Results 161 - 180 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Where should I turn?????? | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 154701 | ||
Javelin, I apologize for any offence you felt from my post. None was intended. I did not understand you to be saying that You did not believe the Bible, I was meaning a general, plural "you", of those who would ingore the plain truths of the scripture. I mentioned the Septuigint because it is more immune to the accusations of having been written or revised at later dates, and yet it says essentially the same things as the Hebrew scriptures. God invites those who already accept His existance, and presence, to come and reason with Him. Just as Paul, on Mars Hill, was not speaking to atheists, convincing them logically to believe in God. He was speaking to theists, who recognised that they didn't know it all. To them, he proclaimed the One Eternal God. Logical proofs have their place, and they are certainly a part of the presentation of the gospel. But many many presentations of the gospel have been derailed by sidetracking into "prove God exists - I don't believe it." And then you can spend the next 20 hours trying to do that, with these purveyors of "higher criticism" shooting down every arguement you offer, whether true or not, because they simply don't want to repent of their sin. They know that they are wrong, but if they allow themselves to accept it, they will have to change and they don't want to. Just as Jesus showed Himself "with many infallible proofs" to His disciples, He will do the same today for all who come to Him. Certainly you cannot be equating "preaching Christ crucified" with "mere unprovable garbage"??????? Neither yours nor my preaching will every save anyone. There is no amount of logic or reason or proof that will bring saving faith to the heart of one man or woman. When the Holy Spirit works in someone's heart, and perhaps the Lord leads one of His children to share a scripture, or a testimony, or to point out the testimony of nature, salvation comes. My point is, logical proof is no match for wilfull rebellion. (I am not speaking of you :-) ) Logic and reason cannot open a closed heart. They can help to lead the one who is already open to spiritual matters, and is inclined towards God, but they will not touch the one who is spiritually closed. Again, I apologise for any offence. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
162 | Where should I turn?????? | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 154702 | ||
Hi 2Fedex, I required proof myself, before I would commit myself to God. I required the very proof I had all along, but until my heart was open, I could not receive it. Nature gives a revelation of God, but how can you understand it correctly without God's guidance? And what guidance does God give outside of His Word? I will be the first to say that everything in creation proves the existance of the Creator, and each of us must be ready with the correct answer to any question that may be asked of us. A tall order, and I fall short :-) I do not say that Javelin is anti-Bible, I am asserting that the Bible stands as objective proof of God's existance, because only God could have produced it. I believe in proving God's existance, and the first proof I offer is the Bible. In matters of medicine and physical science, it contains much information that was just not knowable at the time it was written. The prophecies are incontrovertible. But even deeper is how it speaks directly to the need inside each one of us, the need to be cleansed, and to come into relationship with God. In Romans one, Paul points out that even with the fact of nature to point out the existance of God, Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. they chose to ignore Him. It was not a question of proof. Yes, nature shows that God exists, but that's not the issue. The issue is that we either want relationship with God or we don't. And if we don't, there is no amount of proof that will change our mind. On Mars Hill, Paul proclaimed the Creator, and then proclaimed the coming judgment. Acts does not record a debate, or proofs, beyond what they already accepted. Paul's listeners were theists, and Paul declared the One True God. Most of them went away, but of few remained. The real issue is spiritual, and it is sin. Faith in Christ is the most intelligent thing any of us can do, and passes every test for logic and truth, and I commend any who are able to present it that way. But I think you said well when you said "this is really man seeking after God". Its important to know the difference between when questions come from true seeking, and when they are a cover-up for rebellion. My experience (which has not been small) with "higher criticism" is that it generally masks prideful, wilfull rebellion against God, and the things of God. I, for instance, have a cousin whom I have debated at length. He is highly intelligent, has an answer for everything, yet at the end of our discussions, when I had successfully refuted every arguement, he said, "well, I'll just take my chances at the judgment." God help him! This was probibly the most extreme example I have seen, but the dymanic is the same in many others. Thank you for your kind words. I truly believe that God gave us our minds to use them for His glory. Paul was brilliant, and God used his abilities to deliver to us amazing passages of scripture that will occupy my mind for the rest of my life, and beyond. There are very reasoned and logical proofs not only for the existance of God, but for God to be the God of the Bible, but they will only be received by the open hearted. Creation requires a Creator, and any non-Biblical arguement will come from this point. If a person does not accept that, all other non-Biblical arguements will fail, as they will assert that it all came from chance. Granting the existance of God, and assuming it is a God Who chooses to reveal Himself to us for the purpose of having relationship with us, He would start His revelation at the beginning, to include the first people, and His message would not change, to include the last people. It is only Judeo-Christianity that fits those requirements. And if you want better than that, you have to go to the Bible. Please don't misunderstand me. "To every man an answer!" I hope that this post has served to show my thinking more clearly. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
163 | How should we take the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 154943 | ||
Hi Jeff, I agree with you in hoping that what Doc described is the exception and not the rule, but I stand with Doc, and am a part of his "we". Who among us would think, or claim, that we follow the Lord's mandates most of the time? Why do you think that there are so many places that we are told to be doers of the Word, and not hearers only? Not because it comes automatically, easily, or quickly, I am certain. I would even go a little further than what Doc wrote, and say that we don't even try to figure out how to not obey, we so often have not even the slightest intention of obeying. We read the Word so that we can think we are ok, and then continue with our lives as we choose. There is such a fundamental disobedience within us that has to die, and I think that of the people I know or have met, that have more than half died to themselves as God requires, I could count on one hand. Look at the state of the Christian church in America, and you tell me how far we have come. How many Christians do you know who you would characturize as primarily engaged in a ministry of reconciliation of mankind to God (2Cor 5)? How many are persecuted (2Tim 3)? How many have even suffered minor loss for the sake of the gospel? How many could stand up before us today, and say with clear conscience, "I live holy before God." How should we take the Bible? Like a scalpel in the hand of the only One Who can save us, like the drops of water on a dying man's lips, like our marching orders for today, lest we waste yet another day. Like our Father's words of love, and of power, that will light our way home. Blessings! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
164 | How should we take the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 154953 | ||
HumbledbyHisgrace, Its true that we cannot see inside our brother's heart. May there be millions of whom God can say "I have reserved these unto Myself." But how many of us have lost jobs, or homes, or been injured, or been imprisoned, because of our faith in Jesus? Of how many of us could be said, "Whenever I am with this person, I realize my need for Jesus." So true that we each have our own relationship with God, and to Him we are responsible. One more question: "What percentage of my day do I spend building up and gathering to the Church, and what percentage is spent doing meaningless or worse pursuits?" Believe me, these are not pleasant questions for me to answer. I am not trying to say "we are all a bunch of losers", I will leave each of us to decide that for ourselves. What I wish to say is that if we truly lived for God, it would be said of us as was said in olden times: "These men have turned the whole world upside down, and now they have come here!" Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
165 | Persicution | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 155273 | ||
Hi Steve, Here is a link with more information. I have not explored this theory, or this website, extensively, so I do not know the accuracy of this information. http://www.solomonspalding.com/Lib/Fulr1994.htm Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
166 | clean body natural and spiritual | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 155422 | ||
Hi C.S.M., Interesting post! I've really been enjoying your contributions! Do you think that we can compare the "kinds" of flesh spoken of in I Cor 15 with Romans 1:23 "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things," as Paul describes the degeneration of mankind, first worshipping the higher of God's creation, then descending to to lower orders? What do you think? I have another question as well. You wrote "We must understand, that when a person is born again, their flesh does not change, their self will does not change, it must be retrained by God's word." Does God improve our flesh and self-will, or does God replace them? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
167 | clean body natural and spiritual | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 155430 | ||
Hi C.S.M., I guess I am thinking of this in these terms: Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. We were dead in trespasses, now we are, as you also quoted, new creations, but not improved old creations. All things are made new. Now all things are of God. As for the rest, we are told in Rom 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. In other places we are told to "put off the old man", see Eph 4:22 and Col 3:9, but we are never told to "improve the old man". So my understanding of our Christian walk is to prevent the old man, our flesh nature, from having any influence or reign in our lives, and to live according to the new creation, which is created according to the image of Christ, but not to try to change the old man into the new creation. The new creature has already been made, and is perfect with Christ's righteousness. We just need to now live according to the work that God has done in us. So I say all of that to say this: I realize I may be talking about something slightly different that what you are talking about. Your thoughts? Also, you referred to 2 Cor 3:18 "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.", but you appeared to equate "glory" with "understanding". Is that correct? If so, why, if it meant "understanding", would it not have said "understanding"? Please forgive me if I offend, I have no wish to be offensive, I just want to understand better what you are saying. On the whole I agree with your posts, I just have these questions. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
168 | clean body natural and spiritual | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 155579 | ||
Hi Doc! I've been reading this thread with interest, and I know there is a widespread disagreement over this point. My question to you this morning is: What bearing on this point do you think that Hebrews 4:12 has? "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." This verse speaks of dividing the soul and spirit. Would this indicate that the soul and spirit may be two separate things? What do you think? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
169 | clean body natural and spiritual | Bible general Archive 2 | mark d seyler | 155623 | ||
Hi Hank, We used to have white rice, but my wife coated it all with brown, and I'm non-denominational! Yours, Kalos', and Doc's posts have all agreed, and I tend to agree with each of you, that the main thrust - if you will ;-) of the passage is how deeply the Word of God penetrates, not a description of the make-up of man. So I thank you all for your input! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
170 | Is any type of contraception allowed? | Bible general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 154903 | ||
Iktoose, Was Onan's sin that of contraception? Or was it his refusal to raise up children for his brother? The there was a specific command to given which Onan willfully rebelled against. That was the command to father children for his brother's widow, to give an heir to his brother's inheiritance. If I were to choose which act Onan was killed for, it would be the one that violated God's law. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
171 | Is any type of contraception allowed? | Bible general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 155192 | ||
Hi iktoose, Would Onan, as a grown man, be subject to the law of the stubborn and rebellious child? Now, don't get me wrong, Onan strikes me just as stubborn and rebellious as he strikes you! :-) To me, contraception is about not wanting to take on the responsibility of raising a child, for whatever reason. Maybe because I don't have a secure income, or don't feel psychologically able. As I understand the situation regarding Onan, he did not want to father and raise a son who would not be his heir. If I understand you correctly, Onan wanted to present the outward show of obedience without the responsibility of a child, especially one who would not ultimately be his. Or perhaps more succinctly, Onan wanted the outward show of obedience without the cost of true obedience. Is this correct? To my understanding, contraceptives are commonly used to allow the pleasure and benefit (between a husband and wife, of course! :-) ...otherwise, no benefit!) of a sexual relationship, without the consequence of childbirth, and responsibility of child-rearing. Contraceptives are commonly mis-used by the unmarried for much the same reason, to allow the pleasure of sex without its consequences of childbirth or STD. So, is it disobedient and selfish for a married couple to have a sexual relationship, and yet intentionally not produce children? Paul, in 1 Cor 7, speaks of the married sexual relationship carrying with it the purpose of being a proper place for our passions. Does this carry with it the automatic responsibility to bear children? Is there a commamdment of God, given for us today, which commands us to bear children? Obviously, the command that Onan broke does not apply to us. The command to Adam and Eve, and also to Noah, to fill the earth with people, well, we've done that. Or what do you think? Let me know your thoughts! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
172 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 128921 | ||
Hi New Creature, Passive, but consenting. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
173 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 128975 | ||
Hi New Creature, I don't know how to go beyond these answers, but that doesn't surprise me, as we read things like: "choose this day whom you shall serve" and "you have not chosen me, but I have chosen you". "How I have longed to gather you together...but you would not" and "(God) who works all things together according to the counsel of His own will". I have both been enjoying and profiting from this discussion. This one thing I know: Salvation is from our Lord. We will rejoice that our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
174 | The New Birth - A Survey | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 128983 | ||
Hi New Creature, Personally I enjoy this type of discussion as it challenges me to truly know and understand what I believe. Your tone has not been aggressive, condescending, or otherwise negative, and I, again, have profited from our exchanges. It is my hope and prayer that you do also. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
175 | when will the rapture take place | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 141079 | ||
Hi Jeff, Here are some thoughts for your consideration. The doctrine of Imminence teaches that there are no prophecies remaining to be fulfilled before the rapture. Is this taught in the Bible? What about imminence 100 years ago? Teachings during this past century declared the rapture imminent, although we know now that it was not. But imminence aside, there is the teaching of expectation. Some Pre-wrath and Post-trib proponents tell us that the early church did not teach an “any-moment” rapture. But look again at I Thessalonian 4:17 “Then we who remain alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to a meeting with the Lord in the air” and I Corinthians 15 “and we shall all be changed.” Paul, writing these verses, shows expectation, each time including himself as alive and remaining. “The dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” “Then we who are alive and remain…” LITV 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6 “But concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need for it to be written. For you yourselves know accurately that the day of the Lord, as a thief in the night, so it comes. For when they say, Peace and safety! Then suddenly destruction comes upon them, like the travail to the one having babe in womb, and not at all shall they escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you as a thief. You are all sons of light and sons of day; we are not of night, nor of darkness. So then, we should not sleep, as the rest also do, but we should watch and be sober.” --- All the pronouns are first and second person, with the exception of the ones upon whom sudden destruction falls. They are third person plural. Paul clearly thought of himself as one who would be raptured. These verses are written with the underlying assumption that the Day of the Lord would come in their lifetimes. “the Day should not overtake you as a thief”. “We should watch”. 2 Peter 3:10-14 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with rushing sound, and having burned the elements will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be burned up. Then all these being about to be dissolved, of what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the Day of God, through which the heavens having been set afire will be dissolved; and burning, the elements will melt? But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Because of this, beloved, looking for these things, be diligent, spotless, and without blemish, to be found in peace by Him.” “Looking for and hastening the coming of the Day of God” – picture yourself at the train station, leaning off the platform, looking down the track, saying under your breath “come on, come on!” Peter also teaches expectation, telling us we should be looking for and hastening (to urge, speed, or eagerly await) the coming of the Day of God. Do we look for something we don’t expect to see? Matthew 24:42 “Watch, then, for you do not know in what hour your Lord comes.” Matthew 25:13 “Therefore, watch, for you do not know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man comes.” Mark 13:32-37 “Watch! Be wakeful, and pray. For you do not know when the time is. . . . then you watch, for you do not know when the lord of the house is coming. . . that he may not come suddenly and find you sleeping. And what I say to you, I say to all. Watch!” Revelation 16:15 “Behold, I am coming as a thief.” We watch for Jesus, not knowing when He comes. Jesus says over and over to watch because we don’t know when He is coming, and we are to be found ready. Jesus wants us ready at all times, telling us that He could come back at any time, that we should expect Him at any moment. Are we wrong to expect Him at any moment? We know Jesus is coming. We are to watch for Him. Are there prophecies to be fulfilled first? Whether or not you believe the rapture to be imminent depends entirely on where you place it in referrence to other prophecies. If you believe that the rapture will occur following the the abomination of desolation, or revealing of the antichrist, then the rapture is not imminent. It can’t happen until these other events have taken place. The basic idea of expectancy implies imminence, in that if my understanding of end-times prophecy were that a particular prophecy or group of prophecies had to happen before the rapture, I would not be expecting Jesus ‘at any moment’. I would be looking intead for the fulfullment of that prophecy. There will be no imminency, and neither will there be expectancy. You will not be expecting the rapture, you will be expecting other things first. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
176 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 164231 | ||
Hi Coty, Welcome to the Forum! If I understand you correctly, you have said that you believe baptism is a requirement for forgivness of sins. But then you later said that you believed a person could still be saved without baptism. Would that not mean that baptism is not required? When I say required, I mean it in the sense that Jesus' atoning sacrifice, and later resurrection, is required. If Jesus didn't die for our sins, and then rise from the dead, then we are still in our sins. To say that baptism is required, then we must say that the person who is not baptized is still in their sins. If a person can be cleansed of their sins without baptism, then baptism is not required. Would you agree with that statement? Mind you, I believe baptism is an important part of our obedience to our Lord, and I am not meaning to downplay it's importance. On you example of the 1000 dollar check, I would liken salvation to direct deposit. Ephesians 2 tells us we are saved by faith, and not of works (not just works of the Law of Moses, but any works). Baptism is a work, therefore, how could it save us? Regarding James 2:24, James is contrasting two different things for us, the first is faith that doesn't have works, and the second is faith that does have works. Look back to vs. 14. It is the faith that does not have works that is not able to save. James is telling us a quality of saving faith. Truly, God considers faith complete when it shows itself by works, but notice, before Abraham offered Isaac, it is written of him, "He believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness.(Gen 15:6) - more like direct deposit ;-) Finally, one last item. If baptism is required for salvation, how does that square with: Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. For a doctrine to be true, it must not conflict with Any Scripture, and this passage in Romans is simple and plain. He does not say that it is faith and works that saves. He says that it is faith that has works that saves. We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works. Having been saved, we then do works because we are saved, and one of those first works should be baptism. Again, welcome to the Forum! This has been a much discussed subject, and you can read these discussions by entering "baptism" in the search box. Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
177 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 164242 | ||
Hi Emmaus, Thank you for this information. I want to say a bigger thank you to you as well, as over time when you have posted material on the sacraments, you have helped me to learn the greater significance of these things, and how they join us in the physical realm to the spiritual. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that while the motion we go through is ours, the actual work that is performed is Christ's. But if the work is wholly His, how is it that it cannot be performed unless I also perform an action? When we say "works", are we not talking about particular behaviors, actions, that we perform, whether giving alms, attending church, mass, or being baptized? I believe, as you do, that the work of salvation is wholly Christ's to perform, but I do not believe that salvation requires of me a complementary "work" or action. I consider that salvation comes, on my part at least, through an act of will rather than an act of behavior. I believe that I become born again when I choose to repent, and to obey Christ. Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
178 | Saved by belief or belief and baptism? | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 164254 | ||
Hi Emmaus, No, I have no cause to retract my comments. You are my beloved brother, and I try to carefully read everything you write, because you have, I believe, wisdom to share with us. I agree with you entirely. I meant to speak only regarding man's part in salvation. It is the Father Who chooses, the Holy Spirit Who draws us, the Son Who redeems us (I know I am being simplistic). It is my will, when, as you correctly said, aligned with the Father's that ushers in salvation, but not my actions. My actions will demonstrate my will, but follow salvation. Yes, as I re-read your post, I am in complete agreement with you. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
179 | Four False Prophesies of Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 174783 | ||
It's the Word of God. But now we're going in circles. Maybe you should move on. | ||||||
180 | Four False Prophesies of Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 174784 | ||
It's the Word of God. But now we're going in circles. Maybe you should move on. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [63] >> |