is faith. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
116 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232338 | ||
G. Preston, Your quotes from previous posts: "Baptism is the final cleansing of our soul after repenting" "I can share with you that baptism is necessary by Scripture for ..."completion of the cleansing process" "G-d can and will impute as He wishes...so He did on the cross. John 3;16 speaks of salvation. We must be reminded that when Christ presented himself to John for baptism...John said..."why must(not should; not may; not can!!) it be"?...Christ said ..."for completion"...of what...the cleansing process. The Bible is full of examples of what we are to do and how we are to prepare ourselves to receive eternal salvation." (which is the entirety of post 232309) "I don't believe you have accepted Christ, if you have not been baptised. The two go together, I submit. So why would anyone want to take the chance with their eternal salvation?" In answer, I would suggest that you have said so. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
117 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232329 | ||
G. Preston, The problem is that you are not actually defending your view. This simple fact is that historical Christianity takes the stance that you are misreading the passages that you are simply listing in passing. Now you suggest that agreed upon historical interpretation of the church can and has been wrong. Fair enough. That is entirely possible. However, when the vast majority of Christianity throughout history says that you are wrong in how you are reading those passages, the burden of proof is on YOU to unpack those passages and show us how they do in fact support your thesis. Being dismissive and acting as if you ought not have to defend your notion in such detail gives the impression that you are both unable to defend your position from scripture and also that you are unaware of how historical Christianity has interpreted this issue. This is not to mention that you are coming across as a bit haughty and unwilling to take the time and explain things to those not gifted with the insight you are apparently privy to. Summary, when you go against the history of Christianity on a doctrine, its possible that you are right, but the burden is on you to give a very detailed exposition of passages to SHOW that you are right. You don't get to dismissively throw out some references and act like all interpretors of scripture through out history are stupid. Well...you can do that but it only makes people not take you seriously. I say all this hoping it will prompt us to discussion of particular passages as this forum was meant for. You are correct that scripture contrary to your opinion has not been strongly supplied yet, though some has. I would put forward two places in scripture for starters. Romans chapter four where Paul excessively stresses that Abraham was saved by faith at the moment of faith without any external ritual such as circumcision. Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, Rom 4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. Now, two remarkable things are here relevant to the question. First, Paul stresses that he was justified by faith at the moment of faith with no other ritual aid. Second, he asserts this was written as a pattern for all who would follow after him by faith. So it seems clear to me, that Paul is arguing that we are saved by and at the moment of faith and not after the aid of any ritual. The second passage is ofcourse the theif on the cross where Christ himself assures us that the theif would be in heaven with no baptism. A simple yet powerful display that baptism does not save us. Ofcourse the passages you listed need to be discussed but this post is already too long and I'd rather let you show a willingness to discuss passages prior to putting in the effort of tackling them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
118 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232314 | ||
Preston, You intend to prove your point by stressing that John said "must" rather than "should" yet I can not find in any gospel a verse that records him saying either. Did you just make this phrase up? Please help me out with a scripture reference. Where did John say, "Why must it be?" as you quote? I even checked the account in Matthew in the original greek to see if perhaps it could be translated as you are describing and yet none of it is there. How are you stressing the fine points of what was said to prove your point when the statements don't even exist? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
119 | Is there a bible verse that means this? | Rom 8:28 | Beja | 232177 | ||
34224, First, let me say that I am resigned to the fact that not everybody has a high and biblical view of God. So I don't desire to debate this point with you. However, what you are suggesting has nothing to do with logic. Logic does not say "No" to this question. Your line of reasoning depends not on an impossible situation, but rather one which you will not accept. Your logic is as such... 1. If everything happened for a reason, then God would be responsible. 2. God is not responsible, therefore 1 is not true. That sir, is not logic. You have begun your entire train of thought having previously decided that God is not responsible. That is your "given" Why? Because you can not accept such a notion is the only reason. It most certainly has nothing to do with logic. Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
120 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232132 | ||
Preston, I will continue to preach salvation in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone. Scripture does not render faith as "assumed" in its message and neither shall I. Gal 2:15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Php 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." I place my hope in nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust my sweetest frame but wholely lean on Jesus' name. Christ purchases obedience for us, our obedience does not purchase Christ for us. Psa 119:146 I call to you; save me, that I may observe your testimonies. Salvation causes obedience. Obedience does not cause salvation. The order you seek them in makes all the difference in the world. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [26] >> |