Results 181 - 196 of 196
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Lookn4ward2Heavn Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207942 | ||
I have no problem agreeing with you although I have not done any particular study of whether or not Jesus ever actually violated the Law. What just comes to mind is that he touched a leper and dead a body in order to bring healing. And, I did mention Jesus condoning David for breaking the law eating food that was only for the priests to eat. I don't think Jesus' perfection is endangered if he did break the letter of the Law in some way (although, admittedly, it is kind of hard to imagine; probably just as hard to imagine Jesus in a wedding where the guests are getting drunk and he supplies more wine). In any case, I don't think we can judge those Christians who have lied in order to save another's life as having disobeyed God, be it those who hid Jews during WWII or Christians in China today to try to protect their pastors, congregation, or family. I once read of this Christian women under persecution who, in order to protect her young daughter from being raped and tortured to death, since she had absolutely no other avenue of escape,spoke softly to her daughter, held her, and jumped off a cliff to both of their deaths. Yes, that is extreme - thou shalt not kill' - but I find it hard to see God condemning her outright. I also think about Bonhoeffer in collaborating to kill - murder - Hitler. There are other really rather radical stories of Christians under persecution and the unorthodox things they did to protect others. Some answers don't come as easy as we would like; like I said before, not everything is a simple "black and white". |
||||||
182 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207955 | ||
Azure, please note: I said, "Jesus even condoned David's breaking the law by eating food that was for only the priests." David broke the law by eating the priest's bread, is what I said; Jesus only condoned it. Besides, there is no place in the NT where Jesus is eating bread for the priest's alone. | ||||||
183 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208006 | ||
Saul was also God's anointed. God tore away the kingship from him because he appropriated to himself the privileges of the priesthood. | ||||||
184 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208062 | ||
I disagree. In any case, Saul was anointed by God. | ||||||
185 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208063 | ||
Tim, You are right. Jesus is without sin but that does not necessarily mean he did not break an aspect of the letter of the Law in order to fulfill the spirit of the Law, e.g. healing on the Sabbath (was this ruling derived from the prohibition of working on the Sabbath?). In any case, I did say the idea of Jesus breaking the Law is something hard to imagine, especially in the light of scripture (which you provided). As far as dead bodies, I'll look into that when I am able. As far as David, I think your explanation just seems to skirt the issue. If I recall, the Bible does read that what David did was against the Law. But, I’ll look into this, also. The main point I wish to make is that we cannot hastily judge the one who lies in order to save someone's life (there are many instances where Christians in persecuted countries have done so). There are gray areas in life sometimes; no easy answers for every situation that comes across our way, although the Bible does guide us and the Spirit (hopefully) moves in us to make the appropriate choice. I hope I never need to make a decision whether to tell the truth or lie (including omitting to tell the truth) to the One World Police (which organization made inot Law that only one daughter is allowed per family) that my daughter is in the closet hiding. Honestly, I would most likely lie and I don't believe God would hold me to it: my faith, my conscience. FYI: You never have given me the feeling that your picking on me. |
||||||
186 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208064 | ||
Azure, by my comment concerning Jesus breaking the Law, he did work on the sabbath (healing) and the time he let his disciples pick (was it?) corn. Although I know the argument is that he did not really break the Law since the religious leaders added to it. However, I do not think that in either case we read Jesus refuting the notion that he was breaking the Law. | ||||||
187 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208235 | ||
It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, as Jesus stated and I don't argue that. However, sometimes, in order to do good on the Sabbath, it may have been necessary be break a Sabbath Law. | ||||||
188 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208294 | ||
1 Tim 2:14 says clearly that Eve was deceived, i.e. she was tricked. To blame her disobedience as an act due to being tricked would be true, although it does not exonerate her. As such, with the bare information as we have it, Eve's sin cannot be attributed any flaw, sinful or otherwise, in her character but only to her deed; it was the act that brought her ruin. I think the same would go for Adam (cf. Rom 5:12-17). As such, I do not think one can contend that it was in her nature to disobey God, that is, to sin. It was in her nature to make choices. Finally, that God knew she would transgress did not make its occurrence necessary or inevitable. |
||||||
189 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208307 | ||
StJohn, maybe my comment was not as clear as I thought. I was not contending against the proposition that Eve had transgressed. You did say she was not a sinner before the fall, therefore, I assume you believe she was created without a sinful nature or sinful propensities; that she was created either innocent or righteous. I was challenging your statement: "I don't think you can definitely say it was not in her nature to do so" (i.e. to sin). I contend that one can definitely say it was not in Eve's nature, as created, to sin: God saw his creation of Adam and Eve as good (not necessarily in moral terms but definitely not with any form of sin inherent in their natures). I argue it was in Eve's nature to choose, which included the choice to obey or disobey God's command; it was not in her nature to sin. There is a difference between being created to choose and being created to choose (especially in terms of necessity and inevitability) to sin. |
||||||
190 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 208345 | ||
I'm glad we each can come to an understanding of our respective positions. | ||||||
191 | what is the goal of exegesis | 2 Tim 2:15 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 195473 | ||
I see at least three general reasons to study the Bible: 1. To know God (Jn 17:3) 2. To please God (2 Tim 2:15). 3. To obey (Rom 12:2). The ultimate goal of exegesis is to experience, maintain, and secure a living relationship with God (Phil 3:10; 2 Pet 1:3 (cf. vss 4-12). |
||||||
192 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207644 | ||
I would like to discuss this with you but first allow me to make some preliminary questions and comments: 1. You state you believe in “eternal security” (as defined by the Calvinist theolgical system, I assume). Are you attempting to fit the text in question to fit the doctrine of “eternal security” or are you seeking to find what the actual intended meaning of the text irrespective of whether or not it supports the aforementioned doctrine? 2. As you seem to be in disagreement with the “hypothetical” theory given the text in question, are you under the opinion that the writer of Hebrews considers the possibility of “falling away” (i.e. apostasy) a real danger, something that can actually occur to the readers of his letter? 3. Unfortunately, I am not experienced with NT Greek so I must rely on scholarly opinion. In any case, since you disagree with the NASB, what version(s) do you feel better translates the text in question and, briefly, why? Looking forward to a healthy discussion. |
||||||
193 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207670 | ||
Respectfully, I don't see where I asked "son of god" what Bible version he prefers. My question was directed to Beja's post of 8:21, 2:19pm, #207534. | ||||||
194 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207756 | ||
Hi Beja, I apologize if it was not clear my response was specifically for you. I would still like to continue the discussion with you. For your convenience, I am re-posting (with some changes for clarification) my two other preliminary remarks (see below)from my original post (#207644). If it would not be an imposition, I would like your input before discussing the Heb 6:4-6. Thanks. 1. You state you believe in “eternal security” (as defined by the Calvinist theolgical system, I assume). Are you attempting to fit the text in question to fit the doctrine of “eternal security” or are you seeking to find what the intended meaning of the text really is irrespective of whether or not it supports the aforementioned doctrine? 2. As you seem to be in disagreement with the “hypothetical” theory given the text in question, are you under the opinion that the writer of Hebrews considers the possibility of “falling away” (i.e. apostasy) a real danger, something that can actually occur to his Christian readers? |
||||||
195 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207770 | ||
Beja, thanks for your response. Your point 1 is well said: "... if you are comfortable with the idea you can lose your salvation then this text is no difficulty at all..." I agree. Regarding your second point, I agree that the hypothetical theory is a wash-out. However, I'm a little confused when you said, "I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen." Holding to the doctrine of eternal security, I assume you mean that "whatever he is talking about could happen" in no way includes the idea that one can forfeit their salvation. Is this a correct assumption? |
||||||
196 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Lookn4ward2Heavn | 207845 | ||
Beja, You stated it is "not yet determined with any certainty what exactly he is talking about...whether apostasy, or something else..." I would think the writer of the Hebrew epistle makes it clear he is speaking of apostasy. How is it not clear and what else could he be warning about? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] |