Results 21 - 40 of 253
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Is the allegorical or metaphorical metho | Bible general | Beja | 240395 | ||
Movingon, What was the question? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
22 | The allegorical or metaphorical teaching | Bible general | Beja | 240393 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
23 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240301 | ||
RitaAnn, Let me first say that I can not begin to imagine the difficulty of your situation and I have prayed for you. Second, I would say that you need to be faithfully committed to a sound local church where the elders may give you wise counsel from the scripture on the basis of both the word of God and knowing your situation more specifically that they may counsel you more accurately from the word of God. An internet forum with strangers, however much sympathy they might feel, is a poor substitute for these things. Third, I highly commend to you the book of 1 Peter as it gives a lot of thought to how a Christian is to react to a rightful authority wrongfully abusing its power. May God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
24 | is there forgivenessofsinswithouttruerep | Luke | Beja | 240276 | ||
Charlesey, I don't think that one proof text is ever going to finally settle this question, but let me attempt to help out. First, a proof text! Luke 13:1-5 tells us pretty clearly that repentance is required. Second, a bit of biblical context. Many places in scripture assume repentance and rather discuss what is actually the thing that connects us to Christ. The answer to that is faith. Some old theologians might call faith the appropriating organ, what they meant was that while faith is never alone, faith alone is the only event upon which we are justified. One really good excerice is to do a search on an bible software for the word repentance and repent. This will quickly give you a sense of the necessity of repentance. We are saved by embracing Christ's sacrificial death for our sins through FAITH. But Christ is offerred as such to REPENTANT sinners. Third, a seriously good resource on these are John MacArthur's books "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "The Gospel According to the Apostles". Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
25 | Do the original books exist | Bible general | Beja | 240210 | ||
nugtweety, We do not have the original copies of any of the books of the bible. However, there is no ancient document in all of history for which we have more evidence and certainty that we have essentially the original words preserved for us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
26 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239708 | ||
Ed.O, This is a difficult question to answer while still remaining true to the intentions of this forum. The forum is very specifically meant to be a place where both catholic and protestant professions are free to come and study scripture together. Your question has another question imbedded within it. The imbedded question asks us to give a blanket verdict on the doctrine of Catholics and those who would join with them. While I would naturally and permissibly disagree with catholics while discussing particular texts on this forum, I think it crosses a line to simply discount their beliefs. It invites argument in the absence of working on particular passages. In respect to the intentions of this forum I will not answer that imbedded question but I will state this: Evangelicals still preach salvation through faith alone, and Catholics still argue some other merits are necessary in addition to Christ. In that sense, I do not understand what they could actually mean when they suggest the reformation to be over. We still disagree on the same things. Perhaps they mean to suggest that we no longer care about those things to the same extent as our spiritual forefathers? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
27 | Baptized by Holy Spirit? | Matt 3:11 | Beja | 239530 | ||
Justin, With regards to being baptized by fire. I am inclined to see a stronger parallel between verse eleven and twelve. The fire in verse twelve is clearly judgment. So in eleven we see baptisms of spirit and fire. And in twelve we see the gathering of the wheat and the burning of the chaff. Now this being said there is no doubt that I am in happy agreement with the fact that tongues of fire settled upon them at Pentecost and I am also in happy agreement that the Holy Spirit works mightly upon the souls of men and that sometimes a burning passion is a quite apt description of that. I just don't think that these things are what is being referred to in Matt 3:12. Likewise the other posters will agree that there is a judgment in which God will separate the wheat and the chaff and it will be a judgment of fire. So we have a pretty substantial agreement in doctrine, we just don't agree which is being referred to here. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
28 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239300 | ||
Dr. Phill, I would express both some agreement and some disagreement with the answer you received from, Ed. In agreement I would say that for anybody to go on unrepentantly sinning in a willful fashion would be to place themselves in damnation. In disagreement both I and historical reformed theology would suggest that their behavior and ultimate fate demonstrates that they were never a "truly saved" individual. I think the author of Hebrews would agree with me on this assertion and I would direct you to Hebrews chapter 3 to demonstrate this. Hebrews 3:13,14 But encourage one another day after day, as long a it is still called "today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Let me point out a number of parallels with the passage you asked about. 1. Both have an exhortation that we push each other to not sin and both are grounded in ultimate consequences. In the passage I quoted it presses us to encourage one another so that we are not hardened by sin and then it gives a FOR clause. In the clause there is a fatal consequence of us not being united to Christ. I will talk more of that one later but for now, the parallel. In Hebrews 10 we see a command to stimulate each other to love and good deeds in the midst of assembling together and then the FOR clause. After this it expresses the contrast as to go on sinning willfully. In this chapter again there is a ultimate fatal consequence of not being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. 2. Another parallel: In both passages they are encouraging us to not only not sin, but also to hold fast to our confession concerning Christ. In chapter 10 this is in verse 23. In chapter three you will see this in both verse 12 and in the FOR clause of verse 14 itself. So I see a very strong parallel between the flow of thought in these two passages. Now lets look closely at Hebrews 3:14. It states that we "Have become participants in Christ" IF... This is very important that we see how this is structured. We have PAST TENSE, (its actually a perfect tense) become partakers of Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance until the end. So he says that a past event really occurred if a future even is true. Namely we have past tense actually become united to Christ, if we go on holding fast to Christ in the future. So I argue, that in the mind of the author of Hebrews anybody who abandons Christ is demonstrating that they were never partakers of Christ to begin with. I think he has a consistent reasoning in chapter ten. Yes, to go on willfully sinning and rejecting his plea to hold fast to our confession of Christ(notice these two things are contrasts of each other), to do this would be to eternally jepordize our souls, but more than that, it is to show that we were never truly united to Christ in the first place. There are other places we could go to show this is the consistent testimony of scripture but I am more concerned to show you that the author of Hebrews himself is thinking this way. We must indeed hold fast to Christ and fight against sin in order to be saved, but all who truly belong to Christ will actually do so because God himself is working in them to bring it about. Philippians 2:12,13 ...work out your salvation in with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. This is the paradox of life as a Christian. We labor with all our might to take hold of holiness but it is only because of God that we first desire to, second strive to, and finally succeed in doing so. It is all of God, and because it is all of God, it is certain. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
29 | Mystery Resurrection For Holy Ones | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239287 | ||
Ed.O. When posting a new question mid thread to a specific person, the unwritten norm on the form is to still mark it as a note. It will still alert me via e-mail that I was replied to so that I will not miss the question, and that way a question not meant for the general forum will no clutter the question section. But no worries, as I said, that is an "unwritten" norm. With regards to your question...I will answer it but then I would like to bow out of the conversation. I will try to refrain leaving my post in such a way that challenges you to respond as that would be an ungracious way to ask to be excused. I never wanted to debate viewpoints but only to be helpful in guiding whatever further discussion might ensue apart from me. But to the question...Let me first state what difficulty you might be assuming the text gives my viewpoint and then I will give my answer to it. Let me quote the text for the sake of the many silent readers. "And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God willcome, and all the holy ones with him." The given is that these are saints. I assume we both accept this point. The problem presumably comes when it says that he will bring the holy ones "with" him. The assumption being that they are already with him. How can I therefore say that they were not previously gathered? Clearly this triumphant judgment return of Christ happens at the turning of the ages. Any so called tribulation happens before the return depicted in this verse and here we see the saints are with him here when he does. This is the problem you are suggesting, yes? Let me give you a matching statement from the New Testament which I believe explains this. Paul states that when the Lord returns he will "Bring with him those who have fallen asleep." He says this in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. So here we have a clear statement of whom Christ shall bring with him on his return. Those who have fallen asleep is a euphemism for those who have died in Christ. Second, and this is very much to the point, he is stating whom he will bring with him when he comes to rapture his church. So those whom Christ brings with him are not the raptured, they are the faithful saints through the ages who have died in Christ. Third, even the "bringing them with" is not what we would first expect for he goes on to explain that the "bringing them with" in specifically how it will play out will be Christ showing up, resurrecting the entire lot of them, and then he will call up those still alive. Now you and I would say, "Hey! but that isn't bringing them with him!" How can Paul say they are brouth "with him" and yet his very explanation of this phrase is that he ressurects them just before the rapture? But that is exactly the words that Paul uses for this. So I would argue that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 explain specifically who are brought with Christ, and this event happens AT the rapture. So we see the rapture happens AT the time of Christ's return with his holy ones and AT the resurrection. Which also is AT the same time as his judgment on unbelievers (2 Thess 1:5-10), which happens AT the time of the destruction of the current heavens and earth (2 Pe 3:7). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
30 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239278 | ||
Justme, There is no way to know for certain. Textual Criticism almost never gives us that luxury. In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd ed. by Bruce Metzger it states, "The rigor of Jesus' saying was softened by the insertion of one or another qualification that limited its generality and brought it into closer connection with thte context." Then he goes on to list the textual varients. Bruce Metzger's book explains the text criticism decisions made by the UBS 4 Greek New Testament. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
31 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239227 | ||
Ed.O. You ask a good question but a hard question. The question can be answered by a simple yes or no, but the reason it is so hard is because the way one answers your question is determined by how I first understand a great multitude of other texts. So when I answer, it is going to tell you a lot about how I have already made up my mind prior to coming to this text. Let me give you two reasons this isn't a bad thing. First, it is not so bad of a thing because revelation naturally comes at the end of the entirety of all other inspired authoritative revelation given by God. In other words, the original readers of the letter were 'suppose' to already have many issues of doctrine already established in their mind. This includes many notions about what happens upon Christ's return. These may not have been horribly specific ideas, but they at least had broad brush-strokes such as resurrection, judgment, new creation etc. So we are suppose to have much in place before this passage. Secondly, it is not a bad thing because we 'ought' to interpret unclear texts in light of clear texts. This is not irresponsible reading but good hermeneutics. Yes, first seek to understand the passage on its own merits, but other scripture ought to interpret scripture. Having given those statements I'll give an attempt to sort of kind of answer you. 1.) You are not the firs to suggest your answer. For whatever its worth, other Christians have put the pieces together in the way you have. 2.) I disagree with the premise that there will be a resurrection before the final tribulation. In this case also, I am not the first Christian to suggest this notion. I believe the first resurrection happens at the end, not seven years prior to the end. This of course would allow you to simply read the "first resurrection" as the first resurrection. I encourage you to study, make your educated guesses, and then test those theories further against scripture. It will only lead to further understanding, but I invite you to agree with me that two believers who truly love their Lord can disagree on such difficult issues. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
32 | why is "wield" in only the Ampl. trans.? | Rev 2:12 | Beja | 236040 | ||
Wolfie11, If I am not mistaking the translators' motive, they are simply translating the word "echo" as "wield." This word would less colorfully mean simply "to have." You'd normally just say "the one who has" However, when discussing weapon which one is carrying, "wield" becomes a fair way of expressing possession. That's all that the translators are doing there. Simply read it to refer to the one who has the sharp two edged sword. There is nothing in the greek implying usage of the sword -in this particular verse- In Christ,Beja |
||||||
33 | TWO TRIBULATIONS | Genesis | Beja | 235968 | ||
Escar, The way I understand it is that Christ gathers up the one who is taken. Keep in mind that Matthew 24:44 is not just describing the end. From a literary standpoint it is comparing the flood with the end. So just as on the day of the flood some were "taken" and others left, so will the end be. In the flood, taken was being upon the ark, left was perishing in the flood. So one group is taken up in Christ, the other is left to perish in God's earth shattering judgment. That's how I read it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
34 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234398 | ||
DPMartin, In scripture, disbelief and disobedience are very intimately linked. See Hebrews 3 for a display of their intimate connection. When God created the world he declared it to be good. Grace (Undeserved favor) is abundant. Though we do not yet have the need for mercy (underserved restraint in judgment). In Genesis three we ofcourse have an account of the fall and the entrance of wrath. In the entire book of Romans, especially 1-4 we have much said on these things. Ponder these questions, but be careful not to take scriptural ideas to unscriptural conclusions. Be ready to let scritpure reign you in as you come upon passages that either contradict or refine any theory you might have. For example we know that God's wrath comes in response to sin in all its multiple manifestations from Romans 2:2 and its context. Disbelief, even willful ignorance is clearly one of those sins from the context. But so is disobedience to parents, malice, envy, and much more. Be willing to see the wrath of God upon every manifestation of sin rather than merely unbelief. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
35 | 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 |
||||||
36 | was Adam and Eve married | Matt 19:4 | Beja | 233349 | ||
blessvern12, If you will read how Jesus applies the account of Adam and eve to a question about marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:4, I think you will agree that we may safely say that they were married. With regards to the term's first appearance in scripture, it is sufficient to acknowledge that marriage is referenced in the pentateuch which are the first five books of the old testament. I say this is sufficient because they were all written by Moses and therefore come together as the first "chunk" of scripture. So we can safely say that it was in scripture from the start. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
37 | Cain's offering | Gen 4:5 | Beja | 233301 | ||
Sbate08, I agree with what Ed has said to you in that the fundamental difference of why God accepted Abel's offering was a matter of faith. However, I would go a step further and say that what they brought to offer to God did have to do with it as well. When I consider this question the assumption I bring with me to the text is that faith is not some vague feeling towards God, but rather faith is a believing response to what God has already spoken. From this it is my thinking that God had infact told them previously what sacrifice would be acceptable to Him. Cain presumptuosly brought a sacrifice that he saw fit, thinking the works of his hands ought to be acceptable to God. Abel took God at his word (faith) and brought the previously commanded blood sacrifice. So faith was the difference, but the faith was a response to the word of God, not just a belief of God seperate to the sacrifice. Now that said, I admit that I am speculating here. I would not press this as dogma because we most certainly are not told explicitly here beyond that "faith" was the difference. However, I offer to you my own opinion on the question along with what train of thought brought me there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
38 | 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 |
||||||
39 | Did Jesus and early church drink wine? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 232989 | ||
00123, It is my personal belief that this passage states that Jesus did drink wine of the alchololic variety. Mat 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." This was contrasted with John the baptist who came "neither eating nor drinking." Now I doubt it meant that John the Baptist had found a way to survive apart from food and water. The notion seems to be with regards to eating in some kind of festive context and alcoholic beverage. Therefore if that is its reference in the previous verse, I must conclude that it is what Jesus meant in this verse. Also it gives the basis of the Pharisee's wrongly accusing him of drunkeness. I am NOT suggesting that Jesus was ever drunk. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
40 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [13] >> |