Results 501 - 520 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47567 | ||
Greetings Parable, There is nothing that you have stated, nor is there anything in the Bible that can work to convince a man or woman of God that masturbation should not be considered as the immoral sexual, sinful act that it is. There is absolutely nothing righteous or "good" about the act of masturbation, and you have not yet begun to address what I have formally written on the subject. You cannot divorce what we know today as "masturbation" from the sexual immorality that is so clearly and uncompromisingly stated within Holy Scripture as being something that Christians should completely avoid. However, I do appreciate your comments, and it will be interesting to see whether or not you are able to state anything that would work to solidify or "justify" the sin of masturbation in any one of your posts. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
502 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47568 | ||
Greetings Parable! I'm not sure exactly what your purpose is behind your response to my comments, even though it seems that you did at least make an attempt to respond. However, I think that I will wait for a future response from you concerning my comments (or my questions to you) before I respond, since you have clearly not answered or dealt with those yet. - Makarios |
||||||
503 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47569 | ||
Greetings again Parable, Romans 8:28 is a verse that is constantly misapplied and taken out of its context.. This time, unfortunately, you are using Romans 8:28 to justify the sin of masturbation. Peter and Titus warn us against those who use Scripture or teach against what has been clearly revealed to us as the Truth, so that we do not become detestable to God and defile our consciences (Titus 1:10-16; 1 Peter 2:1-3). There is no possible way that Romans 8:28 could be used or twisted to support the sinful act of masturbation. I believe that you and your wife should seek the counsel of your pastor, and not that of a Study Bible Forum, to help you in this very personal aspect of your marriage. You have stated, "To be honest, I am disturbed by the idea you and your group think you can do anything to keep anyone on the "cutting edge" of a relationship with God." You can misquote or misunderstand me to any degree that you prefer. However, what is more disturbing is that you can profess to be living a Godly life and to allow this sin to run rampant and unchecked, as if there were nothing wrong with it. And yes, by promulgating your stance on masturbation on such a public and supposedly Christian medium as this, you are encouraging the sinful act of masturbation. Speaking of continence, the Bible makes it clear that one can be free from sinful sexual enslavement, and there is not one single verse that states or even suggests that a Christian can or should make masturbation a choice. The Bible has already clearly pronounced that "choice" for us - to renounce it, repent of it, and to avoid it! I continue to wait for any solid support whatsoever that would make masturbation a justifiable act for a Godly man or woman to indulge in. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
504 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47572 | ||
Biynah, Your error is clearly in the fact that you divorce masturbation from sexual immorality when it is just that- sexual immorality! Your stand for the justification of masturbation is not only grievous, but you have failed to convince me and the rest of the Forum that masturbation is not sin. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, the etymology for the word "masturbation" is 'altered' or 'to DISTURB': "defilement ... to manipulate one's own genitals ... for sexual gratification." The meaning of this English word is clear, and it is grievous that a 'secular' source had to be used to point this out to you. Masturbation is the defilement of one's own body by indulging in the sexual pleasure and sin that a person is tempted with. It is a sin and should be discontinued, forsaken and entirely repented of. All of the Scripture that I have cited on this subject speaks volumes on masturbation, despite your weak attempts to refute what Scripture so plainly states! You have failed to justify the sinful act of masturbation, and you cannot show me any single verse in the Bible that clearly supports or leads anyone to believe that masturbation is a harmless choice that is left up to the person. You cannot divorce masturbation from sexual immorality, and the Bible states that sexual immorality is a sin. Therefore, masturbation is a sin, and this is clearly stated as such by reading the Bible. That is what you so plainly need to see and recognize! - Makarios |
||||||
505 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47634 | ||
Greetings Forum.. If there is anyone out there who is truly a Christian or who honestly wants to follow in a Lord/discipleship relationship with Jesus Christ, then please rest assured: the Bible says that all sexual immorality is a sin, and that includes masturbation. The spiritual status of this Forum is about as vibrant as a cold dead corpse. Is there ANYONE out there that is seeking a close relationship to Jesus Christ? Do all want to justify sin in wake of what the Bible and what our consciences clearly tell us? The fact that we have to even discuss this topic is an indictment against the spiritual status of casual Christians today. I do not believe that it is in any way edifying or honorable to God to in any way attempt to justify masturbation or to attempt to reason it out as a 'choice.' There is right and wrong, there is black and white. Masturbation is sin, and there is no gray area! Masturbation should NOT be considered as automatic and harmless as other activities such as consuming food. And may the Lord's anger be upon me if I ever encourage another to indulge in the sin of masturbation. In Mark 9:43, Jesus speaks about whatever there is that hinders must be taken away in order to progress and grow spiritually. In other words, if your mind is filled with thoughts of lust and passion, then those thoughts need to be done away with (or dealt with if a person is married) so that a person will not be led to indulge themselves in such sins as masturbation and adultery. God bless those whose minds have not yet entertained the justification of masturbation, those who have not sought to entertain such thoughts in their minds. For the thought of masterbation and its consequences is clear in my own mind, and the thought or attempt of its justification had never entered my mind, until now. But now I have to come up with a response to your post that is not only Scripturally based, but convincing.. And the content of my response has forced me to think of how you would react to such a proposition. Matthew 19:11 states, ".."Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given." In no way does this verse serve to justify masturbation. What this verse is saying is that not all men will be content to remain single, given their circumstances. And Jesus gives us some examples (in verse 12) of those who have chosen (and who are able) to abstain from sexual immorality AND marriage, since Jesus gave the disciples a high standard for marriage in verse 9, and the disciples responded by saying, "..it is better not to marry." The disciples clearly saw this standard (of being sexually pure) as being unreachable, or too high for them to attain. But Jesus clearly led them to believe that it was a reachable or attainable goal, by giving them some examples in verse 12. Therefore, you can handle your sex drive AND be able to remain pure and undefiled in both a marriage relationship and as a single person without a "necessity" to masturbate. For the "necessity" for sexual fulfillment is not in your body and it is not automatic. It is in your MIND. And that is where it can be dealt with, repented of, and forsaken of. Believe me, you CAN have victory over this sin, and it is not too hard or unreachable to attain! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
506 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47636 | ||
Greetings Inmyheart! Thank you for having the courage to come out and state the truth that masturbation is sin! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
507 | is masterbation a sin explain thxs | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 47637 | ||
SERENETIME, I AM BEING REAL! Too bad that there are very few REAL Christians that take part in this website. Makarios |
||||||
508 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48189 | ||
Greetings dschaertel! You ask: "Again, my question was how do you or anybody else determine the authority to decide what is scripture?" Does Scripture count, since what we know as "Scripture" refers to itself as being 'inspired'? 2 Peter 1:21, 1 Cor. 2:13, John 16:13, 1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Peter 1:16, John 1:1 These are just a few of the verses that the Bible contains in which it refers to itself as "inspired" from God. So should be believe it when the Bible itself states that it is the authoritative, inspired message from God to humankind? - Makarios |
||||||
509 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48272 | ||
Dschaertel Well, that is just it! You see, the Bible CLAIMS to be inspired by God! However, it is interesting that there is no claim in any Apocryphal book in regard to divine inspiration. :-) So there you go. The books that claim to be inspired or were written or backed by a prophet or apostle of God belong in the Bible. Only books that are authoritative, and tell the truth about God as it is already known by previous revelation belong in the Word of God. And if the book is also giving evidence of having the power of God and is widely accepted by the people of God, as well as meeting the other requirements above, then it is and should be considered as Scripture. But can you find any instance in any Apocryphal book that claims divine inspiration? Also, no NT author ever quoted from any of these books (that are included in the Catholic Bible) as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired writ. If these books had been inspired, then why did Jesus and the disciples virtually ignore all of these books? Therefore, I believe that it should not be a hard task for a Christian to be able to determine just what is inspired Scripture and what isn't. I have touched upon some of the criteria for determining just which books belong and which books do not belong, and I believe that it is quite obvious when touching upon the text itself, that is, if you have ever read the Bible for yourself. |
||||||
510 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48289 | ||
Greetings The Berean, Speaking of the book of Esther... "An outstanding feature of this book- one that has given rise to considerable discussion- is the complete absence of any explicit reference to God, worship, prayer, or sacrifice. This "secularity" has produced many detractors who have judged the book to be of little religious value. However, it appears that the author has deliberately refrained from mentioning God or any religious activity as a literary device to heighten the fact that it is God who controls and directs all the seemingly insignificant coincidences (see, e.g. note on 6:1) that make up the plot and issue in deliverance for the Jews. God's sovereign rule is assumed at every point (see note on 4:12-16), an assumption made all the more effective by the total absence of reference to Him." (1) I pray that this serves to justify and make clear the addition of the book of Esther in the Bible. Blessings to you, Makarios (1) The Zondervan NASB Study Bible, 1999, the Zondervan Corporation, Kenneth Barker, General Editor [taken from the Introduction to Esther] |
||||||
511 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48342 | ||
Greetings Dschaertel! No, I believe that I'm right on target, my friend. 1. Let's talk about the authoritativeness of Scripture.. What makes them authoritative, you ask? First of all, what is meant by "authoritative"? What we mean by authoritative is that it can be said of this book as it was said of Jesus in Mark 1:22: "They were astonished at His teaching because, unlike the scribes, He was teaching them as one having authority." [HCSB] Does the book in question come across in the same way that Jesus came across? That is what we mean when we say that the books of the Bible are 'authoritative.' And from Genesis to Revelation, this is so, since each book rings with a sense of "thus saith the Lord." It could be said that we get this definition of "authority" from the Lord, and from the way in which He conveys His teaching and message to us, since the Bible and the teachings of the Lord are entirely different from anything else that exists on this earth! There is no other book or manuscript that is quite like the Bible, and it is truly a 'one of a kind'! Only the Bible speaks "authoritatively" (in the same sense that Jesus did) to the human race. And the only document or book that speaks this way IS the Bible. So, it is not a sense of having a word being defined by itself as in a dictionary, but it is an acknowledgement of the Bible being something totally unique, different and the only one 'of its kind.' And the best way for us to describe this distinction is as "speaking with authority." And those books that uniformly "speak with authority" should be included in and amongst each other, forming a small 66 book "library" of 'authoritative' teaching from God to humankind. 2. I was able to find your support of the book of Enoch, as being quoted from in Scripture, in the book of Jude (Jude 14-15). However, there are good reasons for the exclusion of the book of Enoch, and that is something that Catholics and Protestants are not in disagreement with, as you have stated. However, I am hard-pressed to find the Scripture quotation in the New Testament from the book of Baruch. If you know it, then please share it. Yes, quotation DOES hold up as criteria for determining canonicity. Through Jesus, we know and have confirmation that the Old Testament is sound and complete, and the Gospel writers, who used the Old Testament on occasion, were in themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit while writing the Gospels. So by being quoted from, that adds precedence and weight to the inclusion of that book within Scripture. However, you mentioned the book of Esther. True, the Book of Esther is not quoted from in the New Testament. However, it could be argued that the CONTENT of the book of Esther does, in fact, provide all of the evidence that the book of Esther needs for inspiration, and this is what separates the book of Esther from the Apocryphal books. But the same cannot be said of the Book of Enoch, simply because it is quoted from in Jude. With that, one must examine the Book of Enoch to realize just why it cannot be included within Scripture. So yes, quotation is an excellent measure in determining what books should be included within Scripture, even though a book is not automatically included within Scripture just by being quoted from. 3. In your third thought, you make it sound as if everyone is confused about which books should be included, when there was, in fact, really not that much confusion at all. The books of James and Revelation always spoke authoritatively and were widely accepted, even though James was doubted because of its apparent conflict with Paul's teaching about salvation by faith alone. Revelation was doubted because it teaches a thousand year reign of Christ, which unfortunately was the same belief of a popular cult at that time. But many of the early church fathers believed in the inclusion of James and Revelation within Scripture, and it was eventually made so, despite these alleged "contradictions" or "heresies" that were not really contradictions or heresies at all. But the fact of the matter is is that the complete Word of God has been preserved and carried through history until today, and we can be assured that the Lord will protect His word and keep it complete for all time! "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." [Matthew 24:35] Blessings to you, Makarios Note: Much of the reasoning that I have used was gleaned from the "Bible Answer Man" himself, Ron Rhodes' "The Complete Book of Bible Answers", 1997, Harvest House Publishers. |
||||||
512 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 48345 | ||
Greetings again Dschaertel! I see that you have no problem in asking us questions! However, I will ask you a question in return.. Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will strike him with the plagues that are written in this book. Rev 22:19 If anyone takes away any words from the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life and the holy city that are described in this book. [ISV] Is Revelation 22:18-19 only speaking of the book of Revelation? Or the New Testament? Or the Old Testament? And you most likely know that the book of Revelation was written around A.D. 90 or even later, which would most assuredly qualify it as being the last book that was written by the apostles. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
513 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 49675 | ||
Greetings Colin! Thank you for sharing such an excellent website, and I will have to study it in much more depth when time allows.. I have already added it to my "Favorites" list. Thank you! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
514 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 50395 | ||
* Reposted due to popular demand * "Is baptism necessary for salvation? No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26)." "© 2000 Grace to You" Part 1 of 2 [http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] |
||||||
515 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 50397 | ||
* Reposted due to popular demand * Part 2 of 2 "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" "Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." "© 2000 Grace to You" Part 2 of 2 [http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] |
||||||
516 | Code to the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 54885 | ||
Greetings Hank! I most definitely concur, my friend, that the Bible is not a book of "crossword" puzzles or codes, but it is the message of salvation for all humankind. Anyone who studies the Bible merely for the enjoyment or study of "codes" is wasting and misusing the most precious message that man has ever known. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
517 | Is there anyone condemed to die by God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 54887 | ||
Excellent source material, Kalos! :) Great to see you posting again! Grace to you, Makarios |
||||||
518 | What 3 men are examples of doing wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 55305 | ||
Hello Hank! Ha! How true, how very true! :-) Its good to be back and conversing with such friends like you! Your traveling Hoosier, Makarios |
||||||
519 | Brand new out of date NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 55483 | ||
I like that idea as well, my friend! "Ask Hank." |
||||||
520 | Lord, Teach us to pray. | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 56288 | ||
You are quite welcome, Christian7! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Makarios |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [185] >> |