Results 201 - 220 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233226 | ||
EdB, I'm afraid that I don't understand your view much more than before. You mostly just indicated what you agreed with concerning my view but didn't clarify yours much. 1. What "more than shedding light on the word of God" would you affirm? Can you give me an example to help me understand? 2. It sounds like you affirm ongoing authoritative special revelation outside of scripture, am I missunderstanding you? Please don't be upset if this is way off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just not sure what specifically you are saying. Can you help me understand your view? Right now I could not clearly explain to somebody else what it is you are either affirming or denying. Can you explain it to me without using the term Sola Scriptura? Thank you for your patience with me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
202 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233228 | ||
EdB, Well perhaps I am too slow on the uptake, but as stated I don't understand your view. However, should your hesitation be because your view might be out of line with the notion of sola scriptura in a way not welcomed by the forum, then I can completely respect your restraint. My understanding of the TOU is that it does not demand that we agree with sola scriptura, but merely that our posts must not be contrary to it. This seems to be what we are pressing up against. So I accept the dismisal of the topic with no ill feelings. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
203 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233234 | ||
EdB, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel that while I wouldn't be perfectly comfortable explaining your thoughts on this to another, I do understand you much better. If I'm understanding you correctly I don't think I'd take much issue with what you are saying (as if that matters). If you are suggesting that prior to the reformers articulating the notion of sola scriptura, things were good then I would probably disagree there. However, the only concern that I would have had is something I think you answered in a previous post. I think you do affirm that if something is actually contrary to scripture then it is invalid for the churches. I'm pretty sure you said as much. Might I offer some help with terminology? Now I may be mistaken but it seems to be that what you take objection with is not sola scriptura but rather what many call the "regulative principle." The regulative principle teaches that ONLY things found in scripture have any place within the church. I myself struggle with this concept as to whether it is biblical. I have a good book on my "to-read" pile that will give me the chance to hear its reasoning articulated but I'm not sure whether I will find it persuasive or not. I think sola scriptura would be more about having the Bible alone as the ultimate authority for the church. Sola scriptura would not imply that we must throw out christmas eve services because we don't find that in the new testament portrayal of the church. Sola scriptura does not forbid those practices which are unfound in scirpture but not contrary to scripture. It does object to teachings contrary to scripture. For example we wouldn't introduce a doctrine of angels from outside of scripture as absolutely trustworthy. However it seems to me that what you are objecting to is blanket forbidding of practices which scripture does not address. That would be the regulative principle, which is also popular among reformed theologians. I think I'm accurate on all of that. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
204 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240305 | ||
Jalek, Let me first say it is refreshing to see a post that plainly desires to analyse a passage of scripture about a specific question. I have a few thoughts and questions for you. First, I'm not very clear on what you are specifically disagreeing with in Sproul's post or what precisely you are asserting. I am sure that is my fault but is there anyway you could help me see what thesis your line of reasoning is meant to prove? Second, I'm not sure about that interpretation of verse 19. The actual words used in the greek could just as easily be interpreted as "among them" as it could "in them." So I begin wondering what that phrase could mean. Then I note the way Paul supports the statment. He says, "It is (phrase in question) for God revealed it to them." So the reason it is in them is because God has plainly revealed it not because it is inherently tied up in what each of us are. Now I don't disagree that mankind is made in God's image. But it seems in this passage Paul is not referring to anything inherent in humans, but rather trying to say that due to general revelation by God, knowledge of God is readily within our midst due to creation all around us. So I don't think he is arguing from some internal thing or image of God. The point is that this general revelation of God is in our midst. Not sure how crucial that is to your arguement but thoughts? Finally, your final phrase concerns me, allow me to repost. "Each time a step is taken, God gives mankind a chance to turn back from their ways, and recognize his sovereignty. If they don't, God punishes them." What concerns me, is that it sounds a little like you are suggesting that if mankind had at any point simply repented then faith in Christ's personal intervention on our behalf would have been unnecessary. Because trusting in that is what we are talking about with "special revelation." Could mankind have responded to general revelation during one of these steps and been "ok" with God? I would think not, because a sin debt remains still regardless of whether they further add to that debt. If that is so then while we may not like the tone of the statement, we do affirm that general revelation only gives enough knowledge to condemn us. I suspect your point is thus: While general revelation does indeed condemn us, it may also spur us to seek out that special revelation that saves us, which is the gospel. Am I close? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
205 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240311 | ||
Jalek, Thank you for the clarifications. I think I understand you better now. I still disagree with your reading of verse 19 for two reasons. Reason 1: I maintain that "in" is not the best translation for this context. First, en is far far more flexible of a preposition than you suggest here. But specifically I have compiled a list of places where the NASB has translated the phrase "en autois" as "among them. Luke 9:46;22:24;John9:16;15:24 Acts 4:34;18:11;24:21;25:6 Rom 11:17 2 Peter 2:8 Plainly "among them" is a possible translation for the phrase "en autois." However, (reason 2) I don't mean to suggest that the phrase itself constrains this interpretation. There are many instances where this phrase is not translated as such but is translated variously "with them" "by them" and "in them". It is the context which guides our translation as to what the proper sense is in the particular passage. And in this instance you failed to respond to what I am suggesting is the key contextual constrain. The passage says that it is "en autois for God revealed it to them." The basis in this context of it being "in them or among them" is that it was revealed to them. This in my mind rules out something inherrent in humans being referred to. Some sort of revelation is the basis, and in the context it is indeed general revelation within creation. Now this being said I think your point in no way rests on this question, or at least I don't see how it would. Also with regards to "but how does General Revelation condemn us? It condemns us because it contains the first step towards coming to a saving belief in Christ." I would suggest that it condemns us because in our idolatry and living for our pleasures, it removes all pretense of suggesting we didn't know such things were wrong. Once again there is a phrase that gives the basis of why "They are without excuse." Verses 20 and 21 say,"...so that they are without excuse. FOR even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks." So Paul's point is that general revelation means that they knew they were doing wrong. There is no place in the passage where Paul is arguing that general revelation condemns because it is the first step towards salvation. Now you might argue this from other passages, but I think it is nowhere in Romans 1. At least that I can yet see. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
206 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227503 | ||
Thread, God does indeed cast into hell. And the hell he casts us into is neither a pretend, one nor one of our own creation, nor is it simply a self torment, nor is it the same location as heaven in which we simply are unable to enjoy it as if one's man heaven is another man's hell. It is a real eternal judgement from God against sin for all eternity. God is the one who will judge our sin worthy of hell, God is the one who will condem us to hell, and God is the one who will carry out the sentence. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31). Luk 12:5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
207 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227505 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Forgive me, I was not being very precise in that post. We tend to use the word "hell" to refer to two different things. One is hades, which is temporary. The other is the coming lake of fire. Please note the fate of those who are spoken of in the very verse you quoted. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (kjv) So the current hell (hades) is not eternal, but what I meant was the lake of fire. This is clearly stated to be eternal in the very same passage. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. So the very passage you cite affirms with certainty what I am saying. And lest we imagine that this is only eternal for demons and not eternal for unforgiven sinners let me quote Jesus' own affirmation of the eternality of hell when preaching to men and women. Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. So yes, the dead can be consigned to hell "for all eternity." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
208 | symbolic/literal scriptures? | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227532 | ||
Julia, Absolutely. I think those are fine examples of passages where there was full intent that the words be taken literally. In addition, you'll neve reach a point where it is all just obvious. You will have some passages which are obviously literal and you will have some that are obviously symbolic. However, there will always be some that we must work hard in order to see how the author intended his words to be understood. Though God's word is worth such diligent study. And my God cause you to prosper in knowing His word and may you be diligent to grow in it. Let nobody despise the day of small things, though let us not be content to stay there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
209 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227545 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Right again. I'm sorry, I so very much slip into the common habit of referring to them both as hell. I think Gehenna here is referring to the lake of fire. Hades is one place, lake of fire/gehenna is another. Hades will be done away with and gehenna will never be quenched. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
210 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227550 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Luke 16:23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
211 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | Beja | 206689 | ||
My thoughts on this is that the "visiting" the sins on later generations is not talking about the same thing as Ezekiel. Ezekiel is talking about actualy moral guilt and the perishing that goes with standing guilty before God. While I think Exodus is saying something with regards to how our sins will effect future generations, I believe the main idea in Exodus is that God is a God who takes sin very very seriously, and punishes it seriously, but much more does he reward those who love him. | ||||||
212 | Explain inaccuracy of | Amos 9:15 | Beja | 224129 | ||
Infinity700, I'm not sure if you are trying to make a different point, but if you are saying that Amos is a false prophet you are in violoation of the terms of use of these forums. To use these forums you have agreed to abide by and not contradict the notions of sola scriptura. Part of that is that all of the Bible is inspired and inerrant. I hope you will respond and clarify to us all that you are not suggesting that Amos was a false prophet. Furthermore, I encourage you to see how the new testament interprets this passage in acts 15:16 and following verses. It indeed does see the church as the fullfillment of these promises. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
213 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | Beja | 207257 | ||
I believe the book of Jonah finished exactly when it intended to. The book of Jonah is a message to God's people. Not to ninevah. The repentance of Ninivah is nothing more than a piece of the plot in which the true message is given. The point of the book is the attitude that God's people had adopted. An attitude that quite literally was content to watch all other nations go to hell. The last chapter that so many people don't get is actually the key chapter to the entire book. In this last chapter it is finally revealed clearly what the problem has been throughout the entire book. Jonah was consumed with his hatred of Ninivah. The problem originally would have been assumed that Jonah feared them and so he ran. But finally and clearly it is revealed that Jonah did not want them to have God's mercy, he wanted them to die in judgement. God's people reading the story of Jonah were suppose to see themselves reflected in Jonah's attitude. There should have been a "wow, that is us" moment. The story ends at that moment of realization and at the moment of showing how contrary that is to God's heart, and then the reader is left to repent of it. That is the point of Jonah. | ||||||
214 | is gambling a sin | Hag 2:8 | Beja | 223527 | ||
Just my 2 cents, I have a hard time saying that gambling is a sin. First, I currently know of no scripture that does so. What we do know is that greed, covetousness and the love of money are sins. However, that does not necessarily mean that gambling is a sin. There have been several nights in my past that I sat with my brothers and their wives and we all played Texas Hold em' with nickles, dimes, and quarters. If after four hours of playing and laughing any individual was down two dollars it was about as horrible of a loss as we saw. Each time we all lost more money on sodas and chips consumed than the game itself. I have a very hard time looking back and saying that was sinful. So what I think is more appropriate is to identify the sins I listed earlier and be clear that those are sins. The condemnation of gambling in and of itself seems to me to be like forbidding dancing because lust is a sin. To be sure, some dancing is lustful, but there are many forms of dancing that is lighthearted, fun, and not in the least sinful. When my daughter is married I assure you I intend to dance with her. And if next new years my brothers wish to spend it playing a little Texas Hold em' I shall do that as well. But...these are just my thoughts; let each of us be convinced in their own minds. Romans 14:5 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
215 | 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 |
||||||
216 | 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 |
||||||
217 | 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 |
||||||
218 | How many churches will be saved? | Matthew | Beja | 241044 | ||
Movingon, However you may read this verse, at the end of the day "ekklesia" is in fact the word scritpure uses for "church." For example, 1 Corinthians 1:2 addresses the letter "to the 'ekklesia' of God which is at Corinth." Yes, the word does mean "assembly" but "ekklesia" remains the word constantly used for the church. On that note I wonder about your interpretation of Hebrews 12:22-23 where he tells them they have already (perfect tense) come to the "ekklesia" of the firstborn? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
219 | How many generations betw Exodus-Solomon | Matt 1:17 | Beja | 207161 | ||
Do you have some searchable library that enabled you to gather all of this? If you did the leg work on all this in the actual books I'm impressed. If you have some program that let you perform a search for it all, I'd love to get ahold of that. | ||||||
220 | The true Gospel Jesus proclaimed | Matt 4:23 | Beja | 224555 | ||
To the whole thread, Might I humbly suggest this thread has gotten pretty far from being a study of any particular scripture? In my experience this type of discussion can never be fruitful because you can never box it in. If somebody is being shown wrong in one area they simply say, "well what about this?" as they bring up a different point. Perhaps this should be brought down to the exposition of a relevent passage? And if we can't think of a relevent passage then we really don't have anything to say about it do we? From the pot to the kettle, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [26] >> |