Results 341 - 360 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Clarification? | Rom 6:3 | Tamara Brewington | 204081 | ||
Hi this is Tamara, kinda jumping in here as I saw this in unaswered questions... Were you trying to reply back to someone? I kept getting confused and didn't put note, try to remember to put note, when replying to folks, your note even though it probably got to the right party ended up in unaswered questions. God bless, Tamara | ||||||
342 | need a bible verse!! | Rom 6:15 | Tamara Brewington | 203745 | ||
Look in Romans 6, I forget which verse right now, but that is the right passage... use this in the future, saves time www.blueletterbible just type in the main word of what you are looking for and every thing pops up... |
||||||
343 | Eternal Secruity? | Rom 8:33 | Tamara Brewington | 204506 | ||
I searched first and only found one referrence and it didn't answer my question. If you know of a thread I won't mind a thread or two. I am asking about eternal security not because I don't believe in it but because I have in-laws with whom I am discussing it and I am trying to wade through their various arguments. The major passages they are using are Galatians 5:4 and Hebrews 6:4-8. The major passages I am using are John 6:37-39 and Romans 8:33-39. Help me if you can understand what to do with the Galatians and Herews verses? Thank you. hat lady |
||||||
344 | total prosperity | Rom 10:9 | Tamara Brewington | 203746 | ||
The Bible does not teach total prosperity, it teaches to remian unstained by the things of the world and not to love the things of the world... I John 2:15-18. Don't be fooled by the teachings of the Anti-Christ. See Luke 18:18-27 for a parable about a man and his money. Jesus and the Apostles taught that money is seen as evil and not good. Be careful of wolves in sheeps clothing trying to tell you to find scriptures to stand on and to "name and claim" the promises of God. The Bible is to be stood on, but the Bible is not something we access and then go tell God I have come to appropriate my promises, because if I say them it will move you to act. Beware of people who preach that God has no power to act until you speak His word into your life, your tongue does not have more power than His will, or He is not God. |
||||||
345 | Wisdom has to be believed to get saved? | Rom 10:17 | Tamara Brewington | 203993 | ||
Next kooky professor question... The way to get saved is to get a knowledge of Christs atonement, the wisom of that knowledge has to be believed in order to get saved. The scripture given was Colossians 1:9,10 read the scripture first before you answer please. On this one I was not laughing I was rather more appalled. Opinions and scriptures please... God bless, Tamara | ||||||
346 | Wisdom has to be believed to get saved? | Rom 10:17 | Tamara Brewington | 204016 | ||
My Dear Azure, you are right about me needing to pray some more for this professor. We had about two weeks of debate about this issue via email because I went out evangelizing with the man and went to a fellow students house where we with unbelievers. In the first instance the professor was giving people theological arguments to try and prove that there is a God without proving that Jesus is God out in the park. If he could convince people that there is a God, then and only then, would he give them the saving message of the gospel. In the second instance we were gathered together, believers and unbelievers studying Mathew 7:1-5 discussing what a log in your eye means and what a measure of judgment is and the unbelievers were never given the saving message of the gospel. This is in my mind a great travesty, a lost opportunity and is besides being unequally yoked to unbelievers in ministry and is also equippig unbelievers with Godly wisdom as if they were already saved. In the class the contxt was talking about what is necessary to happen to an unbeliever in order to get saved and his reply was that first you have to have the knowledge of Christ's atonement, then you need to understand the wisdom derived from that knowledge in order to believe and be saved. And the scripture he gave was Colossians 1:9,10, which as you saw does not apply to unbelievers, but to believers. I agree with you that Romans 10:14-17 applies better than what he said, you need to hear the message of a saving faith in Christ and as saving faith comes by hearing the message. According to verse 14, then they can believe once they have heard. Obviously they have to understand the message in order to believe it, but where does grasping the wisdom that the message contains beyond the grasping simple knowledge of the simple message become a necessary requirement? The wisdom that is in the message of a saving faith of Christ can get pretty deep, you mean to tell me a person has to understand all that to get saved? That would include election, predestination, all of the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of Christ and on and on. This man has gone so far as to say that the wisdom that Jesus taught in the parables and the Sermon on the Mount and so on has the power to draw people to a saving faith in Christ. Azure, I have confronted this professor over and over, I am so done... God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
347 | Wisodom has the power to save? | Rom 10:17 | Tamara Brewington | 204147 | ||
Once again I tried to include a scripture up in the appropriate boxes before writing this post, it won't let me do it. This is a question about whether or not wisdom from Jesus, like the parables found in Mathew, and the Sermon on the Mount has the power to salvically draw people to a saving faith in Christ. I am posting this for the second time because no one addressed the question in light of the scriptures which I did include, but gave me good advice and opinions, and because I got complaints that my posts were not concise and were too long. I looked up the Lockman Foundation’s guidelines and it said not to use brevity because it can be confusing and when you go to post a question it says to include all the details of your question, and there is a limit to how many characters you can type, if you exceed the limit it tells you to shorten by a certain amount of characters. There is no bottom line on this to go to; it is not a simple question. 1)On context, I came across a situation in which I was evangelizing with someone. This guy was asking passers by if they would like to discuss The Moral Argument, The Cosmological Argument, The Anthropological Argument, The Teleological Argument. Passers by were presented with an argument for that God exists as The Absolute Moral Law Giver, The Uncaused Cause, The Creator of Man in His Image, The Intelligent Maker of Creation. Then this guy would point out the fatal flaw in the rational of the passer by through setting an intellectual trap by showing them how their view was hypocritical, lacked rationality or otherwise did not measure up to the logic and wisdom of what he had presented as his argument. After pointing out their fatal flaw he would then try to get them to admit God existed, if he could get them to do that, then and only then would he give them the gospel message of Christ's atoning death. 2)On context, He invited me to a get together of believers and nonbelievers to hear a bit of Jesus wisdom from the gospels. The scripture was Mathew 7:1-5. I sat there for two hours while we discussed the elements of the text, like what is a log in your eye and what is a measure of judgment. The unbelievers were never given the gospel message of Christ's atoning death. 3)On context, I confronted this guy and asked why he didn't just give them the message that could save and that it bothered me that we were being unequally yoked with unbelievers studying scripture that has the power to equip the saved with wisdom, but which does not have the information necessary to save. He said the wisdom of Jesus has the power to draw people salvifically to God and that he was doing pre-evangelism. He said there is a mandate to use wisdom to evangelize. He also said Jesus was doing pre-evangelism by humbling or shaming and clarifying the law and the His miracles – these are all wisdom. 4)On context, the apostles did not use the words of Jesus wisdom to evangelize that I can see. In Acts it speaks of Peter and Paul using wisdom while they preached about Christ crucified as the way to salvation and to show from the OT that Jesus is God. 5)On context, He accused me of hiding behind the gospel and being unwilling to deal intellectually with people who can respond to rational, logical wisdom in order to get saved and that my methods of giving people the scriptures and the message of Christ's atonement was running away from the world. 6)The scriptures for my point that the gospel message we and the apostles preach is Christ crucified, I Corinthians 2:1-8, 1:18-31, Colossians 2:2-10, Acts 22:29-36, Acts 3:12-19, Acts 4:2, Acts 10:34-43. 7)The scriptures for his point that the wisdom of Jesus has the power to draw people salvifically to a saving faith in God, Mathew 12:25-28, II Corinthians 10:4, 5, John 20:30, 31, I kings 3:28, II Timothy 3:14, 15. 8)Question; does the wisdom that comes from the parables and the Sermon on the Mount by itself have the power to draw people salvically to a saving faith in God? 9)Question; is studying together with unbelievers without giving them the gospel being unequally yoked in ministry? |
||||||
348 | Wisodom has the power to save? | Rom 10:17 | Tamara Brewington | 204167 | ||
So the Word of Christ is scriputre, OK got that. 1)II Timothy 3:17,17 is talking about all scriputre being profitable to the man of God, to the saved... 2)Not to the unbeliever, to them it's foolishness I Corinthians 1:18. I agree we need to use sound judgment in choosing a scripture to evangelize. 3)I agree that if you use a scripture and then lead into the message of crucifixion then any scripture can be used, but this guy was not doing that, which I specified in my context. 4)That is why I asked can the wisdom of Jesus alone from the Parables or the Sermon on the Mount have the power to draw people salvifically to Christ? God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
349 | Wisodom has the power to save? | Rom 10:17 | Tamara Brewington | 204178 | ||
Dear John, 1)Mathew 18:15 says If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. Sinning is simply missing the mark, when we don't give the lost the saving message of the Gospel when we are teaching them the scriptures we are missing the mark. All I was doing was pointing out to him this point, not having a confrontational attitude toward my techer. This teacher and I had a running open conversation about this via email for two solid weeks in the spirit opennes and of getting at the truth. This is what I meant by confronting him, I did it in a gentle manner, I started by asking him some questions, not blasting him out of the water. 2)The ubelievers heard the parables because Jesus intended that their ears and eyes whould remain closed because they rejected the messenger, He told the disciples that the parables were for them to understand the msyteries. 3)The Sermon on the Mount is one example of Jesus preaching about the kingdom having come in their midst which was the way people were getting saved then, by repenting of their sins and believing that Jesus was God. 4)Revelation of God and Christ is progressive, from the OT to the NT and from when Jesus was walking around preaching repentance and the kingdom is come to Pentecost after which the disciples stopped preaching repentance and the kingdom is come and started preaching repentance and the crucufixion of Christ. Which should be the gospel we preach to get people saved? 5)I have noticed that I am seen in here at least as being confrontational if I am willing to give an answer for the hope that lies within me, for lack of a better way of stating it. Why is that? 6)When I was gathered with the unbelievers I went along with the program without pointing out anything, or segueing into the gospel message, I waited until we were in private. 7)Glad you are still willing to communicate, God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
350 | God Told Us To Follow Laws of Land | Rom 13:1 | Tamara Brewington | 203748 | ||
The entire chapter of Romans 13. Jesus sais render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and unto God what is God's. | ||||||
351 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203939 | ||
Has the gift of prophecy and tongues and knowledge passed away? What are we to make of I Corinthians 13:8-13, but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Does this verse mean that Christ came and the partial was done away with, and that somehow after the Holy Spirit which was after Christ that the gift was only in operation in the founding of the church? Does this verse mean that when the church was finished the perfect was come and that the gift was only in operation in the founding of the church? Does this verse mean that when Christ returns the perfect state of man will come and that then all the gifts except faith, hope and love will abide because the other gifts will no longer be necessary fir the church to function, because we will be just like Jesus? We know that the gift of being apostle has passed becaue they finished founding the church. In your answer do not confuse the concept of propecy as it functioned in the OT as a precursor to Christ and to lead Israel with Paul's description of the gift in I Corinthians 14:3,4 as being applicable to the functioning of the church membership. | ||||||
352 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203962 | ||
There are several qualifications missing from your list and a misunderstanding of what is meant by the original founding work of the inception of the Church in first century and the continuation of the established church after the first century through out the whole world. Qualification one; Paul's first and most important claim to apostleship is that He personaly met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. This leaves out everyone who did not meet Christ after He had risen and or asceneded, that is everyone after the first century, none of whom can honestly claim they met Christ in the flesh or like Paul did. If they do run around claiming it they would have a very hard time proving it, Paul had proof, there were people there who saw the light and heard a voice, there was his eyes and Ananias. The rest of the 11 apostles met the risen Christ in the flesh and saw Him ascend into heaven. Qualification two; is that Jesus personally chose the 12, from the original 11 to Paul, He directly commissioned them face to face to be His personal witnesses. No one past the first century can make the claim that Christ came to them face to face, if they are making that claim it will be hard to prove it. Qualification three; is that each apostle went and began the church, not continued the church growth, they began the church were before it did not exist on earth, not in a place or two, on the earth itself. It started at Pentecost and then 4 groups of people were brought into the church by the apostles that represent the whole world then and now, the Jews to whom it was promised, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, the Gentiles who were unbelievers or God fearers, those who had received the repentance of John and the baptism of John who had not yet heard the gospel. No one after the first century brought a new type of group in, they were all either pagans, in which case they were Gentiles, or they were people who repented of sin but did not yet hear the gospel, or they worshipped the right God the wrong way, or they were Jews, there are no other groups waiting to get in that don't fit inside one of these groups. Anyone who goes around claiming that they are doing church founding haven't got the correct conception of what the apostles were exactly doing. Any one can establish a new church somewhere and grow a membership, that does not make you an apostle because the apostles brought the church itself as a new creation into being, not a new continuation of work that has gone on before in various other places for centuries. The end of God signifying that He was providing for the church by having apostles is that thier work is finished, they brought the church into being on the face of the earth itself as a living body of Christ. The church is here and growing it doesn't need to be founded all over, just continued. Another proof is that Jesus has not come back as the risen Christ to anyone and told them to go be His witnesses. It is one thing to say that we are all commissioned to be His witnesses to go make disciples it is another to have Him appear to you like to Paul, or like to the 11 and be told to go bring a group that has never been brought in, like the Gentiles, the Jews, the Samaritans, the repenters and baptized of John. No one can make that claim any more. If you look closely at the qualifications you will see that the 500 don't qualify because Jesus did not personaly commission them or give them a group to go bring in and that applies to anyone today who claims to have had a divine revelation of Christ telling them they are an apostle today too. There is a definite demarcation between the initial founding of the church as I have described and its continuance past the first century, historicaly and in scripture because the qualifications are in the scripture and history shows it was finished being founded by the end of the first century. Your answer was more than reasonable, I will have to search for if you answered about the other two gifts somewhere... By the way Romans 16:7 says that these people were notable amongst the apostles as in they were associated with the apostles, it does not say they were apostles. One more important point before I forget, a trouble passage; Acts 1:25, 26 where the aposltes drew lots to chose a new apostle to replace Judas. Theologians take this seriously stating that this man is in fact qualified as a apostle the aformentioned above not forgoing because Peter is said to be speaking with authority as head of the apostles and only he would know if this man had met the risen Christ and the use of lots goes way back to the OT from the priesthood. But the intersting thing is you never hear of this man again one way or the other and he is said to be an acception in being qualified by Peter and the Lord and not the norm by which to judge qualifications by. Say, next time why don't you share what the Spirit dropped on you? Wew, God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
353 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203963 | ||
There are several qualifications missing from your list and a misunderstanding of what is meant by the original founding work of the inception of the Church in first century and the continuation of the established church after the first century through out the whole world. Qualification one; Paul's first and most important claim to apostleship is that He personaly met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. This leaves out everyone who did not meet Christ after He had risen and or asceneded, that is everyone after the first century, none of whom can honestly claim they met Christ in the flesh or like Paul did. If they do run around claiming it they would have a very hard time proving it, Paul had proof, there were people there who saw the light and heard a voice, there was his eyes and Ananias. The rest of the 11 apostles met the risen Christ in the flesh and saw Him ascend into heaven. Qualification two; is that Jesus personally chose the 12, from the original 11 to Paul, He directly commissioned them face to face to be His personal witnesses. No one past the first century can make the claim that Christ came to them face to face, if they are making that claim it will be hard to prove it. Qualification three; is that each apostle went and began the church, not continued the church growth, they began the church were before it did not exist on earth, not in a place or two, on the earth itself. It started at Pentecost and then 4 groups of people were brought into the church by the apostles that represent the whole world then and now, the Jews to whom it was promised, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, the Gentiles who were unbelievers or God fearers, those who had received the repentance of John and the baptism of John who had not yet heard the gospel. No one after the first century brought a new type of group in, they were all either pagans, in which case they were Gentiles, or they were people who repented of sin but did not yet hear the gospel, or they worshipped the right God the wrong way, or they were Jews, there are no other groups waiting to get in that don't fit inside one of these groups. Anyone who goes around claiming that they are doing church founding haven't got the correct conception of what the apostles were exactly doing. Any one can establish a new church somewhere and grow a membership, that does not make you an apostle because the apostles brought the church itself as a new creation into being, not a new continuation of work that has gone on before in various other places for centuries. The end of God signifying that He was providing for the church by having apostles is that thier work is finished, they brought the church into being on the face of the earth itself as a living body of Christ. The church is here and growing it doesn't need to be founded all over, just continued. Another proof is that Jesus has not come back as the risen Christ to anyone and told them to go be His witnesses. It is one thing to say that we are all commissioned to be His witnesses to go make disciples it is another to have Him appear to you like to Paul, or like to the 11 and be told to go bring a group that has never been brought in, like the Gentiles, the Jews, the Samaritans, the repenters and baptized of John. No one can make that claim any more. If you look closely at the qualifications you will see that the 500 don't qualify because Jesus did not personaly commission them or give them a group to go bring in and that applies to anyone today who claims to have had a divine revelation of Christ telling them they are an apostle today too. There is a definite demarcation between the initial founding of the church as I have described and its continuance past the first century, historicaly and in scripture because the qualifications are in the scripture and history shows it was finished being founded by the end of the first century. Your answer was more than reasonable, I will have to search for if you answered about the other two gifts somewhere... By the way Romans 16:7 says that these people were notable amongst the apostles as in they were associated with the apostles, it does not say they were apostles. One more important point before I forget, a trouble passage; Acts 1:25, 26 where the aposltes drew lots to chose a new apostle to replace Judas. Theologians take this seriously stating that this man is in fact qualified as a apostle the aformentioned above not forgoing because Peter is said to be speaking with authority as head of the apostles and only he would know if this man had met the risen Christ and the use of lots goes way back to the OT from the priesthood. But the intersting thing is you never hear of this man again one way or the other and he is said to be an acception in being qualified by Peter and the Lord and not the norm by which to judge qualifications by. Say, next time why don't you share what the Spirit dropped on you? Wew, God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
354 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203964 | ||
There are several qualifications missing from your list and a misunderstanding of what is meant by the original founding work of the inception of the Church in first century and the continuation of the established church after the first century through out the whole world. Qualification one; Paul's first and most important claim to apostleship is that He personaly met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. This leaves out everyone who did not meet Christ after He had risen and or asceneded, that is everyone after the first century, none of whom can honestly claim they met Christ in the flesh or like Paul did. If they do run around claiming it they would have a very hard time proving it, Paul had proof, there were people there who saw the light and heard a voice, there was his eyes and Ananias. The rest of the 11 apostles met the risen Christ in the flesh and saw Him ascend into heaven. Qualification two; is that Jesus personally chose the 12, from the original 11 to Paul, He directly commissioned them face to face to be His personal witnesses. No one past the first century can make the claim that Christ came to them face to face, if they are making that claim it will be hard to prove it. Qualification three; is that each apostle went and began the church, not continued the church growth, they began the church were before it did not exist on earth, not in a place or two, on the earth itself. It started at Pentecost and then 4 groups of people were brought into the church by the apostles that represent the whole world then and now, the Jews to whom it was promised, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, the Gentiles who were unbelievers or God fearers, those who had received the repentance of John and the baptism of John who had not yet heard the gospel. No one after the first century brought a new type of group in, they were all either pagans, in which case they were Gentiles, or they were people who repented of sin but did not yet hear the gospel, or they worshipped the right God the wrong way, or they were Jews, there are no other groups waiting to get in that don't fit inside one of these groups. Anyone who goes around claiming that they are doing church founding haven't got the correct conception of what the apostles were exactly doing. Any one can establish a new church somewhere and grow a membership, that does not make you an apostle because the apostles brought the church itself as a new creation into being, not a new continuation of work that has gone on before in various other places for centuries. The end of God signifying that He was providing for the church by having apostles is that thier work is finished, they brought the church into being on the face of the earth itself as a living body of Christ. The church is here and growing it doesn't need to be founded all over, just continued. Another proof is that Jesus has not come back as the risen Christ to anyone and told them to go be His witnesses. It is one thing to say that we are all commissioned to be His witnesses to go make disciples it is another to have Him appear to you like to Paul, or like to the 11 and be told to go bring a group that has never been brought in, like the Gentiles, the Jews, the Samaritans, the repenters and baptized of John. No one can make that claim any more. If you look closely at the qualifications you will see that the 500 don't qualify because Jesus did not personaly commission them or give them a group to go bring in and that applies to anyone today who claims to have had a divine revelation of Christ telling them they are an apostle today too. There is a definite demarcation between the initial founding of the church as I have described and its continuance past the first century, historicaly and in scripture because the qualifications are in the scripture and history shows it was finished being founded by the end of the first century. Your answer was more than reasonable, I will have to search for if you answered about the other two gifts somewhere... By the way Romans 16:7 says that these people were notable amongst the apostles as in they were associated with the apostles, it does not say they were apostles. One more important point before I forget, a trouble passage; Acts 1:25, 26 where the aposltes drew lots to chose a new apostle to replace Judas. Theologians take this seriously stating that this man is in fact qualified as a apostle the aformentioned above not forgoing because Peter is said to be speaking with authority as head of the apostles and only he would know if this man had met the risen Christ and the use of lots goes way back to the OT from the priesthood. But the intersting thing is you never hear of this man again one way or the other and he is said to be an acception in being qualified by Peter and the Lord and not the norm by which to judge qualifications by. Say, next time why don't you share what the Spirit dropped on you? Wew, God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
355 | what does I cor 12 : 24 mean | 1 Corinthians | Tamara Brewington | 205973 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
356 | No Plan B | 1 Cor 2:13 | Tamara Brewington | 204919 | ||
Doc, You got me goin here... I am thinking about David, Bathsheba, Solomon and Jesus - there was no plan B, God allowed David and Bathsheba to sin and birth Solomon, but Solomon was always going to be on the throne of David and be in the direct line of Jesus. Despite that God hates all sin, and despite that He could have done it a different way, He choose by His divine sovereign will to do bring Jesus to earth in the flesh the way He did through David, Bathsheba, and Solomon -there was never going to be a plan B! God Himself told David by His very word that his seed would be on David's throne forever. I know that is not quite what you had in mind, but what you said got me to thinking. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. You also got me to thinking about this verse which is closer to where I bet you were; Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (thinking myself about my earlier post today...) God's day to You, Tamara |
||||||
357 | No Plan B | 1 Cor 2:13 | Tamara Brewington | 204998 | ||
Doc, Well said my good good man! Thanks, by His Grace, Tamara |
||||||
358 | the power of our words | 1 Cor 4:20 | Tamara Brewington | 205073 | ||
Dear Kiarafuentes, I want you to consider this verse; I Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power. The revelation of Christ to man is given to us in words and the word of God is as powerful as a two edged sword dividing the joints and marrow. The word has the power to save and bring you into the kingdom of God, but that is done by the working of the Holy Spirit. But the kingdom itself consits not of words, but of power. The power of God Himself, the Holy Spirit power to enact God's word, the words do not hold the power by themselves. The words hold the power by the Spirit of the Almighty God who enacts them by His Holy and miraculous power. Contrary to popular Word of Faith teachers who abound on radio and tv, the Bible does not teach that the power of God resides in your tongue. This is a false doctrine that states that when you speak out loud the word of God, you are empowering God to act according to the measure of your faith. What you are asking falls into this camp of Word of Faith teachings. This teaching you are asking about states that scripture supposedly states that whoever we bless will be blessed and whoever we curse they will be cursed. This is based on a twisting of the scriptures. I am going to ask you, which scripture do you have that actaully says that you are to be careful because who ever you bless will be blessed, and whoever you curse will be cursed? I couldn't find it, perhaps you could enlighten me? None of the scriptures you gave come any where near saying what you claim you have read in scripture... The power of God is to curse and to bless, not man's power, God's. Speaking God's truth out of your mouth does not unleash the power of God into your life, or anyone elses life. God is not kept from acting until you speak of His power and unleash it, that is a false Word of Faith doctrine. The idea that you could bless or curse is to usurp the power of God and is a false doctrine. The idea that we need to be careful of what we say because of unbelievers is correct, there are plenty of scriptures to uphold that! Genesis 12:3a And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. God has the power to curse and to bless, not man. God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
359 | Divorced Do Christians Get Remarried? | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205279 | ||
Dear Forum members, First referrnce to go with the question; I Corinthians 6:9,10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Second referrence for the question; Mathew 19:8 Because of the hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. Mark 10:11,12 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. Third referrence for the question; Hebrews 6:4-6 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then ahve fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Fourth referrence for the question; Mathe 7:21 Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kindom of heaven, but he who does the will of the Father who is in heaven will enter. Here is the situation, I have had the pleasure to know a number of wonderfull Christian couples who were previously divorced and then got remarried. Here are variations on this subject that will drive my question; 1)One member of the present marriage was divorced while an unbeliever due to both unbelieving parties committing adultery getting divorced, but repented of committing adultery and getting a divorce and after becoming a Christian got married to a Christians widow. 2)One member of the present marriage got a divorce due to their unbelieving spouse committing adultery and leaving, and then met a wonderful Christian and got married. 3)Both members of the present marriage had previous spouses who committed adultery on them and got divorced and all parties involved were Christians, then they met and got married. All of these marriages are wonderful marriages and these Christians appear to be bearing good fruit and have been married a very long time. Question; does not the Bible teach that when we sin, we have an advocate, but that we have to repent of our sin and walk away from remaining in sin in order for God to truly have grounds for forgiving us? Next question; why do some Christians feel as if once you are divorced you can be in a new marriage because there is nothing you can do about the mess up of the old one, so now it is ok to marry someone else? Jesus said two things up there about divorce; who ever marries a divorced person (without qualifying it) commits adultery, and who ever divorces someone except for immorality and marries another commits adultery. Next question; how then is there any grounds to get remarried at all just because someone committed adultery? By His Grace, Tamara |
||||||
360 | Divorced Do Christians Get Remarried? | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205283 | ||
Dear John, Help me out here a bit John, one scripture by Jesus says whoever divorces his wife except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. The other scripture says whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her - this verse does not say anything about adultery in the equation, it simply says if you divorce and marry another you commit adultery. Here is another problem with the view that there is nothing you can do about a past faux pas and just move on; I Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Second problem with this view that it is okay move on; I Corinthians 6:9 Adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. And Hebrews 6:4-6 Those who have fallen away, that is who keep right on going in sin, have no more means of renewal to repentance since they crucify the Lord again. What do you think my good fellow? God's Day, Tam |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [28] >> |