Results 3241 - 3260 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3241 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9563 | ||
Greetings Tim! I am also a 'Plenenary', 'Verbal', 'Confluent', and 'Inerrant' person when it comes to the inspiration of Scripture! I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and it amazes me how much we are so 'in-tuned' with each other's theology! We agree on so many things, and its good to know (and encouraging) that I have a fellow brother in Christ who follows many of the same paths of thought as I do (as well as living in the same State)! Blessings, my friend, and you are truly appreciated! Nolan PS - I've been keeping your car in my prayers.. :) |
||||||
3242 | Is the Scriptures historically reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9608 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, You stated, "Am I correct in saying that though "(t)he Bible was never meant to be, and certainly isn't, a comprehensive history of the world," it is the only history that can be relied upon to be inerrant?" And I am in agreement! I believe that the question is not "Is Scripture historically reliable?"; the question is: "Is history reliable based upon Scripture?" |
||||||
3243 | Is History Reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9729 | ||
Lionstrong, If you believe that everything in the Bible is true, it is inspired by God and is God's message to man, than everything else has to 'fall in line' with the Bible and what the Bible teaches. Therefore, if history doesn't match up with the Bible, then we should rethink history in relation to the Bible. That is pretty much what I was getting at when I stated that phrase or put the question in that way to you. It is so easy for man to 'explain away' every single little thing and not have a clue as to what everything means in relation to God and His Holy Word. Nolan |
||||||
3244 | Calling, contrary to scripture? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Makarios | 27976 | ||
Hello Dave, The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary adds, "neither male nor female--rather, as Greek, "there is not male and female." There is no distinction into male and female. Difference of sex makes no difference in Christian privileges. But under the law the male sex had great privileges. Males alone had in their body circumcision, the sign of the covenant (contrast baptism applied to male and female alike); they alone were capable of being kings and priests, whereas all of either sex are now "kings and priests unto God" (Rev_1:6); they had prior right to inheritances. In the resurrection the relation of the sexes shall cease (Luk_20:35). one--Greek, "one man"; masculine, not neuter, namely "one new man" in Christ (Eph_2:15)." Unity in Christ transcends any social distinctions, even gender. Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
3245 | Women less sinful than us?? | 1 Tim 2:14 | Makarios | 157957 | ||
Greetings Robin, When definitely have their share in the fall of mankind as well as men. Just because you found a stastic somewhere that says that there are more men in prison does not mean that that same statistic can be extrapolated as a representation of men and women as a whole in society.. Was Jezebel ever arrested? Perhaps not.. But she still had her part in the judgment, and so does everyone else. If you are looking for some support to this notion that women are any less sinful then men, then you have found the wrong internet website. - Makarios |
||||||
3246 | Women less sinful than us?? | 1 Tim 2:14 | Makarios | 157958 | ||
I apologize, I meant to say "Women definitely have.." Perhaps women can type with less mistakes than men. - Makarios |
||||||
3247 | Can a woman speak in church? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Makarios | 10731 | ||
"2:15 preserved through the bearing of children. This may mean (1) brought safely through childbirth, (2) saved through the birth of a Child (Jesus the Savior), or (3) that a woman’s greatest achievement is found in her devotion to her divinely ordained role: to help her husband, to bear children, and to follow a faithful, chaste way of life." (Ryrie Expanded Edition NASB Study Bible) "saved in childbearing: Some believe this verse refers to the birth of Christ and that the woman is Mary. However, it may refer to the woman’s special task of bearing children (see Titus 2:3–5). The salvation referred to here is not justification, but daily sanctification. Most likely, Paul is referring to being delivered from the desire to dominate by recognizing one’s appropriate place in God’s creation order. If they continue suggests that this salvation (that is, sanctification) is conditioned upon women’s continued walk in the faith, in love, in holiness, and in self-control." (Nelson's NKJV Study Bible) "Salvation, As Deliverance—God’s salvation includes women as well as men. Compare 4:10. God saves them. Their childbearing does not. See note on Eph 2:4-5, 7-10. This text contradicted an early non-biblical idea that women had to become males in order to be saved or that sexual relationships and birth are evil, part of the world’s way instead of God’s. The literal translation is “she will be saved through the childbearing.” This may be a reference to the birth of Christ as glorifying womanhood. If the meaning is woman’s physical safety in childbearing, the reference should be interpreted against the background of Ge 3:16. If the meaning is the birth of Christ by the virgin Mary, the phrase should be interpreted as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Ge 3:15 about Eve’s seed bruising the head of the serpent-tempter. The preposition here translated through does not mean by means of. See 1 Co 3:16 for a similar use of saved and through, where the meaning is to come safely through the fire. Woman’s physical safekeeping in childbirth is the most likely meaning." (Disciple's Study Bible) "... Paul is speaking in general terms; God does not want all women to be married (1 Cor. 7:25-40), let alone bear children. 'if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. The godly appearance, demeanor, and behavior commanded of believing women in the church (vv. 9-12) is motivated by the promise of deliverance from any inferior status and the joy of raising godly children." (MacArthur NKJV Study Bible) |
||||||
3248 | Can a woman speak in church? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Makarios | 27978 | ||
Greetings Dave! In a prior verse, you cited Galatians 3:28 as saying that there is no distinction between men and women in Christ.. If that is so, and if women are saved through child-bearing (by use of the Greek word "sozo"), then are men condemned to hell because they cannot bear children??? Do you see the major flaw in this kind of thinking? So the answer is: "NO", child-bearing in and of itself does not bring salvation to anyone! We must look at this verse within the context of the entire passage of 1 Tim. 2:9-15. Here, we see a contrast between the role of men and women. Men are to exercise authority and women are not to usurp this authority, but they are to fulfill their role in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint through the bearing (and rearing) of children. In this way, the role of men and women are clearly defined, both in this way "making a claim to godliness." (v. 10) - Nolan |
||||||
3249 | Can a woman speak in church? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Makarios | 27980 | ||
Greetings Dave! Sorry, I meant "In a prior post..." - Nolan |
||||||
3250 | Can a woman speak in church? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Makarios | 28405 | ||
Ok Dave, You say that you did not state anything about Galatians 3:28.. What do you think that Paul is saying in 1 Tim. 2:15? - Nolan |
||||||
3251 | Can a woman speak in church? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Makarios | 28464 | ||
Ok, fair enough.. :-) From your past posts in this thread, I thought that you possibly had an answer in mind. Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
3252 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Makarios | 13519 | ||
AMEN JVH0212!! | ||||||
3253 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | Makarios | 13531 | ||
Greetings Tim! I wholeheartedly agree with your statement: "I was annoyed at seeing Arminism equated with the heresy of Pelagianism. The two have nothing in common whatsoever. The logic used to equate the two is ridiculous. It would be like saying that because Muslims believe in one God that Christians are semi-muslim." I, too, wanted to debate this, but I am finding myself simply growing tired of having to defend myself time after time after time on this Forum.. I thank you for having the stamina and the courage to reply to this and you did it in a most respectful manner as always, my friend! If a person has Scripture to back it up, then great! However, if a person just "asserts" their views with no Scriptural basis, then they are only causing trouble on the Forum and creating divisiveness. Thank you for your constant and ever encouraging witness, my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||
3254 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6946 | ||
Steve, once again you are reading the text way too literally here and missing the meaning altogether! Does not Paul wish that every man could be as he is (single)? (1 Corinthians 7:7) Since it was true that Paul was single (and so was Jesus), then does this disqualify Paul from being a true leader of the church? By no means! Then Paul would be disabasing himself, since he was the one that spoke those words in the book of Titus! Would Ezra or Nehemiah not be considered as leaders, since there is no mention of their wives in either of the books that bear their names? And they led the nation of Israel to rebuild the temple. Jesus, the ultimate leader, lived a life of celibacy. Is He therefore, not qualified for leadership, being the very Son of God? Was Paul not speaking of his leadership and apostleship while in imprisonment (Phil. 1:12-14, 2:12,14) even though he himself was single? I fear that you have once again misinterpreted a verse with a point of view that is way too literal to be able to derive the true meaning from the text.I am a single man and a leader in my church! And my witness or ministry is not restrained whatsoever by the fact that I am single. In fact, I can do many things that would be difficult for a married couple to do at the drop of a hat, since I only have to answer to one Person, my Lord, and follow Him as a Godly man. | ||||||
3255 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6947 | ||
Steve, Paul most definitely was the leader, being a minister to the Gentiles. Here's more to consider: Enoch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, Andrew, and John the apostle, who is also called 'the elder'.. Where is there any mention of their wives, since they were so prominent in leading Israel and the church? These were all single men, unless you can prove me wrong. Would each one of these be qualified to be a pastor/deacon/bishop/elder in a church? | ||||||
3256 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6976 | ||
Steve, after reading your response, all I have to say is "WHAT?" My point still stands and you haven't even begun to answer the half of it.Steve, do you honestly think that people can take you seriously after what you wrote?This is exactly the type of thing that is proving to be a 'cancer' for the Forum. People who post things that are not biblically based or who hold to their opinions rather than Scripture. All you fellow members out there, please don't hold or continue in this example- of pressing your non-biblical opinions or just arguing for the sake of arguing- and provide some good, Bible based, sound answers to good questions. I feel that in every good post or question that has been maligned in some fashion by someone who has infused their own misinterpretation into the topic, the one who originally wrote the post must be apologized to by the one who has engendered such debate that is so far removed from the discussion at hand. And in this case, so far in left field that it reaches beyond the dugout.Please don't take this too much as a 'slam', Steve, but as 'positive criticism', and I hope that this would bear fruit. | ||||||
3257 | What does 1 Tim 3:2 mean? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6980 | ||
Dear PSP, prayon, Hank, and JVHO212, I believe that the question posed by 1 Tim. 3:2 "the husband of one wife" is best interpreted within the context of the passage as referring to one's moral character. Having more than one wife at any time or practicing any extramarital sexual activity would be in violation of this charge. Therefore, a candidate should be a 'one-woman man' if they are married, and there shouldn't be even a hint of sexual immorality. In this way, a candidate can prove themselves to be a worthy and considerable person for office because of the example that they set forth. I feel that this verse in no way bars those who have been divorced and remarried, widowed, single and never married, or those who are single from divorce to have the ability to take office and be able to perform the duties that God has called them to do. In fact, I find it couragous for those who are widowed or single from divorce to be willing to step back into a position of leadership and to be a 'role model' of purity and restoration with a testimony to share after being through such experiences as they have been through. | ||||||
3258 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6981 | ||
Steve, once again, I believe that you are way out of context here. I would ask that you would further explain (using the Bible) what it is that you mean, but I will respect your decision to leave this issue alone. | ||||||
3259 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 7180 | ||
In response to 2 Tim 1:3, we should show ourselves to be blameless! And this requires a clear conscience. In Job 12:4, we read that Job was blameless. Therefore, since Job was just a human like us, it is possible for us to achieve blamelessness in our lives. Job had a clear conscience before his accusers and before God! Never was sin found in him that wasn't already repented of in his past and he had a clear conscience before the Lord. It is important that we have a clear conscience since through our blamelessness we will inherit good (Proverbs 28:10). It is clear and very important that we live blamelessly before men (Acts 24:16) so that we do not give unbelievers any reason or occasion to mock our Lord or any fellow Christian. We must also show ourselves to be blameless before God (Eph. 1:4, 2 Pet. 3:14) and in the Law (Phil. 3:6). If we keep our eyes focused on Christ, then He can keep us from stumbling, so that we may be blameless in His sight (Jude 24) with no more wrong in us left to make right. | ||||||
3260 | clear conscience | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 7212 | ||
Steve, 1 Corinthians 4:4 says (NASB), "For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord." This verse does not automatically assume that we each have a clear conscience. Paul is stating here that he has a clear conscience, he is not speaking for you or for me here. Therefore, this verse does not 'prove' that we all have a clear conscience. However, Paul is saying that even though his conscience is clear, the ultimate judgment rests with the Lord (much like the scenario with Job in the Book of Job). This verse is not saying anything about all believers in general, you or me, or whatever. Paul is speaking in this verse about himself, and himself only. Reading this verse within the context of the chapter reveals this.No, none of my posts have been truncated. But I have noticed that the paragraphing and space separation that I use in writing posts somehow 'disappears' when viewed after I write them. Also, several characters have been inserted into my posts (making it look like misspellings) that were not there originally. Other than that, things have been Ok. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 ] Next > Last [185] >> |