Results 1 - 20 of 100
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bjanko Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What's the best way to apply the Bible? | Not Specified | bjanko | 16250 | ||
What's the best way to apply the Bible? |
||||||
2 | What does Bible teach on election? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 225 | ||
Election is unconditional. "And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:10-13) |
||||||
3 | sin vs. sins vs. iniquity vs. dead works | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1080 | ||
I'm not sure there is much difference between sin and sin. Although remember there is the sin which we actually commit ourselves in addition to the sin nature we inherited by imputation from Adam. Iniquity just seems like another name for our personal sins which we commit. Dead works is sinful in only an indirect way. Dead works are the works we do to try and earn merit before God. They might even be good works, but in terms of making us right with God they are totally dead because they are not from faith. |
||||||
4 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1091 | ||
All are sinners and under the wrath and curse of God. Remember that God has the right to judge all mankind, not only for their own sins, but for the sins imputed to them in Adam. So, if by some miracle, you had never ever sinned, you would still be guilty by virtue of the sin nature you have inherited. This goes for young and old, male and female. All babies are sinners and subject to the same wrath. This is where the destructive views of Arminians enter in. Because they think man is able to choose God, they must make up an "age of accountability" where this must happen, and also excuse all infants and say God must be sending them to heaven. However, the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith, not that we give to ourselves, but that faith is a gift from God. GOD REGENERATES US BEFORE WE ARE ABLE TO BELIEVE; or, put another way, we are enabled to believe because regenerates/saves us. For those who cannot choose -- like the mentally ill or infants -- are they different than us? Not at all. No man with all his usual capacities is able to choose God. God elects those whom He will save. Those who are able will express that new life by exercising faith in Christ. Those who cannot show the expression of their salvation -- such as babies, etc. -- are still saved because God has saved them. |
||||||
5 | Is Bible for or against birth control? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1092 | ||
Nothing. Though, if we are supposed to be living a life of faith in God, and life and death are in the hands of God, then it is reasonable that this matter be left in God's hands -- in other words that we take no action to prevent pregnancy, but to trust God with what He wants to give us. I think it is Proverbs that says children are a blessing from the Lord. To prevent pregnancy is to dishonor God by refusing His blessing, by handing it right back to him. Which one of us would dishonor the host of a dinner by refusing the food offered to us? | ||||||
6 | Scripture please? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1482 | ||
I did give you verses, I just didn't cite Chap and verse, assuming you would be familiar with them. I said, "I think it is Proverbs that says children are a blessing from the Lord." I was wrong; it's Psalm 127:3 "Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward" It follows that a gift not be returned to the Giver, but be enjoyed and appreciated. For instance, another great gift of God is the righteousness He has imputed to us in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's not something we would take it upon ourselves to deny or return to Him. There are other passages which show God's nature and so "by inference" I see that life and death are in his hands. If nothing else, look at the providential way He gave victory and defeat to Israel, depending on their obedience/disobedience. I could perhaps say more or be more specific, but I find myself falling asleep at my computer as I type, so I must go. Forgive me, Good night, bjanko |
||||||
7 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1488 | ||
I would ask you to supply Scripture for some of the things you have stated as well. The main thrust of what I am saying is that we should trust the Lord with our children, i.e., with how many He blesses us with and when. And this fits perfectly into the context of us living a life of total trust and dependence on the sovereign will of God. I do not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, or even when the mother's life is in danger. An abortion is the murdering of a guiltless person and Scripture says, "Thou shalt not murder." Anyway, it is a fact that instances where it's the child's life or the mother's are extremely rare. These are hyped-up scenarios in the media, unbelieving secularists, to bring fear confusion to the issue. God is in control and He is sovereign over all. Many forms of contraception, like RUD480 (or whatever it's called) and the IUD, simply kill the fertilized egg,or at least they at times work in that manner. So even some "contraceptions" actually work like tiny abortions. I do not think we ought to try and have as many kids as possible; but I also do not think we ought to try to prevent having any kids either. Again, my reasons come down to this: 1. If a Christian mother becomes pregnant God has provided that child for the family and its care. 2. We have a loving God, a God who provides for us, one Whom we can trust. 3. If God gives us a child, we should trust Him in that matter. "Practical matters" just do not come into these precepts; although I acknowledge that there could be some scenarios where things become less clear and we have to use our God-given wisdom. I just think those scenarios are the exception rather than the rule. My points are not so much about childbirth, but on absolute trust and dependence on the One who brought US into the world. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." (Prov 3:5-6) |
||||||
8 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1512 | ||
Whoa! You bring up a lot of specific situations and quite possibly in some of these situations, we might need to rethink our main premises. But I was just speaking in a general way. If you wanted to discuss specific instances, we could try that; but it would be mostly hypothetical -- and involve experiences neither you or I are experiencing ourselves. Modern contraception is a new idea, at least for Christians. I believe it's just another area where the church is becoming more and more like the world. Common sense is certainly a blessed gift in ordering our lives, but in the coming and going of the lives of others -- our children, I do not think it is an argument for contraception. Let's certainly use common sense in how we raise them, however. Common sense can be godly; and it can also be heathen. We have to start with trust of God, (which is the main message of Scripture anyhow), and only after His Word do we start to fill in the blanks with our own reasonings. I realize there can be differing views on this; I just don't happen to agree with any of them. |
||||||
9 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1523 | ||
Well, I had hoped it would have been clear that I was addressing your "general" question about the topic. I suggested in my last post, that certain "specifics" might bring in other factors which might make other conclusions valid. I cannot speak to your specific situation, since I do not fully understand it. As far as I understand this issue -- IN GENERAL -- I have to stand by what I said until I have further data. Again, this is presuming that we are having a GENERAL discussion about the topic. If you have a SPECIFIC question, I would hope you first consult your spiritual leader (pastor, or whoever) and then other trusted Christians. I would hope that you would not trust advice coming from strangers on a message board. But anyway, I wish you the best and will pray for the healing of your wife's tumor. Regards, bjanko |
||||||
10 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1529 | ||
Maybe you could list the other variations of circumstances where a believer's situation should come into play. Because unless I have a specific idea as to the various types of scenarios I'm omitting, I'm unable to more properly -- or "wisely" -- admit modification of what I have already exressed. In a general discussion, after all, we cannot always account for every situation, but it would be good to account for EVERY TYPE of situation. So, maybe you can itemize a little more clearly the TYPES of situations I might be omitting, rather than just toss out of a handful of examples. By the way, I never said or implied that "Under no circumstance is it allowable!"; I simply gave a general principle/guideline. And in fact far from making the above statement, I even admitted that my view might not apply in certain circumstances which I have not considered. A refrain of mine has been, though, that even if we allow for exceptions in certain situations, I think the tendency would be for most Christians to claim these exceptions rather than just bite the bullet and do the right thing. But even so: there might still very well be some exceptions. You seemed to say that in your country (or somewhere) there are people living in poverty, etc. Having many children in such a situation would not be a new or unusual thing. Anway, I don't say they should have many children; they just ought not prevent the having of children. You are right: this is not directly addressed in the Bible. What I am saying is based on a bit of inference and also the idea that we should resist modernist ideas which smack of worldly wisdom and rob of us the opportunity to trust the Lord. However, since this is something which is less clear in Scripture, I could concede that it may be like the food which Paul mentions in Romans 14. Some feel right about contraception and others do not; each one should be led by his own conscience. However, we should remember that any form of contraception which retroactively destroys the egg after conception is really an abortion! Birth control pills are not safe. So, the only thing I can think of that's left would be condoms, which are not, of course, one hundred percent reliable. If a pregnant woman is likely to die while in labor, I would say that is a very, very unfortunate situation, like having a fatal disease. Yet, to "save" her by murdering the child is still murder. In your own case, since your wife is not yet pregnant, then I would say that contraception is not only called for, but demanded. There is no child to "abort" at this point, and the best thing to do is to prevent that, since it might prove fatal for your wife. While nothing is one hundred percent, it would seem wise in your particular instance, to save your wife's life, that she have her tubes tied or you have a vasectomy or BOTH! How can I turn around and suddenly advocate such a radical form of contraception in your case, after all I have said? Because I believe the biblical precept which does apply here is "Thou shalt not murder." This is broader than it sounds; we know from the Sermon on the Mount that it ranges from hatred to murder and therefore, we can assume that the preserving of innocent life in all cases in which we can is the correct option. You and I agree that abortion is murder. Well, since the Lord, in His goodness, has allowed you to know about your wife's tumor, Lord willing the doctors will be able to remove it. But if you know pregnancy could bring her into a condition which might cost her life, then you should do all that you can to prevent that from occurring. Total abstinence is unhealthy and unbiblical for a marriage. But in a case such as yours, it would seem that a radical form of contraception -- tubal ligation AND vasectomy would be called for. Realize friend, I'm approaching this all in the abstract; I cannot empathize or share your worries as much as I would like, since we are only communicating in these little boxes. But forgive me if my tone sounds harsh and uncaring. I'm trying to respond as best and honestly and as helpfully, I pray, that I can. Regards. |
||||||
11 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1603 | ||
I have answered as well as I can on trying to apply biblical principles to the general subject. I could only speak hypothetically concerning the specific situations you have mentioned. I could tell you that in situation X an exception can be made, whereas in situation Y there does not seem to be an excuse for not applying the general rule. And I would hope I could be objective enough to live out my convictions were I in a similar situation. Of course, sometimes it is getting into a different situation which causes one to change his convictions -- not alwasy just because "now it's happening to ME!" but because in light of the new situation, the whole principle looks different and your perspective is broadened. Anyway, I do not think I could really lay out my ideas in any more concrete way than I have already. If I did, I do not believe there would be any benefit of it to anyone. You said you were "simply making a case for us to be moderate in our dictation of ethics, especially where the Bible is silent or unclear." I agree in spirit, but to be more precise, I would say it like this: "Let us be firm in our dicatation of ethics where the Bible is firm; and let us be moderate in our dictation of ethics where the Bible is silent or unclear." The issue we have been discussing is not something which Scripture pronounces a firm ethic about. I would agree with you that we should be wise, and would add that we take great pains to think it out carefully. I finally say that we must be cautious in the "rules" we lay out in regard to this issue, because the Bible simply does not address the mattter. I think you and I, discussing this, have done a pretty good job of it. Blessings to you. |
||||||
12 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1618 | ||
You wrote: "Let us be firm in our dicatation of ethics where the Bible is firm; and let us be moderate in our dictation of ethics where the Bible is silent or unclear." Well said! Is this yours, or should we give credit to another wise man? My response: Let's just say that it was a collaboration between you and I, brother -- to God's glory. Blessings in Christ to you and your family. |
||||||
13 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 16058 | ||
KOINEKID: I cannot agree with your use of the phrase "overly wooden literalness." It seems derogatory. BJANKO: Saying the NIV "sacrifices accuracy" is also derogatory. Many people who do not care for the NIV speak this way and make this derogatory comment with impunity. If you don't like the NIV, that's fine. But to say that it sacrifices accuracy is itself an inaccurate claim. The NIV has deficiencies just like any other translation; but it is second only to the NASB in terms of communicating the original text with great accuracy. In some cases, it improves on the NASB because it goes beyond the literal translation and gives the "sense" of a word or term. Sometimes, of course, the NASB does a better job because it sticks closer to the original. All translations have their strong points and weak points. KOINEKID: But my statement is this. Such a translation, while accurately conveying the meaning of the text, does not accurately convey the text itself. BJANKO: If someone really wants the "text itself" to be conveyed, then I would recommend reading the Greek originals. If you want a "translation" of the Greek into English, though, you will have to give up the "text itself" and settle for the receptor language (English) and all its inadequacies in expressing the original. "Accurately conveying the meaning," which you seem to admit that the NIV does, is exactly what a translation is supposed to do! Again, the NIV isn't perfect, but it is excellent, and well deserves to be among the top three or four translations out there, (the others being NASB, NKJV, and KJV). -- bjanko |
||||||
14 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 16096 | ||
I was tempted to argue with you concerning a definition of what makes an accurate translation. The problem in a discussion like this is not really translational, but philosophical -- what are the attributes of a good translation. But I feel that we would veer off into a number of semantical differences in discussing this -- arguing about words -- so I'll just drop the point for now. I just wanted to say my peace about the issue. Blessings to you. |
||||||
15 | Was Noah's Ark ever found? | OT general | bjanko | 169 | ||
No. | ||||||
16 | Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. | OT general | bjanko | 3763 | ||
No. | ||||||
17 | Is Passover celebrated by Messianic Jews | NT general Archive 1 | bjanko | 264 | ||
I would say that it would be all right to appreciate the rich Christological symbolism of the Passover. But if one actually "celebrates" Passover, it is like ignoring the work of Christ because Christ IS our Passover. Passover is the shadow; Christ is the substance. Christ is the Real and Glorious and Beautiful. To actually "celebrate" Passover would be to turn from the worship of the Real and to be enamored with the picture of the Real, to look at the picture more than the object of the picture. "For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" (1 Cor 5:7b) |
||||||
18 | Does God want big churches? | NT general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1079 | ||
I don't think God wants churches that are so big that the minister, elders and deacons are unable to properly provide for the individual members of the flock in a personal one-on-one way. | ||||||
19 | A pastor who is there? | NT general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1141 | ||
IN THEORY: if a mega-church existed where it was subdivided and there REAL pastors and elders who shepherded their assigned portions of the flock, then I suppose all would be well. Unfortunately, mega-churches seem to operate much in the way you describe and so I do not think they are healthy. Theoretically, there could be an exception, but it is certainly very difficult to consider it a wise rule. It is more biblical, because you do have a pastor familiar with the individuals of his flock, if you have a smaller congregation. I am in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery, which covers So. California and some of Arizona is really what is called the "church." So, in that sense, it is indeed a mega church. However, the Presbytery oversees Sessions, which are two to four trained men -- a teaching elder, a couple ruling elders and perhaps a deacon or two. These men are usually over a smaller congregation, from say 50 to 200. And the number of men to congregants is sufficient for their to be proper care and feeding of the sheep. If the proportion is not adequate for that, then they should make two smaller churches out of it, in my opinion. |
||||||
20 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | bjanko | 74 | ||
At first, the plants were watered by a mist that used to rise from the surface of the ground. Rain did not begin till after the "floodgates" of the sky were opened. Compare these verses: Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Gen 2:6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. AND Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. Gen 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |