Results 401 - 420 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223836 | ||
Godinus, You said that we should not be concerned so long as we can agree on two things. 1.) That we are all saved. I am very hesitant to affirm that anybody who is depending on something which we do, is in fact a saved person. 2.) That arguing doctrine causes division. I agree that it does, but if you are implying by that that we should cease to argue doctrine then I disagree entirely. It is very important that we understand what scripture teaches. Give me a divisive search for truth rather than a happy unity in heresy any day. Though admitedly a happy unity in truth is the goal. To answer your questions. 1.) Corresponding to what? Noah and his family being brought safely through the waters of the flood. That should be pretty clear though how it corresponds to it is certainly less simple. 2.) The brackets signal an interruption from the train of thought. In this case, Peter is saying that baptism now saves us, but he interupts his train of thought to make sure that we all know that when he says this he does not mean the dunking in water. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
402 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223839 | ||
Godinus, I understand what you are saying. However, while I probably have no chance to convince clsx2, there are literally hundreds of people who frequent these forums to read them but never ever post. Among those people are some that read a post such as clsx2's and wonder how to respond to a verse such as what he referred to. Sometimes even when I have no expectation to persuade the person I'm speaking to, I post for the sake of the silent readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
403 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223842 | ||
Godinus, Why stop reading Peter there? Keep reading the very passage you quoted, verse 9 says, "obtaining as teh outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." Then later in verse 23, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is through the living and enduring word of God. He goes on in this discussion of being born again through the word to say in chapter 2 verse 7, "This precious value then, is for you who believe" And I can hardly believe anybody would dare use Romans to justify baptismal regeneration. Romans 5:1,2 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand." Romans 3:24 and following say, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (and on to verse 26)...for the demonstration, I say of His righteousness at the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
404 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223861 | ||
Godinus, You've written so much I think its a little beyond me to respond to the entirety of it as it deserves, as it would require a very massive post. However, let me show a few examples of the assumptions and poor exegesis that characterises your whole post. You said, "In order for this statement of yours to be true and fill the position of their works like you are saying then the act of baptism itself would have to come from their own head that baptism was something they could do in order to gain salvation but as you can see it was a mandate to the disciples from Jesus Himself. By that mandate it is showing that baptism is not in the realm of - - their works." So anything Jesus commands us to do becomes not a work? Jesus commanded a great many things including to do all that the pharisees commanded because they sat in the seat of Moses, and to be perfect as our Father in heaven was perfect. So now because Christ commanded them I can validly say that this is how you must be saved and I'm completely immune to the accusation that I'm preaching a works rightousness? Where are you getting such a notion from? The truth is that Christ did command us to do some works, but that does not mean everything he commanded us is the means of salvation. Next, the rest being spoken of in Hebrews four seems to be a future rest, not at all speaking of a rest from the law currently in Christ. The verse in Titus never even mentions baptism! On the contrary it says "by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit." The regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit is being called a washing. In fact this is what we affirm. I'm still not sure how you are trying to connect this verse to the ones in Ephesians. Are you suggesting that the works mentioned in Ephesians 2:10 is referring to the work of baptism? If so I am baffled as to how you can come to this conclusion since it lacks any basis whatsoever. You are just saying a great deal of unfounded things then dressing them in some very missaplied scriptures. Also this seems to be a very far cry from you encouraging me to just let everybody believe what they desire and that doctrine is devisive so lets just let people preach baptismal regeneration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
405 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223862 | ||
I found a great quote from A.T. Robertson while doing a search on this stuff. For those who don't know who he is, his book on greek grammer is basically a major milestone in greek studies still to this day referenced by greek scholars. Here is what he has to say about Acts 2:38 This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36). Incase any couldn't follow what he is saying, the big daddy of greek grammer says that it is a perfectly and equally valid use of greek grammer to translate Acts 2:38 as, "because of/based upon the forgiveness of sins" rather than "for the forgiveness of sins." And that this other option is so equally a valid way to translate it, that one will ultimately decide based on their own theological bent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
406 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223871 | ||
Godinus, You've misread me on two points. The divisive search for truth isn't the utopian idea you've understood me to say. Also, a mistaken belief is not a "truth." If there are two contradictory statements then at least one of them is wrong. So I believe with two contradictory statements we can seek to show that one is contrary to scripture, if not both. Second, when I said "lets just let people preach baptismal regeneration" I was in no way suggesting we do that, but rather quoting the spirit of one of your previous posts. If you are suggesting that baptism is the means of our salvation then I fully believe this is a heresy and it should not be preached. So I apologize for that confusion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
407 | preaching the Gospel? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 226978 | ||
Julia, 1.) The things your husband are teaching are false. In the case of the trinity I would assume he is denying that Jesus is God. If that is the case your husband isn't a saved man. 2.) I get the impression that you don't have a firm doctrinal stance yourself. Do you attend church? Are you a part of some denomination? 3.) Winning him over with your actions is exactly what Peter instructed in 1 peter. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
408 | preaching the Gospel? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 227014 | ||
julco, Very good. I am glad to hear it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
409 | How should we view Christianity. | Eph 4:24 | Beja | 243902 | ||
EdB, You are arguing for rules that go beyond what God commands, and you are saying that we ought to have no dealings with the unclean untrustworthy sinners who are unbelievers, and then you are saying others sound as pharisees. You really ought to consider the irony in that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
410 | How should we view Christianity. | Eph 4:24 | Beja | 243918 | ||
... | ||||||
411 | A Godly reason for disobeying husband | Eph 5:24 | Beja | 224536 | ||
Just as a point of clarification. If a husband commands his wife to contradict the word of God she must disobey THAT command. That doesn't mean she now may disobey all commands. I would assume this is in fact what justme meant. Though correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth, Justme. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
412 | Marriage as a Covenant Relationship? | Eph 5:32 | Beja | 206779 | ||
My deepest apologies, I think I responded to the wrong post with this as I was reading several then went back and replied, I thought the question was with regards to our new testament context relationship with christ being a covenant, I didn't mean to speak on marriage at all with that answer, please forgive me on this one. | ||||||
413 | Marriage as a Covenant Relationship? | Eph 5:32 | Beja | 206836 | ||
Bowler, Please see my second post in this thread. |
||||||
414 | 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 |
||||||
415 | To Snitch or Not To Snitch ??? | Phil 2:2 | Beja | 224117 | ||
PewPotato, That verse works both ways. I would assume deceiving for gain also implied the other party was being deceived resulting in loss. If you were being scammed would you want somebody to tell you? Should Mordecai have snitched on the people planning to murder the king? I think we all agree that he should. Should you snitch if you see a man breaking into your neighbors house? I think we would all agree. What difference is there in this beyond the greatness of the crime? In one sense your verses are finely spoken. He should not tell out of some sense of vengence or hostility, but rather out of love for the one being wrong. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
416 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Beja | 240192 | ||
Movingon, "is the same as most Amillennial twisting of plain literal words to suit their own inventions" Perhaps a little more graciousness to those we disagree with would be fitting. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
417 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Beja | 240199 | ||
Movingon, Sorry it took so long for my reply. I've read over most, but not all, of the thread you pointed me to. I am no judge or jury on this forum nor do I intend to present myself as such. But since you have asked me regarding it, or at least I think you have... It is quite easy to identify where that thread went wrong. The problem was that it began with an insincere question. When I say an insincere question I mean a question that was not actually seeking to learn something. You already had your answer resolved, you asked purely to bait somebody to answer so that you could then "instruct" the forum. Everytime this happens on the forum it leads to a confrontational thread. Usually it is the sign that the poster will stay briefly and argue much. I so hope you prove this wrong. I hope you stay long and are benefitted by this community. But I also hope you refrain from trying to make this forum your personal teaching ministry. So often somebody will come here and they don't come to study scripture and to grow with everybody. The arrive planning to teach us something they assume we have all missed. This never goes well. You will likely continue to find yourself in confrontational threads as long as it is your intentions to be a "teacher." So much more good could be done on this forum if we all simply had the mind to discuss particular texts of scripture together. But sadly more often we come to this forum not studying scripture, but to argue for our systematic theologies. Systematic theology is great, but when we debate systems rather than slowing down and discussing individual sections of scripture we learn little and debate much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
418 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220644 | ||
To various parties reading the tithing thread, As we have seen very clearly, the question of tithing is unavoidably tied to the question of how the law applies to New Testament believers. This is a question that impacts a great deal of things. Unfortunately it is something we have failed to understand more often than not. I would rather not debate the question on the forum, but I'd like to give some questions to help people think through the question. 1. When scripture says we are not under the law but under grace, does it mean a.that the moral laws of the old testament are no longer to be understood as how we should live? b.or does it mean that we are no longer going to be judged by them for our acceptance before God? 2. To facilitate this question, think through the ten commandments. Have they been abolished by Christ as rules for His people? Don't give a blanket theological answer, go back and look through them one at a time in Exodus 20 and ask it individually. 3. Did Christ teach that he was going to do away with the law? See Matthew chapter 5:17 and following verses. 4. Clearly scripture teaches that the ceremonial laws that were just meant to point to a future reality in Christ are gone. These are things such circumcision, festivals, sacrifices, dietary laws etc. IF you have decided FIRST that we are not judged before God based on the moral law, but we still are guided and instructed by the moral laws, such as do not murder, do not commit adultery etc. THEN you must decide how tithing fit into the old testament. In Short, was it a moral command or one of these ceremonial commands? Was tithing a sign given to point to Christ? Or was tithing as a command to honor God from your wealth an actual moral issue? 5. Now, if you have decided that even though we are not condemned by the law any longer, but we are to walk rightly according to it, and that tithing is infact a moral issue, we must consider how a christian was meant to view the law, even while walking in obedience to it. 6. In that case I would turn you to 1 Tim 1. What you will find is that the law will never be a problem to one following Christ by walking in the spirit, for the spirit is going to lead you to worship, love, and give. None of which are against the law. (I imagine galatians 5 is in my mind as I say this also.) The reason when you ask about tithes we get as many answers as we do, is that their answer assumes their stance on everything above. Whether they have actually thought through those questions or not, they have fallen into some stance on them. Now, in my opinion, those who think we have nothing to do with the tithe, need to think very hard about points 1 through 3. If somebody may say they think we should still walk in accord with the ten commandments, they may decide that tithing was simply a sign, to what I couldn't guess. I think its part of the moral law, but each must decide that themselves. Then on the other end of the spectrum there are those who think tithing is the point. And we best follow every point of it. They have an opinion of whether it is gross or net, etc. To them I would suggest you think very hard about point 6, as well as read 2 Cor chapters 8 and 9. I would encourage them to see that the point is not nearly so much about the money as a giving heart. And a giving heart will never struggle with tithing in the same way that somebody motivated entirely by love will never struggle with murder. I do not expect this to settle any disagreements, but only to help people think through the issue, and to understand why nobody agrees. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
419 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220659 | ||
Val, How shall I respond? Your post ignores every question I posted for thought and simply says that I'm wrong. My very first question was asking people to consider what scripture means by such things? Does every command need to be repeated in the new testament, or does the new testament assume the morality of the old? Show me please where the new testament forbids beastiality. And if you can not, shall I assume it is permissible since it is not repeated in the new? ENGAGE with what I said. Second, I think what you said was not very gracious. Why would you accuse me or anybody's motives as simply wanting to spend your money? I assure you that giving, and giving to the church specifically is biblical. Romans 12:13 says we are to be, "contributing to the needs of the saints." Galatians 6:6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 1 Cor 9:13,14 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. Might I ask where the money is to come from for this? Is it not people giving to the church? I challenge you to study 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18. Specifically to a word study on the word translated as "honor" in verse 17. Then see how paul uses the same Ox example in 1 Cor 9. I assure you I need no "tithe law" to scriptually preach that people should be supporting the church and pastor. My motive is not some worldly enjoyment of spending "other people's money." My goal is that I very much want to learn what scripture teaches so that I may walk obediently before my God. I challenge you again to actually engage with my post rather than simply dismissing it. What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:17 and the following verses? How would you biblically argue that beastiality is wrong? What if I deny that it falls under the blanket categories of fornication and immorality? Can you prove from scripture that when the NT says that we are no longer under the law, it means, "Nothing said in the old testament can any longer tell us how one ought to live?" My post was meant to help us start looking at our assumptions yet you responded with nothing but unspoken assumptions. Please clarify. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
420 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220664 | ||
Val, 1. The book of Hebrews does not specifically say, "The law was abolished." In fact, if you do a search with a simple tool, you will find that the absolutely only time these two words are used in a verse together within the entire New Testament is in Matthew 5:17. I do not deny that Hebrew has a passage in particular which if read a certain way would amount to such a statement. But say those words "specifically" it most certainly does not. I'm thinking of Hebrews 7:12. But I would agree with John Gill when he says that this is not referring to the moral law but the systems of sacrifices. I think the context supports this. 2. "It was for Israel" If tithing was specifically instituted at mount sinai as a pact with Israel and ended with Christ, then why did Abraham tithe? 3. "We just have different perspectives" "Let us agree to disagree" The entire point of my post which you first responded to, was to help people understand what presuppositions causes the multitude of answers on the question of tithing. I was attempting to do this as a service because I worried about young christians seeing a simple question getting such wildly different answers. The way one answers the question of tithing is based on how one answers the question of the law's role with a Christian. You yourself are proving that your answer is based on this. What I wanted, was to present the question of the law clearly and let readers think through that so they could understand and formulate their own opinion on the tithe as it pertains to Christians. If you want us to agree to disagree, then let it lay there, with us letting people disagree on the role of the law in Christianity. That is where the disagreement is, not on tithes. The stances on tithes is merely a symptom of ones stance on the law. 4. "The other subjects you mentioned would be covered in their own topics." I am only discussing two topics, law and tithing. And both of these you once again made authority like statements on without quoting any scripture whatsoever. In conclusion, I do not mind letting us agree to disagree, or even letting the discussion end. But what we are discussing is a question that great minds have written many many pages on in the past. All I am attempting to do is give people a chance to think through these theological issues which shape our views on many things such as tithes. If you wish to discuss it with me, I very much welcome your careful presentation of your view from scripture. But if you have no interest in doing that, and just want to agree to disagree, I am happy to go along with that also. But please choose. Either articulate your position from scripture, or disagree silently. But don't just make decisive statements regarding the law over issues that have been debated for centuries as if you can declare the issue clear and closed, and that without quoting scripture. If you wish to look further into this via a book, I highly reccommend Edward Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity. Its a good place to start. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [26] >> |