Results 581 - 600 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
581 | Once saved, are you saved forever, | 2 Cor 5:21 | Beja | 227049 | ||
Murphi, I do not say this in any way to scold you, but to try to point you in a right direction. Your understanding of what salvation is about and how it occurs to seem to be very lacking. You seem to be under the impression that your lack of attendance at church negatively impacts your state of salvation, and at the same time you seem hopeful that your current attendance restores it. The only source of salvation is Jesus Christ dying in order to satisfy all the wrath of God which was due to you for your many sins. All that one must do to be saved is to believe and to trust upon what Christ has done on the cross for forgiveness of your sins. He is offered to you freely. He is not for you to earn or in any way merit. Believe it, and trust fully upon his taking your place for your salvation. Do not trust in that you once were baptized. Do not trust in that you once said a prayer. Do not trust in that a pastor told you that you were saved. Do not trust in anything in heaven or earth other than that Jesus Christ has taken your sin upon himself, died for those sins upon a cruel cross, and that Christ has given you His very own righteousness in place of your sin. And for the love of your own soul spend your remaining days diligently in the word of God, faithly in the attendance of Church and hearing the word preached, and passionate in seeking to know Him that you might make up for the time you have lost so that you might know him and the gospel as you ought. Repent of the time you've lost and follow him. Know with certainty that all those who come to God through Christ are not only promised forgiveness of sins, but we are also promised that He will write His words upon our heart so that we shall become obedient to him (Heb 8:8-12, Ezekiel 36:25-27). So trust fully upon the cross of Christ and go forward and learn that obedience that was purchased for you on the cross. For God will enable you to make gains in holiness, "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). God is able to restore to you the years that you lost (Joel 2:25). He is a compassionate God who delights in mercy (Micah 7:18). He will never cast out any soul that comes to Christ (John 6:37). He has infinite compassion on your shortcomings and weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). Cling fast to Christ and the cross. Believe that He is a rewarder of those who seek him (Heb 11:6). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
582 | A mate from God | 2 Cor 6:14 | Beja | 222191 | ||
Child of j, 2 Cor 6:14 says that we are not to be bound together with unbelievers. I believe the context is primarily talking about church membership, but I think it certainly applies to marriage. 1 Cor 7:39 tells widows that they are free to marry again, but "only in the Lord." I believe this is a specific restriction to marry only Christians. I really think there is another good verse dealing with this, but it is slipping my mind at the moment. Beyond even direct commands how horrible of a situation you are pondering! Ephesians chapter 5 says unto wives that they are to obey their husbands even as the church is to obey Christ! What a sad lot for a godly woman to be in such that she must daily struggle to serve a man who does not honor God. A man that orders his entire household with no thought to the glory of God or obedience to God would be a constant torment to any truely godly woman. How difficult it must be to follow the instructions of 1 Peter 3:1 where it tells wives to be obedient to such husbands so that they will be won over by their wives conduct even while the wife keeps silent in prayer for their husband. You must understand also that the discussion in 1 Cor 7 is meant for those who have converted after marriage and yet remain married to an unconverted spouse. A godly woman ought sooner to consider robbing herself of an eye before chaining herself to an unconverted man, who is to then be the leader of her home with regards to discipling both her and her children! What could you possibly find in common when the delight of your every day is seeing the glory of God in Jesus Christ, and that while his every thought is displeasing to God because it is impossible for him to please God! (Rom 8:8.) His every thought is completely contrary to seeking the very one who is your everything? We should weep the sweet lamb of God that through fear of being alone forgets that the Lord is her constant portion and companion and provider (Heb 13:5), and through lack of faith in her heavenly Father's provision, chains herself to an unconverted man and gives herself over to so many miseries. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
583 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214801 | ||
The answers being given which argue that malachi chapter 3 doesn't apply to the church are arguing from a dispensational view point with regards to the church and Israel. As dispensational thought falls, so do their answers. I leave you all to your own thoughts on this. As for me I think it does apply to us. In Love, Beja |
||||||
584 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214833 | ||
To all who responded to me, My apologies for taking so long to respond! I'm on vacation currently. It seems the discussion has left me behind to the point that my answers now are moot but I'll say a few things. First let me preface with a few points. 1. I in no way ment for my brief answer to be smug. My only intentions were to bring up that there was an entire theological presupposition behind the answers given and if you wanted to be sure of the answers, you had to agree with the presuppositions. I have my own view through which I read scripture, so I don't mean to insult anybody by saying you have presuppositions. 2. I highly respect the view that says we are now to be cheerful givers and that will typically manifest itself in giving much more than a tithe. I don't agree with it, but I certainly respect the brothers and sisters who hold that view. It shows a good heart even if I am correct in thinking it shows flawed assumptions. 3. Finally, I offer further thoughts concerning the church and Israel only in the spirit of enjoyable discussion. My view is that when Christ came what constituted the people of God changed. Not replaced, changed. The people of God was no longer a national identity, but with the influx of all believers of all peoples it grew into the church. Galatians 3, Romans 4 and 9 and 11 reflect this view point. All the promises of Israel belong to us, the church, not the nation. (with a few exceptions that are extremely short term promises.) So the old testament is not ancient history that has no meaning to us because it was God's working with a different people. That is the story of God dealing with his people, of whom we are a part. The question comes then, am I saying we still are under the law? Not in the same sense the jews were. The law of sacrifices, the laws of ceremonial distinctions for the sake of keeping jews visably seperate from other nations, no, those have nothing to do with us except to teach us that we as Christians are to be distinct, or to teach us as Christians something about what Christ's sacrifice meant. The moral laws however, not to steal, not to covet, not to murder...shall any of you argue that those are not the expectations of our God on us today? They no longer carry the sting of judgement for those who are in Christ but as an expectation they do. In fact living in sin with regards to these things without repentance is a pretty good indication that somebody has never come to Christ by faith and repentance. So the question then becomes where do tithes fall into place in this scheme? My opinion, its a moral issue. So in summary, I believe the Church is the true Israel. Why? Because I think Paul and therefore the new testament teaches that. And IF that is what the New Testament teaches, all our arguements mean nothing. I don't care how much or how little you think it makes sense, I intend to subject my thinking to correction by scripture. I use to hold a dispensational view, after enough reading of scripture, I saw that needed correcting. Sorry if this is unclear, I am on vacation without my books, also clearly I mean to offer this as explination of my views rather than a detailed defense. In Love, Beja |
||||||
585 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214856 | ||
Dear Val, First, I much welcome the term "inhouse debate" as I know well you and I are like minded on the great majority of our faith, as shown by many posts. Second, perhaps what I said was a mildly bold statement, but lets not make it more so than it really was. What I meant was simply this: in the course of reading scripture I have found dispensational thought to not measure up. Dispensational thought aside, is this not what we want from a Christian? To constantly let their view points be corrected by reading scripture? It was not a claim to being a master of all scripture or a master of all theology, rather a statement that as I have read I have found scripture to have a view point that was contrary to dispensational thought. (I say dispensational thought, but I am specifically thinking of their view point of Israel and the Church.) Third, you said that my view was a dangerous one, and I am uncertain as to which of my view points you refer to. I've talked about Israel/church, Law as it relates to a Christian, and tithing. I am thinking you meant the Israel/church view point and will answer this post assuming that to be the case, but please clarify which view point and also share with me what danger you believe is in it. Finally, a brief offering of passages for you to consider. I've mentioned these in my previous post. Romans 4, 6 and 11 specifically are worth reading. As you read through these ask yourself whether it sounds like Paul is seeing Israel and the Church as two distinct things from beggining to end or rather if he sees Christians as fulfilling what was going on in Israel, or the true children spoken of with regards to abrahams children, or something grafted in, etc. Also there are verses like Galatians 3:7, and Philippians 3:3 to consider. Finally we must account for the fact that very often the apostles themselves do exactly what a dispensational thinkers says they must not do! Namely they take a prophecy which was clearly in reference to Israel and they say it was to be applied to the church. How are we to understand this? A dispensationalist will typically say, "well, the apostles can do what they want since they are inspired." Which may well be true, but what if they did this not because they were inspired to read scripture in a way none of the rest of us could predict, but rather they understood the church to be the rightful and proper heirs to all the promises of God to Israel? The view that the old testament was a series of failed dispensations between God and man in my opinion leaves us with a horribly malnourished view of scripture and sense of God. Granted under that view point all these dispensations were known to be going to fail ahead of time by God. Rather the view point which I would commend to you sees the entire of scripture as one plan, with one end (the cross), exalting one figure (christ.) The promises were always pointing towards the Cross and Christ. Hope this helps clarify and I very much look forward to hearing your concerns with this view as your voice is certainly one I hold with respect on this forum. In Love, Beja |
||||||
586 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214857 | ||
Hey Tim, I'll gladly grant the term Israel of promise. And this mainly comes into play as we see that all the promises to Israel were our promises and points to Christ. The effect this has on the law is very much secondary. But let me elaborate on how I see that affecting Christians. First, we have to deal with how Jesus discuses the law in Matthew Chapter 5. Our instructor is no merely Paul, but he entirety of the scripture (a view I know you wholely agree with.) In Matthew 5:17-20 Christ says not to think he came to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it. Second and perhaps more important for our current discussion He states that whoever teaches to not do one of the commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Now, unless we wish to argue that Christ was giving a command that was specifically only meant to be in place in the span of time between when he said this and when he died on the cross then this command is on us. I do not think that Matthew, chose to include a command that he thought to be obsolete. So I confess to you that my assumption is that in some sense Matthew 5:19 is binding on christian believers. Now, following that, we see from other places in scripture, Paul and Hebrews come to mind, that sacrifice commands of the Law are certainly gone, second, in Ephesians Paul is clear that the dividing wall of the Law seperating gentiles and God's people is Gone. (I think that's chapter 2.) In that laws that had no lasting moral value but were only meant to seperate Jews from gentiles vanished. So we began to see that if we assume that the whole bible agrees with itself, which I do believe, that scripture must be speaking of the law with different key meanings, and that it leaves Christ to be speaking of ideas such as do not covet, do not steal, do not murder which are moral laws. Here is the point, understanding this distinction in the law is necessary to harmonize scripture, and in truth I do not think it to be twisting scripture but really what was in the minds of its authors. Did Paul see us as still having this moral law? See Ephesians 4:17-24. Paul speaks of the sins they must cast aside in their following Christ and even goes so far to say that if you have learned Christ, you learned that you must do this. Think of the impact of what Paul is saying, if you haven't learned this you have not be rightly taught Christ! I urge you to read that passage now, then finish reading my post so it will be clear in your mind what I speak of. So next, as you say, Paul considers us done with all the law, how do I fit that into my view? First, as just stated, he doesn't see us as completely done with the morality presented in the law. But in another sense he does see us as done with it. He sees this firt in the sense that it no longer holds any sting of condemnation over us. The aspect of it that says, "Do this and live" is gone. We now live by faith. But there is a second way that he sees us finished with it that goes a lot further to explain what we are talking about. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 reveals his thinking on this. And keep in mind he doesn't make his distinction here based on Christians and non Christians. He divides it based on the just and lawless, those who do good and those who do bad. He points out that the law is there to restrain the evil of evil doers, not the good of those who do good. Allow me to sum up what I believe him to be thinking here (but do read the passage). The idea is this, if we are truely following the spirit, and following Christ's leading we will be so far from the idea of stealing that the rule is pointless to us. We will be so far from the idea of murdering that the rule will have no bearing on us. It would be like telling somebody headed to Mexico that they can not go into Canada. The law has no application on one that is constantly asking "How may I most glorify Christ and serve others today?" So the law wholely remains upon us that stealing is wrong, that coveting is wrong, that lying is wrong, that murder is wrong, and we shall not do these things, no will it ever be abolished (as Christ said), it will never be permisable to us. Righteousness did not stope being righteousness when you and I were saved. But in Paul's eyes, "what does that have to do with you and me?" We are bound to Righteousness and following Christ, a restriction holding back the evil of an evil doer is not our concern, following Christ is. I hope this wasn't massively confussing. And at the end of this all I can entirely accept that a brother in Christ doesn't see tithing as one of these moral things such as stealing, lying, coveting, etc. If that is all we disagree on from what I've said its a small departure indeed. In Love, Beja |
||||||
587 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214860 | ||
Since I've said so very much, I might as well go ahead and share what I believe is the "tell" in dispensational thinking. I use this word in the sense that it is used in a poker game. In poker, a "tell" is something that reveals what's going on in somebody's hand. For example they may get giggly during a good hand, or fidget with their ear, or try to act cool in an obvious way. In the same sense I believe that dispensational theology has a glaring "tell" that while it does not prove it is wrong, it should give us all a very serious flag that it is wrong. The "tell" of dispensational thinking is how many times they will say with regards to scripture, "that doesn't apply to us." Their view of massive portions of scripture is that was meant for them, and this is meant for us. Something in our gut ought to feel very uneasy about such statements, especially made so frequently. The NT writers thought differently. See 1 Corinthians 10 where Paul is describing the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness when in verse 6 he says, "Now these things happened as examples for us." The point was for our teaching! Second in 1 Peter 1:10-12 it says, "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of CHrist within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of CHrist and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but YOU" The New testament seems to be written under the assumption that the things in the Old Testament were for us! While I would not say this proves dispensational thought wrong, it is the most glaring thing that we should all feel wrong with it, in my opinion. In Love, Beja |
||||||
588 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214862 | ||
Dear Wild Olive Shoot, That really has become the next question hasn't it? And a very fair one I might add. First, it is important to consider that the first time we see tithing is not in the law, but rather in Abraham tithing to Melchizedek in Genesis Chapter 14. Now, why would Abraham do this? My suggested answer is that God had taught his people more about relating to Him than is revealed to you and I in the first 14 chapters of Genesis. I think the notion of honoring God with the first fruits of your increase is a moral teaching that God has always taught His people before even the law. It is a moral issue because it is not a matter of symbolism, but rather a matter of Christlikeness (being a giver) and a matter of honoring God. This is the very essensce of being a moral issue rather than ceremony. Now, I will grant this is hardly an answer that proves my view point as it relies very heavily on my assumptions I bring to that passage to interpret it. A second reason that it makes sense to me is that this is exactly how you would teach a child to become a giver. I have a daughter, I will require my daughter to give in order to help shape her into a giver. Now, the goal is for her to become somebody who gives without compulsion. But in order to create that you don't just say to a child, do whatever you please and I shall hope you choose what is good. No, first you require some giving in order to teach them that this is important, and in my family we will do so. Second, you encourage, bless, and praise further giving so that the child is moving from knowing this is important, to developing a taste and love for it. This is exactly what I perceive God to be doing in tithes and offerings. Now, I whole heartedly agree that what I have said does not prove my stance. But as I said in a previous post, I very much appreciate the view point of a Christian that says we are to give willingly and sacrificially and if we follow the Spirit's lead in this its probably going to be more than a tenth. I would not spend my time arguing with such a generous heart. My entrance in this discussion was instead based on the answers assuming a dispensational view point for instruction. Hope this helps. In Love, Beja |
||||||
589 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214868 | ||
Keily, Perhaps I am in fact misunderstanding your stance. To help me clarify, could you tell me what you see as the means of acquiring salvation in the various dispensations. Perhaps this question will not help me to understand, but it might drag out the distinctives in your stance for me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
590 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214869 | ||
Val, You have said so much in that post. I wish to honor what you've asked with regards to dropping labels, but to fill in what dispensationals think with regards to Israel and the Church...they believe that the Old Testament promises are specifically for national Israel. The two should never be confused. My stance that I"m arguing is that the promises for Israel made in the Old testament, are really promises that are fulfilled in Christ and in the Church. That is the heart of what is being discussed and disagreed upon. Now, those who think as I do, do not look to national Israel to fulfill a hosts of promises. However, God is not done with ethnic Israel in this view point either. Paul is clear that they will be restored (Romans 11) but the implications of that restoration is not a new successful national identity, but rather a large spread conversion to Christ. The people of God, and the promises of God, are found in Christ and in the Church. That's the heart of the disagreement without the passage work explaining why. I understand that somebody who hears this would wonder why anybody would ever come to such a conclusion, shouldn't we just understand Israel to be Israel? And the answer to that is really that it seems the new testament writers do not see fit to make such a distinction. In my understanding, the New Testament offers see all the promises to Israel fulfilled in Christ and the Church. All I can say is as you continue your study, watch how they quote and make use of the Old Testament. Now, the danger in this view is still absent. Why would we take land from Israel? That doesn't fit in anybody's theology. But you are correct that this effectively takes the spot light off of the nation of Israel and puts it onto the church. There is not a plan for the Church, and a plan for Israel. There is one plan for the people of God and that has always been salvation by grace through faith in the promises of Christ. I'm not sure about our capability of carrying this discussion further, I think you and I are pretty clear about the differences of the views now between the two of us. But we'd have to work through a great many scriptures to talk it out. Your last post was very clear and excellently presented your view point, but you also illustrated just what a massive discussion we've begun. Whether we like it or not, we've embarked upon systematic theology at this point rather than single passage exegisis. In Love, Beja |
||||||
591 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214952 | ||
Dear Keily, You've provided me just the very thing to finally drag out exactly the difference in our view points. You said, "Interpreting Historically means simply that passages must be interpreted in the way the people would take them at the time the human author wrote them." I have spent most of my life in complete agreement with this statement. This statement leads to the views you hold, the assumptions I hold, lead to my particular views. You are exactly correct that the people at their time would have heard these promises to regard a national Israel. However, it is my belief, that the apostles, Jesus, and the new testament as a whole disagree with this. I believe those took all these promises and saw the fulfillment of these promises in Christ and in the Church. I hold to your statement in almost all areas of interpretation except the promises granted to Israel which I see as our promises in Christ. That is the heart of where we have been disagreeing the past several days. In my discussion with Val it has now become my task to give some specific support for why I say that is so. That will be coming if not today (two days of vacation left!) but I'll probably get around to it sooner than when I go home. As I said, its hard for me to look down on your view since all good sense and just an honest approach to scripture would certainly begin with such a view. I've just been convinced (rightly or wrongly) that scripture doesn't hold that view. And thank you for your explination, it sounds like we do hold the same view on salvation in the various times. In Love, Beja |
||||||
592 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214954 | ||
Dear Val, Alright, I've got a few in mind, but give me a bit to collect my thoughts on it. I think we are both in agreement that the author of the book of Hebrews in chapter 8 is stating that this "new covenant" is entirely a Christian covenant. It is the very New covenant that Christ's blood inaugerated in the gospels. Now, if we agree on this, next go back to Jeremiah chapter 31 and read about the promise that the new covenant was coming. And notice that this new covenant is explicitly promised to Israel and Judah. There is no mention of the gentiles in relation to this covenant. Now, how is it that the author of Hebrews sees this covenant as fulfilled in Christ, which is clearly a covenant made to all those in Christ, the church? This is just one example of what I'm talking about. The New Testament routinely takes the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament and claims them for the followers of Christ. My arguement in our discussion will be that these promises were always pointing to what was going to happen in Christ and in the Church. But at the time people could no have fully grasped what was going to take place. They couldn't have understood that God's national kingdom was always something that was meant to prefigure his Spiritual kingdom. This is the kingdom he referred to speaking to Pilate when he said that, My kingdom is not of this world." That was the intense confusion over his coming, they all thought He was going to begin a physical worldly kingdom, but the surprise was all along the prophets had meant the kingdom of Christianity, in which Christ even now sits as king enthroned at the right hand of the Father in heaven. That is the view I will be arguing, for now consider the Hebrews 8 new covenant in relation to Jeremiah 31. In Love, Beja In Love, Beja |
||||||
593 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217267 | ||
I am resurrecting a long dead post here, but I do so because I left it promising to return with some scripture support for it, since then I have had deaths of friends, and abundant interruptions from my church. I've been very swamped and I apologize that I simply abandoned the thread when I had been asked some very fair questions. I had been in a discussion with Val, and a Keily if I recall correctly. Now I finally have just a bit of time and wish to go ahead and post some scriptures for consideration. The discussion was about dispensationalism and the idea that the Church is the true Isreal. What I'd like to put forward right now is an arguement from scriptre that the Church, not Israel, rightly claims the promises made to Abraham. These promises were two fold 1) Promises of Land 2)Promises to be the tool through which He blesses the whole world. For sake of time and space I leave you each to look up the verses I reference here. Here is the defense: Who receives the promises to Abraham? The Church or Israel? First, note that there were promises specifically to the nation of Israel concerning land, however these promises were conditional on their obedience, and they were fulfilled, then later lost through disobedience. Deut 30:16-20 Joshua 21:43-45 However, in Genesis there were unconditional eternal promises made to Abraham. These are the promises we are concerned with. Who were the unconditional promises made to? First we see that the promises to Abraham were made to him and to his seed. Gen 15:8 Gen 17:6-8 Gen 26:4 Gen 26:4 Gen 28:14 It is extremely importand to note that in every instance the word "seed" is singular, not plural. How does Paul interpret the promises in Genesis? Galatians 3:16 says that the "seed" that was being spoken of is Christ. In other words, the unconditional promises in Genesis are not promises to the nation of Israel, but the promises were made to Jesus Christ, according to Paul. Paul says that the law, including its conditional temporary land promises to Israel that are made throughout Exodus, Num, and Deut. were all temporary promises made while we were waiting for the one who owned the eternal promises. Galatians 3:19. If you then look at Galatians 3:22-29, especially verses 22,26-29. Paul then goes on to explain that to the extent that we are in Christ through faith, we join Christ as heirs of these promises. In verse 29 he actually says that "if you belong to Christ, the you are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to promise." Who was the promise made to? Abraham and his SEED, which paul has here explained, the seed is Christ and those who belong to Christ. So the great promises to Abraham belong to the church, not the nation of Israel. I hope this is helpful, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
594 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217270 | ||
Doc, I almost did restart it, but I feared some would want to know what came before and would need the connection. There are many who believe that the Jews are destined to receive rewards outside of those which are to all believers through Christ by virtue of their being Jews. The argue that they have specially land promises coming especially, because they believe that the promises to Abraham are specifically to national Israel, not to all elect in Christ. It is this view that I am attempting to refute. So given that context I think the question is a fair one. But truely, in "church" I do mean all elect of all time, including those of Jewish decent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
595 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217287 | ||
Dear Val, I have no idea what I've said to offend you. Or to make you think I'm just interested in labeling people. If I recall when the conversation ended you had asked me to provide some scripture for the thoughts I had been forwarding? After some time, for which I apologized, I've come back with some scriptures laying out how Paul sees the promises to Abraham, and giving verses to show how scripture does not see them to "national Israel." I am seriously confused how the response I get is "We are just trying to study the bible and have been brought to a conclusion that you want to label and refute." Why did my presenting a scriptual arguement offend you? Why not just point out what was wrong with the scriptures I forwarded if they were off base? Also if what was offending you was my explination to Doc of what view I was arguing contrary to, then I'm not sure how that offended you either. Did I missrepresent the view? I was trying to give a fair explination of it and admitedly I might have failed since it is not my view that I was trying to explain. However, I thought I had explained it fairly. From your being upset I feel I got it wrong, but for what you said about God and Israel in your response I think I got it right. Regardless, I'm happy to let the discussion go if you wish, I only brought it back up because I've felt horrible this past month that I had said I would bring some scriptures and then failed to do so in how busy I got. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
596 | chould a preacher question peoples chris | 2 Cor 13:5 | Beja | 222834 | ||
Jamesandfaye, Absolutely they should. Though it is done in the right spirit. Doc, gave you an excellent answer. Might I just add that one of the reasons its fitting that he includes the question, "What is the church," is because a part of what it means to actually be a church is mutual responsibility for each other. This makes evaluating our evidences of salvation especially appropriate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
597 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223268 | ||
(this will be in multiple posts as replies) Are the Law and Gospel contrary to each other? Many would suggest that if we are saved by grace through faith, and by means of the gospel, then therefore we must be utterly done with the law. It is either Law or Gospel/Faith. The two are contrary to one another. If we are under grace, or if we are under the Gospel, then we are completely through with the Law. Is this true? Are they contrary to each other? Gal 3:21,22 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. The “promises” of the gospel stated here are clearly a reference to the “Gospel.” We can affirm this based on Galatians 3:8. Which clearly state that through the promises to Abraham, God was declaring the gospel. So then, according to Paul the gospel and the Law are not contrary to each other. But we must pay careful attention to why they are not. And the answer is, because the Law was not given to impart life. If it had been, then righteousness would have been through the law, but it was not, and therefore righteousness does not come through the law. But rather the Scripture containing the Law, had instead the explicit purpose of shutting up every person under sin. And it shut them up under sin SO THAT the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. So we see that the intentions of the Law were not to impart life and result in two possible paths towards right standing with God, rather it was to convict all of sin and press them towards the promises of the gospel in which are found the one and only means of life and righteousness. What do we mean by the term Law? When we speak of the Law in this discussion, we do not refer to every cultural practice of national Israel. Things such as dietary restrictions, ceremonies, yearly festivals or civil laws are not in view in this discussion. These are all picture foreshadowing Christ. Col 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. Rather, what we have in mind is the system of morality as depicted chiefly in the Ten Commandments. So then, the moral law of the old testament is not to be understood as contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the reason it is not to be understood as contrary, is that it is not offering itself as an alternative means to salvation, but rather a means of instructing and convicting us of our own sin and driving us to Christ. Once we stand under Grace, united to Christ by Faith, must we continue to live out the moral laws of the Old Testament? We can not treat this question fairly unless we divide it into two more clearly stated question. Question # 1: Must we follow the Old Testament Commands in order to receive justification? Question #2: Do the moral instructions of the Old Testament remain the expected conduct of believers? These are two totally different questions. And if we refuse to ask them as separate questions, we will continue to rush into error, and we will continue to struggle to understand scripture. Let question 1 be dealt with first. Must we follow the Old Testament Commands in order to receive justification? The answer to that is a firm no. Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. This is, of course, only one of many verses that can be quoted to affirm this. Question 2, “do the moral instructions of the Old Testament remain the expected conduct of believers?”, must be treated as a different question. One can not conclude that simply because something is not the means of justification that God does not in fact desire a believer to do it. I affirm, that the gospel implicitly instructs believers to follow righteousness as described in the moral laws of the Old Testament. |
||||||
598 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223269 | ||
(THIS IS PART 2, MAKE SURE YOU READ PART 1 FIRST) 1. There is an instruction of morality implicit to the gospel. 1Ti 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully ,realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. Lets examine this passage carefully. First, we see that Paul is specifically discussing the Law. Second, he says it is to restrain a variety of sins. Third, Paul states that these sins are contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious gospel. The law is used to restrain sins that are contrary to the gospel. Inherent to the gospel is a system of morality. This should not surprise us. The gospel is not merely about the means of salvation. The gospel also includes declaring the need for salvation. Inherent to the gospel message is that we are all sinners facing a coming day of judgment. And that we all stand guilty. We are guilty because we have gone against the Law of God. So inherent in the gospel message is the understanding that the moral Law of God, which is expressed in the Old Testament, is in fact something we should not transgress. We see this clearly because the Lawful use of the Law is to restrain sins that are contrary to the gospel. In other words, the sins that the Law restrains, are also sins that the gospel condemns. Lets see evidence of this from another passage. Eph 4:17-24 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Lets simplify this passage. Paul says: 1.) Do not continue to walk as the gentiles. 2.) You did not learn Christ this way. 3.) If you have been taught Christ, you were taught to put off the old self and put on the new. This is a powerful statement by Paul. It clearly states that there is an expectation of morality implicit in somebody learning Christ. Because the gospel is not only a means of salvation, it is also a statement of condemnation of all transgression against the Laws of God. Furthermore, the gospel is a call to repentance from transgressing the laws of God. What the Law forbids, the gospel condemns. To try and suggest that you can receive salvation and yet walk happily in the sin of the Gentiles is according to Paul “not to have learned Christ.” If you have learned Christ, you were also taught to put off such old sin and walk in a renewed life. Paul continues in this passage giving practical examples of putting off the old man and putting off the new. So let me summarize what we have found. The Gospel contains an implicit condemnation of sin, and instruction in morality. The notion of morality which the gospel forwards, is the morality of the Old Testament Law. 1.) What the law forbids, is what the Gospel itself condemns. 2.) The Law is not contrary to the Gospel. 3.) The moral Law of the Old Testament is still the expected morality of the New Testament. 4.) While the Law is not nor every will be a means to salvation, it is and will remain a means of instruction as to what is sin and what is righteousness. |
||||||
599 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223271 | ||
I do regret that none of the underlines, bold letters or italics carried over from microsoft word. They had helped very much to let a reader visually organize all of that. Oh well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
600 | baptizem | Gal 5:19 | Beja | 226155 | ||
Shaul, There are a couple things in your post that concern me. Let me point out some of them. 1.) You seem to divorce faith and repentence from predestination. As if one could have faith and not be predestined. I get this from your saying, "If your Fathers Name was not Written in the Book of Life from the Foundations of the earth - his death bed acceptance is of no use." We can not divorce Book of Life/predestination thinking from faith and repentence. The two always go hand in hand. If one does not repent and have faith, their name is never in the book of life. If one does repent and have faith, their name is always in the book of life. Let me give a scripture to verify this. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." Do you see here that salvation through believing is the thing being predestined? God has not only predestined the person to salvation, He has also predistined the means which is faith in the gospel. These must always be held together. So if this person received Christ through faith, then their name is indeed in the book of life. 2.) Where do you get the teaching that what Christ said to the theif on the Cross did NOT mean he was saved? Nowhere does scripture say anything of this sort so what has caused you to state it so confidently? 3.) And again, you ask if the Holy spirit can enter a person in the last few minutes of their life? What SPECIFIC scripture makes you think that He can not? 4.) Finally, I have much to object about your view of baptism but that would go far to long for a single post. But in short, this notion of flowing water being required is an error, and the notion that one can not be saved without it is an error. I do hope the person you were responding to will see your errors and not be troubled by them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ] Next > Last [40] >> |