Results 181 - 200 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224851 | ||
Inquisitor, (I received an error first time I tried to post this, forgive me if it double posts.) Here is some further posts from some saints wiser than I. The Belgic Confession The Doctrine of Original Sin (Article 15) We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race. It is a corruption of all nature - an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring. Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy - not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the "body of this death." 1689 Baptist Confession Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof (Chapter 6) 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 3. They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. 5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (end quotes) On that last line when he says, "yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin" what that is saying is that not only is the actions we take sin, but also this defiled nature that prompts us on and causes us to long for sin is itself sin and therefore worthy of condemnation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
182 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224852 | ||
I'll reply to my own post to save annoyance. Here is something Calvin wrote in the Intitutes of the Christian Religion. Book 2, Chapter 8, section 2. He speaks here concerning the ideas of our own inability from whatever reason being an inadiquate defense against judgement from God. "And we cannot pretend the excuse that we lack ability and, like impoverished debtors, are unable to pay. It is not fitting for us to measure God's glory according to our ability; for whatever we may be, he remains always like himself: the friend of righteousness, the foe of iniquity. Whatever he requires of us (because he can require only what is right), we must obey out of natural obligation. But what we cannot do is our own fault. If our lust in which sin reigns so holds us bound that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no reason why we should claim necessity as a defense, for the evil of that necessity is both within us and to be imputed to us." The idea here is that somebody might say that if we are unable to obey then we can not be blamed. Calvin's response is to say that the very fact that you are so wicked that you are incapable of obeying is not reason for your pardon, but reason for your destruction. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
183 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224857 | ||
Ariel and thread, Just as a point of clarification where I stand, I don't actually think that infants who die are without hope. I do believe there is such a thing as an age of accountability even though I can't prove it conclusively through scripture. However, the main point I want to get across is this: If infants who die are indeed saved, even then it is because of GRACE, not because they are righteous. Anyways, I don't put that forward to disagree with you but rather to make sure I haven't mislead the readers as to where I stand. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
184 | Why the children? | Num 33:55 | Beja | 224885 | ||
Inquisitor, The verses you posted in 224842 don't actually say anything regarding the innocence of children. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
185 | Tempted to neglect God by those near us. | Deut 13:8 | Beja | 226237 | ||
Take heed of a snare in your bosom. This is one of the Devil's great subtleties, to hinder us from religion by our nearest relations, and to shoot us with our own rib. he tempted Adam by his wife, Gen. iii. 6. Who would have suspected the Devil there?...Take heed of such tempters; resolve to hold on your violence for heaven, though your carnal friends dissuade you. Tis better to go to Heaven with their hatred, then to Hell with their love. -Thomas Watson Deu 13:6-10 "If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known,of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. |
||||||
186 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213689 | ||
Kcabm14, I hardly know where to begin, though I'm certain where to end. First let me point out the root of your error in this specific instance. You first are reading into the scripture. Deuteronomy 22:5 says specifically this, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." Now, that is exactly what it says. Where in that do you see pants mentioned? Nowhere. Nor does it go on to clarify what those clothing articles might be. It leaves it completely blank. All we know with certainty is that a woman's clothing is off limits for a man, and a man's clothing is off limits for a woman. Nowhere does it identify any single article as specific to either a man or woman such as pants. So where shall we determine that from? It is specific to the culture to where the gospel travels. In this case the norm for society (within reason) determines what clothing is gender specific. You are bringing the presuposition that pants are male only. This presuposition is wrong even though it may have been true a century ago. Why does a Christian not have an obligation to cling to the standards of a century ago? Because it is purely incidental to morality. Nudity and lust are not incidental, but things such as pants, the color pink, are incidental. To go from this to the accusation that the church should let society establish its morality is absolutely rediculous and to suggest that I am making that suggestion from this arguement shows a shameful lack in reluctance to judge another man's servant. I'm not angry in the least at your suggesting this, my sterness in writing this is that I see in you this passage: "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Tim 1:3-7 I hold no animosity towards you, I have no anger or frustration towards you, but you really need to turn from such speculative, unedifying issues. In Love, Beja |
||||||
187 | who are the prophets in Eph 2:20 | 1 Sam 19:20 | Beja | 231871 | ||
1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 2Co 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2Co 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. 2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. Failing to see the glory of God in the face of Christ and what he has done in Christ is but a confession of ongoing blindness. It should spur our compassion, pity and prayers rather than debate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
188 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224695 | ||
Inquisitor, You took a verse in Galatians and also Acts 15 and came to the conclusion that God doesn't want to micro-manage the details of how we do church, rather he just wants us to figure it out. This took some good bit of speculation and doesn't agree with the rest of scripture. I'll let Doc answer for himself but that's just what jumped out at me. How you go there was not exegesis but rather imagination. Jas 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
189 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224698 | ||
Inquisitory, I'm very sorry, I meant for my post to be in response to post 224677, reread my post in light of your statements in that thread and perhaps what I said will make some actual sense this time. Sorry 8-) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
190 | does this refer to exodus or creation? | Ps 18:1 | Beja | 224520 | ||
vnct blzn, I think the key here is to recognize that this is poetry, not history. We don't accuse poetry of falsehood or deception because it describes things in over the top ways. For example if in a poem where I had been jilted I wrote something along the lines of... "You have torn out my heart yet I can not hate you. All my life has been reduced to ruins and ashes for the loss of you." NONE of that actually happened. She did not pull my heart out of my chest, nothing has been burned. Yet you would not read my poem then stand up and say, "Wait! That didn't happen!." Because you would understand that this is poetry and that such standards are not the realm of poetry. We need to realize the Psalm in question is poetry. David is speaking of God delivering him in over the top ways. To do such when writing poetry isn't error, falsehood, or being deceitful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
191 | United States in Scripture? | Ps 82:8 | Beja | 227021 | ||
Holmes, I find myself unable to understand what it is exactly that you are suggesting in your post. The closest I can come to any kind of assertion is that perhaps you are hinting at 2 Sam 7:10 being fulfilled by USA? Can you clarify what you are suggesting? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
192 | United States in Scripture? | Ps 82:8 | Beja | 227026 | ||
Holmes, You state that you are suggesting nothing, and that the scriptures simply speak for themselves. But obviously you have something in mind. You think that there is some reason that the scriptures you are posting have to do with the question being asked. Why not post some scriptures on the ten commandments? Or perhaps the sermon on the mount? Because they have nothing to do with the question. Why not post things said about Babylon in the book of Revelation? Because you don't believe babylon is the answer. You are posting these verses for some reason. If you wish to leave it with what you've said, that's fine. However, there is no reason to pretend you have no view point. I only wish you'd help us understand what you are trying to say. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
193 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241110 | ||
Sharsmit, Absolutely. Israel is a masculine noun, so it is grammatically necessary for it to be a masculine pronoun. Anytime you see Israel referred to in a feminine sense is purely for poetical reasons when she is meant to be portrayed as God's bride or something along that nature. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
194 | Wasn't yesterday better than today? | Eccl 7:10 | Beja | 232791 | ||
Doc, I recently heard a preacher say that all are equally dead, but we'll grant that the corpses may have different stages of decay. I rather liked that analogy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
195 | Bible Referencing Divine Knowledge | Is 14:1 | Beja | 229837 | ||
Themerv, I have had some further thoughts that might help your paper, two passages and a suggestion that might lend a layer of power and purpose to your paper. Here is passage that would be a wonderful example of what you are trying to show. 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 gives instance of Paul receiving a vision of things that he describes as not lawful to utter. Further, he is given a "thorn in the flesh" to humble him in light of having seen such things. Now as far as the thesis of your paper, I have had quite a bit of practice in what makes for a strong paper and I have had too much practice in writing weak papers. A weak paper will only observe something. A strong paper will make an assertion. An outstanding paper will make an assertion that matters. Here is how I would advise you to focus the paper. Use this verse to drive it... Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." I reccomend that you continue the corse of showing the restricted nature of certain divine knowledge, but go beyond that. Study and show not just half the equation, but show where scripture actually takes that. Show not just what scripture says not to do, how scripture teaches us not to pry into the hidden, but show how we ARE to diligently persue the revealed will of God. If you go that course now your paper has gone from just showing something and then saying "well...hope this was relevant in some way" to having your paper show "here is what scripture strongly pushes us away from, but here is what knowledge we are commanded to persue." Your paper will go to being something that is relevant for life, edifying for the church, compelling in nature and yet you still get to pursue your intended subject. In addition to all this you will be able to find many good scholarly references both recent and ancient if you search the subjects of "God's hidden and revealed will." Many great minds have discussed this topic, and interacting with and quoting great thinkers strengthens a paper. May God bless you as you persue these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
196 | Greetings to all on this Lord's Holy Day | Is 58:13 | Beja | 224384 | ||
findrichard, You are trying very hard to start an arguement on the forums over this. I ask you again, please don't come here trying to start a debate on your pet issue. That is not what the forums are for but rather for sincere inquiries and study, not a place to come argue and evangelize for your sabbatarian views. Part of the terms of use which you agreed to is that you agree to not push your denominational views that cause strife. In fact, let me copy and paiste some for you. "Pushing ones own personal and denominational views Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary." The insistence of meeting on saturday rather than sunday is exactly this type of thing, and you have been plainly asked by your peer to cease. Please respect our host enough to follow their wishes. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
197 | Greetings to all on this Lord's Holy Day | Is 58:13 | Beja | 224421 | ||
findrichard, I intend this post in kindness in hopes that we can perhaps reverse the effects of our initial disagreements in hopes for a happy long stay at these forums resulting in mutual edification. I hope you take the post as such. I want you to know that we here at these forums are not hostile towards differing opinions. If somebody were to come on these forums and to say with all sincerity that they had been raised and/or taught from a sabbatarian perspective and that they sincerely did not understand why it was that most of the Christian world felt that sunday was the appropriate day of worship and that they would love to hear how such a view point is balanced with scripture, then I think you would have found us to be a rather willing lot. Such an approach would have involved a very open admission to your own pressupositions and invited a polite discussion. However, in your original post to the forums you rather approached in a scolding tone and asked this, "Why do we ignore clear scripture and accept assumptions about other scripture as facts in order to validate custom?" Do you see how that question is quite a different thing? It is not the type of question asked when one wishes to sincerely learn or be informed, but is more akin to throwing down a challenge. Unfortunately, in our experience when individuals usually come with such an opening post, they have one issue they wish to fight about and have a very short and hostile stay. I hope this isn't the case with you, but it is the norm with such posters. Then your next broaching of the subject was again, not a sincere question seeking honest discussion, but rather a way of again bringing it up and posting scripture you felt we should hear. If you hold to this view then fine and well. If you wish to openly ask a question with regards to it then fine and well. But what has caused our reaction is that you have not done this, you have made these posts not in the spirit of discussion which is the intentions of these forums, but rather to simply post your view and then give verses why it is everybody should accept it. In other words in your posts regarding the sabbath you are asking nothing, only trying to teach where we have NOT asked. This is the issue. It leads only to conflict and that is why it is against the TOU. If simply this changes I think you will find us more than welcoming. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
198 | Does Is.66:23 mean sabbath still stands? | Is 66:23 | Beja | 232441 | ||
Elder, I don't think there is any way that Hebrews 4 is speaking of the weekly sabbath. The context of the passage makes that interpretation basically impossible due to statements such as: Heb 4:1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. and Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; Heb 4:5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Heb 4:6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, We could go on unpacking the context to show that referring to the weekly jewish sabbath makes absolutely no sense in the context. Rather what the writer was discussing is the eternal final rest of God's people which the weekly sabbath pointed to. However, this does not at all show that the sabbath is done away with. It merely is to say that Hebrews 4 does not at all address the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
199 | Scripture dealing with depression | Jeremiah | Beja | 226019 | ||
Eklematke, There is some sound godly advice in what Doc has said. The heart of it goes to this question, what if they are depressed because they are lost and under the wrath of God, and they are needing to be taught of faith and repentence and yet we simply shout out, "All is well!" What then have we done if they believe us? They will smile and feel better and go out from us still in a lost state. So there is some dange in always giving the answer, "Don't worry, God is for you!" to all problems. We must inquire as to where the problem is coming from. It may be that quite different verses are needed. Perhaps verses that confirm that they are in a lost state in need of the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus. But so that you know he spoke godly council to you rather than his own opinion, here is a verse that shows you that such hesitancy in answering is indeed scriptural. Pro 18:13 He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him. And here is scripture condemning the unfounded speaking of God's favor upon people. Jer 23:16-22 Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep saying to those who despise Me, 'The LORD has said, "You will have peace"'; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, 'Calamity will not come upon you.' But who has stood in the council of the LORD, That he should see and hear His word? Who has given heed to His word and listened? Behold, the storm of the LORD has gone forth in wrath, Even a whirling tempest; It will swirl down on the head of the wicked. The anger of the LORD will not turn back Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart; In the last days you will clearly understand it. I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, Then they would have announced My words to My people, and would have turned them back from their evil way and from the evil of their deeds." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
200 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233218 | ||
EdB, I'm somewhat surprised at what you are saying. Perhaps we mean different things when we say the term "sola scriptura." Might I ask what it is exactly that you would suggest that the term means which is not scriptural? It would be a shame for a debate to happen if in reality I also would join you in rejecting what YOU mean by the term and at the same time you would affirm what I mean by the term. I would say: 1. Scripture is the very word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 2. As such it is inerrant in the original. 3. It holds complete authority over our lives. 4. It is sufficient for all things needful for the saint for life and godliness. (2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim 3:16 again). 5. It is the boundary of our understanding which we are not to go beyond in speculating. Therefore anything granted to us by wonderful saints later must be merely a shedding of light on the word of God so that we understand it more clearly, because going beyond it is forbidden. 1 Cor 4:6 Now perhaps with discussion I would affirm more points but those are the ones which come to mind immediately. What say you? What does "sola scriptura" affirm and which part of it is unscriptural? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [26] >> |