Results 101 - 120 of 197
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Offices today? | Matt 15:9 | Sir Pent | 14397 | ||
There are many offices within the church today, and of course they vary slightly from one denomination to the next. However, I would suggest that there are basically just three categories. 1. There are high administration offices (usually called Bishops, Superintenants, or the Pope), which are responsible for the direction and guidance of entire denominations. I don't know of any Biblical equilivant to this other than maybe the apostles. For instance, Paul had to be approved by them in Jerusalem before going out as a minister. 2. There are offices in charge of particular congregations (usually called Pastors, Priests, Ministers, Reverands, Preachers). These would be what I would compare to the Biblical idea of "Bishops" (see 34 refs post). 3. There are also offices within a particular congregation (usually called Elders, Deacons, Lay Leaders). These would be what I would compare to the Biblical idea of "Deacons" (see 34 refs post). I don't really see any Biblical precedent for how many people should be able to hold any of these positions, and it doesn't seem to be really important. What does seem to be very important is the qualifications of holding these positions. These are adressed very completely in I Timothy chapter 3 and Titus chapter 1. As for who judges these qualifications, I would submit that the officers in category 1 judge those in category 2 who would in turn judge those in category 3. |
||||||
102 | Why did Jesus reverse the order (20:16)? | Matt 19:30 | Sir Pent | 16225 | ||
Often when a person takes a look at something from two sides, they gain a deeper appreciation for it. By stating this truth in both directions, there is emphasis on different parts of it, which I think gives us a more clear picture of what Jesus was trying to say. | ||||||
103 | Bible verses on marriage in Heaven. | Matt 22:30 | Sir Pent | 116969 | ||
My answer.......................................................... Welcome to the forum Bunnydale, Jesus says that there is no marriage in heaven in 3 of the gospels. Read the verses around Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:35. |
||||||
104 | Who is Elijah | Matt 27:47 | Sir Pent | 113179 | ||
My answer...................................... Hello Nae-nae 04, Jesus did not actually call for Elijah. That was just what the people standing around the cross misheard him. Jesus was actually calling out to God the Father. |
||||||
105 | Who is Elijah | Matt 27:47 | Sir Pent | 113183 | ||
duplicate post | ||||||
106 | Blasphemy against Holy Spirit | Mark 3:30 | Sir Pent | 119123 | ||
Referral to another thread............................................ This is a very good question that a lot of people wonder about. Please type in the number 21448 into the "Quick Search" box at the top right corner of the screen to find my answer and the discussion of other forum members on the subject. |
||||||
107 | Why didn't Jesus heal him the first time | Mark 8:25 | Sir Pent | 17590 | ||
Dear Steve, I would say that the reason that the man was not healed the first time was that he lacked sufficient faith. Jesus often tied His miraculous healings to the faith of the person being healed (Luke 8:48, 17:19, and 18:42). I imagine that this man had the beginnings of faith that Christ could heal him, but was not "full of faith". Thus the first time he was only healed partially. However, this boosted his faith to the point that he was able to be fully healed the second time. I think that there are two important lessons here. The first is that God is willing and wanting to meet us where we are at. We do not have to have perfect faith for God to begin to work with us. He will take our mustard seed and help us to water it and make it grow into a strong plant (Matthew 13:31-32). The second lesson that I see is that we should not be satisfied with incomplete faith. Imagine how much the man would have missed out on if he had just settled for the first healing and went the rest of his life seeing people look like trees. In the same way, we must be careful to not be complacent with our own level of healing, but strive to be made perfect even as God is perfect (Matthew 5:48). |
||||||
108 | Why not even enter the village? | Mark 8:26 | Sir Pent | 17592 | ||
Dear Steve, I believe that there were two main reasons why Jesus told the man to not "enter the village" after he was healed. The first was for the man's sake, and the second was for Jesus' sake. I think that the man who was healed had a young and tender faith (see my note on Mark 8:25). Therefore, I think that Jesus knew that it was not ready for the testing and ridicule that would certainly come if the man went to the city. The religious leaders would have deffinately given him a hard time just like they did in other places (John chapter 9). Therefore, Jesus advised him to go home instead where he could ponder what had happened to him in his heart. The second reason was that Jesus often just didn't want people going around telling about many miraclous events. He told the disciples not to tell about the transfiguration (Mark 9:9). He told other people He healed (Mark 7:32-37) also not to tell about what had happened. I could see three reasons for this. The first is that Jesus was modest. This is a true statement, but I don't think would be the main reason. A second is that Jesus knew human nature, and that if He told people not to tell then the news would actually spread faster. Jesus does know human nature, but that seems a little deceitful, which would not fit His character. The third reason (which I find the most likely) is that Jesus was trying to maintain a low profile, because His time had not yet come (John 2:4 and John 7). |
||||||
109 | Please help me to find this out for this | Luke 1:27 | Sir Pent | 23565 | ||
Attempt at consensus .......................... Certain scriptures are unclear whether Jesus had brothers in His immediate family, and this has led to variance in beliefs within the Christian Church. Matthew 27:56 says that Mary (the mother of James and Joseph) was at the cross with Mary Magdalene. But John 19:25 says that Mary Magdalene was at the cross with Mary (the mother of Jesus) and also Mary (wife of Clopas, and sister of Mary the mother of Jesus). Therefore, Matthew 27:56 could have been referring to Jesus' mom or his aunt. Matthew 1:25 says that Mary remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus, but this doesn't neccessarily mean that she did or did not remain so afterwards. It could be interpreted either way. However, there are other passages which are less easily explained. Matthew 12:46 says that Jesus mother and brothers came to visit him. (Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:19 repeat the story) Mark 6:3 says that Jesus is the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. (Matthew 13:55 repeats the story) Galations 1:19 specifically refers to Jesus brother James. John 2:12, John 7:3, Acts 1:19, and 1 Corinthians 9:5 all refer to Jesus brothers in general. Those who believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout life (mainly Catholics) would interpret these passages to be using the word "brother" to simply mean "male relative". This usage is common amoung many African tribes even today. However, most members of this forum (and most Protestants) would interpret these passages to have a literal meaning. Since the Bible is not completely clear on the matter, and this is not a salvific issue, both perspectives are entitled to their opinions, and either side would probably not be shocked to discover in Heaven that they were wrong. As for myself, I choose to take the Bible literally unless another scripture directly contradicts it. Therfore, since many verses refer to Jesus brothers, and there are no verses that literally say that Jesus did not have any brothers in His immediate family, I figure that He probably did. |
||||||
110 | How God kept his promise? | Luke 1:35 | Sir Pent | 113204 | ||
I need more information....................................... Hello Cryst9m, Could you explain your question a little better? |
||||||
111 | What was God's plan? | Luke 1:35 | Sir Pent | 113295 | ||
My answer............................................ Hello Crystal, Thanks for explaining your question a bit more. I would recommend looking at Romans chapter 5. It talks about how sin entered the world from the first human, Adam bringing death to us all. However, it also says that Jesus Christ came to provide justification to us all (Rom 5:18). That was God's plan. And as for when did God come up with that plan. There is a verse that says that God planned it from the beginning. I can't remember what that verse is off the top of my head, but maybe someone else on the forum will know it. |
||||||
112 | How could Jesus increase in wisdom? | Luke 2:52 | Sir Pent | 14526 | ||
My personal belief on this is that when Jesus became a man, He put aside temporarily some of His Godly abilities (Philippians 2:5-7), in order to identify more fully with mankind (Hebrews 4:14-15). I believe that omniscience was one of these things, which Jesus, temporarily gave up. For instance, in Mark 13:32, Jesus claims to not know the exact day and hour of His return. With this perspective, there is no conflict with Jesus growing in wisdom. P.S. Steve, please do not take offense to this, for in fact I have defended you before in other threads on this forum. However, I am curious. It seems that certain forum members have an inclination to attack your posts. I must admit that it seems a large number of your questions, do relate to very difficult (and often controversial) questions, such as this one. As I looked at your profile, I recieved little clarification as to your background. Would you mind giving a little more information about yourself, and why you ask so many questions that could be dangerous to less mature believer's faith? |
||||||
113 | Mary Magdalene and the seven demons | Luke 8:2 | Sir Pent | 113856 | ||
Scripture Referrance............................... Hi Docl333, Here's the Bible verse that talks about this subject. We do know that Mary Magdalene had 7 demons come out of her. We do not know if they were the seven deadly sins. |
||||||
114 | what is the "blasphemy" referred to ? | Luke 12:10 | Sir Pent | 114704 | ||
Referrence to another thread......................................... Hello rpmiller, This is a very good question, and one that concerns a lot of people. I would recommend that you type the number 21448 into the "Quick Search" box at the top right of the screen. This will take you to my answer for this question. |
||||||
115 | Can I come home again, or apostate? | Luke 15:24 | Sir Pent | 60888 | ||
Encouragement ...................................... Welcome to the forum GJH, I understand your concerns regarding the loss of salvation. I too, rejected Christ's forgiveness at one point in my life, after I had already been a Christian for many years. I shared some of these concerns on this forum in the past, and received a very good answer from Tim Moran. I would encourage you to read that thread. Just do a quick search (top right) for the number 25332. God bless! |
||||||
116 | Civil punishment impossible? | Luke 17:3 | Sir Pent | 120487 | ||
A different perspective.............................................. Welcome to the forum Pete2, If I understand correctly, you are saying that as Christians we must have unlimited forgiveness, and that this would lead to chaos in society due to a complete lack of retaliation and punishment. The first thing that needs to be explained is that there are eternal consequences to sin and there are earthly consequences to sin. Imagine a drunk driver kills another person, and later repents of their sin. The eternal consequence of their sin (Hell) is then taken away and they can spend eternity with God after they die. However, some of the earthly consequences can not be taken away. Their car may be able to be repaired, but the person they killed will not come back. Thus even Christians can support earthly punishment. Even a forgiven thief would still have to repay his victims. The second thing that needs to be explained is that the "nice" thing is not always the Christian thing. Imagine a criminal who commits credit card fraud. They may repent and be forgiven. However, it could be the Christian thing to do, to cancel all their credit cards. It may seem like the "nice" thing is to just pretend nothing happened and let them have absolute freedom again. However, that would just be leading them into temptation. What is truly in their best interest may be eliminate the opportunity to sin again until they are able to overcome its tug. That is the key issue for a Christian. Our response to sin should not be to punish out of retaliation or vengenge, but instead out of tough love for the other person. We should be motivated by bringing them closer to God. |
||||||
117 | Cristians are a no show in Culture War | Luke 17:3 | Sir Pent | 120844 | ||
Disagreement......................................................... Hi Pete2, I am confused why you don't think that Christians participate in the culture war. It seems to me that there are many Christians who are actively trying to shed light into the culture around them. The Salvation Army is a great example of a church that puts into practice the Christian beliefs of meeting the needs of the society around them. They are certainly not in a bubble :) The crisis pregnancy centers run by the Catholic church in cities across America are educating young mothers and helping them to have the support and supplies necessary for taking care of their babies. The Prison Fellowship ministry started by Chuck Colson has just recently been turning America's prisons around and greatly reducing recidivism (prisoners who go back to prison after release for more crimes). My local church currently shares around 50,000 dollars each year to support missionaries around the world who are sharing the message of Jesus Christ. Many of them are even from our church. Thousands of other churches are similarly involved. These are just a few examples of how Christians are indeed allowing God to use them to change the culture around them. |
||||||
118 | The culture war | Luke 17:3 | Sir Pent | 120960 | ||
A different perspective............................................. Hi Pete2, I agree with you that there are more battles in the "culture war" than there are Christians willing to fight them. This is unfortunate but it does not mean that "Christians are a no show" as you previously stated. Your statements make me curious though. How can you see so clearly that Jesus is the only answer for society as a whole, yet you are unable to see that Jesus is the only answer for yourself? |
||||||
119 | Sovereignty and Free-Will | John | Sir Pent | 61200 | ||
This doesn't answer the question ............... Dear JRdoc, Welcome to the forum. I appreciate your interest in the question that I asked, however, your response simply describes what Calvinists believe in general. It does not describe why an Arminian viewpoint necessitates a lower view of the sovereignity of God. Let me restate my question, and perhaps you will be able to answer it better. ................................... We both believe that God is sovereign and all powerful. Therefore, He could have created beings (humans) such as you have just described. They were all completely corrupted after the fall of Adam, and completely incapable of desiring relationship with God. Therefore, they would never normally choose God and would all deserve Hell. Then God could, within that system, choose some of those beings as exceptions to that rule, and change their hearts in such a way that they had an irresistable desire to have a relationship with God. Therefore, they would choose God and would deserve heaven (only by God's grace of changing them, and providing a way to salvation through Jesus). Thus everyone gets what they deserve (at least in one sense) ................................... However, it is also possible that God being sovereign and all powerful could have created beings (humans) that were actually capable of either desiring a relationship with God or not desiring it. Their nature could be partially corrupted so that they have a tendancy to choose to reject God, but still have the ability to overcome that first instinct. Then some of them would choose to love God and would deserve heaven (only by God’s grace of providing a way to salvation through Jesus). But others would choose to reject God and His salvation and would deserve Hell. Thus everyone gets what they deserve (in a greater sense). ................................... So now to the original question. How does believing the second option to be true limit the sovereignity of God? Since God could have set it up either way, He is in complete control either way. For that matter, even assuming the Arminian perspective is correct, God could still change His mind at any point and remove the freedom to choose again. Although we don’t believe that God would ever do that, He could. I am not asking you to believe Arminianism is correct, I am simply trying to explain that it is also a possible explanation of the universe that keeps God’s soveriegnity intact. ................................... It seems to me that it is like a parent watching their child on a playground, but letting them choose whether to go down the little slide or the big slide. The parent is bigger and stronger, and could easily bar the child from one slide or the other. But it doesn’t make the parent any less big or less strong for them to allow the child pick either one. |
||||||
120 | Witnessing: What is your style? | John 1:7 | Sir Pent | 21692 | ||
My Evangelism Experience ........................ I agree with my colleagues that this is a great question. As Christians we are called to follow the "Great Commision", but what does that look like? Nolan, has done well at describing several possibilities. I have done some "street witnessing" in college, which was mostly the direct approach. I have also used the social approach at times by inviting people to church activities. However, I relate most closely with options 2 and 3, which are connected for me. My own testimony is of an intellectual nature, as God chose to show me His truth through logic and reason. Therefore, when I am talking to non-Christians about faith, I usually try to lead them through the same approach that I took. I also often am presented with opportunities to share about what God has done in my life. When someone compliments me on something, I often realize that I did not always have that character trait. This makes a great chance to tell that person how I used to be and how that God has changed me for the better. I have found this approach to be effective. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [10] >> |