Results 101 - 120 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | My question is still open, PLEASE help? | Matt 10:33 | userdoe220 | 15835 | ||
I would go to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of N.T. words. I have found on more than one occasion a Greek scholar disagree with Kittel and frankly I would defer to his referance work as the final authority on the tense of a greek word in a particular passage. I am like you...I don't speak Greek and only have 1 Greek class under my belt--which makes me almost literate :-) in this language. One general rule I do go by is this: If someone comes out with something that I have never heard before, I usually find a good reason why that is so. DTS is a great school, but like others they usually have a theological ax to grind. My neighbor is attending DTS and is almost ready to graduate and that comment comes from him more than me. |
||||||
102 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15658 | ||
I think we are on the same page on this subject. I will respond to your one objection--although I fully understand where you are coming from and for the most part fully agree that sin is the root cause. However, I have met people who have left Christianity ( I will not be dragged into someone's theology over this statement) over this issue and this issue alone. I have listened to numerous debates on University campus's between Christian and athiestic philosophers and the one argument they will use and dwell on the most is the issue of sin. My brother, XA pastor of Jackson State University, would disagree with you on this particular issue as well. Honest people, not those just wanting an excuse to live it up, have come across this argument on a secular University campus and will look back on that moment as a watershed issue that made them turn away from the faith. You can call this a second cause if you would like, with first cause being sin and that would be fine with me On a positive note, you have brought up a very valid point. A number of those students I have encoutered took at face value the God painted by their atheistic philosophy teacher or friend who happened to bring up this topic. It did cause their faith to be shaken, but thank God there are college campus ministries out there ready to shed a Christian light to this issue. My answer: Pastor's start equipping your people and stop preaching those worn-out, 3 point, shallow messages that happen to sound cute. My brother is tired of facing Assembly of God and other Christian kids from various denominations (I mention my denomination by name because it is mine. I am sure this problem exists in others as well) kids who have NO spiritual foundation to deal with these issues because their pastor's are more concerned with flair in their sermons than substance. Youth Pastors. Put the shaving cream, pizza and coke away one service a month and deal with these issues. I am sure if you don't feel equipped, there are those out there who would be willing to address these topics with your youth. Probe Ministries is one group that immediately comes to mind. Great post Joe. As you can see, I am a little passionate about this issue :-) |
||||||
103 | Are Sovereignty and Free Will Exclusive? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15561 | ||
Here is a question. If God is all powerful (soverign) can he create a world in which his creation is able to make free choices? Yes. So, in essence free will does not contradict the soverignty of God. |
||||||
104 | What is 'being saved' here? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15541 | ||
A little convoluted? What post did you read? I thought it was straight and to the point. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean their post is "convoluted" By the way, your post was convoluted. |
||||||
105 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | userdoe220 | 15491 | ||
What do you believe in? | ||||||
106 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15489 | ||
"Do you believe that the accuracy and authority of the Bible has been maintained throughout the centuries by the work of man, or due to the inspiration of God upon the copiers/translators etc.?" I would say both in response to your question. I believe that God has aided in keeping the Bible as the BEST PRESERVED manuscript in all of antiquity (I challenge anyone to find a manuscript written in antiquity that even comes close to the Bible in preservation and accuracy). The dedication of the scribes in keeping it as error free as it is is somewhat miraculous in and of itself. |
||||||
107 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15486 | ||
I believe that the Islamic belief in God and the Christian view of God was tainted by Greek Philosophy (Not the Bible) but the lens in which we look through when interpreting the Bible. I am not saying that I don't look through a lense when interpreting scripture--we all have our presuppositions. What I am saying is that there are some funny similarities--i.e., God exisiting outside of time--that seem very Platonic and is not addressed in the scripture. I remember sitting in my philosophy class in college thinking, "Wow, Plato really was describing the Christian God and did not know it!" That, in my mind, backed up my premise: all truth is God's truth. Now I am wondering just how much of a lense we use when going to scripture instead of letting the Bible speak for itself? I don't and will not pretend to have this issue all wrapped up. One thing I will say is that the Bible was not influenced by Platonic philosophy, just the way we approach some of our scriptures describing God's attributes. Just wondering: Have you read any books on the "openess of God" belief? If so, what book would best cover their beliefs? Also, what is the best book written in response to their belief? I read an article on this new trend in the Dallas Morning News religous section and was wondering what it was all about (I do have an idea and am wondering if it is process theology repackaged). Got to run |
||||||
108 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15477 | ||
Your post actually agrees with everything I stated. THeir definition of sovereignty was influenced more by Greek Philisophical thought than the reasoning of Scripture. Their definition of sovereignty completly strips man of any free will. Why? Because God would not be soveriegn, in a calvanistic sense, if He was not in total control of his creation. That is where the giant list of who goes to heaven and who doesnt go came from...not from the Bible. |
||||||
109 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15476 | ||
Let me re-post my previous Post: "I think you are confusing inspiration with Inerrancy. All evangelical beliver, and most non-evangelical belivers, would consider the Bible inspired. The question usually revolves around the Inerrancy of the scripture. Is the Bible Without error? If so, does that title apply to our translations?" Where in this post do you feel I stated that the present versions are inerrant but not inspired? In fact I stated even "liberals nonevangelicals" believe the Bible to be inspired. I only wanted to point out the real issue: Are the current version inerrant, or without error. That is the real issue. After re-reading my original post, I was expecting you to challenge me on the inerrancy of scripture not the inspiration of scripture. So, lets make sure we are using these terms in the same way. inerrancy. The Scriptures contain NO errors. It perfectly reflects the mind of God on the issues it addresses. Inspiration. God, not man, is the originator of the scriptures. Man did not decide to write the Bible, but they were moved by God to write the Bible. A liberal can agree with inspiration and competly disagree with inerrancy. Dont ask me to explain the logic of this belief. So, I cant respond to your question because it is not based off of what I posted or what I believe about scripture. Just what you feel I believe off of my post--which I reposted so you can read it again. Something is missing in the translation. Let me report what I believe. 1. The Bible is inspired. 2. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. Scribal erros have crept in, but nothing that would effect any Christian doctrine the Christian Church holds to. I agree with Metzger, one of the greatest linguist who ever lived, in saying that we can with 98percent certainty get back to what the original autographs looked like. The 2percent he is not sure of, would not change a single Christian belief if they were or were not contained in the original manuscripts. I hope my repost and furthur comments cleared up any misconceptions you might have had. |
||||||
110 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15457 | ||
I just read a book entitled the History of Christian Theology (I am at work on break and do not know the author). It was a very enlightening book, to say the least--although written by a person considered a liberal. I believer Calvanism interprets these scriptures in light (the author of the book would agree with this statement) of their theology and not let the Bible speak for itself. My question is why? The book makes a few points that is relevant to our discussion here. 1.) For the first two centuries of the Christian faith, Armenian type theology was the only theology. He points out that individuals usually pull qoutes from the fathers of this period out of context to prove their theology was always around, but the fahters of this period was far from calvanistic. 2.) Why the shift? Greek philosophy, period. They interpret these passages through the lense of a Greek philisophical understanding of sovereignty. If God is totally soverign, that must mean he has orchestrated every event in history. If individuals could make a choice, that would nullify God's sovereignty. Therefore, God must have pre-determined who would be saved and who would not be saved. I could add a lot more passages to your list, but I know how they would interpret them: 1.) That is an obscure passage and must be interpreted in light of a passage that seems to backup what I believe. 2.) Castaway, reprobate in the greek, doesn't really mean what it says. It just means that Paul might just get two crowns and a ruby instead of 4 crowns and three rubies. 3.) Paul was just using hyberbolic language. He really did not mean a person could walk away from the faith...sike (to us an 80's term)! 4.) Jesus was under the law, so you really can't use his passages to justify your belief. Only Paul's letters directly apply to the beleiver. I could go on and on and on. I love the way they dance around the Hebrew passages, but will not go into that on this post. And if you disagree with calvanists, they usually imply that you have not studied to their degree or you are ignoring the context of the passage etc., else you would be a calvanist too. got to get some work done. Just thought I would stir up the calvanist web board a little. |
||||||
111 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15456 | ||
I am going to have to remember that qoute. | ||||||
112 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15453 | ||
One of the greatest arguments against the Christian understanding of God (and I will say against God in general) is the concept of evil. If God is perfect, just, soveriegn (in complete control over his creation), and completly good how come there is evil in the world? Does he allow evil to exist? If he does and he is completly in control of his creation, does that nullify his goodness? These are questions Christians have to wrestle with and provide a cogent answers to in a post-Christian age. I minister to people who demand answers to these valid questions. I also agree with you that these questions have caused people to lose their faith (calvanistic: to show that they were never truly part of God's elect) and abandon the truths of Christianity. We need great thinkers to wrestle with these questions but realize that faith would not be faith if we had all the answers neatly wrapped up in a package and given to us. Got to get some work done. |
||||||
113 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15406 | ||
Well, you could use the "Anthropormorphic" argument. Since God is perfectly holy, He cannot be the cause of Evil. Therefore, this passage must be anthropormorphic in nature. This line of reasoning is used when a passage states that God repented/changed His mind over performing some act. |
||||||
114 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15405 | ||
I think you are confusing inspiration with Inerrancy. All evangelical beliver, and most non-evangelical belivers, would consider the Bible inspired. The question usually revolves around the Inerrancy of the scripture. Is the Bible Without error? If so, does that title apply to our translations? |
||||||
115 | Could Jesus sin? Explain. | Heb 4:15 | userdoe220 | 14534 | ||
If Jesus COULD NOT SIN, how could he be tempted like we are today? If there is NO CHOICE--the option to sin--like we have today, how could he sympathize with our weakness? If Jesus was God how could he be tempted to sin? If God is totally Good, How could he be tempted to perform Evil? Another good question the church has wrestled with for years. |
||||||
116 | How could Jesus increase in wisdom? | Luke 2:52 | userdoe220 | 14532 | ||
This is a very good question and one that the church has wrestled with for many years. The typical response is: Jesus (Phil 2 passage) voluntarily set aside some of his divine attributes when he chose to become a man. The question philosophers in the Church have wrestled with is how could God give up any of his attributes and continue to be God? After all, God by definition does not change, knows everything and is everywhere at all times etc., If Jesus lacked any of these qaulities, how could he continue to be God? The solution to this problem was that Jesus just chose not to operate in some of his divine privieleges: Omniscience/Omnipresent/. He did not give them up, but rather chose not to utilize or take advantage of certain aspects of his divinity. There is more than one way to look at this issue. I am just supplying one I know you have probably heard of a million times. A number of these problems deal with our presuppostions about God that have been passed down through the church. The early church fathers, in an attempt to make Christianity relevant to the Greek culture, interpreted scriptures about God through the lens of Plato. Some of the concepts we have about God are more Platonic than Biblical! In fact, many scriptures are explained away by the church fathers as being anthromorphic and being written that way for the "dumb" saints within the church who couldn't comprehend who God really is. I am chasing rabbits so I will sign off for now. |
||||||
117 | followup | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13880 | ||
For now I agree with you wholeheartedly on this issue. I was asked a question by a skeptic and he didn't buy my/our explanation. He felt we adopted the term, anthorpormiphic, to 1.) help undue an obvious Biblica Contradiction and 2.) wedge "another" Bible verse into our theology and make God fit into our understanding. Disgruntled X-Preachers are the hardest to reach out too. |
||||||
118 | followup | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13865 | ||
Is it anthropopathic because our theology dictates it to be? Another words, our we letting our presuppositions dictate our interpretation, or are we letting the Bible speak without our presuppositions. I listed just a couple of examples, but there is a number of instances in scripture which seem to really say just that...God changed his mind. I guess the big question would be, "who defines what verse is Anthropopathic?" There are many verses where everyone in Orthodox Christianity would agree on; However, Dr. Harden feels that the account in Genesis addressing God's sorrow is Anthropapathic. Why? Because feelings like sorrow imply lack and since God is totally complete he can never lack anything. I would disagree and believe that passages that write about God's emotions are not anthropapathic at all. However, where is the line drawn? Have we allowed Platonic reason to form our understanding of the Biblical God? Is the label, Anthropapathic, used to do away with verses that don't fit our understanding of who God is? |
||||||
119 | Can God change His mind? | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13858 | ||
Does this imply that God can change His mind? It seems in Jer 18 the emphasis is on God's power/authority to make the vessel how he desires, but that desire can be changed by the heart of a nation! There are a number of verses in the Bible that at least imply if not directly state that God can change His mind. ...it repented the Lord that he had made man..." Gen 6:6; " Vines "And the Lord repented (The NASB "changed his mind") of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" Ex 32:14, KJV. "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them" Jer 18:8 Even this verse implies that the potter will set out to make a vessel (kingdom) a certain way, but if they Repent God will change his mind about the vessel. How do you, on the forum, reconcile these numerous passages with the view that God cannot change? |
||||||
120 | Are you sure? :-) | 1 Cor 14:19 | userdoe220 | 13225 | ||
Are you sure? :-) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |