Results 1 - 20 of 31
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: nicko715 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Seeking God | Bible general Archive 4 | nicko715 | 198723 | ||
LJ, You don't have to prove anything to God, He knows you better than you know yourself. A young man once asked Jesus what the most important commandment was. He responded with: Mat 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Basically, everything else is dependent upon loving God and one of the ways we show this is by loving others (Matt 25:35-40). None of the rituals (devotions, prayer, baptism, tithing, etc) are as important as loving God and loving others (Hos 6.6, Matt 9.13). The problem is, we usually just love others who are like us. We love our friends and not our enemies. However, this is no better than anyone else. To be like the Father, we must love our enemies too. Mat 5:43-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. If you want the life change and want to please God, treat everyone with love. Especially those that hate you, because anyone can love their friends. Nick |
||||||
2 | Seeking God | Bible general Archive 4 | nicko715 | 198734 | ||
Azure, I apologize if I inferred that they were not important. However, the Pharisees had devotions, prayed, were probably baptized, tithed, fasted, etc. They had all the rituals down. But Jesus (Mark 7.1-8) let them know that all their rituals were worthless because their hearts were far from Him, and that they were more concerned with traditions than the commandment of God (remember the top two He gave us). So basically we are on the same page, but I apparently misworded my intent. These other things are important, but not without the greatest two commandments. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Nick |
||||||
3 | Question about Abraham and Isaac | Genesis | nicko715 | 198886 | ||
Hello Loyal, Back in chapter 20, Sarah tells Abraham to basically get rid of Hagar and Ishmael. Not only that, but he was to write Ishmael off as an heir (21:10). So technically he was of Abraham, but he was left fatherless. As far as anyone was concerned, Ishmael had no father and therefore no part in the inheritance. That is my take on it anyway! Nick |
||||||
4 | 'Dying you shall surely die'? | Gen 2:17 | nicko715 | 198811 | ||
Hello Royfish, CDBJ has an interesting idea. I had never heard it put that way before. The way I have understood it is that the day he ate the fruit he actually began the dying process. Up until that point, Adam's body must not have worn down at all, but then his body began to decay and deteriorate which ultimately lead to his death. The same is true of us. Each day more and more of our body and mind dies. Our joints and organs wear out, our minds begin to become less sharp, etc. We basically spend our lives dying until we ultimately die. It is just my interpretation, but I hope it helps. Nick |
||||||
5 | Is procreation a command or a blessing | Gen 9:1 | nicko715 | 198880 | ||
Shalom Azure, I am not sure if I am reading you correctly, but God is speaking to Adam and Eve in Gen 1:28. And I believe that to them it was a command. I do not think that is required of the rest of us, since Paul says that it is better for a man NOT to marry (1 Cor 7:1,8). So I would go with it being a blessing now. As far as is it ok to divorce over impotence? I would say no, it is not ok. However, that is much easier for me to say than it would be for me to live out if I were in that situation. Nick |
||||||
6 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198710 | ||
Virtually each of the notes in this string say that Scripture does not support universalism. However, there are many verses that do support it. For example: 1 Corinthians 15.22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; These are just a few, but space is limited. How can one say that Scripture does not support all being reconciled to God? Nick |
||||||
7 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198717 | ||
Hello Doc, Yes, 1 Cor 15 is talking about resurrection. That is the reconciliation with God. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6.23) which correlates with Gen when God tell Adam and Eve that their punishment will be death. All die because of Adam, but all will be made alive because of Christ. The other three are talking about when all creation acknowledges the authority of God. However, has His love for them now vanished? Is his anger and wrath greater than His love? At what point would you not accept your lost child returning to you (ie prodigal son)? God is interested in saving, not destroying. Once He has revealed Himself to all, we will all acknowledge and worship. God's love knows no boundaries. Anyway, a few other verses would be: 1 Tim 4.10 - For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 2 Cor 5.18-19 - And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 1 Tim 2.4-6 - Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. There are still more, but these are just a couple more. Nick |
||||||
8 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198725 | ||
Hello Doc, I am really not sure what you are getting at for 1 Tim 4:10. You said that "Had Paul intended the sense you suggest, he'd have not added the "specially" clause. Bringing the full scope of Scripture to bear on this verse, the orthodox interpretation has been that God is Savior to all men potentially, but of believers effectually." - First off, I am not sure what God is potentially the saviour of all men means. God has the power to save them all but doesn't? God doesn't live up to His potential? I am not sure what you are saying there, but you basically just add the words potentially, which aren't there. - Second, the "specially" clause doesn't negate what he said earlier. Check out these other verses that use the same word translated "specially" Gal 6.10 - As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. So we should potentially be good to all men, but in effect just to other Christians Phil 4.22 - All the saints salute you, chiefly (same Greek word) they that are of Caesar's household. All saints potentially salute you, but in effect just they that are of Caesar's household 1 Tim 5.8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. So you should potentially provide for your own, but in effect just your own house. 2 Tim 4.13 - The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. Potentially bring all the books, but really just bring the parchments. No, none of these suggest that the first statement is negated by the use of the word specially in the second statement. It just doesn't work that way. You also say "Bringing the full scope of Scripture to bear on this verse". What this really means is "this is how my theology interprets this verse. We already know that God doesn't save everyone, so this verse must mean... All of us do this (myself included). We try to cram the Word of God into our theology. We do not use the word "specially" to negate the phrase before it, and to suggest so is to cram the verse into existing theology. 2 Corinthians 5-18:19 I was focusing on verse 19 which says " God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself," not the us in verse 18 which is talking about followers. 1 Tim 2:4-6, Not sure what you are saying here. You keep mentioning orthodox interpretations, but I am not interested in orthodox interpretations. What does the Scripture say? Our orthodox interpretation is merely the tradition of men. And we have "word of God of none effect through your tradition". I don't mean to slam you personally, just that I am not concerned with what learned theologians have to say. Finally, Col 1:20, 1 John 4:14, and many others say the same thing. Basically God will reconcile all and Jesus is the saviour of the world or maybe the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world, etc. |
||||||
9 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198730 | ||
Val, I don't know what denomination teaches this. The church I attend doesn't, but it's still a great body of believers. This view has come from years of wrestling with certain issues and much studying (Scripture and other writers). The fact that God will ultimately reconcile all seems to fit more properly with how God describes Himself in Scripture. Here are a few that compare His anger and His mercy Psalms 30.5 - For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. Psalms 103.8 - The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. Psalms 148.8-9 - The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. Lamen 3.31-33 – for the Lord will not cast off forever: But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men. Jonah 4.2 - And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. Micah 7.18-19 - Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. God's mercy is always described as greater than His anger. Jesus tells us to love our enemies so that we can be perfect like our Father in Heaven (Matt 5:43-48), yet we are taught that He will hate them and burn them forever. Anyway, I started to ramble on. I do not know which (if any) denomination will teach this. Nick |
||||||
10 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198768 | ||
Hello CDBJ, Thank you for your response. I spent the majority of my 33 years saying basically what you have just said. However, many of the inconsistencies in that reasoning gnawed at me. For example, you mention the life raft to a drowning man analogy. After refusing "all" possible attempts, the ship must sail on. God doesn't exhaust "all" possible attempts. He blinded Saul/Paul and spoke in an audible voice to him. If He did that to others, would they not follow Him? He is in absolute control of Satan and will even bind him for a thousand years. If He did that right now, how many more would follow Him? How about a child born to a Muslim family. They spend their entire life being taught something contrary to Scripture and get maybe one chance to hear an American tell them of Christ and this is exhausting "all" possible attempts? These are the type of inconsistencies that kept confusing me. Or for another example from your email, you said God "can't possibly" help anyone that doesn't rely "totally" on Jesus Christ for their eternal life...or it would make Him a liar. The first problem is saying "God can't". That is pretty much a contradiction of God. God is all powerful, there is nothing He can't do! Secondly, God makes the rules. He isn't so shortsighted that He made a rule that now He is required to uphold or else become a liar. I mean, He isn't saying "oh man, I really don't want them to burn forever, but now I have to let them because those are the rules I put in place." He isn't that easily fooled. Again, this just doesn't hold up rationally. And finally, if God is truly a God of love (and I think we all agree there), then at the bear minimum why could He not just extinguish those who reject Him? Why does He decide to torture them forever? How can those two ideas be said to coexist logically. These are some of the questions I struggled with. What do you think about the questions I asked myself (and now ask you)? Thank you for your time, Nick |
||||||
11 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198774 | ||
Doc, I must admit, you have me on that first one. I did ask the question and you did provide the answer. However, about "not interested in orthodox interpretations", what I mean is that there are plenty of "Biblical theologies" out there. If Martin Luther had cared only about the Catholic interpretation we wouldn't have Protestants. Calvin didn't care about the Armenianest traditions, etc. To go one step further, Jesus didn't really care about the traditions of the Pharisees which were the learned men in the Jewish tradition. So what I mean to say about "not interested" is that just because it has been taught that way for awhile doesn't mean it is right. Secondly, I am not trying to be argumentative with my question. I brought it up because in that string there was "discussion" over Armenianism and Calvinism, but both sides made it clear that Universalism wasn't scriptural. All three sides have scripture to support them (even if out of context) so why is Universalism dismissed so easily? Finally, I do not mean to upset anyone or stir up trouble (though to be honest, saying God will reconcile all often has that effect). Thank you for your response. I see from your profile that you attempt to help many with their questions and have done so with me as well. If I offended I apologize. Nick |
||||||
12 | Is Universalism Scriptural | Lev 16:34 | nicko715 | 198806 | ||
Val, Thank you for your response. No, there is not a particular passage with which I would like to start. Obviously I am a Universalist. I do believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins and God raised him up and that He is the only way we are made right with God. I just believe...let's just say differently about the end of it all. At this point, it will obviously just spur on debate, which Doc has kindly (and correctly) pointed out to me is not the point of the forum, so I will not bring up any further verses. If you would like to see why I think the Scriptures teach universalism or would like to share with me why you believe it does not, just email me (in profile). Thank you again. Nick |
||||||
13 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198874 | ||
Hello Deputy, There are plenty of verses that deal with this topic. However, I don't think trying to convince him that homosexuality is wrong is the best way to point him to Jesus. Even if he wasn't a homosexual he would still be in need of the Lord. I expect that trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong will probably further isolate him. The Lord will take care of forgiving him of his sins and then helping him conquer them. Just focus on teaching him about our Savior regardless of his particular sin. Anyway, that is how I view the situation. Others may disagree. May god be with you and your friend. Nick |
||||||
14 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198877 | ||
Hellos Steve, I appreciate your response. However, I fail to see anywhere where Jesus pointed out someone's sin to them. The only people He corrected and rebuked (that I can find) are the religious leaders of His time and His disciples. Homosexuality is wrong. We both agree there. But even if he wasn't a homosexual, he is still a fallen man in need of Christ. Why keep Bible thumping the guy? Teach him of who Jesus is and what He came to do which is rescue sinners. Show him that every man is a sinner and every man needs Christ. Nick |
||||||
15 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198891 | ||
Steve, I didn't say you shouldn't tell him that he is a sinner. In fact I said to show him how we all are. But trying to prove to him with Scripture that homosexuality is a sin is a waste of time. He is a sinner regardless. There is no reason to focus on one sin that he is going to fight you on anyway. We can worry about that once he has turned to Jesus. You say I didn't back it up with Scripture, but I can't prove a negative. There isn't Scripture (that I have found) where Jesus or any of His disciples tried to convince an unbeliever that something they were doing was a sin. I will most definitely rethink that if you will show it to me in Scripture. The point isn't to shy away from sin either. But we worry about sin amongst ourselves. We help correct our brothers. The idea isn't to get him to stop homosexuality anyway, it is to turn him to Jesus. Let's get him to become a brother first, then we will start working on the individual sins. As far as my dislike of theology...the religious leaders of Jesus' day knew the Bible inside and out, but they somehow seemed to miss the entire point. They were more concerned with their rituals, rules, traditions, and commandments than they were on love and mercy. What makes you think the religious leaders of today are any different? Your brother, Nick PS - never read or heard anything Joel Osteen has said/written. |
||||||
16 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198906 | ||
Hello Doc, I don't see Jesus pointing out a particular sin to any of these people...Pilate maybe, but I think that is a stretch. - The lady at well, he mentions facts from her life, but not once tells (much less tries to prove) that it is sin - The paralytic, he doesn't mention one sin - The adulterous woman, he doesn't bring up the adultery the Pharisees (religious leaders again) bring it up. He says he doesn't condemn her and tells her to "sin no more" just like he did with the paralytic. - Not sure what sin he proved to the magistrate - Chorazon, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are not people so it would apply anyway. However, he still points out no individual sin. He just points out that they are sinners. Which is what I have suggested. - Herod, not realy sure how this verse applies - Pilate is the closest thing I see here. Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. The homosexual man has plenty of sin in his life, you don't have to attack any individual sin. His whole life is sin just like yours or mine before we were saved. You don't have to try to prove to him that this, in particular, is sin. Lastly, I didn't say he is saved, but he will indeed one day be saved (Rom 5:18). The point of converting people to Christ is not to save them from torture but to conform them to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29). I tell people about Jesus not to get them out of hell, but that they may return the love that has been bestowed upon them (1 John 4:18-19). This is why the criticism is not a logical fallacy ;) (I had to look that up as well as a couple from your earlier notes!) Nick |
||||||
17 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198917 | ||
Hello John, Thanks for your response. I will respond to you by email because we are heading for debate on this. I began to defend my beliefs in my email to Doc, but my intent was not to debate universalism, but that leading one to Christ was important regardless. I will email you personally later today. Nick |
||||||
18 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198924 | ||
... | ||||||
19 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198946 | ||
Hello Val, I see that my responses are being edited. I will try to keep my notes such that they will not be edited so that you can read them. I assume you have read my profile, so you know that I believe the basics of the Christian faith. There is one obvious difference though. However, I don't think that believing that some will be lost is an essential, just what must be done to be saved. Anyway, I was raised in a Christian home. "Accepted" Christ as my saviour at 5, but most definitely decided to follow Him rather than my own selfish desires when I was 21. However, I determined I would not base my faith on what I have been taught (by well meaning people) but rather on what I found to be true. Basically, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it. Similar to what you have said. I started to struggle with certain questions and for years basically resigned myself to "I don't know, but I am sure God will be just". As the years went on, I finally stumbled on what seemed to answer ALL of those questions. I still verified all that I learned to make sure Scripture supported it. Most of my fellow believers do not buy what I show them. I only associate with one other person who believes like me (though some are somewhere in the middle) and I taught him. I say all that to let you know, I wasn't raised in a cult or get caught up with some Branch Davidians or something, and I am always willing to be taught (or at least I try to be, but we often spend more time defending what we believe than listening to what others are saying). I have rambled on long enough. I have one question for you that I want you to help me with. At first I wanted to ask you to help see things my way. However, I now ask with a humble heart for you to help me with this. This is something that I cannot seem to find an answer for or rationalize in light of a loving Creator. Why does God not warn anyone of hell in the OT? This means that for at least 4000 years He does not warn us of what is in store. Why would He not tell us? The only reference that seems close is Daniel 12:2 and that is about 500BC so even if we allow this, He went 3500 years with not warning (that I see). This is one of the things that just does not add up to me. I have asked others, but I have not received from anyone an answer that will settle it for me. Again, I started to ask that to point you in my direction. But I now ask it with a humble heart to better understand. Nick |
||||||
20 | homosexuality | Lev 20:13 | nicko715 | 198947 | ||
Hey Doc, I added a note to Val's portion of the thread. If you would, please read and give me your thoughts. Look, I know I probably won't convince you of anything. I won't even try. To be honest, I doubt you will convince me of anything either. We can all use the Bible to justify our beliefs whether right or wrong. We even did it with slavery (that's got to blow your mind). But if you will look and attempt to help me, I promise I will humbly listen and consider your response. Thank You, Nick |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |