Results 521 - 540 of 629
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
521 | Sabbath. | Matt 12:1 | Lionstrong | 7686 | ||
The framers of the Confession believed the Scriptures taught that the fourth Commandment was not ceremonial and temporary, but moral and binding on all men in all ages. ................................................ The last day Sabbath was based on God's great work of Creation; and the first day Sabbath was based on God's great work of Redemption. |
||||||
522 | Sabbath. | Matt 12:1 | Lionstrong | 7685 | ||
From the Westminster Confession of Faith (verses given are those referenced in the Confession): ................................................................. Chapter 21, paragraph 7: "As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him: (Ex. 20:8,10,11; Isa 56:2,4,6,7) which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, (Gen 2:2,3; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Acts 20:7) which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's day, (Rev. 1:10) and is to be continured to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath." (Ex. 20:8; Matt. 5 :17,18) |
||||||
523 | Did Gamaliel give sound advice? | Acts 5:34 | Lionstrong | 7678 | ||
Gamaliel's argument for the release of the Apostles was unsound. He argued: 1. if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown. 2. if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God. He gave two "ifs" and two "thens," two antecedents and two consequents. The argument should have been: "If this is so, then that is so. This IS so. Therefore that is so." Gamaliel never established the middle term of his argument. He never established whether the movement was of God or man. Some smart council member could have stood up and said, "Well, Gamaliel, Sir, which is it, of man or of God? You know we already believe this Way is not of God. Will you convince us otherwise?" |
||||||
524 | "Let Us make man in Our image." | Gen 1:26 | Lionstrong | 7659 | ||
I like the grammatical analysis. Translating the preposition as "as" agrees with 1 Cor 11:7, "...since he /man/ IS the image and glory of God;" (My emphasis) However, I am not comfortable with the interpretation that seems to have God conforming to the customs of ancient Middle Eastern potentates. |
||||||
525 | Is this person saved? | Heb 6:4 | Lionstrong | 7531 | ||
Just a short side note (not intended to take this thread too far afield), Steve: ....................................................................................................... Although all sins deserve God's wrath, some sins are worse than others. For example, God shows Ezekiel (chapter 8) that the sins of Judah were a greater abominations than those of Israel. ...............So, yes, corrupting good morals by running with the wrong crowd (1 Cor 15:33) is a greater sin than not submitting to the governing authority's traffic law (Rom 13:1). But I agree with you that both are sins against God. |
||||||
526 | Does knowledge out weight truth | 2 Tim 3:7 | Lionstrong | 7523 | ||
Hi Ray, Thanks for your answer. I think this Study Bible Forum is a good place for such searching. We can post our thoughts on whatever verse we're meditating on. Others in the forum can then read our thoughts and make those thoughts profitable by either giving further teaching on the subject from Scripture, or reproving, or correcting, or giving further 'training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16,17) |
||||||
527 | ANTI or PRO? Which is it? | 1 Tim 6:20 | Lionstrong | 7423 | ||
"many convolutions!?" :-) .................................... 1) Only the Bible contains real truth. ....................................... No. The Bible alone is the Word of God. Therefore it is inerrant and infallible in toto. It is the only rule of faith and practice. That does not mean no other books contain truth, i.e., Paul quoting the Greek poets.................................................................... 2) This truth is in accord with the spiritual nature of God. It is not 'knowable' by the natural man. ........................................................ Yes, but the natural man does know truth by which he is held accountable to God. (Rom 1:16 - 2:16) ..................................... 3) Man's perception of truth is warped by his fallen nature. The history of human science is bound by this curse. Well, yes, but there;s no human endeavor that's not effected by the Fall, including scientific pursuits. But this is not why science is false............................................... 4) We are to try to discern truth through the Spirit of God, doing all we can to disassociate ourselves from the nature of man. ................ Of course, all we do is to be done in the Spirit's power, so that God may be glorified, but I don't understand what you mean by disassociating ourselves from the nature of man. Man is the image of God. Why would we want to disassociate ourselves from this nature?.............................................................. It is curious that some believers think that ordering ones life solely by that which equips a man for EVERY good work as having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses not obvious to the intelligence........................................................ But you are pardoned :-) |
||||||
528 | Does knowledge out weight truth | 2 Tim 3:7 | Lionstrong | 7402 | ||
Agreed, but knowledge and truth should not be pitted against each other. They are not enemies and it's not either-or. To KNOW God and His Christ is eternal life. (John 17:3) Besides, if those people don't know God, I doubt that what they have tons of is knowledge. | ||||||
529 | Does knowledge out weight truth | 2 Tim 3:7 | Lionstrong | 7397 | ||
2 Tim 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments. Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' I’m glad to know what you mean by fact, that is, “not things that you become convinced of.” I now understand your previous statement better, although your use is not the ordinary use of that word. We say, “is that a fact?!” or “face the facts,” or “Just the facts, Ma’am.” So, in ordinary use fact is synonymous with truth. But there’s no objection to using an odd meaning, just so long as it known how you are using it and that you remain consistent in that use. That being said, your antipathy toward “book knowledge” is objectionable. Piety, our pursuit of holiness, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God does not require us to be anti-intellectual. The above verses show the Apostle Paul to be a man of the books. To quote the Greeks poets evidences that he was well read in non-Jewish literature. As Paul is an example, “book knowledge” can enrich us and help us to speak more effectively to our culture. |
||||||
530 | Is heaven big enough to be God's home? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 7355 | ||
Of course, by definition (there's that word again :-) a spirit is not physical. Therefore, a spirit takes up no space. | ||||||
531 | Quest for Truth | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6986 | ||
"But what other God can you equate with the Truth?" None, but we're talking about the definition of truth at this point, not the fact that the God of the Bible is the only true God. |
||||||
532 | Quest for Truth | Josh 10:12 | Lionstrong | 6953 | ||
One can personify a word, in this case "Truth," but the personification of a word does not make that which is personified the definition of that word. | ||||||
533 | Man, the image of God | Gen 1:27 | Lionstrong | 6862 | ||
In Western culture one truth that needs emphasis is that man is the image of God. Western culture is under the influence of non-Christian world-views that say that there is no absolute truth. A scientific perspective that teaches that all reality can be reduced to scientific formulas, including man also sways our culture. In this scientific view there is nothing outside the mechanical laws and formulas, including man. Man is reduced to a bundle of psychological, sociological, and chemical conditionings. In contrast to this, the Bible teaches the wonderful truth that man is indeed outside of the mechanical laws and formulas. Man is not an intelligent animal, or is he some kind of biological computer. Man is neither animal nor machine. He is the image of his personal Creator God, the God of the Bible. As the image of God, man is capable of rational communication with his Maker, purposeful action, and wholehearted love. The issue is the value of man. If man is just a machine or an animal, then it’s ok for him to be treated that way. Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, racism and tyranny are justified. The value of man also has implications for the Gospel. If the value of man is that of an animal or machine, then it makes no sense that Jesus should sacrifice Himself for such. But as the image of God himself, the salvation he has in Christ makes perfect sense! |
||||||
534 | Using the "Roman's Road" to evangelize? | NT general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 6822 | ||
One will also find early examples of Gospel preaching in the book of acts. See Peter's preaching of the Gospel on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:14-40. You'll notice that Peter does not use the Roman Road presentaion of the Gospel. But Peter and Paul preached the same Gospel, but Peter taylored the Gospel message to the Jews, while Paul peached to the Gentiles. This illustrates that we shouldn't treat people in an impersonal way. We should personally taylor the truths of the Gospel to that person. We don't change the truth of the Gospel. We just try to make sure that we present the truths of the Gospel to our friends and neighbors in such a way that they will understand the Gospel. We don't have to explain the Gospel in the same order everytime. And we don't have to use the exact same words every time. God is not impersonal; He is personal. As we taylor the truths of the Gospel to our neighbors, by God's grace they will understand who Jesus is and their need for His salvation. | ||||||
535 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6801 | ||
The above note on the placing of the sun, moon and stars is an observation, not an interpretation. In v. 14 of the account of the fourth day, the obsevation is made that God speaks the sun, moon and stars into existance. In v. 17 is observed that God places them. Afterward follows a musing, a specultion, if you will, concerning the light from the distant stars. __________________________________________________It seems strange that Bible believers would deny that God created and placed the sun, moon and stars; and then become upset because someone makes note of it. | ||||||
536 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6799 | ||
Whew! I'm glad that's over! | ||||||
537 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6788 | ||
On your part no apology is needed. However, why , in whomever’s erudite opinion, wasn’t the posting as it stood “worthy,” and how did whomever decide its worthiness? __________________________________________________Granted the note and its direction could have been clearer, but look at the note as it was written. Paul says, “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth (“fingers” in this case :-), but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear (“read” in this case :-). What word of the note was unwholesome? Now, let it be conceded that some of our aged scholars within the forum may not find in this meager note much that is good for their own personal edification, but what in my posting was BAD for it? What in this posting warrants such ridicule, castigation and censorship, however frustrated one may be by such postings? _________________________________________________And poor jim, who kaint tipe two gud and who's thoughts may be somewhat muddled, is crushed when he tries to express his heart-felt love for God’s word! (see the response to jim’s post, “When Joshua prayed then what happened. I... “ jim Tue 05/29/01, 9:52pm) HAVE MERCY, YOU GUYS! Jim may be weak, but whatever happened to “A battered reed He will not break off, And a smoldering wick He will not put out?” Where is the application of Rom 14:1? “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment (that is, in the sense of condemnation) on his opinions.” _________________________________________________As to 2 Cor 10:5, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,....” Some consider the doctrines of evolution to be speculations raised up against the knowledge of God. | ||||||
538 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6753 | ||
Some enemies of the Bible as the Word of God try to support evolution by saying that the earth must be billions of years old, because the stars are billions of light years away. Therefore, they say, the earth must have been here for billions of years for the light from those stars to reach us. It was when I noticed that the creation and placing of sun, moon, and stars were separate acts, that I noted that this might be, in part at least, an explanation for a young earth and distant stars. .Now some venerable saints might see such notes as clowning around with the Word of God and beneath the high theological standards of the Study Bible Forum. Whereas others might see it as taking advantage of "a free study Bible with an unlimited margin." They might see it as a delighting in and meditating on the law of God (Ps 1) and seeing its implications in other areas of life; they might see it as taking every thought, not just the high theological ones, but every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:5) |
||||||
539 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6744 | ||
Ok, forget the "then," and just take the text. He created the sun, moon and stars by fiat. Subsequent verse, He placed them, two separate acts in sucession. | ||||||
540 | Placing of sun, moon and stars | Gen 1:17 | Lionstrong | 6714 | ||
It appears that God did not create the sun, moon and stars in place. He created them and then "placed" them. Maybe that's why the light from the stars, though great distances from the earth, is already here. They were created near the earth, then moved out to their places. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ] Next > Last [32] >> |