Results 1 - 20 of 49
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: bjanko Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What does Bible teach on election? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 225 | ||
Election is unconditional. "And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:10-13) |
||||||
2 | sin vs. sins vs. iniquity vs. dead works | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1080 | ||
I'm not sure there is much difference between sin and sin. Although remember there is the sin which we actually commit ourselves in addition to the sin nature we inherited by imputation from Adam. Iniquity just seems like another name for our personal sins which we commit. Dead works is sinful in only an indirect way. Dead works are the works we do to try and earn merit before God. They might even be good works, but in terms of making us right with God they are totally dead because they are not from faith. |
||||||
3 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1091 | ||
All are sinners and under the wrath and curse of God. Remember that God has the right to judge all mankind, not only for their own sins, but for the sins imputed to them in Adam. So, if by some miracle, you had never ever sinned, you would still be guilty by virtue of the sin nature you have inherited. This goes for young and old, male and female. All babies are sinners and subject to the same wrath. This is where the destructive views of Arminians enter in. Because they think man is able to choose God, they must make up an "age of accountability" where this must happen, and also excuse all infants and say God must be sending them to heaven. However, the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith, not that we give to ourselves, but that faith is a gift from God. GOD REGENERATES US BEFORE WE ARE ABLE TO BELIEVE; or, put another way, we are enabled to believe because regenerates/saves us. For those who cannot choose -- like the mentally ill or infants -- are they different than us? Not at all. No man with all his usual capacities is able to choose God. God elects those whom He will save. Those who are able will express that new life by exercising faith in Christ. Those who cannot show the expression of their salvation -- such as babies, etc. -- are still saved because God has saved them. |
||||||
4 | Scripture please? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1482 | ||
I did give you verses, I just didn't cite Chap and verse, assuming you would be familiar with them. I said, "I think it is Proverbs that says children are a blessing from the Lord." I was wrong; it's Psalm 127:3 "Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward" It follows that a gift not be returned to the Giver, but be enjoyed and appreciated. For instance, another great gift of God is the righteousness He has imputed to us in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's not something we would take it upon ourselves to deny or return to Him. There are other passages which show God's nature and so "by inference" I see that life and death are in his hands. If nothing else, look at the providential way He gave victory and defeat to Israel, depending on their obedience/disobedience. I could perhaps say more or be more specific, but I find myself falling asleep at my computer as I type, so I must go. Forgive me, Good night, bjanko |
||||||
5 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1488 | ||
I would ask you to supply Scripture for some of the things you have stated as well. The main thrust of what I am saying is that we should trust the Lord with our children, i.e., with how many He blesses us with and when. And this fits perfectly into the context of us living a life of total trust and dependence on the sovereign will of God. I do not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, or even when the mother's life is in danger. An abortion is the murdering of a guiltless person and Scripture says, "Thou shalt not murder." Anyway, it is a fact that instances where it's the child's life or the mother's are extremely rare. These are hyped-up scenarios in the media, unbelieving secularists, to bring fear confusion to the issue. God is in control and He is sovereign over all. Many forms of contraception, like RUD480 (or whatever it's called) and the IUD, simply kill the fertilized egg,or at least they at times work in that manner. So even some "contraceptions" actually work like tiny abortions. I do not think we ought to try and have as many kids as possible; but I also do not think we ought to try to prevent having any kids either. Again, my reasons come down to this: 1. If a Christian mother becomes pregnant God has provided that child for the family and its care. 2. We have a loving God, a God who provides for us, one Whom we can trust. 3. If God gives us a child, we should trust Him in that matter. "Practical matters" just do not come into these precepts; although I acknowledge that there could be some scenarios where things become less clear and we have to use our God-given wisdom. I just think those scenarios are the exception rather than the rule. My points are not so much about childbirth, but on absolute trust and dependence on the One who brought US into the world. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." (Prov 3:5-6) |
||||||
6 | Was Noah's Ark ever found? | OT general | bjanko | 169 | ||
No. | ||||||
7 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | bjanko | 3763 | ||
No. | ||||||
8 | Is Passover celebrated by Messianic Jews | NT general Archive 1 | bjanko | 264 | ||
I would say that it would be all right to appreciate the rich Christological symbolism of the Passover. But if one actually "celebrates" Passover, it is like ignoring the work of Christ because Christ IS our Passover. Passover is the shadow; Christ is the substance. Christ is the Real and Glorious and Beautiful. To actually "celebrate" Passover would be to turn from the worship of the Real and to be enamored with the picture of the Real, to look at the picture more than the object of the picture. "For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7b) |
||||||
9 | Does God want big churches? | NT general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1079 | ||
I don't think God wants churches that are so big that the minister, elders and deacons are unable to properly provide for the individual members of the flock in a personal one-on-one way. | ||||||
10 | A pastor who is there? | NT general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1141 | ||
IN THEORY: if a mega-church existed where it was subdivided and there REAL pastors and elders who shepherded their assigned portions of the flock, then I suppose all would be well. Unfortunately, mega-churches seem to operate much in the way you describe and so I do not think they are healthy. Theoretically, there could be an exception, but it is certainly very difficult to consider it a wise rule. It is more biblical, because you do have a pastor familiar with the individuals of his flock, if you have a smaller congregation. I am in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery, which covers So. California and some of Arizona is really what is called the "church." So, in that sense, it is indeed a mega church. However, the Presbytery oversees Sessions, which are two to four trained men -- a teaching elder, a couple ruling elders and perhaps a deacon or two. These men are usually over a smaller congregation, from say 50 to 200. And the number of men to congregants is sufficient for their to be proper care and feeding of the sheep. If the proportion is not adequate for that, then they should make two smaller churches out of it, in my opinion. |
||||||
11 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 74 | ||
At first, the plants were watered by a mist that used to rise from the surface of the ground. Rain did not begin till after the "floodgates" of the sky were opened. Compare these verses: Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Gen 2:6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. AND Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. Gen 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. |
||||||
12 | Does Genesis predict Jesus? | Genesis | bjanko | 1234 | ||
The protoevangel (however you spell it); the first proclamation of the Gospel is in Gen 3:15. "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." He who will bruise Satan on the head is Christ. |
||||||
13 | Flood in the air? | Gen 1:1 | bjanko | 1090 | ||
Of course it receded into the atmosphere. The Bible says so. | ||||||
14 | what are the days? | Gen 1:2 | bjanko | 3762 | ||
What's wrong with the sun and moon being created on day 4? Who says that day 7 did not have an end? |
||||||
15 | why were Eli's sons permitted to do this | 1 Samuel | bjanko | 244 | ||
This is evidence that Eli's faith grew cold in his later years. This is evidenced by the way God judged him at the end of his life. |
||||||
16 | Can a homosexual be an "Elect" | Matt 12:31 | bjanko | 1888 | ||
This question implies so many other questions. But, taking this question at face value, the answer would have to be "yes." | ||||||
17 | Excommunication? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1089 | ||
The Matthew verse is in reference to excommunication. The Thessalonians verse is not as a extreme -- it's simply a disassociation, to shame him for his disobedience, not fellowshiping. The Thess. verse is not excommunication because the very next verse says to "admonish him as a brother." If he is to be treated "as" a brother, then he must still be in the visible church; if he were excommunicated, you would need to treat him as a non-brother, i.e. a Gentile or tax-collecter, (see the Matthew passage again). | ||||||
18 | Jesus closes the door? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1104 | ||
The Matthew verse says to treat them like Gentiles and tax collectors; in other words, they were to be excommunicated; this is plain because they were the lowest scoundrels in society. I agree with your point, but let me clarify. The only good tax collector was a repentant one, to borrow a phrase. The image of the tax collector is to emphasis that they should be put out of the church. The issue you are raising now is different? You seem to really be asking, "How should we treat the apostate, those who are excommunicated?" And here is where we agree: we should treat the excommunicated as Jesus did, offering the gift of God's free grace and inviting them into the Kingdom; however, the church officers cannot allow them into the kingdom until they are will to repentant and believe, which also implies coming under church authority. In excommunication, the door is always open for reconciliation and repentance. But only those who actually do repent and believe should be allowed back in through the door. |
||||||
19 | The church involved? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1140 | ||
Matt 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. Matt 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. Matt 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Matt 18:18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matt 18:19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. Matt 18:20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matt 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Matt 18:22 Jesus *said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. *********** This section covers all your concerns. 1) "if your brother sins against you" - it doesn't specify type of sin, it just says "sins" 2) the church should be informed about the matter -- maybe not every gory detail, but the main thrust of the issue; the verse explicitly says it should be made known to the church; I'm just inferring that the church not be told so much that it might lead to gossip or an ungodly disdain toward someone they ought all should desire to see come to repentance vv. 18-20 show clearly that there is an ecclesiastical authority; an authority the church leaders -- ministers and elders -- have that the laity does not have vv. 21-22 is paradoxical. Jesus tells Peter he should forgive the brother basically without any limit, (i.e., the hyperbole seventy times seven). I think this is resolved though by taking the view that while we might forgive the brother, we -- the church -- ought not let him profess to be a Christian if he lives in sin and will not repent. The excommunication is to cause him to desire repentance, just as the exile of Israel was meant to cause them to desire to return to their God. |
||||||
20 | Executive privilege? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1147 | ||
I would not agree the sin must be particularly heinous; it simply must be repentant. The caps were in the NASB translation when I did a search for the verse. It was not my emphasis. They are in caps because they are words taken from the Mosaic Law in the O.T. and the NASB always caps those to indicate them. I don't know how many rules we can work out to come up with exact rules, which why we need leaders with wisdom living by God's rule. Ministers not ought hold back. If they do, then THEY should be disciplined by those over them. (Of course, many ministers have no one over them unless they are in a Reformed church.) vv. 18-20 are not verses merely about prayer, as is commonly misunderstood. Taken in context, they are referring to the prayers of two or three church authorities, binding and loosing, exercising authority over the church, with powers to admit into the church or to excommunicate. I believe the Scripture gives great authority to spiritual leaders and of course there's danger in that and men should be tested and examined very carefully before they are ordained. I'm not really sure what your main point or bottom line is, so I'm not really able to answer any more succinctly than this. I also agree that excommunication is not a glib or light thing or something that should be rushed into without first full and earnest pleading with the offender to repent. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |