Results 381 - 400 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223269 | ||
(THIS IS PART 2, MAKE SURE YOU READ PART 1 FIRST) 1. There is an instruction of morality implicit to the gospel. 1Ti 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully ,realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. Lets examine this passage carefully. First, we see that Paul is specifically discussing the Law. Second, he says it is to restrain a variety of sins. Third, Paul states that these sins are contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious gospel. The law is used to restrain sins that are contrary to the gospel. Inherent to the gospel is a system of morality. This should not surprise us. The gospel is not merely about the means of salvation. The gospel also includes declaring the need for salvation. Inherent to the gospel message is that we are all sinners facing a coming day of judgment. And that we all stand guilty. We are guilty because we have gone against the Law of God. So inherent in the gospel message is the understanding that the moral Law of God, which is expressed in the Old Testament, is in fact something we should not transgress. We see this clearly because the Lawful use of the Law is to restrain sins that are contrary to the gospel. In other words, the sins that the Law restrains, are also sins that the gospel condemns. Lets see evidence of this from another passage. Eph 4:17-24 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Lets simplify this passage. Paul says: 1.) Do not continue to walk as the gentiles. 2.) You did not learn Christ this way. 3.) If you have been taught Christ, you were taught to put off the old self and put on the new. This is a powerful statement by Paul. It clearly states that there is an expectation of morality implicit in somebody learning Christ. Because the gospel is not only a means of salvation, it is also a statement of condemnation of all transgression against the Laws of God. Furthermore, the gospel is a call to repentance from transgressing the laws of God. What the Law forbids, the gospel condemns. To try and suggest that you can receive salvation and yet walk happily in the sin of the Gentiles is according to Paul “not to have learned Christ.” If you have learned Christ, you were also taught to put off such old sin and walk in a renewed life. Paul continues in this passage giving practical examples of putting off the old man and putting off the new. So let me summarize what we have found. The Gospel contains an implicit condemnation of sin, and instruction in morality. The notion of morality which the gospel forwards, is the morality of the Old Testament Law. 1.) What the law forbids, is what the Gospel itself condemns. 2.) The Law is not contrary to the Gospel. 3.) The moral Law of the Old Testament is still the expected morality of the New Testament. 4.) While the Law is not nor every will be a means to salvation, it is and will remain a means of instruction as to what is sin and what is righteousness. |
||||||
382 | Law and Gospel | Gal 3:21 | Beja | 223268 | ||
(this will be in multiple posts as replies) Are the Law and Gospel contrary to each other? Many would suggest that if we are saved by grace through faith, and by means of the gospel, then therefore we must be utterly done with the law. It is either Law or Gospel/Faith. The two are contrary to one another. If we are under grace, or if we are under the Gospel, then we are completely through with the Law. Is this true? Are they contrary to each other? Gal 3:21,22 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. The “promises” of the gospel stated here are clearly a reference to the “Gospel.” We can affirm this based on Galatians 3:8. Which clearly state that through the promises to Abraham, God was declaring the gospel. So then, according to Paul the gospel and the Law are not contrary to each other. But we must pay careful attention to why they are not. And the answer is, because the Law was not given to impart life. If it had been, then righteousness would have been through the law, but it was not, and therefore righteousness does not come through the law. But rather the Scripture containing the Law, had instead the explicit purpose of shutting up every person under sin. And it shut them up under sin SO THAT the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. So we see that the intentions of the Law were not to impart life and result in two possible paths towards right standing with God, rather it was to convict all of sin and press them towards the promises of the gospel in which are found the one and only means of life and righteousness. What do we mean by the term Law? When we speak of the Law in this discussion, we do not refer to every cultural practice of national Israel. Things such as dietary restrictions, ceremonies, yearly festivals or civil laws are not in view in this discussion. These are all picture foreshadowing Christ. Col 2:16, 17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Rather, what we have in mind is the system of morality as depicted chiefly in the Ten Commandments. So then, the moral law of the old testament is not to be understood as contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the reason it is not to be understood as contrary, is that it is not offering itself as an alternative means to salvation, but rather a means of instructing and convicting us of our own sin and driving us to Christ. Once we stand under Grace, united to Christ by Faith, must we continue to live out the moral laws of the Old Testament? We can not treat this question fairly unless we divide it into two more clearly stated question. Question # 1: Must we follow the Old Testament Commands in order to receive justification? Question #2: Do the moral instructions of the Old Testament remain the expected conduct of believers? These are two totally different questions. And if we refuse to ask them as separate questions, we will continue to rush into error, and we will continue to struggle to understand scripture. Let question 1 be dealt with first. Must we follow the Old Testament Commands in order to receive justification? The answer to that is a firm no. Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. This is, of course, only one of many verses that can be quoted to affirm this. Question 2, “do the moral instructions of the Old Testament remain the expected conduct of believers?”, must be treated as a different question. One can not conclude that simply because something is not the means of justification that God does not in fact desire a believer to do it. I affirm, that the gospel implicitly instructs believers to follow righteousness as described in the moral laws of the Old Testament. |
||||||
383 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223253 | ||
Lightedsteps, I certainly can't blame you for quoting him. He's certainly a much wiser man than I am. And I've enjoyed reading what he has to say about many a passage. I'll give this passage a closer look as time permits me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
384 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223222 | ||
Lightedsteps, Three thoughts. 1. How do we be "doers of the gospel?" 2. Do you see no distinction between doing the Law because it is right, from doing the law in order to earn salvation? How can we suggest that the Law was a perfect expression of rightousness, and God will judge lost people for not living up to it, yet once Christ saves us by perfectly fulfilling that law for us, and paying the penalty for our transgressing that law, shall we then say that having been saved we ought not to live in accordance to the Law of God, even though we are in no way attempting to earn salvation through it? 3. I highly urge you to read Marrow of Modern Divinity, it discusses these very things in great detail. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
385 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223216 | ||
Lightedsteps, You gave me three answers, it is my assumption you meant those as all references to the same thing. So when James says, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does." So you are saying that James is trying to get them to be a "doer of the gospel," not merely a hearer of it? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
386 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223210 | ||
Lightedsteps, You stated: Many might say that the ("GLASS" - "MIRROR") is a metaphor for the law, but when we look at the passage where this metaphor is used, we see it is not speaking about the law, "but the engrafted word", therefore the mirror should not used as a metaphor for the law Having made that statement, you have essentially said that the "word" in that passage, which people look into and then forget, is not the law. If it is not the law, then you must be suggesting it is something else. What is that something else in the James passage? What is the "word" in that specific context. I hope this clarifies. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
387 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223202 | ||
Lightedsteps, What is "the word?" In Christ, Beja |
||||||
388 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223194 | ||
I would so very much love to hear that verse discussed well. On the surface its not so very hard to understand but I have always felt I was missing some of the deeper meaning there in how he was trying to explain the law's function in this metaphor. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
389 | Did the Romans kill Jesus or did the Jew | NT general | Beja | 223193 | ||
Lets all remember the lesson Paul strived so diligently to teach in 1 Cor 13. We can have all the knowledge in the world yet if we throw out love, (some of which is consisting of patience, longsuffering, refusing to take offense, and showing kindness even when it is not deserved), if we throw out this love in the midst of our pursuit of knowledge then we amount to nothing. Let us also remember 1 Timothy 1:5 (if I'm not misquoting), where Paul explains that the very goal of all of his teaching is love. Therefore let us pursue that foremost and what we deem fitting answers to our questions second. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
390 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | Beja | 223159 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm not sure what the confusion is, brad simply stated: Scripture does speak of god CHOOSING US according to the intentions of his good will. Then he posted these two verses. Ephesians 1:4,5 According as He has CHOSEN US....according to the GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS WILL. I'm not sure what the confusion is? Brad made a clear concise statement, and then posted a passage that said EXACTLY what he said. I must very much be missing what the difficulty is over. You might argue wha those words mean, but how can you say they weren't directly applying to what he said? Again, maybe I missed something. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
391 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Matt 5:17 | Beja | 223131 | ||
Doc, Not sure if you would consider this part of one of those three, but if not might I add the universal accountability of mankind as violators fo the law. Or as Romans 3:19 phrases it, "so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
392 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | Beja | 223123 | ||
Dear Lightedsteps, This was the phrase that I was responding to: "However even the Ephesians verses, do not speak of a remnant chosen by His own counsel, before creation, for salvation. As a matter of fact, I can't find anywhere in scripture where it does say what you have just espoused." You stated nowhere in scripture is this stated. In response to Romans chapter 11, after speaking of the Israelites in that time, he says that at the present time a there is also a remnant according to God's gracious choice. I believe that when Paul says at the present time, he does in fact mean at the present time. He is not suggesting that in the time around the writing of this letter there is a God chosen remnant, but in 2000ad there will not be a God chosen remnant. Yes he is speaking of Jews here, but do you mean to suggest that God does predestine Jews for salvation, but does not predestine gentiles? As I stated, I do not intend to convince you of election. I think trying to do so would likely be less than edifying and possibly in violation of the user agreement since we agree not to argue about any issue that is knowingly devisive. People may disagree whether this topic fits that description. But what I do intend to accomplish is to not let the above quote go uncorrected. If people choose not to believe in election it does not mean that they should pretend there is no scriptural basis for it. I whole heartedly believe nobody can loose their salvation, but I don't treat lightly those who do. Why? Because there are a lot of passages that, in the absence of a lot of scripture restraining our interpretation, can in fact strongly lead us to that conclusion. The truth is the amount of scripture that indicates God chooses from the foundation of the world, individuals whom he will effectually bring about the salvation of while he passes over others is overwhelming. I do not intend to argue whether it is in the verses quoted by Doc, but simply to address the suggestion that it is nowhere to be found. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
393 | Heaven or hell predetermined? | Eph 1:11 | Beja | 223111 | ||
Lightedsteps, Rom 11 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace There was a remnant. It specifically states it came to by through God's gracious choice. So specifically stated that God "chose" this remnant. Then it goes so far to say what the bases was for how God chose them. It was purely by grace. In other words it was not based on anything good which was in us or done by us whether in the past or forseen to be done in the future, but purely grace. Rom 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. He gives an example of two children yet in the womb. Why does he choose this example? Because there is no way that these two could yet have done ANYTHING to earn God's favor yet. Same parents, same lineage, same everything, no deeds done. Yet God chooses one and not the other. Then he specifically asks if this is fair for God to do. Now if I was missunderstanding Paul, then this would be the perfect time for Paul to correct us all. Paul could have easily said, "Is it fair? NO you are missunderstanding me, I don't mean to say that God actually predestines in that sense!" But Paul didn't correct it. On the contrary he affirms that God has the right to choose one and reject the other based on nothing but his choice. Paul comes to the conclusion that God's sovereign choosing unto salvation is neither "ultimately" dependant on man's doing anything, or man's choosing/willing anything, but it is ultimately dependent on God who chooses to have mercy on some. Yet we would all scream out, "This isn't fair!" But isn't that exactly what Paul addresses next? Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Look! He brings up our exact objection, is this fair for God to do? Once again, if we were missunderstanding Paul, then again here is his moment to correct us. He could have answered his own objection by simply saying, "No no, you missunderstand me, I'm not suggesting election/predestination/etc." But once again he doesn't do this but rather says, "Who are you to talk back to God!" He actually reaffirms that God does in fact have the right to do this. Look carefully at this verse in 2 Thess. 2Th 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Now, focus on the sentence structure what were we chosen for? We were chosen for salvation from the beginning through sanctification by the Spirit faith in the truth We were not simply chosen based on some forseen faith, we were chosen for that faith. We were chosen to be saved through faith. The defenses from scripture go on and on and on and on. I have long since come to realize that many people will not desire to believe in predestination. But please, lets not say there is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
394 | Was found in rocks | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223089 | ||
Azure, VBS stands for Vacation Bible School. In some circles in america, churches pick out one week of the summer and once an evening for that one week they put on a fun learning time for children with snacks, games, singing, and other features. Paula, the question is vague. However, if you are speaking of the rock that Moses struck, then I will narrow it down somewhat for you. Read in Exodus during the wilderness wanderings. I don't want to flat out tell you because here at the forums we believe a great deal in letting students of all types do their research for themselves. As a seminary graduate I can tell you with certainty that it is very beneficial to actually read and work and pray to find the answers that your teachers are having you look for. After all, if you were sent to look it up, and you merely want to know the answer without all the extra benefit of the search, I'm sure she will tell you soon. I pray you have a very fruitful VBS. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
395 | Becoming a christian | John 6:37 | Beja | 222912 | ||
Inquisitor, To my knowledge there are only two places in scripture that people mistakenly think are teaching that baptism is a step in actually becomming saved. These are Mark 16:15 and Acts 2:38. I think it is important that we make the observation that both of these remarks originated with Peter. In acts, we are listening to Peter's words as reported by Luke. In Mark, it has always been widely known that Mark's gospel is in fact from Peter. So both are rooted in the preaching of Peter. Why is this important? Because in 1 Peter 3:21, Peter corrects the possible missinterpretation of what he is saying. Peter 3: 21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," Look at what Peter is saying! He says that when he refers to baptism saving anybody, he doesn't mean the water dipping that is the physical act of baptism! When he says things that indicate baptism saves us, what he really means is the act that baptism represents, which is the heart's response to God in Repentence and Faith. Baptism was, as Steve has said in an earlier post, the visible action that professed the saving faith and repentence. So it was closely tied to the idea of being saved, but Peter denies that it is itself what saves. So as you yourself have asserted, we have to affirm all of these scriptures. And affirming all of these scriptures includes affirming what Peter says when he denies teaching that the act of baptism saves you! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
396 | does this mean a person is unforgiven | NT general | Beja | 222638 | ||
King T, Doc is not saying that nothing at all merits our redemption. He is saying that it is the blood of atonement to be found in what Jesus Christ did on the cross which merits it. Our repenting of our sins does not merit our redemption even though there is no salvation without repentence. Christ dying in our place does merit it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
397 | How can we know if Bible was not fabrica | Rom 10:17 | Beja | 222471 | ||
Billy, Forgive me, that last scripture reference should be ephesians 6 rather than ephesians 5. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
398 | Praying to Jesus in Jesus' name? | NT general | Beja | 222024 | ||
Nextman, I am very fond of John Piper's answer to this question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v(equals)VMp5DFsuOTs Make sure you convert the (equals) to an actual equal sign, the forum won't accept that simbol. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
399 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 221728 | ||
CDBJ, I have no real concern about this discussion, but just from pure logic...if this passage proves that angels existed before the earth, then it also proves that stars existed before the earth by the exact same logic. So either scripture is contradicting itself, or you are putting more weight on this passage than it was intended to bare. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
400 | Praying to the Holy Spirit | Eph 6:18 | Beja | 221631 | ||
Cathy, Unless my greek is rusty, which it may be, then eipen means "to say" and apokrinomai means "to respond." His point being that if it had said the holy spirit had responded then it would have implied they were praying to the Holy Spirit, but the passage didn't use that word. I wouldn't say the word choice here is conclusive, but worth pondering. Either way there is just no reason to think that God responding through the Holy Spirit implies that was who they were praying to. If God sends a fireman in response to prayer does that mean we were praying to firemen? The logic just doesn't work. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [26] >> |