Results 301 - 320 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243884 | ||
EdB, I stand by my previous posts. I'm surprised that you cry out, "scripture alone" in the face of quotes from men far wiser than the two of us, yet when one cries out "scripture alone" rather than your words, you accuse them of being a Pharisee. I won't answer because I have zero interest in discovering our preferences or best practices. The question is if I sin by shopping from such places. And for that you must provide scripture. If standing on scripture alone means I'm a Pharisee. So be it. And for the record I believe abortion, heroin, and homosexuals in the pulpit can all be addressed with scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
302 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243890 | ||
EdB, I can't keep up with the multitude of posts. I'm working from a smart phone and won't be back until tomorrow. Most of what I saw was just gobs of speculation, but you did ask one valid question: why do I assume the 2 cor passage doesn't apply to business. I will bow out with an answer to that. I think that passage is specifically appealing to the church. It should be believers only. Paul states extremely clearly in 1 cor 5 that he has never meant for Christians to abandon interactions with outsiders. So I don't have to make lists for the 2 cor passages. Because it's talking about just one thing. Try reading it in that light. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
303 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227294 | ||
Holmes, These scriptures are rather devoid of context. It was certainly Paul's practice to go to the synagogues on the sabbath day in order to preach Christ to the Jews. This you have showed amazingly well. However, this doesn't show in any way that Christians were not meeting on the first day of the week. It simply doesn't address that. I think the 2 Corinthians passover passage also needs to be considered in context. Finally, two points with regards to the breaking of the bread. First, it would be quite remarkable if scripture intended to let us know they had lunch that day. Second, your estimate of that verse disagrees with how the church has always understood it. That should at least give you pause and cause you to consider on what basis you so readily dismiss it as not being communion. In many cases just listing a stream of verses is a good way to respond to a question. But it is indeed possible to misrepresent a verse simply by quoting it in the absence of any context or explination. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you that it was wrong for people to use public water and I gave this verse to give support. Pro 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern And fresh water from your own well. Pro 5:16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? Pro 5:17 Let them be yours alone And not for strangers with you. Now, that might sound like a passage telling us what is right and wrong concerning water. However, simply posting that passage is the height of deception because within its context it has absolutely nothing to do with water or cisterns. Check the passage to see what I mean. We must have context, and that context can greatly impact the message of a verse that might have seemed to say another thing in absence of the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
304 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227297 | ||
Holmes, It says Paul extended his message until midnight. You are going by pure assumption when you say that the meal came afterwards, and indeed if you honestly think it was simply an ordinary meal then why would you think they didn't eat prior to midnight? Nothing in the text suggests the meal happened the next day. And additionally, if the meal had happened an hour after midnight, which there is no reason to believe, there is nothing to say that it would then follow that they saw it as a monday event rather than a continuation of the sunday worship. If you would like some explination as to why we would believe this was indeed communion then I would rather quote at length one a bit more knowledgable than myself. Here is John Gill on the issue. With regards to their coming together to break bread: not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages. Who was the first pastor or bishop of this church, is not certain; perhaps Carpus, of whom mention is made in 2Ti_4:13 though he is said to be bishop of other places; See Gill on 2Ti_4:13. In the "second" century, in the times of Ignatius, there were brethren at Troas, from whence he wrote his epistles to the churches at Smyrna, and Philadelphia, and who are saluted in them by the brethren at Troas (k): in the third century, several martyrs suffered here, as Andreas, Paulus, Nicomachus, and Dionysia a virgin: in the "fifth" century, Pionius, bishop of Troas, was present at Constantinople at the condemnation of Eutyches, and afterwards he was in the council at Chalcedon; and even in the "eighth" century mention is made of Eustathius, bishop of Troas, in the Nicene council In Christ, Beja |
||||||
305 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227305 | ||
Holmes, I stand corrected regarding the timing of the meal in acts 20. I suppose I need to brush up on Acts some. I was running out of time for church and I was far more alarmed by your use of passover feast verse and spent my time double checking its context. Anyways, I clearly mispoke and it was right for you to correct me. However, as I stated in my previous post, even the fact that the meal took place after midnight impacts nothing in the discussion for the reason I stated. In addition to this, it would be rather misleading to focus this discussion on acts 20 in the first place. It was fitting for you to correct my error however for the convesation to remain at acts 20 unduely gives the impression that it is the basis of believing the early christians met on sunday when it is not. To suggest that sunday worship is based on acts 20 and a stray comment in revelations is to set up a straw man. A much more compelling arguement is made from 1 Cor 16:1,2. Now there is a passage I personally find to impact the discussion of when the early church met. Jonathan Edwards discusses this passage very well in "The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath." And even beyond all of these things we still focus on the wrong aspect. Looking at the ventures of the apostles and trying to piece together their mindset is all well and good but it is to never trump clear teaching which we have regarding the Christian's observance of sabbaths. 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. I have no expectations of persuading you regarding any of this. But I hope to establish that verses showing Paul went to evangelize Jews during the sabbath and presenting the case for sunday worship in unduely weak light is not sufficient to upset either the conscience of those who meet at sunday or the fact that the churches of God have always affirmed that the first day of the week is the day which scriptures displays as fit for the gatherings of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
306 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227320 | ||
Holmes, I am eager for this thread to end on some point that serves to edify, so let me make my cheif point a response to something which you have said that I agree entirely on. You said, "I think we can worship God and our Lord Jesus Christ on any day and at any time." With this I agree. I do not take the things which I am saying so far as to make sunday the day we "must" worship. And our disagreements will be minor if you do not take what you are saying to the point that you suggest saturday is the day we "must" worship. Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Now, that being said, I would offer an important qualification and I only bring this up out of concern who might be reading this thread and how they would take it. We should not let the fact that we may, within bounds of Christian liberty, gather for worship on any day be twisted into the perversion that we gather for worship on no day. We should not jump from the fact that since everyday is holy to the Lord, then at no day do I need to set aside time for Christian fellowship specifically. We are clearly commanded to gather with Christian fellowships not simply in classes, not simply for music, not seminaries, not in para-church organizations, but we are to gather as churches. If that church wishes for their day of gathering to be saturday, I have no issue with it. If it be sunday, all is well. But we are to gather as Churches for mutual edification and accountability, and out of obedience. Now, I will say something small about your closing question, in which you ask where scripture changes the sabbath to sunday. I'll leave it to two simple points. 1. Nowhere does scripture state, "Now sunday will be the new sabbath." I do not suggest you will find such a statement. What we see however is the combination of two things. First, the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Second, there is clearly a high reverence and perhaps even bias towards meeting on the first day of the week. In 1 Cor 16:1,2 we even see it to be a matter of Paul's teaching, in my opinion. He taught them that on the first day of the week their offering was to be collected. What shall we suggest about it? That they met on saturday then were commanded to come give their offering the next day on which they were not to meet? And this was not something peculiar to the church in Corinth as if it was convenient for them to do so on the first day and for that reason it was to be the first day. No, instead we see Paul affirming that this is exactly what he taught to the Galatian Christians. In other words, we see that Paul habitually taught that on the first day of the week it was proper to fulfill this religious duty. However, even if that passage isn't persuasive to you it still ought to be evident that sunday holds itself to be a favorite meeting time. So in short, if you wish to see where the doctrine is coming from, it is in the sabbath being fulfilled and no longer binding, and the pattern we see. 2. If any would truely wish to know truth on this topic and be either confirmed in their belief or corrected of their error, he must go to those who are its chief defenders. In a word, the puritans. I am a babe in Christ compared to many who walk today, how much more so the giants of the past? For a man to think sunday worship holds no basis because I can not convince them would be comparible to a man thinking he had disproved the doctrine of particular redemption without having ever read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," his masterpiece on the topic. In other words, go to those who have defended it so well and read them. Many will say, no, let us simply stand on God's word. Amen, and I agree. However, would you have a man show if you are in error in how you understand God's word? If not, then why do we discuss? If you do then find that man who is mighty in scirptures. And often you will find those men have long left to be with the Lord. They have left their teachings in books. Books which seek to explain the word of God. I pray no man would dismiss the historical teachings of the Church until they have first understood why the Church has understood scripture to teach those things, and that they would hear them from the very best of those who have articulated and defended the position. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
307 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223592 | ||
Grandpa, This forum has a specific terms of use that you must agree upon to be welcome to use the forums. Part of this is confessing that scripture is the error free word of God and the ultimate authority. It is alright to suggest that scripture is using metaphors or symbolism, it often does so. However, when it does so, it does so intentionally. So the notion that scripture is inaccurate or unreliable is not welcome on the forum. I encourage to read the TOU carefully because our gracious host has in the past restricted users from the site for not following this very thing and I would hate to see you not be able to learn and study scripture with us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
308 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223594 | ||
Grandpa, Here is why, you said: "That is why we end up with seemingly impossible things like talking snakes and such" The suggestion seems to be that whatever else can be said, the language isn't really truely reliable. Or rather incapable of expressing the truth. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
309 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223602 | ||
Seems this verse throws a pretty big wrench in the theory of creating other lines of people. Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
310 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223604 | ||
Preston, Read the context, this is not a parable at all. Rather it is an explicit teaching from Paul. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
311 | Actual process? | Romans | Beja | 228175 | ||
Doc, Well said. Especially the summary recommendation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
312 | Who is revealing God's wrath? | Rom 1:18 | Beja | 225583 | ||
wick08, It seems to me, that in Romans 1, that the depravity being spoken of in Romans 1:26 is clearly God's punishment for their idolatry. Now from a more complete biblical study we know that there was already an existing depravity that spurred this sin, but here we seem to see God allowing a further depravity as punishment. It is important to note this is not God putting a greater sin into their hearts, but rather this is God letting up on his actively restraining the sin already there. So the punishment is God ceasing to restrain, so that they heap up greater judgment upon themselves. However, I suspect that the revelation of God's wrath referred to in this chapter could possibly extend beyond chapter one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
313 | The people that never heard of Jesus? | Rom 1:20 | Beja | 213836 | ||
Vintage, You are sorely in error here. The entire idea in this section of romans is that this group of people are without excuse. The entire point is that the idea of some noble minded, good man out there who perished and just didn't get a fair shake is a myth that Paul is purposely doing away with in this passage. Pay close attention to verses 18-20. Also, consider chapter 3, verse 9. This is a key verse for interpreting everything that has come before because in it he states what in his mind is what has already been covered, "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin." The entirety of Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that nobody is excusable. Not through ignorance, not through presuming on God's mercy, not through hearing the law, not through doing the law, not from anything at all. We are all under God's righteous judgement. Understanding this, is key to understanding the amazing gospel that follows in 3:21 and on. There is no second arrangement! There is no other criteria of judgement! It is Christ or the inexcusable law. The fact the gentiles have it written on their hearts IS what makes them without excuse! Because deep down they knew what was right and they chose evil anyways. NOBODY will arrive at heaven and hear God say, "Gee, you never got a chance to hear my gospel, and you didn't get the law, but I see you always did right by your concience, come on in to heave because you are a good guy!" EVERYBODY has chosen wrong, sin and wickedness, and we will all be judged apart from Christ. I would give a much more thorough and organized defense of what I've stated, but its 2:15 am here right now and I just logged on because I couldn't sleep. I look forward to the more well laid statements of what I've just said that are sure to come! In Love, Beja |
||||||
314 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234400 | ||
DPMartin, My comment about mercy was specifically meant in regard to pre-fall eden. Ofcourse we need mercy now. Beyond this, I honestly am not very sure what the second half of your post is saying regarding wrath. I think you might have misunderstood my statements regarding wrath as well but I'm not following you well enough to be sure. If you have a question of me it would help me if you could try to boil your question down to a bit more precise version of it. My confusion partly stems from what appear to be contradictory statements you are making. You critique my view of God's wrath coming in response to sin by asking me "If that were true then what is Jesus' offering on the Cross all about?" My answer would be, "Exactly that." His death was an attonement to satisfy God's wrath against sin on behalf of those who trust in Him. I'm not sure how you see the cross as a case against God's wrath upon sin? Sorry that I couldn't follow you. I'm sure it is probably more related to my own shortcomings than your post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
315 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234404 | ||
DPMartin, The answer is both. God's wrath is upon all mankind due to sin, his love is what has prompted him to redeem us. Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Note that the wrath of God "abides." This greek word means to remain. In other words, the wrath has not first come upon them for rejecting Christ. The wrath of God was already looming on them, and now in their rejection it remians, or abides. And yet love prompted God to give Christ for the salvation of believers. The wrath of God on sinners is what made the coming of Christ necessary. The love of God towards sinners is what directly prompted God to send his son. Both are why. One created the need, the other created the deed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
316 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234406 | ||
Doc, I was purposefully trying not to delve into infra/supra lapsarian discussions in my post. I do not deny that is is a valid discussion. But I was not wanting to add to the question the layer of what God "Purposed" first. As an supralapsarian would state, the order of how it played out, is exactly in reverse to how it was purposed in the creator's mind. They would suggest this happens in the same way that a builder would first purpose a completed house and then would purpose an adiquate foundation; so then he would build in reverse. First would come the foundation and then the house. So also they view salvation. That being said, even should one adopt the supralapsarian view, it is valid to set the purposing aside and speak purely from the "building" side of the equation. Surely it remains valid in some sense to speak of the foundation coming first despite the final building coming first in the architect's mind, no? On the actualizing side sin and wrath preceded redemption, though in purposing redemption preceded and wrath was then purposed for the reason of setting the stage for redemption. Love in God is of the first order I concede. However, we ought not to let such structures forbid us to speak as scripture speaks. And scripture speaks plentifully about God's compassionate response to our plight in the face of his wrath. So in responding to DPMartin, I could try to explain all that, or for the post limit myself to the "building" part of the discussion rather than the "planning." His question, after all, was which "came" first. Not which was "purposed" first. All that being said, for your curiosity sake I will tell you that I am a mildly committed infra-lapsarian. Scripture just too frequently speaks in that order for me to allow the theory of supralapsarian, despite the sense it makes, to pursuade me. Despite what some would say regarding my inconsistency, I still affirm that the cross was God's "plan A." I grant I can't explain exactly how that is consistent. But I view as submissiveness to something that is quite beyond me as it is revealed to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
317 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234411 | ||
Doc, I agree that there is always a danger of things being said that are an incomplete picture. This is why such discussions are to primarilly be done in the context of the church community, an environment in which any statement is restrained by the fact that you know what that person has consistently said ongoingly. I'll just share a few thoughts though. 1.) We can't always restate all of our theological frameworks. At some point we have to leave something either unstated or assumed. 2.) I think we follow scriptural patterns when we do this. When scripture speaks of God having a strong arm. It never makes an effort to simultaneously make sure we understand that such language is metaphorical and that God in fact does not have a body like us. Rather we find such teaching elsewhere. Scripture never restrains itself in this fashion. But more to the point of what the current thread was about. We quite continually see scripture speak of God responding to our plight with love, compassion, and redemption. And usually it is in other passages that we find out that God eternally purposed to be a redeeming God and elected individuals unto salvation, the fall serving his eternal purposes to be a redeeming God. Because scripture speaks freely in these ways without theologically qualifying these statements, I do not thing we should be concerned with avoiding speaking in the same ways. Our examples could be multiplied. Do we need to make sure to verbally affirm Christ's humanity in every instance that we cry out, "My God!" Or at somepoint is it alright to assume that issue is either understood or will be covered in its own place? Is it not biblical to say that the LORD is the God of Israel without at that moment taking the time to teach the union of believing gentiles and jews into one people per ephesians four. Every wonderful statement we could cry out or truth we could proclaim at some point must be qualified by other truth. But surely there are times to just say the truth. 3.) What we should be concerned about, is that our teaching is well rounded enough that anytime somebody takes our statements to unbiblical conclusions, it is not very long before they hear the flip side of it which ought to restrain them to the correct theological framework. But as I said, this most naturally happens in the context of the church, in which God's word is being discussed continually, and with concern to the entirety of its witness being taught. In short, I think we are being too restrictive with either the implications of our theology or the guarding over our theology when we can no longer permit ourselves to speak as scripture speaks. I say this of course with all love, as I happily know that you and I agree on an overwhelmingly vast majority of doctrinal issues. And I take no offense but rather delight in your care for theological accuracy. I know that you are aware of our many agreements, but I state it for the sake of other readers knowing that they are reading a dialogue between two brothers in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
318 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234413 | ||
DPMartin, I disagree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
319 | Isn't Paul free of sin? | Rom 7:25 | Beja | 225937 | ||
Philip, I think you should be careful about taking months to try to force yourself to see a passage in a light which you have already determined it must be read in. This is a wonderful way to missinterpret scripture. Lets look at one of the key verses you mentioned. Romans 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. Now Paul says taht I know nothing good DWELLS. That is present tense. But he is clarifying, in the flesh, to show that there is certainly the desire in his inner man to do good. "In the flesh" can not be him saying "in the past" because he is clearly speaking in the present tense. And this doesn't even begin to deal with Philippians 3. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
320 | Isn't Paul free of sin? | Rom 7:25 | Beja | 225977 | ||
Philip, I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time believing that you believe what you are saying. I've never met anybody in my life who actually thinks such a thing. So perhaps I am not understanding you clearly. Let me ask a few questions so as to understand if I am hearing you correctly. Are you saying that any saved person will never sin such that: No saved person ever thinks an ungodly thought? No saved person ever covets another person's things? No saved person ever says a hars word in anger? No saved person ever says a slanderous word about somebody else? No saved person is ever lazy or idle at any moment? No saved person is ever disobedient to a parent? No saved person ever lies at any time? No saved person ever has a hard time forgiving? No saved person ever gives God less than his best? No saved person ever looks on another woman with lust? No saved person ever at any moment takes God's name in vain? No saved person ever goes a day without prayer? No saved person ever goes through a day and neglects proper attention to God's word? No saved person ever fails to testify boldly of Christ? Is THIS really what you are saying? Not only in theory, but you are actually saying that in your life you never do any of these things at any moment since your salvation? I ask this with sincerity and no sarcasim. I can't help but think you must mean something other than this with your words, for I have a hard hard time believing that anybody could actually truely believe this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [26] >> |