Results 141 - 160 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | word of God from a man of God | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 223471 | ||
14 hours of D.A. Carson explaining the scriptures! There are far worse uses of your time! http://www.monergism.com/mp3/2010/07/d_a_carsons_the_god_who_is_the_1.php In Christ, Beja |
||||||
142 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216047 | ||
FTK, 2 Corinthians 7:9-11 "I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, sot hat you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow has produced in you; what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what lo9nging, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter." Consider this passage. The difference between the anguish the world feels and the anguish that we as Christians feel is not warm and happy versus sad, but rather the difference lies in one sorrow over sin leading to death and one sorrow over sin leading to repentance and life. If you would suggest to me, "Ah! but look at the end result!" Then ofcourse, nobody here would argue with you that the end result of God's dealings with His children are to their ultimate good and joy! But what do we find here is the road to that ultimate good and joy? We find that God's word pierces deep into our hearts and creates painful sorrow and anguish over our sins in order to produces repentance in us. God's word cuts deep, it wounds our pride and selfishness in order that it may ultimately heal us. You tell us that we must be cautious and weigh the scripture according to how they make us feel, yet John urges us to rather test what we are told by scriptural standards, by the confessions of what we believe about Christ! (John 4:1ff) Surely this bedrock we must test it against is scripture's revelation of Christ. You challenge our confidence in God's word by pointing out that a word can have multiple meanings. Ofcourse they can. They do also in English and greek is no different. Context shapes the meaning's of words. If we were climbing a cliff face and I told you to "give me your hand" you would not stop and point out to me that the word "hand" could mean 5 cards in a game of poker, a piece of a clock which points to either minutes or hours, that it could be a verb and therefore I'm using it wrongly etc. The fact that it can mean various things would no way disturb your trust in what I meant in that particular moment. You are discovering what a novice of language discovers: words have different meanings in different contexts. Do you think Peter was ignorant of this fact when he uttered, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21) Do you think Peter would revoke his statment of confidence in scripture due to finding out that words have different meanings in various contexts! Unfortunately the scriptures assume the capacity to read. Part of this capacity is grasping context and how that shapes words. Your own example gives evidence of this! You quote our Lord in saying that my words shall not pass away! Then you tell us it could mean either to come or to go! Could really both actually equally be what He meant? If you say yes then you show your "hand" in that you don't have the skill to determine the obvious. If you say no then you rob yourself of your own example. Am I being harsh here? Will you respond of how I have unduely taken offence? Will you challenge the bedrocks of assurance in which newly converted Christians place their faith telling them to trust their own hearts instead then wonder that those who keep watch over them rebuke you sternly? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
143 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216068 | ||
Doc, I'm afraid it was nothing so meaningful. A pastor friend of mine had a very young daughter who would often say words backwards. When she tried to say my name it came out "Beja." Ever since then it has just been my name for any such thing when you select something other than your real name. And no, that isn't at all the reverse of my name so I'm not sure how she came to that. In Love, Beja |
||||||
144 | What is adamic covenant? | Gen 2:16 | Beja | 227878 | ||
Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. This verse is what gives a good deal of confidence in saying that there was a covenant between God and Adam. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
145 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213413 | ||
The basis for man's authority certainly goes beyond what I posted. My post was only attempting to show that it was not something that was contingent on the fall. By showing that there were verses that indicated the authority was in place prior to the fall (1 Cor 11:8 and the 1 timothy passage) it proves only one thing: man's authority was not because of the fall. Hence answering the original question of whether it was based on the fall or not. What it is in fact based on and a detailed account of what these passages are trying to teach is not something I'm intending to even hint at. Hope that helps to clarify my post. In love, beja |
||||||
146 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213434 | ||
Well I was reluctant earlier to say anymore than simply answering your question for two reasons. First, many people can be aggressive over such a topic. I do not in any way expect you to be so, but I don't know who all will be reading this post and reply. Second, because once you say just a little on this topic, there is a great deal that ought to be said. This topic is peculiar in that just part of it seems to be unfair unless the whole picture is laid out. For example male authority without discussion on what that authority is meant to look like can appear hateful and power hungry. However, these concerns stated I'll share a bit and feel free to stop reading at any point...as I said, much must be stated. First, we must cling tightly to what is revealed, and hold lightly what we must speculate beyond that. So here is what we know with absolute certainty. 1 Timothy 12-14 makes it clear that males are to be the head of the church, they are to be the only ones teaching other men or holding any authority over other men. So male's have authority in the church, with the obvious disclaimer that all authority in the Church is ultimately Christ's. We also know with absolute certainty that a husband has complete authority in the marriage. Ephesians 5:22-24 states that a wife is to obey her husband to the same extent to which the church is to obey Christ. Now, these are the things we know with absolute certainty and that all Christians will either agree with or they are in disobedience to God's word. I can speak with that certainty because I've done nothing but put forward two Bible verses with no speculation on their meaning so far. Now, the rest of this letter is my doing the best I can to teach how these things begin to impact and work themselves out, so in what follows there can be loving discussion and questioning and even dissagreement. Correct me with scripture if I am off. Within this I would first humbly suggest we must do away with the notion of superiority. The husband being given superiority is a mistaken fancy we have. Authority in marriage does not imply superiority any more than a government having authority over us implies the senators have superiority to us in God's eyes. First consider the first recording of making mankind without looking to the specifics of how it happened. Genesis 1:26-27. Keep in mind the term for man there can equally refer to humanity as a whole. He made them male and female and both of these were said to be made in His image. There is no superiority in the relationship but there is authority. 1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to show their wives honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life so that our prayers would not be hindered. Our authority is not about superiority or greater honor, but only about authority. ((MORE COMING IN SECOND POST)) |
||||||
147 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213435 | ||
((CONTINUATION OF FIRST POST)) Why then? If we are not superior or we do not have greater honor, why then are we leaders? I believe that God meant for marriage to serve as a picture of bigger realities. It is undeniable that scripture does see it as a picture for bigger realities. These include a picture of God that we all can very much relate to, a picture of a Father; and also it includes the marriage of Christ and his church (ephesians 5). We all agree that marriage serves as these illustrations but what I would suggest to you is this: God did not look around and say, "hey, marriage is like this, I'll compare it to that." Rather, God in his infinite wisdom as he set out his purpose in creation, chose to create an institution of marriage that would reflect greater truths which he planned to unfold in his perfect time. To that end he crafted marriage and the first marriage between Adam and Eve, to reflect these things. The male, took the picture of the instigator of all these covenants. His role as father is meant to serve as illuminating light on God our Father. Authority is part of that. He is meant to represent Christ and his love to the church. Authority is part of that. So while the husband has no claims to superiority, do to the role God has given him he has all claims to authority over his wife. This naturally carries over into the church because beyond the family, the church is the other location in which God wants to illustrate and paint pictures concerning Himself. Also I believe whole heartedly the Church is meant to be modeled after a family. See 1 timothy 5:1-2 (these verses do not prove that idea but lend support to it.) So, these are the two areas where we see scripture give clear instruction on male authority. I do not believe that men are meant to have any God given authority over women outside the family and the church. For example I have no God given authority whatsoever to come up to some lady I don't know and tell her to obey me. Now given that all these are things God had placed upon creation as his intention, where does the curse come in? In this I give my humble opinion. The curse was that your desire would be for your husband and he shall rule over you. It is an interesting point that the word for "desire" in this passage is not at all a common word, but it is the same word used in the account of Cain and Abel when God says that "sin desires you." So one is not to think this is a "healthy submission to proper authority" type of desire. I would suggest to you this is a combative desire perhaps even longing to take his authority for her own. I would also suggest to you that the husband ruling over her is not the God intended type of ruling that was originally the idea. You see the husbands God given authority is meant to be of a most peculiar type, that of Christ to the Church (ephesians 5). Also Matthew 20:24-28 is absolutely key in revealing that proper Godly leadership is one in service to and for the interest of those who are led. These passages are how a man is suppose to be leading his wife. This new desire of man to now "rule" is more of a dominating interest I would suggest. So what we see is that now sin has marred this relationship of a beautiful picture of Christ and his church. Now there is rebellion and self interested leadership. Need we look far in our times to overly support this? I wince as I think of how unclear I've been, I ask for God's grace in the readers understanding, and I ask for the readers grace in their responses. In love, Beja |
||||||
148 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223972 | ||
Sonofmom, "The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." With regard to God saying they are "one," I do not think this is sarcasm but rather figurative language perhaps. What he means here is that they are all one language and one people group so to speak. Perhaps we would say "one nation." The point being that humanity was essentially united with no difference in culture, language, or ethnicity. Where God says that nothing that they purpose to do will be impossible for them is a little harder for me to answer. I don't get, the impression that it is sarcasm. If it was sarcasm God would be saying the opposite, that they really couldn't do anything and that doesn't seem to be the case. But neither do I think he means by this that they can for example, create a bird from thin air. So certainly he doesn't mean absolutely nothing is impossible for them. In the end all I think we can say definitively is that their very real ability to achieve their goals coupled with their "man glorifying" focus had them headed for spiritual destruction for the sake of temporal power. See verse 4 for their man centered goals and keep in mind God had commanded them to spread through the whole earth. Coincidentally, I just listened to a sermon on this passage that might interest you. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2007/2354_The_Pride_of_Babel_and_the_Praise_of_Christ/ In Christ, Beja |
||||||
149 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223979 | ||
Sonofmom, Very true. I actually hesitated several times before actually daring to even write the word coincidence! Don't we serve a wonderful God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
150 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221216 | ||
Dear Bruno, ...to continue my post... Let me give the starting point for our thinking. The number one foundational truth of reality is this: There is nothing so wonderful, powerful, worthy, glorious, desirable, spectacular, unique or worthy of praise as God. Let that be the beginning of all our thinking. Now, if this is true the greatest good in all existence is for God to be made much of, and the greatest evil in all of existence would be for God to be belittled. Can you see how that follows? God's "holiness" is the starting point. Things are right in as much as they come into line with that reality. Things are wrong in as much as they diverge from that. Lets see if scripture indicates this? What is the worst of crimes? Or rather what is the most important thing that you should do or not do? If we thought of morality as divorced from flowing from God's holiness then we might say murder, rape, child molestation or some other horrid sin. Yet what did Christ say the greatest of all commandments was? To love God with all our being! Doing this is the greatest good, and failure is the greatest wrong! All other morality flows in a similiar way. Why was it wrong to take advantage of the poor? Proverbs 14:31 "He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him." Do you see how morality here is flowing from whether one honors or despises God rather than abstract right and wrong? Why is it wrong to take a life? Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." When God gives permission to us to take the life of all other living things for food, He excludes Man why? Because man is in the image of God. Do you see how it doesn't flow from abstract morality but the honoring or belitteling of God? Why is it wrong to disobey governments? Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Why are we to obey them? Because they are established by God, and to resist them is to resist God Paul goes on to say. Do you see how its not an abstract morality but rather making much or belittling God? I can not cover all possible examples. But I hope this post can turn your train of thoughts onto a biblical course. God is not under some authority, but He is ALWAYS behaving consistent with His holiness, which means He is always working to glorify Himself. Nor could God have chosen for things to be differently, because this morality unavoidably flows from who He is. How great is our God and our savior through whom He is revealed! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
151 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221323 | ||
Bruno, You missunderstood my last post, sir. I was not in any way suggesting that you claimed to have found truth. I'm not sure what you are wanting to know with regard to "biblical justice" thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
152 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221335 | ||
Bruno, Yes, I'm sorry you missunderstood me. When I said that we live in a world in which, "It is noble to seek the truth, but the ultimate heresy to claim you've found it." I was not saying that you have claimed to found it but rather expressing what I considered the attitude of the world towards what we are discussing. Concerning governments. First, I do not think that the commands to Israel regarding how their judicial process were to work were mandates to every government that ever lives. Second, how would it logically follow that Western governments not obeying scripture proves scripture false? And third, I will not continue to debate the inerrency of scripture on these forums. In any other place I would gladly defend them, but doing so here I feel violates the terms of agreement you and I both signed upon joining this forum. The authority of scriptures is the "given" of these forums and I ask you in respect to our hosts to discontinue this aspect of our discussion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
153 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221356 | ||
Bruno, One thing where I'm not sure you are understanding me is regarding when we are to disobey. We do not disobey a government because the government has done something wrong. We are to obey even wicked governments up until they actually tell us to disobey God. At which point we obey God rather than men (acts 5:29.) Beyond that one command, we go back to obeying our governments. Second, are you suggesting that because I can or can not picture myself stoning a man that scripture is false based on that? Of course you would not suggest that. Sir, see that you are not at all appealing to reason but rather your strategy is to tell me that based on how I feel about what the old testament says, I am to judge it right or false. You are not using logic, but trying to horrify me by what scripture says. What is the "factual mistake and/or contradiction" here? My feelings do not trump the word of God! And with all due respect, neither do yours. I would also put forward, if I recall this old testament command correctly, you are misrepresenting scripture at this point. It is not as if somebody disobeyed their parents once and therefore were drug off to be stoned. If I recall correctly, this was a recourse for parents whose child was continually rebellious. But perhaps I am remembering the text incorrectly. In Christ, Bruno |
||||||
154 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229445 | ||
Jsph, Welcome to the forum. I was looking at the bio you provided. You seem to make an emphasis of "make" verses "set" in the verse you provide. I was wondering what you saw as the significance of that distinction for understanding the verse. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
155 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229453 | ||
Jsph, Thank you for your response. I hope it doesn't offend that I ask some follow up questions to clarify in my own mind what you are saying. With regards to the process. I honestly believe there is a process of salvation that is often poorly understood. The scriptures clearly teachthat the path of salvation is a path of sanctification. However, order here is important and I'm trying to understand your take on ordering in all of this. So here is my question. With regards to justification, and sanctification, what is the ordering. Let me define my terms. Justification, for the purpose of my question, is the state of God having pardoned all of our sins and now views us as if we are sinless with Christ's righteousness for purposes of determining eternal judgement or eternal reward. (I'll defend that definition if needed, but for the moment will let it stand.) Sanctification, for the purpose of my question, is the ongoing and progressive conforming to to the image of Christ, which involves an ongoing and progressive repentence from sin, and a maturing in obedience to God. Now my question is, do you believe justification comes from the fact that we are doing the sanctification part, or do you teach that God causes and accomplishes the sanctification part because we are already justified by faith? Which comes first in this process. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
156 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229456 | ||
JSPH, So you are saying that the process of sanctifying us is in fact the process of justifying us. Correct? Assuming I have you right (and please dont' skip telling me yes or no on that) doesn't that mean you are saying justification comes from sanctification? I dont mean that one finishes and then the other begins. I mean purely from a logical standpoint. If we are being justified through the process of sanctification, then aren't you at least logically if not temporally making justification the cause of sanctification? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
157 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229457 | ||
JSPH, Forgive me, I think perhaps it would be better to say at the end of my last post that you are making sanctification the MEANS of justification rather than cause. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
158 | 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 |
||||||
159 | 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 |
||||||
160 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [26] >> |