Results 121 - 140 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | can i find out who my gaurdian angel is | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232991 | ||
pumpkin7471, Scripture tells us nothing regarding these things. There are only two passages to my knowledge that seem to hint at the possibility of gaurdian angels. Dan 12:1 and Matthew 18:10. With regard to the type of specificity which you are asking about, scripture gives us no hints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
122 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232989 | ||
00123, It is my personal belief that this passage states that Jesus did drink wine of the alchololic variety. Mat 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." This was contrasted with John the baptist who came "neither eating nor drinking." Now I doubt it meant that John the Baptist had found a way to survive apart from food and water. The notion seems to be with regards to eating in some kind of festive context and alcoholic beverage. Therefore if that is its reference in the previous verse, I must conclude that it is what Jesus meant in this verse. Also it gives the basis of the Pharisee's wrongly accusing him of drunkeness. I am NOT suggesting that Jesus was ever drunk. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
123 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232911 | ||
EdB, You said, "End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to continue in this attempt to prove dispensationalist hold to Antinomianism" You continue to twist and misrepresent my words. I have never tried to suggest that modern dispensationalism as a rule advocates antinomianism. If you will go back to my first post you will see that I clearly distinguished modern dispensationalist from the ones found in its early days. Just because you reject that distinction does not give you permission to take my statements and suggest I personally am applying them without distinciton. Second, I have only attempted to show a link between early dispensational thought and antinomianism. I never suggested that they actively taught antinomianism by name. I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting my words and trying to present me as attacking those who I would gladly call brothers and friends. In Christ, Beja In Christ, Beja |
||||||
124 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232909 | ||
Ed, This is from Scofield it seems. "It is instructive, in this connection, to remember that God's appointed place for the tables of the law was within the ark of the testimony. With them were "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded" (types: the one of Christ our wilderness bread, the other of resurrection, and both speaking of grace), while they were covered from sight by the golden mercy seat upon which was sprinkled the blood of atonement. The eye of God could see His broken law only through the blood that completely vindicated His justice and propitiated His wrath (Heb. 9:4-5). It was reserved to modernists to wrench these holy and just but deathful tables from underneath the mercy seat and the atoning blood and erect them in Christian churches as the rule of Christian life." Now to be fair in the very same sermon he rejects "antinomianism." What he refers to as antinomianism is the suggestion that there is no rule of behavior in the believer's life. He simply denies that it is the ten commandmants or the Old Testament law. So here, we see the main popularizer of dispensationalism affirm that while there is infact a rule of behavior for Christians, it is most certainly not the OT law. Second, here is the webster's dictionary definition for antinomian. one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. Here is the definition from the catholic encyclopedia. "The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law." Now...I accept that dispensationalist C Scofield did not teach antinomianism as he himself defines antinomianism. But he taught exactly what the websters dictionary and catholic encyclopedia taught is antinomianism. Is this sufficient documentation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
125 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232907 | ||
EdB, You must have missed this one. http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Torah/Dispensationalism_Root_Cause_of_Antinomianism.pdf In Christ, Beja |
||||||
126 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232904 | ||
EdB, "we have to suspect the motive of Doc of even suggesting it." I agree. At this point our moral obligation has shifted away from putting in extra effort to understand what he's saying and it has shifted instead to a moral obligation to slander him. But now that I'm on your side in this, I would suggest a mere google search on "history of dispensationalism" to you. I think it would help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
127 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232900 | ||
EdB, I know that you and I aren't on the best terms, but I hope it is alright if I explain where the connection is. I am making no assertions here about all this, rather just helping clarify. Dispensationalism, as almost all stances, has undergone refinement. Almost nobody at all today holds to the original form of dispensationalism. But at the same time the modern notion still merely refers to itself as dispensationalism just like the old version. Now you'd have to be familiar with some of the older version to understand the link between antinomianism and dispensationalism. As Doc stated, the basic premise was that God acted in different ways in different dispensations. The original form went so far as to say that in each of these dispensations God actually saved people in different ways. For example, in the time of the Jewish nation prior to Christ, they asserted that Law was the means of saving people. Now in the modern dispensation God uses grace. So what they actually did was claim that the law was for the saints of a past dispensation and therefore had nothing to do with the current dispensation. Hence, old school dispensationalism did have a link with antinomianism so long as you define antinomianism as a rejection of Old Testament Law on today's believers. Now the reason you can be so shocked and have been dispensational all your life and never been around anybody who believes any such thing is because Old School dispensationalism has been pretty thoroughly crushed and shown to be wrong. Modern dispensationalists, from what I am aware, hold to dispensations but they don't claim a unique means of salvation in each. John McArthur as you stated (whom I'm fond of) would not at all embrace old school dispensationalism unless I'm sorely mistaken. So in Old School dispensationalism, there is a bit of a tendency for Antinomianism to come with it. However, they ofcourse teach certain rules. They just teach certain behavior restrictions seperate from the Old Testament law. So even in Old School Dispensationalism you really got more of a theological antinomianism without a practical one. In other words they formally rejected the old testament law, but they would still in practice forbid most of the things actually forbidden under the OT Law such as adultery, murder, lying, rape, stealing, etc. I hope this is helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
128 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232891 | ||
elder4yhwh, Let me first confess my fears to you and then I will point you to answers. Now my fear is that you do not ask this question in sincerity. What I mean is that you ask me which laws he has fulfilled or done away with and you don't truly want to learn anything from any answer I might give. Rather that you think to be asking an impossible question and thus from the impossibility of answering it you have proven your point that such a notion is nonsense. Now I do not accuse you of this, I am simply afraid it could be the case. So here is how I shall answer your question, I shall point you to the answers and if you are willing to pursue them you shall have your answers. But if you are asking only in attempts to prove a point, then I will have no waisted my time arguing about it. 1.) First, you need to have a right understanding about what Christ has done. When we say that due to the work of Christ we are no longer under the law, we don't mean to say that the law is no longer a picture of righteousness any longer. We simply mean that our acceptance or condemnation before God is no longer based upon our fulfillment of the law for those who are in Christ. So due to what Christ has done and my partaking of the benefits via faith, I no longer am accepted or rejected by God based upon whether I have committed adultery. What we DO NOT mean is that I am now free to commit adultery. We do not hold to antinomianism, or lawlessness. The moral law remains our sure guide to right and wrong and rightly restrains wickedness. Now this could have a lot more to be said about it. Namely that Paul goes through lengths to show that the Spirit is the driving force of righteousness in Christians rather than the law. However, I simply want to assert that Christ has freed us from the covenant of the law, not the expectation of the law. I point you to a book called "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" to learn more about this. This book is a very easy and enjoyable read. I do not wish to push you to accept every doctrinal thought the author holds, but it very much helps to get the broad concept of being free from the law as a covenant while still holding to the law as the picture of righteousness fit to instruct the saints and sincerely obey. Oh, this book is available online in its entirety for free. 2.) Now we rightly say that some things have passed away entirely due to Christ having fulfilled them. And this point is more to what you are pressing for an answer on. I point you to John Calvin in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion." He deals with this very well. He will expound upon concepts such as the moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects of the old testament law. I think he rightly teaches it. So I offer these two sources for you. If you truly wish to know the answers to your questions, you will do well to pursue your answers in these sources. If you are in truth not seeking answers, but rather have begun this thread asking a question only to start a debate over a topic which you previously were quite convinced of your own position, and rather than seeking an answer were really only trying to engage in a discussion to sway others, then I suspect you will continue debating in this thread while putting out no effort to look into these books. I wish you well in your study. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
129 | we r living together but r not married.. | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232860 | ||
Magie, This is what scripture would call sexual immorality. It is a sin and should be repented of. 1 John 3:6 and Ephesians 5:5. With regards to loosing salvation, scripture teaches that anybody whom God saves will remained saved. But to be saved we must repent of our sins. Furthermore, scripture teaches that true repentance is an ongoing repentance. This is not to say that saved individuals will not make mistakes, but rather that a person indwell in the spirit of God will not be able to continue in sin without being convicted deeply and actually repenting from the sin. Further, I would like to ask if you attend a church? This is very important. All of your questions involve an inquiry as to what is basic christian morality. I do not point this out to belittle you or make you feel unwelcome on the forum. You are quite welcome here. However, this forum will never be able to successful serve the function in your life which God intended a local church to serve. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
130 | sexual toys | 1 Thessalonians | Beja | 232856 | ||
Magie, Given that you have stated in another question that you are not married, yes. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
131 | Is it wrong to self-please (masturbate) | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232854 | ||
Magie, I think using the search function on this topic would be helpful of for you. I think this question has been asked many times before. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
132 | Romans in the light of Jonah does it say | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232835 | ||
Yes. We have had an exposition of that. And afterwards you and I agreed it was best for us not to speak any further on these forums. Now you continue to press of an explination of my view from others immediately after that agreement. Do you think that is fair? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
133 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232829 | ||
Doc, Its ok, you provided a good exegisis of my one line answer! :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
134 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232828 | ||
elder4yhwh, Part 2 of my reply 2. Second, I think I point about hermeneutics would be in order considering your appeals to Acts 13, 17:2, and 18:4. Whenever we read scripture there is something of a priority order. We give cheif weight to a very clear and explicit teaching in scripture. Below that we have an example of something in scripture. And finally below that we have an inferrence as the weakest. I will attempt to explain. Whenever we are trying to understand what scripture would have us to believe and do, we as flawed people and dull of hearing sometimes see contradictions. They are not really contradictions but having missunderstood something, they appear so in our mind. How do we resolve that? Well first we study to see if we missunderstood a passage. But having come to the same conclusion after that we must consider what has the most weight. Let me use an example. Who is allowed to take the Lord's supper? I grew up in a group who believed that it was only to be the members of a specific local body. How did they get this teaching? They claimed that Jesus practiced his first Lord's supper with ONLY his immediate local church. They therefore "inferred" this to be meant for a model which all Christians should follow. Is this valid? Well, my objection is that in Acts 20 we see Paul actually practice communion with members of multiple different churches. We see that Paul clearly did not agree with this inference? A clear example is to be given more weight. Why? Simply because an inference never explicitly stated has more room for human error than a simple observation. Now suppose they had a clear text that said, "Only practice this with the local Church." That would trump my example. Why? Because we would have to assume I am somehow missinterpreting what I am seeing in Acts 20. The more room for human error, the less weight in apparent contradictions. We are fallible, the Bible is inerrant. These are our convictions. Now in the Acts references you are working with inferences. The passages you share state that on the Sabbath, on these occassions, Paul went to the synagogues in an attempt to pursuade the Jews. Everything beyond that you are inferring. You are inferring, "Therefore Paul considered that it was still a moral duty for us to observe the Sabbath." But it is entirely possible that Paul simply went there because he knew that was the best time to find a gathering of Jews, no? So you are working from the lowest of the lines of reasoning. So if we see any clear teaching in scripture contrary to it. We listen to the clear teaching over this inferrence. If we see any clear example of an authoritative figure disregarding the Sabbath, we take that over the inferrence. So Paul's teaching is greater or more weighty than why YOU think he happened to show up to those synagogues on those particular sabbaths. We do not ignore Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, and Acts 13. We simply listen to what Paul told us rather than guess at his motives there. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
135 | Sunday Sabbath or not? | Ex 20:8 | Beja | 232827 | ||
elder4yhwh, Two big thoughts regarding your post, next one will be in seperate post due to space limits. 1. What Paul says is God's word. That is one of the foundational convictions we have, the inspiration of the entire cannon. We hold it to be both inerrant and authoritative. That is also one of the views you affirm to work under when you sign into the forum. Now, from my reading of the TOU, that does not mean you actually must believe in the inerrancy of scripture to post here. Rather it simply means that all your posts must agree to work under that assumption. That means we do not divide Paul and Jesus. We seek to see how their words work in harmony. Because our fundamental assumption is that they agree since both are the words of God and God does not contradict himself. Now we then strive to prove their harmony. But we first hold that conviction and then strive towards the proof. Now it seems to me that your dissatisfaction with being answered from the words of Paul hint your rejection of that notion. I hope I'm wrong. There were many things that Jesus either did not teach, or did not teach with plainness during his time on earth. Jesus affirmed this and also assured us that the Holy Spirit would later lead us into all truth. He also informed his apostles as to a right reading of all of scripture and how to understand what had come about. Joh 16:12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Joh 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. Luk 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. So we understand the apostles, including Paul, to be teaching authoritatively and accurately the things of God. Why do we include Paul? In Galatians and many other places (note the visions he claims in Ephesians and 2 Corinthians) he makes clear that no man taught him the things of God and the gospel but rather God himself has taught him. So that is how we must read the New Testament. I once had a seminary professor express disdain for red letter bibles. His reason was that it implies the red words are more so the words of God than the black words. Now I have no objection to red letter bibles but his point was valid. It is ALL the words of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
136 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232823 | ||
elder4yhwh, Scripture is not always referring to the same thing when it uses the term "law." What passage do you have in mind? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
137 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232794 | ||
EdB, Well, I'm not sure what to say to that. You definitely have a persecution complex and I feel very confident that any review of any of our exchanges by any authority figure would come to the same conclusion. However, if it lets you rest easier, you may be assured that I don't intend to exchange posts with you in the future if at all possible. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
138 | Wasn't yesterday better than today? | Eccl 7:10 | Beja | 232791 | ||
Doc, I recently heard a preacher say that all are equally dead, but we'll grant that the corpses may have different stages of decay. I rather liked that analogy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
139 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232788 | ||
Dear Jenny, This is part two of my reply. I hope that all will read part 1 first. I would like to answer the natural question of, "Why would God permit slavery?" We have seen that he does permit it, but now I ask WHY. Now the most common answer I have heard regarding this is to point to the social function of slavery as ultimately something needed and good. What I mean is that the natural way in which one became a slave was extreme poverty. The slave was going to starve to death due to poverty and as a result the choice was between death and slavery. Slavery is surely a mercy compared with death. God's appointment of such a system provided people with an opportunity to live and one day be free again standing on their own two feet. I think we are right to say these things. I do not think it goes far enough in explaining the good intentions which God had with regards to slavery. Slavery served a gospel purpose. Almost everything in their culture was designed by God to prepare for and point to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The priesthood is one example. Through being very familiar with the priesthood, the jewish people were able to easily understand the notions of Christ coming and functioning as a priest to attone for their sins by sacrifice. Now I would argue that slavery also formed a similiar function. I believe that God allowed slavery not merely for some social good, but so that Israel could understand what it meant to be enslaved, to long for freedom, to emotionally and mentally grasp the notion of a redeemer, to long for the seventh year when they would be set free, and to look forward to the day of Jubilee when all captives would be set free from their bonds and receive an inheritance and a place in the people of God. These are gospel hopes! All of these things which could not have been taught so clearly without slavery, served to teach what was coming on a spiritual level. I think that is why God "permited" what he was ultimately going deliver from. For all things are from Him, and through Him, and for Him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
140 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232787 | ||
Dear Jenny, It has occured to me that perhaps instead of discussing slavery with those who have attempted to answer you, perhaps I should give you my own thoughts on God's view of slavery. I pray you excuse the length, but a simple answer probably wouldn't ease your mind even if it was accurate. First, you ask does God "approve" slavery. Now that is quite a hard phrasing to answer. You might perhaps mean does he think it is a good thing. I'm not sure how I would answer that. However, let's begin with that when we look to scripture, God "permits" slavery in Old Testament Israel. He gives multiple guidelines concerning it, but at the end of the day we must acknowledge that he does permit it. Now if I understand EdB correctly (I may not) the thrust of his arguement is that we must not take God's permitting slavery and import all the horrible ideas of slavery which we have seen outside the biblical picture of it. If that is his thrust then he is quite right. That is exactly how we must approach this. We admit that God permitted slavery and then we must make sure we understand the exact nature of the slavery which God permitted. If we do not carefully do that we will end up saying that God permitted horrible things such as murder, rape, maiming, and other attrocities that have gone hand in hand with wicked instances of slavery in history. However, as we begin to seperate these wicked things from the biblical picture of slavery we must be careful that we don't rule out some of the things which biblical slavery does permit. For example. I do think in scripture that there is a clear notion of owndership over the slave. I do think that Exodus 21:20 is getting at the idea of the slave being property. There is owndership that does actually seem to alter some of the slaves rights. What I mean is, a normal Israelite would have to be brought before a judge, an elder, a king, or something in order to be beaten. Why? Because no offended man had the right to simply assert himself as the judge, jury, and executioner of the one who offended him. It would be sin to simply say to another Israelite, "You have offended me and now I will punish you for it." With slaves we see a different picture. In Exodus 21:20,21 we see that there is no grounds to punish a master who has beaten his slave. I believe what we are seeing here is that there is a clear recognition that the master DOES have the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner over the slave. And it seems to me that verse 21 says that the grounds for his right to do so is that he is the authority over his slave based upon the fact that he owns the slave. Now, before anybody accuses me of something I don't affirm. We must acknowledge that scripture sets very specific limits on this. Should he even cause the slave to loose a tooth in disciplining him then the slave becomes a free man on account of it. This is in the same passage! Exodus 21:27. Other similiar statements are made. So we see it is simply permission to have his slave punished in a similiar way the elders would punish another Israelite. Not license for whatever cruel torture he desires. I would articulate it like this. "While biblical slavery acknowledges the ownership of the slave and affirms him as the property of the master, it constantly remembers that what is owned is a human being with a certain God-given dignity." As we protect the scriptural notion of slavery from wicked practices that has accompanied worldly slavery, we must still be carefull not to misrepresent it as something better than it actually was. I will address this further in a second post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [40] >> |