Results 1 - 20 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239715 | ||
I do not think your rebuke was in line with the terms of use of this site. You might want to review the sections regarding denominational remarks. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239830 | ||
Jasper, I'm not sure what to make of your post. Either you: a) Wish to debate whether salvation is by Faith alone with me. Although I have not tried to assert a position. or b) You somehow think throwing your lot with one side of the reformation actually answers the question of whether the two sides still disagree, when it rather proves an ongoing disagreement instead. Since the second option is silly and therefore would be ungracious of me to assume of you, I am left to think that you are trying to persuade me of salvation through works? Help me out here. Am I misunderstanding you? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
3 | belief in hell? | Bible general | Beja | 240094 | ||
Maus, I personally debated for sometime on whether the ideas concerning hell in scripture were metaphorical or literal. I do not think we are being disrespectful to scripture by asking how to rightly understand what it is asserting. However, we must remember the goal is not to consider what we think about hell, but specifically is scripture "intending" these things to be metaphorical or literal. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that scripture intends it to be literal. All this is to say I am not offended with the question, that being said I have two statements with regards to your reasoning. 1. Tracing the origen of the word is not the samething as wrestling with what Christ and other New Testament writers say about the subject. We must consider what it is they are saying about "hell" regardless what word they have chosen to label it. What do they say and how do they mean it to be understood? And because we affirm the inspiration of the new testament, it does not matter how they mature or develop the Old Testament doctrine, we believe them to have done so rightly. 2. Too often when somebody decides that Hell is a metaphor for some other penalty, they decide it is some other penalty far more bearable than the metaphor of eternal fire. What must be accepted, is that if the New Testament authors truely intended to describe eternal judgment by a eternal burning of which there will be no relief. Then whatever hell is in reality, it must be something horrible beyond our comprehension. Because the inspired writers chose the most terrible metaphor they could possibly conceived of, it must mean hell is worse than we can conceive of. So I always tell people, if you wish to sincerely wrestle with this question, by no means use it to lighten the concept of hell. The question is valid, but to then assume hell is less terrible is intellectually flawed, and is only motivated by our desire to ignore this terrible reality. As stated, I believe hell is literal, but these are some guidelines if we want to restle with the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | Anyone interested in Revalations 13:3? | Bible general | Beja | 240372 | ||
See MzVicki's profile. | ||||||
5 | Thithing loan | Bible general | Beja | 241155 | ||
Movingon, I'd like to understand your personal dispensational take on scripture a little more precisely. I definitely understand it in broad brush strokes, but I'd like to ask a few precise questions to help me test the edges of it. If you do not wish to answer them that is fine, but as you've seemed to always been happy to respond in the past I feel encouraged to ask you. However, should you choose to respond I do have one request. Please try to answer my questions as concisely as you possibly can. When two people are trying to understand one another one of the surest way to cause it to fail is to answer too much. A person says so many things and the listener has such a great number of objections, uncertainties, and needs for clarification that the conversation is effectively killed as their is no hope of untangling it all. This difficulty is magnified on the forum where we have a limited space to type and the conversation even has the chance of progressing on its own before I even read the response. So if you wish to answer, please try to answer the question as precisely as you possibly can, trusting that you need not re-explain the entire system and how you feel misunderstanding this has been that which has derailed the church. Nor do you need to spend time trying to persuade me. My question: You state that you do not believe the gospels apply to us, but do you believe the great commission of Matthew 28 was a commission to build the church or was it for the disciples to go out offering the kingdom? Perhaps said another way, when they went out making disciples and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was this building the church or the kingdom of that previous dispensation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
6 | Why do we have ""Free-Will"? | Bible general | Beja | 241578 | ||
jeremiah1five, You state, "by virtue of creation angel and man was created sinful" and also that the reason man sinned was because he was created sinful." I think this doesn't square up with scripture. One example is Romans 5:12 where he states, "sin came into the world through one man." Paul portrays Adam as transgressing and bringing sin into the world for the first time. How could this be if sin was present by virtue of creations? How could sin have entered into the world through Adam's transgression if the already existing angels were sinful before he was created? But your position holds far reaching consequences. It is the clear testimony of scripture, and our blessed hope that Christ will one day remove sinfulness from his people. Revelations testifies that we are hoping for a city where sin will not enter. In many places, 1 john 3 and Romans 8:29, scripture promises that we will be conformed to the image of Christ. Certainly if we are conformed to the image of Christ we will not be sinful. Yet if what you say is true, and it is impossible for anybody but God himself to ever be righteous and without sin, then you declare null and void these most precious promises of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
7 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243777 | ||
Justme, Its an interesting question you put forth. I personally have never had to face it. As I imagine it though, I certainly hope they'd choose to come to me. In which case I can only say my response would be a mixture of prayer, evangelism, and trying to command the demon in the name of Jesus. Emphasis being on prayer. But let me twist this towards a question of my own. I don't think it will settle the issue, but might illustrate my own concern. So the question is this, if I were to prepare people for this instance, if I were to tell them "here is what to do in that moment", what passage specifically ought I teach them? What I am getting at is the question of whether scripture ever actually gives us this detail plan for dealing with possessions. And per chance if we were to conclude that it doesn't, what am I suppose to give them in light of scripture's silence? Should I make it up? Should buy some other book rather than scripture? So the question boils down to this in my mind, whatever the Bible means to teach us, that I ought to teach. If scripture means to train us for handling possessions, then I ought to teach my people precisely what it teaches us. If it does not, then I have no obligation there in my teaching ministry. By the way, we do need to answer that question, perhaps the bible does in fact teach us how to handle it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
8 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243778 | ||
Justme, Btw, I'm not as certain as you that possession of a believer is categorically impossible. I wonder what passage persuades you of it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
9 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243786 | ||
EdB, You said, "Is it a name only or does it require a person to close all entrances to their being except that which is opened only by Christ?" I admit I can't discern what you mean by this. Can you clarify? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
10 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243791 | ||
EdB, I'm still not understanding. Though I will grant the fault is likely in me rather than your explanation. Maybe it would help if you pointed me to which passage of scripture teaches this, and then I can process it at my leisure. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
11 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243793 | ||
EdB, But those say nothing about demons or opening ourselves up to demons. Beja |
||||||
12 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243797 | ||
EdB, Response to post 243796. I shall go even a little further and I will respond with what I THINK you said in post 243788 which has me confused and then tell you what I think I hear in the verses you shared. This way you can best identify where I am going wrong. To ease my copy and paste efforts I'm backing up and making this a reply to post 788. So you said, "To clarify I believe there actions both Christians and non Christian can do that give Satan access into their lives. I am not talk about sinning as such but rather things that open our spirit being to attack." So not sin in general, but specific sins are central to "opening" ourselves to demonic attack. Then you identified these sins as messing with the occult, mediums, tarot card readings, ouija boards, drugs, and alcohol. 1.) So the first thing I'm looking to be explained/substantiated in the verses is that the bible teaches that these specific things, and not sin in general are the avenues through which spirits are allowed to attack us. Moving on, you also said, "what defines a Christian the name or a behavior within them or the fact they have closed all e trances into their being except those that Christ Himself opens." Which ofcourse you defined as participation in the aforementioned specific sins. Then you fleshed this idea out by saying, "I believe to truly be a Christians we must be active in protecting the portals of our mind giving access to only to the things of God." 2.) So the next thing I'm looking for in the verses you supplied, is what is the relationship of obstaining from these to being Christian. Are you saying that obstaining makes you a Christian? That God will see to it that a saved person will therefore not do these things? What? So I come to the verses for answers to these two questions. Here is my take away on the verses. 2 Cor 11:4 You are indulging preachers of a false gospel/Jesus when you shouldn't be. Lev 19:31 Do not consult mediums or necromancers and if you do you will become unclean. Lev 20:6 Messing with these things causes you to be an enemy of God and seperated from God's people. So though these verses mention a couple of the sins you spoke of, nowhere do these verses explain anything about your specific assertions. They dont' seem to me to be saying that these specific sins are the very precise avenues by which we open ourselves to demonic attack. More, they say nothing at all about drugs and alcohol. Nor do they explain to me precisely how these things relate to being a Christian so that I know what you mean when you say obstaining from these is what "defines a Christian." I hope this clarifies my confusion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
13 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243801 | ||
EdB, Thanks, Beja |
||||||
14 | many are called but only few are chosen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213515 | ||
I'm curious as to your understanding of the call to ministry and would like to clarify it with a question. Does it seem to you that depending on how faithful and repentent and responsive to God's grace a man is, that he can then be chosen by God for ministry at a certain point when before he wasn't? | ||||||
15 | many are called but only few are chosen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213546 | ||
Doc, Well laid out, sir. I agree. In love, Beja |
||||||
16 | Study Bible | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213711 | ||
If I could be permited a bit of rambling due to the fact I find this conversation interesting. I spent a very great amount of time in my own Christian life avoiding commentaries. I did this for two reasons. First because I found that those around me used them too quickly and it left their minds dull. They did not first give their minds to the study of scripture and knowing it then latter consult commentaries to check if their thoughts were affirmed by other Christian witness, rather they just grabbed the nearest answer. I found this to be terrible. The second reason is because you can find a commentary that says anything and everything. How was I to know whether I was being taught heresy or truth? Commentaries are not inerrent rather the scriptures are. So it was not for any high opinion of my own understanding but from a fear at my inability to truely recognize foolishness that I shunned them. I believe I was very right to do so because I think my path would have surely led to poor thinking and falsehood if I had grabbed for the commentators who would have been handed to me at that time. So I am glad I avoided them. On the other hand, now that I know well enough what is in scripture that I can readily recognize truth and falsehood when I hear it, I find that I can actually identify those great souls of the past who have much to teach me! Now, I find past saints to be a source of knowledge and spiritual guidance I never could have from them before in my inability to trust them. But even to this day my firm commitment is to never take in more writtings of men than I take in scripture. For a vivid and constantly refreshed knowledge of scripture is what makes these commentators safe. It is by this that we can mine their amazing worth without taking in any false teaching. I will always observe this caution, but no more will I avoid such rich treasures. Anyways, take this for what little it is worth to you, I'm mostly typing because I enjoy the conversation. In Love, Beja |
||||||
17 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213712 | ||
Mmmmm, the best I can tell from your post you are saying it means just the second of the two options I presented, the one about it referring to salvation. However, I'm not really sure that's what you said. I'm afraid I couldn't follow it very well, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. As far as the greek word that word is what we call "deponent." Meaning that it is a word that does not have a present tense form and as a result the fact that it seems to be in the middle tense does not merit a middle tense interpretation but rather an active sense. So it should be treated as an active verb. So it is not interpreted as something that is caused, at least not by any grammatical reason. And I don't think that it is accusative due to it being acted upon, it is accusative because it is a subject of the infinitival imperative (must believe.) The kind Mr. Tim that frequents this forum can correct me if I'm mistaken as he seems to have a better handle on greek than I do. Finally, let me suggest that it is both of these two things that I put forward in my original question. I think it does apply to salvation and I think it does apply to continual instinces of pleasing God. The same faith that we are saved by is the same faith we are to continue to please God by living by. I did not intend this to be a trick question that I knew the answer to but since I posted it I found a sermon by spurgeon that suggested this answer that I was already begginning to expect. He drew both truths out of this verse. But, perhaps I'm wrong. I do thank you for your input. In Love, Beja |
||||||
18 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213725 | ||
After reading over my last post to you, I can see I was pretty horridly unclear, I usually am when trying to explain greek. I understand greek in my head but I do a poor job of explaining it, I'll try once more, not for any reason of trying to be right, or trying to win an arguement, but simply because reading over my last post it was painfully unclear. First, the list you posted is true: Verb: Participle Tense: Present Voice: Middle or passive deponent Case: Accusative Gender: Masculine Person: ---- Number: Singular That's all true. My point's were two. First: Middle/passive deponent This by definition means a word that has a middle/passive form, but an active function. Second: An accusative, while often does have the sense of being acted on, is often used as the subject of an infinitive phrase; and in such instances it looses that "acted upon" sense and instead is treated simply as a subject. Now, I may be completely missing your original arguement, but your arguement seemed to go something like this to me, if I'm wrong I'm sorry: Your arguement was based on the participle "He who comes" being middle and accusative and the particular emphasis of idea that gives it. What I am trying to say, is that it being deponent, and being used as the subject of the infinitive, does NOT change that it is middle and accusative, but it DOES change the function of those. Meaning they do not carry the typical emphasis' that they normally do. Now, I don't know if you know greek or not. I'm not sure if you are just using a greek tool, or you've actually had some classes in greek, but the above statements are true. If you do know greek I point you to "Greek Grammer beyond the basics" by wallace, I can look up page numbers for you tommorrow if you want me to. If you don't know greek I know of no way to prove these things to you and we'll just have to disagree. But I hope in the least that this clarifies what I was trying to say, and I"m not trying to argue against these being in the middle/passive deponent voice and in the accusative case. In Love, Beja |
||||||
19 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213748 | ||
CDBJ Your statement: "I don’t see faith as something that grows or the necessity for it." 1thessalonians 1:3 "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged.." 2 Corinthians 10:15 "not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men's labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be..." In Love, Beja |
||||||
20 | Why is the Christian Church so divided? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 217266 | ||
Good thoughts Doc, sadly I find that the churches in my particular area of my particular denomination are every bit as hostile towards other denominations as could possibly be feared. It would seem that the pastors whom I am following in the foot steps of saw fit to do everything they could to demonize anybody and everybody who didn't agree to our particular fine points of doctrine. Many of the churches I am working among would see all other denominations as nothing more than cults! And ofcourse that leaves me defending "cults" in their mind. You can even catch flak for reading books written by those outside our denomination (which I do abundantly.) Pray for me! Anyways, sadly my point is that in some areas the churches are just as hostile towards each other as a person might dare to suggest, despite the overwhelming common ground we share. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |