Results 521 - 540 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
521 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 224005 | ||
Bradk, So you are saying that your earlier thoughts were not a blanket statement on all the commands given to Israel, but something in particular about leviticus 18 makes it not for the church? I'm not sure how appealing to Leviticus 20 is different from appealing to Leviticus 18? I do hope you understand that I was in no way suggesting you accepted such a thing as beastiality. My line of reasoning was meant to suggest that your stance lead to a conclusion which you certainly would not accept so that you would rethink the stance. So my reasoning was based on the assumption that you would utterly reject such a thing. I read your bio for the first time, I very much enjoyed it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
522 | Jesus doesn't answer me | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224002 | ||
mamametal, May you be blessed from the Lord "under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." (Ruth 2:12) Let me say this, if I was personally asked something like this I would certainly not assume it to be an issue that could be resolved in a short time. It seems abundantly clear it is a matter for extended teaching and discipling. Let me ask you some questions. I do not ask these things to make you feel bad or to pick your post apart but rather they all matter a great deal in how to answer you. Do you regularly attend a church? If so what denomination is it? Knowing what you are being taught will help us to know if any mistaken notions drive you to such despair. Are you regularly reading scripture? You say, "Iam saved." How do you know? What are you resting such assurance upon? What is "being saved" in your understanding? When you say that you can't hear Jesus/God, what is it that you mean by that? Do you mean to say that you actually expect to hear an audible voice? Or do you mean that you don't feel particular leadings or convictions? How exactly do you think the Lord ought to be communicating to you? When you say that you want and need something personally, what is it that you mean precisely? When you say that you got a visit from the Holy Ghost, what do you mean by that? By what standards are you deeming that it happened? And what exactly in your thinking are the implications of it? All these things are important for giving you biblical answers. If you wish to discuss it with me, then it might be best if we do so over some e-mails rather than through this forum. This isn't going to be resolved with a few posts. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
523 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 223995 | ||
BradK, I ofcourse believe completely that our acceptance to God is based upon us being in Christ, and nothing other than this. However, just because I say that God expects us to behaive to a certain standard, does not mean that I am making that standard the means of salvation. It would be like me asking you if you believe that its ok for us to commit murder? You ofcourse would reply that it is not ok for us to commit murder. What if I then turned around and said you were suggesting we are saved and accepted before God baised on us not murdering? You would rightly reply that is completely unfounded. Your saying we are suppose to not murder in no way implies that you think this is the very grounds of our acceptance before God. The same goes for what I am saying. Just because I say we ought not do something, does not mean I am suggesting that it is the grounds for our acceptance before God. Now, as to your stating that nothing in Leviticus 18 is expected of the church. How would you reply to a member of your church who wanted your congregation to accept his practicing beastiality? I would personally turn to Leviticus 18:23. But you claim that Leviticus 18 has no application to us. How than will you respond? Nowhere in the new testament is bestiality addressed? Will you try to argue that it is implied in fornication or sexual immorality? What then if I said sexual immorality and fornication only applied to intercourse with men and women? How would you refute it if not to say that leviticus 18 is the biblical notion of sexual morality? Or would you agree that bestiality is acceptable conduct for a christian? (For any who are misreading me, I completely deny that beastiality is acceptable for a christian!) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
524 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 223992 | ||
Brad and amour, I still can't make up my mind whether I agree with you on this. At least to be fair, we should admit to the fact that this was prohibited in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. (lev 18:19) However, the question then becomes how does this translate towards us under the new covenant. There are infact somethings that no longer apply to us as believers. Certain ceremonies, washings, festivals, food restrictions etc. where all meant to point forward to Christ in various ways, and as such are no longer something to be observed now that the reality has come. Colossians 2:16,17 "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." However, there are some things in the old testament that are certainly still valid to us today. Nobody would argue we are freed from things such as the commands not to murder, steal, or commit adultery. We are free in the sense that we not longer dwell under the ability of such laws to condemn us, if we are in Christ, but not free in the sense that those things cease to be our expected morality. The question I have, when you read through Leviticus 19, do those seem to be things pointing to Christ or do those things seem to be things that are actually in and of themselves abominable to God? I would suggest the ONLY one in that list that you would even consider saying is acceptable is the very one we are discussing. So it does seem likely that it should be viewed in the same way. Amour, I wish I could condense this into a concise answer, but unavoidably this runs into the much bigger question of how do we apply the old testament to Christians today. I have given you some strong hints on how I think about it, but unavoidably we are going to disagree about it here on this forum. What I do think we can all agree on is that if your conscience is not comfortable with it, then you should not do it. (Romans 14:22,23). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
525 | What does it mean to lose ones crown? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223988 | ||
swill6ky, Do you have a scripture reference that suggests loosing crowns? This really needs some context to answer properly. For some it would mean a metal cap on one of your teeth fell off and for me it's probably in the couch cushion somewhere. Where in scripture does it speak of us loosing a crown? Help us out with that and I think we could answer your question much better by looking at the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
526 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223986 | ||
To the thread and forum, If anybody is truely struggling with this question I bet this book by John Piper would help you work through the issue. And Piper is very biblical in the things he writes. Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? by John Piper You can find it for like six dollars in paperback on amazon.com. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
527 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223979 | ||
Sonofmom, Very true. I actually hesitated several times before actually daring to even write the word coincidence! Don't we serve a wonderful God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
528 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223972 | ||
Sonofmom, "The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." With regard to God saying they are "one," I do not think this is sarcasm but rather figurative language perhaps. What he means here is that they are all one language and one people group so to speak. Perhaps we would say "one nation." The point being that humanity was essentially united with no difference in culture, language, or ethnicity. Where God says that nothing that they purpose to do will be impossible for them is a little harder for me to answer. I don't get, the impression that it is sarcasm. If it was sarcasm God would be saying the opposite, that they really couldn't do anything and that doesn't seem to be the case. But neither do I think he means by this that they can for example, create a bird from thin air. So certainly he doesn't mean absolutely nothing is impossible for them. In the end all I think we can say definitively is that their very real ability to achieve their goals coupled with their "man glorifying" focus had them headed for spiritual destruction for the sake of temporal power. See verse 4 for their man centered goals and keep in mind God had commanded them to spread through the whole earth. Coincidentally, I just listened to a sermon on this passage that might interest you. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2007/2354_The_Pride_of_Babel_and_the_Praise_of_Christ/ In Christ, Beja |
||||||
529 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223965 | ||
Freeatlast, Let me respond in two parts. First, I will respond concerning the passage in 2 Samuel. As I have readily admitted, and will continue to do so, it is very possible that David simply means the grave. However, let me defend the possibility that he means in heaven with two observations. First, there is no flaw in the reasoning if we mean to say that it is possible that he meant it, and we do not mean to say dogmatically that he meant it. In other words, we can't say that he certainly meant the grave any more so than we can say he certainly meant heaven. There is some valid ambiguity here because of which we ought not be dogmatic on either side. The next observation, it seems that David is truely consoling himself in someway with what he says. He is finding some peace or assurance from it. It seems much more likely that he is professing something that comforts him rather than saying, "It's pointless at this point, so who cares?" Therefore, while I whole heartedly agree that David could be referring to the grave, I do not at all think it is a irresponsible reading of the text to suggest he means the child is in heaven. Though once again, I affirm we do not have the grounds to insist upon it dogmatically. Second, I will respond with regards to the age being thirteen. The one absolutely gaping problem is that scripture never in any way explicitely teaches a doctrine of "age of accountability." There are texts from which we infer that teaching, but nowhere can we point to a text and say that scripture was there specifically trying to teach us that children of a certain age go to heaven when they die. All passages are of the nature of the one in 2 Samuel which while we may look at them and have some grounds for hope, we certainly can't dogmatically assert such a doctrine. So then, if we can not dogmatically assert that scripture even teaches a doctrine of the age of accountability, how absolutely irresponsible it is of us to extend our speculation so far as to try to name an exact age! How can you argue that it must clearly be the age of thirteen, when you can not defend the doctrine even exists adiquately? Lets go one step further. What is to be gleaned from arguing a specific age? Nothing is gained except the risk of causing parents to be lax in their "laboring until Christ is formed" in them. I will state here what I will continue to teach in the Church which I pastor. We will extend the age of accountability as a comfort to a grieving parent, but we will never extend it as a comfort and a reason to be lax to the parent of a living child! May we stive mightily in the preaching of the gospel to our children! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
530 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223962 | ||
Searcher, Indeed he could have meant that. When I preached on the topic I clearly pointed out as much. I can't recall my post but I meant to point it out there as well. In fact, the possibility that he could have meant that largely drove my application. I suggested that it is likely enough that he meant "heaven" that I feel we can validly offer hope to a grieving parent. However, we are on thin enough ice that we should never under any circumstances rest on this with regards to a living child. To a living child, we always rely on teaching the gospel rather than a notion of an "age of accountability." Hope this clarifies. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
531 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223956 | ||
Sonofmom, Absolutely God is capable of sarcasm. For just one example I refer you to Job chapter 38:18-21 "Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you now all this. Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!" Obviously what God means by this is that he was in fact NOT born then and the number of his days are NOT great. This is ofcourse God being sarcastic to make a point. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
532 | Jesus going to Hell | Rev 1:18 | Beja | 223939 | ||
Droach, BradK is absolutely correct. Another passage that is sometimes take to say that Christ decended into hell is Ephesians 4, however I think that one is very clearly not saying that when you do a good exegisis of it. However, it is worth noting that the Apostles Creed, one of the earliest creeds of the church that we can point to, states that Christ decended into hell. Later reformed thought, at least Calvin I know, suggests this simply refers to what He endured on the cross. Its really only my respect for the apostle's creed that even causes me to humor the idea of it. Yet, to this day I can't say that I can find the notion in any place in scripture and I think it best that we don't speculate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
533 | God's wrath in the old testament | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 223938 | ||
Bibleuser, In my opinion we should warn them solemly that such a day is coming again. When Christ returns it will be in wrath and fire and all those who are not Christ's will perish. We should not hide from these things but rather use them to show clearly that God will come with holy wrath as he has in the past. And I'm willing to bet when he comes there will be children in those days as well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
534 | army killed after circumcised by jews | Gen 34:1 | Beja | 223936 | ||
Dr D, Genesis 34 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
535 | adultery committed against our own body? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223911 | ||
Kay, I would be very careful not to missunderstand what the apostle Paul meant by this. He is NOT suggesting by this that other sins hurt people but you are really only hurting yourself by sexual sins. This could lead people to mistakenly believe that as long as they feel alright with sinning against themselves they are free to sin. I think what Paul is trying to say is that sexual sins are in some way especially defiling us in addition to all the normal ramifications of sin. It would take too long of post to explain what exactly I think he is saying, but do at least understand that Paul is presenting this as a more drastic thing not as a lesser sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
536 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223871 | ||
Godinus, You've misread me on two points. The divisive search for truth isn't the utopian idea you've understood me to say. Also, a mistaken belief is not a "truth." If there are two contradictory statements then at least one of them is wrong. So I believe with two contradictory statements we can seek to show that one is contrary to scripture, if not both. Second, when I said "lets just let people preach baptismal regeneration" I was in no way suggesting we do that, but rather quoting the spirit of one of your previous posts. If you are suggesting that baptism is the means of our salvation then I fully believe this is a heresy and it should not be preached. So I apologize for that confusion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
537 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223867 | ||
rclouviere, I completely understand that this is a hard thing to hear. Let me respond to a few things you said. "I would struggle with this if it is correct" For the immediate furture. I would encourage you to simply seek out if it is correct rather than trying to emotionally handle the implications. Study the passages I listed carefully. As you do pray that God would help you understand the truth regardless of how unpleasant the idea is. "I don't see how just creation is enough to find your way to heaven." I don't suggest that it is. The implication seems to be that creation is enough to leave us without excuse, yet not enough to reveal the gospel. "If someone doesn't ever know of the Gospel and the way to salvation, I don't see how they could end up in hell." We have to ask ourselves one simple yet troubling question. Do we or do we not truely deserve Hell? According to scripture the answer is yes. But if we truely do deserve it, then what that actually means is that God could have never done the slightest thing to save us and yet He would remain blameless. Fair would be to simply allow us all to suffer our punishment. That is what we are saying when we say we actually deserve Hell. If you can bring yourself to accept that, then it follows that God neither owes anybody the gospel nor salvation. If He is under obligation to none of us regarding the gospel and salvation, and He then in this freedom chooses to give the gospel it still does not put Him under obligation to give it to all. God in His freedom may choose to offer the gospel to you and not to me. He would still be doing no wrong, because I deserve Hell. The fact that He choose to be gracious to you, does not change the fact that He is being fair to me because I still deserve/ought to go to Hell. However, in fact God has freely extended the gospel to all. And yet even still He has done no wrong to those who have never heard it, because they still deserve/ought to go to Hell for the sins they have committed. The heart of all of this is that God doesn't owe this to anybody regardless of who it is extended to. I do not deny that this is a terrifying thought. But the more important question is whether it is true. Truth regarding life, Hell, God, and eternity are not meant to be comfortable. They are terrifyingly huge and real. I pray that God will lead you into truth as you study this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
538 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223862 | ||
I found a great quote from A.T. Robertson while doing a search on this stuff. For those who don't know who he is, his book on greek grammer is basically a major milestone in greek studies still to this day referenced by greek scholars. Here is what he has to say about Acts 2:38 This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36). Incase any couldn't follow what he is saying, the big daddy of greek grammer says that it is a perfectly and equally valid use of greek grammer to translate Acts 2:38 as, "because of/based upon the forgiveness of sins" rather than "for the forgiveness of sins." And that this other option is so equally a valid way to translate it, that one will ultimately decide based on their own theological bent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
539 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223861 | ||
Godinus, You've written so much I think its a little beyond me to respond to the entirety of it as it deserves, as it would require a very massive post. However, let me show a few examples of the assumptions and poor exegesis that characterises your whole post. You said, "In order for this statement of yours to be true and fill the position of their works like you are saying then the act of baptism itself would have to come from their own head that baptism was something they could do in order to gain salvation but as you can see it was a mandate to the disciples from Jesus Himself. By that mandate it is showing that baptism is not in the realm of - - their works." So anything Jesus commands us to do becomes not a work? Jesus commanded a great many things including to do all that the pharisees commanded because they sat in the seat of Moses, and to be perfect as our Father in heaven was perfect. So now because Christ commanded them I can validly say that this is how you must be saved and I'm completely immune to the accusation that I'm preaching a works rightousness? Where are you getting such a notion from? The truth is that Christ did command us to do some works, but that does not mean everything he commanded us is the means of salvation. Next, the rest being spoken of in Hebrews four seems to be a future rest, not at all speaking of a rest from the law currently in Christ. The verse in Titus never even mentions baptism! On the contrary it says "by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit." The regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit is being called a washing. In fact this is what we affirm. I'm still not sure how you are trying to connect this verse to the ones in Ephesians. Are you suggesting that the works mentioned in Ephesians 2:10 is referring to the work of baptism? If so I am baffled as to how you can come to this conclusion since it lacks any basis whatsoever. You are just saying a great deal of unfounded things then dressing them in some very missaplied scriptures. Also this seems to be a very far cry from you encouraging me to just let everybody believe what they desire and that doctrine is devisive so lets just let people preach baptismal regeneration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
540 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223858 | ||
Stephanie, Scripture doesn't actually give us any answer to this question. I recently preached on the subject of an age of accountability however and here is some small guidance for what it is worth. If a child is living we never rest on the age of accountability. If they are merely two years old still we labor to teach them the gospel. This can begin with things as simple is teaching them who God is so that later we can explain our accountability to Him, so that later we can explain the need for Christ's redemption. But we never rest on the notion for an age of accountability for a living soul. There is simply no grounds for doing so in scripture. For a deceased child we extend hope. In my experience the most common passage used to teach an age of accountability is 2 Samuel 12 climaxing in verse 23 when David says, "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." From this passage people reason that the child would have been in either heaven or hell and since we know David was going to heaven then the child must have been there also. There is ofcourse a chance David only meant he would join the child in the grave. But you can see from a passage such as this we should not build some notion that a child until X age has no need of the gospel. But back to my point, I think there is some valid hope here for a grieving parent. David does seem to be consoling himself with the notion that he will see his child again. So while we can not name an age, if it is at all within reason we can at least give the parent permission to hope. And in the case of infants I would go so far as to try to reassure them. But as I said, I would never rest on such a passage while a child is yet alive. Also you could probably do a search on this and get a much more broader discussion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ] Next > Last [40] >> |