Results 501 - 520 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | Our culture tends to elevate angels | Rom 1:25 | Beja | 232044 | ||
begbie, "Elevating angels above their rightful place" is vague but here are a few thoughts. 1. Your question defines it as wrong first of all. You yourself declare it as giving them a position not "rightful." 2. I can only assume you mean in some form that your culture is worshiping them. I suggest you read Romans 1:18 through the end of the chapter very carefully concerning the worship of something "created" rather than the "Creator." Second, read Hebrews chapter 1 concerning the superiority of Christ over the angels. And third read the repeated affirmations by angels themselves in scripture that they are not to be worshiped but God alone is to be worshiped. I'm not at my normal computer to use a search feature but there are numerous examples in scripture. One of them is in the book of revelations. 3. Short answer. Its idolatry. God alone is to be worshiped. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
502 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234398 | ||
DPMartin, In scripture, disbelief and disobedience are very intimately linked. See Hebrews 3 for a display of their intimate connection. When God created the world he declared it to be good. Grace (Undeserved favor) is abundant. Though we do not yet have the need for mercy (underserved restraint in judgment). In Genesis three we ofcourse have an account of the fall and the entrance of wrath. In the entire book of Romans, especially 1-4 we have much said on these things. Ponder these questions, but be careful not to take scriptural ideas to unscriptural conclusions. Be ready to let scritpure reign you in as you come upon passages that either contradict or refine any theory you might have. For example we know that God's wrath comes in response to sin in all its multiple manifestations from Romans 2:2 and its context. Disbelief, even willful ignorance is clearly one of those sins from the context. But so is disobedience to parents, malice, envy, and much more. Be willing to see the wrath of God upon every manifestation of sin rather than merely unbelief. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
503 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234400 | ||
DPMartin, My comment about mercy was specifically meant in regard to pre-fall eden. Ofcourse we need mercy now. Beyond this, I honestly am not very sure what the second half of your post is saying regarding wrath. I think you might have misunderstood my statements regarding wrath as well but I'm not following you well enough to be sure. If you have a question of me it would help me if you could try to boil your question down to a bit more precise version of it. My confusion partly stems from what appear to be contradictory statements you are making. You critique my view of God's wrath coming in response to sin by asking me "If that were true then what is Jesus' offering on the Cross all about?" My answer would be, "Exactly that." His death was an attonement to satisfy God's wrath against sin on behalf of those who trust in Him. I'm not sure how you see the cross as a case against God's wrath upon sin? Sorry that I couldn't follow you. I'm sure it is probably more related to my own shortcomings than your post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
504 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234404 | ||
DPMartin, The answer is both. God's wrath is upon all mankind due to sin, his love is what has prompted him to redeem us. Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Note that the wrath of God "abides." This greek word means to remain. In other words, the wrath has not first come upon them for rejecting Christ. The wrath of God was already looming on them, and now in their rejection it remians, or abides. And yet love prompted God to give Christ for the salvation of believers. The wrath of God on sinners is what made the coming of Christ necessary. The love of God towards sinners is what directly prompted God to send his son. Both are why. One created the need, the other created the deed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
505 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234406 | ||
Doc, I was purposefully trying not to delve into infra/supra lapsarian discussions in my post. I do not deny that is is a valid discussion. But I was not wanting to add to the question the layer of what God "Purposed" first. As an supralapsarian would state, the order of how it played out, is exactly in reverse to how it was purposed in the creator's mind. They would suggest this happens in the same way that a builder would first purpose a completed house and then would purpose an adiquate foundation; so then he would build in reverse. First would come the foundation and then the house. So also they view salvation. That being said, even should one adopt the supralapsarian view, it is valid to set the purposing aside and speak purely from the "building" side of the equation. Surely it remains valid in some sense to speak of the foundation coming first despite the final building coming first in the architect's mind, no? On the actualizing side sin and wrath preceded redemption, though in purposing redemption preceded and wrath was then purposed for the reason of setting the stage for redemption. Love in God is of the first order I concede. However, we ought not to let such structures forbid us to speak as scripture speaks. And scripture speaks plentifully about God's compassionate response to our plight in the face of his wrath. So in responding to DPMartin, I could try to explain all that, or for the post limit myself to the "building" part of the discussion rather than the "planning." His question, after all, was which "came" first. Not which was "purposed" first. All that being said, for your curiosity sake I will tell you that I am a mildly committed infra-lapsarian. Scripture just too frequently speaks in that order for me to allow the theory of supralapsarian, despite the sense it makes, to pursuade me. Despite what some would say regarding my inconsistency, I still affirm that the cross was God's "plan A." I grant I can't explain exactly how that is consistent. But I view as submissiveness to something that is quite beyond me as it is revealed to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
506 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234411 | ||
Doc, I agree that there is always a danger of things being said that are an incomplete picture. This is why such discussions are to primarilly be done in the context of the church community, an environment in which any statement is restrained by the fact that you know what that person has consistently said ongoingly. I'll just share a few thoughts though. 1.) We can't always restate all of our theological frameworks. At some point we have to leave something either unstated or assumed. 2.) I think we follow scriptural patterns when we do this. When scripture speaks of God having a strong arm. It never makes an effort to simultaneously make sure we understand that such language is metaphorical and that God in fact does not have a body like us. Rather we find such teaching elsewhere. Scripture never restrains itself in this fashion. But more to the point of what the current thread was about. We quite continually see scripture speak of God responding to our plight with love, compassion, and redemption. And usually it is in other passages that we find out that God eternally purposed to be a redeeming God and elected individuals unto salvation, the fall serving his eternal purposes to be a redeeming God. Because scripture speaks freely in these ways without theologically qualifying these statements, I do not thing we should be concerned with avoiding speaking in the same ways. Our examples could be multiplied. Do we need to make sure to verbally affirm Christ's humanity in every instance that we cry out, "My God!" Or at somepoint is it alright to assume that issue is either understood or will be covered in its own place? Is it not biblical to say that the LORD is the God of Israel without at that moment taking the time to teach the union of believing gentiles and jews into one people per ephesians four. Every wonderful statement we could cry out or truth we could proclaim at some point must be qualified by other truth. But surely there are times to just say the truth. 3.) What we should be concerned about, is that our teaching is well rounded enough that anytime somebody takes our statements to unbiblical conclusions, it is not very long before they hear the flip side of it which ought to restrain them to the correct theological framework. But as I said, this most naturally happens in the context of the church, in which God's word is being discussed continually, and with concern to the entirety of its witness being taught. In short, I think we are being too restrictive with either the implications of our theology or the guarding over our theology when we can no longer permit ourselves to speak as scripture speaks. I say this of course with all love, as I happily know that you and I agree on an overwhelmingly vast majority of doctrinal issues. And I take no offense but rather delight in your care for theological accuracy. I know that you are aware of our many agreements, but I state it for the sake of other readers knowing that they are reading a dialogue between two brothers in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
507 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234413 | ||
DPMartin, I disagree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
508 | Isn't Paul free of sin? | Rom 7:25 | Beja | 225928 | ||
Philip, I think Paul makes it very clear both in the stated chapter, and in Phillipians 3 that he is not free from sin in the sense that he no longer commits sin. However, in the sense that all those in Christ are free from the condemnation of sin, death, and the law, all of us in Christ are indeed free from sin. We are free from sin just not yet free of sin. Does not scripture say, "We all stumble in many ways"? (James 3:2). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
509 | Isn't Paul free of sin? | Rom 7:25 | Beja | 225937 | ||
Philip, I think you should be careful about taking months to try to force yourself to see a passage in a light which you have already determined it must be read in. This is a wonderful way to missinterpret scripture. Lets look at one of the key verses you mentioned. Romans 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. Now Paul says taht I know nothing good DWELLS. That is present tense. But he is clarifying, in the flesh, to show that there is certainly the desire in his inner man to do good. "In the flesh" can not be him saying "in the past" because he is clearly speaking in the present tense. And this doesn't even begin to deal with Philippians 3. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
510 | Isn't Paul free of sin? | Rom 7:25 | Beja | 225977 | ||
Philip, I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time believing that you believe what you are saying. I've never met anybody in my life who actually thinks such a thing. So perhaps I am not understanding you clearly. Let me ask a few questions so as to understand if I am hearing you correctly. Are you saying that any saved person will never sin such that: No saved person ever thinks an ungodly thought? No saved person ever covets another person's things? No saved person ever says a hars word in anger? No saved person ever says a slanderous word about somebody else? No saved person is ever lazy or idle at any moment? No saved person is ever disobedient to a parent? No saved person ever lies at any time? No saved person ever has a hard time forgiving? No saved person ever gives God less than his best? No saved person ever looks on another woman with lust? No saved person ever at any moment takes God's name in vain? No saved person ever goes a day without prayer? No saved person ever goes through a day and neglects proper attention to God's word? No saved person ever fails to testify boldly of Christ? Is THIS really what you are saying? Not only in theory, but you are actually saying that in your life you never do any of these things at any moment since your salvation? I ask this with sincerity and no sarcasim. I can't help but think you must mean something other than this with your words, for I have a hard hard time believing that anybody could actually truely believe this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
511 | Why believe in God if He allowsuffering? | Rom 8:22 | Beja | 227495 | ||
NMJEN, My first gut response to the question is that if your friend is unwilling to believe in a God that allows suffering he has a major problem. Because as we look at the world we certainly can not believe in any other God! The difficulty of your question is that the answer is quite literally the whole of scripture. The suffering in the world must be placed in its biblical context, that of a rebellious world under the wrath of a righteous and holy God. Right now, I would assume your friend sees God allowing suffering along the lines as if I were to go over and just have a little fun kicking a dog. It would be simply pure maliciousness with no good reason for it and he can't imagine God being like that. Your friend sees suffering disconnected from any reason or purpose. How then do we get underneath suffering? Again, that is very difficulty since we must look at it from many angles due to many types and reasons for suffering. 1. Suffering as the consequence of sin. God has chosen to give mankind certain freedom to rebel against him. This rebellion always has its on consequence built into it. Man's rebellion against God brings us abortion, war, rape, murder, and theft. This has to be understood scripturaly. This suffering, God's wrath burns hot against, yet we see scripture painting God as patient and long suffering, not wishing any to perish but all to come to repentence. That's somewhere in 2 Peter 3. So here we see God's loving mercy and patience being why he allows suffering. He's restraining his judgement upon it for the sake that some will repent and be saved. 2. Suffering from God's wrath. In restrained amounts (in other words he doesn't yet destroy the earth and mankind completely) God pours out wrath on the world in judgement of their sin and yet we still see him restraining the fullness of his wrath for now. Again this restraint is because he wishes for the world to repent and not perish. But he gives us bits of wrath to display the full wrath which is to come and from which we should flee to a savior in Christ Jesus. I think Revelation chapters 8-11 are meant to teach this along with other parts of scripture. 3. Suffering from persecution. There is particular suffering that comes from being united to Christ. Scripture affirms that the world will hate us because the world hates him. 4. Suffering as facilitating holiness. Heb 12 is one example of teaching that God particularly allows hardship in a believers life so as to train them in righteousness that we may grow to be holy. Through this we learn patience, obedience, trust and dependence on God the Father and much more. 5. Suffering we can't understand. The book of Job teaches us that we can not let our faith in God depend on us having all the answers concerning suffering in this life. So you see, we can not begin to answer this question in a simple way. Here are two resources you might wish to persue, both by the same author. With regards to getting your friend to start understanding the biblical world view in order that he might understand how suffering fits in: "The God Who Is" by D.A. Carson. I believe you can download from monergism.com a 14 sermon lecture on this. With regards to a much much more in depth discussion on what I've been saying in this post and a great book on suffering. "How, Long O Lord?" by D.A. Carson. Though as a disclaimer which Carson himself makes in the book. This book is not meant as a comfort for those who are currently going through a crises, but more to give a theological grasping of suffering that will serve us well later when we do endure it. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
512 | Is there a bible verse that means this? | Rom 8:28 | Beja | 232177 | ||
34224, First, let me say that I am resigned to the fact that not everybody has a high and biblical view of God. So I don't desire to debate this point with you. However, what you are suggesting has nothing to do with logic. Logic does not say "No" to this question. Your line of reasoning depends not on an impossible situation, but rather one which you will not accept. Your logic is as such... 1. If everything happened for a reason, then God would be responsible. 2. God is not responsible, therefore 1 is not true. That sir, is not logic. You have begun your entire train of thought having previously decided that God is not responsible. That is your "given" Why? Because you can not accept such a notion is the only reason. It most certainly has nothing to do with logic. Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
513 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 224994 | ||
rclouviere, Romans chapter 9 is an extended answer to this very question. It might be a good study for you and you could share what you find. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
514 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 225006 | ||
Inquisitor, I've not actually said anything in this thread to be agreed with. I simply suggested a study of Romans 9 and I made no attempt to answer the question. However, something you said concerns me. You said: "Jesus' Words are pretty clear. In this Dispensation, we must obey His Commands and those of His Officially Commissioned Apostles." Following the verse you quoted it makes it sound like you believe the means of salvation is our obedience to Christ's commands. I hope that isn't what you are saying. If it is please know that I whole heartedly disagree. But perhaps I've missunderstood you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
515 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 225046 | ||
Inquisitor, You ask how I understand the verses. Well first, I think you chose miserable verses from which to defend your view. In these, Christ says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." That is a far far far cry from saying that the means to salvation is to keep his commandments! What a silly illogical conclusion to come to! Of course we are to keep his commandments but what in any of what you just quoted makes you think He is saying this is the means of salvation? It is as silly as if I had suggested that rolling away the stone in front of Lazarus' tomb were the ordaiined means for their salvation simply because Christ told them to do it. You speak as if Christ can not give us any instruction without it being the means of our salvation. "Poor interpreting" would be far to gentle a way to describe your handling of this passage. Let me finish by going on as if you had given a more substantial verse for the idea. I can think of several. But I will put forward one in your defense. Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. Now, this verse clearly teaches that there is some degree of sanctification that without which we shall not see the Lord. How would I respond had you given this verse? I would suggest to you that everything required of us is given to us in Christ Jesus. That includes sanctification. (1 Cor 1:30). Now I do not say that to suggest that we can live however we please and then somehow Christ's sanctification is what Hebrews is referring to. But rather our sanctification is something that our ongoing union with Jesus Christ unfailingly accomplishes in us. See Romans chapters 6,7,8 for scripture on that. In other words, the sanctification that includes obedience is part of God saving us! Not part of us earning salvation! And this is how we understand all such verses. 1 John teaches us we can't continually live in sin because His seed abides in us. It is the ongoing union with Christ that produces our sanctification, and this sanctification is how we tell professing Christians from actual Christians. And then scripture is able to say things such as you must have sanctification because all those who are saved unavoidably will be GIVEN sanctification as a result of their union with Christ through FAITH. Rom 4:5,6 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works God justifies apart from works. We are his workmentship apart from works, made for works which follow. Ephesians 2:8-10. For you to preach that our works merits anything with regards to our salvation other than simply evidencing that we were previously saved by grace is to preach an utterly false gospel, which is no gospel at all. (Gal 1:6,7) My real concern however is that you said such a thing claiming to agree with me. We have no like faith whatsoever if this is what you preach. I preach grace, you are preaching law. The two could not be further apart. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
516 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 225048 | ||
Inquisitor, I've been looking again at the passage in John which you quoted, trying my best to see it through your eyes. I've been asking myself, if I had your theological beliefs, what in this passage would have caused me to think it defends my view? And I think I might have found it, though I'm still not certain. Perhaps your line of thinking whent something like this: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Now perhaps looking at that your thinking goes along the lines of: it appears that John is saying that our love for Jesus, which is manifested in our keeping His commandements, seems to be prior to and the cause of God's love for us. Now, if that is what you meant to show by this verse it would be tremendously helpful if you would in addition to the verses actually give us also that interpretation so we know what it is you are trying to say by the verses. Now, if that is what you are trying to show I'd respond in two points. 1.) The IF/THEN notion here is not by any means necessarilly causal. The one who keeps my commands(loves me) will be loved by my Father. There is no notion here that it is our love/obedience which causes the Fathers love, even though such phrases (in the absence of other clear scriptures) could be interpreted that way. John is merely expressing that love of the Christ, obedience, and His love for us all go hand in hand. They are present together or absent together. 2.) Is our love/obedience the cause of God's love, or is God's love the cause of our love/obedience? And can I answer it from scripture? Well, we are quoting John, lets allow John to clearly state the answer for himself. 1Jn 4:19 We love, because He first loved us. Here we have a sentence where John is explicitly teaching which is the cause and which is the effect. So John here sheds light on the previous passage we looked at (John 14). Can we find other scripture to support this? I believe we can. Rom 9:10-13 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Now look at this passage. It says here that God loved Jacob specifically with no regards for any actions he had done either good or bad. God here goes out of His way to show that his love for Jacob preceeded anything he could have done. And we can not argue foreknowledge without harming Paul's entire arguement. Paul is striving here to show that human actions in no way caused God's choice/love here. And Paul concludes from this: Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. I hope this is sufficient to establish that God's love precedes and is the fountain of our love, not the other way around. Also, I apologize for my last post. I still think my assertions in the last post are correct, I simply wish I had been more kind in how I asserted them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
517 | Pauls' loss of Salvation | Rom 9:3 | Beja | 229794 | ||
JohnRyals, You are looking for Romans 9:1-3, though it is very clear that Paul is not actually suggesting this is possible to trade. He is simply expressing his love for them is so great that he willingly would if the opportunity was hypothetically there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
518 | What is Man Psalm 8:4 | Rom 9:11 | Beja | 224356 | ||
caronz, I think David's point is that there is nothing in us that merits God's grace. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
519 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223856 | ||
rclouviere, Paul gives us a pretty clear answer in Romans. He says in chapter 10 that all who will call on him will be saved. But then he asks a series of rhetorical questions in which he tries to make clear the need for people to preach the gospel. Romans 10:14,15 "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, 'howbeautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!'" verse 17 "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." So Paul says that somebody must preach the gospel in order for them to hear, and they must hear in order to believe, and must believe in order to call, and must call in order to be saved. A person might ask how this is fair to judge those who have not heard the gospel. Paul addresses this in the very first chapter from about verse 16 on to the end of the chapter. His summary is enough about God is evident in creation that they are without excuse. This does mean they understand Christ and the gospel through creation, it means rather they should know enough about God to not sin and therefore they are morally accountable. I'll admit that this is a terrifying notion but it remains the biblical answer to your question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
520 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [40] >> |