Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 20 of 45		Pages: [ 1 2 3 ] > Last [3] >>
Results from: Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Verse
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	RE: "immenint return" in first answer	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	3072
	I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness!) Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.)
2	What was the Lord's expectation?	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	3172
	You speak of TRUTH; however, you hide your eyes as not to see! If our interpretation of these scriptures are wrong, please correct us. I've given you 5 to 10 verses in the BIBLE (i.e. TRUTH), so if the interpretation I use is incorrect then you must know the correct one! Your view of Inspiration is difficult to understand. So, when Jesus said, "And what I say to you I say to all; Watch!" (Mk. 13:37) He must have, according to your interpretation, made a mistake; because, he told the apostles to WATCH for His return and it didn't take place! What is your procedure for eliminating verses from the Bible? Do you mark them out in red or white them out? What do you do? I apologize, but I truly don't understand your way of interpreting scripture! If it is true that Christ could come back at anytime would it still be an error to expect or, at least, hope for His return? And, if Paul knew, when he was alive, that it was indeed possible for Christ to come back during his life would it be wrong to expect or hope that Christ would come back in his(Paul's) lifetime? (Notice, in no verse in the BIBLE does Paul say, "I WILL be alive when he comes." But only when giving a demonstration of what will happen at the Lord's return, and since, I believe, he thought it could happen at anytime, he of course included himself in with the living; because, he was, at that time, alive! The fact that he demonstrates a TRUTH through an example that happened at that time shows he thought it could happen at that time, but giving an example of something in the year 60 AD, when the event could take place at anytime is not an error! It is simply giving the example under current conditions. If I were to say to you, if I were standing here when a nuclear bomb hit, I would be burned up! If a nuclear bomb hit when I wasn't there, would that make my statement untrue? No, what I said was still accurate, I just wouldn't be burned up; because, I was not in that spot.) I don't see this as an error, only proof of expectation! That expectation is the TRUTH! Paul, James, John, and the writer of Hebrews, in my opinion, suggest by their writings that they expected Christ to return during their lifetimes! Please notice John 21:20-23, would John be incorrect in thinking he MIGHT live to see the return of our Lord? If that EXPECTATION would have made him wrong then our Lord MISLED him. And, I think we both would agree that our Lord could not do that; because, as you said, GOD is Truth! I must say that this debate is interesting and your points are note worthy, but I think it profits us little. I love you in Christ, whatever you believe, but if it be the will of GOD for us to disagree on this subject, so be His will! Please let me know if I've misrepresented anything in this message, and I would love to hear your continued opinions on this subject, but I do surrender for the sake of dissapation. GOD bless!
3	What was the Lord's expectation?	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	3181
	Sorry, last comment: You said; "If John had interpreted that as teaching the "imminent return" as meaning that Lord could come back any day now, John's interpretation would be incorrect." To say someone 'could' do something is not the same as saying, someone 'will' do something. If our Lord wanted to take all of the sea out of the Sea of Galilee 'could' he have done it? OF COURSE HE COULD HAVE!! Just because He did not, does not mean He could not! You said, "We have 2000 years plus or minus of proof that Jesus' coming could not have occurred to date, because He did not come." If I would have wanted to, could I have stuffed myself full of choclate yesterday? Yes, I could have, but I didn't! This does not imply that I was unable at that time, it only implies that I, in fact, did not. And, I quoted several scriptures, not just one. I apologize again! GOD bless!
4	What was the Lord's expectation?	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	3237
	Sam, I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. I want to preface my comment, with a realization of the debate between Mike and myself. I truly have been blind to an important fact during our debate! As you probably noticed, Mike made it very clear that GOD's time schedule does not allow for immanent return, and for some reason I was blind to the fact that this was a major sticking point, that needed to be rectified. I agree with Mike fully, there is no such thing as immanent return for GOD! He knows everything! And, if you like Charles Stanley, you've probably heard that GOD cannot have expectations; because, He already knows the outcome. Immanent return is only relevant in Man's realm of time and space. Man does not know when the Lord will return, so he must always be looking for the Lord. This problem was clearly stated by Mike, but unfortunately, I was oblivious to this important point of contention. And, to note the difference is crucial! Immanent return is an idea that only exists in the limited time and limited knowledge in the realm of man. The reason I write is because I don't think I understand your comment. You say that all christians, in the past, who have believed in immanent return were wrong, but they were only wrong if it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have returned at that time. I assume that GOD is and was free to choose ANYTIME to send our Lord back to earth. Therefore, if GOD can choose anytime to send Jesus back or could have chose anytime in the past to send Him back, they were, in fact, correct in thinking that Christ COULD have come back during their lifetimes. Immanent return does not mean Christ WILL come back immediately, only that He COULD come back at anytime (which COULD be soon or even today). And, since I believe we would agree that NOTHING IS (or ever has been) IMPOSSIBLE TO GOD; He could have sent Jesus back in the past if He would have chosen to do so. So, for the sake of not 'being caught unprepared' our christian forefathers were, in my opinion, correct in keeping their heads up looking for Jesus. Notice, that immanent return is not to blame for any of the faulty predictions made in days past. The idea does not espouse a date for the return and in fact, suggests the opposite, since we CANNOT know the date we should always be on the look out; because, our Lord said, 'I am coming quickly!'
5	RE: "immenint return" in first answer	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	3241
	Lifer1J511 I'd like to ask not only Mike's, but your (and everyone else's who may read this debate) forgiveness in Christ, also, because, I truly have allowed my emotions to get the best of me in this debate. In response to your comment, I copied this message from a previous corrospondence; I have added an explanation or two of the comments, so if you have already read it, look for () before and after the new comments. I realize that in 2 Tim. and 2 Peter, Paul and Peter realized they were going to die and, at least in Paul's case he was already in prison probably with a death sentence so for him to foresee this is no huge surprise; Peter knew he was going to die from the Lords very mouth, so that does not mean he didn't believe in immanent return for all other believers. (John is the only other apostle that knew about Peter's destiny and John, I believe, taught immanent return.) I do not believe that Paul thought that he would die before the return of the Lord until the time of 2 Timothy! I believe there are several verses to suggest this is true the strongest examples are, Phil. 3:20, I Cor 15:51-52, and Thes. 4:15. Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" (Paul using "we" suggests that he is also waiting and expecting the Savior!) I Cor 15:51-52, "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (Paul, in the last section of verse 52 is comparing the dead being ‘raised' to the living being ‘changed' and he uses "we shall be changed." to include himself in the living.) Thes 4:15, " For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep." (Paul includes himself with those that will be alive when the Lord returns to rapture believers!) Other support by Paul includes: I Thes. 1:10, "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." (Paul taught all his converts to be ‘waiting' for the Lord, this suggests expectation.) Titus 2:11-13, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (The Grace of GOD instructs us to ‘look for' the return of the Lord! Again, implying expectation.) I also believe that immanent return is taught by most of the apostles, not Paul exclusively. Heb 10:37, "For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry." (tarry or delay) Jas 5:8, "Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (hand or near) 1 John 2:28, "And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (Using "we" John believes the manifestation will happen while he is alive to have boldness! My interpretation of this verse has been questioned, so I will try to defend it, I believe that when we die, WE GO to be with the Lord, I believe Paul teaches this clearly in Philippians 1:23, ‘But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better:' It seems to me, that Paul is strongly implying that if he would have died in prison, he would immediately GO and be with Christ. Why is that important? If John were not talking about the return of Christ when he used ‘we' in include himself, then Christ would not be manifested, but John would GO and be with the Lord, rather than the other way around. So, the fact that John includes himself being present and having boldness before Him he must be talking about if he were alive when Christ came, not when he died and went to be with the Lord. And, some might also suggest that John may have thought that he would live for an extended period of time because the Lord said that he might, but again, if that were the case he would use ‘I' not ‘we' to include people other than himself.) This comment made by our Lord** Rev 22:7, 12, 20; "And behold, I come quickly." ( Our Lord repeats this phrase in all three verses.)
6	Critical Text vs. Received Text	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	6899
	Nolan, Actually, the Critical and the Majority are almost identical in Revelation, it's the Received Text that has so many variations. (I think the reason is that the fella that put the text together only had 6 Greek texts and all of them were missing portions of Revelation, so he translated the Latin Vulgate BACK to Greek.) Actually, the Majority Text is 'critically' appraised just like the Critical Text, but the two oldest manuscripts, which are the basis for the CT, are not given extra weight.(At least this is my understanding, I'm often wrong on these issues and my memory is not always reliabe! Darkness to Light is quite thorough on this issue, but you will have to ignore some of the reformed theology talk!) The Majority Text does give older manuscripts more weight, but not as disproprtiantly as the Critical. I would simply like a NASB Bible with all the variants between the CT and MT compared, in the back of the Bible or in the margin, like the NKJV. Unfortunately, the NKJV uses the RT and shows variants between the RT and MT and CT, so you end up looking in the margins more than you do in the text! (slight exaggeration:-) I also noticed that a new translation , the Holman Christian Standard Bible lables all varients but it doesn't tell you which is a varient from the MT verses a variant from the RT, HCSB uses the CT for the text. I don't trust the RT if the MT does not agree with it, see I Jn 5:7b in a KJV or NKJV, "For there are three that bear witness (in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.)" The brackets show what amount of this verse is in neither the MT nor the CT! This addition is only in a handful of manuscripts, and I do believe there was some tampering with the holy Scripture but it was late (after 1000AD?) shortly before the printing press. These variants are clearly weeded out by the Majority Text. One other note, an honest consideration of the book of Hebrews forces one to admit that the writer was using the LXX for quotations rather than the Hebrew Old Testament. And, some of the quotations used are not found in the Hebrew OT, so if GOD decided that the LXX was good enough for quotations in the NT, any of these three mss will lead us to the truth! GOD bless!
7	Critical Text vs. Received Text	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	6900
	I'd like to add one more thing, Nolan. I truly believe that the CT and MT are great texts, thoroughly reliable, but often times I pick and choose which I believe is more accurate in certain situations. Examples: Mark 16:9-20, I tend to favor the CT, because the language in these verses is substantailly different from that of the rest of the book. There is also a viable reason for adding to this text, I believe the end was lost, and some good minded scribe was trying to remember the basic message given by Jesus. John 1:42,21:15-17 - I favor the MT, because we know from Matthew that Simon was called, "BarJonah" bar is an Aramaic word meaning son. So, was Peter the son of John or Jonah? Col 1:2 - This one drives me crazy! Paul always begins his letters with a salutation from the Father and the Son, off hand I don't know one letter by Paul that didn't include some time of greeting in the name of the Father and the Son, but the CT states, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father." That just doesn't sound right!! Here I obviously prefer the MT, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Great question, GOD bless!!
8	What????????????????????????????????????	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	8543
	Hey Lionstrong, I’m writing in defense of Dispensationalism, and the aspects of dispensationalism described by Mr. Clark are correct. Unfortunately, his attempt to discredit this theology is shameful, at best! This author has chosen to set up dispensationalism as a ‘straw man.’(A perspective so weak that any rational interpretation of scripture rejects that perspective.) This is always done by making general claims about some form of Biblical interpretation and neglecting to mention the justifications and arguments for that interpretation. In this case, Mr. Clark makes some assumptions of his own and, without mentioning the dispensational view, concludes that dispensationalism is idiotic! I’m going to attempt to mention the weaknesses in Mr. Clark’s argument and give Biblical support of the dispensational view, but whether I succeed or fail, I’d encourage you to neglect this writer’s opinions; because, he obviously is willing to misinterpret the facts, or ignore them altogether, to support his view. I don’t want you to think I’m judging you or your theological perspective, there are many dispensationalists that set up reformed theology as a ‘straw man.’ And, I would not suggest reading them either! Any debate must be well considered and well researched, if the writer doesn’t do his/her homework, they should always be ignored. Ten Commandments before Moses: Gen. 2:3, 9:1-17; Romans 2:12-16. The claim was that Genesis ‘implied’ that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. I disagree, if the giving of the Ten Commandments was so important for Moses as to be referenced more than once in the Law, why would they not warrant mention in the book of Genesis? You quote that the Commandments were repeated to Noah, where? See Gen. 9:1-17: in vs. 4 we see a prohibition from eating animals with their blood still in them. (Would that be ceremonial? It’s not one of the Ten, is it?) And, if we study vs. 6, we see that it is not a prohibition against murder, though clearly that was wrong by the vss implication, but rather a method of governing human activity. Whoever hurts a human being, by humans he will be hurt; hence the dispensation of human government. I don’t see anything in these verses that resembles the Ten Commandments! Finally, see Rms 2:12-16, in these verses Paul states that Gentiles did not have the Law (which includes the Ten), but if Adam and Noah had the Law in the form of the Ten, then the Gentiles would have had some of the Law but see vs. 12 ‘without the Law.’ But, Paul says in vs 14 that the Gentiles who ‘instinctively’ or ‘by nature’ do the things of the Law, so there must be an instinct in man to live according to some of GOD’s Laws, and I believe any resemblance between Genesis and the Ten can more appropriately be explained by this ‘instinct.’ Romans 5:13, 14: There are two main interpretations to these verses! Some interpret it in a similar way to Mr. Clark, without adding infant and voluntarily! Dispensationalism is actually more appropriate, in my view, with this interpretation! At the end of vs 13 we read, “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Mr. Clark, along with many others, realized that this ‘law’ is not the Law of Moses (and again, the Law of Moses includes the Ten), so what is this ‘law’? Obviously, it is some standard GOD set up before the Law to determine whether a man was righteous or not. This is exactly what Dispensationalism says! Each dispensation has a standard to which man must attain to be pleasing before GOD, some get closer than others (Noah, Abraham, Job). The other mainstream interpretation of these vss would be rejected by anyone of the Reformed persuasion, so there’s no use in discussing how well it interacts with Dispensationalism. Dispensational Support: Romans 3:21; 4:15, 16; 6:15; 7:1-6; 8:3-4 I didn’t continue past the book of Romans, I feel anything more would be repetitive. 3:21 - ‘apart from the Law’ the righteousness of GOD is displayed in Christ without the burden of the Law! 4:15,16 - Salvation comes to those NOT under the Law! 6:15 - We are NOT under the Law (there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law) but under GRACE! 7:1-6 - When one dies they are FREED from the Law, we have died with Christ! See vs. 6, “But now we have been released from the Law,” again, nothing to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law! 8:3,4 - The requirement of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, including the Ten Commandments! Rebuttal of so-called ‘contradictions’: Of course Paul is NOT disparaging toward the Law! It is Holy, but we are NOT! Paul states that knowing the Law gave sin opportunity, so even though the Law is Holy, its affect on a man with a sinful nature is devastating, so GOD delivered us from the Law, including the Ten!
9	Stae violation of worshhip, what to do?	Bible general Archive 1	Chris	58319
	Chebanne, I agree that people should be free to worship how they wish, but where on earth did you learn to interpret your reading? If you think that Hebrews Ch. 4 is about the Saturday Sabbath you have truly missed the boat! We don't need to go into whether Paul wrote Hebrews, but this sabbath issue takes the cake. Is the word sabbath mentioned in Hebrews Ch. 4? Hebrews Ch. 4 is about how the Christian enters into the rest of GOD continually, not on Saturdays, when s/he gives up their work toward salvation and rest in GOD's finished work at calvary. This is the Spiritual representation of the Sabbath and it shows that for the Christian there isn't a one day literial fulfillment of the Sabbath, but rather a continual Spiritual fulfillment. People should have the right to worship when they please, but Hebrews Ch. 4 doesn't support your preference. GOD bless!! chris
10	Why was Christ baptized?	NT general Archive 1	Chris	2708
	Sorry!! John 1:28-34. GOD bless!
11	Why was Christ baptized?	NT general Archive 1	Chris	2722
	Your absolutely right about that, I hadn't seen that in the passage, but I do believe that the remainder of the passage suggests that John, himself also realized who Jesus was after the baptism and descending of the Spirit, and I think the passage suggests that this was one reason for the baptism. Jn 1:32-34: John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recongnize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom [you] see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." [you] - I assume that this is John, yea or nay?
12	Bible and evolution both?	Gen 1:1	Chris	2764
	Additional note, Hank. God created man from the DUST of the earth, completely unacceptable in evolutionary theory, we all came from the pond! (so they say)
13	Time lapse between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3.	Gen 1:2	Chris	58564
	Makarios, I know this is an old post, so I apologize. But there is some Scripture that supports the Gap theory. The first important point is the difference between the words 'created' and 'made' in the creation account, I'm sure you know the difference between these two. The Gap theory proposes that Gen 1.1 is the creation of the universe and earth, whereas everything after that, up to the creation of man, is a refashioning of sorts. The purpose of the refashioning is that the original creation was judged for something, the usual suggestion is the fall of satan. What is the support? First, look to Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else." (ASV) Notice that both 'created' and 'made' are used in this verse, so there is a recognition of the difference. It says that GOD didn't create the earth 'void' translated here waste, but it is the same hebrew word used in Gen 1:2, 'and the earth was formless and void' (from memory). Now, you may say, as many have, 'but that is not what Isaiah is suggesting.' Well, that's a matter of opinion, but it is most certainly what Isaiah said! So, this is the reason why this theory should be looked into, not to counter act evolutionists and/or geologist. OK, so there might be a reason to question the exact meaning of Gen 1.1-2, but why the suggestion of judgement? I'm glad you asked! :-) The only other times that 'without form and void' are used as conjuctions speak of terrible judgement via the wrath of GOD! Isa. 34:11, "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out on it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness." (AKJV; confusion, without form, emptiness, void) Jer. 4.23, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." (ASV; waste, formless) So, we have reason to believe that the earth was not originially created without form and void, and we have reason to believe that the earth was without form and void due to Divine Judgment, which is a wonderful segway to mention that, as you know, 'was' in Gen 1.2 can be rendered 'became'. In addition to this we have the curious use of the word 'made' throughout the Creation account rather than 'create'. And that brings us to your text; Ex. 20:11, "for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Notice that this verse uses the word 'made' not 'created', hence GOD refashioned the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the verse says nothing of when He created it. I see no reason to be dogmatic about something as ambiguous as the Creation account, but others do and it is very important to remember that Scripture should never be presented to unfairly favor one side or another. There are parts and interpretations of the Bible that suggest a young earth, but there are parts and interpretations that suggest an old earth too! So, let GOD inform us completely when He deems appropriate. GOD bless!! chris
14	Tim, more help please??	Gen 2:1	Chris	58669
	Tim, As a witness to two sets of new grandparents I can tell you that you will just get younger when that little baby is born!! GOD bless!! chris
15	Still under 10 C's?	Ps 111:7	Chris	58022
	May-it, I disagree about making judgements. We must discern the truth of whatever we encounter, and we do this by considering the legitimicy of their sources. I have found several cases when AF pulls a verse, like Romans 7:12 out of context to make it sound like we are under the Law, when if you actually consider the whole chapter, that is not at all what Paul is suggesting. I would encourage you to do a careful study of the entire book of Galatians, as these believers also wanted to live under the Law. If anyone tells you that Paul didn't mean what he said, ask yourself why he said it. In Galatians Paul condemns the believers for returning to the Law, he shows that Grace and Law cannot be mixed, and that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it! I will be praying for you my friend and I hope you will pray for me! GOD bless!! chris
16	4th commandment has been done away?	Ps 111:7	Chris	58027
	rferg, GOD doesn't want us to live by the Ten Commandments because they cause in us death! The Ten are good, holy, and spiritual but as long as I have a flesh body they cause sin in me. See Romans 7:4-12(LIT): So that, my brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, for you to become Another's, to One raised from the dead, so that we may bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sin were working in our members through the law for the bearing of fruit unto death. But now we have been set free from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so as for us to serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law; for also I did not know lust except the law said, "You shall not lust." (Ex. 20:17) But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart from law, sin is dead. And I was alive apart from law once, but the commandment came, and sin came alive, and I died. And the commandment which was to life, this was found to be death to me; for sin taking occasion through the commandment deceived me, and through it killed me. So indeed the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Then that which is good, has it become death to me? Let it not be! But sin, that it might appear to be sin, having worked out death to me through the good, in order that sin might become excessively sinful through the commandment. It may be a nice world if everyone followed the Ten Commandments (TC) but people would still be going to hell if they didn't know Christ, so I'm not so sure that should be anything that we should be desiring. I don't live by the TC because Paul says we are no longer under the Law, he also claims that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it (over 600 ordinances and commands). I have some questions and comments that I would appreciate a response to: 1. Can you show me anywhere in the New Testament where the TC are separated from the rest of the Mosaic Law? I don't see anything in the NT to suggest that the TC are separate and Paul quotes from the Law in Gal. 3:10, 'Accursed is everyone who does not abide by ALL things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.'(NASB, emphasis mine.) In vs. 12 of the same ch. Paul says, "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them.'"(NASB) So, are you saved by faith or Law; because Paul says it can't be both! 2. When the council of Acts 15 got together why didn't they tell the Gentiles to follow the TC if they were required? The council came together because some believed, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."(NASB) If we were under the TC why didn't Peter and James conclude that the Gentiles must adhere to the commandments? 3. How do you interpret Gal. 4:21 - 31? How about Gal. 3:23 - 29? Are we back under the tutor of the Law, and if so, what does Paul mean when he says, 'we are no longer under a tutor.'? 4. How do you interpret II Cor. 3:7 18? Clearly, Paul is speaking of the TC, 'engraved on stones'. And these letters engraved on stones are called the Ministry of Death and the Ministry of Condemnation. If the TC caused in us death and condemnation, how can we now be under them and be free? We'll stop here, and I hope you will continue this discussion with me! GOD bless!! Chris
17	4th commandment has been done away?	Ps 111:7	Chris	58035
	Tim, Just because one has a new desire and calling doesn't mean one will contradict everything in the old calling. If I see Christ in everyone I meet and I represent Christ to everyone I meet, I would not break many of the ten commandments. But this doesn't mean my focus is 'I shouldn't lie!' rather it is I am seeking Christ in every endeavor. The Law of Love -ie Law of the Spirit, Law of Christ- will often coinside with the Moral Law, but Pauls says that if our focus is on the Law we are enslaved again to the flesh, so seek Christ in everything and abide in His love so that it permeates through you. This is a short summation of how I interpret Christian behavior. There are other issues such as Sanctification and Purity that do go along, but the focus is Christ and His love. The problem I would have with the Moral Laws or Morals of the Law is that it suggest that we still go to the Law and hunt for 'how should I behave or what should I do' which puts us right back where Paul is in Ch. 7 or Romans. I believe a study of the Law is important for understanding how Christ fulfilled it and to glean in broad principles to more closely seek Christ - ex. sexual purity is a broad principle versus going around trying not to commit incest, fornication, beastiality, and homosexuality.- GOD bless!! chris
18	4th commandment has been done away?	Ps 111:7	Chris	58036
	GeeVee, I responded to Tim's post, if you want to check it out. GOD bless!! chris
19	4th commandment has been done away?	Ps 111:7	Chris	58038
	Tim, There in lies the problems, is lying always wrong? I think we could find at least one time in the Old Testament where a person lied for the good of Israel and the New Testament says that she acted in faith. So to say pleasing GOD is as simple as obeying the Moral Law is questionable. Secondly, I didn't say we shouldn't look back for guidance, I said we shouldn't look back to find what rules we must keep and what we are allowed to do. There are certainly important principles as I spoke of in the Law, but for a Christian to focus on I can and I can't leaves no room for the guiding of the Spirit of GOD. GOD bless!! chris
20	4th commandment has been done away?	Ps 111:7	Chris	58260
	RFerg, I know your pain my friend! I've been there!!: ) GOD bless!! chris

Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here:

Support us when shopping at smile.amazon.com