Results 1 - 20 of 100
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bjanko Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christian Dressing | Hebrews | bjanko | 32509 | ||
I do not understand the relationship of this comment to this thread, much less its pertinence to whatever it was I posted almost a year ago. |
||||||
2 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 23949 | ||
I'm sorry to hear that you find these posts upsetting. It would be interesting to know if you had anything of substance to say about this topic, other than, "please don't argue about minor things." This IS a forum for discussing all aspects of the Bible. I would hope that you, too, see ALL of the Bible as important and worthy of discussion -- (rather than relegating some parts of it to being of minor importance). -- bjanko |
||||||
3 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | bjanko | 22449 | ||
Baptism is simply a sign and seal of the covenant of grace we have through Jesus. It is a sign, nothing more. Jesus saves. If baptism saves us, then Jesus doesn't. And the Bible is clear that Jesus saves us. That is why I earlier said that we must be saved first in order to be baptized. God's sacrifice does not need water in order to be effective. Christ's work on the cross was sufficient. One who is not a Christian does NOT become a Christian by getting dunked. One becomes a Christian by trusting in Christ for an alien righteousness to be imputed (credited) to his account before a holy God. We are saved by faith and not by works, (including the work of baptism). Only once a person is saved does getting baptized mean anything. It is a sign of the covenant of grace. It SIGNifies ("sign") that we are in that covenant; it is a seal: it says we are sealed into that redeemed relationship with God through Christ. It does not save us; it is EVIDENCE that we have been saved by the Spirit of God APPLYING the redemption which Christ ACCOMPLISHED for us. |
||||||
4 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | bjanko | 22360 | ||
You said: "baptism along with repentance is what remits our sins (package deal) you are saved simultaneously with being baptized" Sorry, my mistake. I thought Jesus' atoning death was what saved us. I didn't realize it was our own WORKS of repentance and baptism which did it. I didn't realize His work on the cross was a total waste. Go figure. I guess I better go back to the drawing board! |
||||||
5 | I agree with you 100 percent. But... | Hebrews | bjanko | 16851 | ||
Thanks. I'll pray for you, too. |
||||||
6 | What's the best way to apply the Bible? | Not Specified | bjanko | 16250 | ||
What's the best way to apply the Bible? |
||||||
7 | What's the best way to apply the Bible? | 2 Tim 3:16 | bjanko | 16262 | ||
What's the best way to apply the Bible? |
||||||
8 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 16096 | ||
I was tempted to argue with you concerning a definition of what makes an accurate translation. The problem in a discussion like this is not really translational, but philosophical -- what are the attributes of a good translation. But I feel that we would veer off into a number of semantical differences in discussing this -- arguing about words -- so I'll just drop the point for now. I just wanted to say my peace about the issue. Blessings to you. |
||||||
9 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 16058 | ||
KOINEKID: I cannot agree with your use of the phrase "overly wooden literalness." It seems derogatory. BJANKO: Saying the NIV "sacrifices accuracy" is also derogatory. Many people who do not care for the NIV speak this way and make this derogatory comment with impunity. If you don't like the NIV, that's fine. But to say that it sacrifices accuracy is itself an inaccurate claim. The NIV has deficiencies just like any other translation; but it is second only to the NASB in terms of communicating the original text with great accuracy. In some cases, it improves on the NASB because it goes beyond the literal translation and gives the "sense" of a word or term. Sometimes, of course, the NASB does a better job because it sticks closer to the original. All translations have their strong points and weak points. KOINEKID: But my statement is this. Such a translation, while accurately conveying the meaning of the text, does not accurately convey the text itself. BJANKO: If someone really wants the "text itself" to be conveyed, then I would recommend reading the Greek originals. If you want a "translation" of the Greek into English, though, you will have to give up the "text itself" and settle for the receptor language (English) and all its inadequacies in expressing the original. "Accurately conveying the meaning," which you seem to admit that the NIV does, is exactly what a translation is supposed to do! Again, the NIV isn't perfect, but it is excellent, and well deserves to be among the top three or four translations out there, (the others being NASB, NKJV, and KJV). -- bjanko |
||||||
10 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 14078 | ||
My problem? You raised the challenge to me, remember? Thank you for refuting me so directly and distinctly. Good luck with your "better things." |
||||||
11 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 14065 | ||
Well, it sounds like you have the sin and judgment part down, but we were discussing rain. It is not mentioned, except for its absence, in Gen. 2. Since there is no evidence in Gen. 2 to believe that there is rain present, the "assumption" that there is rain is "read into" the text. This is because there is a presupposition that rain has always existed. This presupposition comes from our supposedly scientific knowledge of what the world must have been like. I know you did not mention science. That is why I called it your presupposition. I believe that if a person were not presupposing "scienctific" answers for this sort of thing, they would not also say with certainty that Gen. 2 says there was rain -- arguing from silence -- when it says no such thing at all. |
||||||
12 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 14058 | ||
NOSAJROB Note: Thanks for your reply, bjanko. However, your arguement is an argument from silence. Not mine as rain is menioned in Genesis 2:5. BJANKO It is? Please show us. I see where the ABSENCE of rain is mentioned, but none of my Bibles mentions the presence of rain in Gen. 2:5. NOSAJROB It tells us in fact the reason ("for" by the way is a purpose statemen) rain was needed, and when God sent it. It was needed for growth of herbs, and sent when God had created man. BJANKO Again, this is quite odd. My Bible simply says that rain was ABSENT from the earth and it says that, at that time, a mist provided the moisture for the plants. The Bible does NOT say rain was sent when God had created man. You are arguing from silence (i.e., from something which is NOT in the text). NOSAJROB That is the way it seems. BJANKO "Seems"? Strange statement for someone who claims that he is not arguing from silence, but rather from solid "facts" which are supposedly in the text. NOSAJROB No where does it say that it never rained until the flood. Does it? That is the assuption so many make. BJANKO Neither does it say that it rained from the beginning and neither does it say that the rain of the flood was nothing new. The text mentions two items EXPLICITLY: 1.) rain's absence; 2.) how the rain's purpose was temporarily fulfilled by a mist that rose from the ground. That's what the text EXPLICITLY says. Claiming that the text says there was rain is an argument from silence. The text is SILENT about the existence of rain at that time. The text does say -- EXPLICITLY -- that rain's purpose was fulfilled another way (mist) and so it is not an argument from silence to say that there was no rain. It cannot be argued dogmatically either way, I believe, because it is one of the less clear passages of Scripture; but there is certainly more basis IN THE TEXT for postulating the ABSENCE of rain rather than its PRESENCE. Please note that the only way to postulate rain's PRESENCE is NOT from the text, but by bringing in the PRESUPPOSITIONS of science. I think Scripture is a sufficient witness for these things. Scientific presuppositions distort the text. |
||||||
13 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 13995 | ||
I believe Gen. 2 is very clear. First it mentions a situation: "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted" Then it mentions the REASON for the situation, (connecting the reason to the situation with the word "for"). The reason was two-fold: 1. the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth 2. there was no man to cultivate the ground Gen. 2:6-7 tells how these problems were solved. Verse 6 says, "a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground." This solves part of the problem of the plants and shrubs not yet being on the earth. Verse 7 says, "the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Now the other part of the problem is solved: there is a man to cultivate the ground. I conclude from this evidence that plants and shrubs were at this point able to grow because there was now water for them -- the mist which watered the ground -- and a man to cultivate them -- Adam. There is no mention of rain. Bringing rain in at this point is only a presupposition and is not, in my opinion, supported in this passage. That is what "makes sense" from my perspective. |
||||||
14 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13544 | ||
Tim, I have no desire to attempt an answer. You are an Arminian and the philosophy of Arminius is a man-made one, not a Scriptural one. I believe in the Bible; I do not give a hoot about Calvin or Arminius. |
||||||
15 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13543 | ||
See my previous response. I have not brought this debate back to life here, but I believe it was Tim and Henry(?) who were questioning me about it. |
||||||
16 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13541 | ||
I have not resurrected this debate, but others who were not satisfied with my answers have brought it once again to the fore. I have no interest in debating it at all. |
||||||
17 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13497 | ||
TIM If as Calvinism teaches, only those who are drawn can accept the gift of salvation, then John 12:32 destroys the foundations of Calvinistic thought since everyone is drawn. From my perspective, this makes perfect sense. Christ died for all. He desires that all be saved. He offers salvation to all. He draws all. But, the benefits of salvation only apply to those who accept the gift. BJANKO If God desires all to be saved -- and some are not saved -- then God is impotent to save those whom He chooses. Your philosophy is a glorification of man's will, not God's sovreignty. It is a pagan philosophy, unscriptural to the core. You need to interpret all verses in light of the Bible ALONE, and not man's philosphies, and also in light of ALL OF THE BIBLE. Your interpretation's are misinterpretations because they do not consider the context of the ENTIRE BIBLE. Arminianism and Scripture are incompatible. |
||||||
18 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13496 | ||
I feel sorry for you that your philosophy of man's will as over and above God's sovreignty would rule your interpretation of Scripture. |
||||||
19 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13491 | ||
I'm sorry that your philosophy would lead you into the error of making man's will on a higher level than God's sovreignty. |
||||||
20 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | bjanko | 13490 | ||
I don't see the discrepancy you are rerferring to in the passages. No part of the Bible contradicts another. You seem to have explained it yourself. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |