Results 461 - 480 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | What day are we COMMANDED to gather? | Heb 10:25 | Beja | 220594 | ||
Daughter, Forgive one error in my last post. For some reason my mind leaped to 1 tim 4:3 while I was posting and the marriage statment I mentioned was from that. Doesn't affect the totality of the post but it was an error and needs to be admited. I'm not actually sure how to edit one of my posts or if you can. But since I'm posting again, I think even more relevent than what I said previously is the "Therefore" which begins col 2:16. The immediate context is verses 14 and 15(actually one sentence in the greek). "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against uswhich was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross, when He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." So the REASON that nobody can judge us with regards to a festival or sabbath (v16) is because Christ has but an end to the decrees which WERE PREVIOUSLY hostile to us, the old testament expectations in the law. Given this context, and given that verse 18 seems to move on from old testament things hostile to us, onto asceticism or things coming from visions, which in reality is the context for the human commands statement, it seems that context is clearly in favor of this being old testament festivals he refers to iin 16. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
462 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239302 | ||
Ed, I'm not for certain whether this post was meant to tag me or the original poster. If it was to me I will simply say that I standby my previous post. In Christ Beja |
||||||
463 | Is common law marriage acceptable | Heb 13:4 | Beja | 226786 | ||
Always searching the word, I can tell you from a pastor's perspective, and perhaps in general, one of the hardest questions to really answer well is one where we must first grant a context in which somebody is disobedient to God. Many times a Christian will ask what is right for them once they have already gone so far outside of God's will that things are hopelessly confused. This is one of those questions. You ask, given that a man is going to live with a woman for so many years that finally even the unbelievers accept them as married, does God now accept it? God forbid a believer ever reach the point that we need to find out! Where was the concern for God's will for the many past years? The problem boils down to this: the scriptures do not give us explinations for what we are to do while we are in the midst of ignoring all the other commands of God. This is why your question will be very difficult indeed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
464 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240307 | ||
RitaAnn, May God bless you with spiritual wisdom for this. I will not continue this thread as I personally think talking through something like this would be quite a long discussion and I don't suspect a long counseling discussion is what the forum was meant for. Despite that, when you tell me that you are being counseled by your church leaders and in your words you are yet "so lost and confused about whether or not, I should terminate this marriage," I can not help but to worry if you are getting sound advice. If you wish to speak further about this you are welcome to e-mail me at jdobbins865@students.sbts.edu and we may talk further. But let me also say that getting spiritual advise from some stranger on the internet is a pretty silly notion. The forum works because we are discussing a specific text that is before each of us and discussing what it might mean. Should anyone tell me some weird interpretation I can look down at the text and see it is a bogus interpretation. Counseling is much more difficult via internet because you must analyze what is going on in a person's thinking, because the point is to get your thoughts and actions in line with scripture. You can rarely get a complete picture of somebody's thoughts and life when you have never met them. Plus YOU don't really know if my teaching is scriptural or if I'm some fringe heretic wanting to win you over to a cult. You can know two things about me. First, I am a southern baptist, with a strong reformed bent if that is helpful to you at all. Second, I am married and my wife will always be welcome to read any and all of my e-mails (and often does). All that said, if you wish to speak further on it with me in particular, you may e-mail me. Again, may God bless you with knowledge for obedience. And again, I commend 1 Peter to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
465 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224497 | ||
Setonahill, There are many places where scripture specifically sees the church and the gentiles included to be the fulfillment of promises made specifically to Israel. 1 Peter 2 quoting Hosea is one example. Another would be what James says in Acts 15. However perhaps the most clear example is Hebrew 8 quoting the new covenant, a covenant very specifically said that it was going to be made with Israel and Judah. This notion that all promises to Israel and Judah must necessarily exclude gentile believers and can not be fulfilled by what is happening in the church is basically the heart of the theology known as dispensationalism. In my opinion this thinking is demonstratably in opposition to what scripture teaches. If we are going to understand scripture, I believe that we must accept that the fulfillments of the promises are bigger than the actual promises themselves. Here is an example. Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. Now I challenge you to show me where Abraham was promised this. Paul is seeing the inheritance of all creation for those who are in Christ as fulfilling a smaller land promise to Abraham. So did God's promise to Abraham fail? Not at all, it is rather a much much bigger fulfillment that yet fulfills the promise. In the same way as this all the promises to Abraham and Israel and Judah all belong to Gentile believers who are in Christ, Abraham's seed. (Galatians 3.) Did God then lie to the Hebrew people? Absolutely not, they are still their promises too, only God has now through the grace in Christ Jesus extended those promises to be to all who trust in Christ. Rom 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (that last one is in KJV because it draws out the same word is being used for seed/descendants) So once again we see the fulfillments are larger than the promises. Because what was promised to Abraham and Israel and Judah are extended to all those in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
466 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224499 | ||
Forum, Let me just jump the gun and respond to my own post and say that I happily call many many dispensationalists my brothers and sisters in Christ. Just incase it came across wrong I in no way see their doctrine as heresy or a fellowship dividing issue. I simply believe they are wrong about an issue that will cause them to missinterpret a great number of scriptures. The denomination which I am a pastor in is 99.9 percent dispensational if I had to guess. The 0.1 percent being the few I've gotten ahold of! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
467 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224500 | ||
Ariel Levin, Its not an issue of Hebrew Grammer, but rather of scripture and theology. I'm not trying to argue that Hosea was referring to gentiles but yes, he was referring to Israel. But is he making it anymore clear than Jeremiah did in chapter 31? He specifically said to the house of Israel and Judah. That's pretty clear. Yet still the fulfillment is in Christ and His Church, the new covenant. I'm sayin the old testament promises are specifically to Abraham, Israel, David, etc. But these promises through Christ become extended to a larger group than their original groups to whom they are promised. This is because Christ becomes the recipient of every promise, and through my being in Christ, I participate in these promise. In Christ! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
468 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224509 | ||
Tim, Yep. I would wager there are more we aren't thinking of as well. So to apply this to the original point which prompted me to bring this up, anybody who says that the promises made to Israel must not be applied to the gentiles in Christ, that we must not teach it and indeed it is even false teaching, they find themselves in the very awkward position of correcting the NT writers who say these things! For it is the new testament that does this. It is Paul who says it, not us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
469 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224512 | ||
Setonahill, Yes, I ofcourse was speaking with regards to something that came later in the thread rather than the question of the initial post. Sometimes threads do go astray from the original question. I hope you won't hold it against us. I do think your original question was a fair study question to ask. I skimmed over 1 Peter and I can't say that I can point to a verse which difinitively answers your question. I do think due to the quoting of Hosea 1, it removes the possibility of the corresponding verse in 1 Peter from being difinitive proof. All I can offer is my opinion with regards to your question. My opinion is simply that Peter is portraying the Church as the reconstitution of the people of God. This new people of God are looking forward to a heavenly inheritance/country and therefore in this current world are, wherever they are, are living as strangers and pilgrims. I think this is significant theme in his letter. Therefore given that I believe that I do not think he is writing to exclusively Jewish Christians but rather are he is using some very jewish/people of God language to describe all Christians both Jew and Gentile. The one place I can argue for this is in early chapter two when he describes this new people/temple being built on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Those who reject Christ have stumbled over the stumbling stone and in verse 8 he says that indeed to this they were appointed. Now those who reject Christ are doomed and this applies to both Jew and Gentile. Further those who receive Christ he says these receive the blessings and then he speaks to them in this manner. 1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; Now note that this is the exact language of Exodus which God speaks to the people of Israel to institute them as the people of God. Who does he apply it to here in 1 peter? To them who believe in this precious stone Jesus Christ, and we agree that that applies to all whether Jew or Gentile. So this new holy nation of God is composed of all believers of any and all nations and it are these who live now as aliens and strangers in the land. This is how I understand it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
470 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224144 | ||
justme, I know that you can support what the husband ought to be doing with scriptures. But can you support your instructing her to seperate from her husband with scripture of any kind? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
471 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224148 | ||
justme, For lack of writing skills allow me to use numbers to organize my thoughts. 1.) You wrote that in 1 Cor 7:10-11 the situation of if the wife should happen to leave. From there you conclude that there are therefore reasons that the wife would leave. Lets examine the verses. 1Co 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 1Co 7:11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. So these verses start with a very clear command that the wife is to not leave. It then says that if she should do that thing which he just commanded not to do, then she is not to get remmarried. This does not at all look like it is giving circumstance in which the wife may leave. I think to infer from this passage that there must be reasons a wife can leave, and from there to make the remarkable leap that we should as you said "With that in mind examine a reason a Christian wife would want to seperate from her husband" is quite simply an abuse of the text. 2.) You ask if I know anywhere in scripture that permits a husband to do such things. Absolutely not, nor have I argued any such thing. The question is not at all whether a husband should do things like this. The question is what should a believing wife do in response. 3.) So, that leads us to the third point. Can I provide scripture to support the notion that a spouse is to remain with a husband that is acting in an ungodly way? Yes I can. 1Pe 3:1,2 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. It says that wives "in the same way." In the same way as what? Well, we have two options. Previously it has discussed slaves being submissive to masters who are being unreasonable towards them. But, the even closer context is Peter discussing how Christ willingly submitted to wicked men for the sake of bringing salvation. So the context is that wives, just as Christ suffered in ways He didn't deserve, and submitted himself willingly to this, so also wives are to submit to husbands, even ones who are "disobediant to the word." Why? So that through their willing and submissive sufferings they may be converted by the wife's conduct. So yes, I can very much provide scripture to support the wife staying with a husband who is being quite ungodly. So, since this is the clear testimony of scripture, I personally would want a very good scriptural reason to contradict it in counseling a woman. So I ask, what scriptural support do you have to simply give a wife permission to leave her husband? I take no joy in asking a wife to endure such a thing. It is truely a horrific thought. But dare I contradict scripture? The question of a ministers responsibility under such circumstances isn't really under discussion. The question simply being what does God expect of the wife? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
472 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | Beja | 221521 | ||
Brad, It sure is one of the most difficult passages! In seminary I foolishly chose to write a greek exposition paper on that passage and never could make up my mind what it meant. My teacher gave me a C- I think and I was glad to get it! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
473 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | Beja | 221546 | ||
Light, Just my personal opinion, but I don't think Peter is saying that Christ went to them in prison. It could very well mean that he preached to the ones NOW in prison, but rather He preached to them WHILE they were disobedient in the times of Noah, through the spirit through the preaching of Noah. Notice that it says "in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation." Also I think this is what the NASB is trying to convey when it translates it as the ones, "now in prison." Meaning that they weren't in prison when it happened. I leave it to you to ponder this interpretation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
474 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224774 | ||
Makarios, Thank you for the reply. Let me ask a question to help me consider your answer. Do you believe antinomianism is an error? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
475 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224803 | ||
Makarious, I agree. I would not argue that it is the only error being discussed. I do think its a very big one though. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
476 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243932 | ||
I'm really lost trying to follow this discussion. What is the 1,500 year old teaching and the 600 year old new stuff? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
477 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243939 | ||
EdB, What doors? The best I can make sense of what you have said progressively throughout this thread, it sounds like you are against letting people read scripture for themselves, but rather the catholic church was right to tell people not to think about scripture, but rather just let the priests and pope authoritatively declare what it means. It sounds like you are saying we should have never messed with that. Now to be clear, I'm sure that you couldn't possibly be saying that. From what little I know you, I don't think you believe this. So that is why I'm asking, I'm letting you know that you are coming across as this being a possibility of what you are saying. Please correct me, sir. Because I feel confident you must mean something else. You are using so many phrases that we would need to be in your head to know the meaning you assign them. "man invented theologies," "simply following Christ," "Opening doors." And many more terms are things that each individual will fill with their own meaning; this makes your posts in this thread difficult to discern. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
478 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243942 | ||
EdB, Helpful clarifications, thank you. I do think it would be implausible to completely avoid denominational differences. But I agree that etiquette in such issues should be considered crucial. Not all wrong theology should be engaged as if heresy. Beja |
||||||
479 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243945 | ||
EdB, I believe if something is wrong it should be called wrong. For example there is an example of whether or not to baptize infants. At the end of the day, either we are suppose to or we are not. One view must be wrong. And we ought to consider scripture carefully to decide. There is a time for all things as well. There is a time to focus on these things as we consider them and how they imply us ordering our lives and churches. And there is also a right time as you say to "down play those differences." As a baptist, I ought to be able to have edifying fellowship with a presbyterian, and not feel the need to constantly bring up our differences. All that being said however, there is a big differences between me for example deciding that infant baptism is wrong, and the forum enforcing that denominational conclusion. I am in support of me as an individual (in the appropriate course of studying individual passages and a respectful non-inflammatory way) to have the freedom to point out that a particular passage is against infant baptism and to articulate why I think that passage is against it. However, I do not want the "forum" taking that stance and then censoring those who believe in infant baptism. I want them to be free to show me why they think that passage does not come to my conclusion. We must distinguish between my ability to think (and say) something is wrong, with the forum enforcing my view. In my opinion, the real problem usually comes because none of us are discussing passages. We are only discussing theology in the absence of passages. For example, we might find ourselves discussing whether one can loose their salvation, but we aren't finding anybody studying and discussing Romans chapter 8. Or we aren't discussing those very interesting verses in Colossians chapter 1 that sound like they might be suggesting a loss of salvation as possible (though I don't believe they are.) I've not seen much actual "bible study" on here for some time. We are only discussing theological conclusions, not the passages that form the data upon which we must build those theological conclusions. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
480 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228599 | ||
Tim, Forgive me if some of what I ask or say has been well delt with in the past, as I have had little opportunity to speak about this topic with people who even use words as large as "sanctification." So I may be in need of hearing old well tested answers for the first time on some things. My question is first about your concept of entire sanctification. It seems to me this would mean entirely sanctified. This brings up the question of what is considered a sin. Is wrong thoughts a sin? What of wrong desires? Is the fact that I very much desire something wrong but yet I successfully resisted the desire, is that sin? My understanding of sin is such that even though one does well to resist a temptation, having that wrong desire is in and of itself sin. I don't think my mind will change on this, but perhaps one could make a case against it leaning on James 1:15. But even though I disagree, let us grant hypothetically for the sake of arguement that it is only the actual acting that is considered sin in God's eyes. Therefore we would be able to suggest sinless life is possible for those lead by the spirit in this life. But yet even should we grant all of that, do you not think that one day we will be entirely sanctified to the point of no longer even desiring? And if we will be, should not that be what entirely sanctified means? Ought entire sanctification mean one thing now and something different in heaven? Now that is what I think the phrase "entire sanctification" ought to mean. That even our desires for sin is removed such that it no longer even carries any appeal to us but rather every sin is as loathsome to us as it is to God. However, let me then deal with what you said so that I don't simply set up a straw man. I think we ought to let a man define his own terms and deal with what he is actually saying. It would be a farce to take your words and give them my definitions in order to refute you. You have said, "What the doctrine does teach is that it is possible for a Christian to live holy." I struggle with this definition. Not because of any disagreement, but do we not all agree on this? I assume, and I feel it is safe to based on your post, that you teach that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit working to put sin to death in us that we may do so. But if that is the case then where is the conflict? I agree that it is possible to live holy, yet at the same time possible for a Christian to live not holy. Are we truely so close that if you simply called it holy living rather than entire sanctification that we would be in agreement? I can't help but to doubt that, yet I can not see our difference. Perhaps if you shared with me what you mean by it being possible for a man to live holy? I will attempt to define it by what I mean, and once again, forgive me as I've had little opportunity to try to do so before and therefore my definition will not be refined by past corrections and rebukes. It is possible for a believer to live holy in that through the spirit's sin removing, Christ conforming work in us, no individual sin is impossible for a Christion to overcome in a temporary sense. (By temporary I only mean to highlight that complacency as if we are beyond that sin can lead to falling back into it.) Not only may we overcome the practice of any given particular sin, we may adopt a godly attitude towards that sin, coming to view it as God views it which is to say as a loathsome thing to be rejected. However, because the human heart is so wickedly deceitful by its fall, and because God has not yet in this live deemed to completely give us that transformation we will receive upon seeing him, and because we are still in the flesh and satan continues to tempt, and the world continues to try to lead us astray, no matter how sanctified we become, new and returning old temptations and ungodly attitudes continue to rise which again and again must be slain by submission to God's word and His spirit. Therefore a man can never become beyond sin in this life as they are in the next life. Now the last sentence is key to me. I think the "entire sanctification" in the age to come will place us beyond sin such that even under the worst trials we would not have any desire for it. We will never be such in this life but rather must constantly be weeding the garden as new sins spring up. And indeed, this all assumes we can rightly see all our sin which in itself would be a remarkable grace. Does this sound in accord with your thoughts? I do hope you can see the sincerity of my post, I am not "hunting for arminians" in order to slander or shame them, though I confess myself to be a calvinist. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [26] >> |