Results 721 - 740 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
721 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224109 | ||
Princess in training, Have you actually spoken with your pastor about this? I can't help but wonder if what you mean was that your pastor was preaching a sermon, and just those specific words jumped out at you while your poor pastor was not even talking about marriage. If that is not the case than forgive me, but if that is the case then please do not take his words as advice to your situation but rather speak to him about it. Second, whenever we speak about what God wills, we might speak of it in two senses. First, we can speak of God's secret will. When we speak of this we speak of his big plan of events which He in his providence will unavoidably will to happen and bring about. God does not reveal this will to us other than in special instances of which we have examples in scripture. The second way we speak of His will is his permissive will. This is what God has told us that he wants us to do. These are His commands, His prohibitions, and instructions. Now, the reason I tell you all this. If you are asking if God's hidden will is that in time you will be seperated from your husband then we can not know. It is hidden after all. So all we can choose to act on is God's permissive will. What has He in fact told us that we ought to do. And with regards to marriage He has given us clear instructions. "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband" 1 Cor 7:10 So while we can not speak as to what God will bring about in the fullness of time, we can clearly say that God instructs wives to not leave their husbands. One terrible thing is when we use our speculations on God's hidden will to give us excuse to disobey his permissive will. That is nothing short of our wicked hearts rationalizing our rebellion. Now, on the flip side I've left you so far with no comfort and edification. I would encourage you to study very very closely 1 Peter chapter 2, verses 18 through end of chapter, as well as the first several verses in chapter 3. If I had to pick one passage to offer to wives suffering due to lousy husbands this passage would be it. As you study it notice a few things. 1. God calls us to submit to proper authorities even when those authorities are lousy. 2. God both notices, approves of, and takes great joy to see one of His children who so loves God that they are willing to suffer here and now for the sake of obedience to Him. 3. In the first few verses of chapter three we see that your quiet and respectful submission is a God approved means of causing the gospel to be powerful in the conversion of your husband. 4. In willing and submissivly suffering in this way, resulting in the conversion of your husband, you are following in the steps of our Lord Jesus himself who also willing and submissively suffered unjustly at the hands of the wicked for the sake of bringing eternal salvation to wicked men. May God strengthen and lift you up with such an eternal perspective and a love for Jesus Christ that you are willing to suffer now for the sake of eternal things. Do speak to your pastor. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
722 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224144 | ||
justme, I know that you can support what the husband ought to be doing with scriptures. But can you support your instructing her to seperate from her husband with scripture of any kind? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
723 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224148 | ||
justme, For lack of writing skills allow me to use numbers to organize my thoughts. 1.) You wrote that in 1 Cor 7:10-11 the situation of if the wife should happen to leave. From there you conclude that there are therefore reasons that the wife would leave. Lets examine the verses. 1Co 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 1Co 7:11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. So these verses start with a very clear command that the wife is to not leave. It then says that if she should do that thing which he just commanded not to do, then she is not to get remmarried. This does not at all look like it is giving circumstance in which the wife may leave. I think to infer from this passage that there must be reasons a wife can leave, and from there to make the remarkable leap that we should as you said "With that in mind examine a reason a Christian wife would want to seperate from her husband" is quite simply an abuse of the text. 2.) You ask if I know anywhere in scripture that permits a husband to do such things. Absolutely not, nor have I argued any such thing. The question is not at all whether a husband should do things like this. The question is what should a believing wife do in response. 3.) So, that leads us to the third point. Can I provide scripture to support the notion that a spouse is to remain with a husband that is acting in an ungodly way? Yes I can. 1Pe 3:1,2 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. It says that wives "in the same way." In the same way as what? Well, we have two options. Previously it has discussed slaves being submissive to masters who are being unreasonable towards them. But, the even closer context is Peter discussing how Christ willingly submitted to wicked men for the sake of bringing salvation. So the context is that wives, just as Christ suffered in ways He didn't deserve, and submitted himself willingly to this, so also wives are to submit to husbands, even ones who are "disobediant to the word." Why? So that through their willing and submissive sufferings they may be converted by the wife's conduct. So yes, I can very much provide scripture to support the wife staying with a husband who is being quite ungodly. So, since this is the clear testimony of scripture, I personally would want a very good scriptural reason to contradict it in counseling a woman. So I ask, what scriptural support do you have to simply give a wife permission to leave her husband? I take no joy in asking a wife to endure such a thing. It is truely a horrific thought. But dare I contradict scripture? The question of a ministers responsibility under such circumstances isn't really under discussion. The question simply being what does God expect of the wife? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
724 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | Beja | 221521 | ||
Brad, It sure is one of the most difficult passages! In seminary I foolishly chose to write a greek exposition paper on that passage and never could make up my mind what it meant. My teacher gave me a C- I think and I was glad to get it! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
725 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | Beja | 221546 | ||
Light, Just my personal opinion, but I don't think Peter is saying that Christ went to them in prison. It could very well mean that he preached to the ones NOW in prison, but rather He preached to them WHILE they were disobedient in the times of Noah, through the spirit through the preaching of Noah. Notice that it says "in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation." Also I think this is what the NASB is trying to convey when it translates it as the ones, "now in prison." Meaning that they weren't in prison when it happened. I leave it to you to ponder this interpretation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
726 | ... | 1 Pet 5:8 | Beja | 231856 | ||
LockNorth, With regards to the beginning of your post, it would help tremendously if you provided verses. For example, neither satan nor Jesus is an actual lion. At times, they are portrayed as such as a metephor for the purpose of showing something about them in -that particular context-. So without the context, we can't tell you what that passage is trying to say. With regards to why preachers would portray Satan as actively seeking to tempt the saints: I would just point you to biblical authority. 1Pe 5:8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. I would ask you why the preachers you are listening to preach contrary to this? Christ has already sealed Satan's defeat, but Satan is not yet ultimately done away with. Revelation 20 depicts his final defeat. As an Amillenialist I do believe that Satan is currently greatly restrained in his deceiving of the nations, though he is still hard at work. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
727 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224769 | ||
Am I wrong to think that the driving concern/error being addressed in 2 Peter is anitnomianism? To me it seems to absolutely be so yet I have not seen any commentators view it as such yet. Here are verses to notice throughout the book. Especially note 2Pet 3:17,18 where the final exhortation is not to be carried away by the error of lawless people. 2Peter 1:3,4,9,12 2:2,9,10,13,14,15,18,19,20-22 3:11,14,17 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
728 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224774 | ||
Makarios, Thank you for the reply. Let me ask a question to help me consider your answer. Do you believe antinomianism is an error? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
729 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224803 | ||
Makarious, I agree. I would not argue that it is the only error being discussed. I do think its a very big one though. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
730 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243932 | ||
I'm really lost trying to follow this discussion. What is the 1,500 year old teaching and the 600 year old new stuff? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
731 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243939 | ||
EdB, What doors? The best I can make sense of what you have said progressively throughout this thread, it sounds like you are against letting people read scripture for themselves, but rather the catholic church was right to tell people not to think about scripture, but rather just let the priests and pope authoritatively declare what it means. It sounds like you are saying we should have never messed with that. Now to be clear, I'm sure that you couldn't possibly be saying that. From what little I know you, I don't think you believe this. So that is why I'm asking, I'm letting you know that you are coming across as this being a possibility of what you are saying. Please correct me, sir. Because I feel confident you must mean something else. You are using so many phrases that we would need to be in your head to know the meaning you assign them. "man invented theologies," "simply following Christ," "Opening doors." And many more terms are things that each individual will fill with their own meaning; this makes your posts in this thread difficult to discern. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
732 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243942 | ||
EdB, Helpful clarifications, thank you. I do think it would be implausible to completely avoid denominational differences. But I agree that etiquette in such issues should be considered crucial. Not all wrong theology should be engaged as if heresy. Beja |
||||||
733 | The Word Gifted to the People of God | 2 Pet 1:17 | Beja | 243945 | ||
EdB, I believe if something is wrong it should be called wrong. For example there is an example of whether or not to baptize infants. At the end of the day, either we are suppose to or we are not. One view must be wrong. And we ought to consider scripture carefully to decide. There is a time for all things as well. There is a time to focus on these things as we consider them and how they imply us ordering our lives and churches. And there is also a right time as you say to "down play those differences." As a baptist, I ought to be able to have edifying fellowship with a presbyterian, and not feel the need to constantly bring up our differences. All that being said however, there is a big differences between me for example deciding that infant baptism is wrong, and the forum enforcing that denominational conclusion. I am in support of me as an individual (in the appropriate course of studying individual passages and a respectful non-inflammatory way) to have the freedom to point out that a particular passage is against infant baptism and to articulate why I think that passage is against it. However, I do not want the "forum" taking that stance and then censoring those who believe in infant baptism. I want them to be free to show me why they think that passage does not come to my conclusion. We must distinguish between my ability to think (and say) something is wrong, with the forum enforcing my view. In my opinion, the real problem usually comes because none of us are discussing passages. We are only discussing theology in the absence of passages. For example, we might find ourselves discussing whether one can loose their salvation, but we aren't finding anybody studying and discussing Romans chapter 8. Or we aren't discussing those very interesting verses in Colossians chapter 1 that sound like they might be suggesting a loss of salvation as possible (though I don't believe they are.) I've not seen much actual "bible study" on here for some time. We are only discussing theological conclusions, not the passages that form the data upon which we must build those theological conclusions. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
734 | ... | 2 Pet 1:20 | Beja | 223472 | ||
Thorwald, I will try to follow your points. a.) Who says that King James was anointed? You might be surprised to find out that the translators of the King James Bible actually said that it is good to use multiple translations to get the sense of scripture. Second, all the arguements that are used against the modern translations were the same arguements used against the King James translation when it was translated. The Christian's of the time argued that the perfect translation already existed, the Latin Vulgate. b.) They said they would throw them out of the synagogue, not the church. You are majorly missinterpreting that scripture. Second, if you read Deuteronomy 13, you will see that God also allows false prophets who have false visions to test the people. 1 John 4 says that we are to test such confessions against scripture. That sir is why you have been thrown out of a Church. c.) If you read the 1 Corinthians chapter 7, you will see that scripture actually says the exact opposite of what you are saying. d.) Sir your visions are to be tested by scripture, and when your visions disagree that means you are a false prophet. Your visions do not trump scripture but rather are to be corrected by scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
735 | Why do we follow rules taught by men? | 2 Pet 1:20 | Beja | 224348 | ||
findrichard, If this is an arguement for gathering to worship on the sabbath rather than sunday, I think it would be much better if you utilized the forum's search feature. This has been discussed more than once on the forums and it would spare us another debate. Furthermore, the intentions of this forum are for sincere questions. Whenever somebody comes asking a question that's not a question that usually means they are looking for a place to argue. What I mean by a "question that's not a question" is when somebody technically asks something but they already have their mind made up what the answer is. They simply are fishing for somebody to respond so that they can turn around and "educate" us on their viewpoint. I hope that's not what you are doing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
736 | What is the translation for 1 John 5:7 | 1 John | Beja | 243729 | ||
Peaceful6, This is actually not an issue of translation. The modern translations leave it out because it is deemed to be not authentic. This is probably one of the more famous omissions, and it is also very clearly not part of the original 1 John. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest it is not original. More than is convenient to type here. However, ANY commentary on 1 John that is worth its salt will discuss this at length. Anther helpful tool is Bruce M. Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament." This book goes through the whole new testament giving their reasoning for every textual decision made by their committee for the UBS greek New Testament. This book does need a little knowledge of Greek though (but not a lot). Normally I am happy to quote it on here for those who can't work with it, but in this case there is just too much evidence to quote. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
737 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228599 | ||
Tim, Forgive me if some of what I ask or say has been well delt with in the past, as I have had little opportunity to speak about this topic with people who even use words as large as "sanctification." So I may be in need of hearing old well tested answers for the first time on some things. My question is first about your concept of entire sanctification. It seems to me this would mean entirely sanctified. This brings up the question of what is considered a sin. Is wrong thoughts a sin? What of wrong desires? Is the fact that I very much desire something wrong but yet I successfully resisted the desire, is that sin? My understanding of sin is such that even though one does well to resist a temptation, having that wrong desire is in and of itself sin. I don't think my mind will change on this, but perhaps one could make a case against it leaning on James 1:15. But even though I disagree, let us grant hypothetically for the sake of arguement that it is only the actual acting that is considered sin in God's eyes. Therefore we would be able to suggest sinless life is possible for those lead by the spirit in this life. But yet even should we grant all of that, do you not think that one day we will be entirely sanctified to the point of no longer even desiring? And if we will be, should not that be what entirely sanctified means? Ought entire sanctification mean one thing now and something different in heaven? Now that is what I think the phrase "entire sanctification" ought to mean. That even our desires for sin is removed such that it no longer even carries any appeal to us but rather every sin is as loathsome to us as it is to God. However, let me then deal with what you said so that I don't simply set up a straw man. I think we ought to let a man define his own terms and deal with what he is actually saying. It would be a farce to take your words and give them my definitions in order to refute you. You have said, "What the doctrine does teach is that it is possible for a Christian to live holy." I struggle with this definition. Not because of any disagreement, but do we not all agree on this? I assume, and I feel it is safe to based on your post, that you teach that it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit working to put sin to death in us that we may do so. But if that is the case then where is the conflict? I agree that it is possible to live holy, yet at the same time possible for a Christian to live not holy. Are we truely so close that if you simply called it holy living rather than entire sanctification that we would be in agreement? I can't help but to doubt that, yet I can not see our difference. Perhaps if you shared with me what you mean by it being possible for a man to live holy? I will attempt to define it by what I mean, and once again, forgive me as I've had little opportunity to try to do so before and therefore my definition will not be refined by past corrections and rebukes. It is possible for a believer to live holy in that through the spirit's sin removing, Christ conforming work in us, no individual sin is impossible for a Christion to overcome in a temporary sense. (By temporary I only mean to highlight that complacency as if we are beyond that sin can lead to falling back into it.) Not only may we overcome the practice of any given particular sin, we may adopt a godly attitude towards that sin, coming to view it as God views it which is to say as a loathsome thing to be rejected. However, because the human heart is so wickedly deceitful by its fall, and because God has not yet in this live deemed to completely give us that transformation we will receive upon seeing him, and because we are still in the flesh and satan continues to tempt, and the world continues to try to lead us astray, no matter how sanctified we become, new and returning old temptations and ungodly attitudes continue to rise which again and again must be slain by submission to God's word and His spirit. Therefore a man can never become beyond sin in this life as they are in the next life. Now the last sentence is key to me. I think the "entire sanctification" in the age to come will place us beyond sin such that even under the worst trials we would not have any desire for it. We will never be such in this life but rather must constantly be weeding the garden as new sins spring up. And indeed, this all assumes we can rightly see all our sin which in itself would be a remarkable grace. Does this sound in accord with your thoughts? I do hope you can see the sincerity of my post, I am not "hunting for arminians" in order to slander or shame them, though I confess myself to be a calvinist. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
738 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228600 | ||
Tim, After my first post I think the garden illustration may help. If you are suggesting that it is possible to have a garden free from weeds then I will have no major qualms with you. If you suggest that in this life we can ever be done "weeding" in order to make that so then we have disagreement. In the next life we will have no need to even weed. And THAT is what I would call entire sanctification. And that may help or not help at all! :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
739 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228604 | ||
Ed, I recently made a post (228468) regarding a study of sanctification I did. In which I explained why sanctification sometimes is used as if it is a one time accomplished event such as in Heb 10:10, yet at the same time can be treated as something we must pursue in an ongoing fashion such as in Heb 12:14. I don't know if it will, but perhaps that post will be helpful to you. With regards to Romans 7, I'd humbly suggest that we've been asking the wrong question. I do not believe trying to determine "saved or loss" best helps us understand the point. The point is the law's inability to help us. Be we saved or loss it is not by power of the law that we can accomplish holiness of heart and behavior, but only by the power of God's spirit working in us. For scripture I simply suggest you read Romans Chapters 5-8 again with that thought in mind and see if it isn't helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
740 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | Beja | 228613 | ||
EdB, Yes, I agree with your assessment of 1 John 2:8. It says that the darkness is "passing way" as in that it is not completely gone but in the process of passing. Another verse is James 3:2 Jas 3:2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. Now I think without doubt that James here is speaking to believers. Also another passage I think you should give great attention to is in Philippians 3. For space considerations I will not copy the whole chapter here, but I urge you to go back and read it in context. Php 3:11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Php 3:12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Php 3:13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Php 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; Paul here emphasises that he has not already become perfect yet he presses on to that. Then he says that we ought to have the same exact attitude. I am not perfect yet I press on to perfection. And ofcourse then he says that as many as are "perfect" ought to have this attitude. I think here Paul has intentionally put is in a bind. Now we who might be tempted to thinking we are "perfect" must confess and believe that we are not as a condition of it! Either Paul has lost his mind and is contradicting himself or he has seen fit to say "perfect" the second time in a bit of a tongue in cheek fashion. He says if you are "pefect", then admit you are not perfect. In my opinion James and Paul in Philippians make a much stronger case than Romans 7, as I said in my previous post, I think Romans 7 has the intentions of showing the failure of the law to create righteousness in us rather than any attempt to describe a lost or saved person in particular. I might could think of more passages but this will suffice I think. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |