Results 201 - 220 of 344
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Lionstrong Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | What was Eve's sin? | Gen 3:6 | Lionstrong | 19413 | ||
Let's reword the question: for what did God curse Adam and Eve with death? Eve's sin was eating the forbidden fruit. Gen 3:11,17 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"...Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'..." For what were they cursed? * Not for…believing Satan. For this God did not pass the sentence of death. * Not for…believing that which was contrary to what God had said. For this God did not pass judgement. * Not for…disbelieving what God had said. For this God did not pronounce the curse. Eve was tricked, and in her deception she disobeyed the express command of God (Gen. 3:13, I Tim. 2:14). Eve's sin was eating the forbidden fruit. For this transgression God carried out his threat of death. I do not deny the corruption of man's heart SINCE THE FALL, nor the sin of unbelief that proceeds from such a heart, but Eve's heart was not evil. She was duped! Jeremiah 17:9 and Gen. 8:21 did not apply to her. She was created innocent. I don’t think this issue is a big deal. This doesn’t have great theological ramifications, but we simply tend to get too spiritual and go beyond what the Scripture says. (For responses of ridicule, derision or personal attacks please e-mail me. Responses based on I Tim. 3:16 and Eph 4:15 are welcomed.) Peace, Lionstrong Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." 1 Tim 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Jer 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? Gen 8:21 "...the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth..." |
||||||
202 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Lionstrong | 19293 | ||
"Therefore everyone in the world for all time is forgiven for their unrighteous acts but not for unbelief in Christ." Dear Bill, If men are lost for the sin of unbelief only, then why does the Bible say that men are lost for other sins besides unbelief? For example, why dosen't Jesus say, "you will in your sin of unbelief" instead of, "you will die in your sins." (John 8:24) Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
203 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Lionstrong | 19178 | ||
No, Bill, You write, “Salvation is not just being forgiven for sins (unrighteous acts),” and “It [propitiation] is forgiveness for all sins (unrighteous acts) for all people for all time.” Then you write, “Therefore everyone in the world for all time is forgiven for their unrighteous acts but not for unbelief in Christ. Unbelief in Christ cannot be forgiven - it must be repented of. This is the world's sin (not sins, plural)…. This is what God's wrath will be poured out on as 1 Thess says, unbelief in Christ.” I’ve discussed this distinction between sin and sins before (Sin and Sins? (?) Lionstrong Tue 04/24/01, 8:34pm), and I find as little biblical justification for it now as I did then. If unbelief is a sin (unrighteous act) and all sins (unrighteous acts) are forgiven, how are your statements not contradictory? Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
204 | who was cains wife and where did she com | Genesis | Lionstrong | 18883 | ||
Welcome to the Forum, Magic!! Although you can type in "cain wife" in the Quick Search box in the upper right, I re-post these entries for your consideration. Again, welcome to the Study Bible Forum! Peace, Lionstrong ****************************** 6 who did cain marry? Answer Gen 1:1 Mark Ostertag Sat 04/21/01, 9:57pm Question: Where did Cain get his wife? The Bible teaches clearly that all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve-thus there had to be inter-marriage between brother and sister.... Why did God not create more one couple ? Answer Lev 18:6 Lionstrong Fri 07/6/01, 1:04am Hello, Lali; Your question is a good one. I know my answer will not be complete, but hopefully it will be a good start that maybe others will finish. Your question is a moral one concerning incest. And I didn't have and answer until recently. First let me deal with what I think is a wrong answer. I believe that pragmatism is wrong, that is, what makes something right is if it is practical; does it makes sense (supposedly) practically to do so. What I've heard given is a pragmatic answer: "Siblings just had to marry because there was no one else!" This answer puts morality on a pragmatic basis rather than on the law of God where it ought to be, as you rightly see. Others may disagree, but I think my answer keeps morality where it ought to be, grounded in the law of God. My answer is not hard to understand; it's simple. It is based on the principle that to God "is due... whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 2, para. 2) So if God says do not eat a certain fruit in the middle of a certain garden, then it's sin to eat that fruit. Or if He says that only certain men are to carry a certain box by means of poles, then God is justified in striking a certain Uzzah down for touching it. Contrariwise, if God rescinds a law He had given, then it is no longer sin not to keep that rescinded law. God has rescinded the ceremonial laws, so not keeping the Old Testament Passover is no longer sin. So, I hope by now you see where I'm leading, Lali. God at this point had not forbidden incest. Therefore, at this point in time it was not sin. One might object, "Well I can understand God changing a ceremonial law, but incest is immoral! Aren't the moral laws of God universal and absolute? Yes, for man they are ... as long as God requires obedience to those laws. God is not bound by the law. And man is bound by certain laws of God so long as chooses to bind him to some, any or all of his laws. |
||||||
205 | Lionstrong, who is the world? | Eph 3:6 | Lionstrong | 18877 | ||
The Love of God, the World, and Salvation Dear Bill, I guess the question is how can the salvation of God be limited to the elect only when the Bible says he loved the world. (Jn. 3:16) Didn’t Jesus die to save the world? (1 Jn. 2:2) Then why do I believe that the Bible teaches Jesus died for a select few, to put it in its worst terms? Well, I also believe that God loved the world. Am I holding to a contradiction? Do I believe that in order to be a truly spiritual Christian I have to believe contradictions? After all, you know, some say that God is not bound by “human logic.” “My thoughts are higher than yours,” (Isa. 55:9) and the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God (1 Cor. 3:19), and all that. Is spiritual rationality worldly irrationality? No, it isn’t. God indeed has thoughts that are higher than ours, but he has shared some of those thoughts with us. We call those shared thoughts the Holy Bible. Yes, he has thought that are higher than ours, but whatever the unrevealed higher thoughts are, they are not irrational. God is not crazy. And we’re made in his image. That’s why we are rational creatures, and that is why we can understand communication from God, his propositional revelation, the Scriptures. So, God’s word does not have contradictions, and irrationality is not an attribute of spirituality. Orthodoxy has given a good summary of the logical options of whom Jesus’ death atoned for (orthodoxy, Wed 05/16/01, 3:53pm). But some believers have an inexplicable antipathy towards logic, as if what they call spiritual truths suspend the constraints of reason. Some even foolishly suppose that the debate is won by the number of verses a position can rack up; who’s ever side collects the most verses wins (EdB, Fri 06/22/01, 1:53 am). Or maybe having lived so long with irrationality before being saved, some believers have been genuinely challenged by thinking validly form biblical premises to their necessary implications. Now for these bruised reeds (Mat 12:20) maybe another way of explaining limited atonement would be helpful. But for those who have a problem with what they call “human logic,” no amount of reasoning from Scripture will suffice to convince them that their position is inconsistent even with the doctrines to which we mutually agree. But I think that there is peace, comfort, security, and godly fear in knowing that the Triune, Personal, Eternal God of the Bible is the Absolute Sovereign over the salvation of the world. I think the real problem some believers have with this biblical truth is getting over the psychological hump, not of God choosing some people for salvation, but of God choosing NOT to save some people form their sins and his wrath. They feel that it is unfair of God not to TRY at least to save everyone, to give everyone a chance at least to be saved. Doesn't a man have rights? Limited atonement, in their minds, seems to speak against the goodness of God. I would question their idea of the justice and the goodness of God and the rights of man. Although the concept is easy to understand, it is still for some hard to accept. So, in an effort to find some seemingly biblically defensible alternative, they try to construct the notion that God does not condemn sinners to everlasting fire, or that he does not foreordain some to destruction. Rather, all sinners choose the lake for themselves by rejecting God’s gracious offer of salvation. Thus, these believers would vindicate the goodness and justice of God. This position is neither biblically defensible nor logically valid. The biblical answer to the question did Jesus die to save the world is yes, in saving his people from their sins (Mat. 1:21), Jesus has indeed saved the world. One would have been sufficient, but the number will be beyond our ability to count. (Rev. 7:9) Finally, I don’t understand your use of 1 Tim. 1:15, “sinners, not just the elect.” As if the elect weren’t sinners. At least some of them. :-) Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
206 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | Lionstrong | 18833 | ||
Hello Tranard! Welcome to the Study Bible Forum! There has been much discussion on this topic in the forum. You can do a "Quick Search" by typing the word Sabbath in the Quick Search box on the right near the top of your window. No man or church has the authority to change a commandment of God. All such answers that assert that a man or church changed the day of the Sabbath should be rejected. I re-post the answer that I gave to the issues of you question. Read the references given and you'll see that the shift took place during the days of the Apostles. Again, welcome to the Forum! Peace, Lionstrong YES or NO. Do you obey the 4th cmdmt? Answer Col 2:16 Lionstrong Tue 06/19/01, 2:22pm From the Westminster Confession of Faith (verses given are those referenced in the Confession): Chapter 21, paragraph 7: "As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him: (Ex. 20:8,10,11; Isa 56:2,4,6,7) which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, (Gen 2:2,3; 1 Cor. 16:1,2; Acts 20:7) which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's day, (Rev. 1:10) and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath." (Ex. 20:8; Matt. 5 :17,18) The framers of the Confession believed the Scriptures taught that the fourth Commandment was not ceremonial and temporary, but moral and binding on all men in all ages. The last day Sabbath was based on God's great work of Creation, and the first day Sabbath was based on God's great work of Redemption. |
||||||
207 | A husband's responsibility | 1 Tim 5:8 | Lionstrong | 18680 | ||
Hi There! By what logic does he get from, "In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground..." to, "God only tells man to support himself"? God is describing the curse, not giving a command. Here's a quick answer, but it applies. 1 Tim 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
208 | 1.From where did cain got his wife | Gen 1:1 | Lionstrong | 18678 | ||
Welcome to the Forum, Rego! Here's an answer I gave to the issue of Cain's wife. You would not have found this if you had done a search under Cain and wife. Please feel free to post any question or comment on any post you find in your search. Again, welcome to the Study Bible Forum! Peace, Lionstrong Why did God not create more one couple ? Answer Lev 18:6 Lionstrong Fri 07/6/01, 1:04am Hello, Lali; Your question is a good one. I know my answer will not be complete, but hopefully it will be a good start that maybe others will finish. Your question is a moral one concerning incest. And I didn't have and answer until recently. First let me deal with what I think is a wrong answer. I believe that pragmatism is wrong, that is, what makes something right is if it is practical; does it makes sense (supposedly) practically to do so. What I've heard given is a pragmatic answer: "Siblings just had to marry because there was no one else!" This answer puts morality on a pragmatic basis rather than on the law of God where it ought to be, as you rightly see. Others may disagree, but I think my answer keeps morality where it ought to be, grounded in the law of God. My answer is not hard to understand; it's simple. It is based on the principle that to God "is due... whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 2, para. 2) So if God says do not eat a certain fruit in the middle of a certain garden, then it's sin to eat that fruit. Or if He says that only certain men are to carry a certain box by means of poles, then God is justified in striking a certain Uzzah down for touching it. Contrariwise, if God rescinds a law He had given, then it is no longer sin not to keep that rescinded law. God has rescinded the ceremonial laws, so not keeping the Old Testament Passover is no longer sin. So, I hope by now you see where I'm leading, Lali. God at this point had not forbidden incest. Therefore, at this point in time it was not sin. One might object, "Well I can understand God changing a ceremonial law, but incest is immoral! Aren't the moral laws of God universal and absolute? Yes, for man they are ... as long as God requires obedience to those laws. God is not bound by the law. And man is bound by certain laws of God so long as chooses to bind him to some, any or all of his laws. |
||||||
209 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 18185 | ||
Is 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. Dear Charis, Although I agree with Joe, I’ll make this suggestion, if you insist on re-inventing the wheel. My suggestion is based on the idea of the catechism, Francis Schaeffer (sp?) and a pattern that I see in Christ. The catechism is a series of biblically based questions and answers. It is interesting how the questions of the catechism came up later in my Christian life, even though at the time I studied it, they weren’t questions that I had personally. This is true in other areas of instruction. The young student will not see the relevance of what he’s being taught sometimes until much later in life. The pattern that I see in Jesus is that he both taught and he answered questions – questions that were from his own and questions from hostiles, questions that were informed and questions that were based on misunderstanding of the Scriptures and the power of God (Mat. 22:29), questions sincere and those intended to entrap. He used them as opportunities to expose error and teach truth. So, my suggestion is to build a primer based—no, not based. It should be based on the Word alone—rather, structured around the questions the Japanese (both inside the church and in the Japanese culture) are asking, friendly and hostile, those based on misunderstanding and informed, sincere and insincere. Of course, there will be questions that they will fail to ask that they ought to ask. (John 16:5 "But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, 'Where are You going?') This is where your leadership and experience will have to ask and answer the questions for them, even though they may not see the immediate relevance. So, what are the questions of Japanese believers? What are the questions (issues) of the Japanese culture, and how does God’s Word address and answer them? I know this will take a lot of time and research. But your fifteen years there should help. The university you’re close to should be an excellent source of questions. And just like it took courage for Paul to preach the gospel, it will take courage to give what may be unpopular yet true answers from the Word of God. But we can pray God’s speed and success to see “as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself” in Japan. (Acts 2:39) Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
210 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 18165 | ||
Ps 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. Dear David, Welcome to the Study Bible Forum! The Bible, the Word of God, is truth. But I do not accept anything that claims to be its proof, be it archeology, history, the sciences, or philosophy. Why? Because, the same question can be asked of whatever supposedly proves the Scriptures. Then it becomes necessary to prove the proof, ad inifitum. Besides, whatever is used as proof becomes an authority “behind” Scripture, that is, Scripture is no longer the final authority; the proof is, because the Scripture now rests on the “proof” to be accepted as true. The best any outside source can do is not prove, but corroborate the Scripture, that is, stand along side, as it were, and agree with Scripture. But it can in no way prove, support, verify or even disprove the Scripture. How then do we know that it is truth? Well, I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith on this issue, because it gives the only logical reason that we know the Scripture as truth without resting it on any outside source: Chapter 1, Sections, 4, 5: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and, therefore, is to be received, because it is the word of God. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet notwithstanding our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof , is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
211 | Doctrine of Election, Yes or No? | Eph 3:6 | Lionstrong | 18151 | ||
Dear Kiss, I re-post this for your consideration. This is in contrast to Brother Bill's answer. In the meantime, I'll try to find an answer to the charge that election makes us robots, and I'll leave you with this question: How? How does election as explained below imply that we are robots? Peace, Lionstrong. And welcome to the Forum!!! What does Bible teach on election? Answer Bible general CalvinsticSouthernBaptist Mon 04/2/01, 5:48pm The Bible teaches that election is always unto salvation. As Charles Spurgeon put it, "Salvation is all of grace, damnation is all of sin." Knowing before the foundation of the world that man would fall in the Garden and then be totally unable to contribute to his own salvation from sin, God determined to save a remnant of fallen humanity. These He chose, or elected, in Christ, a multitude too great for any man to number, to spend eternity with Him. These He sent His Son to die for on the cross as their substitute and pay the total penalty for their sins(God being just He can never ask for payment for these sins a second time). In time, these hear the Word of God and the Holy Spirit gives them a new nature through the new birth, and they immediately respond with repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. Their salvation is started by God and they are kept by God in a saved state and will persevere in holiness until they are before the throne of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some Scripture references: John 6:44(human inability), Ephesians 1:3-14(God choosing), 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14(God's choice and calling), John 17:2(Christ gives eternal life to God's elect), Acts 13:48(ordained to believe), John 10:15(Christ's death on behalf of His sheep), Mark 14:24(Christ died for many - His elect), John 3:5-8(the new birth by the Holy Spirit), Acts 20:21(man's immediate response to the new birth), John 10:27-30(eternal life guaranteed for Christ's sheep), Romans 8:31-39(eternal life guaranteed for God's elect), Romans 8:28-30(the golden chain of God's grace). |
||||||
212 | Can a woman pastor a church? | 1 Tim 3:1 | Lionstrong | 18002 | ||
1 Tim 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. Dear D'Mom, Welcome to the Forum! I don't think the question should be "can." Of course they can. Many women are as spiritually mature as any male pastor. But the question should be OUGHT women to be pastor's. I understand your frustration that the male pastors and elders aren't doing their jobs, when you believe that you or other women can do it better. And maybe you could. We see this in other areas of life besides the church. But what are the issues here? God's glory for one. God cannot be glorified unless God's work is done God's way. If we take matters into our own hands some temporal good may be done, but will God be glorified when we're doing God's work OUR way? The other issue is the church itself. What is it? Is it a social action center, an activity center? Is it a "worship center.?" Is it any kind of a "center?" One thing for sure, the church is not a human institution and should not be run like one, although, no doubt, there are similarities. Yes, the church is the place wherein believers should be edified and built up in the faith, but the church is more than a self-improvement center or evangelism, soul-winning workshop. It is the body of Christ, the fullness of him who fills all things. It is the pillar and support of the truth.(Eph 1:23, 1 Tim. 3:15) Ought we not then live according to the truth? Third, how should we deal with pastors/elders who are not doing their job, which is basically to take care of the flock? How can we rebuke, encourage, admonish or remove them? That depends on how your church government is structured. In my denomination, there are higher church courts to which we can appeal concerning a wayward pastor, and elders can be dealt with locally. All believers, including women should be "tellers" of the Gospel, although we're not all called to be "preachers." (Rom 10) The Scripture does not give a very detailed job description of elder and deacon, so God has given us a good bit of freedom there, but here are a few general responsiblities: Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. 1 Pet 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 1 Pet 5:2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 1 Pet 5:3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And then of course there are the qualifications of elder(overseer) and deacon given in 1 Tim 3, and Titus. Forgive my ramblings, Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
213 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 17971 | ||
Phil 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. | ||||||
214 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Lionstrong | 17955 | ||
Dear Cherrie, Of course. All things,... all things, good or evil, God has ordained, by his secret counsel and for his glory. Eph 1:11 "...having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things [ALL THINGS] after the counsel of His will," Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things [ALL THINGS] to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose Welcome to the Forum. Peace, in the Lamb Lionstrong |
||||||
215 | Lionstrong, maybe this will clarify... | 2 Chr 7:14 | Lionstrong | 17628 | ||
Dear Bill, Thanks. I understand and agree with "the whole" of your explanation. But you defined the word all as "the whole of" which you further said meant "not all." Of course I understood you were refering to "teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness," but the word all modifies the word Scripture. Therefore it cannot mean "the whole of" as you were using the phrase. But all this is beside the point, Steve's point, that is. "This passage does not apply to the US or Christians?" True, it may not have reproof; it may not have correction, but is it true that this passage has no application to God's NT Israel? Peace, Lionstong |
||||||
216 | who did Cain marry? who will kill him? | Deut 29:29 | Lionstrong | 17405 | ||
Hi Heisthe1! Welcome to the Study Bible Forum! To answer you second question: no, God created no man before Adam. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." From there the Scripture goes on to detail what happened on the first six days of the universe's existence, culminating with God's crowning creation -- man, the image of God! Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
217 | Was Sampson a suicide terrorist killer? | Judges | Lionstrong | 17402 | ||
Judg 16:30 And Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" And he bent with all his might so that the house fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he killed in his life. Dear McLemore, Welcome to the Study Bible Forum! The subject of suicide crossed my mind the other day, and I did think about Samson in that context. It struck me that his death was not suicide, since by definition suicide is taking ones own life. The above verse shows that he asked the Lord to let him die with the Philistines, and the Lord answered his prayer, otherwise it was possible, though maybe unlikely, that he would have survived the collapse of the house. Samson had been captured and enslaved, while the bombers premeditatively and voluntarily crashed the jets to murder people. Samson acted in defense of the nation who was indeed being oppressed by the Philistines. As you remember, the Philistines had removed all weapons from the Israelites. The oppression the terrorists claim is only in their minds. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
218 | soul and spirit | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 17337 | ||
Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Dear Clausius, Welcome to the StudyBible Forum! The answer to your question depends on whether one is a dichotomist (believing man is only two parts) or a trichotomist (three parts). I believe man is only two parts. So the difference between soul and spirit is like the difference between water and H2O. Very little. Many in the forum are trichotomist. So, I'll leave it to them to fairly represent their own position. One technical note, however. In the Old Testament soul many times means the whole man. In the New Testament it more often has the same meaning as spirit. Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
219 | Definitions - God? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 17164 | ||
Dear Charis, ......... ¶¶ God cannot be defined. We can only summarize what he has revealed about himself in his Word. ......... ¶¶ "Q. What do the scriptures make know of God? ....... ¶¶ A. The scriptures make known what God is, the persons in the Godhead, his decrees, and the execution of his decrees. .......... ¶¶ Q. What is God. ........ ¶¶ A. God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, every where present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." ........... ¶¶ Westminster Larger Catechism. ............ ¶¶ Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
220 | Is it a sin to play the lottery? | Bible general Archive 1 | Lionstrong | 16987 | ||
Dear Janie, This is what I posted on this subject a while back. "Is gambling sin? To be specific, are there any commands of God whereby one may deduce that gambling is sin? For we know that there is no command of God expressly forbidding the practice of gambling. But just because there is no express command, it does not mean that such a prohibition is not implied in other commands of God. For example, on the basis of the Fifth Commandment, which says we are to HONOR our parents, Paul says children are to OBEY their parents. Also, on the basis of this same commandment, Jesus teaches that it is sin not to financially help our parents. So from this one command the Scripture itself deduces two others. I presently hold gambling on a level with drinking. Whereas the Bible gives ample warning of the dangers of the use of intoxicating substances, it does not forbid the use of them. (As an aside, it is also interesting to note that although the practice of gambling is probably as old as drinking, the omniscient God did not see fit to give man any warnings of its dangers, in contrast to the warnings our pastors give us.) Hence, we partake of the fruit of the vine at the Lord’s Table. One may extol the virtues of the stewardship of our funds, and others may decry the evils of gambling addiction, but none may call sin what God does not. This is what I’m afraid some well-meaning Christians do. And an activity is sin only when it violates an express OR implied command of God. And the question is, what is/are the command(s)?" Peace, Lionstrong |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [18] >> |