Results 1 - 20 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208068 | ||
John Okay John I will be quiet. I will sit back and rest while everyone else continues on asking their questions okay? I will just rest in Jesus for a while. See you around. blessings abound, bowler blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | Why are some gifts of God not wanted? | 1 Cor 12:4 | bowler | 208061 | ||
hopalong Yes that can be regrettable. My wife and I have one child for the same reasons and now we also regret it. I am well past my child rearing years and I hope one day my only child who is what, wife and I jokingly call grown, will raise a family. To answer your question, I think we often do not want the gifts, whatever they are, of God, because as you so wisely point out, we think it will cost us more than we could afford to bear. Sometimes finacially and sometimes spiritually or emotionally. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
3 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208060 | ||
Tim Moran Yes those things had not been written yet. Sin is sin, it was before those things had been written whether they had the law or not, although God may not have imputed any punishment to them until the law actually came in. So was Abraham sinning by laying with Hagar? I think we could safely say yes, adultery is adultery even though the law had not yet been written. But let me understand you correctly here - is a sin not truly a sin until the law came in? That would be important for me to know... It definitely would change how I might look at things. But that would also mean that no one who had not been given the law was guilty of any wrong thing they did, but we know that God did not condone any sin even before He gave the law and imputed punishment on the wicked before the law. Or am I wrong about that part, as I am thinking that God says the life blood will be required? One thing is coming clearer from talking back and forth with you - not what you are saying, but something else - God forgave all those wrong things all those people did in gaining their titles of FAITH because one cannot be said to have faith through works. Do you have any examples for me of anyone who was accounted as righteous who did not commit sins to earn the title of having FAITH other than Jesus? That may sound like a stupid question... blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
4 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208059 | ||
Doc You are completely ignoring that I said that God does not break the commandments! I gave Him the credit that He has the right to dispose of His creation right there as He chooses! Is it that I honestly did not see the difference Doc? Or is it that I wanted to hear what others think which is why we post questions? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
5 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208058 | ||
Tim Moran I can agree with all that you have said here in how you laid it all out with those scriptures there. Define murder and define killing please, using scriptures. Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
6 | What is Right Someone Has to Die? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208057 | ||
Tim Moran There are indeed cases where it is medically true that there is the option of seeing what will actually happen, and then there is what I posed, where it has been medically shown that a decision needs to be made, or both will die; therefore one must be choosen. There is no reason why "either or questions" are not valid questions, they are just "problematic" questions, which is exactly my point. The entire matter of Christians ethics is of great interest to me and was of course sparked by recent posts, but I am not posting to push my views on old posts in making new posts. I am truly interested in difficult situations and problematic scripture interpretations as that is part of valid Bible study. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
7 | Does God Condone War Now? | Heb 11:33 | bowler | 208056 | ||
Doc Post number 192637 - Okay Doc I will drop it. I really was not interested in making others feel that there service to their country was or is not appreciated. Other people's way of life seems to get to be the point of every thing discussed here lately. What happened to Bible study for the sake of understanding the Bible? I am not suggesting that you are trying to put me in my place. What I am suggesting is that people step back and stop assuming that every single question has been asked on the basis of WHAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE DOING. There are other focuses to have as a reason to study the Bible, like what the Bible is saying on its own before we derive an interpretation of what to do, like what the Bible means in its parts on a given subject as separate from arguments that one or the other part is "right", or Biblical passages that are in them selves theologically or grammatically "problematic". The Bible was not just given to us to know what to do, that is a narrow view of the Bible and Bible study. When others, not saying you, decide that the only thing a person should be doing is to find out what the applicaiton of a given text is, they are limiting the participation of others by pushing their view that that is all the Bible is for. As well the gracious hosts of this forum describe it as an "expository repository". I don't think that everyone is aware from the tone of their posts, not in refuting "erroneous" views, but in "ignoring the context of questions", that "expository" means to study the Bible line by line to get at the author's intent in writing his audience. The author having an intent in writing comes before that author's intent of "what people should do" they are not the same thing. It is not right that we cannot all disccus every aspect of the Bible in all its complexity. The Bible is not a simple child's primer with instructions on how to live - there are treasures there, depths to plumb, mysteries to unfold, things to understand by the grace of God to uplift the soul and to bring men to the repentance of Jesus Christ. I will leave off the question I had since your post at the end, although I do not presuppose that is all you meant for me to get out of it, tells the other person you posted to cease and desist (paraphrasing). blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
8 | Was Queen Vashti Right to Disobey? | Esth 1:17 | bowler | 208055 | ||
Tim Moran Esther chapter one - her husband's advisors had him put out an edict to make sure all wives would obey their husbands. The concept of scripture applying to a Persian is not even worth considering. And yes there were scriptures showing, not the didactic direct teaching of obdience to husbands but the narrative example of women doing so in ancient Biblical times. The Old Testament cannot be applied forwards as didactic teachings because they are narratives so the principle of adhereing to a literary form that says you cannot apply the OT to interpreting the New Testament in many instances applies. The same cannot be said of the New Testament in its didactic portions in that it definitely can be used to interpret parts of Old Testament narrative to deduce whether or not the actions of the participants was correct or right. Not based off whether or not they knew New Testament teachings in the OT, but on whether or not God has decreed for all time in the NT what is correct and right and good. On that basis, if it is right to obey your husband now, it was always right whether Vashti new it was right or not, and her not knowing it was right would not excuse her of sin in regard to that, it just shows what a pagan she was. We don't need to speculate, but we can take what the whole counsel of scripture teaches about obeying your husband, or obeying God and apply it to an understanding about whether or not Vashti was wrong or right. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
9 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208051 | ||
Tim Moran I agree and am aware with the princple that the Old Testament "narratives" are not to be taken as Christian "normative" behavior for today. I will stick strictly to this post please, I am not trying to redress another post, although I understand you transferring an applicatoin principle from one to the other.:-) My question not to center around WHAT CORRECT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE. My question centers around WHAT CONSTITUTES FAITH seeing as how sins were committed in gaining that title of having had FAITH. Question for you; how does saving a life by the mid-wives become obeying God rather than men? What command did God give the mid-wives that they were to do? By applying your principle that God has forbidden murder how does saving a life by the same means as those mid-wives, which included disobeying the king's edicts and ostensibly lying to anyone who would ask if they were hiding babies, not apply to us now? Ps. I do understand the difference between a narrative passage and a didactic passage, I want to know, not what to do, but how to view everything in the process of what ends up getting declared as "having been done right" by those in the Bible. What I do with the answer is up to me, and is not why I want to know about it or discuss it. blessings abound, bolwer |
||||||
10 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208024 | ||
Tim Moran I appreciate your concerns and am a little concerned that we all got off onto something the original questioner was not quite talking about, or asking about in the way we are pursuing this. In light of that, I myself will follow suit and leave off the subject. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
11 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208018 | ||
... | ||||||
12 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208015 | ||
Tim Moran I wish I could find, and I keep on trying to find some of Doc's older posts on this issue, but I lost the sticky. You said the following - The author claims that God is the first cause of everything, but He is not the author of sin. This statement doesn't even make logical sense, let alone Scriptural sense. :-) How can someone be the first cause of 'everything', but at the same time, not be responsible for 'something'? Here is how this works as it was explained to me that I cannot now find the post number to - God is the first cause of everything, He created everything. Sin is not something that was ever created by God or any one else, sin is the absence of God's righteousness in created beings, much in the way that the absence of health is sickness. God never caused sin, He allowed it. Whatever God allows He has ordained, although He may not have created sin, or evil, He allows them as part of plan A. God is not the author of sin, God never sins, He is holy, but He allows others to sin. God allowed Adam to sin, but why? If Adam had been allowed to be righteous by his own abiblity to be righteous, that would have been salvation by works. Adam being made righteous by works, would have resulted in Adam having salvation apart from the gift of the grace of God. Allowing Adam salvation apart from God results in idol worship, resulting again in the fall with no recourse for repentance to the faith of the grace of salvation if salvation is only by works. God had to allow Adam to sin and fall in order to be able to give Adam's race the free gift of the grace of salvation so that salvation would not rest in works. Therefore God allowing sin is God ordained to outwork God's total plan for humanity although God never does sin. This is the concept that God does the primary Causes and that man does the secondary Causes and that God is not the author of secondary Causes but that He does ordain them and use them to further and complete His plan. This explains David and Bathsheba as adulterers having Solomon as God's plan A, it explains David and Jonathon lying to Saul with a plot to save David's life as God's plan A, it explains Rahab lying to save the spies and Israel as God's plan A, it explains the Hebrew mid-wives lying to protect the babies and Moses from Pharaoh as God's plan A, it explains David killing whole towns to save the lives of his troup and lying about it as God's plan A. How can the Ten Commandments be binding on God as the Law is given to those who sin? The do not apply to God becuase He will never ever break them. I agree however that the premise as described by the author in that link regarding Isaiah is faulty becuase the text does not say that God causes evil, it says He causes "calamity", which is like saying He causes Typhoons or earthquakes, or plagues - but all those things do take place to fulfill His purposes although many are killed by them. I wil attempt to check out your book there as I am always willing to remain open to further examination of things. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
13 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 208012 | ||
Tim Moran You and perhaps others would not, but I would separate dying for Christ for the sake of saying "I am a Christian", from making sure someone else did not die for other reasons. What I keep seeing here is that a lot of folks are trying to take what I have been saying and to apply it accross the board to all Christian issues as if I am trying to make a new "normative" for all Christians to now follow, as that "it is all right to lie if the situation warrants it whatever situation that is". That is not something I am trying to do, make an new Christian normative. I am trying to say something about the concept of higher goods and lesser sins in an application "only to the saving of another human life in circumstances for which God is not supplying an alternative". The expamples I keep using are of David lying to his enemies and killing whole towns when he went to Ziklag, David and his men eating consecrated bread, Rahab lying to save the spies and by attrition all of Israel, the midwives in Exodus, Moses mother and father in Exodus - in all of these cases there were lies or sins of ommission or commission and it was withing God's plan A that these things were done, or else we are rewritting the Bible and what happened in it. As I keep on saying the Bible is strangely silent about these sins that were committed, or if you like these "good deeds" were committed in order to save lives. I never said that God never says sin is sin, I said He did allow it and therefore ordained it as part of His plan A, and that if we are to say that He did not ordain it, then we are saying that someone else has more power to affect, or effect something, and thereby would be more powerful than God, and that tramples on the sovereignty of God. I did not say in my post to Steve that Jesus condoned "sin" to save a life, I said that technically to exert oneself on the Sabbath is breaking it. Your statement that the Sabbath was created for man is true, Jesus said it, that does not abbrogate Moses understanding from God that absolutely no work was to be done on the Sabbath - I would call what Jesus did progressive revelation about the meaning of the Sabbath. But I also believe that Jesus was doing more than just declaring the Sabbath to be for man, He was also saying, "look your measuring stick of righteousness is wrong, you keeping the law is not the point, doing what is right in a given situation is the point - saving a life is a higher notch on that measuring stick than keeping laws." I may be very wrong about that, but that is the whole crux of what I keep saying. In looking at the following which you said, I got to thinking some more - Our lives are His bowler, not ours! I have no right to sin to protect myself, or others, based on the notion that God might not deliver. Then how come we have David, Jonathon, Rahab, Exodus mid-wives in the Bible doing what had to be done and God never addressed it, never condemned it, but said some of it were acts of faith? We can't rewrite the Bible, I agree with Val, we should not try to go beyond the Bible, if it does not explain it or condemn it why are we? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
14 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207977 | ||
Hank Yeah it is late. Things to do. Here is that link I keep on yammering on about. http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/god_evil.html I appreciate your concerns and I hear you about Ty Ty's prayer. I still would like to know from anyone, what their take is on David, Jonathon, Rahab and why no one including God had anything to say to them about them lying to save lives as if that were bad. Plenty here say something about that, but the Bible is strangely silent about it as if it were some how a non issue in the face of what they did to save lives. God does not deliver us from every single situation, He often calls us to make hard decisions and does not provide a way out. 1 Samuel 27:1-12, 1 Samuel 29:4-8, 1 Samuel 30:1-6 1 Samuel 21:1-6, 1 Samuel 20:1-42, Joshua 2:1-24, 6:22-24, Judges 16:4-17, Exodus 1:15-20, Exodus 2:1-3 - In each and every case a sin of commission or of ommission was committed to save lives, lives that were within God's plans to be saved, and there was never going to be a plan B, there was only plan A. Another good example is David and Bathsheba, there was only plan A, Solomon came from an adulteress relationship whether we think it was right or not, which I do not, but there was never going to be a plan B by God to bring it about. See that link of Doc's above to see why that is even possible on any level. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
15 | Did God create evil? | 3 John 1:11 | bowler | 207975 | ||
Doc Thanks for that. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
16 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207973 | ||
Steve You said “I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy decisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect.” Then how is it you reason He ordained they would lie? I’m not sure you even understand your own argument. Your heart tells you that He is a holy God, perfect in all His ways which we are clearly taught in Scripture. But you reason like a fallen man! I’m guilty of this too so don’t take the statement the wrong way. My intentions in our discussion are not to condemn and I know first hand the struggle of understanding His ways. But I have to ask, are you even thinking your way through before commenting? Yes I am thinking my way through this before answering, please see the link Doc gave me to try to understand that the reasoning is not that God "condones sin", but that allowing it is all part of His plan, and whatever is in His plan He ordains, or it does not happen. The link says some very interesting and illuminating things about why the fall was ever allowed, why sin itself was ever allowed - they are part of God's plan. Before I studied what Doc tried to explain to me, I had trouble with this whole concept myself. But this is about what He pointed out to me - If we say that anything were able to happpen which God has not ordained than He is no longer a Sovereign God with sovereign power over all things, - it would be like saying something has more power than God to affect, or effect something to be able to happen - if that indeed can be true then God is not any longer God, but less than God. Think about that one for a while if you please while you try that link down there. I finaly hunted down for you what I keep referring to that Doc laid on me about Secondary Causes which serves to explain some of what I have been talking about - http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/god_evil.html I can see from your post you are still stuck on that you think, mistakenly that I am condoning lying as right, as that "doing good" is breaking the Law. Do you really believe that since "How much more valuable then is man than sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath"? Please tell me how saving someone's life is any different than this example that Jesus gave? I am not interested so very much in the technical terms of whatever gets done to save a life as "breaking the law" as opposed to "doing what is lawful". What I keep trying to say is that saving a life is right and worrying about how your righteousness meter is measuring up because you keep all the laws is not in the face of saving that life. If it is a fallacy for man to think that he had to lie to save a life then how come no one, including God never confronted David or Rahab or Johanthon for lying to do so? How come Rahab was not condemned for doing so? How come none of them were? Parting thought; if there was only plan A which God ordained, and if that plan included sin, then how is it that God did not ordain sin in some sense or another to be able to happen? Or else there would be a plan B, which there is not and never shall be. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
17 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207971 | ||
Tim Moran The isssue is not whether or not God will deliver and trusting Him. The issue is that He does not always choose to as is shown by scripture to be true, and in cases such as those what would we have done? God does not deliver us from every single situation, He often calls us to make hard decisions and does not provide a way out. The concept is not why we should condone sin, the concept is as Jesus was showing the Pharisees that their concept of law keeping was flawed and that they would seek to do that which was more right in a dire situation, that we may be called upon to do the same thing. Steve said something intereseting. He said that Jesus was showing the Pharisees that to save a life by exertion on the (paraphrasing) Sabbath was not breaking the law, it was right to do. Now technically they would have to break the Sabbath to save the life, but according to Jesus it is no longer wrong to do. I think perhaps God has never placed you and some others in a situation where you did not have any options that were good and there was no time left to wait it out to see if God would deliver. Immediate death of someone else may not wait for you to hear or see from God, then what do you do? God's will is good, and complete and holy, but He promised us suffering, not good times. We are never going to be as holy as God, or as holy as we would like to be, we strive for that. Look again at David, he was a man after God's own heart who did a lot of things besides his two major sins to survive, and you never hear of God saying that was wrong David, only on the two great sins. Just a thought. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
18 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207970 | ||
Steve No, Steve I said that Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees would break a law to save a life, not that Jesus would or did! By the way I am not as Cheri pointed out so nicely teaching anything, I am setting forth a view without pushing it on anyone of how to resolve a Biblical difficulty to a life problem, which is not teaching at all, it is studying. I do believe you are hitting around to the point here Steve, you say here in your post what Jesus was demonstrating was that doing right on the Sabbath is not actually breaking the law, although on a technicality it most certainly is. That is why I was so wrongly adding to all my posts, according to you, just a worthless son, to make it known that I do not have all the answers because someone who will remain nameless accused me of thinking I had all the answers. A while badk Tumbleweed tried to point that out to you. It still seems to be a problem for some when anyone in here sets forth what they believe to be true using scripture to support it. Just because a person sets forth reasons and scriptures why they think something is true does not make them a teacher or mean they are trying to teach. Doc is a bona fide teacher, and there are pastors in here too, as well as us lay folk. We are all entitled to our own view based on scriputure of what things are. I happily agree to disagree with you without saying to you that you wrongly interpet anything. You however, continue to feel free to express yourself concerning your true take on what I post because that is your right. I tried to say before and will say again, the problem with saying God does not allow sin in His plan is that there is such a thing as Secondary Causes of Causes, which concept Doc laid out in detail. Might I suggest you use the search feature to try to understand how God does not condone sin, but does allow it as part of His plan. I did not come up with all of this on my own, and as well there are others here who agree with me about this because they searched the scriptures and not because "I taught them anything". On a technicality lying is always wrong, but when it is done to save a life it is no longer wrong, but right in the same way "breaking the Sabbath law" to save a life is no longer wrong, but right. :-) blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
19 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207968 | ||
Azure I meant you no harm and was not trying to say you said that. I was asking if you were willing to ignore what Jesus said, not saying you did, but asking. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
20 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | bowler | 207967 | ||
Val Thank you Val. I really do believe that there are higher goods and lesser sins, although I have to admit that that concept of lessers sins has some problems with it. For instance if we break one sin, we break them all, so how could there be a lesser or a greater sin? Do you have any information or thoughts on this troublesome area of things Val? Mathew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gte; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |