Results 161 - 180 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | 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 |
||||||
162 | 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 |
||||||
163 | 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 |
||||||
164 | 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 |
||||||
165 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240249 | ||
Exodus 28:21-35 | ||||||
166 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240250 | ||
Jalek, Sorry, just noticed that you wanted a reference to ankles specifically as distinct from the hem. So much for reading when I first wake up! The previous poster probably was thinking of the hem bells. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
167 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Beja | 230810 | ||
Bill, I agree that there is no salvation without repentance. However, we we must be careful to distinguish is that it is by faith alone that we receive Christ, the benefits of His death, and the imputation of His righteousness. Wise and orthodox men of the past have often used a very good phrase: "We are justified by Faith alone, but not be a Faith that is alone." So we affirm that a "so called faith" apart from repentance and obedience is not saving in the least (See James 2:14 ff, and 1 John 3:9), but at the same time we affirm that our repentance and obedience merits absolutely nothing for us before God, but we stand by the righteousness of Christ received by faith for the purpose of our justification. This faith will be attended with all other graces. We also must clarify that this so called faith apart from obedience and repentance does not fail to save us on account of a lack of other things, but only because it is not saving faith at all, but a cheap counterfit. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
168 | Sexual | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 220170 | ||
My apologies, it seems I have answered a double post by accident. I assumed since I was answering an original question there was no thread to catch up on before posting! My bad. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
169 | Are tatoos allowed? | Lev 19:28 | Beja | 228243 | ||
Justme, I would be very careful not to give the impression that there is any virtue whatsoever in branding ourselves for Christ's sake. I do not suspect that you were suggesting that, but for the sake of clarity let us so. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
170 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232779 | ||
EdB, "Chattel - where the slave is no longer viewed a ss person but rather as a piece of property." "God never condoned Chattel Slavery" Lev 22:11 'But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food. Exo 21:20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. Exo 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. For your consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
171 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232782 | ||
EdB, I claim no knowledge of Chattel slavery or even if it is actually a real word. I simply posted scripture that seemed to be related to your discussion. I know that when I am considering a question I appreciate it when people point me to scripture that may weigh in on the question. I try not to take offense if I then determine the suggested scripture does not. On a side note, our modern sensibilities are often offended by scripture, and I would suggest our discomfort or indignation to be an unfit measure of truth. Take the modern offense over scripture's stance on woman authority in churches and homosexuality for example. But once again, Beja isn't even sure if Chattel is a real word and has made zero assertions on the slavery question, only posted some verses for you guys to weigh. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
172 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232785 | ||
EdB, Let me first make a plea for being given some benefit of the doubt. I do not advocate beating slaves to death, starving them, or any crazy cruelty. But I am wondering how tempered your statements have been by scripture. The two big instances that make me wonder are: 1. You state that seperating wife and children would be one aspect of slavery which God would not condone. Indeed the very idea that God would condone it would seriously offend you. However, have you considered this passage? Exo 21:1-4 And these are the judgments which thou dost set before them: When thou buyest a Hebrew servant--six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he is owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him; if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters--the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself. How does this fit with your thoughts? 2. I'm by no means even competent in Hebrew. But I do know the word you are speaking of in Ex 21:20 and you are quite correct that it is most natural the word for "silver." However, does this change the idea so much? Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Yet even with the word being translated "silver" is this not still at least slightly along that idea? If not how do you understand it? Let me post it again and substitute the word silver. Ex 21:20,21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his silver. Does this really change basic idea of the two verses? Now, don't think that by this I mean all other nasty things that came with American slavery. All I'm saying is that your statements do not look like they have been tempered by scripture. If it matters, one way we might resolve some of the tension is to suggest there is not the connection between the idea of a slave being property or a possession with all these other things. I don't think I'm being unfair in bringing up scriptures like these. And again, please be gracious enough to not assume that I embrace every vile thing that has come with historical slavery simply because I post these verses. They are relevant. I ought not have to apologize for bringing up scripture. In Chris, Beja |
||||||
173 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232786 | ||
EdB, After rereading your earlier post I fear I might have put words into your mouth with regards to something. I said: Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Now you did state the property part and the being beaten part but you did not connect the two explicitly in your post. So if that was an unfair reading of your view point forgive me. It was not my intention to misrepresent you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
174 | 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 |
||||||
175 | ... | Num 12:7 | Beja | 227240 | ||
Vicki Tracy, I have one major problem with what you are saying. You are saying that they are able to take shape for us "like Jesus did." This is a major error. Jesus did not take human shape for our sakes. He actually took on humanity, became an actual human being. If you wish to speculate that the Father or the Holy Spirit has at some time taken the shape of a human being for us then that is fine. I think it is incorrect but that is still, imo, within bounds. But we must always keep a distinction between what goes onthere and what went on in the incarnation. When they Holy Spirit decended in the likeness of a dove, it did not actually become a flesh and blood dove to live and die as a dove. It simply took the appearance of one. Christ did not simply take the appearance of a human being. He actually became one in order to live and die as one for our sakes. So if you wish to say that the Father took human shape or form to walk with any given Old Testament saint then fine. But please do not confuse that with what Christ did in actually becoming human. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
176 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224840 | ||
Inquisitor, How then do you explain these passages? Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniqEph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as the rest. uity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (emphasis mine to show which part I want you to explain.) Rom 5:16-19 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. We must be very careful with this doctrine, because at the heart of Christianity lies this presupposition: A man can be judged by the merits or failures of another. If we take away that concept we have taken away the very gospel we preach. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
177 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224841 | ||
I have no idea how my cut and paisting smudged my first two verses together so allow me to repost them. Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as the rest. (emphasis mine to draw attention to the part I want you to explain.) Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. |
||||||
178 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224843 | ||
Inquisitor, So you agree that our basic nature is to rebel? That means the problem is not at the level of our actions, but of our very nature or disposition which then leads to our actions. Children have this flaw as much as any man does. As the father of a 3 year old I can assure you of that. I deny that adam and eve had this same flaw. I could not tell from your post if you agree with that point. However, if that also is granted then what shall we say? Every one with us are born with the natural inclination to sin and rebel, and that we inherit from Adam. And when did Adam obtain this flaw? When he first chose to sin. How can we but say that each and every one of us are cursed with this rebelious and sinful nature as a result of Adam's sin? So the end result is that even a newborn infant, because of the sin of Adam is a little sin factory. By nature even that infant is deep down inclined to sin. They don't have to wait and make a choice to have that inclination. And is that inclination itself not sinful? Our very disposition is sinful, not merely our actions. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
179 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224846 | ||
Inquisitor, The reason I so often neglect your verses is because you just post a great many with no explination of what you intend to show by them. I really don't know what you are trying to prove by the verses you used. Second, you greatly missunderstood my reply by breaking it up as you did. Many of those questions were meant to be rhetorical. Not really asking you. Also I would suggest you are saying two conflicting things in your post. On one hand you say, "As a father and grandfather, I can agree that our kids can be a major pain when they don't get their way. But don't you see, they don't see anything wrong with that screaming, hollering and misbehaving. All they know they're not getting what they consider they gotta have." You are suggesting that their ignorance makes them innocent. But I'm pointing out what it is that they do in their ignorance. They do not do "right" up until the point they learn enough to be tempted. My point is that in their ignorance they do "wrong" up to the point they can be taught to do right. This shows what they are by nature. Their natural born tendency is to do things that are wrong. So on one hand you affirm that in their ignorance they do things that they ought not do, and on the other you say they are not by nature sinful. I suggest that is contradictory. As another note, in no relation to this discussion, I can very seldom follow any of your posts. Very often you wonder at my not replying to things you say, but the honest truth is I dont' reply because I don't understand you. Could you help me by maybe at the end of your post clearly stating in a concise sentence or two what you feel your post has shown and what I should respond to? I don't say this to be mean. I've simply tried to not mention it several times but it keep impairing our communication on these forums. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
180 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224848 | ||
Inquisitor, I've spent more time reading this post of yours, 224842. To your question, "Please explain as thoroughly as you can why this concept is so important to the very gospel we preach." And that was refering to my notion that being judged based on the merits or failures of another is central to the gospel. This is why: 1.) Jesus was condemned for our failures, not His. 2.) We are blessed and rewarded for His righteousness, not ours. That is the gospel. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [26] >> |