Results 141 - 160 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Is baptism a work? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 66633 | ||
I hope I never feel that I have mastered God and his Truth. | ||||||
142 | Is baptism a work? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 66643 | ||
Greetings, friend charis; Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. As for being a '"mere" Chrisitan', that's about as high an earthly title as I could aspire to. Don't stay up too late. ;-) Peace and grace, Indy |
||||||
143 | Is the request of Christ Granted? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 70627 | ||
Hi, Johnny; With respect to Judas himself, search for message # 3132 and read the thread it generated - if you have time! I contended then (and I do now) that Judas' fate is unknown, a view that was forcefully and repeatedly challenged. My own opinion is that the immediate sin of those who participated was forgiven - no doubt leaving them all with plenty of unforgiven sins. But it flies in the face of everything the Bible teaches about salvation to say that they were all forgiven without repentance and without placing their faith in Christ. If it is true that "all character in that said events was forgiven because they only fulfill thier role in that scripted way of salvation", then I would expect to meet Pharoah when I get to Heaven - which I don't. But this is just an opinion; I would not care to place limits on God's grace. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
144 | 1 corinthians 14:34 | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 81295 | ||
Greetings, krzyhors; Search on ID# 2988 (right side near the top) for a recent discussion of this topic. My opinion is that the only way to harmonize Paul's instructions regarding women in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 with his overarching theology of grace, freedom, and unity in Christ is to assume that he was dealing with a specific situation, not laying down a new law for women. But there was plenty of disagreement. I hope you find the thread helpful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
145 | Christmas-Is It Christian? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 106797 | ||
Hi, AO; You said "[cars, computers, plumbing] have nothing to do with worship". I disagree. "Worship" is not something we do only on Sunday mornings or only on prescribed occasions or only in some ritual format. Worship is a way of life that acknowledges, honors, and praises God for no other reason than that he is worthy. Worship is daily recognizing and thanking God for his providence. God has provided us with no gift greater than Jesus. For the Christian, Christmas acknowledges, honors, and praises God for no other reason than that he is worthy. The celebration of Christmas publicly, visibly, and joyously gives thanks for Jesus' incarnation. I don't care what the secular world means by it. At least they are reminded yearly that a baby of some importance was born a long time ago. It's a start. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
146 | Christmas-Is It Christian? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 106819 | ||
Hi, AO; As Tim has already pointed out, the example of Cain is irrelevant because there is no prohibition against celebrating Christmas (or Easter, for that matter). Indeed, the lesson of Scripture seems to be that God does not limit our worship to what he has specifically commanded. When God gave Samuel the victory over the Philistines in 1 Samuel 7, he didn't instruct Samuel to set up a stone named Ebenezer to celebrate. Yet Samuel, on his own, did just that (v.12). That worhshipful act didn't seem to make God angry. In fact, in light of God's continued assistance against the Philistines, it seems he found Samuel's "unauthorized" worship quite acceptable. More to the point, God did not command the observance of Purim (Esther 9), yet there is no expression of divine displeaure with the Jews for doing so. It appears that God really doesn't mind when his people go beyond what is required in honoring and praising him. The wise man will ponder this and pray for guidance, would he not? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
147 | Christmas-Is It Christian? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 106866 | ||
Well said, JRM. Caroling tonight! | ||||||
148 | Christmas-Is It Christian? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 106923 | ||
Hi, AO; We'll have to agree to disagree. I welcome the "danger" and will joyously serve communion in my denominational church on Christmas Eve, praising God and singing Christmas carols from the hymnal with a grateful heart. Since a Merry Christmas seems out of order, I'll just wish you a good day. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
149 | Worshiptainment | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 110173 | ||
Hi, N.C.; They got the name wrong. It's the Lite Family Faith Center of the valley. "Church" turns people off. Gotta get those "seekers" in with smoke and mirrors. That said, it rubs me the wrong way when people like Dave Wilkerson utter blanket condemnations of "our churches ...". Maybe "their" churches have "lost the power"; ours hasn't. My congregation is part of a mainline denomination that is stumbling toward liberalism and confusion (pardon the redundancy!). Yet we are reminded weekly that we are there to worship God, not to be entertained or to feel better about our shortcomings. Our allotment of pew-warmers is filled; new members will have to get involved in our ministries. And we are growing while the denomination shrinks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
150 | Adam, Eve, plants, animals - what order? | Genesis | stjones | 19819 | ||
I apologize if this already well-plowed ground. I know I'm not the first person to ask this question, I just don't know the answer. THIS IS NOT A TROLL! I am not looking to start a debate, I'm just looking for your views. In the first creation account, trees were created on day three (1:11-13) while Adam and Eve were created on day six (1:26-31). In the second account, Adam came before trees (2:4-9). Specifically, verse 5 says there were no plants; verse 6 says that the ground was watered but says nothing about God creating any plants yet; and verse 7 is when God created Adam - still no mention of plants. Verse 9 says that God planted trees. Some time later, God created Eve (2:21-23). Similarly, the first account says that animals were created ahead of Adam and Eve on the sixth day (1:24-26), while the second says that they were created after Adam had been placed in the garden (2:18-19) but before Eve. I have been told that a literal reading of Genesis provides a complete, historically accurate account of creation (a perspective I respect). If this is the case, how does one explain these apparent differences between the two accounts? Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
151 | Adam, Eve, plants, animals - what order? | Genesis | stjones | 19864 | ||
Hi, Steve; thanks for the reply. I assume from what you said that there is limited room for some speculation or interpretation when reconciling the two accounts. Is there a general principle that makes it clear where the boundaries are? I'm still having trouble with the time between God's creation of Adam and his creation of Eve. In the first account, the description of God's work on the sixth day makes pretty clear reference to the creation of at least two people (1:27-30). This was completed before the end of the sixth day. In the second account, it seems that a fair amount of time passed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve - God planted the garden (2:8-9) and then God created and Adam named all of the animals (2:19-20). Only after that did God create Eve. Do you think that any of these details could have become lost or slightly re-arranged in the Bible's long passage from ancient Hebrew to Latin Vulgate to English? Thanks again. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
152 | Adam, Eve, plants, animals - what order? | Genesis | stjones | 19869 | ||
Steve, Thanks; you've been very helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
153 | Genesis 1:26-27 | Genesis | stjones | 28258 | ||
No you're not; He is. Or were you calling Him? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
154 | Genesis 1:26-27 | Genesis | stjones | 28492 | ||
Hi, Jesusman; "I Am" with a capital "A" could not have been self-referential so your question is out of order. ;-) Is there an award for the most useless thread with five or more posts all begun with only two words? If there is, hollyh has to be the hands-down winner. I know I'm proud to have been a part of it. |
||||||
155 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | stjones | 30147 | ||
Hi, Jesusman; You've presented some interesting and thought-provoking ideas in this thread. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with all of it, so I'll just comment on three things: (1) I liked your observations about Hebrews 1. (2) Psalm 8:4-5 differentiates between "man" and the "son of man" (although that may be a poetic device) and says that man is a little lower than (pick one based on the translation you like) "God", "the angels", or "the heavenly beings". My conclusion based on this brief example and looking at your passages in different translations is that we're not always certain to whom the original words and phrases refer. (3) I think the difficulty above extends to the audience in Job 1 and 2. It seems to me that this was a physical assemblage with God, Satan, and others (they are indeed "angels" in several translations). The only worship attributed to Job is offering sacrifices; there's no sign of any kind of corporate worship similar to Christian worship. To me, God's challenge to Satan is much more meaningful and dramatic (and risky, in a sense) in front of a large audience. Job isn't just the story of the title character's faith in God. It's also the story of God's faith in Job, writ large across the heavens. Just my USD .02 worth. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
156 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | stjones | 30235 | ||
Hi, Jesusman; We can agree to disagree about translations. Since I don't read ancient Hebrew, I'm not qualified to criticize the translators' conclusions. The best I can do is look for consensus and to accept uncertainty when it can't be found. I don't think there's any question that God issued the challenge: 'The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."' (Job 1:8, NASB) There's no hint that they were already considering or looking at Job. God dangled Job in front of Satan like a fat worm in front of a largemouth bass. He as much as said that Job had rejected Satan ("turning away from evil"). Do you suppose God was suprised when Satan bit? Don't get me wrong. I think the Book of Job reveals God at his best - loving, faithful, slow to anger, quick to bless, almighty, sovereign, and very much the potter, not the clay. I also think there's a tendency to sugar-coat God's role in Job's woes. One has to wonder if Satan would have attacked Job so relentlessly if God had simply remained silent about him. I doubt it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
157 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | stjones | 31015 | ||
Hi, Jesusman; I agree with you but in a different sense. History (the sequence of events in the world, not the academic discipline) is what happened - it is true. If the historical events described in the OT did not happen, then the Father we know does not exist. If the events in the NT didn't happen, then the Son we know does not exist. Conversely, if these events did happen, then they point directly to the God we know. Similarly, science (the inductive methodology, not necessarily all practitioners) seeks to understand and describe the way the world works. When it succeeds, it is also true. God has revealied himself in the world (Psalm 19, Romans 1); to seek him there is to seek the truth. I would substitute "reason" for "common sense". Reason (and philosophy) also seek truth. Logic is an attribute of God's Creation. When the application of logic (reason) succeeds, it too is true. To the extent that the disciplines of history, science, and reason/philosophy genuinely seek the truth, they seek God. To the extent that they discover the truth, they reveal God - God is the source of all truth. So all three can be valuable adjuncts to faith and may indeed be avenues to faith. At least that's what I get from Romans 1:18-20): 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.' But of course, only faith saves. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
158 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19402 | ||
Yes - sort of. First let me say that arguments about HOW God created the universe distract us from the wonder of the fact THAT God created the universe. "in the beginning, God" may be the four most important words in the Bible because everything else hangs on their truth. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, it is a spriritual textbook ("... from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" - 2 Tim 3:15-17). I have no trouble with thinking of the first few chapters of Geneseis as a parable. Such thinking does not impair the Bible's chief purpose of pointing the reader toward Jesus. Knowing him - and our need for him - has nothing to do with how or when God created the universe. For us old-Earth Christians, evolution is nothing more than one way God could have created the diverse life on this planet. Note that the agent is God, not the mechanism that Darwin erroneously proposed (random mutation plus natural selection). It makes perfectly good sense to me that God could have directed evolution, with his ultimate creature, man, in mind all the time. IMHO, God-directed evolution explains the evidence for both evolution and intelligent design and is consistent with the spiritual truth of Genesis. So, yes, I do think that a form of evolution provides a better explanation of the physical evidence than a literal reading of Genesis 1-2. And yes, I am a Christian who accepts without reservation my sinful condition, my inability to save myself, the person and work of Jesus, the grace of God extended through Jesus, and the promise of salvation through faith in Jesus. |
||||||
159 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19409 | ||
Thanks; I am indeed new here. 1) The Darwinian agent (mutation plus natural selection) can't account for, among other things, non-evolution of species like the sturgeon or the irreducible complexity of mechanisms that would have negative consequences until fully developed. The physical evidence points to macro-evolution but there is NO evidence for the agent Darwin proposed; that is pure speculation. Besides, proponents of Darwinian evolution have stated that they will accept no evidence of supernatural causes (see the Amicus Curiae brief to "Edwards v. Aguillard"), so any claims to objectivity are null. In this instance, science has inexplicably abandoned its traditional inductive approach and adopted deductive reasoning with atheism (or at best deism) as its fundamental principal. So there is no need to believe everything that evolutionists claim. As I said, theistic evolution fits the evidence better that the Darwinian variety. Modern science willfully blinds itself to this fact. 2) There had to be a point in time when the first organism containing the complete human genome appeared; God saw to it that there two - a male named Adam and a femaie named Eve. Remember that if God were directing the show, he could choose when the human genome would appear and imbue the new species with his spirit. This would, of course, attract Satan's attention and we know the rest of that story. BTW, I have no interest in "converting" creationists. I think this is an interesting discussion and one that many people have devoted a lot of thought to. I have creationist friends who think that Jesus turned the water in Cana into grape juice rather than wine - not a very literal interpretation. We all have to reconcile the testimony of the Bible with the testimony of the Creation. But it is not the testimony itself that matters, it what they testify to - a sovereign God and his son through whom he reconciles the world to himself. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
160 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19419 | ||
Thanks for your comments. I agree entirely with your understanding of what a parable is and is not. I respectfully disagree that Genesis tells us how God formed human beings. For example, Genesis 2:7 doesn't mention water, just dust. Yet our bodies are more than half water, so I assume he must have added some. As I said, I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you to my view. I hope you will agree with me that there is room for differences of opinion such as this. Insistence on one view or the other creates an artificial division in the body of Christ that must delight the Enemy. All Christians share a common belief in God the Creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord. We can reasonably and lovingly disagree on how God did the creating. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [33] >> |