Results 21 - 40 of 42
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Binding and Loosing power over darkness? | Matt 18:18 | orthodoxy | 5884 | ||
From the context, no. Christ is speaking about the authority of the church to enforce its discipline. Whatever is "bound" or "loosed" by the church will be witnessed and validated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The authority here is only over those inside the covenant. | ||||||
22 | big sins / litle sins | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5833 | ||
The answer is both no and yes. On one hand, Scipture clearly indicates that the slightest transgression of the law imputes enough guilt for damnation. Practically though, this shouldn't make much difference, since all of us sin so much that making distinctions on this basis is a bit futile. On the other hand, it does seem that God views some sins as more serious than others. Examine the civil code in the Old Testament. Some sins require death, others do not. And the level of punishment short of death varies, apparently with the severity of the harm caused. I guess the way to harmonize these answers is that from God's perspective, one sin is just as serious as another. But from a human, especially a human judical perspective, some sins are more serious than others. |
||||||
23 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5830 | ||
I would say not. Every part of Scripture meant something to the original audience. If Rev. 16 is referring to the tripartite division of Jerusalem between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, what good would that have done for the first century church? Islam would not come into existence for another seven centuries, and would not take over Jerusalem for a few centuries after that. Also, the land of Palestine ceased to be specifically Jewish in the second century AD. There had not been Jewish/Islamic strife there until this century. If Rev. 16 does refer to Jewish/Islamic/Christian division, it would be of utterly no use to Christians that lived before this century. Scripture does not work this way. More than that though, the church really oughtn't to have any interest in Jerusalem more than any other place on earth. The sacrificial system is _over_ and the temple is no longer necessary. Judaism has served its purpose. Read Hebrews. Now that the new has come the old is dispensed with. |
||||||
24 | Urgent and swift help needed!! | Matt 18:15 | orthodoxy | 5815 | ||
The first thing you need to do is to look into your church's position on church discipline, and find out whether or not your pastor and elders are willing to enforce it. If your church does not have a clear statement about how church discipline occurs, or your pastor and elders will not abide by it, you will have a difficult time of it. Hopefully neither of these is the case. The second thing you need to do is to see if what this man is teaching actually goes against what your church has in its statement of faith. I do not know what that is, and I am not sure exactly all that this man is teaching. If your statement of faith is vague enough, you will have a difficult time bringing any action against him. If your church is anything like the church I left last year, people can teach just about anything they want. Hopefully your elders will be willing to exercise discipline, and your statement of faith is detailed enough to bring action against this confuser of the youth. Once you have determined the state of affairs regarding the first two things, you should take your husband with you and confront this man. If he does not repent, take someone else (another deacon or an elder would be good) with you. If he still refuses to repent, bring it before the elders. If he still refuses to repent, you may eventually have to excommunicate him. I pray that none of these steps will be necessary, but all of this is taken directly from the Scriptures, specifically Matthew 18:15-20. The Holy Spirit is present to validate and witness to the judgements of His church. |
||||||
25 | More help with the millennium | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5811 | ||
Yes, I do believe that Satan is restrained. His capacity for deceiving the nations was removed at Pentecost. But "the nations" is simply a term for "the Gentiles." No longer is the Word only for the Israelites and those who choose to identify themselves with the Israelite nation. Also, just because Satan's activity is restricted does not mean that he no longer has any activity in the world. Also, I do not believe that the sin in the world comes from Satan. It comes from us; we don't need his help. We are quite capable on our own. Satan was the accuser of the brethren. But "who shall bring an accusation against God's elect." Satan no longer has anything to bring against God's own, for justice has been served in the atoning work of Christ. He can no longer accuse the brethren. About Rev. 16:19. During the siege of Jerusalem, a three-faction civil war broke out between the Jews. Stones weighing up to 90 pounds were hurled over the walls by Roman catapults. Check out http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-4eschaton.php and http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-5eschaton.php for more information on this subject. In fact, the entire Eschaton section on that site is definitely worth reading. Also, Kenneth Gentry's book _Before Jerusalem Fell_ is an excellent exposition of preterism, even though he himself goes the postmillennial route instead of my own amillennial direction. |
||||||
26 | What about chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5804 | ||
I believe that Revelation has a threefold purpose. The first is to provide the church with a glimpse of heaven, which in turn makes a gigantic part of Scripture make a lot more sense. All of the tabernacle furniture? Mirrored in Revelation at some point. The great covenant promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7? Cf. Revelation 21:3. The entire book is filled with parallels of this kind. The second purpose, and the most directly applicable to the original audience, is to prophacy about the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. The similarities are striking. And in Josephus, who records the war in 67-73AD, says that the Christians had fled Jerusalem for they had a word of revelation. This is the preterist part of my eschatology. I believe that most of Revelation except for the second half of 20-22 has already happened in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. The army from the north (Rome), came through the land and killed upwards of a million Jews. Severe famine, widespread death, disease, and destruction. The third purpose of Revelation is to provide the church with snapshots of what life will be like between the Advents. There are many possible "fulfillments" of these passages, for in this sense are not intended to speak about a single event (except for, of course, the great white throne, New Jerusalem, and imagery of that type). As such, saying that Revelation 16 "has already taken place" doesn't make much sense when using Revelation in this third way. It has happened many times before, and will happen many times again. The passage is intended to be a comfort to the church, stranger in a strange land, that God will come to judge her enemies and vindicate the righteous. |
||||||
27 | Six fingered man today? | 2 Sam 21:20 | orthodoxy | 5784 | ||
This is a recognized congenital anomaly, and occurrs, albiet infrequently, even today. Most of the time the sixth digit is unusable, but this does not have to have been the case for the giants. Since I'm something of a fantasy fan, I'm personally fond of theories that involve characters and beings of truly mythical stature in Scripture. The Nephilim, etc. But this is little more than a pet theory and I wouldn't base much on it. In any case, Scripture makes very little hay out of any of these things, so it would be unwise to do so ourselves. |
||||||
28 | David's son named after the prophet? | 1 Chr 14:4 | orthodoxy | 5783 | ||
It is possible, but since the text says nothing to that effect, building anything on that idea is unwise. For all we know, Nathan could simply have been the name to have that year. | ||||||
29 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | orthodoxy | 5782 | ||
This question is easy to answer, for it has been asked and answered in church history. The Athanasian Creed states: Now the catholic* faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. Actually, the possibility you present, that God exists as one person with three manifestations, is a long recognized heresy, Sabellianism, also called modalism. This was officially recognized as heresy in the third century and Sabellius, the theory's originator, was excommunicated. It has been firmly established that one cannot be part of the Christian church and hold to modalism. This is not intended to be a condemnation of anyone, but a simple word of warning. *a word rich in tradition simply meaning "universal." It is only when capitalized, thus: "Catholic," that this term refers to Rome. |
||||||
30 | Aren't a lot more killed in chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5780 | ||
Here's a suggestion: abandon dispensational premillenialism. You will never resolve your question as to who will be in the millennium unless you do. Being amillennial/preterist myself, I believe that the millennium is now, and that we, the saints, reign with Christ. Cf. Ephesians 2. Being "seated" is the symbol of authority, just as a king sits on a throne. We already reign with Christ, but await the final fulfillment that will come when Christ returns (cf. Rev. 2). | ||||||
31 | Messianic prophecy fulfilled? | John 6:19 | orthodoxy | 5771 | ||
Except for the promise that the Coming One would be God Himself, I can't think of one. But note that most messianic prophacies are not of the kind that follow a strict prediction/fulfillment pattern. The vast majority are images, shadows, and types. Every item in the tabernacle represents Christ. The lampstand; the light of the world. The table of bread; the bread of life. The ark of the covenant; the glory of God made present. The altar; the place of atonement. The laver; streams of living water. See? Christ's fulfilment of the Old Testament goes far beyond being the specific fulfillment of specifically messianic prophacies. He is the fulfillment of all of history. | ||||||
32 | Why did Jesus walk on water? | John 6:19 | orthodoxy | 5694 | ||
I believe that Christ walked on water to reassure the disciples. Look at the preceeding passages. Christ had just turned down an offer of kingship and lost a significant number of followers. It is not inappropriate to think that the disciples were a bit discouraged. They had thought that Christ was going to shake things up, and would think this till after the ascension, but Christ had just passed up a great opportunity. I think that Christ is showing the disciples that his mission has not changed through this demonstration of sovereignty over the elements. Also, note that this is one of the seven signs that John includes in his gospel. John picked and chose the miracles he included, and has many fewer than the Synoptics. All of the signs demonstrate Christ's mastery over something of importance in popular thought at the time. The first sign, changing water to wine, demonstrates mastery over quality. The second sign, the healing from a distance, demonstrates mastery over space. The third sign, the healing of a congenital disease, demonstrates mastery over time. The fourth sign, the feeding of the five thousand demonstrates mastery over quantity. The fifth sign, the walking on water, demonstrates mastery over natural law. The sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind, demonstrates mastery over common misfortune. The seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus, demonstrates mastery over death. All seven of these things were very powerful concepts in the conceptual climate of the time, and John uses these seven signs to show that Christ is the Lord of all. |
||||||
33 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5688 | ||
Oh my. First of all, I detect a distinct, anti-tradition vibe here. Your first paragraph is simply sarcasm. Next, you have misconstrued me again. I never meant to say that only Anabaptists and Baptists baptise. How you could have gotten that from my post is beyond me. I assumed that believers' baptism would be understood as contra infant baptism. Of course I believe in baptism. Every Christian church baptizes believers, but only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants. The Pentecostal/charismatic denominations are offshoots of the Holiness movement, an offshoot from Methodism. Methodism was founded by John Wesley, who was converted by a Moravian Anabaptist. As to historical church tradition, simply look around. We all came from Rome at one point, and they have always baptised infants, and still do. The Reformed denominations baptise infants, as do the Lutherans. Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history. |
||||||
34 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5665 | ||
I'll leave the disproving to others, but I think that I can explain a bit. First, it depends on whether he is reacting to music as a whole, or just the music in youth group. If it is the latter, I would not only understand but wholeheartedly agree. I am coming to believe that "contemporary worship" does not count as worship. Look at the majesterial forms of worship set up in the Old Testament, and see how Hebrews says that we have come to something even more impressive. Then think about the kinds of music commonly played in youth groups. Doesn't exactly fit. Music is to contribute to a proper attitude, an attitude of awe, reverence, fear, and joy. Worship is entering into the very throne room of the risen Christ, and should reflect the gravity of the situation. Most music used in worship simply does not do this. If the gentlemen in question is thinking along these lines, his position is fairly understandable. However, if he holds that music of any kind is not permissible in worship, I am at somewhat of a loss to provide an explanation. It seems that music has always been used by the people of God in worship from the very earliest. My guess is that he is overreacting to the sentimental tripe that passes for "worship" nowadays. |
||||||
35 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5664 | ||
Cephas: Point your newsreader to alt.religion.christian-teen. There's very interesting conversation there from time to time, and regardless of what the name indicates, most of the people there aren't either Christian or in their teens. Any question is fair game. This forum seems to be intended for Christians to ask other Christians about Scripture. |
||||||
36 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5607 | ||
No, you should not. Your current position is understandable, considering the significant amount of animosity between the Anabaptists and just about everyone else. Even though Protestants and Romans fought wars with each other, both of them allied against the Anabaptists, who were viewed as apostate. You have chosen a singularly difficult tradition. I believe, as does the historical tradition of everyone but the Anabaptists, that rebaptism is not only unnecessary, but sinful. It declares that God did not fulfill His promises when you were baptised the first time. Baptism is the sign and seal of entering into the covenant community. It should not be partaken of more than once. More than that, my soteriology does not allow for baptism to be received more than once. Since I believe that free will has nothing at all to do with salvation, strict believers baptism makes no sense, and rebaptism becomes an act of unbelief in the promises of God. |
||||||
37 | Which mountain or the same mountain? | 2 Chr 3:1 | orthodoxy | 5602 | ||
Yes, it is the same mountain. And the Mount of Olives is the same one as in the Old Testament as well. For more parallelism, note that Adam fell in a garden, Eden, and Christ atoned in a garden (probable location of Golgotha). Also, the atonement sacrifice was sent outside the camp, and Christ was crucified outside the city. The entire Old Testament shouts out the gospel. | ||||||
38 | How was Jesus' body different? | Luke 24:31 | orthodoxy | 5571 | ||
A good question. Basically, we don't really know. But we do know that we will receive a body like his after the resurrection. There are a few things that we do know. First, resurrection bodies seem to be significantly more substantial than regular bodies. Witness Christ's ability to apparently walk through walls as if they were fog. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that he is not necessarily limited by normal spatial laws. He appears to be able to come and go at will. Whether we will be able to do this is pure speculation. I personally think it'd be pretty cool, but there isn't really grounds for thinking one way or the other. The one thing we can say for sure is that we will have a body like his. | ||||||
39 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5512 | ||
I've jumped in in the middle of this conversation, but if I am correct in my understanding of Cephas question, your answer, charis, is not satisfactory. If God is good and created only good, and evil comes from Lucifer, where then where did Lucifer come from? We know God made him. In all honesty, the serious Christian does not have an answer to the question, "Where does evil come from?" Every single answer has serious logical, philosophical, and theological problems. The only answer we can give is that evil somehow serves to further God's glory. For the Christian, this is an acceptable answer. Credo ut intelligam. I believe that I may understand. |
||||||
40 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | orthodoxy | 5510 | ||
I have always considered questions to become "foolish and ignorant" when asked by people who are more interested in causing controversy or picking a fight than producing edifying dialogue. Pagans raising the same objections again and again is foolish and ignorant. So is nagging at a doctrine when one is not interested in changing one's own opinion or anyone elses. I believe that all subjects are open to honest speculation, but no subjects are open to foolish and ignorant speculation. Question for you though: do you have any Scriptural support for the idea of human free will? I've always considered it to be an extra-biblical concept and would be interested in another opinion. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |