Results 141 - 155 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 184038 | ||
Hi I do not really want to argue over words but the value of something depends on how it is seen. Paul had certainly put great value on his keeping of the Law. It had been his life for years. It was the most important thing in his life. So moving from that to become a Christian would certainly have been a sacrfice for him at the time and his compatriots would definitely have seen it in that way. Of course later he recognised that it was no sacrifice at all. So in that sense I agree with you :-))) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
142 | I can use Galatians 4:16 as a support. | 1 Tim 5:19 | jonp | 184386 | ||
Hi You have asked a difficult question :-))). Presumably you are referring to confronting those who have been set in authority over the church. One problem clearly is that most of our information is provided by those who were in authority. Paul spoke as one who was set over the churches mainly because he established the churches. He did not tend to exercise his authority outside those churches. We must be very careful how we undermine authority. 'The powers that be are ordained of God', whether civil or ecclesiastical (Romans 13.1-10). Undermining them can have serious consequences. Of course both Jesus, and the Apostles in Acts confronted religious authorities, but they did it not by rebelling against them, but by positive proclamation of the truth. Jesus was always careful to support 'the establishment' as such, but not at the expense of truth. What He spoke up against was hypocrisy and teaching contrary to the Scriptures. The same was true of the prophets. We must beware of causing splits or disharmony over secondary matters which may seem primary to us but are not really so. Of course where there is open sin, then the course is clear. It must first be dealt with on a personal level, then by consulting with others, especially those respected in leadership, and then finally by consulting the church (Matthew 18.15-17). It is salutary to recognise that your very question indicates the difficulty of genuinely finding Scriptures to support your case. The great reformers of history did not usually set out to attack authority as such but to win authority over. It was the authorities who caused the schism by throwing them out. Of course we can find individual exceptions, but on the whole this was true. (And the fact that a man was greatly used of God does not necessarily mean that he was always right. There are many cases of those who acted and regretted it later). Yet there can be no doubt that situations can arise when some kind of action is necessary, although even then the answer is often better found by approaching some other authority, and must certainly be accompanied by much prayer. We must not be seeking our will but His will. What we do have to consider is the long term effects of what we are doing on others besides ourselves. What we must ever remember is that love is the fulfilment of the Law. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
143 | I can use Galatians 4:16 as a support. | 1 Tim 5:19 | jonp | 184484 | ||
Hi Thank you for your note. I had read you original question as signifying that you had problems with the leadership of your church as a whole. Later notes have revealed that you had one particular person in mind whose life was inconsistent with his profession of the Gospel. That is clearly a very different issue, and I actually agree with what you say :-))). Your course in that case would be to follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18.15-17, keeping in mind 1 Timothy 6.17-20. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
144 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183695 | ||
Hi, The books you mention were not part of the Jewish canon and Jesus laid His seal on the Hebrew canon (Luke 24.44 - 'Psalms' covered the the other sacred writings) but not on anything outside it. Thus we only have Jesus authority for the three groups of book in the Hebrew canon. On a practical level while Maccabees is of value historically it is clearly in some parts unreliable. Martin Luther was his own man. His decisions about the acceptability of books is not reliable. He was an evangelist and preacher not a Biblical scholar. If he did not think that a book fitted into his ideas her simply discarded it. By all means read Maccabees as a history book which is partly reliable but we have no genuine grounds for accepting it as 'inspired'. Best wishes Peter | ||||||
145 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183701 | ||
Martin Luther was a linguist but he was not a critical scholar as far as the canon was concerned. His 'decisions' were based purely on personal opinion. I am not criticising Luther as a person, just his approach to the canon. His achievements speak for themselves but his views about the canon were atrocious. | ||||||
146 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183738 | ||
When I originally commented in a brief note in reply to someone’s concern about what Martin Luther had said about certain books of the Bible that his ‘popular’ views on the canon were not reliable because they were spoken as a preacher and teacher and not as a scholar I had in mind the statements that he made that were well publicised, not his lifeteaching as a whole. I was dealing with a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately for Martin Luther he is remembered popularly for the controversial things that he said and not for the good ones (a misfortune for most famous people. Few are interested in the good things that they said). Examples include, “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.” This is then cited popularly as that he called it ‘a right strawy epistle”. Then again he later said, “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.” Concerning the Book of Revelation he said, “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and again, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.” The impression given (which I have elsewhere called ‘atrocious’ evangelically speaking) is that people can treat the Scriptures as something which can be accepted or otherwise depending on how their own spirit leads them. Of Esther he says, Esther…which despite their [the Jews] inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical.” Later, of course he dropped these statements from his translations of the Scriptures and he did include all the books in his Bible translations as Biblical books, in contrast with the Apocrypha of which he said that they were, “books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read”. But the damage was done and Martin Luther gained the popular image of a man who did not treat the whole canon of Scripture on a par. No doubt Martin Luther on the whole wished that he had never said these things, but unfortunately for him he did and it is these statements for which he is popularly remembered. I hold Martin Luther in the highest regard (what true evangelical would not). Beside him we are all pinpricks. But we still have to admit that he made mistakes which have unfortunately been perpetuated and have caused many people problems, and that such statements are best disregarded. |
||||||
147 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183876 | ||
Hi. Phew! Three books required all at once. For the Jewish canon may I suggest you read 'The Canonisation of Hebrew Scripture' by A C Sundberg. But of course we have clear evidence of the final decision of the Scribes in the Jewish Scriptures as contained for example in the Massoretic Text, and as accepted by the Jews today. The Jews of Alexandria, who were very liberal, incorporated the Apocryphal book into the Septuagint, but it is significant that no Hebrew versions of these books were preserved. They were not seen as Scripture by the vast majority of Jews. And this is confirmed by the resurrected Jesus in His definition of the Scriptures as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24.44). He thus excluded the Apocryphal books You are quite right in saying that no person, church or council has the right to declare which books are the inspired word of God. However, apart from in the initial stages when all was overseen by the Apostles there was never a time when there was 'one church on earth' in an hierarchical sense. The church was one spiritually and looked on themselves as one body, but they certainly did not all look to Rome. Had you gone to Alexandria or Antioch around say 300 AD and said to them 'You are in submission to the see of Rome' you would have been lucky to escape with being tarred and feathered. Naturally the great cities began to be looked to as places which could settle disputes, for they had the largest churches and attracted the most prominent persons (including at first the Apostles). In the early church the see of Antioch originally held the position of primary see on prestigious grounds, although not as having authority over the remainder. It gained this privilege from its ancient heritage (Acts 13.1-2). Gradually the see of Alexandria began to claim prime importance. But neither paid any heed to Rome except as fellow brethren. Indeed the first weak attempt of Rome to claim primacy was at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and that was firmly put in its place, even in spite of the support of Constantine the Great who was trying to insist on it. (Which was why they tried it in the first place). This is all well documented. In fact there has never been a time when the sees of Antioch or Alexandria genuinely accepted the priority of Rome. Of course Rome tried its best and having (a thousand years after the time of Christ) brought the leaders of Alexandria and Antioch together forced them to submit at the point of the sword (a truly-Christ like action) but they rejected it as soon as the sword was removed from their necks. Such a submission under duress meant nothing, except that they were cowards. So you see there never has been one hierarchical church. Of course the Roman Catholics are a denomination (given a name to disinguish them from the others) as are the Eastern Orthodox. More to follow later about the canon, but you might like to consider this bit first. With all best wishes. Jonp |
||||||
148 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183908 | ||
Hi you claim that you received salvation at baptism. It is clearly a different salvation than the one PAUL speaks of, for he said, 'Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the Gospel' (1 Corinthians 1.17). I thank God that I did not baptise anyone except --' (1 Corinthians 1.14). Then He goes on to point out that it is the word of the cross that is the power of God unto salvation. John 3.5 does not mention baptism. That is simply an inference. The reference to water rather has in mind the picture of the coming of the Holy Spirit as rain in Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-4. How can you be assured of eternal life if you can lose it? Eternal life in in fact received by hearing Jesus Christ and truly believing in God through Him (John 5.24). All who have truly received Christ have eternal life (1 John 5.13). Matthew 19.16-17 was spoken to a young man who did not have eternal life and refers to the attitude of heart that he must have in order to enter into it by following Christ. You might better have quoted Matthew 22.34-38. But if that is a requirement for salvation it leaves us all without hope. It is rather an indicating of what the saved should be aiming at. You rightly point out that salvation can be applied in different tenses. But one does not invalidate the other. If I have been saved from stormy seas and am in the lifeboat I have been saved, I am being saved (it has not yet reached the shore), I will be saved (when it reaches harbour). But it does not make my salvation less secure. Notice that it speaks of 'having been saved'. That indicates that the saving is carried out by Someone else, the Saviour. Now a life boat might sink, but the Saviour cannot sink. And if the Saviour has saved me (the aorist indicates once for all) then nothing can prevent that salvation. It is not dependent on me but on the Saviour. Of course the process of salvation goes on and must be revealed in a changed life, but that is the result of my having been saved, not a condition of it. True I have to 'work out' my salvation with greatest care, but in that I am responding to the fact that God is at work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.12-13). HIS WORK of salvation is proceeding according to plan. Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure. The Lord knows those who are His. And my being confirmed to the end depends solely on the faithfulness of God (1 Corinthians 1.8-9), He is the One Who saves to the uttermost because it is through His intercession not my weak struggling (Hebrews 7.25). He Who has begun a good work in me will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.6). Jesus Christ is my Saviour not my crutch. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
149 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183910 | ||
Rehi stjames7 At least we can agree on the fact that salvation is offered as a free gift which cannot be earned by merit, and that no one is forced to accept that gift. But what is equally important is how that gift is obtained. You follow your church's belief that it is mainly obtained through the sacraments. But that is not what the verses you have cited say. Jesus' words to Nicodemus were to Nicodemus, and they were spoken before Christian baptism existed. They cannot therefore refer to Christian baptism. They could just possibly include a reference to John's baptism, but it is not really likely that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus 'you must be born of John's baptism' Rather as I mentioned previously His words have in mind the many promises in the prophets that speak of the Holy Spirit coming like rain and like water from Heaven (Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5). Thus His point is that he can be born from above throughthe Holy Spirit. But how does John see this as happening. He explains it in chapter 1.12-13. 'To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His Name --- who are born of God. He illustrates it in John 4 where the woman is to drink of spiritual water be listening to His words and as a result receiving the Holy Spirit to be like a spring within her heart. There too water is mentioned but there is no conception of baptism. It is true that baptism illustrates these experiences but it is never said to bring them about. You cite "Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." And that is good. But I do not see there any reference to a sacrament. These words were spoken in front of His disciples to the antagonistic Jews long before there was any thought of the Lord's Table, or as you would call it Holy Communion or Mass. They could not possibly have been expected to see that He was speaking of a sacrament. But Jesus wanted them to understand His words. In fact He was taking well known figures of speech from the Old Testament where 'eating flesh' and 'drinking blood' first of all meant killing people, and then receiving benefit from their death. Thus Jesus was making clear to them in a very vivid way that if they were to find life it must first of all result from their putting Him to death. He was describing the inevitability of His sufferings knowing that they were already plotting His death. But He then brings out from that that by eating and drinking of Him (something that He has already explained the meaning of in verse 35) they can find life through Him. And what does eating and drinking mean? It means coming to Him and believing on Him. So you see if we take these verses in contex they have no reference to the sacraments at all, although we will all agree that the sacraments illustrate them well. Best wishes. jonp. |
||||||
150 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183936 | ||
Hi stjames7 First may I assure you that I have read the Roman Catholic catechism and have studied the early fathers in depth. Ignatius of Antioch was a godly man and a martyr, but he was hardly a competent theologian. The others you mention came 300 years after Christ and more. Do you really consider that as near to the events? Do you consider yourslf as near to the American War of Independence and therefore able to comment on it with special authority? I do trust in the church that Jesus founded on the Rock. But did you know that of the early fathers that you want me to take notice of 44 said that the rock was the words that Peter had spoken, 17 said that it was Christ Himself, and only 18 said that it was Peter. So listening to the early fathers and taking their majority vote I would have to reject your suggestion that Peter was the rock. And please note that that is on your terms not on mine. In fact the authority of the majority of the books of the New Testament was generally agreed among the churches long before there was a Roman Catholic church. And it was done by the consensus of churches around the world (most of whom did not own allegiance to Rome), not by one church, in the second century AD. Now they were near to the event for men wers still alive who had known the Apostles, and they knew where the Gospels and letters came from. The first in fact to authorise our present canon was the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. And it was confirmed at the Council of Hippo. Thus the Eastern church were the first to confirm it. The Roman church followed their lead. With cordial best wishes jonp | ||||||
151 | what are the 5 crowns and scripture? | James 1:12 | jonp | 184260 | ||
Hi Perhaps the incorruptible crown (1 Cor. 9.25), the crown of rejoicing (1 Thess 2.19; the crown of righteousness (2 Tim 4.8); the crown of life (James 1.12; Rev 2.10); the crown of glory (1 Pet 5.4). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
152 | What about physical attraction? | 1 John 2:16 | jonp | 184318 | ||
Hi, I am going to speak very plainly for I can see that you are eyeing up the tree of knowing good and evil and I am a little concerned for you. The first thing that we have to recognise is that Jesus clearly taught that when a man and woman marry they are one for life unless there is adultery, and that regardless of their sexual attraction for each other. Of course in Jesus' day men and women were often not able to choose their partners. They had to put up with what they got. But this made no difference to God's requirement. While I consider that your wife should be in Christian submission and should thus seek to do what pleases you, just as you should be seeking to do what pleases her, nevertheless we cannot allow, a failure to do this to cancel out the greater commandment. To let your eyes wander will be to make you a spiritual adulterer. That is unquestionable. Modern man lays too much emphasis on his rights to this and that. But as Christians we have no rights. We have handed them over to Jesus Christ. What about Jesus' rights? Being attracted to each other in marriage is a bonus. But not being so does not affect the underlying priciple that two have been made one in God's eyes for life. Building up theories which Scripture knows nothing about will not countermand that, and however soothing they may sound they are clearly wrong if they go against God's clear commandment. As the text which you began with points out what you are talking about is not of the Father but is of the world. You talk as though being attracted to women who are fit is OK. But it is not of the Father, but is of the world. What is of the Father is that you should be wholly given over to serving Him and that includes ensuring that you maintain your Christian love for the woman you have married, even if the 'attraction' fails. If she sadly lets herself go, and you have my full sympayhies, that does not affect God's spiritual requirement for you which is paramount. So no excuse or web of clever thinking can release you from your basic obligation in God's eyes. That way leads to shipwreck. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
153 | What about song of Soloman? | 1 John 2:16 | jonp | 184356 | ||
Hi Thank you for your reply. I do genuinely sympathise with your position but did want to establish the foundations first. There are so many who reason themselves into disobedience and bring great harm on themselves. Certainly there is no reason why you should not gently hint to your wife that if she wishes to keep her sexual attraction for you she needs to do her part to enable it. Then she can choose what matters most to her. And hopefully you can expect her to respond, for it is not an unreasonable hope, especially if as you say she likes to be admired. As you rightly indicate the Song of Solomon is a reminder that physical love is not to be despised. All I wish to stress is that it is important to keep it in its place. It is a very small book in a very large Bible. It is depicting one of many things that call upon our time, and not in the end one of the most important ones, even though important in its place as a part of a well orbed Chhistian life. The rest of the Bible, however, is taken up with the need to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Thus it is vital that you do not let your longings interfere with that. For at some stage the desires of the flesh will lessen. At that point how sad, even disastrous, it would be if that had caused the desires of the Spirit to cease. So yes do feel that you can remind your wife that you must both play your part in your relationship, but recognise also that even that is secondary to walking faithfully with the Master. Believe me I do not talk glibly. I have had to learn the lesson the hard way. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
154 | explain 1 John 5:1 | 1 John 5:1 | jonp | 184635 | ||
The first lesson being taught is that in order to become a child of God a person has to believe in Jesus Christ. 'To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His Name -- who are thereby born of God' (John 1.12-13). The second lesson is that if we have become children of God we will love our Father. The third lesson is that if Christians love the Father then they will love all His children. We cannot claim to love the Father if we treat His children badly or are unkind to them. It would be to indicate that our love for the Father was not genuine. |
||||||
155 | Jesus getting the keys to hell | Rev 1:18 | jonp | 184443 | ||
Hi The fact that Jesus holds the keys of Hades and of death does not mean that He was going there but that He decided who would be released from them. The idea is that Death and Hades held men captive, but that through His death and resurrection He has provided a way of release for all who look to Him (before they die). In the words of Jesus in John 5.21, 'the Son gives life to whom He will'. 'I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in Me will never die (John 11.25). Why? Because He has the keys of death and of Hades. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] |