Results 1 - 20 of 48
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: dschaertel Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are we now in start of end times? | Matt 24:36 | dschaertel | 88197 | ||
Well, this could go on for a while, but yes, you are a decendant of Abraham: Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Israel is not decended of the flesh, but of the promise. Ishmael wasn't part of that deal. And neither is the country Israel. They bare only the name, and even if they are decendants through the flesh, it means nothing. Present day Israel is nothing. The chuch is the Israel of God according to the Bible: Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. |
||||||
2 | Are we now in start of end times? | Matt 24:36 | dschaertel | 88192 | ||
God didn't "break" His covenant, He fulfilled it through Jesus Christ. God said he will make Abraham a father of many nations, not just one. And if you believe in the Trinity, then you must believe that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are one in the same person. So if the Holy Spirit has come to us, then so has Christ come to dwell in us. Read John 14 carefully. Jesus says that He will not abandon us, but will send the comforter, and in the same context he then says he will come to us. Jesus clearly makes the connection that he and the spirit are the same and they/he has come. John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. |
||||||
3 | Are we now in start of end times? | Matt 24:36 | dschaertel | 88183 | ||
What you fail to realize is that Israel is all God's chosen people, not just the Jews. If you limit it to the Jews then you have missed one of the major points of Paul's letters, especially Ephesians and Galatians. The mystery of the New covenant is that God's grace is for "all" people, not just the Jews. The spirit that is pro-Jew and denies that the Church is the body of Christ is the spirit of antichrist. John says: John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 1 John 4:4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. A couple notes here. First John clearly indicates that antichrist is already at work in his day. Second, that spirit denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. What he means by "has come in the flesh" is the church. He makes that clear in verse 4 where he states that Jesus lives "in" us. To deny that there was a guy named Jesus is just plain rediculous. The quesiton is do you believe that He lives here and now, and that as the Bible says, the church is the "body" of Christ. Also, I highly recomend you go and read Galatians 4:19-31. You are missing something. |
||||||
4 | Are we now in start of end times? | Matt 24:36 | dschaertel | 88177 | ||
The Bible says that the end times, or more accurately time of the end, was back in the first century. Acts 2:14-17 Clearly Peter identifies those days as the end times. And in fact they were. 40 years after that the final blow would be struck to the old covenant in 70AD when the Temple would be destroyed. This time we live in now is the "1000" years. Revelation identifies the New Jerusalem as the Church. Therefore the Church age is the "1000" year reign of Christ. Christ lives and reigns in and through His Church, and His Kingdom shall "never" end. |
||||||
5 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | dschaertel | 86198 | ||
It serves no purpose to argue this point too far because the fact is nobody really knows for sure when Revelation was written, or more importantly when the vision occurred. There is strong evidence in the text itself to suggest a pre-70AD date. The 95AD date is derived largely from some ambigious account from Eusebius, but Eusebius didn't even think that the Apostle John was the John in Revelation. There really is little hard evidence either way. As for future things, the New Jerusalem is the church, and yes while the church began at Pentacost, it still is now and forever. The church was going to need hope and help to make it through the period of persecution it would face in it's early history. John could have certainly been recounting past events to show how God is faithfull fo rthe benefit of the church. |
||||||
6 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | dschaertel | 86172 | ||
Your point misses the mark since it is quite commonly understood that Paul wrote to Timothy before the year 70AD. Ooops, minor detail, but a big one. |
||||||
7 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | dschaertel | 86163 | ||
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. The word that is translated "time" here is a specific, definite, fixed time. Since John was referring to his present time, there is no way that he can mean today or some indeterminite future day. Either John doesn't know the language with which he wrote, or he was referring to a time when he was alive. The events of Revelation occurred in John's life time. The end of the age was the end of the old covenant capped off by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. It would be a long discussion, and probably not appropriate for this forum, but Revelation is a done deal. The people that insist that God doesn't ever fulfill his promises keep ignoring the facts of history. Before you try to even respond to this do yourself a favor and read Josephus' accounts of what happened between 64 and 71 AD. Keep the scriptures close at your side. It will blow your mind. It's all been accomplished, and God won. |
||||||
8 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 85029 | ||
Money in these forms is not merely a symbol. A symbol has no value. The check and other forms of money have value because they are authorized. There is a promise associated with it. It becomes effectually money. Money takes the form of the check. Just as God took on the form of a man. Jesus was 100 percent human. He was a man like any other man. He had blood and DNA etc... The bread and wine are still bread and wine. The sacrificial body and blood of Christ take on the form of bread and wine just as God took on the form of a man. It is, however, only in the context of Holy Communion that this occurs. All bread and wine are obviously not the body and blood of Christ. |
||||||
9 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 85027 | ||
Jesus' words in verse 25 of 1Corinthians 11 says that "this cup is the new covenant in my blood". It is with the cup of Communion that he establishes his covenant. As for the why he must be present... the incarnation is what makes Christianity different from any other religion. The idea that God took on the form of a man, not that man was a god. We believe in the incarnation. God said in the presence of the human Jesus "this is my som in whom I am well pleased". The fact that Jesus declared the bread to be his body and the wine to be his blood while still present in no way prevents it from being literally true. God took on human form and Christ takes on the form of bread and wine when offered in the context of Holy Communion. The check is worthless until it is signed by the owner of the money. Then the money takes on the form of the check. The chekc doesn't actually become gold which is in it self just another "token". But effectually the money takes on the form of the check. Likewise the sacrificial body and blood of Christ Jesus takes on the form of bread and wine. When we partake of it in a worhy manner, that is discerning the body of the Lord, we then are united as the body of Christ. If we say that the bread and wine are merely symbols then we are saying that they have no effect other than what we bring to it. There is no forgiveness of sins apart from our own contribution. But if we recognize that the body and blood are truely present to us in the form of bread and wine, the forgiveness of sins is already accomplished. Paul says in 1Corinthians 10:16 This cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a distribution of the blood of Christ. This bread that we break, is it not a distribution of the body of Christ. |
||||||
10 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 84944 | ||
Even taking the body as the church doesn't exempt one from understanding the idea of the true presence of Christ in the form of bread and wine. The church according to Paul is the "body of Christ". I accept that as quite literally true. Since the covenant that Jesus instituted is the Lords Supper, that same presence must be manifest in the elements of the covenant. Take for example the writing of a check. Obviously it isn't cash money, yet when authorized by the one who owns the money, it becomes money to the person it is made out to. It is in the form of a check, but it is effectually money. Not merely a symbol. |
||||||
11 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 84943 | ||
Even taking the body as the church doesn't exempt one from understanding the idea of the true presence of Christ in the form of bread and wine. The church according to Paul is the "body of Christ". I accept that as quite literally true. Since the covenant that Jesus instituted is the Lords Supper, that same presence must be manifest in the elements of the covenant. Take for example the writing of a check. Obviously it isn't cash money, yet when authorized by the one who owns the money, it becomes money to the person it is made out to. It is in the form of a check, but it is effectually money. Not merely a symbol. |
||||||
12 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | dschaertel | 84941 | ||
Even taking the body as the church doesn't exempt one from understanding the idea of the true presence of Christ in the form of bread and wine. The church according to Paul is the "body of Christ". I accept that as quite literally true. Since the covenant that Jesus instituted is the Lords Supper, that same presence must be manifest in the elements of the covenant. Take for example the writing of a check. Obviously it isn't cash money, yet when authorized by the one who owns the money, it becomes money to the person it is made out to. It is in the form of a check, but it is effectually money. Not merely a symbol. |
||||||
13 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 51181 | ||
I wonder sometimes if Christians are too politically correct. I realize that we shouldn't be fighting each other, but at the same time I don't see just sweeping things under the rug as a real solution. Ultimately, I think we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose in what we say. Why do we discuss, ask, answer? Is it ego? Are we trying to impress eachother? Are we trying to convert each other to our ideas? Are we honestly exploring things with an equal willingness to challenge and be challenged in order that we might see what we might not have seen before? If I make a point, I should expect that there will be those who disagree. To simply avoid that confrontation solves nothing, except to reinforce an attitude of repression. Now, that doesn't mean that we need to be abusive, but at the same time our thoughts and ideas are not sacred. Who has an opinion that is above the scrutiny of his brother? It's kind of like Jesus sayng who can cast the first stone. If we understand that we are all seekers of truth, then we can challenge each other and not be offended or threatened. If, however, our ego is at stake, then we are like egg shells and we best not allow anybody to disagree. Dan |
||||||
14 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48863 | ||
" It defines what the church is, and tells me a great deal about human nature and this place called heaven. However, you seem to think that none of that information should be trusted" That is not what I have said at all. But you demonstrate why I continue to challenge. I have stated that I take the Bible very seriously,and in fact that is why it is so important to me to determine what it actually says and what it doesn't. But rather than impute meaning to it, like Sola Scriptura, I believe that I need to accept that in some cases the Bible just doesn't have an answer. You know, like infant baptism. The Bible just doesn't have an answer. Yet churches divide over this issue and both sides are convinced they are right. In my mind they have missed the point. " Which church is the one He reigns through? The Protestant one? The Catholic one? The Orthodox one? The Coptic one? The Church Universal and Triumphant? You can't answer that, so in effect you are saying that there is no clear authority. " You see, you missed it again. The Bible says there is only one church, one faith, one baptism. These are divisions of men. Scripture doesn't support this. Yet they carry their Bibles to battle over the issues that are not theirs to fight over. In my mind this is an abuse of the scriptures. It is using them for man's own glory, his own need to be right. "What if I attend a church that teaches the bodily resurrection never took place? Who are you to tell me that he is alive? " I can only appeal to the witness of those who were there. And yes, that is recorded in the scriptures. But you missunderstand me if you think that I am saying the scriptures are of no value. I am saying they should not be a crutch for our own pride. The battles over doctrine are nothing more than human pride. I know this discussion has been long winded and a little off course. You seem to think that I am against the Bible or something. I am not. I read it every day, attend several Bible studies, etc.. The topic of this discussion is Sola Scriptura. I believe the scriptures are inspired and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Let's look at this word profitable. Here are the other two places it is used in scripture: 1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Niether of them mention scripture. They are more concerned with our behavior than our Biblical knowledge. |
||||||
15 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48860 | ||
"What is YOUR authority? And answer my question regarding infant baptism, citing your authority as the source." My authority is Jesus Christ. He is not dead, but He is alive and He reigns in and through His church. So the church is the physical manifistation of Christ on earth and therfore is the authority as it has been given by Him. Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The problem comes in because man's pride and insecurities still find their way in. The Bible to many people has become a crutch, kind of a security blanket. It is a scary thing to not have all the right answers, to have to trust in Christ when you just don't know if you are right or not. To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves. But we are justified by faith, not by being right. Can we proceed in faith even when we don't know the answers? I don't think we can begin to realize faith until we don't know the answers. As long as we hold tightly to our crutches, our sacred cows, we can never step out in faith. I honestly don't know the "right" answer regarding infant baptism. I believe it is acceptable, and I in fact prefer it. But the issue isn't whether it is right or not. I don't believe any denomination or sect of Christianity has the exclusive right answers. You listed a bunch of different groups. These could be likened to the Samaratins of Jesus' day. They had a resemblence to the true religion, but had been corrupted by the many pagen beliefs. Yet Jesus on several occasions used the Samaratins to convict the Jews. I wouldn't put down Mormons, because in my judging of them I have become worse than them. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by being right. Faith in Christ means trusting that He is faithful when we are not. That He is right when we are not. So my trust is in Him, not the Bible or any particular interpretation of it. As far as the church goes, there are times when we are probably not right. But can we still trust that as the church, we are justified? |
||||||
16 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48845 | ||
"1) Are all writtings equally inspired? " Not sure what you mean by all writings. If I have a significant event in my life, and I later write a book about it, I could say that the event inspired the book. I guess the level of ispiriation is related to the person and the experience that thay had. Certainly Paul would qualify to write inspired text. The level of inspiredness is validated by the experience and the sources of the author. "2) If not, how do you decided which ones are inspired and which ones are not? " Like I said, it is largely due to the experience and position of the author. Inspired simply means that God has motivated poeple by His presence and His grace. In response people have written and acted out of gratitude and obedience. If you are changed, then I guess you could say you are inspired. |
||||||
17 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48844 | ||
"The problem is that one of us is wrong about what it says. " This is why the tree in the Garden is so important. I don't believe that it is necessarily a matter of who is right or wrong. It is a matter of submitting that human desire to be the judge. Suppose that you thaught infant baptism was wrong. But your church all of a sudden decided that it was going to practice this. What would you do? Is the question one of being right, or one of being submissive and obedient? I have stated that I am not a Catholic. But I believe that there should be one church. I think that the division is wrong, rooted in human pride and an unwillingness to submit. I am not pro-protestant or pro-catholic. These are divisions of men. The Bible can become a destructive tool when we use it as a means to promote our agendas, to feed our egos, to exclude and label people. This certainly is not the purpose of the scriptures. Sola Scritpura is a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible. What it does is it gives every person the "authority" to decide for themsleves what is right. This is what we got kicked out of the Garden for. This choosing what is right doesn't unite people, it divides people. You say there is agreement that the Bible is true, and I agree with that as well. But I don't believe in it's sufficiency, because it isn't a matter of sufficiency, or right and wrong. It is a matter of one's pride and willingness to submit. |
||||||
18 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48842 | ||
Tim, Whether the tree is real or not isn't the issue. The tree (being the knowledge of good and evil) is very relevent to the story. If we miss the meaning of the tree, then I think we miss the meaning of the story. They didn't get kicked out of the garden because the disobeyed. They got kicked out because now that they had become like God (knowing good and evil) they must not be able to eat from the tree of life. The knowledge of good and evil is man's attempt to judge. The word for God means judge. When we take that role on for ourselves we are taking what is God's. He said eat from any tree except that one. This excersize may not seem like it has much to do with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but it does in the sense that if we don't read the Bible and take seriously what it says, then we can make up all kinds of doctrine to fit our needs. Sola Scriptura is not taught in the scriptures. It was an invention in response to the oppresion of the Catholic hierarchy. The reformers thought that if every man could read and decide for himself what the Bible said, then we would be free. But actually the opposite has happened. It turns out that everybody has their own interpretation and people impute all kinds of meaning into the scriptures that just isn't there. There are ove 30,000 protestant denominations in the world today. Sola Scriptura just hasn't been what the reformers dreamed that it would be. My suspicion is that if Luther couls see the state of the church today, he would second guess is beliefs. |
||||||
19 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48799 | ||
"Therefore, it is not far-fetched at all to assume that while there was no developed, grown plants of the field, that vegetative life existed prior to this point." I don't think I am taking this out of context. It does show my point very clearly though. It is not far-fetched to assume? Good way to study the Bible I'd say. Don't worry what it says, just assume. we can make it be anything we want it to. Actually it is my respect for the scriptures that causes me to continue to ask the question. You assume that which is a direct contradiction to what the scripture says, and then say I have no regard for the scripture. I demand for myself the truth of what the scripture says. There are plenty of ambiguities and dificult issues to resolve in the scriptures whithout adding our own assumptions. Sola Scriptura is an assumption because the Bible teaches it nowhere. While you say that you have provided plenty of evidence, all you have really given me is opinion and assumption. I am simply asking for some scripture that bears witness to this doctrine that seems so indefensible. And you have provided none of that. Book, chapter, verse? Telling us what the Bible is to be, and how it is exclusive and sufficient? That's all. And as for my knowledge of Catholic belief.. try again. I got it right from the horses mouth so to speak. You have demonstrated that you are willing to make assumptions to make your case. |
||||||
20 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48797 | ||
Joe, Maybe it's me, maybe I am just not getting the question across. Let's look at this real example. The church is clearly divided over the issue of infant baptism. Now you may have your belief, but if you say that the church has resolved this you are just out of touch with anything real. The Bible apparently isn't sufficient to resolve this issue. So how should it be resolved? You speak from the perspective that your beliefs are right because they are yor beliefs. But if someone who has studied the Bible disagrees with you, how can you say the scripture is sufficient? And the question still stands, where does the Bible speak of the 66 or more books that we call the bible, and where does it say that they are the exclusive and sufficient revelation of God? What prohecy was this? I haven't found it, and nobody I know has found it either. As far as I can tell you are just making that up. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |