Results 101 - 120 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234400 | ||
DPMartin, My comment about mercy was specifically meant in regard to pre-fall eden. Ofcourse we need mercy now. Beyond this, I honestly am not very sure what the second half of your post is saying regarding wrath. I think you might have misunderstood my statements regarding wrath as well but I'm not following you well enough to be sure. If you have a question of me it would help me if you could try to boil your question down to a bit more precise version of it. My confusion partly stems from what appear to be contradictory statements you are making. You critique my view of God's wrath coming in response to sin by asking me "If that were true then what is Jesus' offering on the Cross all about?" My answer would be, "Exactly that." His death was an attonement to satisfy God's wrath against sin on behalf of those who trust in Him. I'm not sure how you see the cross as a case against God's wrath upon sin? Sorry that I couldn't follow you. I'm sure it is probably more related to my own shortcomings than your post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
102 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234398 | ||
DPMartin, In scripture, disbelief and disobedience are very intimately linked. See Hebrews 3 for a display of their intimate connection. When God created the world he declared it to be good. Grace (Undeserved favor) is abundant. Though we do not yet have the need for mercy (underserved restraint in judgment). In Genesis three we ofcourse have an account of the fall and the entrance of wrath. In the entire book of Romans, especially 1-4 we have much said on these things. Ponder these questions, but be careful not to take scriptural ideas to unscriptural conclusions. Be ready to let scritpure reign you in as you come upon passages that either contradict or refine any theory you might have. For example we know that God's wrath comes in response to sin in all its multiple manifestations from Romans 2:2 and its context. Disbelief, even willful ignorance is clearly one of those sins from the context. But so is disobedience to parents, malice, envy, and much more. Be willing to see the wrath of God upon every manifestation of sin rather than merely unbelief. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
103 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233657 | ||
emethalethia, I understand completely where you are coming from. I am a calvinist, 99.9 percent of the people I know are not calvinist. What has given me the most heartache in that situation is not that people I know disagree with me, but rather when they simply will not even look at what scripture has to say. They will simply say, "no that can't be" or as you say, simply walk away with no discussion at all, all the while judging me for my belief. It is as if they truely do not want to know what God's word says on the issue. When I actually find somebody who will look scripture straight in the face, acknowledge what calvinism actually teaches and yet ultimately tell me they disagree with me I count it an absolute joy. Even if they disagree with me I am very delighted because I am so use to people refusing to even consider scripture that I find it so refreshing for somebody to at least do that! The point being I know exactly how you feel. However...I also know how much that wounded me. It took me a long time to realize that no matter how sincere and pure my desires were, being faced with that type of willfull blindness hurt badly(I do not refer to non calvinists, only to those who will condemn it while refusing to consider scripture on it.) And for awhile it caused a bitterness within me and a skepticism towards most other people who professed religion. It took me some time to work out those feelings, and what I did not realize at the time was that in the mean time while I worked through that hurt, most of my conversations were colored by that. I found myself entering conversations actually expecting people to not consider scripture. I expected them to choose their comfort zone rather than the often discomforting realities of what God's word said. And my expectations doomed the conversations to be unedifying at the least and harmful and sinful at worst. I choose to walk away from this conversation not from an unwillingness to look at scripture concerning this question, but becaue I can see there have been many professors of religion who have done the same to you. They have absolutely dismissed your question with no sincere desire to see whether scripture agrees with you. I can truely see that, and I can see it has caused you the same pain that it did me. And I can see hints of the same hurt that it left in me. And I can see you expecting me to respond to you with the same shallowness that they did. That is why I choose not to discuss it with you, because I know from experience that converstations undertaken in that context will seldom end well. Know that you have my prayers and sympathy. Continue seeking to know scripture and to submit to it and in time the precious Spirit of truth will perfect us both. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
104 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233642 | ||
Emeth, It is clear to me that you have had some rough conversations regarding this topic in the past. This topic is not worth quarreling over in my estimate. I feel like you have gotten so used to being attacked by those who feel threatened by what you are saying that you have come into this discussion with your "dukes up" so to speak. Therefore, I see no reason to continue this conversation. I end my participation of this thread with no harsh feelings and I hope you are a long fruitful participant on the forum. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
105 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233633 | ||
Emethalethia, I disagree finally on the way to answer this question but I recognize that you are sincerely trying to make sense of scripture and I respect that. However, let me caution you not to fall into one particular mistake. Just because others face less hostility for holding to the more normal view on this, do not think that others are coming to a different interpretation of scriptural evidence on this issue that they are doing so out of an urge to avoid negative social consequences. As long as another's actions allow us to believe the best of them, we are bound in christian charity to do so. Therefore we ought to assume that they would be willing to follow their beliefs into persecution, only sincere opinion has happen to place them with the majority. As you have given me no reason to assume you do anything but give the benefit of the doubt, I assume you agree with the sentiment. Now with regard to considering your view, what do you make of 1 Timothy chapter three requiring elders to be a "one woman man"? What does it mean, and why is this obligation placed upon them? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
106 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233623 | ||
EmethAlethia, I admire your post very much. First, I admire it because I can see you are very much first and foremost trying to understand scripture, and fewer question than we would like have this starting point. Second, I love your post because you clearly are willing to follow wherever scripture takes you on this question despite it seeming to lead you towards an answer you no doubt realize will be unpopular. Finally, I admire your post because in addition to your search for scripture you at least seem to display the humility to realize that while we must completely submit to scripture, yet we ourselves are not infallible interpreters of scripture and need others to help show where we misread. In short I can see why your name is truth truth. That being said, let me tell you why I come to a different conclusion than you in three headings. 1.) First, I think we need to recognize the difficulty of the data we are handling. I call your attention to the section of your post at the beginning where you explain how you see the biblical definition of adultery and its centering on the husband. I want to point out that you have including exactly zero scriptures in support of your view. Now one might wonder how I can praise your pursuit of scripture and at the same time point this out. The reason is that I can see how your view is shapped by biblical passages. Because the truth is we don't, to my knowledge have an explicit biblical teaching answering this question concerning polygamy. Nowhere is it explicitly forbidden in scripture in a simply prohibitive statement such as "Though shall not steal" prohibits theft. And yet I can easily see how the biblical data could press you to your conclusion. But for my first point, I just would like you to recognize that what you are doing is simply trying to reconstruct the ethics from examples of what God did not judge rather than from actual intentional teaching from scripture. Now this is out of necessity, not your fault. 2.) Is this presented in scripture as something where singleness is what we "ought" to press towards, then failing that we "ought" to strive for a single wife, and then failing that we find ourselves at polygamy? My conclusion is no, because though Paul does suggest that singleness is supperior due to its singleness of focus on the things of God, this superiority is expressed in the sense of ranking of various spiritual gifts similiar to how he does so in 1 Corinthians 12 where he desires the excellency of prophecy over speaking of tongues and states that he wishes all spoke in tongues. Now is their an oughtness in prophecy and speaking in tongues? I mean that am I falling short as if I was not living up to God's will for my life if I fall short of the gift of prophecy? No, the spirit gives what gifts he will to whom he will. I recognize its superiority and goodness, but I do not fall short of God's perscriptive will for my life by not having that gift. In the same way singleness, the ability to not burn with lust while single, is presented specifically as a gift. Paul says in discussing it, "but each has their own gift." So what I mean that in my marriage, though I recognize the greatness of singleness in its ability to solely focus upon God, yet I myself am in exactly God's prescriptive will for me as I lead my wife and daughter in holy devotion to the lord. Singleness is not my gift. 3.) I am out of time, forgive the shortness of perhaps the most important section. As we look at the New Testament where we finally see marriage's purpose unfolded, we do see that there is actually an "oughtness" to only having one wife rather than more than one. I mean to say that it is different than the "gift" of singleness in that I take only one wife to be perscriptive of all men, other than single men ofcourse. I take this from Ephesians 5 showing marriage to reflect the sinular devotion between Christ and his bride and 1 Timothy 3 showing that it is a qualification for being an elder. And I do not think God was meaning to put a character qualification upon the elders other than them being an exmplar of what every chrsitian man should be. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
107 | John 13 - Five ways to reproduce | John | Beja | 233361 | ||
Sixela, Well, whenever a baby is born I tend to assume it was done the old fashioned way. And so far I've been right more often than not. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
108 | was Adam and Eve married | Matt 19:4 | Beja | 233349 | ||
blessvern12, If you will read how Jesus applies the account of Adam and eve to a question about marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:4, I think you will agree that we may safely say that they were married. With regards to the term's first appearance in scripture, it is sufficient to acknowledge that marriage is referenced in the pentateuch which are the first five books of the old testament. I say this is sufficient because they were all written by Moses and therefore come together as the first "chunk" of scripture. So we can safely say that it was in scripture from the start. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
109 | Cain's offering | Gen 4:5 | Beja | 233301 | ||
Sbate08, I agree with what Ed has said to you in that the fundamental difference of why God accepted Abel's offering was a matter of faith. However, I would go a step further and say that what they brought to offer to God did have to do with it as well. When I consider this question the assumption I bring with me to the text is that faith is not some vague feeling towards God, but rather faith is a believing response to what God has already spoken. From this it is my thinking that God had infact told them previously what sacrifice would be acceptable to Him. Cain presumptuosly brought a sacrifice that he saw fit, thinking the works of his hands ought to be acceptable to God. Abel took God at his word (faith) and brought the previously commanded blood sacrifice. So faith was the difference, but the faith was a response to the word of God, not just a belief of God seperate to the sacrifice. Now that said, I admit that I am speculating here. I would not press this as dogma because we most certainly are not told explicitly here beyond that "faith" was the difference. However, I offer to you my own opinion on the question along with what train of thought brought me there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
110 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233234 | ||
EdB, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel that while I wouldn't be perfectly comfortable explaining your thoughts on this to another, I do understand you much better. If I'm understanding you correctly I don't think I'd take much issue with what you are saying (as if that matters). If you are suggesting that prior to the reformers articulating the notion of sola scriptura, things were good then I would probably disagree there. However, the only concern that I would have had is something I think you answered in a previous post. I think you do affirm that if something is actually contrary to scripture then it is invalid for the churches. I'm pretty sure you said as much. Might I offer some help with terminology? Now I may be mistaken but it seems to be that what you take objection with is not sola scriptura but rather what many call the "regulative principle." The regulative principle teaches that ONLY things found in scripture have any place within the church. I myself struggle with this concept as to whether it is biblical. I have a good book on my "to-read" pile that will give me the chance to hear its reasoning articulated but I'm not sure whether I will find it persuasive or not. I think sola scriptura would be more about having the Bible alone as the ultimate authority for the church. Sola scriptura would not imply that we must throw out christmas eve services because we don't find that in the new testament portrayal of the church. Sola scriptura does not forbid those practices which are unfound in scirpture but not contrary to scripture. It does object to teachings contrary to scripture. For example we wouldn't introduce a doctrine of angels from outside of scripture as absolutely trustworthy. However it seems to me that what you are objecting to is blanket forbidding of practices which scripture does not address. That would be the regulative principle, which is also popular among reformed theologians. I think I'm accurate on all of that. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
111 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233228 | ||
EdB, Well perhaps I am too slow on the uptake, but as stated I don't understand your view. However, should your hesitation be because your view might be out of line with the notion of sola scriptura in a way not welcomed by the forum, then I can completely respect your restraint. My understanding of the TOU is that it does not demand that we agree with sola scriptura, but merely that our posts must not be contrary to it. This seems to be what we are pressing up against. So I accept the dismisal of the topic with no ill feelings. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
112 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233226 | ||
EdB, I'm afraid that I don't understand your view much more than before. You mostly just indicated what you agreed with concerning my view but didn't clarify yours much. 1. What "more than shedding light on the word of God" would you affirm? Can you give me an example to help me understand? 2. It sounds like you affirm ongoing authoritative special revelation outside of scripture, am I missunderstanding you? Please don't be upset if this is way off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just not sure what specifically you are saying. Can you help me understand your view? Right now I could not clearly explain to somebody else what it is you are either affirming or denying. Can you explain it to me without using the term Sola Scriptura? Thank you for your patience with me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
113 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233218 | ||
EdB, I'm somewhat surprised at what you are saying. Perhaps we mean different things when we say the term "sola scriptura." Might I ask what it is exactly that you would suggest that the term means which is not scriptural? It would be a shame for a debate to happen if in reality I also would join you in rejecting what YOU mean by the term and at the same time you would affirm what I mean by the term. I would say: 1. Scripture is the very word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 2. As such it is inerrant in the original. 3. It holds complete authority over our lives. 4. It is sufficient for all things needful for the saint for life and godliness. (2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim 3:16 again). 5. It is the boundary of our understanding which we are not to go beyond in speculating. Therefore anything granted to us by wonderful saints later must be merely a shedding of light on the word of God so that we understand it more clearly, because going beyond it is forbidden. 1 Cor 4:6 Now perhaps with discussion I would affirm more points but those are the ones which come to mind immediately. What say you? What does "sola scriptura" affirm and which part of it is unscriptural? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
114 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233176 | ||
I knew this thread looked familiar! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v[equal]sShMA85pv8M You'll have to replace [equal] with an actual equal sign for the link to work. I think it best we accept that no verses are forthcoming, friends. Just my 2 cents. :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
115 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233014 | ||
00123, Given your response to my post 232996, I'm a little surprised at your reasoning here. Wouldn't it be safe to say that your mind is quite resolved on this issue? I have always found that some of the worst fights happen on this forum when people ask questions for which they are already pursuaded on a particular view. It ends up being nothing but bait for an arguement, a way to get the forum onto the topic desired. I don't accuse you of intending such, but it seems this thread is close to following the pattern. And since it has a track record of being a very unedifying pattern I considered it worth pointing out to the participants. Of course you are all big boys/girls and can make up your own mind. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
116 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233006 | ||
Searcher, We are speaking of unleavened/leavened bread in jest but in all sincerity the first time my wife and I was exposed to the Lord's supper with leavened bread it was a complete shock to us. We actually had to take a minute to pause and evaluate whether we thought it was right to do so. If I recall right, I had decided it was fine by the time that it came around to me but my wife had not yet settled her conscience on it in that brief time so she abstained. We had just never heard of such a thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
117 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233005 | ||
Doc, Ironically I am reading Calvin on the sacraments in the institutes. I'll let you know if I he is for a specific type of grape. Haha. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
118 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233004 | ||
Tim, Yes, that was a possibility I had considered. Personally, coming to the passage with no prior theological reasons to object to Jesus drinking wine (since I don't see scripture as forbidding it), I simply find the passage to be more coherant when understanding the reference to regard alcohol rather than grape juice. That being said I readily concede to your point that we can't be dogmatic about it. In fact, even if we could know for certain I believe this is one issue scripture actually commands us not to be dogmatic about. This is specifically one of the examples in Romans 14 concerning which we are to not cause trouble and division over. However, in this case scripture pertaining to the issue was specifically asked for. Also I personally do not drink, so I have no real incentive to press the point. And I certainly don't announce from the pulpit that I think Jesus drank. ;-) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
119 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232997 | ||
Doc, You might be interested to know that the denomination which I recently left would have a very serious disagreement in anybody not using unlevened bread. Though I do not challenge your point. : ) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
120 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232996 | ||
00123, I grant that the accussation of the pharisee's was unfounded. But it was Christ who said that he "came drinking" and that John came "not drinking." So whatever Jesus meant here by that is true, not speculation. Those words do mean something. It is my opinion that their meaning directly answers your question. Here is why I think it answers your question. What possible meaning can we give to Jesus' statement that he "came drinking" which denies his consumption of alcohol and yet given that denial still makes sense of both John's "not drinking" and the reasonableness of the comparison being made in the passage. Here is an illustration of my point. Suppose somebody said: By saying he "came drinking" what Jesus really meant was that he was drinking grape juice. Then we have to say that "not drinking" for John was about him abstaining from grape juice. This makes little sense, and it doesn't make any sense of why Jesus would bring this up. A debate over obstaining from grape juice makes no sense. I can't think of any explination of the passage that doesn't break down unless we suggest that Christ did drink alcoholic beverages. And that this is exactly what he meant we he himself said that he "came drinking." At that point it makes perfect sense. The point then is that the pharisees were going to accuse of misconduct no matter what Jesus did. John didn't feast and drink alcoholic beverages and they called him a demon possessed fanatic. Jesus used such things in moderation and yet they accussed him in overindulgance with regards to both. He was in their estimate a glutton and a drunkard. There was no pleasing them no matter what path he took. Now you may think I'm wrong and that my exegisis of the passage falls very short, and that does not offend me. However I am attempting to give you a biblical answer. You might suggest my answer to be foolish, myself to be ignorant of facts, my tehcnique guilty of poorly interpreting scripture or several other possibilities, and all of these accusations may be true, but the one thing I am doing is answering you from scripture just like you requested. I am sorry it was unhelpful to you though, and I hope you are able to get a more productive answer from another member of the forum. (I say none of this in sarcasm.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [40] >> |