Results 1 - 20 of 20
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who are you really? | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 19428 | ||
I forgot one thing. Would you identify yourself as the requirements of the forum state? CASIV blundered when he/she answered me as PRAISEMASTER. Since you have the same speech pattern as he/she, it seems possible you are CASIV as well. Steve |
||||||
2 | About the Forum | Bible general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 24674 | ||
About the Forum.................................. The following is quoted from "About the Forum" on the left sidebar. What is StudyBibleForum.com? It's a free resource in an open access environment for all users to ask questions, give answers, and experience spiritual growth as a result. For the layman, it's a 24-hour source of evolving Bible study notes with which to contrast and compare. For the teacher and scholar, it's an opportunity to freely share your knowledge. The StudyBibleForum.com is built from the "Bible" up. A synergetic resource built to enhance and deepen your study of God's Word. It's like a free study Bible with an unlimited margin, that contained helpful verse notes, and was continually expanding. A resource where you can access and/or contribute to a dynamic repository of verse notes. It's not a discussion group or topical survey, but an ever growing "expository repository" that gives the layman and scholar an opportunity to share truth and contribute wisdom. -------- So, my interpretation of this is that we share our knowledge of Scripture, keep our opinions to a minimum, and agree to disagree agreeably. Steve |
||||||
3 | OT types of Christ | OT general | srbaegon | 20079 | ||
Question............... What do you see as types or pictures of Christ in the Mosaic law? My thoughts are concerning the tabernacle (and furniture), priesthood, offerings, and feasts. I did a search and found something There wrote on Sat 09/1/01, 11:02am concerning the feast days. Any takers? Steve |
||||||
4 | ESV opinion poll | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 31594 | ||
ESV opinion poll Any other respondents? Steve |
||||||
5 | Why the judgment on Edom? | Obad 1:21 | srbaegon | 29028 | ||
So let's ask the question: Why the strict judgment on Edom? A short answer might be that Esau's contempt for his birthright and hatred for Jacob stealing the blessing continued on to his offspring even though Esau and Jacob seemed to patch things up when Jacob returned from serving Laban. This hatred would manifest itself against the nation of Israel later. Steve |
||||||
6 | Why the judgment on Edom? | Obad 1:21 | srbaegon | 29027 | ||
So let's ask the question: Why the strict judgment on Edom? A short answer might be that Esau's contempt for his birthright and hatred for Jacob stealing the blessing continued on to his offspring even though Esau and Jacob seemed to patch things up when Jacob returned from serving Laban. This hatred would manifest itself against the nation of Israel later. Steve |
||||||
7 | Teaching Messiahship on the cross | Matt 27:46 | srbaegon | 33840 | ||
Ed, To tie this note and another very recently you mention: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46) is a referral back to Psalm 22. Psalm 22 portrays the suffering Messiah the Jews refused to see. Jesus was once more in compassion (grace) giving one last teaching on who He was. He was saying, "guys can't you see this is exactly what the Psalmist and prophets have been talking about?" I have never heard this before--quoting Ps 22 to show who He was. Could you (or anyone) flesh out this idea a bit more? I have only heard teaching relating his becoming sin for us and the Father having to turn away. Steve |
||||||
8 | Allegorical interpretation | John 4:16 | srbaegon | 20115 | ||
Question.................. So, are you saying that all of Scripture must be read as a spiritual allegory or parable? Is it that we must always go beyond the text for a deeper spiritual understanding? Steve |
||||||
9 | What is imputed righteousness? | Rom 4:6 | srbaegon | 52643 | ||
Properly, what is the doctrine of imputed righteousness? I've read: a) It is counting Christ's righteousness to me when I believe; and b) It is counting my faith as righteousness on the basis of Christ's finished worked. These seem to be inclusive propositions, but they are being made mutually exclusive on another forum. Any help? Steve |
||||||
10 | Imputed Righteousness | Rom 4:6 | srbaegon | 52667 | ||
Thanks Joe Now for the anticipated (obligatory?) follow-up based on a portion of an e-mail that prompted my original question: "[The Reformers] taught that the believer is still under the Law as a 'code of conduct'. Christ's death certainly paid for my sins, and now I am to serve God by keeping the Law. Of course, I cannot keep it in its entirety. So, the doctrine states that Christ's perfect righteousnes, as having kept the Law perfectly, is given to me. So, as the common expression goes, when God looks at me, He sees Christ. The more important Biblical doctrine is the Righteousness of God. We are made the Righteousness of God in Christ - that is, while sinful men were allowed to roam the earth and experience God's blessings, God's righteousness was NOT revealed. Why was this sin not judged?!? Rom 1 tells us that the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel: the death of Christ on the cross reveals what God really thinks about sin, what His righteousness demanded. So, in Rom 3, death of Christ is seen as declaring God's righteousness apart from the Law. If God were to manifest His righteousness according to the Law, the sinner would die when he commits his first sin. The death of Christ shows how God could be 'just' in two distinct spheres: for the 'sins that are past', that is all of God's dealings with man before the cross; and for 'this time', 'justifying' the one who believes in Jesus. In Rom 4:6 (KVJ) we have the word 'imputeth righteousness', but that is a serious mistranslation, reflecting the bias of the reformers. The word is the same as 'counted' in Rom 4:5, and 'reckon' in Rom 6. It does not mean, in any sense, 'give to'; it describes the action of the beholder, not something done to the object beheld. So, we are 'reckoned' righteous by God - when He looks at me, He does not see Christ, He sees (I cannot fathom this!) me, but He sees me as _righteous_. I have been justified, declared righteous, because all of my sins have been removed. Now, it is true that He sees me _in Christ_. But this is a different thing than 'seeing Christ.'" 1. Is the Reformed position given accurately? 2. What are comments concerning the "more important" doctrine of the righteousness of God? Are these things mutually exclusive, or are they possibly mutually misunderstood? Steve |
||||||
11 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | srbaegon | 63363 | ||
There are three views of imputed sin (Adam's sin is reckoned to each person) that I have found: 1) It's an unbiblical concept. 2) Imputed sin leads to spiritual death. 3) Imputed sin leads only to physical death. The first I reject immediately. The debate I've seen is between 2 and 3 (more logical to me). How do you see it? Steve |
||||||
12 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | srbaegon | 63377 | ||
Hello beensetfree You are correct about number 2. So to restate the question... There are three views of imputed sin (Adam's sin is reckoned to each person) that I have found: 1) It's an unbiblical concept. 2) Imputed sin leads to spiritual and physical death. 3) Imputed sin leads only to physical death. The first I reject immediately. The debate I've seen is between 2 and 3 (more logical to me). How do you see it? Steve |
||||||
13 | Second Adam? | 1 Cor 15:45 | srbaegon | 55106 | ||
Hello all I've made mental notes of some who periodically call the Lord Jesus "the second Adam" rather than "the last Adam" as it's given in this verse. Second seems to infer a third, but last seems to fit better as to the finality of what was needful to overcome Adam's rebellion. I was wondering if someone could explain this change. Steve |
||||||
14 | Are Galatians attempting sanctification? | Gal 3:3 | srbaegon | 19340 | ||
There is no question (for me anyway) that the Galatian believers were seeking to add to the justification they had received in Christ. But don't we also see the Galatians attempting to use the Law for sanctification as well? Steve |
||||||
15 | Definition of Moral, Ceremonial, Civil | James 2:10 | srbaegon | 18933 | ||
Where is the definition of what constitutes the Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Law? From my study of the Scriptures, they are kept or failed together. Steve |
||||||
16 | Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil law | James 2:10 | srbaegon | 19181 | ||
Thank you for responding. I asked a poor question. It should have been: Where is the _Biblical_ definition of what constitutes the Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Law? Where in Scripture can I go to see that the Law was viewed by prophet or apostle as divided into multiple types or sections. Steve |
||||||
17 | Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil law | James 2:10 | srbaegon | 19182 | ||
Thank you for responding. I asked a poor question. It should have been: Where is the _Biblical_ definition of what constitutes the Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Law? Where in Scripture can I go to see that the Law was viewed by prophet or apostle as divided into multiple types or sections. Steve |
||||||
18 | Why keep the Moral Law? | James 2:10 | srbaegon | 19217 | ||
I agree with your answer. Therefore, if Christ has fulfilled the Law (Matt 5:17), why do we insist on taking one aspect (moral), remove it from the rest, artificially systematize it using the 10 commandments (the whole Law is moral, not just the 10), and teach that it must continue to be kept? Steve |
||||||
19 | The question stands | James 2:10 | srbaegon | 19226 | ||
That still begs the question I posed to Searcher (who was more than kind in changing his user name, even though he didn't have to): If Christ fulfilled the Law, why do we teach one another to keep the "Moral Law"? Steve |
||||||
20 | Are Galatians seeking sanctification? | James 2:10 | srbaegon | 19335 | ||
Don't we also see the Galatians attempting to use the Law for sanctification as well? Gal 3:3 would seem to point this way. Steve |
||||||