Results 101 - 120 of 144
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135212 | ||
Hi there, You cited: 1Co 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you 1Co 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. In what way do these verses infer that these traditions refer only to the text of the NT rather than those traditions delivered orally which may have things to add? I can't see your point is proven in anyway in these verses. It doesn't say as I delivered to you in the Bible only! 2Jo 1:12 is absolutely clear John has more teachings to deliver than what he has put in writing: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete," viz. some aspect of his teaching is not complete. Can you reword the last line. "Because your church reinterprets all the verses which point out the disprovals." I'm sorry but I can't make out what you're meaning here. I interested in understanding your point. Best Regards Dalcent |
||||||
102 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135245 | ||
Dear Steve, I hesitate to answer the query about ‘scripture alone’ by getting involved in very specific and applied examples; but this “not a virgin” stuff is so easy to disprove when we have Biblical geniuses like Jerome to draw on. Regarding Mat 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. Normal English usage (which is what the translators work toward) is why you misunderstand this verse. Translations are not infallible. The phase is first-century Greek. If translators ‘transliterate’ idioms and something is lost they’re wrong. Jerome’s argument, you know: “it was usual among the Hebrews to denote by the word UNTIL only what is done, without any regard to the future.” What you don’t know is that he proves it conclusively by scripture, that this usage is REPEATEDLY seen elsewhere in the Bible: Gen 8:6-7 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro UNTIL the waters were dried up from the earth. Did it come back when the waters were dried up from the earth? The OT words I give in BOLD each time is the Hebrew word ‘ad’ H5704 Isaiah 46:4 EVEN to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save. Does God then cease to be? 1Maccabees 5:54 And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain, TILL they had returned in peace. Where they slain after returning in peace? Luk 20:42-43 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till(heos) I make thy enemies thy footstool. Does Jesus no longer sit at the Father’s right hand at this point? Mat 1:25 again, but knew her not until(heos) she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Nothing is implied about 'afterwards' in Jewish usage in ALL of the examples. They are all fair examples too. Words in foreign language are simply not always exactly translatable to exact equivalents in other languages. Maybe its time to start respecting Church fathers like Jerome who spent decades in the Holy Land and Bethlehem 1600 years and learnt Ancient Hebrew from contemporary Jewish friends and is Catholicism’s greatest Biblical Doctor. Maybe just maybe he was better placed than some 18th century American Bible interpreter. Frankly, Jerome has decimated your ‘until’ argument. I don’t want to sound triumphalistic but c’mon. This one has been put to bed. Dalcent. |
||||||
103 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135278 | ||
New Creature, I can't reconcile co-operate with the Holy Spirit. and we have a passive role in our progressive sanctification. We are co-workers (synergos); working together. We are not passive. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
104 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135353 | ||
Wow, you know more than Jerome. Goodbye Studybibleforum. | ||||||
105 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | 2 Tim 2:25 | Dalcent | 156069 | ||
My wife(-to-be) and I were prayed for by English Pentecostal leader Colin Dye in 1995. Both of us felt an enormous physical energy, like hundreds of locomotives approaching and then we both smashed to the ground without time for "catchers" to be able to approach. Ten years on my wife sometimes suffers debilitating headaches from the neck injury which never fully recovered. One pastor's (who now is the Principal of Elim Bible College in England) flippant interpretation of this event was to compare it to Jacob's hip injury. |
||||||
106 | Literal translations like the NASB | 2 Tim 3:16 | Dalcent | 156071 | ||
If God inspired the very 'words' of Scripture, which I think everyone here would agree. Then surely this restricts us to essentially literal translations of the Bible and rules out 'thought-per-thought' versions. Am I being harsh? Furthermore, most would agree that a 'word-per-word' translation makes it far harder for the translator to become an interpreter. Anyone care to articulate a succinct summary of the theory of plenary inspiration please. God inspired the 'very words' did he not? |
||||||
107 | What doctrines are essential? | Titus 2:1 | Dalcent | 156087 | ||
The doctrine of faith alone is not the clearest doctrine in Scripture. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not hold to it nor do ANY of the Church Fathers, including many names which evangelicals respect such as Justin Martyr, Augustine, Ireneaus, etc. More importantly there are plenty of Scriptures which suggest otherwise, especially James 2:24. So what that you have quoted Romans 4:4-5, my Bible has 2000 pages of text. I could sling hundreds of verses that are against faith alone, to say that it is clearly and unequivocably stated in Scripture is complete myth. Why was it "missed" for sixteen centuries until Luther. The writings of the martyrs of the first few centuries did not hold to Luther's faith alone doctrine. Their writings are extant. Were all those saints and martyrs killed by the Roman empire not Christians, and preaching a false gospel. You have also ruled out the entire Christian East (the remnant of Oriental Christians in lands now Muslim). Billions of Christians who lived died and were often martyed for Christ demonstrate your line of thought is completely wrong. |
||||||
108 | What doctrines are essential? | Titus 2:1 | Dalcent | 156090 | ||
"A list of fundamental doctrines would begin with: "the absolute authority of Scripture over tradition (sola Scriptura)," Total nonsense: scripture says nothing of the kind, there is no proof text and the Bible expressively says the opposite: 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. How can anyone with an ounce of nous not see this verse is saying there are authoritative doctrines in the Church committed to writing and delivered verbally; both of which must be held too. It really is completely beyond me why this verse is swept under the carpet. It disproves 'sola scriptura'. Why will they not accept this clear biblical teaching. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; does not say Only Scripture, not do we find any words synonymous with complete or sufficient. Again, not held by any Christian writer until Luther in the Sixteenth century. Furthermore, Hardly anyone apart for a small elite COULD READ until the modern era. Hardly anyone could own a Bible until Gutenberg invented the printing press. Thus only the tiniest minority of people had any access to Christian truth for 1500 years! Christ did not send the Apostles to write but to preach, hardly any of them wrote anything. Was there no Christian truth in the decades from the Ascension until the first NT books were composed. The list of the Biblical canon is not in scripture and is thus a 'tradition' itself. |
||||||
109 | What doctrines are essential? | Titus 2:1 | Dalcent | 156098 | ||
Faith is usually contrasted with works of the Law (Torah). Faith does not mean faith alone as understood by Protestants, but is rather 'act'-ive faith 'working through love' (Gal 5:6) Luther's German Bible saw fit to change Romans 3:28 from faith to 'faith alone'. i.e., Luther knew the Bible needed doctoring to support his novel theology. (Rom 3:28) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Not faith alone apart from the works of the Law as Luther would want it.) IT IS NOT GOOD WORKS WHICH THE BIBLE REJECTS, AS WE SEE IN EPH 2:10, BUT THE WORKS OF THE LAW (TORAH). (Rom 4:13) For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:14) For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; (Rom 4:16) For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (Gal 2:16) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (Gal 3:2) This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Gal 3:5) So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Gal 3:11) Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (Gal 3:12) However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." (Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. (Gal 3:24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Read this carefully, genuine Christian faith (working through love Gal 5:6), not "faith alone" is contrasted with the Torah, not Spirit-inspired WORKING FAITH: faith which comes with good works EPH. 2:10 (Phi 3:9) and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, The Bible uses the expression 'faith alone' to say that is how we are not justified. Jam 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Faith alone appears nowhere else. "Faith alone" is the clear and unequivical teaching of Protestants; I'm clear on that. I was when I was the top bible student in Europe's largest Bible college. |
||||||
110 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132304 | ||
Titus 3:5’s, 'washing of regeneration' if translated literally (i.e. see any Interlinear NT) is the 'bath (loutrou) of regeneration.' The key to understanding the doctrine of baptismal rebirth is to understand that baptism must be obviously be accompanied by belief. As the scriptures literally says in Mark 16:16 ‘He who HAS BELIEVED AND HAS BEEN BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.’ Also, 1 Peter 3:21 literally teaches ‘Corresponding to that, BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’ Although, some strangely object, this must obviously mean ‘baptism doesn’t save you.’ It is the clear unequivocal teaching of scripture that baptism is concomitant with remission of sins: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins... Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on His name.' When your sins are remitted, you are right with God: When you are baptised your sins are remitted. Whoa betide the man who puts off his baptism for months or years believing this is biblical. Biblical baptism is administered as entry into the Christian walk, on the first day and scripture teaches it remits sin (obviously by appropriating the benefits of Christ’s atoning death on the Cross). To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
111 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132305 | ||
It should be especially be noted in the conversation between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch that he says, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" as he chooses to enter into the Christian fold. Why not does he not get ‘led in the sinner's prayer’ to salvation. (Maybe one could do some research on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s 2,000 year doctrine of baptismal regeneration before they suggest I’m preaching novelty). Consider also the following verses: Gal 3:27 For all of you who were BAPTIZED into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all BAPTIZED into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in BAPTISM, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. For anyone able to read the Bible in its plain sense, rather than through their preconceptions, it is obvious that Titus 3:5's 'bath of regeneration' is referring to the baptismal tank of regeneration. This is of course entirely consistent with the rest of the NT. Some will argue that aforementioned references to 'baptisms' are metaphors for regeneration through the born-again prayer. There is no excuse for this butchery of the plain sense of scripture. On the other hand, is the born-again prayer really truely biblical? Why is this prayer entirely absent from the Bible. There are loads of prayers in the Bible, such as the Lord’s Prayer; how can the prayer ostensibly needed to ‘save humanity’ be absent in a 1089 chapter book. Even the slimmest tract has a example prayer. Yet, God chose not to put one in His Bible because it isn’t how He intended the Christian to receive the New Birth. (Romans 10:8-10 IS NOT a prayer, and such a profession is entirely consistent with the faith verbalised and internalised accompanying Baptism). To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
112 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132307 | ||
Don't give me ‘the thief on the cross wasn't baptised’ objection because frankly an exception proves nothing. God can save who he wills and baptism (even where only an ordinance) is obviously normative for Christians. The Catholic Church has always recognized the ‘baptism of desire.’ Nevertheless, bi-millennial Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has always recognized that baptism is the normal entry into the Christian-fold and is for the remission of sins (as in the Nicene creed and other creeds) I appreciate that some cannot accept plain, literal readings of scripture, because they believe their fundamental slant on theology is 'definitely correct' and verses not fitting such as ‘be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS...’ (Acts 2:38) need allegorising, “metaphoricalising”, spiritualising, call it what you fancy: I call it not rightly dividing the word of truth. My conclusion, is that some understandings of Christian theology cannot accept that God uses matter (in this case, the WATER of baptism) to impart spiritual realities. They prefer to think God sends His grace through the spiritual dimension only. Their fear, is that if God exalts matter in this way, it makes water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. something ‘magical’. However, I believe that not only is this sacramental view (that God uses physical matter imbued with spiritual realities as avenues of His grace) ubiquitously biblical but it is also entirely fitting. God chooses to deal with human beings in this way because has created us with both spirituality and materiality. To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
113 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132321 | ||
Dear BradK I recently responded to a post (my first for a long time) saying 'What constitutes a christian marraige?Do people who marry in a Catholic churchand later become christian in acceptanceof Jesus Christ for salvation are they married in the eyes of God?If yes why are the other six sacraments not accepted as surely if one is wrong they all are.Should these people have their marraige santified by an evangelical ceremony etc to be valid in the eyes of God?' I responded by asserting my belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour and posted some paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Nicene Creed to prove to Moey that I am a Christian. I was then asked whether I knew if I was saved. I responded basing my response on the Cross of Christ. At this point I was assailed by a vicious anti-Catholicism, or an ugly display of Catholic bashing as Hank the Baptist put it. So yes, several people did claim I was not a Christian! I removed my Profile's reference to having recently completed my MA in Catholic Theology - this month in fact, it was pretty fresh in my mind - and will write a more modest or humble profile soon. I see no reason not to debate deep theological issues in a forum environment. Is the forum meant to discuss biblical triva or simply be a mutual agreement society. It is doubtful whether one can accurately judge "tone" in a posting. Dalcent |
||||||
114 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132326 | ||
Of course! and the whole of creation is now exalted to a new glory by this unique event. And to be deliberately controversial I will cite God using (viz. imbuing mere matter with powerful spiritual reality) "relics": Elisha's bones to raise a corpse (2 Kgs 13:20-21) Elijah's mantle to divide water (2 Kgs 2:14) And Paul's clothing healing the sick (Acts 19:11f). |
||||||
115 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132333 | ||
Hi there Tim, I have a limited knowledge of Greek, however none of my 14 Bible translations has chosen to translate the verse as you describe. Plus it is only one of many similar verses. I actually wrote my posting when I discovered the literal translation (in an Interlinear NT) of Titus 3:5 was the 'bath of regeneration' which certainly sounds like more like baptism then anything else. I have a library of the teachings of the Church fathers and baptismal regeneration has been the historic teaching of the same Churches (Catholic/Orthodox) whose ecumenical councils gave us the great Trinitarian and Christological formulas we all hold to. I would be interested in the theological history of the sinner's prayer doctrine. I would appreciate knowing when this doctrine "reappeared" in Christian history. Best Wishes |
||||||
116 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132341 | ||
1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism doesn't save us by 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' but only with 'an appeal to God'. Baptism and belief save, not baptism. It I baptise a unwilling unbeliever in some water the only effect will be 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' 'Baptismal regeneration' tends to be used as a perjorative as it doesn't emphasis that faith is needed too. Come on, I don't accept Luke 18:13, is the born-again sinner's prayer. Do you? Best Regards |
||||||
117 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132344 | ||
This remains very convoluted and sounds like an interpretation. The theologically Baptist 'Optimal Equivalence' HCSB doesn't chose to translate the verse in this way and they have a lot of Greek experts too. Can Robertson's logic be applied to Acts 22:16. Does his 'unbiased' reasoning lead to the conclusion he was after. In other words is he just a man with an agenda. Respectfully, Dalcent |
||||||
118 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132412 | ||
Dear Tim, I still have to conclude that A.T.Robertson’s peculiar rendition remains eccentric as no English translation of the Bible (I’m aware of adopts it) adopts it, even the Baptist / evangelical versions such as my NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, viz. the work of hundreds of Greek scholars goes against A.T.Robertson's translation. I believe this ultimately puts the burden of proof on you. Yours in Christ, Dalcent P.S. I did go to the trouble of reading this: http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/Robertson2-38.html |
||||||
119 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132413 | ||
Sorry, I don't know and would be equally interested in finding out! | ||||||
120 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132414 | ||
In this doctrine you go against the historical witness of the first centuries of Christian interpretation: the Church Fathers. You should seriously consider asking how they were so spot on in their Christological and Trinitarian theology, and yet not even understand how to get saved 'the baptist way.' Your biblical interpretation needs to be weighed up in the light of the history of theology. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |