Results 21 - 40 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243777 | ||
Justme, Its an interesting question you put forth. I personally have never had to face it. As I imagine it though, I certainly hope they'd choose to come to me. In which case I can only say my response would be a mixture of prayer, evangelism, and trying to command the demon in the name of Jesus. Emphasis being on prayer. But let me twist this towards a question of my own. I don't think it will settle the issue, but might illustrate my own concern. So the question is this, if I were to prepare people for this instance, if I were to tell them "here is what to do in that moment", what passage specifically ought I teach them? What I am getting at is the question of whether scripture ever actually gives us this detail plan for dealing with possessions. And per chance if we were to conclude that it doesn't, what am I suppose to give them in light of scripture's silence? Should I make it up? Should buy some other book rather than scripture? So the question boils down to this in my mind, whatever the Bible means to teach us, that I ought to teach. If scripture means to train us for handling possessions, then I ought to teach my people precisely what it teaches us. If it does not, then I have no obligation there in my teaching ministry. By the way, we do need to answer that question, perhaps the bible does in fact teach us how to handle it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
22 | What is predetermination all about | John 3:16 | Beja | 241893 | ||
EdB, I agree with you that that is the spectrum. But to be fair, I have never met a person who would say that "what we do does not effect our eternal destiny." I just don't want the original poster to think that those who disagree with your position would then necessarily think our actions don't matter. Those who believe in God electing individuals to salvation do historically hold that our actions matter and have impact on our eternal destiny. Specifically that we must repent and have faith in Christ to be saved, but more than this as well. Only an extremely small percentage of calvinists have ever held that our actions do not matter. And these are what we call hypercalvinists, there is a huge difference between the two. You may find this position to be inconsistent, I do not find it inconsistent, but even if you deem it to be inconsistent then we must be careful to portray those we disagree with accurately. Then we can proceed to say they are inconsistent. It would be dishonest to smooth out their theology into what we think the implications ought to be and then accuse them of holding teachings which they deny. Specifically, if we think the implications of their theology imply that our actions do not matter, and yet they hold that our actions do matter, we must not accuse them of holding to our imagined implications. That being said, you did not err in your statements. I just want to make sure readers understood that 99 percent of those who hold to election are not on that far end of your spectrum. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
23 | Why do we have ""Free-Will"? | Bible general | Beja | 241578 | ||
jeremiah1five, You state, "by virtue of creation angel and man was created sinful" and also that the reason man sinned was because he was created sinful." I think this doesn't square up with scripture. One example is Romans 5:12 where he states, "sin came into the world through one man." Paul portrays Adam as transgressing and bringing sin into the world for the first time. How could this be if sin was present by virtue of creations? How could sin have entered into the world through Adam's transgression if the already existing angels were sinful before he was created? But your position holds far reaching consequences. It is the clear testimony of scripture, and our blessed hope that Christ will one day remove sinfulness from his people. Revelations testifies that we are hoping for a city where sin will not enter. In many places, 1 john 3 and Romans 8:29, scripture promises that we will be conformed to the image of Christ. Certainly if we are conformed to the image of Christ we will not be sinful. Yet if what you say is true, and it is impossible for anybody but God himself to ever be righteous and without sin, then you declare null and void these most precious promises of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
24 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241214 | ||
allisraelsaved, I think you are mistaken about it meaning until the end of the age. The greek behind "forever and ever" assuming we are referring to Rev 20:10 says literally unto the age of ages. It was the way the new testament says what you and I would mean by forever. Contrast that with the end of Matthew where Jesus literally says until the close of the age. So they could very specifically state until the end of the age with biblical greek, the phrase unto the age of ages is something quite different meaning extending throughout them all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
25 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241209 | ||
EdB, You said: "To do it you need a way to explain extra-Bibically why the beast and false prophet were mentioned in a present after being thrown in the lake of fire." I took the "in a present" part to be referring to a present tense, and in the context of your post it sounded to me like you were trying to refer to Rev 20:10. I'm not sure where else you would be referring to. If I misread you I apologize. I'm not suggesting in any way that Rev 20:10 teaches anihilation. I personally believe scripture teaches eternal torment. As for my motive it was as I said, "just to be fair." I thought you were saying he needed to explain a present tense verb there, when there isn't actually one to be explained. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
26 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241207 | ||
EdB, I'm not an anhilationist but just to be fair, if you are referring to Rev 20:10 there is not actually a present tense verb there in the greek. The verb is left implied. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
27 | Thithing loan | Bible general | Beja | 241155 | ||
Movingon, I'd like to understand your personal dispensational take on scripture a little more precisely. I definitely understand it in broad brush strokes, but I'd like to ask a few precise questions to help me test the edges of it. If you do not wish to answer them that is fine, but as you've seemed to always been happy to respond in the past I feel encouraged to ask you. However, should you choose to respond I do have one request. Please try to answer my questions as concisely as you possibly can. When two people are trying to understand one another one of the surest way to cause it to fail is to answer too much. A person says so many things and the listener has such a great number of objections, uncertainties, and needs for clarification that the conversation is effectively killed as their is no hope of untangling it all. This difficulty is magnified on the forum where we have a limited space to type and the conversation even has the chance of progressing on its own before I even read the response. So if you wish to answer, please try to answer the question as precisely as you possibly can, trusting that you need not re-explain the entire system and how you feel misunderstanding this has been that which has derailed the church. Nor do you need to spend time trying to persuade me. My question: You state that you do not believe the gospels apply to us, but do you believe the great commission of Matthew 28 was a commission to build the church or was it for the disciples to go out offering the kingdom? Perhaps said another way, when they went out making disciples and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was this building the church or the kingdom of that previous dispensation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
28 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241110 | ||
Sharsmit, Absolutely. Israel is a masculine noun, so it is grammatically necessary for it to be a masculine pronoun. Anytime you see Israel referred to in a feminine sense is purely for poetical reasons when she is meant to be portrayed as God's bride or something along that nature. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
29 | How many churches will be saved? | Matthew | Beja | 241044 | ||
Movingon, However you may read this verse, at the end of the day "ekklesia" is in fact the word scritpure uses for "church." For example, 1 Corinthians 1:2 addresses the letter "to the 'ekklesia' of God which is at Corinth." Yes, the word does mean "assembly" but "ekklesia" remains the word constantly used for the church. On that note I wonder about your interpretation of Hebrews 12:22-23 where he tells them they have already (perfect tense) come to the "ekklesia" of the firstborn? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
30 | later versions contain this paragraph? | Mark 16:20 | Beja | 240553 | ||
Tim, Doc has indeed pointed you to one of the key places to begin a study of your question. However, just to be blunt, if you are not trained to understand those sources or have somebody able to help you work through them they won't practically pay off. You are going to basically be told that aleph and beta two fourth century manuscripts omit this section of Mark. Many more manuscripts contain it, the problem is that Aleph and Beta are perhaps the most reliable and of the most early of the sources we have available. However, any modern commentary on Mark that is worth its salt must deal with the question you are asking and likely deal with it in great detail. Therefore I would suggest you seek your answer in commentaries. They are far from inerrant but you will get to see the discussion. R.T. France's commentary on Mark is usually agreed to be at least among the finest of the commentaries on Mark recently published. So I would point you there to seek an answer. It will take a little work on your part but any answer given on this forum will be reductionistic out of necessity. Good luck to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
31 | Anyone interested in Revalations 13:3? | Bible general | Beja | 240372 | ||
See MzVicki's profile. | ||||||
32 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240311 | ||
Jalek, Thank you for the clarifications. I think I understand you better now. I still disagree with your reading of verse 19 for two reasons. Reason 1: I maintain that "in" is not the best translation for this context. First, en is far far more flexible of a preposition than you suggest here. But specifically I have compiled a list of places where the NASB has translated the phrase "en autois" as "among them. Luke 9:46;22:24;John9:16;15:24 Acts 4:34;18:11;24:21;25:6 Rom 11:17 2 Peter 2:8 Plainly "among them" is a possible translation for the phrase "en autois." However, (reason 2) I don't mean to suggest that the phrase itself constrains this interpretation. There are many instances where this phrase is not translated as such but is translated variously "with them" "by them" and "in them". It is the context which guides our translation as to what the proper sense is in the particular passage. And in this instance you failed to respond to what I am suggesting is the key contextual constrain. The passage says that it is "en autois for God revealed it to them." The basis in this context of it being "in them or among them" is that it was revealed to them. This in my mind rules out something inherrent in humans being referred to. Some sort of revelation is the basis, and in the context it is indeed general revelation within creation. Now this being said I think your point in no way rests on this question, or at least I don't see how it would. Also with regards to "but how does General Revelation condemn us? It condemns us because it contains the first step towards coming to a saving belief in Christ." I would suggest that it condemns us because in our idolatry and living for our pleasures, it removes all pretense of suggesting we didn't know such things were wrong. Once again there is a phrase that gives the basis of why "They are without excuse." Verses 20 and 21 say,"...so that they are without excuse. FOR even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks." So Paul's point is that general revelation means that they knew they were doing wrong. There is no place in the passage where Paul is arguing that general revelation condemns because it is the first step towards salvation. Now you might argue this from other passages, but I think it is nowhere in Romans 1. At least that I can yet see. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
33 | Divorce and drug abuse | 1 Peter | Beja | 240307 | ||
RitaAnn, May God bless you with spiritual wisdom for this. I will not continue this thread as I personally think talking through something like this would be quite a long discussion and I don't suspect a long counseling discussion is what the forum was meant for. Despite that, when you tell me that you are being counseled by your church leaders and in your words you are yet "so lost and confused about whether or not, I should terminate this marriage," I can not help but to worry if you are getting sound advice. If you wish to speak further about this you are welcome to e-mail me at jdobbins865@students.sbts.edu and we may talk further. But let me also say that getting spiritual advise from some stranger on the internet is a pretty silly notion. The forum works because we are discussing a specific text that is before each of us and discussing what it might mean. Should anyone tell me some weird interpretation I can look down at the text and see it is a bogus interpretation. Counseling is much more difficult via internet because you must analyze what is going on in a person's thinking, because the point is to get your thoughts and actions in line with scripture. You can rarely get a complete picture of somebody's thoughts and life when you have never met them. Plus YOU don't really know if my teaching is scriptural or if I'm some fringe heretic wanting to win you over to a cult. You can know two things about me. First, I am a southern baptist, with a strong reformed bent if that is helpful to you at all. Second, I am married and my wife will always be welcome to read any and all of my e-mails (and often does). All that said, if you wish to speak further on it with me in particular, you may e-mail me. Again, may God bless you with knowledge for obedience. And again, I commend 1 Peter to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
34 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Beja | 240305 | ||
Jalek, Let me first say it is refreshing to see a post that plainly desires to analyse a passage of scripture about a specific question. I have a few thoughts and questions for you. First, I'm not very clear on what you are specifically disagreeing with in Sproul's post or what precisely you are asserting. I am sure that is my fault but is there anyway you could help me see what thesis your line of reasoning is meant to prove? Second, I'm not sure about that interpretation of verse 19. The actual words used in the greek could just as easily be interpreted as "among them" as it could "in them." So I begin wondering what that phrase could mean. Then I note the way Paul supports the statment. He says, "It is (phrase in question) for God revealed it to them." So the reason it is in them is because God has plainly revealed it not because it is inherently tied up in what each of us are. Now I don't disagree that mankind is made in God's image. But it seems in this passage Paul is not referring to anything inherent in humans, but rather trying to say that due to general revelation by God, knowledge of God is readily within our midst due to creation all around us. So I don't think he is arguing from some internal thing or image of God. The point is that this general revelation of God is in our midst. Not sure how crucial that is to your arguement but thoughts? Finally, your final phrase concerns me, allow me to repost. "Each time a step is taken, God gives mankind a chance to turn back from their ways, and recognize his sovereignty. If they don't, God punishes them." What concerns me, is that it sounds a little like you are suggesting that if mankind had at any point simply repented then faith in Christ's personal intervention on our behalf would have been unnecessary. Because trusting in that is what we are talking about with "special revelation." Could mankind have responded to general revelation during one of these steps and been "ok" with God? I would think not, because a sin debt remains still regardless of whether they further add to that debt. If that is so then while we may not like the tone of the statement, we do affirm that general revelation only gives enough knowledge to condemn us. I suspect your point is thus: While general revelation does indeed condemn us, it may also spur us to seek out that special revelation that saves us, which is the gospel. Am I close? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
35 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240250 | ||
Jalek, Sorry, just noticed that you wanted a reference to ankles specifically as distinct from the hem. So much for reading when I first wake up! The previous poster probably was thinking of the hem bells. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
36 | rope on the priest ankle | Ex 28:33 | Beja | 240249 | ||
Exodus 28:21-35 | ||||||
37 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Beja | 240199 | ||
Movingon, Sorry it took so long for my reply. I've read over most, but not all, of the thread you pointed me to. I am no judge or jury on this forum nor do I intend to present myself as such. But since you have asked me regarding it, or at least I think you have... It is quite easy to identify where that thread went wrong. The problem was that it began with an insincere question. When I say an insincere question I mean a question that was not actually seeking to learn something. You already had your answer resolved, you asked purely to bait somebody to answer so that you could then "instruct" the forum. Everytime this happens on the forum it leads to a confrontational thread. Usually it is the sign that the poster will stay briefly and argue much. I so hope you prove this wrong. I hope you stay long and are benefitted by this community. But I also hope you refrain from trying to make this forum your personal teaching ministry. So often somebody will come here and they don't come to study scripture and to grow with everybody. The arrive planning to teach us something they assume we have all missed. This never goes well. You will likely continue to find yourself in confrontational threads as long as it is your intentions to be a "teacher." So much more good could be done on this forum if we all simply had the mind to discuss particular texts of scripture together. But sadly more often we come to this forum not studying scripture, but to argue for our systematic theologies. Systematic theology is great, but when we debate systems rather than slowing down and discussing individual sections of scripture we learn little and debate much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
38 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Beja | 240192 | ||
Movingon, "is the same as most Amillennial twisting of plain literal words to suit their own inventions" Perhaps a little more graciousness to those we disagree with would be fitting. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
39 | belief in hell? | Bible general | Beja | 240094 | ||
Maus, I personally debated for sometime on whether the ideas concerning hell in scripture were metaphorical or literal. I do not think we are being disrespectful to scripture by asking how to rightly understand what it is asserting. However, we must remember the goal is not to consider what we think about hell, but specifically is scripture "intending" these things to be metaphorical or literal. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that scripture intends it to be literal. All this is to say I am not offended with the question, that being said I have two statements with regards to your reasoning. 1. Tracing the origen of the word is not the samething as wrestling with what Christ and other New Testament writers say about the subject. We must consider what it is they are saying about "hell" regardless what word they have chosen to label it. What do they say and how do they mean it to be understood? And because we affirm the inspiration of the new testament, it does not matter how they mature or develop the Old Testament doctrine, we believe them to have done so rightly. 2. Too often when somebody decides that Hell is a metaphor for some other penalty, they decide it is some other penalty far more bearable than the metaphor of eternal fire. What must be accepted, is that if the New Testament authors truely intended to describe eternal judgment by a eternal burning of which there will be no relief. Then whatever hell is in reality, it must be something horrible beyond our comprehension. Because the inspired writers chose the most terrible metaphor they could possibly conceived of, it must mean hell is worse than we can conceive of. So I always tell people, if you wish to sincerely wrestle with this question, by no means use it to lighten the concept of hell. The question is valid, but to then assume hell is less terrible is intellectually flawed, and is only motivated by our desire to ignore this terrible reality. As stated, I believe hell is literal, but these are some guidelines if we want to restle with the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
40 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239830 | ||
Jasper, I'm not sure what to make of your post. Either you: a) Wish to debate whether salvation is by Faith alone with me. Although I have not tried to assert a position. or b) You somehow think throwing your lot with one side of the reformation actually answers the question of whether the two sides still disagree, when it rather proves an ongoing disagreement instead. Since the second option is silly and therefore would be ungracious of me to assume of you, I am left to think that you are trying to persuade me of salvation through works? Help me out here. Am I misunderstanding you? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |