Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: roviear Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what's the name it claim it theory? | Gal 5:22 | roviear | 57765 | ||
Charis (or anyone), I know this is a very old post. I cannot seem to find any discussions on the "name it claim it" theory. What are the precepts for this and how is it possible for us as Christians to name it, then claim it? Can we really order God around because it's in His Word? For example, can we really claim good health because God doesn't give bad health? My single friend is claiming marriage, but can she do this based solely on the fact that God created marriage? What about spiritual gifts? Can we claim prophecy because it is in the Bible and therefore is for everyone? What about speaking in tongues? Another issue: I know God spoke things into being. He created them. Since we are in His image, can we do the same thing (one of the foundations for the name it claim it theory)? I have my opinions, but do not know how to support or disprove them using the Word. I believe that not everything in the Bible is for everyone. Am I wrong? Please help! In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
2 | Paul rescued from what (2) | Acts 26:17 | roviear | 57190 | ||
Dasev, first, I would prefer that you use my name rather than an endearment (or what appears to be an endearment). Thanks much. Second, thank you for your response, does anyone else have any thoughts on this passage? In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
3 | why must Catholics doubly confess (2) | Bible general Archive 1 | roviear | 57181 | ||
Emmauss, could you please respond to my original post dated 8/6/02 dtd 2.00 pm? Thank you. In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
4 | strong words for sin, not sinner | Matt 28:19 | roviear | 57086 | ||
Steve, very true. I do believe that at certain times strong words are necessary to shake things up, as it were. However, I don't recall Jesus exhorting us to denigrate the person who is doing the action, but to rebuke the person FOR the action. I also don't recall Jesus or any of the disciples "starting the fights". They didn't allow themselves to be walked on, but neither did they initiate the confrontation. Sin is what starts the confrontation, therefore the rebuke should be toward the sin. Some people are still hardheaded even after the sin is pointed out. At that point, a "HEY YOU, you're on the wrong path because of xyz" is necessary. But a "HEY STUPID, YOU'RE NOT SMART because of xyz" is never called for. Plus, why must people assume the worst and take offense right away? Why not let the fight come to you instead of going on the defensive? All Christians know that Satan and his cohorts cannot help but pick fights, and if they don't, they soon will if they continue to walk in faith and increasing understanding. So, we should be patient, one will get a chance to flex spiritual muscle. In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
5 | why must Catholics "doubly" confess? | Bible general Archive 1 | roviear | 57085 | ||
reposted and clarified: Emmaus, but again, it seems from Teragram123's quotes (I refer to the definitions) that Catholicisms' ways of absolving sin can become quite arbitrary (in that the penance is up to the priest who may feel emotionally drained one day and assign a few rosaries whereas on another day he is refreshed and assigns 10 for the same sin). I would understand if the penance required would be to wash the walls of the church for those who graffiti'd, or buying and replanting the neighbor's flowers if they were ruined. But saying a rosary however many times? How does that help? If I as a Christian have sinned against my brother in Christ, then my brother is free to approach me directly about my sin. If I do not confess to God and am not willing to make restitution to my brother, then my brother must bring with him at least one more Christian to approach me again. If I still am not willing to confess to *God* and to my brother, then the church must get involved and make a decision to BIBLICALLY remove me from the church (Matt 18). No where that I see is anyone who is NOT God allowed to say ok, you've done the time for your crime, so even though you didn't confess to God and or to the person involved, you're free. In answer to your question about who is wrong, the teacher or the individual, it is the teacher, for teachers are held to a much stricter standard than pupils (James 3:1). If the teacher tells his students that they MUST go before a priest regardless of whether the sin has been made right with the involved parties, the teacher is forcing the student into a no-win situation. Why does Catholicism require its participants to go the extra mile when Jesus has already done so? Yet another question, where in the 66 books of the Bible is purgatory mentioned? In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
6 | Paul was rescued from what? | Acts 26:17 | roviear | 57064 | ||
Jesus rescued Paul from the Jews and the Gentiles only to send them back. I understand why Paul was sent, to fulfill the Great Commission to the Gentiles and to bring the Jews out of their rebellion (as described by the further ref in Ezek.). But what was Paul being rescued from? | ||||||
7 | why is Catholic confession required? | Bible general Archive 1 | roviear | 57063 | ||
Emmaus, but again, it seems from Teragram123's comments and quotes that the rules established for absolving the temporal consequences of sin can become quite arbitrary. I would understand if the penance required would be to wash the walls of the church for those who graffiti'd, or buying and replanting the neighbor's flowers if they were ruined. But saying a rosary however many times? How does that help? If I as a Christian have sinned against my brother in Christ, then my brother is free to approach me directly about my sin. If I do not confess to God and am not willing to make restitution to my brother, then my brother must bring with him at least one more Christian to approach me again. If I still am not willing to confess to *God* and to my brother, then the church must get involved and make a decision to BIBLICALLY remove me from the church (Matt 18). No where that I see is anyone who is NOT God allowed to say ok, you've done the time for your crime, so even though you didn't confess to God and or to the person involved, you're free. In answer to your question about who is wrong, the teacher or the individual, it is the teacher, for teachers are held to a much stricter standard than pupils (James 3:1). If the teacher tells his students that they *must* go before a priest regardless of whether the sin has been made right with the involved parties, the teacher is forcing the student into a no-win situation. Why does Catholicism require its participants to go the extra mile when Jesus has already done so? Yet another question, where in the 66 books of the Bible is purgatory mentioned? In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
8 | why is it ok for Catholic priests to... | Bible general Archive 1 | roviear | 57059 | ||
Emmaus, I am very confused about certain aspects of Catholicism. I ask that you please remember that I am not familiar with the faith and do not mean to offend by my words. I simply want to understand the differences. In response, I agree that one must pay for the wrongs he did. However, I see a distinction between salvation and punishment, which you seem to imply are the same (correct me if I am wrong). Yes, we all, if possible must atone, or make restitution, for our sins. This is what I call punishment, not salvation. Nor was I speaking about being rescued (saved) from circumstances in one's life. I was referring to the forgiveness of sins. BC, the blood of Christ was represented by the blood of sacrificial animals. Therefore many of the "rituals" for lack of better word are no longer necessary for forgiveness of sin. In Catholicism, I see man forgiving man's sins and God is seemingly cut out of the picture. I don't understand why a priest is able to absolve a person's sin by telling him to say the rosary a number of times, or pay a penance fee to the church. It clearly says in the Bible that only God forgives sins. Why then is it necessary for a practicing Catholic to attend confession if he has made himself right before God and those he offended? I would better understand the necessity if the person made a public confession, but anything said to the priest in the booth is confidential. So what is the point? How is saying the rosary an atonement for a lie made to someone else? Another few questions, why is a priest not required to provide testimony to murder if the priest knows who did it? Where in the Bible (please do not include the Apocrypha) does it say that a person does not need to bear testimony against those who have done wrong against the laws of the land? Wouldn't the priest not become an accomplice? And how does he know to weigh the sin of the murderer or thief against the pain experienced by the injured party or party's family? In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
9 | are we still caught in our own worlds? | Bible general Archive 1 | roviear | 56521 | ||
Hank, do you still feel this way about the forum? I have found it to be enlightening, sometimes even entertaining. To be honest, your, Nolan's, and Kalos' posts have been very inspiring and helpful in clearing up confusion on some of my questions, to the point that I haven't needed to post them. So, do you still feel this way? And to the other members of this forum, have we thought about the accountability to which Hank points? We are all held accountable for what's in the heart, for the heart is a wellspring for all that comes from it (thoughts, spoken word, and actions--see especially James, Colossians, Proverbs, and 1 Corinthians). I exhort all of us, including myself, to pray first before speaking, for we are to be light and salt to the world, including fellow believers. Sorry, let me get down from my soapbox now. Hank, do you still think your thoughts are true of the forum? If so, why? In Christ, Estelle |
||||||
10 | women not allowed to be involved? | 1 Cor 14:34 | roviear | 53747 | ||
I have an email pal whose church is based strictly on this verse. The women are not allowed to speak during service, have any involvement in church matters, including ministry to other women or children, and must also keep silent during midweek services. Only men are allowed to bring problems or issues to the elders (the church doesn't have a pastor) once a year. In addition, the women (I believe even those with long hair) must wear headcoverings in the form of hats. Events that encourage fellowship among believers outside of those already established by the church is strongly discouraged. Even the music is a capella despite the fact that King David frequently celebrated with musical instruments. How can I minister to my sister in Christ whose husband likes this church but is sympathetic to the fact that his wife cannot freely worship? She feels stifled to say the least and receives absolutely no edification from such an enclosed environment. I suggested that she, through her husband, approach the elders, but that is not encouraged at all. What scriptural references do I use to wake her and her husband up to following God's wishes for the entire family without offending the husband? While her husband is working on this, I also want to be an encouragement to her to continue submitting to her husband's wishes, any references for that? | ||||||
11 | Christians before family | Matt 10:37 | roviear | 36728 | ||
Where in the Bible does it mention that Christians should put other Christians before their families (i.e., spouses, parents, etc.)? | ||||||
12 | Trinity or Trinity an angels b4 earth | John 1:3 | roviear | 30048 | ||
So how were angels in existence in the beginning? Who are the seraphim and cherubim if God alone existed (I include Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit when I say "God alone")? | ||||||
13 | help me with Jehovah's Witness' belief | Col 2:9 | roviear | 19355 | ||
I tried to discuss the Trinity with a Jehovah's Witness to prove that his "bible" and my Bible were indeed two different books. All the scriptures he mentioned were taken out of context, but he refused to read the entire passage. When I explained that his bible's interpretation changed the meaning, he disagreed. How do I show him the error of picking and choosing without understanding the context and the difference of his bible versus the rest? | ||||||