Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208037 | ||
This is not an attempt to start a debate. I am struggling to understand something. Please consider the following and see if you can help me understand better your view on this issue. In Hebrews 10:23 it says that by FAITH when Moses was born he was hidden for three months because they were not afraid of the king's edict. They disobeyed the king and therefore are guilty of the sin of not obeying every authority as all of Romans chapter 13 states and as 1 Peter 2:13-20. These passages by the apostles were written to people being persecuted for beleiving in God and they were instructed to submit, not to save lives. How then are we to understand this concept that the hiding of Moses, which included sinnnig to do it, was of FAITH? Next part of this "problem". Hebrews 10:13 By FAITH Rahab welcomed the spies in peace. That included both lying to the kings men and going against the same scriptures that apply to saving Moses. How are we to understand the concept of FAITH seeing as how the actions that led up to the result included sinning? Next part of the "problem". Sin is always wrong, lying is always wrong, I do not deny that, I don't know any Christian that denies that fact. Here is the crux, not of my arugment, because I am not posting with that I have an agenda to proove in mind, but to understand what I do not understand, the crux - How is it wrong for David to do what was necessary to save lives, both genocide, and lying as if he had no faith, but Rahab and the Exodus mid-wives are considered to have had FAITH even though they broke two of God's statutes and commandments in the process of earning that FAITH? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | Morant61 | 208044 | ||
Greetings Bowler! Let me try one more time. Do you understand the difference between narrative and teaching? A narrative simply lays out the story without necessarily making value judgments about the actions of the people (though sometimes a narrative may include editorial content that will make value judgments). With that in mind, let's look at the passages that you mention. 1) Moses: Heb. 11:23 says, "By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict." As you correctly noted, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-20 speak of civil obedience. However, no where in Scripture are we told to obey man if by obeying man we would be disobeying God. We see this principle at work in Acts 4:19, where Peter and John say, "But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God." Acts 5:29 makes it even clearer, "Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!" Here, the word 'must' refers to moral necessity. It is not just an optional principle, but a necessary one that we obey God over man (if the two conflict). Therefore, there was no sin involved in the hiding of Moses. God has forbidden murder. What Pharaoh was about to do was murder of the worst kind. Therefore, Heb. 11:23 tells us that Moses' parents acted in faith. 2) Rahab: Note carefully what Heb. 11:31 says and does not say. "By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient." She was commended for welcoming the spies, not for lying. No mention of lying is included in this verse. It does not say, 'By faith, Rahab lied...' :-) As for governmental authority, Rahab also was right to obey God rather than her government. It is important not to go beyond what the text actually says. Plus, we should remember with Rahab that she was not a Christian or a Jewish believer. She responded to God and acted in accordance with what she knew at the time. She may not have even know about the command not to lie. The reference to her faith is not a justification of her every action, but to the fact that she welcomed God's people and trusted that God would save her and her family. I hope this clears up some of your questions my friend. From this post, I wasn't clear about your David reference, but from other posts I would say that, again, we need to remember that a narrative passage detailing something that someone did which was wrong is not justification for others to do it as well. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208051 | ||
Tim Moran I agree and am aware with the princple that the Old Testament "narratives" are not to be taken as Christian "normative" behavior for today. I will stick strictly to this post please, I am not trying to redress another post, although I understand you transferring an applicatoin principle from one to the other.:-) My question not to center around WHAT CORRECT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE. My question centers around WHAT CONSTITUTES FAITH seeing as how sins were committed in gaining that title of having had FAITH. Question for you; how does saving a life by the mid-wives become obeying God rather than men? What command did God give the mid-wives that they were to do? By applying your principle that God has forbidden murder how does saving a life by the same means as those mid-wives, which included disobeying the king's edicts and ostensibly lying to anyone who would ask if they were hiding babies, not apply to us now? Ps. I do understand the difference between a narrative passage and a didactic passage, I want to know, not what to do, but how to view everything in the process of what ends up getting declared as "having been done right" by those in the Bible. What I do with the answer is up to me, and is not why I want to know about it or discuss it. blessings abound, bolwer |
||||||
4 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | Morant61 | 208054 | ||
Greetings Bowler! One of the problems we are having in our discussion is that we are jumping all over the place from example to example, and even from time to time. Were the mid-wives subject to Rom. 13? It hadn't even been written yet. The ten commandments had not been written yet, so they were not even bound by them. Notice that the narrative never commends them for lying, but for fearing God. That is how they gained the title of having had faith. Now, you want to apply their narrative example to us today, even though we do have the ten commandments. So, allow me to twist your question around back to you. :-) Were they wrong to violate a command that had not yet been given, and would we be right to violate a command that we have? By the way, you asked what constitutes faith? Scripture gives the answer in Heb. 11! Faith is trusting God enough to do what He says, in spite of the odds. (Paraphrase) Having, or acting in, faith does not mean that everything we do is justified or right. It simply means that we are trusting God. The mid-wives acted in faith, not because they lied, but because they feared God and protected His people from an evil ruler. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208060 | ||
Tim Moran Yes those things had not been written yet. Sin is sin, it was before those things had been written whether they had the law or not, although God may not have imputed any punishment to them until the law actually came in. So was Abraham sinning by laying with Hagar? I think we could safely say yes, adultery is adultery even though the law had not yet been written. But let me understand you correctly here - is a sin not truly a sin until the law came in? That would be important for me to know... It definitely would change how I might look at things. But that would also mean that no one who had not been given the law was guilty of any wrong thing they did, but we know that God did not condone any sin even before He gave the law and imputed punishment on the wicked before the law. Or am I wrong about that part, as I am thinking that God says the life blood will be required? One thing is coming clearer from talking back and forth with you - not what you are saying, but something else - God forgave all those wrong things all those people did in gaining their titles of FAITH because one cannot be said to have faith through works. Do you have any examples for me of anyone who was accounted as righteous who did not commit sins to earn the title of having FAITH other than Jesus? That may sound like a stupid question... blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
6 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | stjohn | 208067 | ||
Dear Bowler: You wrote, "Do you have any examples for me of anyone who was accounted as righteous who did not commit sins to earn the title of having FAITH other than Jesus? That may sound like a stupid question..." No, that is not a stupid question, but it is quite obvious, and seems rather pointless, for someone so, well versed as yourself. Romans 3:21-24 So many questions, :-( sometimes Bowler, we just need to put our hand in the Fathers, and trust Him. There comes a time when the questions need to stop, and we need to just be quiet. Prov 3:5 God bless John |
||||||
7 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208068 | ||
John Okay John I will be quiet. I will sit back and rest while everyone else continues on asking their questions okay? I will just rest in Jesus for a while. See you around. blessings abound, bowler blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
8 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | stjohn | 208083 | ||
Okay, thanks, Hatman. ;-) Shalom John |
||||||