Results 1 - 18 of 18
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Dalcent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Literal translations like the NASB | 2 Tim 3:16 | Dalcent | 156071 | ||
If God inspired the very 'words' of Scripture, which I think everyone here would agree. Then surely this restricts us to essentially literal translations of the Bible and rules out 'thought-per-thought' versions. Am I being harsh? Furthermore, most would agree that a 'word-per-word' translation makes it far harder for the translator to become an interpreter. Anyone care to articulate a succinct summary of the theory of plenary inspiration please. God inspired the 'very words' did he not? |
||||||
2 | What's the MATTER? | Col 2:9 | Dalcent | 154855 | ||
It is my observation that evangelicals bring to their reading of the Bible a presupposition. They bring a fundamental, cardinal error that does not allow them to read Scripture properly or to allow it to speak its message in the plain sense. Evangelicals hold a Neo-Platonic view of matter; they believe it is “tainted”, (they do not recognise that they bring to the Bible their cultural influences, a mind steeped in the Greek critical intellect and patterns of thinking). Because evangelicals consider matter tainted, they refuse to believe God uses matter in his saving actions: they can’t. They cannot believe in SACRAMENTALITY. Thus the Bible is bound in shackles. It has been decided what it is not allowed to say. Evangelicals fail to grasp, are not really comfortable with, the fact that God Almighty deigned to comes down from the Glory of heaven and dwell in a humble weak body of dust (Gen. 2:7). The implications of Incarnational theology has not impacted them. Evangelicals bring a presupposition to the Bible, that there is only one possible channel through which God interacts with them: that of fiducial faith. And because they hold this error (they anchor themselves to it) they have to interpret scripture in a predetermined way. Because they believe matter is tainted they just ‘know’ God does not imbue matter with his power. Accordingly, the Scriptures they profess to hold so reverently are endlessly twisted and misread because they are so sure of their fundamental stand. When scripture teaches in plain words: Acts 22:16 ‘Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins’ they feel they have to explain why scripture does not teach this. Their explanations are strained and sound unlikely to everyone who hears them. The truth is, just as God the Son was incarnate in a humble human body, God’s power is really substantially present in the baptismal waters. Likewise, they cannot believe the God who inhabits human flesh can really be in the bread and wine of the Communion; they have to say it is metaphorical. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. He taught that He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. Joh 6:55ff "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink…he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. It is relegated to metaphor. Bible’s like the evangelical ESV though based on the RSV change the word ‘eat’ to ‘feeds on’. Yet trogo (G5176) means to gnaw, to chew on: very strong. Feed on of course lends itself to anything. The Scripture never stands a chance, only fiducial faith obtains the things of God. The denials of the plain sense of the text are conditioned by the presupposition. They are so certain God is not a God who imbues matter with his grace, they do not care what a second-century writer who knew the Apostles made even clearer than the Bible. He had to have been wrong. There were no evangelicals in the post-apostolic church so clearly the truth was lost. Sacraments? humbug! Justin Martyr, a heretic, Polycarp a muddled man whose writings were full errors. Never mind Martin Luther will be along in 1400 years and he won’t be right either, another sacramentalist. But we’ll get to true Bible teaching eventually, yep we’ll get to the evangelical truth. The evangelical reads that Jesus used mud and spittle to heal the blind, (John 9:6 ) but he has to deny that God’s power was really in that humble dirt. It becomes a prop. And what is he to make of 2 Kings 13:20-21. And when the man touched the BONES of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet. That just won’t do. An explanation has to be given why God’s miraculous divine power did not inhabit that humble rotting bone. Direct from heaven, no “tainted” matter did the Lord use. The evangelical reads in Acts 19:12 how face clothes that touch Paul were used to heal the sick. He cannot accept that God’s eternal power really imbued matter and yet this is the mode of operation our Lord really deals with us. The evangelical cannot even accept that pictures and icons of God are allowable. Matter is too low. Yet God the Son took on humble flesh, finite form, he graced our world in person. The evangelical cares little that the bi-millenial Christian church has always held a sacramental theology. That the Creeds, the Councils, the writings of the Christian sages, martyrs, saints down the ages understood God acts this way. Many of the Reformers understood it too. Only the evangelical sings a new song: fiducial faith, God’s actions are ‘clean’, he doesn’t touch matter. Oh that God would show you the Glorious truth that he made matter good and he uses it in our edification and our salvation. |
||||||
3 | How decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154845 | ||
Are you asking me to clarify my question? My friend I will paste your para.10 first: 10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. ( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23) Christians hold that Scripture is understood with the help of the Holy Spirit. Christians holding this view do not have unanimous agreement on what Scripture is saying, despite being helped by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, some arbitrator is required to decide between said Christians. Christian AofG believes his interpretation was given him by the Holy Spirit' and Christian Bapt who believes his interpretion was given him by the Holy Spirit and both men hold different views. Who arbitrates as to which Christian holds the authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Why does one Christian feel his Holy Spirit led interpretation is correct and the other man's not. ITS QUITE A SIMPLE QUESTION, THE ANSWER I AGREE IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, BUT PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER IT. |
||||||
4 | Who decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154844 | ||
Are you asking me to clarify my question? Look, I will paste your para.10 first: 10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. ( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23) Christians hold that Scripture is understood with the help of the Holy Spirit. Christians holding this view do not have unanimous agreement on what Scripture is saying, despite being helped by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, some arbitrator is required to decide between said Christians. Christian AofG believes his interpretation was given him by the Holy Spirit' and Christian Bapt who believes his interpretion was given him by the Holy Spirit and both men hold different views. Who arbitrates as to which Christian holds the authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Why does one Christian feel his Holy Spirit led interpretation is correct and the other man's not. ITS QUITE A SIMPLE QUESTION, THE ANSWER I AGREE IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, BUT PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER IT. |
||||||
5 | Who is the arbitrator? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154822 | ||
Thanks Tim, I will study this further. However my most important question remains unanswered: Who is the 'supreme judge' where there is disagreement over the meaning of scripture as in the baptismal regeneration disagreement here with Martin Luther et al's interpretation of Scripture? |
||||||
6 | Until | Matt 1:25 | Dalcent | 135261 | ||
Why do you think he kept her a virgin 'until' or 'till' the birth of Christ proves that Mary lost her virginity after Jesus' birth? Mat 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. Normal English usage (which is what the translators work toward) is why you misunderstand this verse. Translations are not infallible. The phase is first-century Greek. If translators ‘transliterate’ idioms and something is lost they’re wrong. Jerome’s argument, you know: “it was usual among the Hebrews to denote by the word UNTIL only what is done, without any regard to the future.” What you don’t know is that he proves it conclusively by scripture, that this usage is REPEATEDLY seen elsewhere in the Bible: Gen 8:6-7 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro UNTIL the waters were dried up from the earth. Did it come back when the waters were dried up from the earth? The OT words I give in BOLD each time is the Hebrew word ‘ad’ H5704 Isaiah 46:4 EVEN to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save. Does God then cease to be? 1Maccabees 5:54 And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain, TILL they had returned in peace. Where they slain after returning in peace? Luk 20:42-43 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till(heos) I make thy enemies thy footstool. Does Jesus no longer sit at the Father’s right hand at this point? Mat 1:25 again, but knew her not until(heos) she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Nothing is implied about 'afterwards' in Jewish usage in ALL of the examples. They are all fair examples too. Words in foreign language are simply not always exactly translatable to exact equivalents in other languages. Dalcent. |
||||||
7 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135100 | ||
Hi Guys, I’d like to provoke some thought about that most controversial of Catholic doctrines: Purgatory. Or let’s call it the completion of sanctification after death for those who need it. Or at least for me to really understand your view of the end of God's work in us. Justification (as is most commonly understood) is essentially the declaration by God that we are right with him. Even the nastiest sinner is justified as soon as he is ‘regenerate.’ This is essentially a judicial declaration; some of these people are still bound up with many sins and bad habits. This new Christian may still be addicted to drugs, still be a homosexual, etc. Nevertheless, this person is ‘just’ no sin is held against them by God because of the atonement. This person has embarked on the journey of Sanctification. Fortunately, God often eradicates some of these terrible sin patterns almost immediately. Perhaps an alcoholic or smoker is instantly delivered. This does not always happen. But hopefully, we are all on a journey in the direction of perfection or full sanctification. Of course we usually die first but we might get most or all of the way. However, some people don’t get very far on this journey at all; and some people don’t live very long after coming to know Jesus Christ. Anyway, God uses our earthly lives to discipline us and develop our sanctity. Heb 12:6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." My question is do evangelicals believe that, unlike in life, God does the last bit of the work pain-free and even the uncleanest person is instantly perfect. Whooooosh! I know some will say yes quoting , 1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. However, this is referring to the resurrection of the body at the end of history isn’t it. A person needing further sanctifying would be imperishable as well. This verse I submit disproves nothing. Because, a person needing further post-death sanctification is a justified Christian (as in life) I contend this does not in any way demean the atonement. I ask this as a topic for a bit of speculative theologizing. Those against, is there scripture conclusively proving God doesn’t sanctify in the after life. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
8 | In the CONTEXT of John chapters. 3 and 4 | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134712 | ||
It is asked by Doc can anyone see anything in the context of John 3:1-21 that might give us a clear indication that Jesus meant Christian baptism by His use of the word water. Why is it being limited it to John 3:1-21, why not allow 3:22, viz. After these things, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them and baptized. Is it not a startling coincidence that the only incidence of Jesus baptizing (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples John 4:2) occurs after this dialogue (Chaps. 3-4) and nowhere else in the New Testament: nowhere in the synotics or anywhere else! Remember John's Gospel is very theological and written pedagogically, so I'm sure it follows on intentionally. Also don't forget that the early Church fathers had access to the explication of the scriptures by the apostolic authors, disciples such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, etc. John's own words: 2Jo 1:12 Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face Ultimately if scripture does not prove "perspicuous" on John 3:5's 'water'; it remains you cannot prove the early Church's interpretation was wrong and not expounded by the apostles as per 2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. That is, that John 3:5 water is baptism could properly be part of the 'apostolic doctrine'. Act 2:41-42 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship. I'm sure their teaching and fellowship would have thrown light on many areas of nascent Christian doctrine. Dalcent |
||||||
9 | 'Spirit filled' Christian | Matt 3:11 | Dalcent | 134694 | ||
Hi there, I spent years in the Pentecostal movement and our pastor taught that Baptism of the Holy Spirit to be (usually) synonymous with receiving the gift of tongues, hence 'Spirit filled' Christian. I currently am undecided as to whether Baptism of the Holy Spirit is this "second blessing" (which at the time I thought was the clear teaching of Scripture) or is it the same as regeneration. Or is Baptism in the Spirit even something else: something like the Wesleyan / Church of Nazarene "entire sanctification." Related verses:Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Rom 6:3 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? Rom 6:4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. I'm very interested in hearing all sides, and particularly like someone to refresh me as to why Pentecostals believe Baptism in the Holy Spirit is that which is usually evidenced by speaking in tongues / prophesying. Thanks Dalcent |
||||||
10 | John Chrysostom | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134589 | ||
Searcher, You complain that Chrysostom also said "he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life" The man is seems to be quoting John 6:53 exactly: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. What does that make him a heretic? Dalcent |
||||||
11 | Why isn't the Sinner's Prayer a WORK | James 5:16 | Dalcent | 134565 | ||
Some understand that Water baptism APPROPRIATES what Jesus has done on the cross OR that 'The born-again sinner's prayer' APPROPRIATES what Jesus has done on the cross. Why is baptism 'a work' and the 'sinner's prayer' not a work? (Obviously advocates of either stance insist on grace-given faith combined with baptism or the prayer). Why is the born-again prayer NOT a work? Is it not necessary to ask Jesus into your heart? Is DOING this not required?? How can Baptism be a work and a Prayer not a work? The ESV translates James 5:16b The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is WORKING. Praying for salvation is a work too! |
||||||
12 | Real Effects | John 6:56 | Dalcent | 133688 | ||
My question is about the efficacy of partaking of the Eucharist for those who would say it is no more than a symbol. What then does the Bible mean by stating those who do not 'eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood': ...have no life in yourselves. (v53) Or those who do eat [and drink]: ...one may eat of it and not die (v50) ...I will raise him up on the last day (v54) ...abides in Me, and I in him (v56) ...he will live because of Me (v57) ...will live forever (v58) I appreciate that a couple of the references are about 'eating the bread of life' (foreshadowed by physically eating manna) and some attempt could be made to spiritulaise this as having nothing to do with the Lord's Supper. But as the verses go on (verses 53 following) surely it is clear to all that Jesus is talking about eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord' (1 Cor 11:27). Jesus does say that His flesh is true food and true drink (v55). Anyway, my question isn't about "transubstantiation" but about Jesus claiming there is a sacramental effect in consuming His body and blood which is of paramount importance? He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has 'eternal life' and 'I will raise Him up on the last day.' Regards Dalcent |
||||||
13 | Ministering as a priest... (Rom 15:16) | Ex 19:6 | Dalcent | 133675 | ||
In what way does the priesthood of all believers (Christians) differ from the priesthood held by all OT Jews? The Jews had a professional Levitical priesthood alongside this, as do the major historic Christian denominations. I read in an evangelical bookstore today that Ignatius of Antioch writing around 100 AD claimed only overseers / bishops could preside at the Lord's Supper and this was against the 'biblical model.' What direct verses could be offered to suggest that a Christian layman blessing the bread and the wine is a better 'biblical model.'? Regards Dalcent |
||||||
14 | When does Scripture apply to us? | John 17:12 | Dalcent | 132522 | ||
Can I ask why it is assumed that say, the passage in the Gospel of John (chapters 13-17) applies to all individual Christians; yet the passage is (mainly) a monologue addressed to the Apostles. What is the exegetical basis for assuming all scriptural teaching can be applied to any individual Christian, viz. has personal application. (Of course, I realize it is all profitable information; i.e. to hear what Jesus told his disciple would happen to them, but similarly it is interesting and informative to read chapter after chapter of the wrong advice given to Job). For example, John 14:26 states that the Holy Spirit will remind the disciples of everything Jesus has taught them verbally. Certainly, it is being said to the disciples in the first instance. John 14:30 'I will not talk with you much longer...' is specifically addressed to the disciples before His death. How do we deal with the whole issue of whether we can legitimately apply a Scripture to us? Contrarily, John 14:12 is addressed to all believers. 13:38 is about Peter and the rooster. If I thought 17:15 applied to me, it would be virtual blasphemy. What are the general principles for applying Scripture to ourselves, if others are being addressed. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
15 | The NASB is interpreting here | Rev 22:12 | Dalcent | 131979 | ||
Surely in a literal translation Rev 22:12 should end '... according to his works (ergon)' The NASB is interpreting here, not translating. It doesn't seem to like what this verse is saying. Okay I admit I'm a Catholic but I didn't buy my NASB for this kind of thing. Comments from our erudite Greek scholars? |
||||||
16 | How am I saved? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131492 | ||
Dear CDBJ, I don't think God specifically asks anyone "Why should I let you into my kingdom" like in the Jack Chick tracts and you have to get the answer right. However, for your information, I believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross makes satisfaction for my sins and merits my eternal salvation. We enter into the New Convenant in his blood by believing (in our heart that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was risen from the dead) and by being baptised (Mark 16:15) The Bible teaches that having appropriated the benefits of Christ's atoning death all our past sins are wiped cleaned. I don't believe that all our future sins are forgiven; after all Jesus instituted the Lord's Prayer in which we regularly ask forgiveness for our ongoing sins. I do not believe the Bible anywhere teaches that we are forgiven all our sins past, present and future, and it gives many stern warnings against both apostasy and ongoing sin (e.g. James 5:19-20): My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 1 John 5:16-17 is quite explicit about the consequences of sins leading to death or mortal sin as Catholics (and the RSV) would put it. Are you asking me whether I understand that Christ's atoning death is what constitutes my righteousness before God rather than good works. Beyond this I trust you appreciate that the "once saved always saved" view is only held by the Baptists / Presbyterians and their derivatives and is certainly not a universially held belief across Protestantism. Two weeks ago I was rushed into hospital in the middle of the night with severe pains in my chest. First they thought it might be my heart, then it looked liked I had a clot on my lung. I can assure you I felt ready to meet my God and Saviour. Steve |
||||||
17 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131476 | ||
Dear Moey, You write: "Do people who marry in a Catholic churchand later become christian in acceptanceof Jesus Christ for salvation..." I am a Catholic and would like to give you the news that we are Christian and our faith is Christ-centered whatever nonsense you may have been told to the contrary. We believe that Christ has made the full satisfaction for sin by His death and resurrection (Rom 4:25). Rather than concentrating on reading anti-Catholic literature you might find it useful to find out what Catholics really believe from a reliable source. The Catholic Catechism, that is the Catholic Church's authoritative statement of faith, opens by asserting that: "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved than the name of Jesus." (cf. Acts 4:12). Check out our creedal confession of faith too. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN. Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? Reading a broad range of anti-Catholic writers does not constitute a balanced view. Dalcent |
||||||
18 | translate OT "with respect to the NT" | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 111857 | ||
I have just changed from the NRSV because of its inclusive language and liberal bias. My worry ( at least I would like to be able to defend against this accusation ) is how can we justify translation of the OT "with respect to the NT" and at the same time claim we are the most literal? I am an MA theology student and not a language specialist; I don't know any Hebrew at all. | ||||||