Results 261 - 280 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70768 | ||
Hi, AO; "If God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth, but knows that most will not, where is the contradiction?" There is no contradiction in what God has said. I simply cannot agree with your original assertion that "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation". The Bible does not say this. Paul says in Romans 1 that God's truth has always been evident. But nowhere does the Bible say that at some point in time the validity of God's word had become obvious throughout the world. As for healing, I agree that everyone we know of who requested healing (or had it requested by someone else) was healed. But you are still promoting an argument from silence. For example, the Bible provides no examples of Roman gladiators who were saved by faith in Christ. That doesn't prove that there are no retired Roman gladiators in Heaven; it proves that the Bible doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. Likewise, the Bible provides no examples of requests for healing being denied. That doesn't prove that none were denied; it proves that the Bible doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. It's easy to imagine a Pharisee striding up to Peter and demanding healing as a sign - perhaps a Pharisee whose demand for a sign Jesus had already refused. And it's easy to imagine Peter also declining. Did it happen? I don't know; it could have. The Bible doesn't say it did so I can't prove that it did. But the Bible doesn't say it didn't so you can't say that the Bible has ruled it out. That would be another argument from silence. It might make for an interesting discussion (or not), but it's nothing that we can draw any theological conclusions from. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
262 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70739 | ||
Hi, AO and Merry Christmas; IMHO, you're contradicting yourself. You have said that "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation." and "God's Word has gone into all the earth, yet still many disbelieve." If this is true and "God's hope is for all to be saved", then isn't there still a need for confirmation? I'm not suggesting that confirmation can only come from miraculous signs. I'm simply saying the need still exists, so you can't use its absence as proof that miraculous gifts no longer exist. I agree that there was 100 percent success in healing that was consistent with God's will - God cannot fail. But there is no evidence that all requests were granted. If the Bible records only instances where the answer to a request for healing was "yes", that does not prove that there were no instances where the answer was "no". Either there were no such instances or they weren't recorded - we don't know which. I'm as skeptical as anyone when I see a big-name faith healer on TV. I'm not sure what to make of people in an interdenominational setting speaking in a language that is unfamiliar to me. But I do know that God is not limited by reasonable inferences along the lines of "if A were true than we would expect B". If God chooses to heal someone through a TV faith-healer, he'll do it with 100 percent success. I don't think God is so predictable that I can confidently say he'll never make that choice. After all, could there have been a more surprising choice than Jesus? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
263 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | stjones | 70738 | ||
Hi, Joe; Thanks. Combining your comments with what I said earlier, I had another thought. This isn't theology; it's just a human trying to get his mind around Christmas. In the beginning, the Triune God was what he was - three persons in one in perfect harmony. Then God created humanity. Creation was a one-way act; God was still God but humans were something new. He lost nothing of himself by imbuing us with his spiritual nature. Then the first Christmas came and Jesus "stepped over the stars to Bethlehem and Jerusalem." Is not Jesus changed forever by becoming fully human? Are not the other two, God the Father and the Holy Spirit, changed as well? What love! The Creator has traversed creation in the opposite direction. He has incorporated his creation into himself. As a Christian, I think of God bestowing a part of his own nature on humanity. As a woodworker and computer geek, I think of "putting myself" into my work, making it uniquely my own. Now I realize that when I complete a project, it also becomes part of me - lessons learned, satisfaction received, the experience of creating. Before Creation, before there was any matter, God was infinite spirit. But now God has a finite, nail-scarred body. God entered time and space as a baby. He returned bodily to Heaven, bringing time and space with him. And by that act, he brings us, creatures of time and space, with him. "Praise Him in the heavens. Praise him in the stable. Praise Him in my heart." Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones (quotes from Joseph Bayley's "Psalms of My Life", "A Psalm for Christmas Eve") |
||||||
264 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | stjones | 70701 | ||
Hi, Joe, and Merry Christmas; You said 'Oh, I agree that Jesus isn't saying He wouldn't do it; but it seems pretty clear that part of Him wasn't WANTING to do it -- at least not in this way. He prays that, if the Father is willing, the cup would pass from Him. God apparently says, "No."' The essence of obedience is doing what we don't want to do. The doctrine of the Trinity says that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are in some ways distinct while being unified in others. I suppose that Jesus' most distinct attribute is his humanity. Given the Bible's emphasis on Jesus' obedience, perhaps we can conclude that Jesus (fully human and fully God) and the Father (fully God) had "differences of opinion" arising from Jesus' humanity that would never escalate to the level of dispute or outright rebellion. This in turn leads me to speculate that the Holy Spirit is very much like Jesus minus the humanity. This might be supported by Paul's assertion in 1 Cor 2:16 that "we have the mind of Christ". Finally, I might speculate that the divine natures of the three persons of the Trinity are in perfect concert while Jesus' human nature adds a little unique salt to the whole. Just a little thinking at the keyboard as I prepare to celebrate his arrival in human form - a celebration made a little more meaningful to this father of daughters by the presence of my 11-week-old grandson. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
265 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70692 | ||
Hi, AO; A couple of questions: You said "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation." Is it obvious to 1.2 billion Muslims? "As an aside, if ... healing existed today there would be 100 percent sucess in curing the sick." How do you know? We don't know that there was ever 100 percent success; we can assume it based on silence, but it's still an assumption. I certainly agree that there seems to be far less evidence of some gifts today. But maybe that says more about the church's ability faithfully to use them than it does about God's gracious willingness to bestow them. Not looking to start a big dispute - I just get nervous when people confidently say that God has ceased the exercise of his grace in this way or that. Peace and grace - and Merry Christmas Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
266 | Is the request of Christ Granted? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 70627 | ||
Hi, Johnny; With respect to Judas himself, search for message # 3132 and read the thread it generated - if you have time! I contended then (and I do now) that Judas' fate is unknown, a view that was forcefully and repeatedly challenged. My own opinion is that the immediate sin of those who participated was forgiven - no doubt leaving them all with plenty of unforgiven sins. But it flies in the face of everything the Bible teaches about salvation to say that they were all forgiven without repentance and without placing their faith in Christ. If it is true that "all character in that said events was forgiven because they only fulfill thier role in that scripted way of salvation", then I would expect to meet Pharoah when I get to Heaven - which I don't. But this is just an opinion; I would not care to place limits on God's grace. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
267 | what was the | Matthew | stjones | 69885 | ||
Greetings, dltlshines; I am taking a short (three classes) study of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. The instructor is Dr. Marion Soards who is Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Among many insights he has provided is Matthew's understanding of what it means to "fulfill prophecy". I have always thought of fulfillment as simply an example of an event that had previously been foretold actually taking place. But Dr. Soards pointed out that some of the prophesies that Matthew says were fulfilled were not of that kind. Rather, "fulfillment" means that the prophecy was made perfect. For example, in 1:22-23, Matthew refers to Isaiah's prophecy (7:14) of a virgin giving birth. This is not a Messianic prophecy; the virgin birth that Isaiah referred to in this passage is to be a sign to King Ahaz, to be witnessed in his lifetime. Matthew's purpose, according to Dr. Soards, is say that the birth of Jesus is another example of that prophecy coming to pass. But it is not just another example; it is the most perfect possible example. He told us that the word Nazarene is not the proper form to refer to a person from Nazareth. And besides, Jesus' city of birth and his ancestral city was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. "Nazarene" is a word that refers both to Nazareth and to the Old Testament Nazirite - one totally devoted to God (Samson, for example). Jesus is the perfection of that idea, of one totally devoted to God. Made sense to me. I hope it helps you too. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
268 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69239 | ||
Hi, retxar; Thanks for the note of encouragement. When asked if I would serve, I agreed immediately because I was confident that the nominating committee was composed of godly people who had discerned God's will. I'm looking forward to serving him in a new capacity. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
269 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69218 | ||
Hi, Hank; Thanks for your good wishes. I'm afraid I may have sounded prideful or overly confident of my election. I should have said that I'm on a slate of candidates proposed by the nominating commitee. While nominations are accepted from the floor, I've never seen one offered. In my experience, the slate has always been elected unanimously. I guess that reflects either apathy or general agreement on the committee's work. I hope it's the latter. ;-) Indy |
||||||
270 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69185 | ||
Hi, Hank; Synods are still around in the PC(USA) though I'm not clear on their function. They seem to serve as a middle organizational layer between the 170 or so presbyteries and the national denomination. I'm due to be elected an Elder next Sunday so I'm sure I'll find out more during my training prior to ordination. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
271 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69143 | ||
Hi, Ray; Just FYI, I don't think any Presbyterian denomination santions ordination of practicing homosexuals for any office - Deacon, Elder, or Minister. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has a problem with a few defiant churches and presbyteries who have chosen to ignore ordination standards. The PC(USA) specifically requires either fidelity in heterosexual marriage or chastity in singleness. This has been affirmed by the General Assembly several times. The liberals don't like it, but that's their problem - one among many. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
272 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68943 | ||
Joe; Nice catch. Indy |
||||||
273 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68903 | ||
No. ;-) |
||||||
274 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68684 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; In the end, we always measure the words posted here against what the Bible says, not what the poster claims the Bible says. When my intellect gets beyond what the Bible teaches, there's always someone here to humble me. The ones most likely to make me reconsider are those who, over time, have demonstrated, first, wisdom concerning the character of God, and second, Biblical knowledge. (Agreement on doctrine is a distant third.) It's interesting that nearly all of that group (including you, brother) have chimed in on this thread. One can only hope that Don would recognize and avail himself of the collective wisdom in this discussion. Or at least the humor. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
275 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68580 | ||
LOL! Hank, you are incorrigible - or incurable - or incorruptible - or something. Indy |
||||||
276 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68574 | ||
Hi, Don; If I am anti-intellectual by your standards, I will be happy to stand with 2,000 years of other anti-intellectuals who, like me, have failed to find in the Bible the same novel view of marriage that you have uncovered. You string words together well, but it will take more than cleverly worded speculation to overthrow two millenia of orthodox Christian thought. Incidentally, I suggested the passage in Proverbs because, having studied philosophy in both undergraduate and graduate school, I have learned some of the shortcomings of approaching the Bible as if it were just another text. Sometimes it's necessary to set the intellectualizing aside and simply listen to the Holy Spirit. The Bible isn't a philosophical work, it's the revealed wisdom of the God. Its goal is not to develop a system of metaphysics and ethics; its goal is to reveal the character of God and to bring people to faith in Jesus. Its purpose is spiritual, not intellectual. Its deepest meaning cannot be apprehended by mere human reason. See 1 Corinthians 2:6-16. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
277 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68520 | ||
Hi, Don; You said: "What exactly, may I ask, is your point in twisting my statement into something that I was not saying? I am simply perplexed about your motives, that's all" It was you who compared "multiplying women" to "multiplying horses" and you who mentioned pride in wealth in the context of having multiple wives. I don't blame you for backing off somewhat. You said "As to your statement that I claimed to know of a declaration made by God that polygamy was His perfect ideal for marriage is a fabrication" I made no such statement; I challenged you to find Scripture rather than speculation to back your assertion that Adam just got short-changed when he was only given one wife. As for your comments about David, it is foolishness to assume that David's example is normative. When Jesus taught about marriage, he didn't point to David as his example, he pointed to Adam and Eve (one man, one woman). I'm afraid that being "well schooled in philosophy" has blinded you to God's word. Understanding the Bible is less dependent on the ability to "lay out the facts and rationally paint a picture by what is given" than on the ability to discern the character of God. I suggest that is the meaning Proverbs 3:5-6: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight" Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
278 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68321 | ||
You said "... the use of the verses dealing with a man multiplying wives to himself is also a common blunder made by many. The same context deals with a man multiplying horses and chariots to himself. Are we then to assume that it is wrong for a man to own more than one horse, or more than one car chariot)? Not so. The idea of multiplying women, horses and chariots had to do with pride in one's wealth" IMHO, this statement invalidates your entire argument. If you actually believe that a wife is a woman owned by a man to show off his wealth, then you clearly have no idea of what Biblical marriage actually is. You said "It is my thought that we would do better to abstain from pitting God's word against itself and read it for what it says. ... Any of us can weave a doctrinal tapestry by pulling verses out of context. The REAL challenge is keeping that tapestry from unraveling when pulling on the many wild threads hanging loose." I agree; you have demonstrated the difficulty. Please cite a passage that represents "God's clear teaching" that the perfect relationship ordained in the Garden was not normative. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
279 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68320 | ||
Nice try, kalos. We know what you meant. ;-) Indy (married 28 years to one woman) |
||||||
280 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 68305 | ||
Rob (and others - you know who you are); Someday we're going to get together in Heaven and have a good laugh at ourselves. I have a feeling that once we meet Jesus face to face and see how big God really is, our disagreements, our confidence in our own understanding, and, yes, our hurt feelings are going to look just plain silly. Faithful, earnest, even passionate - but just a little foolish when examined in the light of that divine reality. I expect that, like Job, we'll all say "I was talking about things I did not understand, things far too wonderful for me. ... I had heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes. I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance." (Job 42:3-6, NLT) But in the meantime, let me tell you what was wrong with your last post.... :-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [33] >> |