Results 181 - 200 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232823 | ||
elder4yhwh, Scripture is not always referring to the same thing when it uses the term "law." What passage do you have in mind? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
182 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232829 | ||
Doc, Its ok, you provided a good exegisis of my one line answer! :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
183 | Romans in the light of Jonah does it say | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232835 | ||
Yes. We have had an exposition of that. And afterwards you and I agreed it was best for us not to speak any further on these forums. Now you continue to press of an explination of my view from others immediately after that agreement. Do you think that is fair? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
184 | Is it wrong to self-please (masturbate) | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232854 | ||
Magie, I think using the search function on this topic would be helpful of for you. I think this question has been asked many times before. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
185 | we r living together but r not married.. | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232860 | ||
Magie, This is what scripture would call sexual immorality. It is a sin and should be repented of. 1 John 3:6 and Ephesians 5:5. With regards to loosing salvation, scripture teaches that anybody whom God saves will remained saved. But to be saved we must repent of our sins. Furthermore, scripture teaches that true repentance is an ongoing repentance. This is not to say that saved individuals will not make mistakes, but rather that a person indwell in the spirit of God will not be able to continue in sin without being convicted deeply and actually repenting from the sin. Further, I would like to ask if you attend a church? This is very important. All of your questions involve an inquiry as to what is basic christian morality. I do not point this out to belittle you or make you feel unwelcome on the forum. You are quite welcome here. However, this forum will never be able to successful serve the function in your life which God intended a local church to serve. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
186 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232891 | ||
elder4yhwh, Let me first confess my fears to you and then I will point you to answers. Now my fear is that you do not ask this question in sincerity. What I mean is that you ask me which laws he has fulfilled or done away with and you don't truly want to learn anything from any answer I might give. Rather that you think to be asking an impossible question and thus from the impossibility of answering it you have proven your point that such a notion is nonsense. Now I do not accuse you of this, I am simply afraid it could be the case. So here is how I shall answer your question, I shall point you to the answers and if you are willing to pursue them you shall have your answers. But if you are asking only in attempts to prove a point, then I will have no waisted my time arguing about it. 1.) First, you need to have a right understanding about what Christ has done. When we say that due to the work of Christ we are no longer under the law, we don't mean to say that the law is no longer a picture of righteousness any longer. We simply mean that our acceptance or condemnation before God is no longer based upon our fulfillment of the law for those who are in Christ. So due to what Christ has done and my partaking of the benefits via faith, I no longer am accepted or rejected by God based upon whether I have committed adultery. What we DO NOT mean is that I am now free to commit adultery. We do not hold to antinomianism, or lawlessness. The moral law remains our sure guide to right and wrong and rightly restrains wickedness. Now this could have a lot more to be said about it. Namely that Paul goes through lengths to show that the Spirit is the driving force of righteousness in Christians rather than the law. However, I simply want to assert that Christ has freed us from the covenant of the law, not the expectation of the law. I point you to a book called "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" to learn more about this. This book is a very easy and enjoyable read. I do not wish to push you to accept every doctrinal thought the author holds, but it very much helps to get the broad concept of being free from the law as a covenant while still holding to the law as the picture of righteousness fit to instruct the saints and sincerely obey. Oh, this book is available online in its entirety for free. 2.) Now we rightly say that some things have passed away entirely due to Christ having fulfilled them. And this point is more to what you are pressing for an answer on. I point you to John Calvin in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion." He deals with this very well. He will expound upon concepts such as the moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects of the old testament law. I think he rightly teaches it. So I offer these two sources for you. If you truly wish to know the answers to your questions, you will do well to pursue your answers in these sources. If you are in truth not seeking answers, but rather have begun this thread asking a question only to start a debate over a topic which you previously were quite convinced of your own position, and rather than seeking an answer were really only trying to engage in a discussion to sway others, then I suspect you will continue debating in this thread while putting out no effort to look into these books. I wish you well in your study. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
187 | can i find out who my gaurdian angel is | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232991 | ||
pumpkin7471, Scripture tells us nothing regarding these things. There are only two passages to my knowledge that seem to hint at the possibility of gaurdian angels. Dan 12:1 and Matthew 18:10. With regard to the type of specificity which you are asking about, scripture gives us no hints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
188 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233176 | ||
I knew this thread looked familiar! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v[equal]sShMA85pv8M You'll have to replace [equal] with an actual equal sign for the link to work. I think it best we accept that no verses are forthcoming, friends. Just my 2 cents. :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
189 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233623 | ||
EmethAlethia, I admire your post very much. First, I admire it because I can see you are very much first and foremost trying to understand scripture, and fewer question than we would like have this starting point. Second, I love your post because you clearly are willing to follow wherever scripture takes you on this question despite it seeming to lead you towards an answer you no doubt realize will be unpopular. Finally, I admire your post because in addition to your search for scripture you at least seem to display the humility to realize that while we must completely submit to scripture, yet we ourselves are not infallible interpreters of scripture and need others to help show where we misread. In short I can see why your name is truth truth. That being said, let me tell you why I come to a different conclusion than you in three headings. 1.) First, I think we need to recognize the difficulty of the data we are handling. I call your attention to the section of your post at the beginning where you explain how you see the biblical definition of adultery and its centering on the husband. I want to point out that you have including exactly zero scriptures in support of your view. Now one might wonder how I can praise your pursuit of scripture and at the same time point this out. The reason is that I can see how your view is shapped by biblical passages. Because the truth is we don't, to my knowledge have an explicit biblical teaching answering this question concerning polygamy. Nowhere is it explicitly forbidden in scripture in a simply prohibitive statement such as "Though shall not steal" prohibits theft. And yet I can easily see how the biblical data could press you to your conclusion. But for my first point, I just would like you to recognize that what you are doing is simply trying to reconstruct the ethics from examples of what God did not judge rather than from actual intentional teaching from scripture. Now this is out of necessity, not your fault. 2.) Is this presented in scripture as something where singleness is what we "ought" to press towards, then failing that we "ought" to strive for a single wife, and then failing that we find ourselves at polygamy? My conclusion is no, because though Paul does suggest that singleness is supperior due to its singleness of focus on the things of God, this superiority is expressed in the sense of ranking of various spiritual gifts similiar to how he does so in 1 Corinthians 12 where he desires the excellency of prophecy over speaking of tongues and states that he wishes all spoke in tongues. Now is their an oughtness in prophecy and speaking in tongues? I mean that am I falling short as if I was not living up to God's will for my life if I fall short of the gift of prophecy? No, the spirit gives what gifts he will to whom he will. I recognize its superiority and goodness, but I do not fall short of God's perscriptive will for my life by not having that gift. In the same way singleness, the ability to not burn with lust while single, is presented specifically as a gift. Paul says in discussing it, "but each has their own gift." So what I mean that in my marriage, though I recognize the greatness of singleness in its ability to solely focus upon God, yet I myself am in exactly God's prescriptive will for me as I lead my wife and daughter in holy devotion to the lord. Singleness is not my gift. 3.) I am out of time, forgive the shortness of perhaps the most important section. As we look at the New Testament where we finally see marriage's purpose unfolded, we do see that there is actually an "oughtness" to only having one wife rather than more than one. I mean to say that it is different than the "gift" of singleness in that I take only one wife to be perscriptive of all men, other than single men ofcourse. I take this from Ephesians 5 showing marriage to reflect the sinular devotion between Christ and his bride and 1 Timothy 3 showing that it is a qualification for being an elder. And I do not think God was meaning to put a character qualification upon the elders other than them being an exmplar of what every chrsitian man should be. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
190 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233633 | ||
Emethalethia, I disagree finally on the way to answer this question but I recognize that you are sincerely trying to make sense of scripture and I respect that. However, let me caution you not to fall into one particular mistake. Just because others face less hostility for holding to the more normal view on this, do not think that others are coming to a different interpretation of scriptural evidence on this issue that they are doing so out of an urge to avoid negative social consequences. As long as another's actions allow us to believe the best of them, we are bound in christian charity to do so. Therefore we ought to assume that they would be willing to follow their beliefs into persecution, only sincere opinion has happen to place them with the majority. As you have given me no reason to assume you do anything but give the benefit of the doubt, I assume you agree with the sentiment. Now with regard to considering your view, what do you make of 1 Timothy chapter three requiring elders to be a "one woman man"? What does it mean, and why is this obligation placed upon them? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
191 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233642 | ||
Emeth, It is clear to me that you have had some rough conversations regarding this topic in the past. This topic is not worth quarreling over in my estimate. I feel like you have gotten so used to being attacked by those who feel threatened by what you are saying that you have come into this discussion with your "dukes up" so to speak. Therefore, I see no reason to continue this conversation. I end my participation of this thread with no harsh feelings and I hope you are a long fruitful participant on the forum. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
192 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233657 | ||
emethalethia, I understand completely where you are coming from. I am a calvinist, 99.9 percent of the people I know are not calvinist. What has given me the most heartache in that situation is not that people I know disagree with me, but rather when they simply will not even look at what scripture has to say. They will simply say, "no that can't be" or as you say, simply walk away with no discussion at all, all the while judging me for my belief. It is as if they truely do not want to know what God's word says on the issue. When I actually find somebody who will look scripture straight in the face, acknowledge what calvinism actually teaches and yet ultimately tell me they disagree with me I count it an absolute joy. Even if they disagree with me I am very delighted because I am so use to people refusing to even consider scripture that I find it so refreshing for somebody to at least do that! The point being I know exactly how you feel. However...I also know how much that wounded me. It took me a long time to realize that no matter how sincere and pure my desires were, being faced with that type of willfull blindness hurt badly(I do not refer to non calvinists, only to those who will condemn it while refusing to consider scripture on it.) And for awhile it caused a bitterness within me and a skepticism towards most other people who professed religion. It took me some time to work out those feelings, and what I did not realize at the time was that in the mean time while I worked through that hurt, most of my conversations were colored by that. I found myself entering conversations actually expecting people to not consider scripture. I expected them to choose their comfort zone rather than the often discomforting realities of what God's word said. And my expectations doomed the conversations to be unedifying at the least and harmful and sinful at worst. I choose to walk away from this conversation not from an unwillingness to look at scripture concerning this question, but becaue I can see there have been many professors of religion who have done the same to you. They have absolutely dismissed your question with no sincere desire to see whether scripture agrees with you. I can truely see that, and I can see it has caused you the same pain that it did me. And I can see hints of the same hurt that it left in me. And I can see you expecting me to respond to you with the same shallowness that they did. That is why I choose not to discuss it with you, because I know from experience that converstations undertaken in that context will seldom end well. Know that you have my prayers and sympathy. Continue seeking to know scripture and to submit to it and in time the precious Spirit of truth will perfect us both. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
193 | the word "world" and "all" refer to all | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 235647 | ||
Hupogramos, This is necessarily going to be impacted by our other views on this topic. I personally believe in predestination, but the topic of limited attonement has been a doctrine I have been slow to accept. I was determined to first look carefully at passages such as John 3:16. To that end John Owen's classic, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" was invaluable. He particularly satisfied me with regards to John the apostle. I would dig there. It is hard reading though. Either way, we should all remember this is a volatile issue and while on the forum should approach it in the spirit of understanding one another rather than any spirit debate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
194 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223858 | ||
Stephanie, Scripture doesn't actually give us any answer to this question. I recently preached on the subject of an age of accountability however and here is some small guidance for what it is worth. If a child is living we never rest on the age of accountability. If they are merely two years old still we labor to teach them the gospel. This can begin with things as simple is teaching them who God is so that later we can explain our accountability to Him, so that later we can explain the need for Christ's redemption. But we never rest on the notion for an age of accountability for a living soul. There is simply no grounds for doing so in scripture. For a deceased child we extend hope. In my experience the most common passage used to teach an age of accountability is 2 Samuel 12 climaxing in verse 23 when David says, "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." From this passage people reason that the child would have been in either heaven or hell and since we know David was going to heaven then the child must have been there also. There is ofcourse a chance David only meant he would join the child in the grave. But you can see from a passage such as this we should not build some notion that a child until X age has no need of the gospel. But back to my point, I think there is some valid hope here for a grieving parent. David does seem to be consoling himself with the notion that he will see his child again. So while we can not name an age, if it is at all within reason we can at least give the parent permission to hope. And in the case of infants I would go so far as to try to reassure them. But as I said, I would never rest on such a passage while a child is yet alive. Also you could probably do a search on this and get a much more broader discussion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
195 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223962 | ||
Searcher, Indeed he could have meant that. When I preached on the topic I clearly pointed out as much. I can't recall my post but I meant to point it out there as well. In fact, the possibility that he could have meant that largely drove my application. I suggested that it is likely enough that he meant "heaven" that I feel we can validly offer hope to a grieving parent. However, we are on thin enough ice that we should never under any circumstances rest on this with regards to a living child. To a living child, we always rely on teaching the gospel rather than a notion of an "age of accountability." Hope this clarifies. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
196 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223965 | ||
Freeatlast, Let me respond in two parts. First, I will respond concerning the passage in 2 Samuel. As I have readily admitted, and will continue to do so, it is very possible that David simply means the grave. However, let me defend the possibility that he means in heaven with two observations. First, there is no flaw in the reasoning if we mean to say that it is possible that he meant it, and we do not mean to say dogmatically that he meant it. In other words, we can't say that he certainly meant the grave any more so than we can say he certainly meant heaven. There is some valid ambiguity here because of which we ought not be dogmatic on either side. The next observation, it seems that David is truely consoling himself in someway with what he says. He is finding some peace or assurance from it. It seems much more likely that he is professing something that comforts him rather than saying, "It's pointless at this point, so who cares?" Therefore, while I whole heartedly agree that David could be referring to the grave, I do not at all think it is a irresponsible reading of the text to suggest he means the child is in heaven. Though once again, I affirm we do not have the grounds to insist upon it dogmatically. Second, I will respond with regards to the age being thirteen. The one absolutely gaping problem is that scripture never in any way explicitely teaches a doctrine of "age of accountability." There are texts from which we infer that teaching, but nowhere can we point to a text and say that scripture was there specifically trying to teach us that children of a certain age go to heaven when they die. All passages are of the nature of the one in 2 Samuel which while we may look at them and have some grounds for hope, we certainly can't dogmatically assert such a doctrine. So then, if we can not dogmatically assert that scripture even teaches a doctrine of the age of accountability, how absolutely irresponsible it is of us to extend our speculation so far as to try to name an exact age! How can you argue that it must clearly be the age of thirteen, when you can not defend the doctrine even exists adiquately? Lets go one step further. What is to be gleaned from arguing a specific age? Nothing is gained except the risk of causing parents to be lax in their "laboring until Christ is formed" in them. I will state here what I will continue to teach in the Church which I pastor. We will extend the age of accountability as a comfort to a grieving parent, but we will never extend it as a comfort and a reason to be lax to the parent of a living child! May we stive mightily in the preaching of the gospel to our children! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
197 | when we die are we go atraigth to heaven | OT general | Beja | 225288 | ||
Godsaves, I would recommend reading 2 Cor 5:1-8 and see if that persuades you of an answer to your question. I personally believe it is saying that we are immediately present with the Lord when we die, if we belong to Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
198 | when we die are we go atraigth to heaven | OT general | Beja | 225291 | ||
Godsaves, Indeed it does. I believe that is revelation 20 that you are referring to. To my understanding, when we die, we are present with the Lord at that time but we are not yet in our final state. We won't yet have our final ressurection bodies. I think this is supported by the scriptures I referred you to and in addition 1 Thesselonians which says when Christ returns his saints will be with him. 1 Thess 4:14. So we are already with him, then he returns with us, and then we are ressurected. I believe the picture is that we are going to be reunited with our current bodies (although greatly changed) on the day of the ressurection. But in the mean time we are with the Lord in some other temporary arranged body. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
199 | buying something u know u will refund? | OT general | Beja | 241167 | ||
timley1959, I think the best way to answer that is by the New Testament Standard of love. Would you wish somebody to treat you this way if you owned the merchandise? Second, do you think the behavior brings honor to Christ? I appeal to these questions because I do not think the proverb itself is trying to directly make a statement about the validity or wickedness of this practice, but rather trying to make one wise/aware to the reality of the practice. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
200 | IS BAPTISM NECESSARY | NT general | Beja | 220863 | ||
Mamametal, I believe this is a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27. In that passage it speaks of the new birth in a few different terms. These are: sprinkling with clean water for clensing, taking out the heart of stone for a heart of flesh, and putting His Spirit within us. I can't prove that is what He was referring to, but I can tell you I'm not alone in this interpretation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [40] >> |