Results 61 - 80 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22291 | ||
NO! You have to be baptised for the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38). Since sin is what separates us from God and baptism along with repentance is what remits our sins (package deal) you are saved simultaneously with being baptized | ||||||
62 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22292 | ||
Repent is not the key in Acts 2:38. It is a conjunctive phrase that says BOTH repentance AND baptism must take place first and THEN you will have remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit | ||||||
63 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22293 | ||
There is only ONE baptism -- not one of water as opposed to one of Spirit. (Eph 4:5). Baptism is immersion in water. | ||||||
64 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22295 | ||
That's a risk I'm not willing to take! | ||||||
65 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22444 | ||
Let me clarify and rephrase: There are two aspects to our salvation. God's part was to pay for our sins by offering His Son, the perfect Lamb of God, as a sacrifice for our sins. Our part is to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism saves us by bringing us into contact with the Cleansing blood of Christ. Baptism brings us to the place where God's sacrifice can do its work. In Christian Love Tim |
||||||
66 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22654 | ||
As I posted in a reply to Nolan just minutes ago and as you have pointed out in one of your replies to one of my other postings (Whew!) this discussion is perhaps getting tired. My final argument -- Take it or leave it -- is this. 1. To be saved you must be "in Christ" 2 Cor 5:17. John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'" Only Christ can save and to take advantage of that salvation you have to be "in Him". 2. -- Rom 6:1-11 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." This very clearly shows a process. a. you die to sin b. you are burried with Christ in BAPTISM c. you THEN rise to live in newness of life Paul says that we are baptized INTO Christ (v. 3) 3. Since it is in Christ that we find salvation, and since it is BAPTISM that puts us into Christ, we have to conclude that BAPTISM is an essential element of SALVATION. This in no way denies that we are saved by faith since it is our faith that leads us to the waters of baptism. God said it I believe it That settles it I rest my case In Christ Tim |
||||||
67 | Is vegetarianism okay with God? | 1 Cor 8:13 | Tim Sheasby | 22465 | ||
I am new to this forum and I know this is an old discussion but here are my 2 cents worth. What does the Bible say? Rom 14:2-3 says "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." NASB I have vegetarian friends who become quite obnoxious about the eating of meat. This is wrong. At the same time there are those who are equally obnoxious to the vegetarians for being so strict about what they will or will not eat. Equally wrong. There are times we have to put our own liberty aside to help one who has less understanding or a different understanding. This is what Paul speaks of in this passage. Remember though that this context is not simply about meat but rather about meat that has been offered to idols. Paul is saying that he will never again eat meat offered to idols (in the context of this passage) rather than that he is becoming a vegetarian. Still, if you feel that a vegetarian diet is better for you personally then that is no problem. It only becomes a problem when you try to bind your life choice on others. Be true to your conscience! In Christ, Tim Sheasby |
||||||
68 | Why don't women have long hair? | 1 Cor 11:6 | Tim Sheasby | 22474 | ||
Should women have long hair? And if so why? I grew us in an "anti" congregation of the church of Christ. This is an ultra conservative, legalistic, fundamentalist, splinter group of the church of Christ. In my late teens my whole family went through considerable trauma, both emotional and spiritual, which led us to re-evaluate some of our beliefs. One of the most sacred of these was the doctrine of the head covering. At our assembly hall we even had a rack at the entrance with several scarves or veils for visiting women to wear should they come without their own. We were almost offencive about it some times to the extent of pushing the covering into the hands of the offending women. That's background. What finally convinced me to change my mind? I attended Southern Africa Bible School, in Benoni, Gauteng, South Africa where students before me had done an in-depth exegesis of the passage in question. Without going into all the intricacies of that study it was interesting to note that the only place in the entire passage that an artificial covering was actually mentioned (in the original Greek this is) was in the very last verse -- 1 Cor 11:15 "but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." NASB. The covering in this verse is a veil but in all the other verses it is a generic 'covering'. The word 'for' in this verse is the Greek word for 'instead of'. So what this says is that a womans hair is given to her instead of a veil. The rest of the passage shows a distinction between long and short hair so this leads to the final conclusion that a woman who has long hair is effectively veiled and covered. Women must have long hair, men must have short hair. How long long is and how short short is is a matter of discernment perhaps but that, in a nutshell is my view. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
69 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22476 | ||
Footnotes are the work of men, not inspired words of God. Read them with caution. However, it would seem that the practice of the day was to partake of the Lord's supper once a week. Does this make it less for those who partake of it? Not for me. It is a weekly reminder of what my Saviour did for me. A weekly celebration of my salvation in Christ. Scripture is not specific on this so we only have early church tradition to go on. I'm going to go with that tradition but certainly can not bind that on anyone else. | ||||||
70 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22478 | ||
A friend and brother in Christ of mine has written a treatise on the Lord's Supper and the elements thereof. He gave me a copy to read and progress is extremely slow. This is a tome of over 500 pages and explores not only the New Testament words involved but also goes into detailed research of Old Testament law relating to Passover (since this was the feast that the Lord's supper was instituted at). Further he has looked at everything he could get his hands on relating to Jewish traditions surrounding the Passover -- specifically the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishna. He concludes that the very phrase Jesus used in reference to the cup in Matthew, "this the fruit of the vine", is a term with very specific connotation to the Jewish reader of the day and specifically to the apostles eating that supper with him. This phrase comes from the Jewish blessing reserved solely for fermented grape juice (wine) that had been fermenting for a minimum of 40 days and was not more than 3 years old. I have debated this to some extent with my father who did his thesis on the use of wine in the New Testament. He disagrees with this view saying that this may be nit picking. My own research continues but one thing that concerns me is "whose example should we follow?" I have been partaking of the Lord's Supper with a group that uses alcoholic wine and unleavened bread (baked according to Old Testament formulas) because of my uncertainty on this matter. Since there was no way to preserve grape juice in those days, and the grape harvest was long past, the liquid element in the cup of Christ was clearly an alcoholic wine. If I know that this was the example of my Saviour I am not sure I want to take a chance on anything else. To argue that grape-juice and wine are both fruit of the vine and therefore the same is also suspect. The difference is not just in the alcohol content. There is another transformation that takes place in the fermentation of wine. The life and death of the yeast cells involved in the fermentation makes wine extremely rich in protien. It has a high number of the amino acids essential to life to the extent that a person could live a healthy life on bread and wine alone! Does this add new significance to the elements of the Lord's supper? I don't know for sure but for now that is the way I am going to go. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
71 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22484 | ||
Legalism is not strict adherence to the laws of God. It is the imposition of traditions of men as if they were laws of God. The Pharisees were not condemned by Jesus for obeying the law but for binding tradition. However, I come from a very legalistic background and that may still echo in my life today. I pray not but have to face at least the possibility that it does. One point I did not mention in my previous posting is that historically alcoholic grape wine has been the only liquid element in the Lord's Supper until the American Prohibition era! Only after that did the concept of Grape Juice equals Fruit of the vine come into being. If Jesus held a cup of fermented alcoholic wine and said "I will not partake of THIS until I partake of it new with you in my Father's kingdom" was he not telling us what to use when remembering Him? If, as many argue, it is any by-product of the grape vine then why did he reject the wine offered him on the Cross and not the vinegar? To tell you the truth, I am still researching this for myself but when I think of Nadab and Abihu who offered strange fire and were struck dead for it I am forced to stop and think a bit more. They knew the correct fire to use but did not think it important so they used something else. Will you be condemned for using something else in the Lord's Supper? I really do not know. For my own conscience sake, though, I am forced to partake of the same element my Saviour used and we can be sure of one thing -- it was NOT grape juice but wine matured between 40 days and 3 years. It may or may not have been diluted with water but it was still essentially wine. Tim Sheasby |
||||||
72 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22818 | ||
Amen (1 Cor 11) Tim |
||||||
73 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22822 | ||
Amen. I am no more infallible than you. I teach my own congregation this very thing. I encourage all to be like the Bereans who "...were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 NASB Tim |
||||||
74 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22823 | ||
Furthermore. I encourage all to support what they believe with scripture. I try to do this myself. If I cannot do this, at least to my own satisfaction, then I must acknowledge that I may be on the wrong track. Thank you in Christ Tim |
||||||
75 | MEN ARE THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN NOT THE EN | 1 Cor 14:34 | Tim Sheasby | 22469 | ||
A point of interest. The proscription against a woman speaking is "in the church". What does this mean? I believe this is not necessarily speaking about ANY and EVERY public gathering of the church but of gatherings specifically for the sharing of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. There were certainly many women who preached in the early church -- but not at the weekly gathering to break bread. When Paul gives instructions to Timothy he says 1 Tim 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." Some have said that this means a woman cannot teach a man but the Greek here shows that she cannot teach AT ALL! But the context of this passage is again "in the church". Why do I say this? Because in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul tells Timothy what his preceding writings are about -- conduct in the church. Many of my brethren will probably take issue with me on this point but if we accept that "in the church" relates to the specific gathering to break bread then there are times when women can teach men publicly. If we do not accept this view of "in the church" then Paul says a woman can never teach - anyone, any time - and this is unacceptable for why would God make some women prophets if they could never prophesy? Still studying this for myself so these views are not final but a kind of reasoning in progress. In Jesus Christ who saves us Tim |
||||||
76 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | Tim Sheasby | 22470 | ||
In another posting on this passage I proposed the idea that this proscription is against a woman speaking "in the church". This is not the sanctuary or building. Neither is it the "church universal" or they could never speak again! This, I believe, refers to a specific gathering of the church -- that gathering where we gather to partake of the Lord's Supper. Tim |
||||||
77 | When will the rapture occur???? | 1 Cor 15:52 | Tim Sheasby | 22199 | ||
Rapture is a man made term and is based on misunderstanding of Matthew 24 (The so-called signs of the times). If you read the passage that this discussion is based on you will see that this is talking about the final end of creation. I am sorry to disillusion you but the tribulation took place nearly 2000 years ago already. A careful study of Matthew 24 along with historic writings of the time will show how the destruction of the Jewish temple preceded a time of terrible tribulation as has never been seen since. That marked the final end of the Jewish people as the chosen ones of God. The signs of the times mentioned in that passage also have been misunderstood. It says that people will SAY the end is near because these things are happening. We know though that Jesus said that NO ONE knows the time except God so how can we presume to be able to work it out? | ||||||
78 | When will the rapture occur???? | 1 Cor 15:52 | Tim Sheasby | 22285 | ||
No offence taken. However, can you defend your viewpoint biblically? Opinion is not enough when we are dealing with the word of God -- only a sincere love for the truth (2 Thess 2:10). I have had to change my thinking on many things as I have studied deeper into God's word. Sometimes even to the point of disagreeing with doctrines I have believed for 35 years as a Christian. Still If you can show me, from Scripture, that I am wrong then I will change my view. In Christian Love Tim |
||||||
79 | What 's "The Rapture" mean? | 1 Cor 15:52 | Tim Sheasby | 22314 | ||
Rapture is a man made term and is based on misunderstanding of Matthew 24 (The so-called signs of the times). If you read the passage that this discussion is based on you will see that this is talking about the final end of creation. I am sorry to disillusion you but the tribulation took place nearly 2000 years ago already. A careful study of Matthew 24 along with historic writings of the time will show how the destruction of the Jewish temple preceded a time of terrible tribulation as has never been seen since. That marked the final end of the Jewish people as the chosen ones of God. The signs of the times mentioned in that passage also have been misunderstood. It says that people will SAY the end is near because these things are happening. We know though that Jesus said that NO ONE knows the time except God so how can we presume to be able to work it out? | ||||||
80 | When's the rapture to happen? | 1 Cor 15:52 | Tim Sheasby | 22315 | ||
Rapture is a man made term and is based on misunderstanding of Matthew 24 (The so-called signs of the times). If you read the passage that this discussion is based on you will see that this is talking about the final end of creation. I am sorry to disillusion you but the tribulation took place nearly 2000 years ago already. A careful study of Matthew 24 along with historic writings of the time will show how the destruction of the Jewish temple preceded a time of terrible tribulation as has never been seen since. That marked the final end of the Jewish people as the chosen ones of God. The signs of the times mentioned in that passage also have been misunderstood. It says that people will SAY the end is near because these things are happening. We know though that Jesus said that NO ONE knows the time except God so how can we presume to be able to work it out? At the second coming, however, we will all rise to meet Him in the air (if we are His people) and after that will be the final judgment. If you want to call this the rapture that is OK but it is still a man-made term. I like to stick to Bible terms as far as possible -- there is less danger of teaching something that is not true that way. Tim |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |