Results 281 - 300 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 225046 | ||
Inquisitor, You ask how I understand the verses. Well first, I think you chose miserable verses from which to defend your view. In these, Christ says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." That is a far far far cry from saying that the means to salvation is to keep his commandments! What a silly illogical conclusion to come to! Of course we are to keep his commandments but what in any of what you just quoted makes you think He is saying this is the means of salvation? It is as silly as if I had suggested that rolling away the stone in front of Lazarus' tomb were the ordaiined means for their salvation simply because Christ told them to do it. You speak as if Christ can not give us any instruction without it being the means of our salvation. "Poor interpreting" would be far to gentle a way to describe your handling of this passage. Let me finish by going on as if you had given a more substantial verse for the idea. I can think of several. But I will put forward one in your defense. Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. Now, this verse clearly teaches that there is some degree of sanctification that without which we shall not see the Lord. How would I respond had you given this verse? I would suggest to you that everything required of us is given to us in Christ Jesus. That includes sanctification. (1 Cor 1:30). Now I do not say that to suggest that we can live however we please and then somehow Christ's sanctification is what Hebrews is referring to. But rather our sanctification is something that our ongoing union with Jesus Christ unfailingly accomplishes in us. See Romans chapters 6,7,8 for scripture on that. In other words, the sanctification that includes obedience is part of God saving us! Not part of us earning salvation! And this is how we understand all such verses. 1 John teaches us we can't continually live in sin because His seed abides in us. It is the ongoing union with Christ that produces our sanctification, and this sanctification is how we tell professing Christians from actual Christians. And then scripture is able to say things such as you must have sanctification because all those who are saved unavoidably will be GIVEN sanctification as a result of their union with Christ through FAITH. Rom 4:5,6 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works God justifies apart from works. We are his workmentship apart from works, made for works which follow. Ephesians 2:8-10. For you to preach that our works merits anything with regards to our salvation other than simply evidencing that we were previously saved by grace is to preach an utterly false gospel, which is no gospel at all. (Gal 1:6,7) My real concern however is that you said such a thing claiming to agree with me. We have no like faith whatsoever if this is what you preach. I preach grace, you are preaching law. The two could not be further apart. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
282 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 225006 | ||
Inquisitor, I've not actually said anything in this thread to be agreed with. I simply suggested a study of Romans 9 and I made no attempt to answer the question. However, something you said concerns me. You said: "Jesus' Words are pretty clear. In this Dispensation, we must obey His Commands and those of His Officially Commissioned Apostles." Following the verse you quoted it makes it sound like you believe the means of salvation is our obedience to Christ's commands. I hope that isn't what you are saying. If it is please know that I whole heartedly disagree. But perhaps I've missunderstood you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
283 | What is "entering into God's rest?" | NT general | Beja | 224966 | ||
Ariel, For what its worth, I think you are correct and that we are indeed ultimately fated to inhabit a new earth, not heaven. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
284 | How do I keep a meak and humble heart? | NT general | Beja | 224909 | ||
Patricia, Please don't be offended at sister Azure. She is right when she says that what you asked was a little beyond the scope for which these forums were intended. I was only able to scratch the surface of what I would say to somebody in my own church. Each of the four points I had I could have easily (and for some I desired to) streched them out to the length of that entire post or longer. But I was limited to 5000 letters! I actually had to delete my greeting on the start of it to make room for the answers. So the point is that your particular issue is far better worked out in person with godly men and women of a church. This, I think, is all Azure was trying to say to you, simply to express the inability of this forum to address your situation sufficiently. She truely is a blessing to this forum and I believe should you be willing to momentarily assume that her motives were good, then you will over time to find out for yourself why I am so willing to vouch for her. In my experience this forum is usually very tolerant of life questions in place of actually study questions, but as sister Azure did, we usually at the same time encourage them to seek more complete answers from their pastors due to the limitations of this venue of communication. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
285 | How do I keep a meak and humble heart? | NT general | Beja | 224906 | ||
Patricia, At the risk of being pressumptuous let me say that we are glad to have you here. Also, I highly encourage you to find a church to attend. I assume from your reply that you don't have one. I can not begin to explain to you here just the great extent that your regularly being fed the scriptures through preaching affects you. God means for the Church to be a central aspect of the life of every Christian. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
286 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224885 | ||
Inquisitor, The verses you posted in 224842 don't actually say anything regarding the innocence of children. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
287 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224866 | ||
I did a small search on that "godliness." My theory doesn't really fit because its meaning is more along the lines of a passion and devotion to the things of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
288 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224865 | ||
Doc, That's what has always kept me from really nailing this down in my mind. The notion of gaining one before the other doesn't really work. However, if we resist the notion of perfection in one before the other it helps some. I could see it in the sense of to your faith add virture (perhaps the desire to do right), then you build upon that foundation with knowledge (biblical definitions of right), then self control (The discipline to act on that right knowledge and desire), then perseverance (doing this over the long run. Then I almost see the next step as a cap or culmination of all the previous. The end result of having all four of those being godliness. I intend to do a word study on that greek word when I get a chance to see if that could work or if by godliness the notion is something that doesn't fit that thinking. But if godliness was meant to be a high point in this list, before moving on to the two that orient around love that would fit well with verse 3 which gives godliness as one of the two things God has provided everything necessary for. Just some thoughts. I certainly haven't figured it out. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
289 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224857 | ||
Ariel and thread, Just as a point of clarification where I stand, I don't actually think that infants who die are without hope. I do believe there is such a thing as an age of accountability even though I can't prove it conclusively through scripture. However, the main point I want to get across is this: If infants who die are indeed saved, even then it is because of GRACE, not because they are righteous. Anyways, I don't put that forward to disagree with you but rather to make sure I haven't mislead the readers as to where I stand. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
290 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224854 | ||
Doc, I did notice the emphasis on those "knowing" words. I wonder what significance, if any, there is in his choices of which he used at various times. However, I've not had time to study the book in the greek. I believe I have diagrammed 2 Peter 1:1-10 before but its been too long. This question came up just in my own devotional time rather than any in depth study. I did as a result preach on the passage drawing out how it flows from what God has already done for us and then moves into what we are to pursue. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
291 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224852 | ||
I'll reply to my own post to save annoyance. Here is something Calvin wrote in the Intitutes of the Christian Religion. Book 2, Chapter 8, section 2. He speaks here concerning the ideas of our own inability from whatever reason being an inadiquate defense against judgement from God. "And we cannot pretend the excuse that we lack ability and, like impoverished debtors, are unable to pay. It is not fitting for us to measure God's glory according to our ability; for whatever we may be, he remains always like himself: the friend of righteousness, the foe of iniquity. Whatever he requires of us (because he can require only what is right), we must obey out of natural obligation. But what we cannot do is our own fault. If our lust in which sin reigns so holds us bound that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no reason why we should claim necessity as a defense, for the evil of that necessity is both within us and to be imputed to us." The idea here is that somebody might say that if we are unable to obey then we can not be blamed. Calvin's response is to say that the very fact that you are so wicked that you are incapable of obeying is not reason for your pardon, but reason for your destruction. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
292 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224851 | ||
Inquisitor, (I received an error first time I tried to post this, forgive me if it double posts.) Here is some further posts from some saints wiser than I. The Belgic Confession The Doctrine of Original Sin (Article 15) We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race. It is a corruption of all nature - an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy - not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the "body of this death." 1689 Baptist Confession Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof (Chapter 6) 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. 5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (end quotes) On that last line when he says, "yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin" what that is saying is that not only is the actions we take sin, but also this defiled nature that prompts us on and causes us to long for sin is itself sin and therefore worthy of condemnation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
293 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224848 | ||
Inquisitor, I've spent more time reading this post of yours, 224842. To your question, "Please explain as thoroughly as you can why this concept is so important to the very gospel we preach." And that was refering to my notion that being judged based on the merits or failures of another is central to the gospel. This is why: 1.) Jesus was condemned for our failures, not His. 2.) We are blessed and rewarded for His righteousness, not ours. That is the gospel. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
294 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224846 | ||
Inquisitor, The reason I so often neglect your verses is because you just post a great many with no explination of what you intend to show by them. I really don't know what you are trying to prove by the verses you used. Second, you greatly missunderstood my reply by breaking it up as you did. Many of those questions were meant to be rhetorical. Not really asking you. Also I would suggest you are saying two conflicting things in your post. On one hand you say, "As a father and grandfather, I can agree that our kids can be a major pain when they don't get their way. But don't you see, they don't see anything wrong with that screaming, hollering and misbehaving. All they know they're not getting what they consider they gotta have." You are suggesting that their ignorance makes them innocent. But I'm pointing out what it is that they do in their ignorance. They do not do "right" up until the point they learn enough to be tempted. My point is that in their ignorance they do "wrong" up to the point they can be taught to do right. This shows what they are by nature. Their natural born tendency is to do things that are wrong. So on one hand you affirm that in their ignorance they do things that they ought not do, and on the other you say they are not by nature sinful. I suggest that is contradictory. As another note, in no relation to this discussion, I can very seldom follow any of your posts. Very often you wonder at my not replying to things you say, but the honest truth is I dont' reply because I don't understand you. Could you help me by maybe at the end of your post clearly stating in a concise sentence or two what you feel your post has shown and what I should respond to? I don't say this to be mean. I've simply tried to not mention it several times but it keep impairing our communication on these forums. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
295 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224843 | ||
Inquisitor, So you agree that our basic nature is to rebel? That means the problem is not at the level of our actions, but of our very nature or disposition which then leads to our actions. Children have this flaw as much as any man does. As the father of a 3 year old I can assure you of that. I deny that adam and eve had this same flaw. I could not tell from your post if you agree with that point. However, if that also is granted then what shall we say? Every one with us are born with the natural inclination to sin and rebel, and that we inherit from Adam. And when did Adam obtain this flaw? When he first chose to sin. How can we but say that each and every one of us are cursed with this rebelious and sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin? So the end result is that even a newborn infant, because of the sin of Adam is a little sin factory. By nature even that infant is deep down inclined to sin. They don't have to wait and make a choice to have that inclination. And is that inclination itself not sinful? Our very disposition is sinful, not merely our actions. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
296 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224841 | ||
I have no idea how my cut and paisting smudged my first two verses together so allow me to repost them. Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as the rest. (emphasis mine to draw attention to the part I want you to explain.) Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. |
||||||
297 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224840 | ||
Inquisitor, How then do you explain these passages? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniqEph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as the rest. uity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (emphasis mine to show which part I want you to explain.) Rom 5:16-19 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. We must be very careful with this doctrine, because at the heart of Christianity lies this presupposition: A man can be judged by the merits or failures of another. If we take away that concept we have taken away the very gospel we preach. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
298 | ... | NT general | Beja | 224829 | ||
Cogito, In saying as much you are in open violation of the terms of use of these forums. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
299 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224820 | ||
Doc, Acts 15 had immediately come to my mind and compelled me to ask! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
300 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224811 | ||
Doc, Two things: 1.) You said, "Remember, in Judaic thinking, Gentiles are not subject to the Mosaic Law, only to the Nohaic Law." Can you elaborate on that? I've never heard anybody say such a thing and would love to better understand what you are saying. 2.) The reason I suspect antinomianism is a big error in Peter's mind isn't based on the use of any given greek word. Rather it seems to be the cumulative sum of the book. First, it seems clear that the people he are rebuking are actually in the Church. So they are professing Christians. Second, he repeatedly focuses on how they eagerly sin. He focuses on it so much in fact, that it begins to feel like that is actually the error he is rebuking and not simply that the main error is accompanied by this rampant sin. I actually begin to feel like the error of the teaching is that it allows that. Also, in the first chapter when he is giving positive advice rather than rebuking, it still seems he is speaking against a Christian life that continues in sin. Then I see its close parallels to Jude, who seems to focus on the same three major errors that 2 Peter does, and I read in Jude 4, "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Now turning grace into licentousness really sounds like their teaching turned the grace of God into license to sin. This is why I ask the question. Though to be clear, I would not and do not suggest that antinomianism is the only error being addressed in the book. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [26] >> |