Results 101 - 120 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | How Far Are We To Suffer For Christ? | 1 Pet 4:16 | bowler | 206778 | ||
remorse2 Thank you for your most graceful answer. The reason I asked the question is because I have been coming across other Christians who are facing circumstances where they would have to choose between having a nice life living the way they are and truning around and obeying Christ instead. If some of them, not all of them, were to do this they would have to leave evertything behind that they have worked so hard to have and their lives would definitely be ruined. Some of these cricumstances are life style arrangements and are not suffering for the sake of proclaiming the gospel. Others have been attacked out in the street and some fought and some didn't. As a Christian it is hard to know what to do becuase the laws of society say you can defend yourself, but the Bible says turn the other cheek. That sounds like a no brainer on the surface, just obey the Bible, but if we take Romans 13 as part of obeying the Bible, it is possible to consider defending yourself. Of course I would take the Bible over the law as long as I didn't break the law, but others may not see it that way. So its not really from my perspective that I am asking, but that I know people who either will have to choose to suffer to follow Christ, or who choose not to suffer for Christ and obeyed the law, but disobeyed Christ. By the way, your profile does not contain your email! :) blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
102 | Armies of Heaven Fight With Jesus? | Rev 19:14 | bowler | 206745 | ||
Makarios Thank you for your thoughts here. I hope you don't mind, I am going to avail myself of all your links there in your profile. Here is one for you, but you may already have it - http://www.scripture4all.org/download/download down slash ISA20.php blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
103 | Lead us not | Luke 5:18 | bowler | 206744 | ||
Allen Rhoades Oh God bless your soul Pastor! Thank you Thank you very much. It looks like it is going to take some doing to navigate around this site, but it will be worth the travel. I shared this with another Pastor in here for sharing his Greek with me, I am sure you already have this - http://www.greekbiblestudy.org/gnt/greekWordStudy.do?id equal sign 112981 and sign greek equal sign false The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. My apologies by the way for saying there was no Greek word Eisengkas! blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
104 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206741 | ||
Doc Yes I do understand that the term "catholic" means universal, as in the "universal church" and that that is how it was being used in the Canons of Orange. However, the Canons of Orange were drafted by members of the Catholic Church in 529 with Caesaurius Arles, presding as head of the synod, and sent to Pope Boniface II for final approval. Which is why I did not hesitate to idenditify the end paragraph, which intimated that regeneration comes about by way of baptism, as being derived from "Roman Catholicism", as the Council of Orange sent the Canons to Pope Boniface II in 530 for final approval. The whole thing stemmed from St. Augustine's answer to Pelagianism. Augustine was Catholic, the members of the Council of Orange were all Catholic. Both Augustine and the church at the time taught baptismal regeneration as the process by which any came to be those "who are actually regenerate". Some of the oldest divines believed various things, both John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration "as the process by which that effectual grace of regeneration is conferred". But in the interests of not aruguing with you I will desist from setting forth a lengthy discourse with quotes to prove that and will leave off in qualifying my statement that that is what they taught and believed. I like your London Baptist Confession of Faith, thank you very much for all your very good links. And I have no doubt that other of the great divines did not teach baptismal regeneration as you so rightly say. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
105 | 70 A.D. or Revelation? | Dan 11:31 | bowler | 206732 | ||
hopalong Thank you very much for giving me the link. I listened to Azurdia on Revelation chapter 13. He has a great application, but no exegesis of the verses in terms of backdrop, or verse sources, which is what I need. I appreciate the help though, that is a huge site, I am going to bookmark that one,and look through to see if there might be an answer there so thanks again for a great link. I also tried Precept Austin and the Ethereal Library to no avail, alas. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
106 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206719 | ||
beja Thank you very much for your continued thoughts on this and for getting back to me about it. I hear where you are coming from that the Exodus passage is about sins effecting future generations and the wrath and love of God, and that the Ezekiel passage is about the moral issue of sin before God of standing before God and persishing. I choose to stop posting about this, but would welcome anymore thoughts you or anyone else would care to add. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
107 | What is considered work on the Sabbath? | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 206712 | ||
stJohn Thank you John, all glory to my Lord and savior Jesus Christ for if in anything I have edified you, or anyone else I give praise to God only, and count myself an unworthy son. God's blessings to you John for your most kind words and extention of brotherly unity. 2 Peter 1:2, 3 Blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
108 | Lead us not | Luke 5:18 | bowler | 206644 | ||
AllenRhoades I apologize for not getting back to you again sooner. Yeah without a book is pretty amazing isn't it? Next time I will not assume my little tools have all the answers! I really am thinking about trying to find the time to study this language though because I get frustrated sometimes that I do not know more about how it really works. Please enlighten me, LSJ? Which tool is this, I am always collecting a new tool in the hopes of learning more. Is this tool going to be over my head? Please advise. The reason I would be most eager to have such a tool is that from what you are saying it will have a listing of Greek sources that are Extra-Biblical? That is most important, to find out how other authors were using the same words in other concurrect literature. Off this subject, I am currently seeking the usage of several Greek words for an off line discussion I am having about their Biblical and Extra-Biblical usages. Again, I would like to know what tool this is please. I see what you mean about the "fit" with 1 Timothy 6:7. There is room in the body of Christ for a diversity of gifts, I am likin yours. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
109 | Paul's circumstances writing Rom 8:31-39 | Rom 16:23 | bowler | 206643 | ||
nps50 I would caution against assuming that the occaission, now that I understand you more clearly, for Paul writing about Christian perseverance in Romans 8: 31-39, was that "Paul was being adamant in saying nothing could separate him from the love of Christ" as if he was at the time facing serious adversity. Here is why - Chapter 8 of Romans starts with the phrase "Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ ". Paul starts writing chapter 8 in answer to chapter 7 in which he states that the flesh is battling the spirit and that one sins when one does not want to, but that it is sin which dwells in the believer which does the sinning and not the spirit which wars against it. At the end of chapter 7 Paul says, wretched man that I am, who will save me from the this body of death? So then on the one hand he serves the law of God, but on the other with the flesh the law of sin. Hence "therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". Paul moves on through the passage to say that we have the mind of Christ and the Spirit of Christ. Then Paul moves on to that he considers the sufferings of this present time not to be worthy of the glory that awaits. He is making a theological point about the sufferings that occur to all are not worthy of the glory to come. He does not mention and is not trying to point out some specific personal suffering, he is talking about all Christians suffering. He moves on to explain that all of creation is also suffering and waiting for all Christians to be changed, so that they too will be changed. He goes on to say that we are the first fuits of the Spirit and that we groan inside for the redemption of our bodies. It is at this point that we see he has been talking in answer to chapter 7 all along about the answer to the power of the flesh as being the process of redemption. Which is why I said in the previous post not to divorce 8:31-19 from the broader concept Paul is writing about in chapters 6-8, which is sanctification. Paul is talking about how suffering works and the mind of Christ works in sanctification here in chapter 8. Then Paul moves on to how the Holy Spirit plays a role in this sanctification process as intercessor. Then he moves on and begins to talk about "all things" work for good, meaning suffering and good things too to work out this sanctification. Next he moves to the process of the will of God - foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, sanctification, glorification, and election. Then he comes to a big theological point from 31-39 where he says, since all of what I have said so far is true - then who can bring a charge against the elect to condemn them? And this is the major point of the whole chapter and the sole reason for the end of the passage you are asking about. The whole book of Romans is one big book on Paul's theology, which is why I gave you a break down, chapter by chapter of what is going on in Romans from beginning to end. In 31-39 he lists and expounds most adamantly on all the reasons why a charge cannot be brought agains the elect, giving every single thing that could try to unhinge the position of a believer out of the will of God as being saved and refuting every single thing as having any valid ability to separate us from the love of Christ. He was not imprisoned when he wrote Romans - he was at Corinth with the believes I listed in chapter 16 for you, if you go there and read chapter 16, it lists the top people who were there with him at Corinth, Cenchrea is at Corinth. If you see chapter 15 at the end he is on his way to Jerusalem to give them the collection from Macedonia. If you see chapter 1 he wishes to come to them when he finishes doing this and make a collection to take to Spain after visiting Rome. Hope this clears it up for you. God Bless you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
110 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206640 | ||
Doc No my good man of God, you glossed over nothing at all, you were quite clear. I agree completely about the "grace" and "means of grace" that you have outlined here, I take no other. I would like, if you please to take the time, when you can to elaborate for me at some length, with the strength which God supplies, about how the Baptist Divines would have "nonetheless been willing to express your quote from the Canons of Orange"? This would be most informative. What I am struggling with is that very Roman Catholic idea that after receiving "According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul." And "so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him." Whereby one having recieved the "sacrament of baptism", "all baptized persons have the ability etc.". - As if the ability comes from the grace conferred by baptism? Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
111 | Lead us not | Luke 5:18 | bowler | 206626 | ||
Moran61 Well thank you very much for that! I went looking through a tool I have that shows all the places a Greek word is used and that word did not show up at all, now I am wondering why. Nothing beats actualy going somewhere for about three to four years to learn the language thoroughly which I do not have time to do, so thank you Jesus, that you did. No tool is going to beat knowing the ins and outs of Greek though. http://www.greekbiblestudy.org/gnt/greekWordStudy.do?id equal sign 112981 and sign greek equal sign false Let he who has been taught share with him who teaches. Thanks. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
112 | Disciples One With Christ? | Eph 2:5 | bowler | 206625 | ||
Val I appreciate your thoughts greatly, thank you. I like what you say about "dropping what they were doing and following Christ" there. You make a good point there as a possibility of being the "definitive event". You got me to musing about at what point the disciples understood that Jesus was God and wondering if it is possible to be said to be calling Him "Lord" in the sense that we take that to mean now. They called Him Lord, but did not understand at all points until the end what exactly that meant as Jesus being "God". They knew for sure He was master for a long time before they figured out He was God. I am trying to tell myself that it is somehow truly not possible be in Christ without understanding that He was God? But perhaps my thinking on this is way off as the disciples seem to display a saving faith before He died and rose again? The church did not begin until Pentecost, the work of Christ by believers began before Pentecost. Just a thought there without a point to make specifically. I agree fully that we cannot know based on outward observance when someone has come to Christ for real. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
113 | Why Saul Does Not Know David's Father? | 1 Sam 17:55 | bowler | 206623 | ||
Azure Thanks for the post. Left with more questions though after reading it. In chapter 16 Saul's servants identify to Saul who David's father is in reccomending David to Saul as "the Son of Jesse the Behtlehimite". David may have been 12 when He first went to Saul as musician and armor bearer? Chapter 16 says David was a handsome man and already a warrior, not a young boy. Armor is heavy, David also became Saul's armor bearer it is unlikely that David was a child doing this. Saul was huge and later David even has trouble wearing Saul's heavy armor because its was "untested". There is nothing to tell us that David stopped being Saul's musician or armorer bearer, only that at some time, maybe back and forth we do not know, David went and tended his father's flocks and came back to kill the Philistine. I am wondering if perhaps Saul became upset as soon as David killed Goliath because he knew that David had already been annointed king even before David became Saul's musician and armor bearer this happened. And now Saul sees David do the impossible and the prize for killing the Philistine will be Saul's daughter as wife, make the man rich, and free his house in all Israel. Saul has to bless greatly his rival to the throne. Later on we find Saul unwilling to give David his daughter as he promised to do for killing the Philistine. It may be, I could be very wrong on this, that Saul pretends not to know who David is because he is starting to be afraid that his days as king are soon over, as evidenced in chapter 18 right after David kill Goliath, Saul starts in on trying to kill David because the Lord was with David, but not with Saul. Your post was helpful though, I enjoyed it and all the branches that went with it. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
114 | Questions of Interpretation? | Deut 30:13 | bowler | 206622 | ||
Steve I do appreciate your views. In Romans Paul says But the righteousness based o faith speaks as follows: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven (that is to bring Christ down), or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is to bring Christ up from the dead). This is Paul quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 30 as Paul indicates in verse 5 of Romans 10. What Paul does is quote Moses and then ascribe a meaning to what Moses said and interpretes Moses' scripture as meaning "do not say who will ascend into heaven, that is bring Christ down from heaven, and do not say who will descend into the abyss, that is to bring Christ up from the dead". According to Paul what Moses said has everything to do with Christ going to heaven and rising from the dead. The NASB lists Deuteronomy as the source scripture, Paul quotes it and extrapolates on the "meaning". Of course I agree that the verses are talking about "the word of faith is near and needs only to be believed", which was also Moses' point in saying "don't go asking for someone to go get it for you" in Deuteronomy. Besides Moses says the exact same thing Paul says in Deuteronomy 30:14 word for word. What went around in my mind with this is that Jesus did go up to heaven and get it and He did descend into to death to go get it for us, because on our own we did not "just believe it because it needs only to be believed". Jesus did indeed "strive and gain by a great work" the "testimony to be believed". Jesus did indeed go across the water and create part of that testimony of "who should be believed in in order to be saved" as a part of His testimony to men of who He was in order that we would believe in Him. What still is not clear is how Paul could take what Moses was saying and give it a different take as if Moses was talkig directly about Jesus, which Moses may not have been doing. The Bible is clear as you say that we should not need all that, those great feats, but we did not believe until He did them. Just a thought. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
115 | Psalm Refers to Jesus Calming the Sea? | Ps 107:26 | bowler | 206620 | ||
beja I appreciate what you are saying here. I am wondering since the disciples do not mention this Psalm at all if Jesus did indeed fulfill the Psalm to show them He was this person? It seems more likely that although He did fulfill it His major point was to point out their level of faith. In both the instances where He is walking on the water and in the boat sleeping He says the same thing "where is your faith", and the disciples question, "who is this man who does these things"? As if they are not aware He is God? About your question, was it one, which was mine as well? I think so based on Psalm 107:28 they cried to the Lord in their trouble. But I had to go back and look at the Psalm before I really noticed that. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
116 | Verse 14 About Judas or Israel and Judah | Zech 11:14 | bowler | 206619 | ||
beja I tend to agree with your assesment here. The problem becomes with what Mathew did with one verse as taking it out of context from what Zechariah meant as if it was a prophecy about Judas rather than a prophecy about evil shepherds back then. And a further problem becomes that it is attributed to the wrong author by the apostle Mathew as being Jeremiah, but it only appears in Zechariah. The next problem becomes that it is a prophecy about Judas that did come true and that Mathew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote about Judas and the 30 pieces of silver. Verse 14 which is what I asked about, being the Staff Union breaking the brotherhood of Israel in two parts could be talking about the breaking up of Israel over Jesus Christ. Which it did do, which is why I asked. There are times when prophecies get doubly fulfilled and I am wondering if this is one of them? The whole passage? Because the elements fit both time periods and came true in both time periods - the flock was scattereda after the betrayal of the one shepherd, the group of shepherds became evil and God decided not to pastor them anymore, God broke His covenant in both instances, Zechariah threw the thirty pieces of silver to the potter after being paid by the people and Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver to those who did not value the one shepherd, Israel became divided in both instances, the sheep were devoured in both instances, the evil shepherd was punished in both instances. I wonder what you think? Perhaps I am wrong? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
117 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206618 | ||
beja I am thinking of what you say about "who is being referred to" I think that is very key here. God was referring to the people of Israel under the leaderhsip of Moses and in this passage God is promising to punish those who practiced idol worship by punishing their descendants of those who had hated God, that is a clear. It reminds me of how God did not necessarily punish Ham for his crime, but punished Canaan and his descendants instead. This is why I do not see how "visiting the inquity of the fathers on the children" in Exodus, is not somehow being changed by God to that He will no longer do that in Ezekiel. Father's iniquity is father's iniquity. There seem to be two differences between passages. In Exodus it is talking about idol worship, in Ezekiel is seems to be talking about any sin including idol worship. In Exodus it is talking about corporate sin, in Ezekiel it is talking about individual sin. In answer to your three questions - 1)Exodus is saying God avenges the sins of idol worship of the father on the sons. Ezekiel is saying sons no longer carry any of the sins of the father regardless of the type of sin it is. 2)Exodus is saying God will avenge the sins of the fathers who turn away from God and worship idols down onto the third and fourth generations of the sons without qualifying if they also do so. Ezekiel is saying the person who sins will bear their sin and their soul will die unless they repent, and the types of sins are qualified in verse 5-13 and includes idol worship. 3)Exodus has God both giving specific commandments of what Israel should do and what He will God if Israel did not comply, and is also a snapshot of His character as in Exodus 34. Ezekiel has God giving specfic explanations of what He will now do things like in keeping with both passages of Exodus of how He deals with sin, and as well provides a next snapshot of what kind of character He has in dealing with sinners. 4)In both the Exodus and Ezekiel passages God lays out how He will deal with sin, either corporately, or indivdualy, and in both passages deals with idol worship. Question, may we safely say that while God surely intended to punish corporate idol worship onto generations, that God was willing to only impute individual sins to the doer rather than the descendant, and be able to says this about those who committed idol worship? Next question - or is it that God did a progression of how He chose to impute the punishment of sin? That there was a change then, of imputation of sin from the father onto the sons back onto the original doer? Thank you very much for your insights. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
118 | Disciples One With Christ? | Eph 2:5 | bowler | 206590 | ||
I am interested in eveyone's take on when the disciples were made alive together with Christ, the actual definitive event. Another way of putting this is when were the disciples united in faith with Christ into the body of Christ? Should we say that the disciples were united with Christ when they first believed, or at Pentecost when the church started? If the disciples were walking around and doing the work of Christ while He was a live in His name, weren't they "in Christ" then, saved then, by grace? I would greatly appreciate anyone's thoughts on this. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
119 | old versus new testament | Rom 3:1 | bowler | 206589 | ||
Doc I fully agree with everything cited in the Canon of the Council of Orange except the end here - quoted from - http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness. As I am quite certain the end is not what you were referring me to, please do not take this as some form of argumentation on my part. I am merely wishing to make known my distaste for the end of the Canon of the Council of Orange as it contradicts the concept that it is indeed by Christ alone, by grace alone, and through faith alone that the graces of God are conferred as it most clearly states that baptism is a sacrement conferring the "grace" which will enable to one to afterwards "keep" the faith. After all that was said beforehand in the 25 points and the first paragraph of the conclusion it becomes a most interesting statement about how the aforementioned 25 points are possible as made to be possible by the qualifying requirement to aprehend such things in the very last paragraph! blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
120 | Lead us not | Luke 5:18 | bowler | 206588 | ||
AllenRhoades Confused a bit here - the word for deliver in both the Luke and the Mathew passages is eisphero - deliver, lead into, or carry inward. Sorry, but to my knowledge there is no such Greek word as eisengkas? I am trying to see "introduce"? 1 Timothy 6:7? No such animals. No offense to you at all though. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |