Results 201 - 220 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | God turns back on individuals? | Rom 11:5 | Beja | 227614 | ||
PaulusSecundus, These verses are only illustrating my point. What are we talking about when we say that God turns his back on us so that we can't be saved? Are we talking about when God kills an individual? That certainly ends their chances. Are we talking about election and reprobation? Are we talking about the Gospel no longer being valid for them even if they repent and believe? Are we talking about individuals in some remote time and place who never heard of the gospel? All of these require different discussions, and in the mean time its just a vague highly emotionally charged question. There are certainly valid forms of this question, we just won't have productive conversations until we define what we are talking about better. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
202 | God turns back on individuals? | Rom 11:5 | Beja | 227564 | ||
thread, I think what we run into here is very poor specifics on what we are asking. "Does God turn His back on us so that we can't be saved" is simply an emotional question that could mean more than one thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
203 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227550 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Luke 16:23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
204 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227545 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Right again. I'm sorry, I so very much slip into the common habit of referring to them both as hell. I think Gehenna here is referring to the lake of fire. Hades is one place, lake of fire/gehenna is another. Hades will be done away with and gehenna will never be quenched. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
205 | symbolic/literal scriptures? | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227532 | ||
Julia, Absolutely. I think those are fine examples of passages where there was full intent that the words be taken literally. In addition, you'll neve reach a point where it is all just obvious. You will have some passages which are obviously literal and you will have some that are obviously symbolic. However, there will always be some that we must work hard in order to see how the author intended his words to be understood. Though God's word is worth such diligent study. And my God cause you to prosper in knowing His word and may you be diligent to grow in it. Let nobody despise the day of small things, though let us not be content to stay there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
206 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227505 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Forgive me, I was not being very precise in that post. We tend to use the word "hell" to refer to two different things. One is hades, which is temporary. The other is the coming lake of fire. Please note the fate of those who are spoken of in the very verse you quoted. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (kjv) So the current hell (hades) is not eternal, but what I meant was the lake of fire. This is clearly stated to be eternal in the very same passage. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. So the very passage you cite affirms with certainty what I am saying. And lest we imagine that this is only eternal for demons and not eternal for unforgiven sinners let me quote Jesus' own affirmation of the eternality of hell when preaching to men and women. Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. So yes, the dead can be consigned to hell "for all eternity." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
207 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227503 | ||
Thread, God does indeed cast into hell. And the hell he casts us into is neither a pretend, one nor one of our own creation, nor is it simply a self torment, nor is it the same location as heaven in which we simply are unable to enjoy it as if one's man heaven is another man's hell. It is a real eternal judgement from God against sin for all eternity. God is the one who will judge our sin worthy of hell, God is the one who will condem us to hell, and God is the one who will carry out the sentence. "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10:31). Luk 12:5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
208 | Satan has permission to rule | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227489 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Do you really believe a view which has had more affirmation by historical christianity than any other position has not considered these verses? I have no intentions of trying to win an arguement. I don't think end times discussions ought to be debated on these forums. Discussing them for the sake of understanding other views, yes. Debating, no. Therefore I will not even defend the view in this post except to say that it would become us to not lightly dismiss such a well attested historical view before we even know what it teaches. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
209 | Satan has permission to rule | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227481 | ||
PaulusSecundus, True true. However the question becomes, When is the thousand years? Many Christians today believe the only real question in end times belief is when will Christ come back in relation to the tribulation? At the beggining? At the end? In the middle? However, they would be suprised to know that in historical Christianity this has not been the question that divided where people stood. In contrast, the question was when will Christ come back in relation to this 1,000 year reign. To that there were three main answers. (I'm discounting the preterist view.) The one we are most familiar with would be the pre-millenial view. This view holds that Christ returns prior to the 1,000 year reign on earth. The second two both hold that the 1,000 year reign willhappen prior to Christs return. The first is postmillenial. This holds that the advance of the gospel will usher in a golden age for Christianity that lasts 1,000 years prior to Christs return. The final position is called amillenialism. It holds that Christs thousand year reign is meant to reference his current reigning on his throne in heaven guiding all things to their proper climax in his return. At the end of this time, satan will be released. This actually has been the most widely held stance historically, though few hold it now. Now, the scripture you referenced only actually impacts the discussion if you assume a premillenial view. I do not here intend to argue for one or the other, but only explain the assumptions we are bringing to the text. I'll tell you that I do not hold a premillenial view. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
210 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227320 | ||
Holmes, I am eager for this thread to end on some point that serves to edify, so let me make my cheif point a response to something which you have said that I agree entirely on. You said, "I think we can worship God and our Lord Jesus Christ on any day and at any time." With this I agree. I do not take the things which I am saying so far as to make sunday the day we "must" worship. And our disagreements will be minor if you do not take what you are saying to the point that you suggest saturday is the day we "must" worship. Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Now, that being said, I would offer an important qualification and I only bring this up out of concern who might be reading this thread and how they would take it. We should not let the fact that we may, within bounds of Christian liberty, gather for worship on any day be twisted into the perversion that we gather for worship on no day. We should not jump from the fact that since everyday is holy to the Lord, then at no day do I need to set aside time for Christian fellowship specifically. We are clearly commanded to gather with Christian fellowships not simply in classes, not simply for music, not seminaries, not in para-church organizations, but we are to gather as churches. If that church wishes for their day of gathering to be saturday, I have no issue with it. If it be sunday, all is well. But we are to gather as Churches for mutual edification and accountability, and out of obedience. Now, I will say something small about your closing question, in which you ask where scripture changes the sabbath to sunday. I'll leave it to two simple points. 1. Nowhere does scripture state, "Now sunday will be the new sabbath." I do not suggest you will find such a statement. What we see however is the combination of two things. First, the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Second, there is clearly a high reverence and perhaps even bias towards meeting on the first day of the week. In 1 Cor 16:1,2 we even see it to be a matter of Paul's teaching, in my opinion. He taught them that on the first day of the week their offering was to be collected. What shall we suggest about it? That they met on saturday then were commanded to come give their offering the next day on which they were not to meet? And this was not something peculiar to the church in Corinth as if it was convenient for them to do so on the first day and for that reason it was to be the first day. No, instead we see Paul affirming that this is exactly what he taught to the Galatian Christians. In other words, we see that Paul habitually taught that on the first day of the week it was proper to fulfill this religious duty. However, even if that passage isn't persuasive to you it still ought to be evident that sunday holds itself to be a favorite meeting time. So in short, if you wish to see where the doctrine is coming from, it is in the sabbath being fulfilled and no longer binding, and the pattern we see. 2. If any would truely wish to know truth on this topic and be either confirmed in their belief or corrected of their error, he must go to those who are its chief defenders. In a word, the puritans. I am a babe in Christ compared to many who walk today, how much more so the giants of the past? For a man to think sunday worship holds no basis because I can not convince them would be comparible to a man thinking he had disproved the doctrine of particular redemption without having ever read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," his masterpiece on the topic. In other words, go to those who have defended it so well and read them. Many will say, no, let us simply stand on God's word. Amen, and I agree. However, would you have a man show if you are in error in how you understand God's word? If not, then why do we discuss? If you do then find that man who is mighty in scirptures. And often you will find those men have long left to be with the Lord. They have left their teachings in books. Books which seek to explain the word of God. I pray no man would dismiss the historical teachings of the Church until they have first understood why the Church has understood scripture to teach those things, and that they would hear them from the very best of those who have articulated and defended the position. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
211 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227305 | ||
Holmes, I stand corrected regarding the timing of the meal in acts 20. I suppose I need to brush up on Acts some. I was running out of time for church and I was far more alarmed by your use of passover feast verse and spent my time double checking its context. Anyways, I clearly mispoke and it was right for you to correct me. However, as I stated in my previous post, even the fact that the meal took place after midnight impacts nothing in the discussion for the reason I stated. In addition to this, it would be rather misleading to focus this discussion on acts 20 in the first place. It was fitting for you to correct my error however for the convesation to remain at acts 20 unduely gives the impression that it is the basis of believing the early christians met on sunday when it is not. To suggest that sunday worship is based on acts 20 and a stray comment in revelations is to set up a straw man. A much more compelling arguement is made from 1 Cor 16:1,2. Now there is a passage I personally find to impact the discussion of when the early church met. Jonathan Edwards discusses this passage very well in "The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath." And even beyond all of these things we still focus on the wrong aspect. Looking at the ventures of the apostles and trying to piece together their mindset is all well and good but it is to never trump clear teaching which we have regarding the Christian's observance of sabbaths. Col 2:16,17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. I have no expectations of persuading you regarding any of this. But I hope to establish that verses showing Paul went to evangelize Jews during the sabbath and presenting the case for sunday worship in unduely weak light is not sufficient to upset either the conscience of those who meet at sunday or the fact that the churches of God have always affirmed that the first day of the week is the day which scriptures displays as fit for the gatherings of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
212 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227297 | ||
Holmes, It says Paul extended his message until midnight. You are going by pure assumption when you say that the meal came afterwards, and indeed if you honestly think it was simply an ordinary meal then why would you think they didn't eat prior to midnight? Nothing in the text suggests the meal happened the next day. And additionally, if the meal had happened an hour after midnight, which there is no reason to believe, there is nothing to say that it would then follow that they saw it as a monday event rather than a continuation of the sunday worship. If you would like some explination as to why we would believe this was indeed communion then I would rather quote at length one a bit more knowledgable than myself. Here is John Gill on the issue. With regards to their coming together to break bread: not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages. Who was the first pastor or bishop of this church, is not certain; perhaps Carpus, of whom mention is made in 2Ti_4:13 though he is said to be bishop of other places; See Gill on 2Ti_4:13. In the "second" century, in the times of Ignatius, there were brethren at Troas, from whence he wrote his epistles to the churches at Smyrna, and Philadelphia, and who are saluted in them by the brethren at Troas (k): in the third century, several martyrs suffered here, as Andreas, Paulus, Nicomachus, and Dionysia a virgin: in the "fifth" century, Pionius, bishop of Troas, was present at Constantinople at the condemnation of Eutyches, and afterwards he was in the council at Chalcedon; and even in the "eighth" century mention is made of Eustathius, bishop of Troas, in the Nicene council In Christ, Beja |
||||||
213 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227294 | ||
Holmes, These scriptures are rather devoid of context. It was certainly Paul's practice to go to the synagogues on the sabbath day in order to preach Christ to the Jews. This you have showed amazingly well. However, this doesn't show in any way that Christians were not meeting on the first day of the week. It simply doesn't address that. I think the 2 Corinthians passover passage also needs to be considered in context. Finally, two points with regards to the breaking of the bread. First, it would be quite remarkable if scripture intended to let us know they had lunch that day. Second, your estimate of that verse disagrees with how the church has always understood it. That should at least give you pause and cause you to consider on what basis you so readily dismiss it as not being communion. In many cases just listing a stream of verses is a good way to respond to a question. But it is indeed possible to misrepresent a verse simply by quoting it in the absence of any context or explination. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you that it was wrong for people to use public water and I gave this verse to give support. Pro 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern And fresh water from your own well. Pro 5:16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? Pro 5:17 Let them be yours alone And not for strangers with you. Now, that might sound like a passage telling us what is right and wrong concerning water. However, simply posting that passage is the height of deception because within its context it has absolutely nothing to do with water or cisterns. Check the passage to see what I mean. We must have context, and that context can greatly impact the message of a verse that might have seemed to say another thing in absence of the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
214 | ... | Num 12:7 | Beja | 227240 | ||
Vicki Tracy, I have one major problem with what you are saying. You are saying that they are able to take shape for us "like Jesus did." This is a major error. Jesus did not take human shape for our sakes. He actually took on humanity, became an actual human being. If you wish to speculate that the Father or the Holy Spirit has at some time taken the shape of a human being for us then that is fine. I think it is incorrect but that is still, imo, within bounds. But we must always keep a distinction between what goes onthere and what went on in the incarnation. When they Holy Spirit decended in the likeness of a dove, it did not actually become a flesh and blood dove to live and die as a dove. It simply took the appearance of one. Christ did not simply take the appearance of a human being. He actually became one in order to live and die as one for our sakes. So if you wish to say that the Father took human shape or form to walk with any given Old Testament saint then fine. But please do not confuse that with what Christ did in actually becoming human. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
215 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227070 | ||
JJE, I hold to a position that has been named amillenialism. So my answer might not be what you'd expect. After Christ's return, which is the time of the rapture, God will judge all flesh, and make all things new. Simple as that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
216 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227060 | ||
JJE, Unbelievers will be in hell until that day comes that all are brought before the throne of God to be judged. At this point hell and unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
217 | How to treat non-believers? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227047 | ||
Camellia, This would be my guess. The information you give is far to little for anything but a guess though. I wish I could answer with certainty. Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
218 | 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 |
||||||
219 | 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 |
||||||
220 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227015 | ||
JJE, To say that he would assign them their portion means that they will receive the same fate, the same lot, the same outcome as the unbelievers. It only refers to anything specifically in as much as that happens to be the actual portion of unbelievers. The figure of speech simply means to say, "Whatever it is they receive, so will your fate be." As a side note, I do believe this is in harmony with the security of the saint's eternal salvation. But that would become a much longer post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [26] >> |