Results 301 - 320 of 802
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Wild Olive Shoot Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Divorced pastors and repentence | Matt 3:8 | Wild Olive Shoot | 158752 | ||
isaiah4031nc, 1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Reference: 1Ti 3:2 “He must be the husband of one wife; not having given a bill of divorce to one, and then taken another, or not having many wives at once, as at that time was too common both among Jews and Gentiles, especially among the Gentiles.” – Matthew Henry Reference: 1Ti 3:7 “He must be of good reputation among his neighbours, and under no reproach from former conversation; for the devil will make use of that to ensnare others, and work in them an aversion to the doctrine of Christ preached by those who have not had a good report.”—Matthew Henry I don't know how effective one could be in that position given his past practices while previously holding it. Personally, I would not want him to assume leadership again, but that's just me. WOS |
||||||
302 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184935 | ||
Stjohn, You pose the question, in part: “Why was it a Virgin birth?” Because that is what the Lord decreed brother. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. “It was requisite that is conception should be otherwise than by ordinary generation, that so, so though he partook of the human nature, yet he might escape the corruption and pollution of it, and not be conceived and shapen in iniquity.” – Matthew Henry Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
303 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 193115 | ||
Dear Jesusman, By claiming "Could Jesus sin?". Could he? I say "Yes".", you are stating God can or could sin. Do you really believe that? An all knowing God knows what it is to be tempted and can empathize with us even though He Himself never has and will never sin. But He knows. If He doesn't than He is not all knowing. I hope this link helps: http://www.gotquestions.org/could-Jesus-have-sinned.html Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
304 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 193134 | ||
Just a few points Jesusman, in responding to both of your posts. First off, when your car is all knowing, then it will understand what temptation is without the capability of giving in. That is partly the point in the article, the omniscience of God. He knows. Can God die you ask? Look at John 10:18. He had the power to take it again, and from whom? Now, if Jesus is the eternal begotten Son, why do you think He is different today? He willingly emptied Himself, but never ceased to be divine. He has the same nature today as ever otherwise He is not a sufficient Mediator. And if you still hold to this position, please see Hebrews 13:8 and then tell me again that Christ has changed. Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. God exalted Jesus which was in a way, I suppose, a reward for His humility as Matthew Henry writes concerning His exaltation: “Because he humbled himself, God exalted him; and he highly exalted him, huperupsose, raised him to an exceeding height. He exalted his whole person, the human nature as well as the divine; for he is spoken of as being in the form of God as well as in the fashion of man. As it respects the divine nature, it could only be the recognizing of his rights, or the display and appearance of the glory he had with the Father before the world was (Joh_17:5), not any new acquisition of glory; and so the Father himself is said to be exalted. But the proper exaltation was of his human nature, which alone seems to be capable of it, though in conjunction with the divine.” Jesus was tempted my friend, but there was never a chance He could have sinned. But that doesn’t make it any less of a temptation. A few simple yes or no questions for you: Was and is Jesus God? Has he ever stopped being God? Can God sin? For me it is as easy as understanding the omniscience of God. To say that we must experience something or at least have the capabilities of experiencing something in order to understand it may be true of us, because we don’t know all and are limited in our understanding. But surely you don’t believe that applies to God? For if it does, He’s not all-knowing now is He? Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
305 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 193139 | ||
I couldn’t explain it any better than Matthew Henry, which it was from his commentary on those very scriptures I pulled the quote in my last post. It is speaking of the duality of His nature, being both divine and man. But in His condescension, He never lost His divinity. He willingly humbled Himself. Henry further wrote: “As it respects the divine nature, it could only be the recognizing of his rights, or the display and appearance of the glory he had with the Father before the world was (Joh_17:5), not any new acquisition of glory; and so the Father himself is said to be exalted. But the proper exaltation was of his human nature, which alone seems to be capable of it, though in conjunction with the divine.” – Matthew Henry Don’t look at verses 6 and 7 individually, take them in context with the rest. We already know He is divine by nature. But His human nature was exalted as well. If Christ was both divine and human, and He was exalted having both natures, do you believe He relinquished one of those after exaltation? You made the claim He is different. How do you believe He is different? Maybe in answering that question, I’ll better understand your position. And you dodged the very simple questions I presented in my last post. Since I’m making an effort to answer all of yours, it would be greatly appreciated if you did the same in return. Again, what it comes down to, in relevance to the original post, if Christ could sin, He is not God. In His divinity, sin was not a possibility and He never relinquished His divinity even while humbling Himself as a man. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
306 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 193140 | ||
Yes Jesus was God incarnate, and as God, He knew. As a man, He did not. I think maybe we need to start another thread concerning the natures of Christ, because that seems to be what you are questioning, or am I wrong? Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
307 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 193144 | ||
What if the purpose of the tempting was to in fact prove that He was the Son of God and truly incapable of giving in? “No attempt to set forth the doctrine of His wondrous and peerless person would be complete, without considering this blessed perfection. Sad indeed is it to behold the widespread ignorance thereon today, and sadder still to hear and read this precious truth denied. The last Adam differed from the first Adam in His impeccability. Christ was not only able to overcome temptation, but He was unable to be overcome by it. Necessarily so, for He was "the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8). True, Christ was man, but He was the God-man, and as such, absolute Master and Lord of all things. Being Master of all things—as His dominion over the winds and waves, diseases and death, clearly demonstrated—it was impossible that anything should master Him.” – A. W. Pink “Because He was not susceptible to any change, it was impossible for the incarnate Son of God to sin. Herein we behold again His uniqueness. Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin's womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.” – A. W. Pink http://home.att.net/sovereigngrace/impeccability.html Note:(Insert a tilde directly before the s in sovereigngrace) Very interesting article if you follow the link. “It is irreverent speculation to discuss what the human nature of Christ might have done if it had been alone.” A. W. Pink I would think that is an appropriate response since it was never. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
308 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 193156 | ||
Christ was tempted in every way that we are. The devil approached and presented Christ with the same enticements he presents to us today. The difference as I see it, Jesus had not the internal agency to concede, we on the other hand do. What was then presented to Christ in the wilderness by satan, in His ministry, by the religious councils and many others, is the very same things that are presented to us to this very day. You and I can and do give into these at times. Christ, being divine in nature, had not the internal capabilities of succumbing to these. Like as we are, means just that, the temptation was there, the outward influence presented to Him, But never the thought of giving in, the internal condition to allow it. Jams 1:13, 14: 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. “For God cannot be tempted with evil - Margin, “evils.” The sense is the same. The object seems to be to show that, in regard to the whole matter of temptation, it does not pertain to God. Nothing can be presented to his mind as an inducement to do wrong, and as little can he present anything to the mind of man to induce him to sin. Temptation is a subject which does not pertain to him. He stands aloof from it altogether. In regard to the particular statement here, that “God cannot be tempted with evil,” or to do evil, there can be no doubt of its truth, and it furnishes the highest security for the welfare of the universe. There is nothing in him that has a tendency to wrong; there can be nothing presented from without to induce him to do wrong: (1) There is no evil passion to be gratified, as there is in men; (2) There is no want of power, so that an allurement could be presented to seek what he has not; (3) There is no want of wealth, for he has infinite resources, and all that there is or can be is his Psa_50:10-11; (4) There is no want of happiness, that he should seek happiness in sources which are not now in his possession. Nothing, therefore, could be presented to the divine mind as an inducement to do evil.” – Albert Barnes Stand in Hs grace, WOS By the way, you are still leaving my questions unanswered. |
||||||
309 | How does it relate to everyday life? | Matt 5:7 | Wild Olive Shoot | 188116 | ||
Wonderfully stated Mark. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
310 | The Law of Moses has been abrogated | Matt 5:17 | Wild Olive Shoot | 172531 | ||
Here is a good bit of info for you koscheiman. Please take a look at the following: http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC40005.HTM You'll have to scroll about half way down the page to see the commentary on the verses you have mentioned. WOS |
||||||
311 | The Law of Moses has been abrogated | Matt 5:17 | Wild Olive Shoot | 173163 | ||
So then tell me what these "new laws" are. You state that there is a change of the law, that now there is the law of Christ... Tell me what you believe these to be. And also let me know which "OT" laws you find acceptable to disregard and not adhere to. Do you worship idols? Is it okay to murder? Is aldultery now acceptable? And so on. WOS |
||||||
312 | The Law of Moses has been abrogated | Matt 5:17 | Wild Olive Shoot | 173169 | ||
Along with what Doc posted in ID# 173168: “The notion that no law is binding on the Christian is a classic form of antinomianism. This type of thinking sets grace against law, as if the two were antithetical. It has some dire theological consequences. It is crucial to understand that in terms of moral standards, grace does not permit what the law prohibits. "Grace" never signifies the lowering of God's moral demands. The word grace in scripture signifies a lot of things, but licentiousness is not one of them. In fact, those who turn the grace of God into promiscuity are expressly condemned as false teachers (Jude 4).– John MacArthur: WOS |
||||||
313 | Can you break the OT Law? | Matt 5:17 | Wild Olive Shoot | 173171 | ||
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. “Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness - Abusing the doctrines of grace so as to give indulgence to corrupt and carnal propensities. That is, probably, they gave this form to their teaching, as Antinomians have often done, that by the gospel they were released from the obligations of the law, and might give indulgence to their sinful passions in order that grace might abound. Antinomianism began early in the world, and has always had a wide prevalence. The liability of the doctrines of grace to be thus abused was foreseen by Paul, and against such abuse he earnestly sought to guard the Christians of his time, Rom_6:1, following.” – Albert Barnes Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 1John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. “if we keep his commandments; not the commandments of men, for the keeping of them arises from ignorance of God, and is a proof of it; nor the commandments of the ceremonial law, which are abolished, particularly circumcision, which is opposed to the keeping of the commandments of God, 1Co_7:19; but either those of the moral law, and which are more particularly the commandments of God the Father; the observance of which, though it cannot be with perfection, yet being in faith, and from love to God, and with a view to his glory, is an evidence of the true knowledge of him and of his will: or else those commandments, which are more especially the commandments of Christ Jesus; such as the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, which are peculiar to the Gospel dispensation; and which being kept as they were delivered by Christ, and in his name and strength, and to his glory, without depending on them for life and salvation, is an argument and proof of the right knowledge of him; and particularly his new commandment of loving one another may be chiefly designed, that being what the apostle has greatly in view throughout this epistle…” – John Gill If nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, then please explain how “technically” they are not applicable to Christians? WOS |
||||||
314 | Can you break the OT Law? | Matt 5:17 | Wild Olive Shoot | 173191 | ||
“The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall; upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites; and in regeneration the law is reinscribed on the hearts of God's people; and even among the Gentiles, and in their hearts, there are some remains of the old law and light of nature, which as by their outward conduct appears, so by the inward motions of their minds,” – John Gill Romans 2:11-16: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. So then to the Gentiles who had not the Law of the Jews, what Law was written upon their hearts? What laws are written upon the hearts of the regenerated? Christ fulfilled the Law. We are no longer enslaved by it, to be condemned by it because we can’t live to the letter of it. His own words tell us He did not come to abolish it, so why is it so many now feel the Law, the moral Law of God, is void? WOS |
||||||
315 | The Law of Moses has been abrogated | Matt 5:17 | Wild Olive Shoot | 173192 | ||
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 1Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; “but of the moral law, which must needs be good, since the author of it is God, who is only good; and nothing but good can come from him: the law, strictly moral, is a copy of his nature, transcribed out of himself, as well as with his own hands; and is a declaration of his will, and is stamped with his authority, and therefore must be good: the matter of it is good, it contains good, yea, great and excellent things; the matter of it is honestly and morally good, as to love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with God: and it is pleasantly good to a regenerate man, who loves it, and delights in it after the inner man, and serves it with his spirit; though the carnal mind cannot be subject to it, but rejects it, and rebels against it: and it is also profitably good; for though obedience to it is not profitable to God, yet it is to men; and though eternal life is not obtained hereby, nor any reward given for keeping it, yet in keeping it there is a reward; and that peace is enjoyed, which the transgressors of it are strangers to: it is good in the uses of it, both to sinners and to saints. To sinners it is useful for the knowledge of sin, to convince of it, and bring them to a sense of it, and concern for it, which is effectually done, when the Spirit of God sets in with it, or brings this commandment home to the heart; and if it has not this use, it is sometimes a means of restraining men from sin, which is the use of civil laws among men; and if it has not this, it is of use however to accuse men rightly of sin, and to pronounce justly guilty before God for it, to curse them as they deserve it, and to sentence to condemnation and death: and to believers it is of use, though they are not under it as in the hands of Moses, and as a covenant of works, and are freed from its curse and condemnation, and under no obligation to seek for life and righteousness by it; to them it is of use, to point out to them what is the will of God, and what should be done, and not done; and it is a rule of walk and conversation to them, as in the hands of Christ; and is as a glass to them to behold their own deformity, the impurity of their nature, the plague of their own hearts, and the imperfection of their obedience; by which they see the insufficiency of their own righteousness, how far they are from perfection, and what carnal creatures they are, when compared with this law: and as this serves to put them out of conceit with themselves, so it tends to make Christ and his righteousness more lovely and valuable in their esteem; who has wrought out a righteousness as broad and as long as the law is, and by which it is magnified and made honourable, and has delivered them from its curse and condemnation. And this law is good as it is holy, in its author, nature, and use; and as it is just, requiring just things, and doing that which is just, by acquitting those who are interested in Christ's righteousness, and in condemning those that have no righteousness; and as it is a spiritual and perfect law, which reaches the spirit and soul of man, and is concerned with inward thoughts and motions, as well as outward actions; and especially the end of it, the fulfilling end of it is good, which is Jesus Christ, who was made under it, came to fulfil it, and has answered all the demands of it: so that it must be good, and which cannot be denied, if a man use it lawfully; for if it is used in order to obtain life, righteousness, and salvation by the works of it, or by obedience to it, it is used unlawfully: for the law does not give life, nor can righteousness come by it; nor are, or can men be saved by the works of it; to use the law for such purposes, is to abuse it, as the false teachers did, and make that which is good in itself, and in its proper use, to do what is evil; namely, to obscure and frustrate the grace of God, and make null and void the sufferings and death of Christ. A lawful use of the law is to obey it, as in the hands of Christ, the King of saints, and lawgiver in his church, from a principle of love to him, in the exercise of faith on him, without any mercenary selfish views, without trusting to, or depending on, what is done in obedience to it, but with a view to the glory of God, to testify our subjection to Christ, and our gratitude to him for favours received from him.” – John Gill |
||||||
316 | forgiveness | Matt 5:24 | Wild Olive Shoot | 151863 | ||
The question may better be; Aren’t we unfit to commune with God until we forgive. Mark 11:25 (NASB) 25"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. Is the offering acceptable to God if offered with an unrepentant heart? Or in the present case, seeking God’s forgiveness at the altar is a religious exercise, is it a proper exercise if you hold malice, envy, discontent or any form of wrath in our heart when we approach God? 1 Timothy 2:8 (NASB) 8Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Isaiah 1:15 (NASB) 15"So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen Your hands are covered with blood. Love is better than any sacrifice or gift you can offer. So much better that God will wait for the gift (or whatever the act may be) until reconciliation is made with the brother rather than receiving it while we are still under the guilt of our quarrel or disagreement. WOS |
||||||
317 | Difference b/w pleasing God vs man | Matt 6:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 164267 | ||
Jaci, Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. Mat 5:16 Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Only you can know your true motives for performing what is seemingly an honorable attempt to adhere to Luke 6:31. If the tables were reversed, would you expect the other to do the same? Others and their perception of what you may possibly do will be greatly affected by how you yourself present the situation. In the verses I inserted above, I see that Christ was telling us that we are to let others see our good works. But I also see that we are to let those good works speak for themselves. And keep in mind that we are discerning of one another based on the evidences that our life and activities have presented not just what each of us profess. If you boast about such an act, you surely take the focus from the act itself, which should be used to glorify God and not your own self. Matthew Henry wrote: “We must do good works that may be seen to the edification of others, but not that they may be seen to our own ostentation; we are bid to pray in secret, and what lies between God and our souls, must be kept to ourselves; but that which is of itself open and obvious to the sight of men, we must study to make congruous to our profession, and praiseworthy, Phi_4:8. Those about us must not only hear our good words, but see our good works; that they may be convinced that religion is more than a bare name, and that we do not only make a profession of it, but abide under the power of it.”… … “We must not only endeavor to glorify God ourselves, but we must do all we can to bring others to glorify him. The sight of our good works will do this, by furnishing them, 1. With matter for praise. “Let them see your good works, that they may see the power of God's grace in you, and may thank him for it, and give him the glory of it, who has given such power unto men.” 2. With motives of piety. “Let them see your good works, that they may be convinced of the truth and excellency of the Christian religion, may be provoked by a holy emulation to imitate your good works, and so may glorify God.” I get the sense that if motives are true and pure, there is no need whatsoever to boast of the works we do, the acts will speak far more captivating words than you could ever use to justify them. And most importantly, it is God rather than us, who is worthy of the praise to begin with. Excerpt from a poem written by Rhea F. Miller in which George Beverly Shea put to music and entitled it "I'd Rather Have Jesus": I'd rather have Jesus than men's applause; I'd rather be faithful to His dear cause; I'd rather have Jesus than world-wide fame; I'd rather be true to His holy name: Just some thoughts. WOS |
||||||
318 | Difference b/w pleasing God vs man | Matt 6:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 164294 | ||
johnpastors, I think you wanted to post this to jaci, since it is not I that will possibly be performing this good deed. But I do have a question concerning your post: It sounds as though you say that human boasting is not our own work but the devil's? Am I correct on that? WOS |
||||||
319 | Scriptural basis of rising early to pray | Matt 6:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 182002 | ||
1Thessalonians 5:17: Pray without ceasing. Romans 12:12: Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; Following is commentary given by Albert Barnes regarding prayer. I hope you find it useful. “Continuing instant in prayer - That is, be persevering in prayer; see Col_4:2; see the notes at Luk_18:1. The meaning of this direction is, that in order to discharge aright the duties of the Christian life, and especially to maintain a joyful hope, and to be sustained in the midst of afflictions, it is necessary to cherish a spirit of prayer, and to live near to God. How often a Christian should pray, the Scriptures do not inform us. Of David we are told that he prayed seven times a day Psa_119:164; of Daniel, that he was accustomed to pray three times a day Dan_6:10; of our Saviour we have repeated instances of his praying mentioned; and the same of the apostles. The following rules, perhaps, may guide us in this. (1) Every Christian should have some time allotted for this service, and some place where he may be alone with God. (2) It is not easy, perhaps not possible, to maintain a life of piety without regular habits of secret devotion. (3) The morning, when we have experienced God’s protecting care, when the mind is fresh, and the thoughts are as yet clear and unoccupied with the world, when we go forth to the duties, trials, and temptations of the day; and the evening, when we have again experienced his goodness, and are about to commit ourselves to his protecting care, and when we need his pardoning mercy for the errors and follies of the day, seem to be times which commend themselves to all as appropriate seasons for private devotion. (4) Every person will also find other times when private prayer will be needful, and when he will be inclined to it. In affliction, in perplexity, in moments of despondency, in danger, and want, and disappointment, and in the loss of friends, we shall feel the propriety of drawing near to God, and of pouring out the heart before him. (5) Besides this, every Christian is probably conscious of times when he feels especially inclined to pray; he feels just like praying; he has a spirit of supplication; and nothing but prayer will meet the instinctive desires of his bosom. We are often conscious of an earnest desire to see and converse with an absent friend, to have communion with those we love; and we value such fellowship as among the happiest moments of life. So with the Christian. He may have an earnest desire to have communion with God; his heart pants for it; and he cannot resist the propensity to seek him, and pour out his desires before him. Compare the feelings expressed by David in Psa_42:1-2, “As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul after thee O God. My soul thirsteth for God for the living God; when shall I come and appear before God;” compare Psa_63:1. Such seasons should be improved; they are the “spring times” of our piety; and we should expand every sail, that we may be “filled with all the fullness of God.” They are happy, blessed moments of our life; and then devotion is sweetest and most pure; and then the soul knows what it is to have fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, 1Jo_1:3. (6) In addition to all this, Christians may be in the habit of praying to God without the formality of retirement, God locks upon the heart; and the heart may pour forth its secret desires to Him even when in business, when conversing with a friend, when walking, when alone, and when in society. Thus, the Christian may live a life of prayer; and it shall be one of the characteristics of his life that he prays! By this he shall be known; and in this he shall learn the way to possess peace in religion:” - Albert Barnes Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
320 | Did people call "our Father" in prayer? | Matt 6:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 190008 | ||
Dear 00123, I’ve read the following that I found interesting regarding your question and wanted to share. An excerpt from the 2007 June issue of Tabletalk magazine http://www.ligonier.org/tt_rightnowcountsforever.php “The German scholar Joachim Jeremias has argued that in almost every prayer that Jesus utters in the New Testament, He addresses God as Father. Jeremias notes that this represents a radical departure from Jewish custom and tradition. Though Jewish people were given a lengthy number of appropriate titles for God in personal prayer, significantly absent from the approved list was the title “Father.” God has only one child, His only-begotten Son, the monogençs, which restricts this filial relationship to Christ. We do not have the natural right to call God “Father.” That right is bestowed upon us only through God’s gracious work of adoption. This is an extraordinary privilege, that those who are in Christ now have the right to address God in such a personal, intimate, filial term as “Father.” Therefore, we ought never to take for granted this unspeakable privilege bestowed upon us by God’s grace. We note in the Lord’s Prayer that Jesus instructs us that now when we pray, we are to refer to God as “Our Father.” Again the “ourness” of this relationship is grounded in the unique ministry of Jesus by which, through adoption, He is our elder brother and He gives to us those privileges that by nature belong only to Him. Now, by adopting us, He says that we may regard God, not only as His Father, but as our Father.” – R. C. Sproul ©2007 Ligonier Ministries. All Rights Reserved. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [41] >> |