Results 641 - 660 of 1239
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
641 | biblical ex. of how to rebuke a brother | Matt 18:15 | jlhetrick | 156589 | ||
Hi Lionheart, Well said brother. Jeff |
||||||
642 | biblical ex. of how to rebuke a brother | Matt 18:15 | jlhetrick | 156620 | ||
Hi Doc, Thanks for the response. I don’t understand why you would believe that I have “read into†the apparently simple question of how to rebuke a brother. The question appears to be a straight forward one. I felt and do feel like my response/answer, a simple quote from scripture, was straight forward as well. No reading into and no long-winded exposition of my interpretation of the verses. You basically did the exact same thing with your response #156500. My question back to you was, does the Gal 6:1-2 have more to do with the restoration of a brother, while Matt. 18:15-17 are more specifically talking about the rebuking of a brother. But you really haven’t answered the question clearly if at all. So I am continuing to attempt to get a clear understanding of this issue without reading into anything. So let’s work on it. You write in response to my post: “You are apparently referring to the subject of church discipline†To be clear, I was actually referring to the “rebuking†of a brother as I took the question from “now†at face value. I quoted from Matt. 18 because that is what Matt. 18 is referring to. If you study it carefully, you will see that the process of rebuking a brother, as spelled out clearly in these verses, may in fact eventually involve the larger church body if earlier steps are not successful. But before it becomes a matter of the church, it is an issue between two brothers and it is a matter of rebuking one brother. You wrote: “The passage in Matthew 18 that you mention is about making every effort to restore a "strayed sheep†I see your point here and I agree with you. The end goal of rebuking another Christian, is to achieve restoration of that brother. Perhaps this is what your “(sic)†reference to the original question from “now†is referring to. The fact that “now†did not include in his/her question the issue of restoring, but focused only on the issue of rebuke (I’m assuming here, I’m not really sure what the “sic†reference means). So I’m thinking that it may have been from your spirit of love that you did in fact read into “now’s†question and answer with scripture focused on restoration verses a simple quotation that focused on rebuke as I did. Working through this, it seems to me that I am correct in offering the quote from Matt. as this scripture is a direct and specific response to the direct and specific question by “nowâ€. But had I read into the question, I would have been more alert to redirect “now’s†thinking to include the need for restoration after the rebuke has succeeded in effecting confession and repentance. In that case I might have been more diligent in following up with additional scripture to include what to do after/if the rebuking process is successful. In conclusion, “nowâ€, if you are still following along, take the instruction of scripture as I offered in Matt. 18. If the bother acknowledges his sin and repents, follow through with the instruction of scripture in Gal 6 as Doc offered. Hope this is helpful to all following, Jeff |
||||||
643 | NEED HELP PLEASE! | Matt 18:19 | jlhetrick | 153276 | ||
God bless you IN2JESUS, I will pray for you and your family in accordance with God's will. Mat 18:19(NASB) "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. Best wishes, Jeff |
||||||
644 | have you really forgave that person? | Matt 18:21 | jlhetrick | 171373 | ||
Hello Sherita, Welcome to the forum! Start with Matthew 18:21-35. Read the parable by Jesus which illustrates man's responsibility to be mercyful and to forgive others. Notice that one's failure to offer forgiveness results in his/her own conflict with God (not that of the one to which forgiveness was not extended). But keep in mind that the one you speak of is not God. He/she will struggle in his imperfections. We are incapable of "forgetting" in the way God promises to do when He forgives. So patients may be in order on your part. Be careful not to put undue expectations on the one you have wronged by requiring their dealing with the issue to conform to your expectations. If you are saved you are already forgiven by God, to incude the wrong against this person you speak of (Heb. 10:12). Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
645 | Lord's Table | Matt 18:21 | jlhetrick | 176582 | ||
Hello Kuravackal, Read 1 Corinthians 7 for some insight regarding this topic. Based on your explanation, it sounds like verse 15 may apply here. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (NASB95) 7:12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Jeff |
||||||
646 | state vs God | Matt 19:5 | jlhetrick | 181988 | ||
Hello rodent tamer, I believe it's important to begin my response by reminding you that the Scriptures teach us to be subject to the rules and laws of society where they do not conflict with the higher moral authority of God revealed in scripture. Romans 13:1 (NKJV) 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. So if a man and woman are married officially, through the legal system of their society; they are married indeed and bound to one another and the obligations and responsibilities that go with the oath they have made. With proper consideration for what the bible teaches, the blurred lines of confusion should be brought into clear focus. Submitting to the vows and commitment of marriage publicly and legally while not honoring that in our heart and intent is not consistent with what the bible teaches; nor is it a valid excuse relieving us of the obligations and responsibilities of our condition. The bible clearly teaches that if we make an oath, even a foolish one, we are held accountable by God. Biblical support for this can be provided if you are not familiar. Regarding your concern/question about homosexuals taking that same oath, the same principle applies as above. It may be recognized legally, but it is not consistent with God's moral laws. It is recognized by God as sin. Genesis 2:21-25 (NASB95) 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman. If if that is rebelled against through public law, it has no validity before God. I have no idea how many times I have said it but I will say it again here. One of the biggest mistakes we can make is to attempt to philosophize a position in an attempt to find loop-holes in the truth. There are no loop-holes, there is only acceptance or rejection. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
647 | if God knew how can it be valid? | Matt 19:5 | jlhetrick | 182070 | ||
Hello again rodent tamer, I see that there are other responses to you and honestly, I am very busy with my studies and can not spend time reading so I will just respond briefly to your post here. It's important to understand that I am not taking this up as an opportunity to oppose you and/or simply argue. The truth is, your entire argument falls ridiculously short of making sense. No offense intended. But what I did notice in this post was a little more information. The two were divorced. HUMM. Interesting, but at least now we have the motive and can understand the need to invalidate the original vow in the first place. Friend, you simply make too many assumptions and go off on too many tangents for me to truly address it all in the forum setting. In all honestly, I don't believe it would be appropriate in any case. I believe the biblical perspective has been presented and beyond that, well, the forum is not intended to go beyond that. finally, I will simply suggest that you re-evaluate your understanding of the marriage covenant. Try to focus on the biblical perspective of marriage while considering the typical "vows" verbalized in most secular ceremonies. You might find that there is some significant differences in emphasis. And yes, when you sign a contract, regardless of your intentions, you become legally committed to that contract. Might I pose a question using "your logic"? If you borrow money to buy a house and sign the contract "knowing you don't intend to pay the loan off" what happens? Your logic suggests that you simply are not held accountable because, well, you really didn't mean it. Please refer back to my other post and consider it honestly. "My logic" was not "my logic". My argument was biblically based and supported by scripture. Please consider your true motives for your line of questioning. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
648 | Divorce: believer or unbeliever | Matt 19:8 | jlhetrick | 153583 | ||
OK, I know this is a common topic and I did do a search and find a lot on the particular verse. I did not however, find the question or answer I am looking for so I'll ask here. 1Cor. 7: 15 says regarding the bonds of marriage: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." (KJV) My question is, what exactly does "unbelieving" mean here. I'm not playing on words here. In the time in which Paul was writing, many were hearing the gospel preached (with no prior knowledge) and believing and were already married. I can see the serious conflict this would cause, especially in a Jewish home. If the unbeliever wants ot leave, it's his/her choice and the left behind believer is not in bondage to the vows. Easy to understand. Not so easy today in many cases. How would one know if his/her spouse is an "unbeliever"? Because someone professes to be a believer does not necessarily make him/her one. If a man wants a divorce, and his wife presents him with the will of God from scripture he might say, I'm a believer but I'm divorcing you anyway. Where does this leave the wife in regards to her freedom to remarry? Because he confesses to be a believer while intentionally disobeying God, is the wife now obligated to remain unmarried for the rest of her life? |
||||||
649 | Divorce: believer or unbeliever | Matt 19:8 | jlhetrick | 153597 | ||
lionheart, Thanks for your post/answer, but this I have known and understood for years. I don't believe I asked the question strait forward enough. would the woman in this case, in spite of the husbands actions being contrary to his confession of belief, be obligated to judge her husband as saved and therefore obligated to never marry again? We know that a true christian is still capable of sin and surely we do sin as christians. (Ro. 3:23) I believe the bible teaches that christians sin as a result of moments of weakness in temptation followed by a deep sense of conviction and repentance (see Matt 26:75). On the other hand, I believe that the bible teaches that when a person is intentionally and willfully choosing a lifestyle of sin and disobedience to God, they are not truly saved. Heb 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, Heb 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, Heb 6:6 and then have 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. (NASB) Thanks, Jeff |
||||||
650 | Whose hardening their heart? | Matt 19:8 | jlhetrick | 153600 | ||
Hello Tim, Interesting answer, please give some scripture support for your answer. Also, it may have been a typo, but I don't get that God provided the provision, but rather Moses. Matt. 19:8 appears to show Jesus rebuking this provision; "from the beginning it has not been this way." Jesus is not saying that in the beginning it wasn't, then it was for a time, and now it shouldn't be again. I'm always learning, but to date, I can't remember or think of an instance where God gave a command, then changed the criteria, then changed it back again. Thanks, Jeff |
||||||
651 | Whose hardening their heart? | Matt 19:8 | jlhetrick | 153641 | ||
Bro. Tim, Your are correct that God delivered the Law through Moses, however, everything that Moses said God did not say. :-). The same logic can be applied to the gospels for instance. A lot was said and written by Matt, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul wrote a lot of letters to a lot of people and churches. Not all of these sayings and writings are found in the bible, why? Because not all of it was inspired (or said) by God. See Num. 20:8-12 for a good illustration of how everything Moses said God did not say. Hope this was helpful, Jeff |
||||||
652 | Whose hardening their heart? | Matt 19:8 | jlhetrick | 153658 | ||
Now you've got it. | ||||||
653 | Whose hardening their heart? | Matt 19:8 | jlhetrick | 153659 | ||
Agreed, thanks | ||||||
654 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 170997 | ||
Hello Emmaus, You are talking legal talk and not scripture. Nothing in the bible (that I am aware of) qualifies a marriage as being fully "consummated" only after the physical act of sex has ocurred (as you seem to be saying is the case). What does "false pretenses" have to do with it? False pretenses is not mentioned as a legitimate reason for divorce in the Scriptures. So nanna's description may certainly be grounds for an annulment in the family court system of her state. But it is not legal grounds based on scripture (she did ask for bible relevent answers). Jeff |
||||||
655 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 170998 | ||
Emmaus, I'm confident that you will reconsider your statements here after viewing them in light of my following comments. You wrote: "Scripture says that a husband and wife will "become one flesh." Where there is no consummation they do not "become one flesh" and there is no binding marriage unless both parties have agreed to this beforehand" This really is a short-sighted view. Illustration. a man and woman are married. After the ceremony they rush off to their honeymoon and the rest of their lives together. On the way to (where ever their going) they are in an accident. One of them is permenantly injured and never able to perform sexually for the other. Are they not married? Is it right before God for the healthy one to walk away from the vows and marry a healthy mate that can perform? You also wrote: "A sacred or holy act, i.e. marriage, cannot be based on a sin (lie) of ommission, which the failure to dislose impotence is." Can you point me to the scripture on this one please. I would venture to say that a great many marriages occur after both parties have been dishonest during their courtship prior to marriage. Does this mean that those of US who may have mislead our spouse before marriage on one issue or another, are not really married? Furthmore, there are many, many things about my wife that I did not learn until after we were married. In fact, I'm sure that there continues to be things about her (before me) that I have not yet learned. She has "omitted them" either intentionally, or unintentionally. Are we not really married? Pleas help me understand your position, Jeff |
||||||
656 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171006 | ||
Hello Emmaus: I think the problem you are having in understanding marriage is that you are under the impression that a man and woman make themselves "one flesh" by having sex. This is far short from understanding that it is God who makes them one flesh. I believe you have taken the meaning of this and assigned a human action as accomplishing what scripture says God does. you write that because something is recognized in law does not mean it may not also be scriptural. Yes, I agree. That was not my point at all. My point was simply that because the law of man may provide an escape, God's law trumps man's law. For Chrisitians, divorce is only acceptable based on God's approved reasons. Man's law, for example, allows for divorce when a husband and wife have "differences" they can not resolve. Does God's word allow for this? It's really not a hard issue when scripture is applied, Jeff |
||||||
657 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171008 | ||
Emmaus, You wrote: "To marry one must be able to perform the primary duty of marriage with one's partner" I assume by saying "primary duty (singlurar)" that you are continue to refer to the act of sex. Where do you base your statement in scripture? It's not even a good argument my friend. And concerning my hypothetical, well, it's not really a hypothetical. It is a very true situation concerning a patient of mine. Remember. When you start with an original situation as in "which started this thread" and more light is shown on it from scripture; the logical thing to do is go with the revelation of scripture and not attempt to stick to original premise. I must assume that nana's original question was sincere. That is, is divorce for no sexual life ever ok. Answer from scripture; NO, it is not. The legitimacy of debate really ends there. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
658 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171014 | ||
Hello Emmaus: If nana was my daughter of course I would be offering her advise in this situation. Yes I have a daughter. In fact, I have four of them. Two of them have children of their own. The other two may eventually marry men that are incapable of performing sexually. Or, may not be willing to perform sexually. My advise to both would be that the scripture does not allow for divorce based on this alone. Even if they have yet to involve the sexual act. You write: "God law is that we not lie when entering into sacred bonds. A marriage vow that is based on a lie is no vow at all but fraud. It is akin to perjury." A person's committment to marriage (and love) is based on his/her own comittment and not what may or not be true or a lie in the other person. Jesus Christ represents the perfect example of this kind of committment and love (Romans 5:8). If I found that something that I believed about my wife (a major thing that drew me closer to her and encouraged my desire to marry her) turned out to have been a lie, would I be freed from the bonds of marriage? Or perhaps you would argue that I was never bonded in marriage with her because it was based on her lie. Well, that would mean I have been committing adultry and living a sexually imoral life for going on 16 years now. When we try to make sex the foundation of marriage, we not only find ourselves in conflict with clear teachings of God's word; we find ourselves in conflict with logic and common sense. Help! Jeff PS. Please refer to my upcoming post to Kalos in this thread. |
||||||
659 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171016 | ||
Hello Kalos, In order to understand marriage from a biblical perspective (the only legitimate marriage) we must go back to the beginning. Literally, the very beginning of man. See: Genesis 2:19 - 25 When God created Adam He created him uniquely different from every other living thing. So unique, in fact, that there was none found suitable for him. So God took from Adam a part of his flesh (a rib) and formed a suitable partner in Eve. Genesis 2:24 (KJV) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother—There shall be, by the order of God, a more intimate connection formed between the man and woman, than can subsist even between parents and children." "And they shall be one flesh—These words may be understood in a twofold sense. 1. These two shall be one flesh, shall be considered as one body, having no separate or independent rights, privileges, cares, concerns, etc., each being equally interested in all things that concern the marriage state. 2. These two shall be for the production of one flesh; from their union a posterity shall spring, as exactly resembling themselves as they do each other."—Adam Clarke's Commentary With this in mind; within marriage, #1) a man and a woman is "considered as one body......" The perfect example in scripture to support this is that of the Church. There are many individuals, however, it is referred to as "one body" Romans 12:4 - 5 4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (NASB) Where does sex fit in the picture. #2) within marriage, it is the means through which God has ordained that the human race shall reproduce. We can also look to Soloman's words and agree that the physical enjoyment of sex is not only allowed for, but appropriate and encouraged between a husband and wife. What do we do with 1 Corinthians 15-16 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." Well, I would argue that based on the Baker's Evangelical Dictionary's interpretation of marriage (as presented in your post); the offender is now married to the prostitute. However, with the appllication of God's word, logic, and common sense, we can be assured that the physical act of sex is not the sole, establishing criteria for marriage as emmaus appears to be arguing. Christ's love, Jeff |
||||||
660 | Divorce for no sexual life ever - OK? | Matt 19:9 | jlhetrick | 171018 | ||
Hello Emmaus, Please refer to my post to kalos' post to address this post of yours:-) When attempting to apply this kind of legal argument to the issue, you miss an essential point. In the case of your post, the fraud could be based on anything, not only the issue of sex. If something else, then perhaps sex has already occured. If so, and there was never a marriage (legally) then the innocent one is not innocent having committed sexual immorality. Again, when we push further away from man's legal position, and draw closer to the clear teachings found in scripture; it is not that difficult an issue. Christ's love, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Next > Last [62] >> |