Results 161 - 180 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Effect of Christian Universalism ? | John 14:6 | stjones | 92465 | ||
Hey, John, take it easy on the faithful remnant in the PC(USA). There are many congregations fighting to right the ship. If we depart, there will be thousands of immature Christians left behind to be swallowed up by the liberals who infest our denomination. Afer all, Paul didn't tell the faithful Galations to abandon the church he planted to the Judaizers and go start a new one; he told them to stay and fight. But to be honest, that's what I think this week. Last week I was ready to bail out myself. It's a terribly difficult decision; I know the founding members of neither the OPC nor the PCA found it easy. I can really sympathize with what our Anglican brothers and sisters are facing now. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
162 | Can true Christians lose their faith? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 88578 | ||
Greetings, yampa78; I don't whether or not "true Christians" can lose their faith. As the replies to your question illustrate, this is a question that Christians have debated for centuries and are likely to continue doing so. I for one am quite comfortable not knowing the answer. Why? Because I'm the only "true Christian" I know. Outrageous! Please bear with me. I know lots of people who certainly seem to be true Christians, people whom I am about 99 percent sure are true Christians, people whose judgment and wisdom I trust - but not quite as much I trust Jesus and his word. There is no one on Earth whose ideas or opinions in spiritual matters I would accept in contradiction to the Bible. So I can't tell you whose name is written in the Lamb's book of life. Yours? Hank's? AO's? Charles Templeton's? Others? Don't know; can't say. I can only tell you with absolute certainty that mine is but should you believe me? No. Are there contradictions in the Bible? It sometimes seems so. But nothing in the Bible contradicts the Gospel. If the numbers in Numbers don't seem to add up, does that mean that Jesus is any less the Son of God, any less my savior? Hardly. I love the Bible; I study it and I sometimes teach it; I even get to preach on it occasionally. But make no mistake - I don't believe in Jesus because I believe in the Bible; I believe in the Bible because I believe in Jesus. I think maybe some of the people you cited put their faith in the wrong place - in the Bible, not in Jesus himself. The Bible points to Jesus from beginning to end. But what's more valuable - the treasure or the map? Jesus is the treasure; the Bible's greatest value to me is that it describes the treasure and shows how to find it. See 2 Timothy 3:14-17. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
163 | Why are some ancestors not listed? | Matthew | stjones | 87388 | ||
Agreed. - Indy |
||||||
164 | Why are some ancestors not listed? | Matthew | stjones | 87377 | ||
Hi, EdB; Thanks for the reply. It may be that Matthew was commenting on the perfection and symmetry of God's plan - something much more important than the genealogy of a man, Joseph, who was not Jesus' genetic father anyway. God is superior to and larger than his creation (even though his creation is currently less than what he created). Similarly, his plan of reconciliation through a covenant stretching from his calling of Abraham to his gift of Jesus is superior to and larger than mere generations of men. If the human numbers don't work out quite right, what does it matter? God's plan is still perfect. Perhaps Mattew's message was that in all things, we must conform our understanding of this imperfect world to God's perfect plan. We must never (as happens so frequently in mainline denominations like mine) conform God's perfection to the reality of this fallen world. Counting Jeconiah twice may have been Matthew's way of conforming the reality of this world to the greater reality of God's perfect nature. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
165 | Why are some ancestors not listed? | Matthew | stjones | 87373 | ||
The third list consists of only 13: (1) Abraham; (2) Isaac; (3) Jacob; (4) Judah; (5) Perez; (6) Hezron; (7) Ram; (8) Amminadab; (9) Nahshon; (10) Salmon; (11) Boaz; (12) Obed; (13) Jesse; (14) King David (1) Solomon; (2) Rehoboam; (3) Abijah; (4) Asa; (5) Jehoshaphat; (6) Jehoram; (7) Uzziah; (8) Jotham; (9) Ahaz; (10) Hezekiah; (11) Manasseh; (12) Amon; (13) Josiah; (14) Jeconiah (1) Shealtiel; (2) Zerubbabel; (3) Abiud; (4) Eliakim; (5) Azor; (6) Zadok; (7) Akim; (8) Eliud; (9) Eleazar; (10) Matthan; (11) Jacob; (12) Joseph; (13) Jesus It doesn't help to consider a "generation" to be a father-son pair either: (1) Abraham-Isaac ... (14) King David-Solomon (1) Solomon-Rehoboam ... (14) Jeconiah-Shealtiel (1) Shealtiel-Zerubbabel ... (12) Joseph-Jesus; (13) Jesus- I'm not certain why Matthew "exagerated" the third set, but it did produce a nice, symmetrical grouping of numbers significant to Jews. We can't say that he tried to fool anyone, since the names are right there to count. My assumption is that he was making a point that is somewhat lost on us modern Westerners rather than that he missed a generation in the third list or that he was trying to mislead. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
166 | Biblical support for your statements | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 86162 | ||
Greetings; You said: "... it is hard to understand how Christian people who claim to be civilized to such an extent that they would not tolerate parents roasting their children in an oven, or roasting or otherwise practicing cruelty to dumb animals, and who claim to have too much love in their own hearts to torture their own children in fire, no matter what the children would do, can truly worship, reverence and love a God who they claim is not even up to their own standards of civilization and love and compassion, and who they claim will eternally torture and torment the great bulk of His human creatures." Very smooth; very glib. But this distortion of God's character reveals more about your beliefs than anything else you've posted. You reduce God to the level of humans and then judge him by human standards. If by "Christian people" you mean Christians, I can assure that this Christian does no such thing. Christians accept God's absolute sovereignty, his perfect righteousness, and his perfect love. In faith, they seek to understand God's wrath within the context of his sovereignty, righteousness, and love. They don't put him in a box and judge him as you have done. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
167 | Friends smoking cigars, bad or not? | Rom 14:21 | stjones | 86047 | ||
Hi, Extol_Him; I don't think the Bible tells us that smoking cigars is intrinsically bad. Like any other of life's pleasures (food, married sex, hobbies), keeping one's priorities straight and maintaining balance are the keys. Two things are troubling, however. 1) If you're in the US, your under-18 friends and the buyer were probably breaking the law. The Bible is not ambiguous about that: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Rom 13:1-2) 2) I can't imagine what kind of rationalization "for the taste' not the feeling" might be. Either way, they were seeking a pleasurable sensation and seeking to justify it. Again, pleasure is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but looking for an excuse usually means you know what you're doing is wrong. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
168 | Jesus battle w/devil for heaven | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 83745 | ||
Hi, Anna Marie; I think you'll find (if you read your Bible) that Jesus defeated Satan twice. The first time was in the wilderness when Jesus withstood Satan's temptations (and his company!) for 40 days. The second time was the resurrection when he took away the only real weapon Satan has - death. There is nothing in the Bible about a "battle" between Jesus and Satan. Jesus simply conformed to his Father's will, effectively ignoring Satan. He defeated Satan without firing a shot. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
169 | Why use the ambiguous word "Temperate"? | 1 Tim 3:2 | stjones | 83715 | ||
My electronic Thayers defines nephalios: "1) sober, temperate 1a) abstaining from wine, either entirely or at least from its immoderate use 1b) of things free from all wine, as vessels, offerings" from nephos: "1) to be sober, to be calm and collected in spirit 2) to be temperate, dispassionate, circumspect" So it may not be as clear cut as you suppose. And the translators may be more honest than you give them credit for. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
170 | William Marrion Branham | Rom 3:4 | stjones | 82534 | ||
Hi, CDBJ; I'm confident the Pope is a Christian who has read the Bible. Branham is suspect on both counts. Indy |
||||||
171 | William Marrion Branham | Rom 3:4 | stjones | 82526 | ||
Hello again, tjkathiresan; You're asking me take Branham as authoritative when to do so contradicts the Bible. The Bible IS the word of God; Branham simply CLAIMS to speak for God - no proof from the word of God is given. If you could provide any Biblical support for your claims that all good fortune-tellers are prophets, or that the Bible can't actually be understood by ordinary people, I might be more receptive. Of course I believe the words of Peter and Paul; the Bible tells me who they were and where their authority comes from. The Bible tells me nothing about Branham (although does tell me a great deal about people who claim to be prophets or who preach a new gospel). Just out of curiosity, have ever read the Bible? or just the New Testament? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
172 | The tomb is empty! | Matt 28:6 | stjones | 82525 | ||
Amen, fran1947; amen. | ||||||
173 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 82524 | ||
Hi, Ed; You raise some good questions. I have to wonder if Peter and Paul had disagreements with the wisdom and authority they posessed, how could we, 2000 years later, not? I agree with you about the labels. I'm an elder in a Presbyterian church, so I guess that makes me a Calvinist. But I'm just a teensy bit Arminian. Call me a Calvinist, call me an Arminian, as long as Jesus calls me his, I don't mind. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
174 | Prophet For This Age | Rom 3:4 | stjones | 81803 | ||
Hello, tjkathiresan; You said "Can u show me one prophecy that is failed that was spoken by William Branham." Well, he "predicted" that America would be destroyed in 1977. I guess he said that without the approval of his personal angel, so he couldn't claim to "prophesy" it. But it doesn't really matter. You said "Bible cannot be understand spiritually and the secrets of the bible cannot be understand by all the people." That contradicts what the Bible itself says. The Bible is given to all God's people, not just to a few who claim to know its "secrets". If that came from Mr. Branham then he is a false prophet - in other words, a liar. You claim that "u have to accept him as a prophet and his message". No, I'm sorry; I am under no obligation to believe anything he said. You may be correct that is very good at predicting the future. Paul encountered a slave girl in Phillipi who was good at predicting the future too, but she was no prophet. See Acts 16:16-18. Indeed, the Bible is full of diviners, sorcerers, magicians, and charlatans who serve Satan, not God. I will tell you frankly that if Mr. Branham's "prophecies" contradict the Bible, he is one of them. He seems not have paid much attention to the Bible, relying instead on the voices of "spirits"; it's not hard to guess who sent them. I pray that you will put your faith in Jesus alone, revealed in Scripture, and not in any earthly "prophet". Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
175 | The tomb is empty! | Matt 28:6 | stjones | 81783 | ||
The tomb is empty! Blessings to all this joyous morning! We discuss many things on this forum and we sometimes disagree passionately. But let us all agree with greater passion this morning: Jesus Christ is risen; he is risen indeed! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
176 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81782 | ||
Hi, Ed; I sometimes wonder if the unity that Christ referred to extends to unity of church organizations. God has been pretty consistent in organizing humans internally, not externally. The nation of Israel existed before and after there was a geopolitical entity by that name. Likewise the Kingdom of God is not now a physical entity. I don't think the body of Christ is an external organization either. Our identity as members of that body is internal. Every church has wolves in sheeps' clothing who on the outside appear to be members of the body but internally are not. I don't think God has a problem with denominations; I think God has a problem with denominations fighting among themselves. I think God has a problem with denominations that teach doctrines that contradict his Word, not with denominations that see differences in understanding what the Word says. I agree that it is wrong for denomination or doctrines to contradict the Word. But if there were just one possible way to understand the Bible, this forum wouldn't exist - or it would be very boring. Indeed, your assertion that "we believe in the literal acceptance of the Bible or not" is a statement of doctrine, one with which I disagree. I think we vary in the extent to which we interpret the Bible literally. Of course, you and I have disagreed on this in the past, so I don't suppose that we'll agree now. But here's something I know we agree on: the tomb is empty! As we'll sing in worship later this morning, "Christ the Lord is risen today. Allelujah!" Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
177 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 81781 | ||
Hi, Ray; Sorry for the long delay in responding. I am inclined to think that many instances of uncapitalized "spirit" are cases where the Holy Spirit is described but not named. For example, I may refer to Joe Pastor as the "pastor from First Presbyterian", or the "pastor from the church across the street", or "my pastor". They all refer to the same person but no capitalization is necessary in three of the cases. They are informal titles, not names. Likewise, I'm inclined to think that the "spirit of truth" and "God's spirit" are informal titles for the person whose name is the Holy Spirit. When Paul speaks of "a man's spirit within him", that is another case of a generic "spirit" not referring to a particular spirit by name. But I think that's just a general rule. Each case needs to be decided by the context - a good study, I would think. But that reaises another question. God is spirit. Is there a part of him that is not spirit? If so, it makes sense to refer to God's spirit apart from God himself. if God is pure spirit, then his spirit is himself with his many names. If God is pure spirit, then it seems "God's sprit" would refer to a spirit apart from God in some sense. I think the most like candidates (again determined by context) are (1) the Holy Spirit, who is both unified with and distinct from God the Father, and (2) the spirit that God gives to each person (Ecclesiastes 12:7) BTW, I have to disagree with your intrepretation of Luke 11:20. The word "finger" used in other contexts just means "finger" - i.e. Jesus writing with his finger in John 8:6, or criticizing lawyers in Luke 11:46 for not touching their own burdens with so much as a finger. I think Jesus was just saying that it takes very little effort for God to drive out a demon. This is an interesting discussion, but I am reminded that, in light of the event we are celebrating today, not life-changing. Hallelujah! He is risen! Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
178 | Knowing God's Secret | Rom 3:4 | stjones | 81768 | ||
Greetings, tjkathiresan; You said "God reveals his secrets only to his servants who are prophets.prophets only can explain or reveal all the secrets." Are you suggesting that the Bible cannot be understood without the assistance of a prophet? Surely not - the Bible says otherwise: "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:12-16) If you're talking about a secret that is not revealed in the Bible, how would anyone know that the "prophet" was telling the truth? This is a question that Mormons and Muslims should ask themselves. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
179 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81406 | ||
Hi, Ed; Sorry; probably shouldn't have jumped in the middle since I agree that any label beyond "Christian" should be superfluous. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who identify themselves as "Christians", naming themselves after a Christ not found in the Bible. I find myself having to identify myself as an "evangelical Christian" to distinguish myself from the Modernists who mold God and Jesus into their own likenesses. My point was just that doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing for the reasons I gave. Given that, I don't think denominations are necessarily a bad thing either. Disunity in the Body of Christ arises when people think their doctrine is the only doctrine or when they think their denomination is the Body. Of course, disunity also arises when evangelicals and modernists find themselves in the same denomination (mine, for example) discussing doctrine. But that can happen in a local house church too, so it's no condemnation of denominations. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who is a Presbyterian but not necessarily a Calvinist |
||||||
180 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | stjones | 81360 | ||
Hi, Ed; Since the Bible does not mention "dispensations", I assume you consider dispensationalism heretical as well. There are pre-millenialists, post-millenialists, and a-millenialists, all of them believing that they took the whole Word and rightly divided it. It seems that at least two groups must be heretical; maybe they all are. God did not give us a theological treatise. He gave us a story. Most doctrines (and most discussions on this forum) result from finite humans trying to understand the infinite mind behind the story. This isn't just an intellectual exercise. The Bible does not tell us how to behave in every situation. One of the reasons the Pharisees got into trouble was that instead of developing a theology - an organized set of principles that might guide people - they came up with rules. One problem with this approach is that every new situation requires a new rule. Grace makes it even harder - how am I to understand and apply the law of the new covenant that God has placed in my mind and written on my heart? (Jeremiah 31:33) Theology and doctrine simply try to organize the events and words of God's story into consistent principles. Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Knox, Wesley, all simply tried to find a way to organize the truth revealed in the Bible - organize it, not alter it. Calvin's TULIP doctrine is distasteful to many people but it is derived only from the Bible, not from any other source, and not from Calvin's imagination. Jesus told me to love my neighbor. That doesn't help me to choose between sacrificial love and tough love in a specific circumstance - Jesus exhibited both at various times. It's fine to disparage doctrine, but every time you offer a panhandler a meal instead of the dollar he asked for, you are applying doctrine of your own or someone else's making. If you tithe 10 percent because you believe that God commands it, you are applying doctrine. If you celebrate Easter or Christmas or sing a Fanny Crosby hymn in church, you are applying doctrine. With TULIP, Calvin did not change the gospel; he harmonized it with the rest of the Bible. I doubt he got it right, but it's not heresy. Much of what I see on Christian TV today comes a lot closer to heresy than Calvin did. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who got most of his doctrine from C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [33] >> |