Results 281 - 300 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | 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 |
||||||
282 | 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 |
||||||
283 | 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 |
||||||
284 | 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 |
||||||
285 | 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 |
||||||
286 | 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 |
||||||
287 | 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 |
||||||
288 | Becoming a christian | John 6:37 | Beja | 222912 | ||
Inquisitor, To my knowledge there are only two places in scripture that people mistakenly think are teaching that baptism is a step in actually becomming saved. These are Mark 16:15 and Acts 2:38. I think it is important that we make the observation that both of these remarks originated with Peter. In acts, we are listening to Peter's words as reported by Luke. In Mark, it has always been widely known that Mark's gospel is in fact from Peter. So both are rooted in the preaching of Peter. Why is this important? Because in 1 Peter 3:21, Peter corrects the possible missinterpretation of what he is saying. Peter 3: 21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Look at what Peter is saying! He says that when he refers to baptism saving anybody, he doesn't mean the water dipping that is the physical act of baptism! When he says things that indicate baptism saves us, what he really means is the act that baptism represents, which is the heart's response to God in Repentence and Faith. Baptism was, as Steve has said in an earlier post, the visible action that professed the saving faith and repentence. So it was closely tied to the idea of being saved, but Peter denies that it is itself what saves. So as you yourself have asserted, we have to affirm all of these scriptures. And affirming all of these scriptures includes affirming what Peter says when he denies teaching that the act of baptism saves you! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
289 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Beja | 224324 | ||
Setonahill, I don't mean for this to be a post for or against what you are discussing but a post to help see what may be the reasoning behind it. When a person sins and they are called to account what is needed is repentence. Some things are very simple, if a person is doing drugs they can cease doing drugs. If a person is cheating on their wife they can cease cheating on their wife. The list could go on and on. However, for some sins repentence is more difficult to spot. Allow me to give an admitedly extreme example. If a person in a fit of rage committed a murder, how would we see repentence? Its not really repentence to say they won't commit murder again is it? They never had a desire to become a habitual murderer. They can easily "quit" the sin with no real repentence at all. How do we ask for a show of repentence in such instances? So the question doesn't revolve around certain biblical mandated penalties for certain sins, but rather it is a matter of a church trying to perceive repentence. Other times it is the church who feels they were sinned against. I recall when David sinned with Bathseba the prophet pronounced his punishment because he had given the the enemeies of the LORD a chance to blaspheme. Now unbelievers could point and say, "Look, christians really are no different." In this way the church might feel they were wronged when a member commits a particularly notorious sin. By forcing them to apologize to the church it is a way of publicly stating for all to know that the church declares this is not how a christian is to act. The motives for what is happening could be many or varied, or it could have began as such things and now simply become the adopted tradition of the church to expect such things for that particular sin. My point being, try to understand the motives behind it first. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
290 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Beja | 224331 | ||
Setonahill, I think you might have missed the main idea of my post, and that very well may be due to a lack of clarity on my part. But essentially it boils down to this. Different types of sin can require different signs of repentance. That was pretty much the sum of my post. Also, trying to suggest that because the church is unable to effectively root out hidden sins that therefore they can not deal with exposed sins is a weak arguement which, should we take it to its logical conclusion, leads only to us failing to obey scripture which tells us to practice church discipline and expect repentence. Now, that being said, in this particular church they could be handling it wrongly, or unfairly, or partially. All of this would be wrong of them. Furthermore, for them to look down their noses at such a woman after she has expressed and shown sincere repentence would be wrong of them. So I'm not defending any of these things. But going the route of saying that since we can not root out every tax cheat in the church and demand such a thing of them, therefore we must tolerate exposed unrepentant sin in the church is not only flawed, it is extremely unbiblical. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
291 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Beja | 234565 | ||
Andy, Since it seems to matter what other people thought of Tim's answer, I thought he answered very well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
292 | wHO ARE SHEEP FROM ANOTHER FOLD | John 10:16 | Beja | 224727 | ||
Inquisitor, I think its pretty hard to offer proof for any interpretation of this. The reason being that Jesus simply assumed they knew who He was talking about so didn't qualify it. But I think Brad is exactly right. After you read the scripture enough sometimes it becomes pretty apparent what their categories of thought are. "This flock" in this passage obviously refers to the Jews. The contrasting category in their minds is the Gentiles. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
293 | can a christian lose their salvation? | John 10:28 | Beja | 228541 | ||
Lionheart, I agree, though we must keep the order clear. We do not follow him as Lord in order to receive him as savior. But our following him as lord is part of the salvation which we are given through faith. God frees us from the guilt of sin and progressively frees us from the grip of sin through granting repentence. Act 5:31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." The reason there is no salvation without repentence is because that repentence is part of the salvation! Ofcourse, I say none of this as a criticism. Nothing said in the thread has said otherwise, I just mean to make the point abundantly clear for readers so as to avoid any chance that they missunderstand and think that our obedience reaps salvation, a very fatal error indeed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
294 | Love is not a feeling | John 13:1 | Beja | 219719 | ||
Dear Yen, Its with a bit of hesitancy that I've chosen to write this in response, and to be perfectly honest my primary motive in writing it is so that John does not have to respond in the midst of being offended at what you just wrote, but rather another brother may respond. To be to the point, I've watched a series of your posts, scripture references, sarcasms and subtle statements all be ment for a single purpose, to insult somebody. Rather than recap other posts lets simply let this post speak for itself. First, you put things into John's mouth that he never said. You claimed you found other quotes from "your favorite Author, and Psychiatrist." Second you said that you can see, "that he is in your estimation, a perfect example of the type of person that could truly express the kind of love as taught by Jesus, in the Bible." Did John make either of these assertions? No, rather you inserted them into his own mouth simply because he stated one quote by the man which he thought to be well phrased. But more than that, why did you put these words into his mouth? So that you could then attack John via shaming the man he quoted. Perhaps you would respond that your intentions were purely noble and only that you intended to gently teach the lesson that we should be careful who we quote. But anybody who intended to do that could have easily pointed out the flaws in the man he quoted with kindness and simply offered that John not tie himself too tightly to this man's thinking. That is not what you did, rather you worded your post so that when you refuted Scott Peck, you could do the greatest possible shame to John. Your "politeness" that you paint your posts with does not hide the venom they contain. To my brother, John. You have every right to be offended. So does Christ each and every time we offend him with our sin. Yet his glorious grace overlooks our sin, and so let us immitate him by ignoring our own right to be offended, and loving in kind where it is not deserved. Let your peace be that your brothers see clearly such posts for what they are, but more importantly that our Lord does. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
295 | How do I abide in His love? | John 15:10 | Beja | 226190 | ||
To the thread as a whole, I highly encourage the orginal poster to not contact Philip and to leave their discourse open on the forum so that any errors may be rebuked. This is for our safety that we might not be taught false doctrine. I warn you, that what Philip is teaching is false. However, there is a kernal of truth to it, that makes it having a momentary seeming of truth. But in the same fashion there is a mixture of heresy that can cause it to be fatal. What Philip is correct about is that a Christian should never under any circumstances make peace with sin. At no point should we look at any particular sin and accept its presence in our lives because "we are all sinners." No, fight every manifistation of sin in your life all the time with the strength of God working in you and through you through His Holy Spirit. Now that being said, the dangerous error that Philip teaches is that a saved individual never sins. This is a very dangerous error. Part of the difficulty of correcting Philip however, is that he so quickly strings wrongly understood verses together that it would be near impossible in this venue to correct him on every mistaken verse he is using. So I shall choose one that he himself listed and show how he is in error concerning that verse, and then if he would like to slow down and discuss any single particular verse of his choosing in more detail, I will be happy to. He cited 2 peter 1:10. Now I affirm that a Christian is doing and growing in the things listed in 2 Peter chapter 1. However, the error Philip teaches is perfection. Is that how Peter sees what he is saying? Let us look at just two verses previous. 2 Peter 1:8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now look at what Peter says, if you are INCREASING. That is what describes a christian. But if they are increasing then they can not yet be perfect! Peter in verse eight clearly does NOT have in mind Christians being already perfect in all these attributes. Now how then does Philip pass off Peter, just two verses later, as demanding perfection when he states, "for if you do these things, ye shall never fall"? He has taken Peter out of context and used it to promote something that was nowhere near what Peter was intending to say. And such he does with a great many verses, all of which a dilligent student can show to be error. Peter meant (as he clearly said!) that as we do and grow and strive to mature in these things we will be fruitful Christians! Now, I will state how dangerous his error is. This false doctrine forces one into either one of two errors. The first, is that in order to believe one is saved they must believe that they are sinless. However what does scripture say of the man who believes they have no sin? 1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Now this is without a doubt a present tense statement. A person that is unaware of their own sin is devoid of truth! And we should not be surprised since it is the job of the Holy SPirit to convict and make aware of sin. In order than to fall into this lie, we must quench all convictions of the Holy Spirit which strives to point out our falts for our ongoing sanctification. However, perhaps one would argue that this verse speaks of those who are yet to receive any knowledge of Christ, as if John were not here speaking of those who profess to know Christ. But this is easily seen to be mistaken as well, for what then is the apostle saying? That those who are outside of Christ yet aware of sin are in the truth and the truth in them? Hardly. For scripture firmly attests in multiple places that those who are going to destruction find themselves ignorant of the truth. (2 Cor 4:1-6, and 1 Cor 1:18.) So we see then that one characteristic of a true Christian is a painful awareness of our own sin. Let us not surpress the Holy Spirit in that affect and fall short of its sanctifying work, for indeed there is a holiness without which no person shall see God ( hebrews 12:14). Now the other error is equally if not far more deadly. Perhaps one buys into the doctrine of perfectionism, yet they are fully aware of their own sin. They find themselves believing that without their own perfection there is no grounds for believing that Christ died for them! How aweful that state is. For now they have been forced to believe that Christ has not effectually died in their place due to their failing to be perfect! And believing that Christ has not merely died for sins, or another, but rather believing Christ died for ME is the very means of salvation, then this doctrine serves only to upset the faith on which we stand and condemn us to hell. Stay clear of this error! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
296 | what role did the holy spirit play | John 16:8 | Beja | 232042 | ||
Catlove, Indeed it does have the feel of a Bible Study question. It's one of those questions that asks as if expecting a simple one or two point answer when in truth all of the new testament is laying out a glorious answer that would take a lifetime to really appreciate. Please take no offense to Azure asking. On this forum we have a serious problem with homework questions being posted very often when it comes time for exams in seminaries and bible colleges. The regulars on the forums have long since considered it our moral duty not to aid students in something their professors would not approve of when they clearly wish the students to discover their own answers form scripture. The forum has had this conviction long before I stumbled across it. To answer your question I'll give as brief of answer as possible, a proof text, then some further reading. Answer: The Holy Spirit is the cause of every single drop of our growing in Christ likeness or doing anything that is actually pleasing to God. He is not just involved. He is the CAUSE. Philippians 2:12,13. If I had to give one passage to prove this, then I would suggest this one. Further reading: Romans 8, Also contrast Peter in the Gospel (pre-pentecost/pouring out of the Spirit) and in Acts (After pouring out of the Spirit.) Others may add to this list. I'm sure I'll think of some very key passages after I've already posted! But understand that God is the author of everything good that comes about in us, or outside us so that He may have the glory in all of it. The Father has ordained every good thing that happens, Christ has purchased all good things for us, and the Holy Spirit, which Christ has poured out upon us, powerfully works all these things in us and for us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
297 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243866 | ||
Justme, I'm just pondering, but I can't think of anywhere that scripture puts such a burden or obligation on us. As I search my memory for passages that would shed light on this, my mind goes to Paul giving believers permission to eat meat sacrificed to idols. He seemed to teach they need not burden their conscience with worry about "supporting" the practice. Feel free to eat the meat was the suggestion. Perhaps its apples to oranges, but I still can't think of any passage that would require somebody to meet up to Christian ethics before a christian may do business with them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
298 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243875 | ||
EdB, Either that verse says I'm not allowed to do business with anybody but Christians, or it was never meant to apply to retail purchases. I suspect the second option. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
299 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243877 | ||
EdB, No I do not. My personal opinion is that such thinking greatly hastened the collapse of American Christianity. We are called to purge sin from the church, not to police the broader culture. 1corinthians 5:9-13. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
300 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243880 | ||
EdB, I could answer "why I would want to" and I could engage your logic, but it would only distract from the point I truely want to make. If scripture does not bind the believers conscience, none of us have any business adding a nonscriptural obligation upon a believer. We believe in the sufficiency of scripture. Part of that is the understanding that I can not please God further by adding my own moral additions. Give me scripture or let my conscience be free. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [26] >> |