Results 261 - 280 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232828 | ||
elder4yhwh, Part 2 of my reply 2. Second, I think I point about hermeneutics would be in order considering your appeals to Acts 13, 17:2, and 18:4. Whenever we read scripture there is something of a priority order. We give cheif weight to a very clear and explicit teaching in scripture. Below that we have an example of something in scripture. And finally below that we have an inferrence as the weakest. I will attempt to explain. Whenever we are trying to understand what scripture would have us to believe and do, we as flawed people and dull of hearing sometimes see contradictions. They are not really contradictions but having missunderstood something, they appear so in our mind. How do we resolve that? Well first we study to see if we missunderstood a passage. But having come to the same conclusion after that we must consider what has the most weight. Let me use an example. Who is allowed to take the Lord's supper? I grew up in a group who believed that it was only to be the members of a specific local body. How did they get this teaching? They claimed that Jesus practiced his first Lord's supper with ONLY his immediate local church. They therefore "inferred" this to be meant for a model which all Christians should follow. Is this valid? Well, my objection is that in Acts 20 we see Paul actually practice communion with members of multiple different churches. We see that Paul clearly did not agree with this inference? A clear example is to be given more weight. Why? Simply because an inference never explicitly stated has more room for human error than a simple observation. Now suppose they had a clear text that said, "Only practice this with the local Church." That would trump my example. Why? Because we would have to assume I am somehow missinterpreting what I am seeing in Acts 20. The more room for human error, the less weight in apparent contradictions. We are fallible, the Bible is inerrant. These are our convictions. Now in the Acts references you are working with inferences. The passages you share state that on the Sabbath, on these occassions, Paul went to the synagogues in an attempt to pursuade the Jews. Everything beyond that you are inferring. You are inferring, "Therefore Paul considered that it was still a moral duty for us to observe the Sabbath." But it is entirely possible that Paul simply went there because he knew that was the best time to find a gathering of Jews, no? So you are working from the lowest of the lines of reasoning. So if we see any clear teaching in scripture contrary to it. We listen to the clear teaching over this inferrence. If we see any clear example of an authoritative figure disregarding the Sabbath, we take that over the inferrence. So Paul's teaching is greater or more weighty than why YOU think he happened to show up to those synagogues on those particular sabbaths. We do not ignore Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, and Acts 13. We simply listen to what Paul told us rather than guess at his motives there. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
262 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232900 | ||
EdB, I know that you and I aren't on the best terms, but I hope it is alright if I explain where the connection is. I am making no assertions here about all this, rather just helping clarify. Dispensationalism, as almost all stances, has undergone refinement. Almost nobody at all today holds to the original form of dispensationalism. But at the same time the modern notion still merely refers to itself as dispensationalism just like the old version. Now you'd have to be familiar with some of the older version to understand the link between antinomianism and dispensationalism. As Doc stated, the basic premise was that God acted in different ways in different dispensations. The original form went so far as to say that in each of these dispensations God actually saved people in different ways. For example, in the time of the Jewish nation prior to Christ, they asserted that Law was the means of saving people. Now in the modern dispensation God uses grace. So what they actually did was claim that the law was for the saints of a past dispensation and therefore had nothing to do with the current dispensation. Hence, old school dispensationalism did have a link with antinomianism so long as you define antinomianism as a rejection of Old Testament Law on today's believers. Now the reason you can be so shocked and have been dispensational all your life and never been around anybody who believes any such thing is because Old School dispensationalism has been pretty thoroughly crushed and shown to be wrong. Modern dispensationalists, from what I am aware, hold to dispensations but they don't claim a unique means of salvation in each. John McArthur as you stated (whom I'm fond of) would not at all embrace old school dispensationalism unless I'm sorely mistaken. So in Old School dispensationalism, there is a bit of a tendency for Antinomianism to come with it. However, they ofcourse teach certain rules. They just teach certain behavior restrictions seperate from the Old Testament law. So even in Old School Dispensationalism you really got more of a theological antinomianism without a practical one. In other words they formally rejected the old testament law, but they would still in practice forbid most of the things actually forbidden under the OT Law such as adultery, murder, lying, rape, stealing, etc. I hope this is helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
263 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232904 | ||
EdB, "we have to suspect the motive of Doc of even suggesting it." I agree. At this point our moral obligation has shifted away from putting in extra effort to understand what he's saying and it has shifted instead to a moral obligation to slander him. But now that I'm on your side in this, I would suggest a mere google search on "history of dispensationalism" to you. I think it would help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
264 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232907 | ||
EdB, You must have missed this one. http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Torah/Dispensationalism_Root_Cause_of_Antinomianism.pdf In Christ, Beja |
||||||
265 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232909 | ||
Ed, This is from Scofield it seems. "It is instructive, in this connection, to remember that God's appointed place for the tables of the law was within the ark of the testimony. With them were "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded" (types: the one of Christ our wilderness bread, the other of resurrection, and both speaking of grace), while they were covered from sight by the golden mercy seat upon which was sprinkled the blood of atonement. The eye of God could see His broken law only through the blood that completely vindicated His justice and propitiated His wrath (Heb. 9:4-5). It was reserved to modernists to wrench these holy and just but deathful tables from underneath the mercy seat and the atoning blood and erect them in Christian churches as the rule of Christian life." Now to be fair in the very same sermon he rejects "antinomianism." What he refers to as antinomianism is the suggestion that there is no rule of behavior in the believer's life. He simply denies that it is the ten commandmants or the Old Testament law. So here, we see the main popularizer of dispensationalism affirm that while there is infact a rule of behavior for Christians, it is most certainly not the OT law. Second, here is the webster's dictionary definition for antinomian. one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. Here is the definition from the catholic encyclopedia. "The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law." Now...I accept that dispensationalist C Scofield did not teach antinomianism as he himself defines antinomianism. But he taught exactly what the websters dictionary and catholic encyclopedia taught is antinomianism. Is this sufficient documentation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
266 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232911 | ||
EdB, You said, "End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism" You continue to twist and misrepresent my words. I have never tried to suggest that modern dispensationalism as a rule advocates antinomianism. If you will go back to my first post you will see that I clearly distinguished modern dispensationalist from the ones found in its early days. Just because you reject that distinction does not give you permission to take my statements and suggest I personally am applying them without distinciton. Second, I have only attempted to show a link between early dispensational thought and antinomianism. I never suggested that they actively taught antinomianism by name. I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting my words and trying to present me as attacking those who I would gladly call brothers and friends. In Christ, Beja In Christ, Beja |
||||||
267 | Scrpture on helping selfish? | Ex 20:9 | Beja | 221214 | ||
Dear Puppytoes, Our church does its best to use our benevolence to balance three different scriptures. 1 Tim 5:8, Titus 3:14, 2 Thess 3:10. These are not the only relevant passages but fine examples of three strains of thought. First being that we absolutely must take care of our own. Second being that we are trying to become a people that actually wants to help whoever we can through good deeds, not just those we feel obligated to. Third being that if a man a person is simply being lazy rather than dealing with misfortune then well...they don't work, they don't eat. So first we prioritize our money with these things in mind. I think you will find there is too little to give and too much need to provide sluggards. Next, our goal is to sincerely help people, not just to feed them. So this means different things at different times. We try to ask ourselves one question. Why are they in this jam? This isn't to judge them but rather to help them best. If it is a situation where a person is doing a really horrible job with their money and clearly have no experience using a budget then the best way to help them is not simply to hand them money and see them back in 6 months in the same bind. In that case we offer financial counseling. www.daveramsey.com is a great educational program for money. So we may still help them while they are learning, but the answer to a lack of understanding is not money, its learning. Second, if the problem isn't their know how, but lazyness, then sometimes the only way you can help a person is to let them fall. Enabling a person isn't helping them either. It breaks my heart, but it breaks my heart more when we tell a single mom we are out of money because we gave it to a man who doesn't work who is perfectly capable. Don't let this excuse mask an ungiving spirit though. Finally though, if somebody is seriously doing what they ought and they simply have some bad misfortune, then we just help them. This is just how our church has tried to think through the issue, it may or may not be helpful to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
268 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240249 | ||
Exodus 28:21-35 | ||||||
269 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240250 | ||
Jalek, Sorry, just noticed that you wanted a reference to ankles specifically as distinct from the hem. So much for reading when I first wake up! The previous poster probably was thinking of the hem bells. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
270 | How many people to worship | Ex 34:8 | Beja | 226901 | ||
JBWard, In scripture we have both private and corporate worship pressed upon us as duties, and again both rejoiced in as priviledges. In Exodus 34:8 we see Moses alone and worshiping God. This is the private side of worship. However, our private worship alone does not excuse us from public worship which is commanded. (Heb 10:25.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
271 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Beja | 230810 | ||
Bill, I agree that there is no salvation without repentance. However, we we must be careful to distinguish is that it is by faith alone that we receive Christ, the benefits of His death, and the imputation of His righteousness. Wise and orthodox men of the past have often used a very good phrase: "We are justified by Faith alone, but not be a Faith that is alone." So we affirm that a "so called faith" apart from repentance and obedience is not saving in the least (See James 2:14 ff, and 1 John 3:9), but at the same time we affirm that our repentance and obedience merits absolutely nothing for us before God, but we stand by the righteousness of Christ received by faith for the purpose of our justification. This faith will be attended with all other graces. We also must clarify that this so called faith apart from obedience and repentance does not fail to save us on account of a lack of other things, but only because it is not saving faith at all, but a cheap counterfit. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
272 | what is ment by perverted sex in bible | Lev 18:1 | Beja | 221555 | ||
Curlewirler, I can't off the top of my head think of a passage that says "perverted" sex. I'm sure it may use that particular word in some translation, or it might in the NASB and I'm just not remembering it. But when scripture refers to immorality or wrong sexual relations I think it has Leviticus 18 in mind. So read that chapter and see if it helps you grasp a biblical notion of morality with regards to sex. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
273 | insest | Lev 18:10 | Beja | 232665 | ||
Lindasue, Leviticus 18 is the most significant chapter on sexual regulations. However, let me just say that if you live in America and the granddaughter is under the age of 18 then you have a serious legal obligation to report such a thing as it is a crime. In such a case this would not merely be about sexual relations between relatives but is sexually abusing a minor. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
274 | Sexual | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 220169 | ||
Here are some scriptures concerning it. Leviticus 18:22 2 Corinthians 6:9-10 I believe these will answer your questions respectively. Don't missunderstand and think this is the unforgivable sin though. A person who repents and trusts Christ alone to wash him clean of these sins, will be saved. But as with all types of sin, a person is to repent. Beja, In Christ |
||||||
275 | Sexual | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 220170 | ||
My apologies, it seems I have answered a double post by accident. I assumed since I was answering an original question there was no thread to catch up on before posting! My bad. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
276 | What does the bible say about gay people | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 227499 | ||
ahedgesRED, See Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-32, and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
277 | Are tatoos allowed? | Lev 19:28 | Beja | 228234 | ||
Magie, The only scripture that references it is Leveticus 19:28. Lev 19:28 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. Many believe that this command was oriented around the gentile practice of marking yourself in devotion to one of their gods. So it is very much debated as to whether this command was meant for us, or rather was part of the ceremonial distinctions of the time which Christ later did away with. It is a difficult call I suppose especially since the verse immediately follows a command that is certainly a ceremonial law done away with and yet precedes a ongoing moral point. Lev 19:27 'You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. Lev 19:28 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. Lev 19:29 'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness. For what my opinion is worth, I do not think a tattoo is inherently sinful. By this I mean some certainly are sinful, but this would be because of the nature of the tattoo. Such as if I had something blasphemous or sinful, such as a lustful picture of a naked woman, tattoed upon me. With regards to Christ having a tattoo they would almost certainly be referring to Revelation 19:16. Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." To which John Gill gives an excellent explination. "This name, afterwards expressed, is said to be written on his vesture, in allusion to the custom of persons of note and eminence having their names interwoven in their garments, and which was sometimes done in letters of gold." Ultimately we ought to push beyond the simple question of is it permissable to the question of is it something I "ought" to do. In this we must ask if it will be a stumbling block to others; will it edify or disrupt the church of God? I would suggest it could very easily become a sin along those lines. 1Co 8:11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 1Co 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. I say all this as a pastor who actually has a tattoo. Over a decade ago I decided to get a cross with a banner tattoo'd on me and the banner reads "Acts 20:24." I very much like the tattoo but now in retrospect I see it more as a mark of the ignorance I had at the time, an ignorance of what pleases God. I proceeded as if marking my body was how he'd be pleased for me to express my love for Him when doing His expressed will was how I had been told in His word to love Him. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
278 | Are tatoos allowed? | Lev 19:28 | Beja | 228243 | ||
Justme, I would be very careful not to give the impression that there is any virtue whatsoever in branding ourselves for Christ's sake. I do not suspect that you were suggesting that, but for the sake of clarity let us so. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
279 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232779 | ||
EdB, "Chattel - where the slave is no longer viewed a ss person but rather as a piece of property." "God never condoned Chattel Slavery" Lev 22:11 'But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food. Exo 21:20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. Exo 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. For your consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
280 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232782 | ||
EdB, I claim no knowledge of Chattel slavery or even if it is actually a real word. I simply posted scripture that seemed to be related to your discussion. I know that when I am considering a question I appreciate it when people point me to scripture that may weigh in on the question. I try not to take offense if I then determine the suggested scripture does not. On a side note, our modern sensibilities are often offended by scripture, and I would suggest our discomfort or indignation to be an unfit measure of truth. Take the modern offense over scripture's stance on woman authority in churches and homosexuality for example. But once again, Beja isn't even sure if Chattel is a real word and has made zero assertions on the slavery question, only posted some verses for you guys to weigh. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [40] >> |