Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: leabeater Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | kings | 2 Kin 12:2 | leabeater | 151820 | ||
What if we took this approach: "did that which was right inthe sight/eyes of the LORD" 1 Kings 15:11 (Asa - "like David); 22:43 (Jehoshaphat - "all the ways of Asa"); 2 Kings 12:2 (Jehoash); 14:3 (Amaziah - "not like David"); 15:3 (Azariah/Uzziah); 15:34 (Jotham); 18:3 (Hezekiah - "like David" and "none like him" among Judah's kings); 22:2 (Josiah - "like David"); 2 Chronicles: 14:2 (Asa); 20:32 (Jehoshaphat); 24:2 (Joash); 25:2 (Amaziah - but not with a perfect heart); 26:4 (Uzziah) - when strong became proud); 27:2 (Jotham - but entered not into the temple); 29:2 (Hezekiah - according to all that David..."); 34:1 (Josiah - in the ways of David...") If we follow this line of reasoning I come up with Hezekiah and Josiah as two obvious picks. I'd throw in Solomon for equally obvious reasons. Which leaves ones empty spot. I'll let someone else make that choice. ;) |
||||||
2 | women can wear makeup (where found) | 1 Pet 3:3 | leabeater | 113811 | ||
Simply stated "painting the barn" is not found as an imperative in Scripture either way. You do have 2Ki. 9:30 where Jezebel used antimony (black eye liner) -- a very common makeup for this period. Jer. 4:30 uses the same Hebrew noun for eye liner. Here again, it appears this was common practice among women. Though the context of both these passage is not especially helpful to the "cause," nevertheless, it is not the adorning that is criticised. It is the behavior of the women who used it. These women made themselves beautiful "in vain." 1Pet 3:3-2 emphasizes where a woman's *focus* ought to be, not merely on the outward -- but on the inward. Now, the final passage provides "permission" in a rather odd way. If it is wrong to braid your hair, etc. then it is also wrong to put on clothes. The NAS handles 'himation' very well. It is not, as the NIV translates, "fine clothes." It simply means "clothing." |
||||||
3 | Help me solve this apparent conflict | Luke 8:15 | leabeater | 111929 | ||
2 Chronicles 16:9 the NAS translates the critical phrase which relates to your question "those whose heart is completely His." The Hebrew literally reads, "their heart *complete* to him..." The Theological Wordbook of the OT states the Hebrew world "shalom" (NAS "complete") can mean, "Completeness, wholeness, harmony, fulfilment, are closer to the meaning. Implicit in sh¹lôm is the idea of unimpaired relationships with others and fulfilment in one's undertakings." It is not that our hearts are innately honest and good. It is that we can allow them to be, as TWOT understands, unimpaired by relationships that could distract from our primary relationship to the Lord. An honest and good heart is not sinless, it is in a general state of undistracted commitment to its overriding relationship: the Lord. |
||||||
4 | Here is where I'm puzzled | Luke 8:15 | leabeater | 111826 | ||
Answering your question with another question is not precisely straightforward, but you'll remember the answer better this way. Who hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus? Several times the text states "hardened," "was hard," etc. in regard to Pharaoh's heart. Who is the subject of the verb "hard-" in each of those passages where the context specifically mentions Pharaoh's heart? There is your answer. |
||||||
5 | Unequally Yoked? | 2 Cor 6:14 | leabeater | 79192 | ||
Paul defines the "unequal yoke" as marriage to an unbeliever (see response above). So, no, it does not mean two Christians who differ over "non-gospel essentials" (i.e. the core of Christianity: salvation by grace through faith). There are many examples of marriages in Scripture where husband and wife were in disagreement over doctrine (Rebekah's cicumvention of Isaac's intended blesing of Esau - Gen. 27:1ff). Yet Scripture makes it clear in most instances that both were God-fearing (i.e. saved) people. |
||||||
6 | Preacher having a living wife | Matt 19:9 | leabeater | 70719 | ||
I feel dogmatically that no Christian should ever initiate divorce or remarriage proceedings. By "no Christian" I don’t mean necessarily that an unsaved person can initiate them. My advice always to a Christian is, "You must never initiate this." Why not? Because 1 Corinthians 7 says that if a wife departs from her husband she is, verse 11, to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. Those are the two options that are open to a believing person. In other words let’s say that your husband is a child abuser: where they were literally sexually abusing their own children. You cannot, as a wife, remain in the same household with a man like that. For one thing, according to the laws of our country, if you are a wife, and you are aware that your husband is abusing your children like that, and you do not report that to the authorities, they will take the children away from you. They will say, "You are not a proper mother no proper mother would allow this to go on." There is a sense in which the state is right about that: that is criminal offense that was punishable by death in the Old Testament and our society has laws against that and we cannot protect people like this. As the church we cannot protect this. We have to understand that our government has a legitimate interest in the welfare of its citizens. So, let's say that you are dealing with a woman in a situation like that. She cannot continue living with that man while he is doing that. What are her options? Her options, if I understand 1 Corinthians 7:11, are: 1.) Remain unmarried. This does not release you to remarry. 2.) Reconciation. One of those two options. For you as a Christian, as long as there is any hope that there could be reconciliation you must remain open to that. You should not initiate anything no matter how bad that person has been. Now there would be good men who would differ with me. When does the possibility of reconciliation end? It ends when that other partner remarries. The book of Deuteronomy, in one of the only passages in the Old Testament that even addresses the divorce issue, this is the very question that is being discussed. Chapter 24 takes up this question: If a man divorces his wife and she marries another man and the second man divorces her, can she go back to the first husband? The answer is, "No." |
||||||
7 | Divorce based on lack of support? | 2 Cor 6:14 | leabeater | 69716 | ||
The "unequal yoke" in 2 Corinthians 6:14, as in any other passage, has to be seen in its historical and grammatical context. To say that Paul is using the term "unbelievers" to include those who disagree with our occupation or "calling" has no biblical precedent. The form of the adjective used for unbelievers (apistois) is only used 4 times in the NT. In all four cases it refers to non-believers. Further, Paul's argument in the latter verses of 2 Corinthians 6 uses comparisons (e.g. light and darkness), which support polar opposites, not simply differing opinions over non-essentials. An inductive approach to the question on a broader plane demonstrates that marriage to non-Christians, or non-believers, is addressed in several other passages of the Bible as well (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:39). So, to broaden the meaning of the word "unbelievers" here to include those who disagree with our calling or occupation lacks objectivity. Marriage, in the Lord's view, was always thought of as indissoluble except in a very narrow band of circumstances (e.g. adultery or "fornication" in Matthew 19:9). Yet, even in this circumstance, the Bible indicates forgiveness is the preferred route (Hosea 3:1-2). The Matthew 19 passage takes a very dim view of those who divorce outside of these circumstances stating that those who divorce outside of those conditions are themselves adulterers. I do not wish to make light of your friend’s dilemma. Ideally a wife should submit to her husband in matters such as this: “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:4).” Yet I am sure there is a reason why she is so adamant about her husband’s choice. The first order of behavior, in my opinion, falls on the leader. Yet, by the same token and in this case, the wife finds herself on much more precarious grounds. I can see the husband’s argument (though I strongly disagree). How does she justify her lack of submission? Understand that I do not know the entire circumstance; nevertheless, my thinking is that the judgment bar will find the husband falling far shorter in his justifications for divorce than his wife’s objections to his calling and failure to submit. |
||||||
8 | What Pagan God(s), do masons believe in? | Gen 35:2 | leabeater | 69639 | ||
"The Masonic caveat against religious and political disputation does not prohibit the development of a Masonic theology. Rather, it prohibits any divisiveness that might interfere with its adaptation of John Calvin's proclamation of The Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man. I say adaptation of John Calvin because unlike Calvin's particular Protestant ministry, Masonry's ministry is not limited to Christianity, Judaism, nor Islam. Masonry, in fact, is not even limited to Abrahamic monotheistic religions ... in limiting itself only to an unlimited God who unlimits everyone in one unlimiting universal spirituality. That universal God, furthermore, can have a Mother God, not to be equated with Mother of God, as well as a Father God manifestation, which is not only a New Age but a very Age Old aspect of universal spirituality." My assessment of the above: Looks like so long as no one is offended by your god any manifestation is allowed. In America we live in a culture of "the offended." That is, you must not offend anyone with what you believe. Inclusivity is not only the mandate of our culture, it is the catalyst for why the pendulum is preparing to swing in the opposite direction. It will start with our economy and work its way into our political and intellectual infrastructures. Conservatism and separatism will emerge. |
||||||
9 | SOng of Songs or Song of Solomon? | Song 1:1 | leabeater | 59144 | ||
Chapter 1 and verse 1 explains: Solomon wrote it. The alternate title stems from an emphasis on the latter portion of verse 1 rather than the first two words (Heb. lit. Song [of] the songs). It seems better to title the book after its author rather than a somewhat non-descript hebraism which means, roughly, "The choicest of all songs." Some also refer to the title as "Canticles" which refers to a song or a chant (from the Latin). |
||||||
10 | Question of Context? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17544 | ||
Tim: First, I am so thankful that we can come here and exercise our faith. This is the sort of activity that spurs our thinking and deepens our study of the Scriptures. It also demonstrates our love for what the Lord has to say. Secondly, we can agree to disagree and, as believers, still enjoy a great deal of warmth and affection for one another. The "fundamentals of the faith" are not in question with 1Ch 7:14. So there is no risk of altering our core relationship in Christ. However, there is a misuse of context in interpreting the Bible. For example, in Mark 7:6 the Lord stipulates that Isaiah was prophesying against the tradition of the Elders being practiced in circa 28 A.D. But the immediate context of that prophecy is Is. 29:13 where it fits perfectly with Isaiah's ministry circa 740 B.C. The only reasonable conclusion we can come to in the Lord's interpretive method is that Isaiah was prophesying to both 8th century B.C. believers and 1st century A.D. believers as well. 1Ch 7:14 is not a promise of "payment," Tim, to a specific individual; it is to any people called by His name. So your anology is incorrect. Gentiles were considered to be a people called by His name if they exercised the faith like that of Naaman the Syrian, Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian and the Phoenician widow of Zarephath. Therefore we are incorrect to conclude that 1Ch 7:14 pertains solely to Old Testament saints whether Jew or Gentile. John |
||||||
11 | God's people's land? | 2 Chr 7:14 | leabeater | 17299 | ||
Your reply belies your objection. You understand something of the Old Testament. Why? If the Old Testament is narrowly confined to a national/racial/ethnic group then why do you read it? If our approach to the Bible is overly compartmentalized then we find ourselves questioning doctrines such as the blood atonement (without faith in which no man is saved whether ancient or modern). 1 John 3:4 is New Testament doctrine, "...sin is the transgression of the law." Do we relegate the law to only the Old Testament? No. We are not "to die to the law" (Rom. 7:4) with our regard to its moral demands. We are dead to the law's lorship over us and remarried to the Lord of that law, Jesus Christ, who bore the penalties of that law (Rom. 7:1-7). Speaking of Old Testament law breakers Paul admonishes, "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction..." 1 Cor. 10:9. Our instruction? Will we object, "But Paul, those were Old Testament Israelites"? Yes, Israel is not the church. But even this distinction, if overly drawn, is frought with hermaneutical hazards which I am not willing to cross. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" 2 Tim. 3:16. I looked up the word "All" in Greek. It means "all." So, to answer your question directly, yes. The historical context was to Israel dwelling in Israel. But the semantic meaning far transcends its immediate historical parameters and gives to God's people today a hope that provides guidance to our present national crisis. |
||||||