Results 1 - 20 of 29
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: AWilliamson Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | AWilliamson | 218481 | ||
I think, just possibly, wires are being crossed here. The Lord was "eating and drinking with publicans and sinners" to reach them with the truth of God. The Pharisees said in disgust "this man receives sinners and eats with them" (Luke 15v1-2) He responded by telling them of a father's love for a prodigal son, the womens search for silver that she valued, and a shepherds quest in looking after lost sheep - the key to the passage is the word "one sinner that REPENTS" - the Lord wasn't merely socialising with those whose lives were full of sin, or because He enjoyed the "music, drinking and cursing" he was reaching out to bring them to repentance. There is another vital principle found at the start of Psalm 1, which people sometimes forget about "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." Ps 1v1 This is the principle of separation from a world that is opposed to God. As to the question of "being led of the Spirit" (Rom 8:14), the whole contrast in the passage is between believers (who are characteristically "led of the Spirit", by desiring to adhere to the word of God) and unbelievers who are in mind opposed to God and can't please God. (note the difference in the "we" of v12 and the "you" of v13) Thus being led of the Spirit is not a mystical thing, it is an acceptance of the truth of God (revealed in the Scriptures) and a putting it into practice in life. Other passages deal with the over-ruling of the Spirit of God in the lives of God's servants, but I don't think this is one of them. It is the whole flow, bent, stream of the life of one who is truly born of God. (NB all true believers are sons of God) "For all who are led of the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8v14) In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
2 | Women are to be silent? | NT general | AWilliamson | 218357 | ||
Dear YenlsaRap, I am in agreement with the church truth set forth clearly by Paul, that women should be silent in church. You have sited a number of references. Men and Women have distinctly different roles in the bible. Thus we have the thought of authority and leadership vested in men, while the idea of submission, care and help is often associated with woman. She was to be a "help fitted for him". His complement - intellectually and in every aspect of his person. There is no thought of inferiority in this God-designed role. Read 1 Corinthians 11 - first few verses. Man is the head of the woman, even as God is head of Christ. Christ is not inequal with God. But Christ came as subject to his Father's will, and completely, wonderfully fulfilled His Role. Neither is their the thought of superiority/inferiority, or inequallity between male/female. God called them "man" (Gen 2) - but there is a difference in roles in God's creation. So while I agree women should not speak in church (1 Cor 14), women should have head-coverings in church gatherings (1 Cor 11). I do not believe that your statement is accurate that "woman was not created equal". In Christ, Andrew PS There are a number of extra-biblical additives that we make in "church-gatherings" - such as one man "ordained" and set over a church, a man with a "licence" to preach, "denominations", "church-heirarchies" etc etc. I think it would be good if we thought about all these things in light of the scriptures alone. Hope this provokes thought with us all! A |
||||||
3 | Women are to be silent? | NT general | AWilliamson | 218394 | ||
Dear YenlsaRap, To base the man/woman relationship upon the God/man relationship is not an accurate comparison. The differences are striking. God made man. Thus he is to worshipped as God because of his creatorship of man (among other things). Man did not make woman, he was not active in the process. (God built the woman from the man). Of course man is not equal with God. Woman was taken from the same substance as man - men were not taken from the same substance as God. Psalm 8, speaking about mankind (generically) states that they were made a little lower than the angels. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen 1v27) Man evidently, is invested with representative authority (God's image), notice it then says "male and female created he them" - while the male was to be dominant they were both human - thus equal personally, while distinct positionally. Your questions. Has God given authority, and responsibility in the same measure to woman as He has man? Positionally - no. Federal headship belonged to Adam. (Romans 5 - it was through Adam's disobedience many were constituted sinners). Personally - every one, male and femal are morally responsible to God, a female sinner will be judged for her sin, just as a male sinner will be judged for his sin. Is a woman ever a spiritual covering for the man? No - neither is a man for a woman. See 1 Cor 11. I'll post on this in a seperate note. (on this thread. When is woman ever put into the position of taking responsiblility for man? - Did I not state that they had distinct roles? Women (as well as men) should submit to the clear teaching of the scriptures on these issues. Let the women keep silence in the church. (1 Cor 14, 1 Timothy) In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
4 | Who was sacrificing in the temple? | Ex 30:13 | AWilliamson | 218699 | ||
Dear WOS, Not butting in, just a thought. It is important to read the last chapters of Hebrews (and the whole of the hebrews) against a Jewish Christian background. It was written, it would seem, shortly before AD70. Internal evidence suggests this - (the present tense is used when speaking about priests ministering in Temple etc). We have an altar, which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle - heb 13v10. While initially in the early Acts the disciples gathered at the temple it was clear later on that there was a growing divide between Christianity and the Jewish religion. (From God's standpoint, it was finished at Calvary with a rejected Son and a rent vail from top to bottom - it takes until AD70 to work it out fully on the ground). As to sacrifices before the Cross, they pointed toward it. In the Millenial Temple (Ezekiel), they will be pointing back to it in rememberance (just as the Lord's Supper does for Christians). Andrew |
||||||
5 | How could the Israelites melt gold in... | Ex 32:4 | AWilliamson | 222968 | ||
Before anyone attempts to answer, may I ask you Max if you believe in "Sola Scriptura" i.e. that the Bible is it's own stand alone authority, it is God's truth and therefore is to be taken as the basis of Christian belief? I believe that holding this is a prerequisite to participating - If you look at the member rules - **"Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing the Bible's sole authority (sola Scriptura), Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ. Andrew |
||||||
6 | How could the Israelites melt gold in... | Ex 32:4 | AWilliamson | 222977 | ||
Doing well, thanks Doc, - David is involved in an evangelistic outreach nightly at the moment in a small place - getting a bit of interest in the area. Hope you are well, In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
7 | Eating in the Sancturary? | Lev 10:18 | AWilliamson | 218762 | ||
Our sanctuary is now in heaven, unlike in the OT. We worship in spirit and in truth (John 4), the type of the old sanctuary has given place to the antitype. The old laws had spiritual applications for us today, not literal Andrew |
||||||
8 | is cancer from the devil? | Psalm | AWilliamson | 218842 | ||
Dear Mamayama1, We live in a groaning creation, sin has caused havoc throughout the world. The creation has been subjected to futility because of Adam's sin - suffering and sin are linked this much. When we come to Christ, and repent of our sins and recognise the provision he has made for us in His death on the cross -we are saved, redeemed, cleansed from sin. While our spirits and souls have been redeemed our bodies still await Christ's return, then we will enter into the good of complete redemption (our body will be liberated from corruption and morality and will be fashioned like Christ's own body of glory). Read Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, Philippians 3. As we do not have redeemed bodies presently we are subjected to the same trials and diseases as anyone else. We can be in weak health (as Timothy was). We can be sick near to death (as Epaphroditus was - Philippians 2). John the Apostle wrote to Gaius in 3 John and said (v2) "Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul." (ESV) We can see from this verse that physical condition and spiritual condition do not necessarily correlate, John knew that this man was prospering in his soul but he prayed that he might also prosper in body. The Lord certainly brings things into our lives to teach us lessons and so that we may learn more about Him in the School of God. If we walk close to him in all our trials we will find a joy and a peace that this world can never give. Hope this might help a little Praying for your blessing, Andrew P.S. The Lord is in control, the devil cannot do anything without the Lord allowing it (see Job 1). The devil "tempts" to bring out the bad in us, the Lord "tests"to bring out the good in us. Without doubt the same situation can give rise to both the devil tempting and the Lord testing. |
||||||
9 | Matt.6:33 What does this verse means? | Matt 6:33 | AWilliamson | 218561 | ||
Mat 6:31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' Mat 6:32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Mat 6:34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. (ESV) I have quoted all four verses to give a flavour of the context. The Lord is speaking to disciples about the danger of becoming overanxious about the necessities of life, because the danger is that these things can become all consuming (after such things the gentiles seek), but in contrast, seek first, put the priority on God's Kingdom and things associated with it, and all these things (the necessities of life) will be added unto you. The last verse in the chapter is about worry - there is no point in worrying today about tomorrow, sufficient for the day is it's trouble. This beautiful and very relevant teaching of the Lord has a deep relevence for us. How often do we, due to anxiety for the necessities of life, push spiritual things into second place? It is even more stark when we realise the King is speaking to followers who didn't really know where their next bite was coming from (even they weren't to be anxious!) It is interesting to note that "the Kingdom of God" is used here and not "the kingdom of Heaven" (which is used elsewhere in Matthew). In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
10 | What does He mean? | Luke 5:23 | AWilliamson | 218395 | ||
Dear nthnobdvs, It is clearly easier to SAY your sins are forgiven you, than to SAY arise and walk! The second demands a proof of power in the rising and walking, the first doesn't necessarily demand any outward proof. The Lord then shows that the first words that he said "your sins are forgiven you" has power by demonstrating the power of his words in saying "Arise and walk" - and the man arose and walked! All this was so that they might know that not only can "God in heaven forgive sins" but that "the Son of Man on earth has authority to forgive sins". (Luke 5v24) Sorry my reply is a bit convoluted! Hope it helps however, Andrew |
||||||
11 | Why? | Luke 5:23 | AWilliamson | 218422 | ||
Dear nthnobdvs, I think some have touched on the reasons why the forgiveness of sins was first. Firstly, because it was the priority, physical healing is in second place to spiritual healing (I think this suggests a moral order that is often seen in Luke). People can be forgiven sins without the consequences of their sins being completely undone. They can have spiritual healing without physical healing (untli the redemption of the body anyway! Romans 8). As a preacher I know sometimes puts it "God can forgive you your sins but your body will never forgive you". Praise God, he can heal - but the most important, and the lesson the people needed to learn was that the Lord's authority extended, not only to the casting out of demons, the calming of the storm and the removal of diseases but HE had authority to FORGIVE SINS - what a Saviour we have! In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
12 | Was Jesus Christ, Son of God from start? | John 3:1 | AWilliamson | 217594 | ||
Vkey, He was the Son of God from all eternity. As to OT references to the Son of God, check out Proverbs 30v4 where it intimates that God has a Son. "What is his name? or what is HIS SON'S name if you can tell?" Hence the Agur knew that God had a Son. Isaiah tells us about the coming of the Lord Jesus into this world, he says that "Unto us a child is born, unto us A SON IS GIVEN" (Isaiah 9v6)- praise God that He was a Son when he was given to Bethlehem and a Son when delivered up to the Cross! John 3v16 "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" - God gave His Son, His only begotten, not only into the world but up to death on a Cross for us. "Only begotten" is the translation of one word "monogenes" which means "one of a kind" "unique" - He was the Son who was unique to the Father, and yet He was given to the Cross for us! John 3v17 "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved" Galatians 4v4 "When the fullness of the time was come God sent forth His Son" ...etc. He was evidently the Eternal Son before He came. Incidently if we believe in the Eternal Fatherhood of God, we must believe in the eternal Sonship of Christ. Finally, Vkey, you have mentioned Luke 1v35, please note that it DOESN'T say "the Holy One born to you shall BECOME the Son of God" BUT "shall be CALLED the Son of God". In His true humanity, He would become KNOWN and ACKNOWLEDGED by men as truly the Son of God. You also quoted, Heb 1v5, if you look at the greek, or change to a more accurate version you will find that it doesn't say that God became his father, but says "You are my Son today have I begotten you". Begotten means "brought forth", in this context, I take it, that it is a reference to the birth of Christ, begotten of the Holy Spirit, by way of the Virgin birth. I know it's an old thread but I thought I would clarify this important truth. In Christ, Andrew (really!!) |
||||||
13 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | AWilliamson | 217682 | ||
Now for the Matt 24v36 passage. 1. You will note that the expression "neither the Son" is omitted from the KJV/NKJV versions in Matt 24v36 and I believe it should be. 2. The word "neither the Son" ARE however found in Marks Gospel Ch13v32 and the reason why I believe this is the case I have noted below. We have been given 4 Gospel records, each with a particular purpose (as most will know). Matthew presents the Lord as King/Messiah, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man, John as Son of God. In the Gospel of Mark the Lord Jesus is presented to us as the perfect Servant and that is why I believe this expression is recorded there. In John 15v15 we read these words "...the servant knoweth not what his master doeth...". When the Lord said that, what He was saying is that it is not the servants PLACE to know such things. Now, I believe that this is the position the Lord takes up in Mark 13v32. He is the Servant - as such He has been given certain truths to reveal by the Father, this He does perfectly. But, when it comes to "the day or hour" He does not know in the sense that it is not His place to know as a Servant. I want to quote William MacDonald if I may: "It is well known that this verse has been used by enemies of the gospel to prove that Jesus was nothing more than a man with limited knowledge like ourselves. It has also been used by sincere but misguided believers to demonstrate that Jesus emptied Himself of the attributes of Deity when He came into the world as a man. Neither of these interpretations is true. Jesus was and is both God and Man. He had all the attributes of Deity and all the characteristics of perfect manhood. It is true that His Deity was veiled in a body of flesh, but it was there nonetheless. There was never a time when He was not fully God." (William MacDonald, Believers Bible Commentary, Pg1357). To use this one verse as a basis for an argument against the Lord Jesus possessing the full attributes of deity is in my opinion very unwise. Hope this hs helpful to some. In Him David |
||||||
14 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | AWilliamson | 217683 | ||
Oh dear - using my brothers computer again at home, don't know why it doesnt come up as dwilliamson...very sorry. This is David. (dwilliamson). | ||||||
15 | Our authority in His name? | John 6:29 | AWilliamson | 217697 | ||
Hello folks, This is Andrew. Just to say that david signed in on the computer that I use, he signed in under his own password but for some reason when he posts it comes up as my user name?! There seems to be some computer glitch. Sorry about this, will try to see that it doesn't happen again. Andrew |
||||||
16 | Who should baptize? | Acts 2:41 | AWilliamson | 218192 | ||
Hi Searcher, Being an immersion only person I would still say that in this case the heart desire is what the Lord would recognise and will ultimately reward (i.e. he couldn't immersed). My mind goes to David wanting to build a House for the Lord but unable to - the Lord recognised and rewarded his hearts desire. However, I would say that we draw our doctrine from the Bible, not from experience - I believe that the scriptures clearly teach immersion as scriptural baptism. As to who baptises I don't think the NT outlines specifics, although it would need to be a fellow believer. Paul was glad that he had only baptised a few of the converts at corinth because otherwise the Corithians would potentially have had a large group following Paul rather than the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1) Andrew |
||||||
17 | Who should baptize? | Acts 2:41 | AWilliamson | 218222 | ||
Hi John, Sorry for the delay in replying, I am pretty busy at the moment. My lack of responses and brevity doesn't reflect a lack of interest. I think etymologically the idea of immersion is prominent. The word in its various forms comes from "bapto" to "dip". Hence the thought of dipping. If it had been merely sprinkling why does it say in scripture in John 3v23 "John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there," I.e. he needed a quite a bit to dip them in. So both Philip and the Eunich went into the water and Philip baptised him, i.e. dipped him under. The doctrinal picture implied in baptism is not only a picture of sins washed away but of me (the sinner) buried out of sight so that I can now walk in newness of life. (Read Romans 6v1-8) In the Colossian passage reference to baptism it isn't the burial which is emphasized but the emergence from the tomb. (Col 2v12) A picture, I take it, of us, as believers risen with Christ and sharing His resurrection life. As W.E Vine (Exp. Words) sucsinctly puts it: " "baptism" to be undergone by believers, thus witnessing to their identification with Him in death, burial and resurrection, e.g., Acts_19:5; Rom_6:3,4; 1_Cor_1:13-17; 1_Cor_12:13; Gal_3:27; Col_2:12." I find nowhere in the NT which suggests a mere sprinkling. As for extremes mentioned, Eskimo in winter and Nomad in desert, I think the Lord would understand if they waited until water was available. There is much truth connected with baptism. It is a pictorial and symbolic picture - but of deep and meaningful spiritual truth. Hope that clarifies Andrew |
||||||
18 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | AWilliamson | 218060 | ||
Dear Humility, Just to add to Doc's point here. I believe when reading the book of the Acts we must remember that it was a transitional period from Judiasm to Christianity, from Jerusalem through Antioch (the second centre of Christianity) to Rome (where the book ends - see Acts 1v8) Acts is also historical not doctrinal as the epistles are (both are inspired of course). When we deal with doctrine things are clear cut. The old Law dispensation was finished at the Cross and with the descent of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20)the New 'Grace' dispensation had begun. When we deal with experience things aren't so clear cut. It's like what the Lord said about no-one immediately desiring the new wine, for they felt the old was better. Most Christians were not as advanced as Paul, thus we have Acts 15, the letter to Galatians, the Roman and Hebrew letters (to name a few) all dealing with the Christian/Jewish divide. Christian liberty, the freedom which we have been brought into in Christ doesn't mean that we forget about love - I must think of building up other Christians, I might do things but because I could stumble a brother or sister who didn't feel they had the same liberty I might just not do them (after all I have liberty not to do them as well). Passages which deal with issues like this are Romans 14-15, 1 Corinthians 6v12-11v1 - a big subject! In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
19 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | AWilliamson | 218061 | ||
Typo - Reference Acts 2, not Acts 20! Sorry | ||||||
20 | The Gospel of Christ | Romans | AWilliamson | 217566 | ||
Doc, I must say, I believe that is the most succinct and excellent summary of the whole argument of the epistle to the Romans I've read. Thanks brother David |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |