Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Rowdy, where is your Scriptural support? | Rev 7:17 | Rowdy | 121367 | ||
Tim, I do hope you're not trying to say that because these don't say exactly say what you want it to say, that this basic guidance doesn't apply to the whole world. Why else was the Bible written? Yes, my friend that's exactly what God is looking for a response from the whole world to His Word. He even addresses those that DON'T actually have an opportunity to read a Bible, for they will be judged without it. They'll be judged like the hundreds of people (possibly thousands) who will be judged without God's written Word but by what God installed in them at birth: their conscience. So, yes indeed the whole Bible does apply most emphatically to the whole world. Now of course, I should remind you that the NT out-ranks the OT in current authority as there are just a few things that are obselete in the OT, i.e. worship on the sabbath, the practice of easy divorce for men, sacrifice of animals for our sins, etc. I do hope you'll pray on this and reconsider your position. God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||
2 | Rowdy, where is your Scriptural support? | Rev 7:17 | kalos | 121427 | ||
Obedience: Love or Legalism? ____________________ '...grace does not permit what the law prohibits. "Grace" never signifies the lowering of God's moral demands.' ____________________ 'The phrase "under the law" occurs at least ten times in Paul's epistles, so we know it is a crucial concept in his theology. In Galatians 3:23, for example, He writes, "Before faith came, we were kept under the law" (Gal. 3:23). Now, however, he says as Christians we are "not under the law" (Gal. 5:18). 'I often hear Christians recite the phrase "not under the law, but under grace" as if it meant no standard of law whatsoever is ever binding on believers. Grace is seen as a grand permissiveness, contrasting with the uncompromising moral standard of the law. 'One man wrote, '"According to Paul, I am not under law. That has radical practical consequences for my Christian life. It means I do not have to look over my shoulder at the law and judge my life by it. The law was a negative standard. It was filled with prohibitions and punishments. Grace is the opposite. It is filled with positive inducements and promises. Which would you rather have as a rule of life? I live under grace, not law. And that means whenever the law brings its negative message—when it says, "thou shalt not"—it does not apply to me." (End of quote of what One man wrote.) [MacArthur continues] 'The notion that no law is binding on the Christian is a classic form of antinomianism. This type of thinking sets grace against law, as if the two were antithetical. It has some dire theological consequences. 'It is crucial to understand that in terms of moral standards, grace does not permit what the law prohibits. "Grace" never signifies the lowering of God's moral demands. The word grace in scripture signifies a lot of things, but licentiousness is not one of them. In fact, those who turn the grace of God into promiscuity are expressly condemned as false teachers (Jude 4). (...) 'So the moral standard set by the law does not change under grace. Indeed, it could not; it is a reflection of God's character. But divine grace actually empowers us to fulfill the moral demands of the law in a way that the law alone could never do.' ____________________ Excerpted from "Obedience: Love or Legalism? by John MacArthur". To read the entire article, go to: (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/obedience.htm) matt517 |
||||||
3 | Rowdy, where is your Scriptural support? | Rev 7:17 | Rowdy | 121434 | ||
I've offered and cited scriptural references in support of my points before. All you have to do is insert into the Quicksearch the key words in question along with my nickname, Rowdy and you'll bring up the scriptures from my past posts. My main point with this post is to add a new thought to a scripture I've used in the past. You and several others have criticized my posts in the past but I notice as in your post above, you cite far more stuff from other men outside the Forum than you do from God's Word. Seems interesting. Anyway, the concept to which I'm referring is "better safe than sorry." Like I've been saying in previous posts, there are several scriptures that deal with a controversial issue like this one about Grace. I'll admit sometimes some of these scriptures seem to emphasize Grace over other things involved in our relationship with God. But there again, there is pretty clear guidance from James 2 that emphasizes "faith without works is a dead faith." Then there's Jesus' comparison to branches and the vine and our producing fruit in John 15. So what are we to do with these seeming contradictions? I've been saying for quite some time w/several previous posts about our being judged by ALL of Jesus' Words AND those of His official representatives, the Apostles. And I've stated we should obey ALL these Words as being "better safe than sorry." Now I gotta admit for a long while, I couldn't think of specific scripture(s) to support this latter concept, in spite of using this verse a few times before, it just didn't click. Yeah, go figure. The scripture? Matt 5:29-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Now did anyone in the NT heed these Words and actually eliminate a body part? The answer as you know is of course not. Nor has any christian group started advocating such a practice. So, was our Lord really serious? You bet. If it actually came to making such a choice; living our lives whole and go to hell or go to heaven and leave a body part while here on earth, I quite certain all christians would gladly do without that body part. So a modern nickname to such a concept as Jesus is setting forth might clearly be known as "better safe than sorry." In this line of reasoning, when the Bible portrays two or more different points about a particular subject, one more conservative than the other, my common sense tells me to do my best to do both of them and be certain of pleasing our God. But now, we have clear guidance from our Lord endorsing this very principle. Again, I would urge that all christians obey ALL Christ's Words and those of the NT writers as being blessed by the Holy Spirit. Hope this is clear and God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||