Results 1 - 20 of 42
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5512 | ||
I've jumped in in the middle of this conversation, but if I am correct in my understanding of Cephas question, your answer, charis, is not satisfactory. If God is good and created only good, and evil comes from Lucifer, where then where did Lucifer come from? We know God made him. In all honesty, the serious Christian does not have an answer to the question, "Where does evil come from?" Every single answer has serious logical, philosophical, and theological problems. The only answer we can give is that evil somehow serves to further God's glory. For the Christian, this is an acceptable answer. Credo ut intelligam. I believe that I may understand. |
||||||
2 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5607 | ||
No, you should not. Your current position is understandable, considering the significant amount of animosity between the Anabaptists and just about everyone else. Even though Protestants and Romans fought wars with each other, both of them allied against the Anabaptists, who were viewed as apostate. You have chosen a singularly difficult tradition. I believe, as does the historical tradition of everyone but the Anabaptists, that rebaptism is not only unnecessary, but sinful. It declares that God did not fulfill His promises when you were baptised the first time. Baptism is the sign and seal of entering into the covenant community. It should not be partaken of more than once. More than that, my soteriology does not allow for baptism to be received more than once. Since I believe that free will has nothing at all to do with salvation, strict believers baptism makes no sense, and rebaptism becomes an act of unbelief in the promises of God. |
||||||
3 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5664 | ||
Cephas: Point your newsreader to alt.religion.christian-teen. There's very interesting conversation there from time to time, and regardless of what the name indicates, most of the people there aren't either Christian or in their teens. Any question is fair game. This forum seems to be intended for Christians to ask other Christians about Scripture. |
||||||
4 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5665 | ||
I'll leave the disproving to others, but I think that I can explain a bit. First, it depends on whether he is reacting to music as a whole, or just the music in youth group. If it is the latter, I would not only understand but wholeheartedly agree. I am coming to believe that "contemporary worship" does not count as worship. Look at the majesterial forms of worship set up in the Old Testament, and see how Hebrews says that we have come to something even more impressive. Then think about the kinds of music commonly played in youth groups. Doesn't exactly fit. Music is to contribute to a proper attitude, an attitude of awe, reverence, fear, and joy. Worship is entering into the very throne room of the risen Christ, and should reflect the gravity of the situation. Most music used in worship simply does not do this. If the gentlemen in question is thinking along these lines, his position is fairly understandable. However, if he holds that music of any kind is not permissible in worship, I am at somewhat of a loss to provide an explanation. It seems that music has always been used by the people of God in worship from the very earliest. My guess is that he is overreacting to the sentimental tripe that passes for "worship" nowadays. |
||||||
5 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5688 | ||
Oh my. First of all, I detect a distinct, anti-tradition vibe here. Your first paragraph is simply sarcasm. Next, you have misconstrued me again. I never meant to say that only Anabaptists and Baptists baptise. How you could have gotten that from my post is beyond me. I assumed that believers' baptism would be understood as contra infant baptism. Of course I believe in baptism. Every Christian church baptizes believers, but only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants. The Pentecostal/charismatic denominations are offshoots of the Holiness movement, an offshoot from Methodism. Methodism was founded by John Wesley, who was converted by a Moravian Anabaptist. As to historical church tradition, simply look around. We all came from Rome at one point, and they have always baptised infants, and still do. The Reformed denominations baptise infants, as do the Lutherans. Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history. |
||||||
6 | Aren't a lot more killed in chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5780 | ||
Here's a suggestion: abandon dispensational premillenialism. You will never resolve your question as to who will be in the millennium unless you do. Being amillennial/preterist myself, I believe that the millennium is now, and that we, the saints, reign with Christ. Cf. Ephesians 2. Being "seated" is the symbol of authority, just as a king sits on a throne. We already reign with Christ, but await the final fulfillment that will come when Christ returns (cf. Rev. 2). | ||||||
7 | What about chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5804 | ||
I believe that Revelation has a threefold purpose. The first is to provide the church with a glimpse of heaven, which in turn makes a gigantic part of Scripture make a lot more sense. All of the tabernacle furniture? Mirrored in Revelation at some point. The great covenant promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7? Cf. Revelation 21:3. The entire book is filled with parallels of this kind. The second purpose, and the most directly applicable to the original audience, is to prophacy about the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. The similarities are striking. And in Josephus, who records the war in 67-73AD, says that the Christians had fled Jerusalem for they had a word of revelation. This is the preterist part of my eschatology. I believe that most of Revelation except for the second half of 20-22 has already happened in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. The army from the north (Rome), came through the land and killed upwards of a million Jews. Severe famine, widespread death, disease, and destruction. The third purpose of Revelation is to provide the church with snapshots of what life will be like between the Advents. There are many possible "fulfillments" of these passages, for in this sense are not intended to speak about a single event (except for, of course, the great white throne, New Jerusalem, and imagery of that type). As such, saying that Revelation 16 "has already taken place" doesn't make much sense when using Revelation in this third way. It has happened many times before, and will happen many times again. The passage is intended to be a comfort to the church, stranger in a strange land, that God will come to judge her enemies and vindicate the righteous. |
||||||
8 | More help with the millennium | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5811 | ||
Yes, I do believe that Satan is restrained. His capacity for deceiving the nations was removed at Pentecost. But "the nations" is simply a term for "the Gentiles." No longer is the Word only for the Israelites and those who choose to identify themselves with the Israelite nation. Also, just because Satan's activity is restricted does not mean that he no longer has any activity in the world. Also, I do not believe that the sin in the world comes from Satan. It comes from us; we don't need his help. We are quite capable on our own. Satan was the accuser of the brethren. But "who shall bring an accusation against God's elect." Satan no longer has anything to bring against God's own, for justice has been served in the atoning work of Christ. He can no longer accuse the brethren. About Rev. 16:19. During the siege of Jerusalem, a three-faction civil war broke out between the Jews. Stones weighing up to 90 pounds were hurled over the walls by Roman catapults. Check out http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-4eschaton.php and http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-5eschaton.php for more information on this subject. In fact, the entire Eschaton section on that site is definitely worth reading. Also, Kenneth Gentry's book _Before Jerusalem Fell_ is an excellent exposition of preterism, even though he himself goes the postmillennial route instead of my own amillennial direction. |
||||||
9 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5830 | ||
I would say not. Every part of Scripture meant something to the original audience. If Rev. 16 is referring to the tripartite division of Jerusalem between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, what good would that have done for the first century church? Islam would not come into existence for another seven centuries, and would not take over Jerusalem for a few centuries after that. Also, the land of Palestine ceased to be specifically Jewish in the second century AD. There had not been Jewish/Islamic strife there until this century. If Rev. 16 does refer to Jewish/Islamic/Christian division, it would be of utterly no use to Christians that lived before this century. Scripture does not work this way. More than that though, the church really oughtn't to have any interest in Jerusalem more than any other place on earth. The sacrificial system is _over_ and the temple is no longer necessary. Judaism has served its purpose. Read Hebrews. Now that the new has come the old is dispensed with. |
||||||
10 | big sins / litle sins | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5833 | ||
The answer is both no and yes. On one hand, Scipture clearly indicates that the slightest transgression of the law imputes enough guilt for damnation. Practically though, this shouldn't make much difference, since all of us sin so much that making distinctions on this basis is a bit futile. On the other hand, it does seem that God views some sins as more serious than others. Examine the civil code in the Old Testament. Some sins require death, others do not. And the level of punishment short of death varies, apparently with the severity of the harm caused. I guess the way to harmonize these answers is that from God's perspective, one sin is just as serious as another. But from a human, especially a human judical perspective, some sins are more serious than others. |
||||||
11 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5885 | ||
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, item iii: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39, 4:12; John 3:3, 5, 8, 16:7-8, ; I John 5:12 Of course, that is the Reformed position, and it doesn't work unless you have Reformed soteriology. Also, faithful members of the covenant have the right, based upon the promises of God, to expect that God will work in their children. Thus, Christians who lose a child may be comforted thus, but unbelievers may not. |
||||||
12 | Must prophesy speak to original audience | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5961 | ||
I am not disputing the fact that Scripture can prophacy about events that have not occurred yet. And yes, Daniel 7:7 does refer to Rome. But this does not mean that the original audience had no idea what was going on. They may have only had a crude, simplistic, and incomplete undesrtanding. But the imagery itself probably meant something to them. Furthermore, assigning ancient empires to Daniel 7 fits with the rest of Scripture pretty well. Rome, Medo-Persia, the Ptolamies, the Selucids, and the Greeks all make showings later in Scripture. The American continent was not even known to the old world for more than two millennia after the time of Daniel. Prophacy? Sure, but I think that's pushing it. Yes, I do say that the church should have no interest in Jerusalem than in any other city. It's just a place, like any other. And you have to be more than a "Futurist" to think that Jerusalem plays an important role in the eschaton. You also have to be at least a bit dispensational. I do believe that the Second Coming is still to come, but I'm self-consciously anti-dispensational. In Revelation, I believe that "Jerusalem" is used both literally and figuratively. But I also believe that all of the literal uses have occurred in the events surroinding its destruction in the war around 70AD. The references that are figurative have to do with "Jerusalem" as the ideal city of God, and nothing at all to do with an earthly location that is not simply a contribution to the imagery. About Zech. 14. Unless someone can provide a better interpretation, I believe that this happened during the first Advent and the destruction of Jerusalem. |
||||||
13 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6526 | ||
Why? What has changed? God never seems to be overly concerned with this. Why should we? | ||||||
14 | One God; Calvin is his prophet? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6571 | ||
Piling on personal abuse doesn't make me wrong, and neither does it answer anything I have said. | ||||||
15 | Joshua wrong in giving choice to serve | Joshua | orthodoxy | 5508 | ||
Absolutely not. Even though we are called by God without reference to anything at all that has to do with us, He calls us _to_ something: obedience. Joshua was presenting the Israelites with the same choice that all Christians face. Will we act as members of the covenant community or not? | ||||||
16 | Six fingered man today? | 2 Sam 21:20 | orthodoxy | 5784 | ||
This is a recognized congenital anomaly, and occurrs, albiet infrequently, even today. Most of the time the sixth digit is unusable, but this does not have to have been the case for the giants. Since I'm something of a fantasy fan, I'm personally fond of theories that involve characters and beings of truly mythical stature in Scripture. The Nephilim, etc. But this is little more than a pet theory and I wouldn't base much on it. In any case, Scripture makes very little hay out of any of these things, so it would be unwise to do so ourselves. |
||||||
17 | David's son named after the prophet? | 1 Chr 14:4 | orthodoxy | 5783 | ||
It is possible, but since the text says nothing to that effect, building anything on that idea is unwise. For all we know, Nathan could simply have been the name to have that year. | ||||||
18 | Which mountain or the same mountain? | 2 Chr 3:1 | orthodoxy | 5602 | ||
Yes, it is the same mountain. And the Mount of Olives is the same one as in the Old Testament as well. For more parallelism, note that Adam fell in a garden, Eden, and Christ atoned in a garden (probable location of Golgotha). Also, the atonement sacrifice was sent outside the camp, and Christ was crucified outside the city. The entire Old Testament shouts out the gospel. | ||||||
19 | Is the United States in the Bible? | Dan 7:4 | orthodoxy | 5952 | ||
This is nonsense and an abuse of Scripture. I do not believe that God has placed things in Scripture that are useless for 2500 years, and if Daniel 7:4 has to do with Britain and the US, then that's exactly what's happening. Not only that, but Baxer is, or at least seems to be, dispensational. I'm willing to ditch his entire method of interpretation from start to finish :) |
||||||
20 | Urgent and swift help needed!! | Matt 18:15 | orthodoxy | 5815 | ||
The first thing you need to do is to look into your church's position on church discipline, and find out whether or not your pastor and elders are willing to enforce it. If your church does not have a clear statement about how church discipline occurs, or your pastor and elders will not abide by it, you will have a difficult time of it. Hopefully neither of these is the case. The second thing you need to do is to see if what this man is teaching actually goes against what your church has in its statement of faith. I do not know what that is, and I am not sure exactly all that this man is teaching. If your statement of faith is vague enough, you will have a difficult time bringing any action against him. If your church is anything like the church I left last year, people can teach just about anything they want. Hopefully your elders will be willing to exercise discipline, and your statement of faith is detailed enough to bring action against this confuser of the youth. Once you have determined the state of affairs regarding the first two things, you should take your husband with you and confront this man. If he does not repent, take someone else (another deacon or an elder would be good) with you. If he still refuses to repent, bring it before the elders. If he still refuses to repent, you may eventually have to excommunicate him. I pray that none of these steps will be necessary, but all of this is taken directly from the Scriptures, specifically Matthew 18:15-20. The Holy Spirit is present to validate and witness to the judgements of His church. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |