Results 181 - 200 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | John 9:1-12 and Job1-2 | John 9:1 | stjones | 71237 | ||
Hi, Pastor Paul; Thanks for the reply. What you say is true, but from what I've learned from parents who have lost a child, that child can never be replaced; the loss is permanent. I can't imagine, even given a different attitude toward children, what the loss of ten would have been like for Job, a man who obviously oved his children. I suspect, however, that there was a glorious reunion when Job finally did die. I can't prove that Job's children went to Heaven, but God showed in chapter 42 that he could honor Job's sacrifices made on hehalf of others. Given his new family, Job might have more descendants in Heaven than Abraham.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
182 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71160 | ||
Hi, One; This whole discussion started with Emmaus telling us that praying to Mary is nothing more than Caleb Catholic asking Mary to pray for him. We could have a lively discussion about whether or not Mary is in a position to hear and respond to such requests, but I don't think we would find a conclusive answer in the Bible. So I don't know if such requests are effective or not. Likewise, I might ask Peter Protestant to pray for me. He may do it; he may not. I don't know if my request was effective or not. Is God offended that I didn't just speak for myself? No. Can we show that Mary neither hears nor honors such requests? No. Can we show that God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit would be offended if she did hear and honor such requests? No. Can we show that such requests offend God? No. I suggest that we have the grace to allow Catholics to ask whomever they like to pray for them if we can't show that the person they choose is unacceptable to God. Maybe the problem is in the phrase "praying to Mary". Praying to God means speaking to God; praying to Mary means speaking to Mary. The "Hail Mary" (the only prayer to Mary I know of) doesn't say "forgive my sins" or "admit me to Heaven" or "heal me". It says "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". It asks for nothing more than a prayer to God on behalf of "us sinners". I can find no harm in that. Do some Catholics go too far? Of course. And there are Protestants who go overboard and focus on the Bible or spiritual gifts or prophecy or prosperity and so lose sight of God. The mere fact that some Christians misuse something doesn't make that thing bad; it's the misuse that's bad. So it is with praying to Mary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
183 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71154 | ||
Hi, Romans; I seem to have mistaken your intentions; if so, please accept my apologies. I have Catholic friends who show Christ in their lives much more lovingly and more completely than I or most of my Protestant friends do. And I know Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christians - the very embodiment of focusing on the mote in their brothers' eyes. By "taking Mary out of context" I meant attaching more importance or ascribing more power and authority to her than the Bible says she has. If Mary is the focus of your faith, that would be wrong. If you think it is Mary who forgives your sins, that would be wrong. If you think you can't talk directly to God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit but only through Mary, that would be wrong. If you give Mary the praise and glory for God's acts of grace and providence, that would be wrong. If you think that it is only Mary's prayer at the hour of your death that gains you admission to the Kingdom, that would be wrong. My understanding (and I'm no expert) is that none of these is "official" Catholic theology. If priests or parishoners teach or assume these things, then that is wrong. It sounds as if the situation in the Philippines is such a case. (But I don't have to go any further than my TV to see erroneous teaching that borders on heresy.) Now, if you revere Mary as the very important woman that Luke 1 says she was, if you believe she has eternal life, if you feel drawn to her as a friend, if you believe she can hear your prayers, if praying to her is just one aspect of a healthy relationship with God through Christ, then I still don't see a problem. For example, I can see nothing objectionable in the "Hail Mary". Most of it is straight out of Luke 1. The request, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." looks a little strange to my reformed eyes. It could certainly produce some interesting theological discussions, but I would hardly brand it as heresy. There is no doubt that praying to Mary could be a symptom of a grevious underlying error. I just don't see that it is an error in and of itself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
184 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71130 | ||
Hi, Romans; You have given examples of Catholics taking Mary out of context and losing perspective. This is a bad thing. But Christians of any denomination can be so taken by the things of God that they lose sight of God himself. I know Christians who revere the Bible more than they do God. I know Christians who worship works, who worship spiritual gifts, who worship prosperity. Shall we take away Bibles, works, gifts, prosperity? No one is lost or saved based on whether or not they pray to Mary. It is only one's relationship with God through Jesus that matters. The enemy has enough wedges to drive Christians apart. I see no need to wield one myself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
185 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71099 | ||
Hi, graceful; As I said, I don't think praying to Mary is harmful IF one keeps her in the proper perspective. I assume that any Christian knows who Jesus is and what his role is in both our daily and our eternal lives. I would never advocate (nor do I think Emmaus did) praying exclusively to Mary or mistaking her for our savior. Anyone - Catholic or otherwise - who puts his or her faith in Mary is making an eternal mistake. But that's not what Emmaus described. I would never criticize someone for praying to Mary, but I would try to help them see their error if they did not confess Christ and pray to God the Father as Jesus taught us. Too many times I have seen people use Catholics' reverence for Mary as a wedge to try to split them out of the body of Christ. (I am NOT accusing you or Steve of doing that!) I would be offended if someone told me I wasn't a Christian because in my church we frequently recite the Apostles' Creed. The creed is not found in the Bible and we are not told to use it. I see nothing wrong with it because we don't use it as a substitute for worshipping God but as an adjunct. And, in fact, it serves as a reminder of what the essential facts of the faith really are. Likewise I am offended when my Catholic brothers and sisters are criticized for adding a rather unique dimension to their faith walk. As I said, if it's the sole or most important ingredient, that's a problem. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
186 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71090 | ||
Hi, Steve; "Asking a dead person to pray for me is completely unreasonable" I'm inclined to agree. But the Gospel is pretty unreasonable too. Besides, I'd guess most Christians do lots of things in worship and prayer that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. If reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Westminster Confession offends God, I'll be mighty surprised. Penitent too. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
187 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71083 | ||
Hi, Steve; Emmaus' explanation - that Catholics simply ask Mary to pray for them as most of us ask our friends on earth to pray for us - seems reasonable enough. Intercessory prayer is both common and biblical; it doesn't displace Christ as our single mediator. I don't see any particular advantage in asking Mary or the departed saints to pray for me. But if Mary's extraordinary position ("blessed ... among women" and "the mother of my Lord", Luke 1:42-43) is rightly understood, I don't see any harm in it either. I don't believe that Jesus is offended when Catholics honor his mother. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
188 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 71029 | ||
Hi, AO; I'm sure there is no instance of a healing ordained by God failing his intention. We might think of Jesus' healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 as "failing" the first time, but I'm sure things went as Jesus intended and the man was ultimately healed. There is the instance in Matthew 17:14-20[21] of the disciples failing to cast out a demon but, again, the demon was ultimately cast out. So perhaps God's intention was briefly thwarted but it was finally achieved. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
189 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70780 | ||
Hi, AO; You've provided some well-reasoned speculation with many appeals to logic but few to Scripture. But let me focus on this statement: "the silence position does not explain why miraculous healing can not be conducted with 100 percent success today". I don't know what you mean by "success". If you mean that a healing is accomplished every time a human wills it to be so, then, no, it is not 100 percent successful now nor has it ever been. If you mean a healing is accomplished every time God ordains it then, yes, the success rate is no less than 100 percent. To answer your followup question 'Are sick children in our hospitals in the same basket as an "imagined Pharisee" demanding healing as a sign?' Ultimately, yes. They like we are fallen creatures in a fallen world. They have no guarantee of health and no hope for Heaven apart from Jesus. And if God wills any of them, Pharisee or hospitalized child, to be healed, they will be healed - 100 percent of the time. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
190 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70768 | ||
Hi, AO; "If God desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth, but knows that most will not, where is the contradiction?" There is no contradiction in what God has said. I simply cannot agree with your original assertion that "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation". The Bible does not say this. Paul says in Romans 1 that God's truth has always been evident. But nowhere does the Bible say that at some point in time the validity of God's word had become obvious throughout the world. As for healing, I agree that everyone we know of who requested healing (or had it requested by someone else) was healed. But you are still promoting an argument from silence. For example, the Bible provides no examples of Roman gladiators who were saved by faith in Christ. That doesn't prove that there are no retired Roman gladiators in Heaven; it proves that the Bible doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. Likewise, the Bible provides no examples of requests for healing being denied. That doesn't prove that none were denied; it proves that the Bible doesn't say anything about it one way or the other. It's easy to imagine a Pharisee striding up to Peter and demanding healing as a sign - perhaps a Pharisee whose demand for a sign Jesus had already refused. And it's easy to imagine Peter also declining. Did it happen? I don't know; it could have. The Bible doesn't say it did so I can't prove that it did. But the Bible doesn't say it didn't so you can't say that the Bible has ruled it out. That would be another argument from silence. It might make for an interesting discussion (or not), but it's nothing that we can draw any theological conclusions from. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
191 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70739 | ||
Hi, AO and Merry Christmas; IMHO, you're contradicting yourself. You have said that "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation." and "God's Word has gone into all the earth, yet still many disbelieve." If this is true and "God's hope is for all to be saved", then isn't there still a need for confirmation? I'm not suggesting that confirmation can only come from miraculous signs. I'm simply saying the need still exists, so you can't use its absence as proof that miraculous gifts no longer exist. I agree that there was 100 percent success in healing that was consistent with God's will - God cannot fail. But there is no evidence that all requests were granted. If the Bible records only instances where the answer to a request for healing was "yes", that does not prove that there were no instances where the answer was "no". Either there were no such instances or they weren't recorded - we don't know which. I'm as skeptical as anyone when I see a big-name faith healer on TV. I'm not sure what to make of people in an interdenominational setting speaking in a language that is unfamiliar to me. But I do know that God is not limited by reasonable inferences along the lines of "if A were true than we would expect B". If God chooses to heal someone through a TV faith-healer, he'll do it with 100 percent success. I don't think God is so predictable that I can confidently say he'll never make that choice. After all, could there have been a more surprising choice than Jesus? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
192 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | stjones | 70738 | ||
Hi, Joe; Thanks. Combining your comments with what I said earlier, I had another thought. This isn't theology; it's just a human trying to get his mind around Christmas. In the beginning, the Triune God was what he was - three persons in one in perfect harmony. Then God created humanity. Creation was a one-way act; God was still God but humans were something new. He lost nothing of himself by imbuing us with his spiritual nature. Then the first Christmas came and Jesus "stepped over the stars to Bethlehem and Jerusalem." Is not Jesus changed forever by becoming fully human? Are not the other two, God the Father and the Holy Spirit, changed as well? What love! The Creator has traversed creation in the opposite direction. He has incorporated his creation into himself. As a Christian, I think of God bestowing a part of his own nature on humanity. As a woodworker and computer geek, I think of "putting myself" into my work, making it uniquely my own. Now I realize that when I complete a project, it also becomes part of me - lessons learned, satisfaction received, the experience of creating. Before Creation, before there was any matter, God was infinite spirit. But now God has a finite, nail-scarred body. God entered time and space as a baby. He returned bodily to Heaven, bringing time and space with him. And by that act, he brings us, creatures of time and space, with him. "Praise Him in the heavens. Praise him in the stable. Praise Him in my heart." Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones (quotes from Joseph Bayley's "Psalms of My Life", "A Psalm for Christmas Eve") |
||||||
193 | Not my will, but Yours be done... | Luke 22:42 | stjones | 70701 | ||
Hi, Joe, and Merry Christmas; You said 'Oh, I agree that Jesus isn't saying He wouldn't do it; but it seems pretty clear that part of Him wasn't WANTING to do it -- at least not in this way. He prays that, if the Father is willing, the cup would pass from Him. God apparently says, "No."' The essence of obedience is doing what we don't want to do. The doctrine of the Trinity says that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are in some ways distinct while being unified in others. I suppose that Jesus' most distinct attribute is his humanity. Given the Bible's emphasis on Jesus' obedience, perhaps we can conclude that Jesus (fully human and fully God) and the Father (fully God) had "differences of opinion" arising from Jesus' humanity that would never escalate to the level of dispute or outright rebellion. This in turn leads me to speculate that the Holy Spirit is very much like Jesus minus the humanity. This might be supported by Paul's assertion in 1 Cor 2:16 that "we have the mind of Christ". Finally, I might speculate that the divine natures of the three persons of the Trinity are in perfect concert while Jesus' human nature adds a little unique salt to the whole. Just a little thinking at the keyboard as I prepare to celebrate his arrival in human form - a celebration made a little more meaningful to this father of daughters by the presence of my 11-week-old grandson. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
194 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70692 | ||
Hi, AO; A couple of questions: You said "Once it was obvious throughout the world that His word was the truth, there was no need for the confirmation." Is it obvious to 1.2 billion Muslims? "As an aside, if ... healing existed today there would be 100 percent sucess in curing the sick." How do you know? We don't know that there was ever 100 percent success; we can assume it based on silence, but it's still an assumption. I certainly agree that there seems to be far less evidence of some gifts today. But maybe that says more about the church's ability faithfully to use them than it does about God's gracious willingness to bestow them. Not looking to start a big dispute - I just get nervous when people confidently say that God has ceased the exercise of his grace in this way or that. Peace and grace - and Merry Christmas Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
195 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69239 | ||
Hi, retxar; Thanks for the note of encouragement. When asked if I would serve, I agreed immediately because I was confident that the nominating committee was composed of godly people who had discerned God's will. I'm looking forward to serving him in a new capacity. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
196 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69218 | ||
Hi, Hank; Thanks for your good wishes. I'm afraid I may have sounded prideful or overly confident of my election. I should have said that I'm on a slate of candidates proposed by the nominating commitee. While nominations are accepted from the floor, I've never seen one offered. In my experience, the slate has always been elected unanimously. I guess that reflects either apathy or general agreement on the committee's work. I hope it's the latter. ;-) Indy |
||||||
197 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69185 | ||
Hi, Hank; Synods are still around in the PC(USA) though I'm not clear on their function. They seem to serve as a middle organizational layer between the 170 or so presbyteries and the national denomination. I'm due to be elected an Elder next Sunday so I'm sure I'll find out more during my training prior to ordination. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
198 | Churches | Phil 3:3 | stjones | 69143 | ||
Hi, Ray; Just FYI, I don't think any Presbyterian denomination santions ordination of practicing homosexuals for any office - Deacon, Elder, or Minister. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has a problem with a few defiant churches and presbyteries who have chosen to ignore ordination standards. The PC(USA) specifically requires either fidelity in heterosexual marriage or chastity in singleness. This has been affirmed by the General Assembly several times. The liberals don't like it, but that's their problem - one among many. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
199 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68943 | ||
Joe; Nice catch. Indy |
||||||
200 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68684 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; In the end, we always measure the words posted here against what the Bible says, not what the poster claims the Bible says. When my intellect gets beyond what the Bible teaches, there's always someone here to humble me. The ones most likely to make me reconsider are those who, over time, have demonstrated, first, wisdom concerning the character of God, and second, Biblical knowledge. (Agreement on doctrine is a distant third.) It's interesting that nearly all of that group (including you, brother) have chimed in on this thread. One can only hope that Don would recognize and avail himself of the collective wisdom in this discussion. Or at least the humor. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [25] >> |