Results 361 - 380 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235877 | ||
EdB, At least you can understand my confusion. I came late to the thread and clicked on the thread name reading back through the posts to gain the context. From that view it appeared you had simply taken offense to somebody being cessationist. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Though I did say from the start that I felt I must have been missing something. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
362 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228274 | ||
Searcher, I do not want to answer for biblicalman, but I would suggest that it is coming into being through the Spirit working through the gospel. Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, Eph 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, Eph 2:22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
363 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228283 | ||
Biblicalman, Amen. I can't help but wonder if you are a fellow amillenialist. Regardless, I agree with your post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
364 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228431 | ||
Oldone, You said, "What this verse is telling me God and Christ became one, Like, body and soul. Another way I look at it is that Jesus was the man that God became." We understand clearly from John 1 that The Word was eternally with God and distinct from God, even though He actually was of the very same as God. We see that it was this Word which became flesh in Christ. So we should not think that the Father became flesh, nor should we think that Christ was ever a man while not being deity and somehow God later merged with him. Christ was the Word become flesh from the moment He was created in the womb. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
365 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228445 | ||
Oldone, Yes, that is what I am saying. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
366 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228487 | ||
Oldone, Have you never heard of the trinity? God exists eternally in three persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, one God. How do you explain Philipians 2:1-12? What you are saying is a heresy called modalism that has been rejecting by the Church for well over a thousand years. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
367 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228492 | ||
Oldone, I think your sense of offense is misplaced. Read back over the thread and I think you will see that you presented yourself as if my statement of Christ being coeternal with the Father was something new to you. Indeed, you came across as if it was so new and unheard of that you needed time to figure out how to respond to it. What was I to conclude besides you had not heard of the doctrine of the trinity, or perhaps if you had heard of it then you hadn't heard it explained. Now if you were aware of the teaching and fully understood it and rejected it, you ought not to have acted if I was saying something new then gotten offended over my surprise. Luk 22:42 saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done." Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. Eph 1:19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might Eph 1:20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Mat 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Mar 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" Joh 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; I weary of cutting and pasting. I do not deny the oneness of God, but any person ought to look at these passages and admit there is some sort of distinction between Christ and the Father. If you don't prefer the word persons, fine. You stress that scripture is clear on the oneness of God, yet scripture is also clear on the complexity within that oneness. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
368 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228568 | ||
SeekTruth, See post 228492. Could you please explain the verses I stated in that post? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
369 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228580 | ||
SeekTruth, I believe you have missed the crucial points here. For example where ephesians 1 says that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. Or that God, as other than Christ, actually raised him to seat him there. Whatever this "distinction" between the Father and Christ is, it allows them to sit next to each other. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
370 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228581 | ||
SeekTruth, You said, "You'll find that there's a lot of common ground between us when we explain that." So what of the Holy Spirit being present at the same time as Christ? Christ seated next to the Father? The Father speaking from heaven audibly to the Son? I would expect you to answer that God can manifest Himself in these ways at the same time. So now lets find some common ground. If you grant... That God will manifest Himself for all eternity in the three forms of Father, Son, and Spirit, and that he does now and will do so for all eternity That these three manifestations of one God actually speak with each other, and enjoy each other, and otherwise interact with each other That they actually can give and be gifts to each other Act 2:33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. Then take all of that and say that it is the permanent, eternal, expression of God of Himself to creation, THEN I think we will find that we have some common ground if not agreement. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
371 | God glorified in suffering | 2 Cor 1:9 | Beja | 224128 | ||
For your edification, http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/665_americas_ugly_exported_gospel/ In Christ, Beja |
||||||
372 | how do you explain to someone that does | 2 Cor 4:6 | Beja | 224267 | ||
lionheart, No, I haven't read that one in particular but I have read a few of those types of books. I use to be very interested in apologetics. Currently I'm watching a large video series which I bought from Answers in Genesis ( www.answersingenesis.org ) However, I think those things are primarily usefull for Christians to build up their faith and edify them. I don't think they serve a primary role in conversion, though I'm not suggesting that they hurt. I can't help but think to the passage about the rich man and lazarus. The rich man pleaded to Abraham that he would send Lazarus from the dead to his brothers. Abraham responded that he should listen to Moses and the Prophets. Lazarus countered that if one came up from the dead that then they would listen. The key response was when Abraham said that if they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets then they would not listen even though one should rise from the dead. I think so often we are of the same bent. We keep thinking that if we had more evidence they would listen; or perhaps if we had better facilities, more exciting events, a somewhat less judgmental gosepl etc etc etc. But the truth is if they will not listen to the scripture they won't listen. Because it is at the preaching of Christ that God has been pleased to shine that saving light into our hearts such that we would truely perceive the "light of the glory of God in the face of Christ." However, as stated, I do enjoy apologetics and have often been edified by such things. I just want the many people who may happen to read this post to never substitute them for the clear presentation of the gospel, for it is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. (Rom 1:16) My apologies, have been on vacation so I haven't preached in two weeks and I might be getting a little long winded as a result. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
373 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214801 | ||
The answers being given which argue that malachi chapter 3 doesn't apply to the church are arguing from a dispensational view point with regards to the church and Israel. As dispensational thought falls, so do their answers. I leave you all to your own thoughts on this. As for me I think it does apply to us. In Love, Beja |
||||||
374 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214833 | ||
To all who responded to me, My apologies for taking so long to respond! I'm on vacation currently. It seems the discussion has left me behind to the point that my answers now are moot but I'll say a few things. First let me preface with a few points. 1. I in no way ment for my brief answer to be smug. My only intentions were to bring up that there was an entire theological presupposition behind the answers given and if you wanted to be sure of the answers, you had to agree with the presuppositions. I have my own view through which I read scripture, so I don't mean to insult anybody by saying you have presuppositions. 2. I highly respect the view that says we are now to be cheerful givers and that will typically manifest itself in giving much more than a tithe. I don't agree with it, but I certainly respect the brothers and sisters who hold that view. It shows a good heart even if I am correct in thinking it shows flawed assumptions. 3. Finally, I offer further thoughts concerning the church and Israel only in the spirit of enjoyable discussion. My view is that when Christ came what constituted the people of God changed. Not replaced, changed. The people of God was no longer a national identity, but with the influx of all believers of all peoples it grew into the church. Galatians 3, Romans 4 and 9 and 11 reflect this view point. All the promises of Israel belong to us, the church, not the nation. (with a few exceptions that are extremely short term promises.) So the old testament is not ancient history that has no meaning to us because it was God's working with a different people. That is the story of God dealing with his people, of whom we are a part. The question comes then, am I saying we still are under the law? Not in the same sense the jews were. The law of sacrifices, the laws of ceremonial distinctions for the sake of keeping jews visably seperate from other nations, no, those have nothing to do with us except to teach us that we as Christians are to be distinct, or to teach us as Christians something about what Christ's sacrifice meant. The moral laws however, not to steal, not to covet, not to murder...shall any of you argue that those are not the expectations of our God on us today? They no longer carry the sting of judgement for those who are in Christ but as an expectation they do. In fact living in sin with regards to these things without repentance is a pretty good indication that somebody has never come to Christ by faith and repentance. So the question then becomes where do tithes fall into place in this scheme? My opinion, its a moral issue. So in summary, I believe the Church is the true Israel. Why? Because I think Paul and therefore the new testament teaches that. And IF that is what the New Testament teaches, all our arguements mean nothing. I don't care how much or how little you think it makes sense, I intend to subject my thinking to correction by scripture. I use to hold a dispensational view, after enough reading of scripture, I saw that needed correcting. Sorry if this is unclear, I am on vacation without my books, also clearly I mean to offer this as explination of my views rather than a detailed defense. In Love, Beja |
||||||
375 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214856 | ||
Dear Val, First, I much welcome the term "inhouse debate" as I know well you and I are like minded on the great majority of our faith, as shown by many posts. Second, perhaps what I said was a mildly bold statement, but lets not make it more so than it really was. What I meant was simply this: in the course of reading scripture I have found dispensational thought to not measure up. Dispensational thought aside, is this not what we want from a Christian? To constantly let their view points be corrected by reading scripture? It was not a claim to being a master of all scripture or a master of all theology, rather a statement that as I have read I have found scripture to have a view point that was contrary to dispensational thought. (I say dispensational thought, but I am specifically thinking of their view point of Israel and the Church.) Third, you said that my view was a dangerous one, and I am uncertain as to which of my view points you refer to. I've talked about Israel/church, Law as it relates to a Christian, and tithing. I am thinking you meant the Israel/church view point and will answer this post assuming that to be the case, but please clarify which view point and also share with me what danger you believe is in it. Finally, a brief offering of passages for you to consider. I've mentioned these in my previous post. Romans 4, 6 and 11 specifically are worth reading. As you read through these ask yourself whether it sounds like Paul is seeing Israel and the Church as two distinct things from beggining to end or rather if he sees Christians as fulfilling what was going on in Israel, or the true children spoken of with regards to abrahams children, or something grafted in, etc. Also there are verses like Galatians 3:7, and Philippians 3:3 to consider. Finally we must account for the fact that very often the apostles themselves do exactly what a dispensational thinkers says they must not do! Namely they take a prophecy which was clearly in reference to Israel and they say it was to be applied to the church. How are we to understand this? A dispensationalist will typically say, "well, the apostles can do what they want since they are inspired." Which may well be true, but what if they did this not because they were inspired to read scripture in a way none of the rest of us could predict, but rather they understood the church to be the rightful and proper heirs to all the promises of God to Israel? The view that the old testament was a series of failed dispensations between God and man in my opinion leaves us with a horribly malnourished view of scripture and sense of God. Granted under that view point all these dispensations were known to be going to fail ahead of time by God. Rather the view point which I would commend to you sees the entire of scripture as one plan, with one end (the cross), exalting one figure (christ.) The promises were always pointing towards the Cross and Christ. Hope this helps clarify and I very much look forward to hearing your concerns with this view as your voice is certainly one I hold with respect on this forum. In Love, Beja |
||||||
376 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214857 | ||
Hey Tim, I'll gladly grant the term Israel of promise. And this mainly comes into play as we see that all the promises to Israel were our promises and points to Christ. The effect this has on the law is very much secondary. But let me elaborate on how I see that affecting Christians. First, we have to deal with how Jesus discuses the law in Matthew Chapter 5. Our instructor is no merely Paul, but he entirety of the scripture (a view I know you wholely agree with.) In Matthew 5:17-20 Christ says not to think he came to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it. Second and perhaps more important for our current discussion He states that whoever teaches to not do one of the commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Now, unless we wish to argue that Christ was giving a command that was specifically only meant to be in place in the span of time between when he said this and when he died on the cross then this command is on us. I do not think that Matthew, chose to include a command that he thought to be obsolete. So I confess to you that my assumption is that in some sense Matthew 5:19 is binding on christian believers. Now, following that, we see from other places in scripture, Paul and Hebrews come to mind, that sacrifice commands of the Law are certainly gone, second, in Ephesians Paul is clear that the dividing wall of the Law seperating gentiles and God's people is Gone. (I think that's chapter 2.) In that laws that had no lasting moral value but were only meant to seperate Jews from gentiles vanished. So we began to see that if we assume that the whole bible agrees with itself, which I do believe, that scripture must be speaking of the law with different key meanings, and that it leaves Christ to be speaking of ideas such as do not covet, do not steal, do not murder which are moral laws. Here is the point, understanding this distinction in the law is necessary to harmonize scripture, and in truth I do not think it to be twisting scripture but really what was in the minds of its authors. Did Paul see us as still having this moral law? See Ephesians 4:17-24. Paul speaks of the sins they must cast aside in their following Christ and even goes so far to say that if you have learned Christ, you learned that you must do this. Think of the impact of what Paul is saying, if you haven't learned this you have not be rightly taught Christ! I urge you to read that passage now, then finish reading my post so it will be clear in your mind what I speak of. So next, as you say, Paul considers us done with all the law, how do I fit that into my view? First, as just stated, he doesn't see us as completely done with the morality presented in the law. But in another sense he does see us as done with it. He sees this firt in the sense that it no longer holds any sting of condemnation over us. The aspect of it that says, "Do this and live" is gone. We now live by faith. But there is a second way that he sees us finished with it that goes a lot further to explain what we are talking about. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 reveals his thinking on this. And keep in mind he doesn't make his distinction here based on Christians and non Christians. He divides it based on the just and lawless, those who do good and those who do bad. He points out that the law is there to restrain the evil of evil doers, not the good of those who do good. Allow me to sum up what I believe him to be thinking here (but do read the passage). The idea is this, if we are truely following the spirit, and following Christ's leading we will be so far from the idea of stealing that the rule is pointless to us. We will be so far from the idea of murdering that the rule will have no bearing on us. It would be like telling somebody headed to Mexico that they can not go into Canada. The law has no application on one that is constantly asking "How may I most glorify Christ and serve others today?" So the law wholely remains upon us that stealing is wrong, that coveting is wrong, that lying is wrong, that murder is wrong, and we shall not do these things, no will it ever be abolished (as Christ said), it will never be permisable to us. Righteousness did not stope being righteousness when you and I were saved. But in Paul's eyes, "what does that have to do with you and me?" We are bound to Righteousness and following Christ, a restriction holding back the evil of an evil doer is not our concern, following Christ is. I hope this wasn't massively confussing. And at the end of this all I can entirely accept that a brother in Christ doesn't see tithing as one of these moral things such as stealing, lying, coveting, etc. If that is all we disagree on from what I've said its a small departure indeed. In Love, Beja |
||||||
377 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214860 | ||
Since I've said so very much, I might as well go ahead and share what I believe is the "tell" in dispensational thinking. I use this word in the sense that it is used in a poker game. In poker, a "tell" is something that reveals what's going on in somebody's hand. For example they may get giggly during a good hand, or fidget with their ear, or try to act cool in an obvious way. In the same sense I believe that dispensational theology has a glaring "tell" that while it does not prove it is wrong, it should give us all a very serious flag that it is wrong. The "tell" of dispensational thinking is how many times they will say with regards to scripture, "that doesn't apply to us." Their view of massive portions of scripture is that was meant for them, and this is meant for us. Something in our gut ought to feel very uneasy about such statements, especially made so frequently. The NT writers thought differently. See 1 Corinthians 10 where Paul is describing the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness when in verse 6 he says, "Now these things happened as examples for us." The point was for our teaching! Second in 1 Peter 1:10-12 it says, "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of CHrist within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of CHrist and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but YOU" The New testament seems to be written under the assumption that the things in the Old Testament were for us! While I would not say this proves dispensational thought wrong, it is the most glaring thing that we should all feel wrong with it, in my opinion. In Love, Beja |
||||||
378 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214862 | ||
Dear Wild Olive Shoot, That really has become the next question hasn't it? And a very fair one I might add. First, it is important to consider that the first time we see tithing is not in the law, but rather in Abraham tithing to Melchizedek in Genesis Chapter 14. Now, why would Abraham do this? My suggested answer is that God had taught his people more about relating to Him than is revealed to you and I in the first 14 chapters of Genesis. I think the notion of honoring God with the first fruits of your increase is a moral teaching that God has always taught His people before even the law. It is a moral issue because it is not a matter of symbolism, but rather a matter of Christlikeness (being a giver) and a matter of honoring God. This is the very essensce of being a moral issue rather than ceremony. Now, I will grant this is hardly an answer that proves my view point as it relies very heavily on my assumptions I bring to that passage to interpret it. A second reason that it makes sense to me is that this is exactly how you would teach a child to become a giver. I have a daughter, I will require my daughter to give in order to help shape her into a giver. Now, the goal is for her to become somebody who gives without compulsion. But in order to create that you don't just say to a child, do whatever you please and I shall hope you choose what is good. No, first you require some giving in order to teach them that this is important, and in my family we will do so. Second, you encourage, bless, and praise further giving so that the child is moving from knowing this is important, to developing a taste and love for it. This is exactly what I perceive God to be doing in tithes and offerings. Now, I whole heartedly agree that what I have said does not prove my stance. But as I said in a previous post, I very much appreciate the view point of a Christian that says we are to give willingly and sacrificially and if we follow the Spirit's lead in this its probably going to be more than a tenth. I would not spend my time arguing with such a generous heart. My entrance in this discussion was instead based on the answers assuming a dispensational view point for instruction. Hope this helps. In Love, Beja |
||||||
379 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214868 | ||
Keily, Perhaps I am in fact misunderstanding your stance. To help me clarify, could you tell me what you see as the means of acquiring salvation in the various dispensations. Perhaps this question will not help me to understand, but it might drag out the distinctives in your stance for me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
380 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214869 | ||
Val, You have said so much in that post. I wish to honor what you've asked with regards to dropping labels, but to fill in what dispensationals think with regards to Israel and the Church...they believe that the Old Testament promises are specifically for national Israel. The two should never be confused. My stance that I"m arguing is that the promises for Israel made in the Old testament, are really promises that are fulfilled in Christ and in the Church. That is the heart of what is being discussed and disagreed upon. Now, those who think as I do, do not look to national Israel to fulfill a hosts of promises. However, God is not done with ethnic Israel in this view point either. Paul is clear that they will be restored (Romans 11) but the implications of that restoration is not a new successful national identity, but rather a large spread conversion to Christ. The people of God, and the promises of God, are found in Christ and in the Church. That's the heart of the disagreement without the passage work explaining why. I understand that somebody who hears this would wonder why anybody would ever come to such a conclusion, shouldn't we just understand Israel to be Israel? And the answer to that is really that it seems the new testament writers do not see fit to make such a distinction. In my understanding, the New Testament offers see all the promises to Israel fulfilled in Christ and the Church. All I can say is as you continue your study, watch how they quote and make use of the Old Testament. Now, the danger in this view is still absent. Why would we take land from Israel? That doesn't fit in anybody's theology. But you are correct that this effectively takes the spot light off of the nation of Israel and puts it onto the church. There is not a plan for the Church, and a plan for Israel. There is one plan for the people of God and that has always been salvation by grace through faith in the promises of Christ. I'm not sure about our capability of carrying this discussion further, I think you and I are pretty clear about the differences of the views now between the two of us. But we'd have to work through a great many scriptures to talk it out. Your last post was very clear and excellently presented your view point, but you also illustrated just what a massive discussion we've begun. Whether we like it or not, we've embarked upon systematic theology at this point rather than single passage exegisis. In Love, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [26] >> |