Results 121 - 140 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Praying to Jesus in Jesus' name? | NT general | Beja | 222024 | ||
Nextman, I am very fond of John Piper's answer to this question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v(equals)VMp5DFsuOTs Make sure you convert the (equals) to an actual equal sign, the forum won't accept that simbol. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
122 | does this mean a person is unforgiven | NT general | Beja | 222638 | ||
King T, Doc is not saying that nothing at all merits our redemption. He is saying that it is the blood of atonement to be found in what Jesus Christ did on the cross which merits it. Our repenting of our sins does not merit our redemption even though there is no salvation without repentence. Christ dying in our place does merit it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
123 | Did the Romans kill Jesus or did the Jew | NT general | Beja | 223193 | ||
Lets all remember the lesson Paul strived so diligently to teach in 1 Cor 13. We can have all the knowledge in the world yet if we throw out love, (some of which is consisting of patience, longsuffering, refusing to take offense, and showing kindness even when it is not deserved), if we throw out this love in the midst of our pursuit of knowledge then we amount to nothing. Let us also remember 1 Timothy 1:5 (if I'm not misquoting), where Paul explains that the very goal of all of his teaching is love. Therefore let us pursue that foremost and what we deem fitting answers to our questions second. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
124 | ... | NT general | Beja | 224829 | ||
Cogito, In saying as much you are in open violation of the terms of use of these forums. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
125 | How do I keep a meak and humble heart? | NT general | Beja | 224906 | ||
Patricia, At the risk of being pressumptuous let me say that we are glad to have you here. Also, I highly encourage you to find a church to attend. I assume from your reply that you don't have one. I can not begin to explain to you here just the great extent that your regularly being fed the scriptures through preaching affects you. God means for the Church to be a central aspect of the life of every Christian. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
126 | How do I keep a meak and humble heart? | NT general | Beja | 224909 | ||
Patricia, Please don't be offended at sister Azure. She is right when she says that what you asked was a little beyond the scope for which these forums were intended. I was only able to scratch the surface of what I would say to somebody in my own church. Each of the four points I had I could have easily (and for some I desired to) streched them out to the length of that entire post or longer. But I was limited to 5000 letters! I actually had to delete my greeting on the start of it to make room for the answers. So the point is that your particular issue is far better worked out in person with godly men and women of a church. This, I think, is all Azure was trying to say to you, simply to express the inability of this forum to address your situation sufficiently. She truely is a blessing to this forum and I believe should you be willing to momentarily assume that her motives were good, then you will over time to find out for yourself why I am so willing to vouch for her. In my experience this forum is usually very tolerant of life questions in place of actually study questions, but as sister Azure did, we usually at the same time encourage them to seek more complete answers from their pastors due to the limitations of this venue of communication. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
127 | What is "entering into God's rest?" | NT general | Beja | 224966 | ||
Ariel, For what its worth, I think you are correct and that we are indeed ultimately fated to inhabit a new earth, not heaven. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
128 | Church and addiction | NT general | Beja | 230890 | ||
Bill, So are you the poster formerly called inquisitor or not? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
129 | Church and addiction | NT general | Beja | 230897 | ||
Bill, What makes you think I find your posts repulsive? Can you provide one quote from me indicating that? I simply asked if you formerly posted as inquisitor. Why would that make you immediately paint yourself as wronged? With regards to your post, there are a variety of reasons that SBF deletes posts, sometimes it is a matter of things like advertising, sometimes its saying hateful things, sometimes its a matter of posting blatantly unbiblical view points, and there are others. You can take a good look at the terms of use to get an idea of various reasons why. From there you'll just have to consider the possibilities of in what way those particular posts may have been seen as problematic with the TOU. And before you ask...NO, I had absolutely nothing to do in any way form or fashion with your posts being deleted. I've not even read the posts in question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
130 | Was John the Baptist a Priest? | NT general | Beja | 239685 | ||
Pete23, John was of priestly lineage because Luke 1:5 identifies his father as a priest. But if I understand the text and the Jewish religious culture correctly, John would not have been viewed as a priest. The function of a priest would have been something he had to step into at the appropriate age. In contrast we are told in Luke 1:80 that John remained in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel, which would have been when he began preaching repentance and baptizing. This staying in the wilderness is most likely where the notion of him being an Essene came from. Regardless, at no point did he accept priesthood functionally and this would have been determinative to the Jews in answering the question, "Was John a priest?" In Christ, Beja |
||||||
131 | wednsday or friday Jesus died | NT general Archive 1 | Beja | 219821 | ||
Just a note. Protei does indeed mean "first." Its not hard to understand how this could extend to mean "chief" in certain contexts. Such as when we say the phrase "first among equals." At such times it takes on the idea of foremost, or cheif. Also, Sabbatou does indeed mean sabbath as in saturday, but it also can be used to refer to the entire period of time of a sabbath and in that sense basically takes on the meaning of "a week." So when it says "protei sabbatou" it is completely legitimate to translate it "first of the week" which would be sunday. Which is how all the translations, of which I am aware, translated it. So that being said I think we'd need great reason to state that every translation committee ever formed wrongly translated this text while we ourselves have discovered the right meaning. The very first flag that I have gotten it wrong, for me in my personal translating, is that no translation agrees with me. However, that is just food for thought. The person you are responding to wrote his post in 2003 if I saw correctly, so you may not get a response depending on if he still frequents these forums. All that said, welcome to the forums and I hope you are benefited greatly by it! In christ, Beja |
||||||
132 | TWO TRIBULATIONS | Genesis | Beja | 235980 | ||
Escar, Agree to disagree. One thing I would like to share. While you are entitled to your opinion you should know that most people on the forum are expecting to be answerig a question when they answer a question. One of the surest causes of strife and disagreement on the forum is when somebody asks a question that they don't actually want an answer for. They simply want somebody to answer so that they can then "teach" them the correct answer. That may have worked for rabbi's and Jesus, but unfortunately we are not disciples of any poster here. Please keep the question space available for true questions that you are really looking for an answer on. Many of us are actually taking a few minutes we have before work to attempt to be helpful to somebody. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
133 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219808 | ||
I think we need to be slow with this issue. Our modern time has taken a biblical concept, "once saved always saved," and added some very unbiblical thoughts to this. This is often used to argue that a person who is completely devoid of any fruits of the spirit, most notably repentance, is saved because we remember them making a profession early in life. Sometimes it is foolishly even applied to those who once professed faith but no longer even believe the gosple. What has happened is that we have striped the doctrine away from "the perseverance of the saints." Those who are saved are indeed saved eternally, but they are also kept in the faith by the power of God. Consider passages like the one in Hebrews, but also Colossians 1:21-23, Galatians 5:2-5, Hebrews 3:5-6,14. This list could be expanded but if you look up these passages you get the point. We can not simply explain away all of these. We must finally reach the point that we admit that turning from the gospel is indeed fatal. And by fatal I mean eternally damning unless there is later repentence and faith. Keep in mind the issue here is not that we sin, but that we turn from the gospel. Once saved always saved? Yes, but saving faith is life long faith. To have a faith that only lasts a certain season is to show it was not true faith at all. Is this not in harmony with Johnn when he says in 1 John 2:19 that they went out from us but weren't really of us? And that they went out from us for the purpose of showing that they were not really of us? Is this not what Jesus is portraying in the parable of the soils when he shows two soils that apparently received the gospel quickly but then later showed that they weren't the good soil? So, it would be far better that we hold tightly to the "Perseverance of the Saints" rather than to "Once saved always saved." Both teach that salvation can not be lost, but one clings fast to the doctrine of perseverance at the same time, and assures that new Christians are not ambushed by the passages I listed, and as a result think eternal security is refuted. Brother John, just for clarification I don't lay any of this at your feet personally, but only used your post as an excuse to preach. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
134 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219818 | ||
Val, You've stated that these refer to proofs of salvation, not means of salvation. To that I say a hearty amen. I'm sorry if what I typed sounded like I meant otherwise. Though I would prefer the term evidence rather than proof but I think we are of the same mind in that. The point I was trying to make is that these are evidences that God brings about in us, and not from our own doing. Not only this, but these evidences (continuing to trust in Christ via the gospel) are things that God always work in us. Therefore in situations where there is a lack of them, we say no salvation has occurred. Not because they are necessary as a means, but they always flow as a result. This is the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. That those whom God saves, He also keeps in the faith throughout their life. Summing it up: Saving faith is a life long faith. I hope this helps to clarify, my first response didn't go through but perhaps that was God's mercy. It was written hastily before church this morning and this one has a bit more organization to it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
135 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219833 | ||
Am I to understand that you are saying that the IF is connected to everything that comes before rather than to the IF they fall away? Such that the passage reads more along the lines of, if they are all these things, they can not fall away? I'm not certain this is what you are saying, but in the greek the word IF is not present at all. It is how a particular translation chooses to translate the participle "falling away." In other words if that is what you are saying it is literally an impossible interpretation of the passage. Since the IF is literally coming from the word "fall away" itself. What translation are you quoting? The NASB doesn't insert the IF. Basically your dealing with the participle form of "fall away." Which could be translated many different ways. It could be "after falling away" "when falling way" "since they fell away". The only way you get the if into the sentence at all, is if you choose to translate that participle as conditional, which would render it "if they fall away." Therefore you could not translate it conditional and then say the if was with another part of the passage. The very insertion of the word if is tied to how "falling away" connects to the sentence. Hope that made sense. Regardless, I wasn't intending to discuss your interpretation of Hebrew, only to interact with the discussion it prompted. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
136 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219867 | ||
Justme, Yes, it does indeed go right along with what I was trying to say. I regret to hear that you have such a vivid example. God is still saving soul's though, and the day may come that he knows Christ in truth. I'll join you in praying to that end. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
137 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219883 | ||
Light, Thank you for posting this! I very much enjoyed reading it. However, I can't say for certain I agree with him. Help me think through this to make sure I understand his point. (I say this sincerely with no sarcasim.) His point is that the author is in reality presenting an impossible scenario. He is talking about true saved people, he is talking about real falling away of saved people, and he asserts that such a situation would render salvation impossible for that individual. Only the author of Hebrews point is that this could never happen. Now, to me the real crucial point of such a take on the passage, is that you must show a reason the author of Hebrews would have said this. It has to contribute to his arguement in some way or form. In other words, why would the author of Hebrews have ever brought up a situation that will never happen? It has to have some contribution to the larger context. Now, if I understand correctly, Spurgeon would have asserted that the contribution to the larger context would be as follows... In verses 1-3, the author is stating a desire to push on to things of maturity. Stating in verse 3 that, "this we will do if God, Permits." That being said, our text under scrutiny is the reason he is so confident that they will be able to push on to maturity. His arguement being thus... The recipients would push on to maturity Because if they were to have finally fallen away, Then there would be no hope of salvation for them, Yet none of us would believe such a thing, So therefore we have confidence they will press on And finally in verse 9 he reasserts his confidence and presses on with the discussion. Is this how you would understand this passages contribution to the greater context, as simply the reason we can push on with confidence? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
138 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219947 | ||
Light, I've finally managed to read part 10 and 11 of Spurgeon's sermon, and I must say I was hoping for more on how this fits into the context. I am not saying he is wrong or right, but due to the great contention over this passage I was hoping he would make his case stronger. Basically I think if one was to debate the issue and argue his view (not that we are debating) two things would need to be established in light of what he said. 1. First it would need to be established that the notion of unshakeable salvation was so imbedded into the author and reader's thinking, that they would have understood an impossible situation was being discussed as Spurgeon is suggesting. My point being that there is no such assertion in the text. The only way you can put it there is to consider it "a given." For those who might find this alarming, once again I do not believe you can loose your salvation. 2. Second, Spurgeon adressed what would be the point of stating an impossible situation, but he did not explain the point trying to be accomplished by telling us this in Hebrews chapter 6. In other words, how does this reading of the passage fit with what comes both before and after it in the book of Hebrews. Once again, I'm not saying he was wrong. I'm just saying that I'd like to hear somebody explain those things. Once again, thank you for posting it. I enjoyed it very much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
139 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219976 | ||
Light, Let me clarify my thoughts in a few concise statements, so that any further statements I make in a less organized way aren't misunderstood. 1. I believe that none who come to saving faith and repentance through Christ will ever loose their salvation. 2. I believe all scripture when rightly understood agrees with itself, therefore this passage can not be teaching the elect loosing their salvation. 3. I believe that this is a difficult passage, and therefore we can not simply say it says one thing without a strong defense, and then wonder why people don't just "believe it" to be the right interpretation. 4. Anytime, anywhere in scripture that I can not see -why- an author said what he did when he did, then I assume there is something I have not fully understood yet, even though I might understand the passage for the most part. Some of the best insights I've gleaned in the past why preparing sermons, was when I refused to stop until I knew why the train of thought went from one subject to the next the way it did. 5. I do not see why at this point in time, the author of Hebrews decided to present a hypothetically impossible situation about loosing salvation. I can understand somebody doing that, and I can understand the values of it as Spurgeon presented it, though I can not understand how that particular thing fits into what the author of hebrews was saying before and after he said it. 6. Because I can not see how it fits with that context, I assume there is something I do not yet grasp about the passage. That could mean that Spurgeon is right, and I just need to figure out how it fits. Or, that could mean Spurgeon is wrong. But what it certainly means is that I haven't fully figured it out yet and therefore I must keep questioning my understanding of the passage and putting it to the test. That sums up my thoughts on it, I hope it helped clarify what I am thinking. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
140 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 221728 | ||
CDBJ, I have no real concern about this discussion, but just from pure logic...if this passage proves that angels existed before the earth, then it also proves that stars existed before the earth by the exact same logic. So either scripture is contradicting itself, or you are putting more weight on this passage than it was intended to bare. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [26] >> |