Results 321 - 340 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Is there a bible verse that means this? | Rom 8:28 | Beja | 232177 | ||
34224, First, let me say that I am resigned to the fact that not everybody has a high and biblical view of God. So I don't desire to debate this point with you. However, what you are suggesting has nothing to do with logic. Logic does not say "No" to this question. Your line of reasoning depends not on an impossible situation, but rather one which you will not accept. Your logic is as such... 1. If everything happened for a reason, then God would be responsible. 2. God is not responsible, therefore 1 is not true. That sir, is not logic. You have begun your entire train of thought having previously decided that God is not responsible. That is your "given" Why? Because you can not accept such a notion is the only reason. It most certainly has nothing to do with logic. Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
322 | 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 |
||||||
323 | 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 |
||||||
324 | Will Jews make it to heaven? | Rom 9:1 | Beja | 225048 | ||
Inquisitor, I've been looking again at the passage in John which you quoted, trying my best to see it through your eyes. I've been asking myself, if I had your theological beliefs, what in this passage would have caused me to think it defends my view? And I think I might have found it, though I'm still not certain. Perhaps your line of thinking whent something like this: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Now perhaps looking at that your thinking goes along the lines of: it appears that John is saying that our love for Jesus, which is manifested in our keeping His commandements, seems to be prior to and the cause of God's love for us. Now, if that is what you meant to show by this verse it would be tremendously helpful if you would in addition to the verses actually give us also that interpretation so we know what it is you are trying to say by the verses. Now, if that is what you are trying to show I'd respond in two points. 1.) The IF/THEN notion here is not by any means necessarilly causal. The one who keeps my commands(loves me) will be loved by my Father. There is no notion here that it is our love/obedience which causes the Fathers love, even though such phrases (in the absence of other clear scriptures) could be interpreted that way. John is merely expressing that love of the Christ, obedience, and His love for us all go hand in hand. They are present together or absent together. 2.) Is our love/obedience the cause of God's love, or is God's love the cause of our love/obedience? And can I answer it from scripture? Well, we are quoting John, lets allow John to clearly state the answer for himself. 1Jn 4:19 We love, because He first loved us. Here we have a sentence where John is explicitly teaching which is the cause and which is the effect. So John here sheds light on the previous passage we looked at (John 14). Can we find other scripture to support this? I believe we can. Rom 9:10-13 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Now look at this passage. It says here that God loved Jacob specifically with no regards for any actions he had done either good or bad. God here goes out of His way to show that his love for Jacob preceeded anything he could have done. And we can not argue foreknowledge without harming Paul's entire arguement. Paul is striving here to show that human actions in no way caused God's choice/love here. And Paul concludes from this: Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. I hope this is sufficient to establish that God's love precedes and is the fountain of our love, not the other way around. Also, I apologize for my last post. I still think my assertions in the last post are correct, I simply wish I had been more kind in how I asserted them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
325 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223867 | ||
rclouviere, I completely understand that this is a hard thing to hear. Let me respond to a few things you said. "I would struggle with this if it is correct" For the immediate furture. I would encourage you to simply seek out if it is correct rather than trying to emotionally handle the implications. Study the passages I listed carefully. As you do pray that God would help you understand the truth regardless of how unpleasant the idea is. "I don't see how just creation is enough to find your way to heaven." I don't suggest that it is. The implication seems to be that creation is enough to leave us without excuse, yet not enough to reveal the gospel. "If someone doesn't ever know of the Gospel and the way to salvation, I don't see how they could end up in hell." We have to ask ourselves one simple yet troubling question. Do we or do we not truely deserve Hell? According to scripture the answer is yes. But if we truely do deserve it, then what that actually means is that God could have never done the slightest thing to save us and yet He would remain blameless. Fair would be to simply allow us all to suffer our punishment. That is what we are saying when we say we actually deserve Hell. If you can bring yourself to accept that, then it follows that God neither owes anybody the gospel nor salvation. If He is under obligation to none of us regarding the gospel and salvation, and He then in this freedom chooses to give the gospel it still does not put Him under obligation to give it to all. God in His freedom may choose to offer the gospel to you and not to me. He would still be doing no wrong, because I deserve Hell. The fact that He choose to be gracious to you, does not change the fact that He is being fair to me because I still deserve/ought to go to Hell. However, in fact God has freely extended the gospel to all. And yet even still He has done no wrong to those who have never heard it, because they still deserve/ought to go to Hell for the sins they have committed. The heart of all of this is that God doesn't owe this to anybody regardless of who it is extended to. I do not deny that this is a terrifying thought. But the more important question is whether it is true. Truth regarding life, Hell, God, and eternity are not meant to be comfortable. They are terrifyingly huge and real. I pray that God will lead you into truth as you study this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
326 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223986 | ||
To the thread and forum, If anybody is truely struggling with this question I bet this book by John Piper would help you work through the issue. And Piper is very biblical in the things he writes. Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? by John Piper You can find it for like six dollars in paperback on amazon.com. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
327 | 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 |
||||||
328 | God turns back on individuals? | Rom 11:5 | Beja | 227564 | ||
thread, I think what we run into here is very poor specifics on what we are asking. "Does God turn His back on us so that we can't be saved" is simply an emotional question that could mean more than one thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
329 | God turns back on individuals? | Rom 11:5 | Beja | 227614 | ||
PaulusSecundus, These verses are only illustrating my point. What are we talking about when we say that God turns his back on us so that we can't be saved? Are we talking about when God kills an individual? That certainly ends their chances. Are we talking about election and reprobation? Are we talking about the Gospel no longer being valid for them even if they repent and believe? Are we talking about individuals in some remote time and place who never heard of the gospel? All of these require different discussions, and in the mean time its just a vague highly emotionally charged question. There are certainly valid forms of this question, we just won't have productive conversations until we define what we are talking about better. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
330 | God turns back on individuals? | Rom 11:5 | Beja | 227632 | ||
Justme, I don't think that is what the original post was asking at all. However, you also illustrate my point. There is no great clarity on what is being asked. That has been my only point. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
331 | Is drinking and smoking pot allowed | Rom 14:23 | Beja | 228729 | ||
Justme, I do not think you will find a passage of scripture that says repentence, sexual purity, or right standing with God is a prerequisite to marriage. Or are unbelievers and sinners not allowed the gift of marriage under God's common grace? If you do find scripture forbidding marriage outside these circumstances, please let me know. Please note: I do think scripture teaches us to repent, be sexualy pure, and to be in right standing with God through Christ. I'm not asking you to prove this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
332 | Subsequent process | 1 Cor 1:2 | Beja | 228468 | ||
Thread, I recently did an in depth study on the word sanctification in the new testament. What I found was that as Biblicalman said, "The term has a variety of meaning to be determined by context." The word is extremely flexible. However, I was quite disturbed by the range. How can it mean "set apart" in a quite literal interpretation. Yet we see it universally discussed as an ongoing conformity to Christ in every discussion we read in books? I found this disturbing and decided to try to dig at the root of it all. I found that sometimes the word is meaning "set apart," sometimes the word is meaning the ongoing growth of holiness/conformity to Christ, and yet sometimes it seems to have the sense of a finished event accomplished at the cross. See Hebrews 10:10 for an example of that type. Other times it seems to be almost synonymous with our entire salvation. Now what is the common denominator in all of this? I found the Old Testament to hold the answer. In the law, the setting apart of something to God was always done by clensing it. Whether by water, fire, or most often by blood, clensing something of its defilements was the way in which one set something apart to God. We can not seperate the two. If you took a holy object and asked a Levite at what moment it became set apart to God, I believe they would say when it was clensed for that purpose by the blood of a sacrifice. The clensing by sacrifice was its being set apart, and its being set apart was its clensing. So in the same stripe, we are set apart unto God through clensing by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So in one sense, we were certainly sanctified once for all at the cross. Christ is our sanctification. Then again we can look to our sanctification as the moment the sacrifice was applied to us when we were united to Christ by Faith. And yet there is more. The sacrifice ofcourse was clensing. Our sanctification is our clensing of sin, and our clensing of sin is our being set apart to God. So we must look at that aspect. And we must notice that Christ has clensed us from sin and this happens in two ways. First, Christ has clensed us finally from the guilt of sin, justification. Second, Christ has (ongoing process) sealed our clensing from the actually practice of sin, holiness. See the new covenant in Hebrews 8 and you will see both forgiveness and obedience were bought for us at the cross. So this means though we previously have mentioned a sense in which our sanctification has been accomplished, now we see a sense in which although our sanctification is garaunteed, it is in the process of happening through the holy spirit's work in progressively securing our obedience. So here is a sense in which sanctification is ongoing and can even be commanded that we persue it (Heb 12:14). So this I think is the root of sanctification, our being clensed by the sacrifice of Christ both from guilt and practice of sin so that we are set apart to God Holy. This is why the word is so so very flexible. Sometimes it just means set apart, sometimes it is highlighting the fact that Christ accomplished it, sometimes it is focusing on the fact that it is not yet completed in practice, and sometimes it is highlighting the entire process. Yet if we keep the whole picture in mind, we can see where they are focusing on any given context. Hope this wasn't hopelessly jumbled and that somebody benefited. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
333 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213553 | ||
I think this is very unlikely in the great. In the greek it basically says the negative in between each. NOT addicted to wine, NOT pugnacious. Makes rendering it in a complex phrase such as the cause of each other highly unlikely. However, I'm not a greek master and it is possible that that combination can have some funny uses possible. My greek books are at the office so I can't say but as stated, very doubtful. In love, Beja |
||||||
334 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213554 | ||
heh, in the greek, not "in the great". Little fuzzy today, monday's are recooperation days for pastors. Beja |
||||||
335 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213558 | ||
Lion, Not sure quite how to respond. I was never trying to make any statement in the discussion except to let azure know what was in the greek, since she(or he?) showed interest. If you look at the post I responded to she asked if the idea of not being pugnacious and not drinking could validly be combined into one phrase in the greek. The answer is no. But, if you do want to know my opinion then I think having a drink is not a sin. Second, the question of whether one should or not can certainly not be given a universal answer. For me, as a Baptist pastor, in my given congregation, the answer is certainly no I should not drink (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 9). Besides, the stuff is remarkably foul tasting so I wouldn't want to. God bless you and sorry for the confusion. In Love, Beja |
||||||
336 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213568 | ||
Justme, I wish I could let myself leave it as just what you have said. I wish I could leave it, "this has been abused and therefore lets just not mess with it, and not bother defending it." However, it is with a regret that I suggest to you this position is a luxury. It is a luxury of which few of us, especially a pastor can indulge. Consider this, a church that is convinced that alcohol is wrong, and a new Christian who wants to join who drinks a glass of wine before bed. The church wants to exclude this person based on drinking. What then? I dearly wish it could simply be solved by saying, "lets all keep our opinions to ourselves and not judge." I do not say this mockingly or with sarcasim, I truely wish it! There are times we need to know the truth about this. In such a situation do we need to exclude the person or are we putting requirements on church membership which God Himself did not place? Dare we exclude one that God does not find fault with for our own traditions? So I say this, at points we must know the truth on this topic, and we must stand fast in it. But until that is forced upon us I agree with you. There is no need to pursue it to the point that we are known as the "pro-booze church." In love, Beja |
||||||
337 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228071 | ||
Biblicalman, Though we are going on speculation and not clear verses, this passage seems imo to refute the notion that having sex means you are married in God's eyes. Joh 4:16 He *said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus *said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; Joh 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." Jesus clearly doesn't think her sleeping with the sixth man means they are married. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
338 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228073 | ||
Biblicalman, First, the passage that you are quoting does not say any of the things which you are saying. You are making inferences from the passage. Now those inferences could be correct or wrong, but the passage does not say them, they are inferences. Admitting as much is a matter of simply honesty, not debate. Second, you are making a lot of inferences from one statement. Third, your words do not agree with what Christ said. You said: "And that is marriage in God's eyes if we have not had sexual relations before. If we have tnen it still makes us one but in an adulterous relatonship." and "A second sexual union is adultery. It is not marriage in God's eyes because the person had been made one with someone through the first sexual union" Yet Jesus acknowledged 5 husbands as husbands. We do not have a clear explicit teaching but Scripture, and Jesus, do not appear to agree with your inferences which you are making from 1 Cor 6:16. I do not want to offend you as I have enjoyed and silently given my "amen" to many of your posts. However, I think you are off base on this one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
339 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228075 | ||
Biblicalman, Let me just focus on your questions to me rather than try to respond to everything you said. If you think I'm avoiding a key point you wish to make then just repeat it and draw my attention to it and I'll respond. I have no intention of avoiding your points, but giving due time where I think its needed. 1.) You said "Why do you think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her?" But look at what you are saying and what you have said. You yourself have just said that as a result of the sex he was forced to marry her, but previously you have been arguing that the act of sex actually did make them married in God's eyes! It can't be both. So I turn the question back to you. If the act of sex ment they were already married in God's eyes, why then were they forced to marry? 2.) You asked, "Why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. The relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act." I think this is completely wrong. Look at Matthew 19 with me. Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mat 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" Mat 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. Now this is going to be a string of exegesis so I beg readers to give their best effort to follow me. They ask Jesus, if God has indeed made the two one flesh then why did Moses permit divorce? Now where on earth did Moses discuss divorce? You will find nowhere that these Jews could be referrring to (correct me if I'm wrong) other than Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Now take a look at that passage. I'd paste it but I fear I'd run out of space. Here he never says anything about divorce directly but assumes it. He says that if a man takes a wife an he finds indecency in her (she's found to be sexually impure) and then if he does put her away and then if she marries again and then she is later single again, he is forbidden to remarry his ex-wife. So here it is. We have Moses implicitly allowing for divorce when a wife is unfaithful. This then is what is being discussed in Matthew 19, now back to that passage with this Old Testament context in mind. They ask Christ why Moses allowed divorce in the case of a sexually defiled wife. Christ's answer is key. He says that Moses allowed it due to the hardness of their heart, but from the beginning it wasn't that way. So lets consider that answer. First, Jesus makes the point that even when a wife was unfaithful, divorce was permitted then only due to the man's shortcomings. Second, divorce in the face of marital unfaithfulness was NOT the original model. So we see that divorce when a spouse is unfaithful is a undesirable, unnatural, allowance by the law because mankind's heart can so seldom love in spite of this great wrong. Now here is my question. If this is the case how on earth can anybody say that because of the adultery the marriage is inherently and already severed!? No, the plan of marriage in its ideal form is that the husband is faithful and united to the woman even in the face of such betrayal. The adultery does not break the marriage. But God, because of our inability to love rightly, allows us the choice to break the marriage in the face of such betrayal. So, God's original design for marriage is NOT marriage is over when adultery happens, but rather a constant union not matter what and that means no matter what. But the law later comes along and reluctantly adds the option to divorce when adultery happens due to the fact that our hard hearts often fall short of loving as it ought to. Sexual sin does not sever a marriage in and of itself. So I say again, scripture does not bear out what you are saying. I agree that "becomming one flesh" is at the essence of marriage, but that doesn't mean we can read into 1 Cor 16 everything you are saying. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
340 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228083 | ||
Biblicalman, Since you have given no scripture to support any of your statements (with the exceptions of the original one in question) there is really nothing further to discuss. You have only restated what you have already said and failed to give any additional biblical support for it. All I can say is that this elaborate scheme is not stated in scripture. The scripture which I have brought forward you have dismissed with statements such as, "Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage.." How on earth does one respond to such a statment that has no basis in scripture? Between such dismissals of passages I bring forward and you providing no scriptural support for what you are saying, we are left to discuss our own imaginations which is pointless. All I can say in order to end on a positive note is that this is not a fellowship breaking issue and you have my sincere Christian affections. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [26] >> |