Results 1 - 20 of 35
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15405 | ||
I think you are confusing inspiration with Inerrancy. All evangelical beliver, and most non-evangelical belivers, would consider the Bible inspired. The question usually revolves around the Inerrancy of the scripture. Is the Bible Without error? If so, does that title apply to our translations? |
||||||
2 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15457 | ||
I just read a book entitled the History of Christian Theology (I am at work on break and do not know the author). It was a very enlightening book, to say the least--although written by a person considered a liberal. I believer Calvanism interprets these scriptures in light (the author of the book would agree with this statement) of their theology and not let the Bible speak for itself. My question is why? The book makes a few points that is relevant to our discussion here. 1.) For the first two centuries of the Christian faith, Armenian type theology was the only theology. He points out that individuals usually pull qoutes from the fathers of this period out of context to prove their theology was always around, but the fahters of this period was far from calvanistic. 2.) Why the shift? Greek philosophy, period. They interpret these passages through the lense of a Greek philisophical understanding of sovereignty. If God is totally soverign, that must mean he has orchestrated every event in history. If individuals could make a choice, that would nullify God's sovereignty. Therefore, God must have pre-determined who would be saved and who would not be saved. I could add a lot more passages to your list, but I know how they would interpret them: 1.) That is an obscure passage and must be interpreted in light of a passage that seems to backup what I believe. 2.) Castaway, reprobate in the greek, doesn't really mean what it says. It just means that Paul might just get two crowns and a ruby instead of 4 crowns and three rubies. 3.) Paul was just using hyberbolic language. He really did not mean a person could walk away from the faith...sike (to us an 80's term)! 4.) Jesus was under the law, so you really can't use his passages to justify your belief. Only Paul's letters directly apply to the beleiver. I could go on and on and on. I love the way they dance around the Hebrew passages, but will not go into that on this post. And if you disagree with calvanists, they usually imply that you have not studied to their degree or you are ignoring the context of the passage etc., else you would be a calvanist too. got to get some work done. Just thought I would stir up the calvanist web board a little. |
||||||
3 | What is 'being saved' here? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15541 | ||
A little convoluted? What post did you read? I thought it was straight and to the point. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean their post is "convoluted" By the way, your post was convoluted. |
||||||
4 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 17577 | ||
Mathew 27:5] Judas went and hanged himself. [Acts 1:18] Judas fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Serpent handled one, so I will also handle one. Judas did hang himself and Matthew accurately records this event. Luke just adds a little more detail to the account about what happened after Judas hung himself--Rope was cut/or broke, Judas fell down and split open and his insides came out. If you watch old war documentaries, when a person dies their body will fill up with internal body fluid. Eventually, the person’s body will rupture causing his fluids to spill forth. If Judas were hanging for any period of time, this process would be magnified when his body went crashing down to earth. Sorry for the graphic details. These two passages do not contradict each other. A contradiction is when two statements together can't possibly be true. Let me give you an example: Matthew states that Judas hung himself and died. Luke, the author of Acts, states explicitly that Judas did not hang himself. Both statements can’t possibly be true. A number of people bring up "apparent contradictions" without ever asking if the two statements can both be true at the same time! A number passages mentioned in your post definitely fall into this category. In the Gospels the Holy Spirit gave the author’s liberty to add details that they deemed important to the story they were telling. Just because some of the other gospel writers did not feel a particular detail of an event warranted inclusion into their gospel, does not mean the detail did not happen or is a contradiction. schwartzkm |
||||||
5 | Advise on contradictions found in bible | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 17578 | ||
[1 Corinthians 15:5] Jesus appeared to the twelve after he rose again. [Mathew 28:16] Jesus appeared to the eleven after he rose again. What the heck. I will answer another one. In Matthew, Judas was not alive when Jesus appeared to the masses. 12 disciples(apostles) minus one (apostle...Judsas)gives you 11(apostles) disciples. In Acts 1 the disciples chose another disciple, Matthias, to replace Judas. Matthias was a witness of the ressurection and therefore constittued the 12th apostle--some debate here. So, Paul could say in 1 cor. 12 that Jesus appeared to the 12--the 12th being matthias. |
||||||
6 | Let not thy body be a chimney | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 18063 | ||
I think David Satcher said that...Surgeon Gerneral | ||||||
7 | Revelation told by the stars? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 19541 | ||
I have also heard Robert Shuler say something similar to what Perry is teaching. I don't buy into it but, if you do want to find out more about this, Robert Shuler has produced a book (It may be a teaching series) on the subject. I am sure you can find it on his website. Like I said in the post--so I don't get stoned--I don't really buy into it. I think it is more speculation than anything else. |
||||||
8 | how do you define faith? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 20993 | ||
Are you a member of Mensa? Just curious. | ||||||
9 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21181 | ||
I have a few observations: 1. Re-occuring themes come up for a good reason. book entitled "Doctrines that Divide" one thing you will notice as that not much has changed in 1800 years of church history and a number of beliefs stem from your understanding of predestination and free will. So, there will always be re-occuring themes on the forum. 2. Try to keep posts short. I don't have time to respond to a 6 page critique filled with 50 scripture verses (I know I am over-exaggerating). Tim Morant is the king of getting the most out of few words--My hat goes off to you. I know...I need to practice what I preach. 3. Don't copy or cut and paste articles from other authors. I don't mind qoutes--actually I like them--but I don't want to respond to RC Sproul; I want to respond to Sir pent (Not that he does that, I just had to use a name of someone on the forum). I am relativly new to the forum and stay because I enjoy hearing how other people from different Theological understandings approach certain passages. My 2 cents...Well maybe 1. |
||||||
10 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21710 | ||
I have read Ed's post and agree with many things he has pointed out. Let me tell you my take on this matter. I think human nature is what has divided us into denominational boundaries. We naturally gravitate to people who agree with our interpretation of the Bible on pet doctrinal beliefs (I am not referring to Orthodox vs. un-Orthodox teachings. I am referring to those beliefs that most would consider secondary issues: Rapture of the church; Bible Prophecy charts; Sanctification issues etc.). Whenever someone stands in the pulpit and declares something as true and others don't see that teaching as true they only have 3 options at their disposal: 1.) Choose to stay in the church and not make a big deal out of it 2.) Attempt to change the other person’s view 3.) Choose to leave the church and attend one that views the Bible the same way they do on the issue at hand. Let me share a personal testimony that my wife and I had in a church in Texas. For a short period of time my wife and I attended Hillcrest Christian Church. This church comes from a background that espouses the belief, “No Creed But Christ.” They had no official creed (statement of beliefs on paper) and actually criticized churches that chose to write down their beliefs on paper stating “all creeds do is divide the church of Jesus Christ!” Therefore, creeds were looked at as something evil and not to be tolerated among real Christian churches. The only difference I found in the “Creedal Church” and the “Christian Church” was the former laid everything they believed out in the open and the latter left you guessing and probing in the dark trying to find out where they stood on issues. My family spun our wheels until finally we boiled down what the church body as a whole embraced: Their un-written creed! Yes, they had a creed but chose not to write it down. I will list 4 beliefs that I did not agree with that most of the church body at Hillcrest did: 1. Baptismal regeneration. 2. Amellinanism 3. Dispensationalism 4. O.T has no application to the N.T. believer By the way, the pastor found out that he violated one of the unspoken creeds of the church after 10 plus years of ministry: Verbal Plenanary Inspiration of the Bible. He did not believe in the verbal plenenary inspiration of the scriptures. Talk about one ugly scene that would have been avoided if the Elders of the church had produced, in writing, their doctrinal beliefs prior to hiring him as their minister. Allow me to make two observations about this church’s denominational attempt to unify the body of Christ: 1.) In the name of Unity, they produced another division in the body of Christ. You now have a “non creedal” division in Christ’s body. 2.) The slogan “No creed but Christ” sounds spiritual but it is not practical. They have creeds, they just choose not to write them down on paper. You will find out what their creeds are when you find yourself thrown into World War XXXXXX in their adult Sunday school class. I appreciate this denomination's attempt to unify the church but feel it will never work until Christ comes back for His bride. Yes, denominational biases are reflected in our forum but let me ask you and others on this forum a question: Do you embrace a truth because it comes from your denomination? Or do you reflect the beliefs of your denomination because it is True? |
||||||
11 | Pre exilic old testament prophets | OT general | userdoe220 | 19089 | ||
Pre-Exilic Obadiah Joel Amos Hosea Jonah Micah Isaiah Nahum Zehpaniah Habakkuk Jeremiah Wow! The Lord Sure was patient and Longsuffering! Exilic Prophets Ezekiel Daniel Haggai Zechariah Malachi I hope that helps. I got this information from Toward and O.T Theology Walter C. Kaiser, Jr Zondervan Pulisher House 1991 |
||||||
12 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | userdoe220 | 15491 | ||
What do you believe in? | ||||||
13 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15406 | ||
Well, you could use the "Anthropormorphic" argument. Since God is perfectly holy, He cannot be the cause of Evil. Therefore, this passage must be anthropormorphic in nature. This line of reasoning is used when a passage states that God repented/changed His mind over performing some act. |
||||||
14 | Thanks, but... | Psalm | userdoe220 | 20400 | ||
In the epistles, Paul and other authors responded to issues in the church that was brougt to their attention. The reason why musical instruments never came up is because it was never an issue. I have a few questions to ask you and those who happen to believe this way. Why are you (they) throwing out the book of Psalms and other O.T. worship passages that include musical instruments? Where in the N.T. does it tell you to exclude passages in the O.T. that include musical instruments? Didn't James qoute the O.T more than 30 times in his short book? Doesn't the book of Hebrews, Matthew, I and II Peter and other N.T. books qoute heavily from the Bible of their day--O.T? How about the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers (early church fathers)? They qouted heavily from O.T. passages. By the way, musical instruments are mentioned in the N.T. Rev 5:8-9 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song: NIV I hope this gives you a number of things to think about. |
||||||
15 | Shouldn't we obey ALL God's Word? | Matt 6:14 | userdoe220 | 16352 | ||
Hebrews points out that this is a shadow of the perfect sacrifice, Jesus. The answer would be, no. I think this is what we call in speech class a "straw man" argument. Using extremes never brings about a good discussion. So, I ask for everyone in this discussion to be a little more realistic. You know that no Christian group teaches that, so lets try to bring our examples back to earth. Use a better example like worship on the sabbath. Not something way out in left field. |
||||||
16 | Why the forgiveness strawman? | Matt 6:14 | userdoe220 | 16361 | ||
Matt 18:22-35 23Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, 'Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 27"Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 28But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!' 29"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.' 30"And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' 34"And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses." "The parable of the unmerciful servant teaches that men who have experienced God's forgiveness are accountable to display forgiveness toward others. This is the standard of the kingdom of heaven (see comment on Matt 13:11)." Tyndale Commentary It seems we will be held accountable for not operating in forgivness. I don't think it means we are not saved and I don't believe that is what Steve is saying. What I am saying is we as believers will be held accountable if we choose not to forgive others who have wronged us. |
||||||
17 | I do agree with most of your post, but.. | Matt 6:14 | userdoe220 | 16368 | ||
I also agree with a number of things you are saying in your post. I believe that without the aid of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to live up to His standards for our life. Also, because we are human beings we can never live up to God's standard. However, that still does not mean I cannot be called a Christian by my definition. Lets analyze your argument for a moment. 1.) A Christian is a follower of the teaching of Christ. 2.) You cannot fullfuill all the teachings of Christ Therefore, you cannot be called a Christian by your definition. Here is what I believe is the problem with your argument. Isn't one of the teachings of Christ an admission that we are not perfect? In fact, Jesus provides provission for this imperfection in the Lord's prayer. Matt 6:9-13 9In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. 11Give us this day our daily bread. 12And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. 13And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. So, when we sin and ask God to forgive us, we are 'following the teachings of Christ'. No where does the term, Christian, as used in the N.T. and elsewhere imply perfection. It just means those who adhere/follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Lets look at the Etymology of the term, Christian. Believers were called Christians First in Antioch. Why? Did the locals have some keen insight into caterpillars and butterflys and how that links to the born-again expereince? No. They were called Christians first because they followed the teachings of Christ (Acts 11:25-26). They noticed that they acted differently from others. "The word Christians occurs in the NT only here, in Acts 26:28, and in 1 Peter 4:16. The word is formed with the Latin suffix which designates "follower or partisan of" (cf. "Herodians" in Mark 3:6). There is no adequate reason to think that the term was used in derision. It simply means people who follow Christ." from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.) christianos NT:5546, "Christian," a word formed after the Roman style, signifying an adherent of Jesus, was first applied to such by the Gentiles and is found in Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words How did they know they followed Christ? By their actions. It is the only logical thing that makes sense. I use the term, Christian, as an adverb--It modifies the persons actions--It does not mean perfection. I hope that clarifies how I use the term, Christian. |
||||||
18 | My question is still open, PLEASE help? | Matt 10:33 | userdoe220 | 15835 | ||
I would go to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of N.T. words. I have found on more than one occasion a Greek scholar disagree with Kittel and frankly I would defer to his referance work as the final authority on the tense of a greek word in a particular passage. I am like you...I don't speak Greek and only have 1 Greek class under my belt--which makes me almost literate :-) in this language. One general rule I do go by is this: If someone comes out with something that I have never heard before, I usually find a good reason why that is so. DTS is a great school, but like others they usually have a theological ax to grind. My neighbor is attending DTS and is almost ready to graduate and that comment comes from him more than me. |
||||||
19 | Should this verse apply today? | Matt 15:4 | userdoe220 | 15848 | ||
Jesus was using two O.T. commands to show the religous leaders of his day how their own traditions violated the Law they held so dear. If you believe the Law no longer applies to the life of believers today, you have no problem with this particular passage. All you have to say is, "well, that was in the O.T. We are no longer under that system." If you, like I, beleive that that the Law has relevance for the believer today, you have to do a little more investigation into the passages. I do have a few quick observations to make concerning the passage in question: 1.) These commands were given to the nation of Israel whose government was not democratic/republic but was a theocracy (God-ruled). This passage applied to how a nation of Israel was to be governed (its legal code if you will)not how the current church should govern its believers. 2.) The principle of this law is still valid: We are to honor our parents. The pharisees violated even the basic principles of this scripture by letting children get away with not supporting their aging parents (They did not have welfare back then. THe only welfare system an aging parent had was his children). This is a quick response and I am sure you have something up your sleeve you are wanting to pull out. I look forward to hearing/reading it. |
||||||
20 | If Law is quoted in NT, does it apply? | Matt 15:4 | userdoe220 | 15936 | ||
Depends on your theological bent. If you are a certain flavour of dispensationalist, Jesus was under the Law so a number of things he said does not even apply to us in the "Dispensation of Grace". If Paul or the epistles qoute the O.T. then you can say it applies to the life of the N.T. beleiver. If you are a reformist (Not all reformist think alike), the Law has application in the life of the believer. What the reformist must do is look for timeless principles that transcend culture and can be applied to God's people in all times. There is a very good book produced by the Point Counter Point series titled "5 Views of the law: How does the Law apply to a Christian(Not a complete title and frankly it is paraphrased somewhat. A good church at Christianbook.com will bring up this book). 5 authors from 5 different camps explain their position and attempt to refute the other authors explanation. The one thing this book taught me is, there is no easy, concise explanation. In enjoyed reading the book and immediatley was able to discard 2 of the five views presented. The one thing I liked about the book, was each camp spoke for themselves. It was not a dispensationalist writing a book on why reformed theology is bad. Hope this helps |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |