Results 21 - 40 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | One Body In Christ. | 1 Cor 12:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205870 | ||
... | ||||||
22 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205867 | ||
Dear Doc, You can find it in Part 1 of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. You should know these things... or your Bible school is anything but a school of the Bible. You may hate the phrase "make it relevant to today" all you want to Doc, and you may say "As if the very Words of the Holy Lord God Himself, the Creator of everything, could say ANYTHING that wasn't imminently, essentially, and thoroughly pertinent. ACK!", all you want to Doc. But your statement does not resolve questions like, "are we to say that the wearing of hats is merely an historical event not to be made relevant to today's Christian although to Paul it was a moral issue and just take the essence of the teaching, or are we to say that it is a pertinient to today just in the way it was then and to be made normative to today's Christian"? Paul said, if there are any contentions about this there is no other practice do the churches of God, but everyone disagreed as to how to apply this passage didn't they? And that was because you could not just take it as it was written and use the way Paul and the churches did then according to almost everyone in here. Now isn't that true? Do you see the problem with not making first century noramtives "relevant to today"? Let me say this one time, don't insult my Bible school or insinuate that it is anything but a good one, that is beneath you Doc. What I know is that not everything is the same now as it was in the first century and you should know that better than I do. I have read Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology Doc, it is not the only good tome on systematic theolgoy around you know... You know very well I think that attempting to take out dated first century settings and author's intents to first century Christians and trying to make them applicable to today is not so easy a task as you have made it out to be! Contemporizing the message does not necessarily mean that one will be amending anything, changing anything, or twisting anything. But it can mean that where ever an author was talking about things that seem to only apply to the first century or the OT we can find an application for today - there is no such thing as a scripture for which we cannot find a valid application for today. Example - I and II Chronicles - these are genealgogies right? Most would stretch their brains trying to make it relevant to today at all based on the context there. But it is relevant once you see it in light of the whole counsel of scripture and see that you don't have to be concerned with the various details that could only apply to then and not to now, the broader meaning could be the genealogy of Jesus through out the OT. We wouldn't take these texts and start going around numbering and listing our own genealogies in suit with the author's intent to do so to his audience would we? That would be silly! But is it still relevant to today, becuase it is part of the genealogy of Jesus or another OT saint and so on. Part of exposition must at the end encompass a hermeneutic to be applied, all scripture is profitable to the man of God to be applied. It is not about finding creative ways to apply it, or transform it, it may be necessary to find a way to present material that comes from an NT or OT setting in order to make just understandable as an application for today - that is part and parcel of good exegesis isn't it? We do not amend the message of Scripture by finding creative ways to present, transform, and translate... we exposit. We expose the truth of Scripture. We stand upon it. We do not ever attempt to augment it, polish it, spruce it up. Any such efforts only detract from it. HHHHHMMMMMM God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
23 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205862 | ||
Dear Val, I love my NASB too, it is the only translation that I will use Val! The term "wooden translation", or "stiff translation" is purely a technical term and not an insult Val. This is a term widely used by translators to mean that the text is as close as humanly possible to the Greek and Hebrew and that becuase it is so very close, and as it is today the NASB is the closest there has ever been, the English is as close to the original word order as possible and that makes is harder to read than say the NIV. The NIV is called a fluid translation because it reorders the words and finds dynamic equivalents for Greek phraseologies instead of trying to translate them word for word. This is what is meant by "wooden", or "stiff", and this is not an insulte to our gracious hosts, they know very well what is meant by these terms because they are the translators of the most wooden true to the Greek and Hebrew text that ever was. What are your verses signifying Val, a protection against a foe? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
24 | homosexual brain wired that way at birth | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205856 | ||
Dear Doc, Great Doc! God's Day To You, Tam |
||||||
25 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205855 | ||
Dear Doc, Because the Biblical world is different from the present it will be necessary to make the message drawn from theology understandable for the present. To do this it is necessary to find modern correspondents for outdated cultural settings in order for people to understand what is being conveyed. There are several approaches to this problem and they are as follows: 1.Presentation of Biblical ideas using terminology from the Bible without interpreting what the Bible says to make it understandable to the present – the Holy Spirit does the work of making the Biblical ideas understandable in order to prevent perversion of the Biblical ideas. The problem with this view is that it presupposes that everyone will be able to understand things written to people in other cultures and to other settings which have absolutely no relevance to today's experience. 2.Transformation of the Christian message through the deletion of the parts of the Bible that have no present time equivalent in order to make the Bible relevant to the present – because modern intellect rejects the supernatural, the message of Christianity is changed in its essentials to conform to society. The problem with this view is that it removes whatever is not relevant to today in an attempt to make the Bible relevant to today by using only the parts that are equivalent to today. 3.Translation of the Christian message by restating the message into modern concepts without losing the essential portion of the original teaching from the Bible – the Christian message is expressed in modern terms without trying to make it acceptable on modern grounds by finding modern correspondents for outdated cultural settings. Go figure... Go to thy curate and preacher; show thyself to be desirous to know and learn, and I doubt not but God -- seeing thy diligence and readiness (if no man else teach thee) -- will Himself vouchsafe with His Holy Spirit to illuminate thee, and to open unto thee that which was locked from thee." --Thomas Cramner - So then well, someone has to take the time to make it relevant to today don't they? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
26 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205853 | ||
Dear Doc, Are you saying the whole NASB and ESV are self explanatory and that no one needs any help understanding the Bible, or that messages sent to first century people in first century settings don't need any reapplication or reinterpretation for today? :)hats anyone? The NASB is the one of the most wooden (stiff)translations that exists and is harder to comprehend than most all other Bibles... Are you actually saying after 2,000 centuries of folks who made it their life's work to make the Bible understandable to lay men that all anyone needs to do is go read it for themselves and boom, it will become clear? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
27 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205852 | ||
Dear Val, What makes a doctrine qualify as being permanent to all people everywhere at all times - Christian doctrine is the facts about the truths of the Bilble regarding who God is and our relationsip with Him - all these things are unalterable truths from the Bible, thus permanence of a doctrine... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
28 | What is the Permanent Element? | 1 Tim 3:16 | Tamara Brewington | 205850 | ||
... | ||||||
29 | Evangelism in Prisons? | Matt 28:19 | Tamara Brewington | 205841 | ||
... | ||||||
30 | Evangelism in Prisons? | Matt 28:19 | Tamara Brewington | 205840 | ||
Dear Steve, Thank you very much... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
31 | homosexual brain wired that way at birth | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205839 | ||
Dear Val, You are presenting yourself to those who come to the forum as if you speak for the forum and somehow are in charge of it. You have been given far more leeway than anyone I have ever seen come here. Please stop. Okay Val, I apologize to you that I aologized to Bonnie saying that I was aologizing for only those who are sorry she was hurt, because everyone can apologize for themselves if they feel the need to all right Val? I have been insulted directly, not by you, I have been challenged to see if I am in compliance with what scripture says I should act like, again not by you, I have been told repeatedly that my Biblicaly based questions which are based on Biblical concepts are not scripturaly driven - the forum does non require that every question be driven by a scripture, it requires that every question by Biblicaly based. I take some mild issue with your concept here that I am presenting myself as if I speak for the forum and am somehow in charge of it... I think that it is quite apparent that that mode of operation has been taken up by quite a few others in here as they decide what is Biblical or not, decide that all questios and answers must be accompanied by a scripture when the forum says where possible, use the quotes of great protestant theologians which is tradition and not Sola Scriptura per se, these same people take great lee way to continually chat without a scripture in sight, although in keeping with being somehow Biblicaly based answers I suppose this qualifies as acceptable behavior, and some other continually post indelicate answers meant to show someone they are quite wrong without one drop of Christians grace, although I suppose that is in keeping with the guidelines of the forum. I have had a number of private emails about the clicks that exist in here and to be patient with them because their intentions are not bad, but for good to pursue the Bible and that these people who band together and sometimes gang up on someone, like they did me, mean no harm and love everyone. Who ever was involved in these things concerning me has since apologized, and I to them, and it was more than two folks. What lee way do you think I am being given Val? You have me truly wondering here, the others who have been here a long time take plenty of liberty to say what ever they want back and forth to one another and not very much of it is exegeticaly based and a lot of it affirms one another's belief's, and scripture is not always included, but as soon someone disagrees with the status quo, whether they have a scripture or not then the lee way to express is quashed immediately. But I am being given a whole lot of lee way. I will never again Val say that I aplogize for those who are also sorry Val. I also do not agree with everything you have said about scripture, but I keep my mouth shut every time because I see you engaged in long back and forth dialogues about what you believe on whatever level you have choosen to discuss it and do not think it would be nice to break the flow with a view that is not agreement with all of you who agree so heartily with one another for so very long per subject. I will stop, for the third time apologizing for others Val. I would like to see even one post to the several other members here who have set themselves up as purveyors of this forum telling them that they are somehow in charge of it and presenting themselves as if they speak for the forum. Please next time consider emailing me... Just a thought... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
32 | homosexual brain wired that way at birth | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205834 | ||
Dear Bonnie, Oh my Bonnie! It would be impossible for your email to be given out unless someone in charge of the forum gave it away, which is against the guidlelines of this forum! They promise to keep that information confidential, or none of us would have come in here and been willing to join up, it prevents quiet personal harassment! The process of the question, not feature only allows for individuals to be able to post a note to you by the forum using your confidential email address to send it directly to you, it does not give out your personal email address! Are you sure these notes did not come as poted notes, which everyone will be able to view, or did these notes not come up for everyone to view? For every question you asked there is a thread at the bottom of the screen; click on to your original question and scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see all the names and notes of people. Some of them are addressed to you, some are not; there is a bar going up which shows who posted to whom.. I am really sorry again for all of us here that care that you were hurt and I apologize again that you were hurt, as John was too... You should not have to be crying for a few hours because of things like this, I remarked to John somewheres else that we all need to be sure to rebuke and exhort in gentleness and meekness of heart. And this is why I made the comments to you that I did trying to comfort and emphasize with you... Someone else, not John, thought I was being fuzzy luvy and did not understand how hurt you really were, they missed that the tone you were being addressed in was not all that nice because Bible scripture was being used as if that covers it all, it doesn't... Something like that may be called for, but with a certain amount of delicacy in delivery to make sure it does not discourage. I have noticed that sometimes based on the type of reply that is given by the questioner to a note posted them that it may generate questions about one's affiliations because the answer one has may reflect an understanding from a secular view and then that is when Sola Scriptura comes out as the driving force behind a repply to that. Keep being led in the way everlasting, loving Sola Scriptura is not more important than loving your brethren..., Stand Strong in the Lord and in the power of His might, Tamara |
||||||
33 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205833 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Thank you... You said; Claiming to be a Baptist is like claiming to be an American. There are as many denominations among the Baptists as there are subcultures within America. There are Southern Baptists, Cooperative Baptists, Free will Baptists, Anabaptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, and on and on. Yes claiming to be a Baptist is like claiming to be an American, but my question was about the specific question of why some Baptist churches whatever their practical bent may be, use creeds and confessions. After all the Roman Catholics aslo do this, but where theirs may go beyond Sola Scrtiptura as the traditions of men, my questions centers around why some Baptists use the traditions of men as the creeds and confessions are... Taking into consideration that they may be based on Sola Scriptura. And in light of that it would not really matter what kind of Baptist I claim to be, but why other Baptist denominations use confessions and creeds... Could someone elaborate for me why some Baptist churches are not inculcated with the various protestant confessions of faith and some are? What would you say about a Baptist church that is not inculcated with these confessions, but goes by Sola Scriptura alone? Thanks for the help quvmoh, Tamara |
||||||
34 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205831 | ||
... | ||||||
35 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205830 | ||
Dear lookinforacity, Thank you for understanding that my question was Biblicaly based! It was about a Biblical concept and therefore Biblicaly based... The forum says this; Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing the Bible's sole authority (sola Scriptura), Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ. Whenever possible, postings should include supporting Bible references. It says "whenever possible, posting should include supporting Bible references". I tried for all three things I posted last night to use the pick a book of the Bible feature, but the scripture did not appear in any of my posts evern though the page flipped like it should and originaly showed the book I had in mind. So, I guess there are no tenets, by which I mean the Biblical and third dictionary definition as being doctrines, that could be said to comprise Sola Scriptura... You have included a principle here as "to be the only infallible source and rule of faith, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, etc.". I get the infallible source and rule fo faith part, but not the private interpretation part, I thought we weren't suppossed to be doing that? All in all though I think you give a thorough explaination of what Sola Scriptura is not; the traditions of men as inculcating the church of Rome. I had a nother question that was hitting on a similar concept, that somehow the traditions of men seem to be held up in some Baptists churches as well crafted traditions of men as being as important as the Sola Scriptura! God's Day To You, Thanks Jim, Tamara |
||||||
36 | psychic vs prophet difference | 1 Cor 14:3 | Tamara Brewington | 205804 | ||
Dear Steve, Thanks Steve, will consider... Thanks everyone else who took the time and patience to email me too, much fuzzy love to you all:)))))))) Tam |
||||||
37 | laying out fleece vs divining | Judg 6:38 | Tamara Brewington | 205803 | ||
Dear Doc, Thank you for that insight there about what the church has generaly taught... I have noticed you have a propensity to refer to what the compendium of theologians and commentators in the church have taught. I would say it is good to do this, but I would not rely on it primarily myself before trying to see what the scripture is saying, not saying you are either. Of course we take into account that these great men have had the time to study these things for longer and more intesnly than we might ever hope to do. I like the idea of starting with the scriptures first as a starting point in order to arrive at a conclusion; Quote, What is Theology, by Tamara Brewington, excerpt; A Starting Point for the Study of Christian Doctrine The first question that has to be answered in doing theology is where to find the sources for composing a doctrine and the sources are as follows: 1.Natural Theology – general revelation of God, i.e., the parts of creation in the universe are examined in order to extract definite facts about God and human nature as empirical evidence. 2.Tradition – the teachings of the compendium of persons and institutions which comprise the church fathers, theologians, and the Universal Christian Church throughout history provide a foundation of beliefs as a basis for what ought to be believed as being normative. 3.The Scriptures – the Bible as a document is the authority for the Christian faith ruling what should be believed and acted upon. 4.Experience – the religious experience of the Christian provides authoritative divine information from which to provide a foundation of beliefs as a basis for what ought to be normative. The scriptures provide the best source as the divinely inspired word of God from which to gather materials for composing a doctrine because it is the highest authority out of the four sources from which to choose. I would go in order by 3, 2, 1, and 4 with great caution. I was unfamiliar with this example by John Gill that you gave, I have never, ever heard this take on this passage before... Quote, MacArthur Bible Commentary, by John MacArthur, pg. 277, par.6; Gideon's two requests for signs in the fleece should be viewed as weak faith; even Gideon recognized this when he said, "Do not be angry with me" (v.39) since God had already specifically promised His presence and victory (vv. 12,14,16). But they were also legitimate requests for confirmation of victory against seemingly impossible odds (6:5, 7:2, 12) God nowhere reprimande Gideon, but was very compassionate in giving what his inadequacy requested. In 7:10-15 God volunteered a sign to boost Gidneon's faith. He should have believed God's promises i n7:9, but he needed to bolstering, so God graciously gave it without chastisement. I am thinking about John Gill's statement there that; "and perhaps his view was more for the encuoragment of those that were with him than himself". I do not find that very credible because Gideon seemed to need a personal confirmation for himself because he says to God, "then I will know that You will deliver Israel throug me,". Perhaps you see why I came to the conclusion there that Gideon was seeking for God to confirm what God has already said and that it was a testament of the state of his faith or so. Thank you for the information... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
38 | psychic vs prophet difference | 1 Cor 14:3 | Tamara Brewington | 205737 | ||
Please don't give up on all us fusty dusties in here my new friend. WeW, it does get crusty and dusty in here doesn't it!? I will tell you this as I laugh and type with warm memories of hot topics goin on in here... Don't let it get to you, everyone means well... Everyone here is a real stickler for Sola Scriptura! The literal intrpretation of the Bible and we all tend to look at the whole world with our Bible lens on and sometimes the things get all fogged up and we forget that it is a fellow Christian in here that was asking a question in the first place! Please don't know better next time ask all your questions please don't stop being you ever, you are special, you are unique! It is not fair of anyone to make you feel like you should know better next time! I apologize for every one in here, most of all me! I have about the most inquisitve mind in here, perhaps you are about to top my record on this! I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING THAT IS THE TRUTH, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT MATTER, ONLY FOLKS WHO GET OUT OF WHACK BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT FLASE DOCTRINE OR PURE SPECULATION IS BEING THROWN OUT WITHOUT FORE THOUGHT - NOT SEEING A SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR SEEKING THINGS RUFFLES FEATHERS IN HERE. BUT IF YOU NEED TO KNOW SOMETHING OR YOUR BRAIN IS COOKING IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION, JUST ASK, THEY WILL GET USED TO YOU... We also all need to pracitce Christian love and tolerance in here and not be so quick to hop on pop, we are all here together. God Bless You, Tamara |
||||||
39 | Evidenc of Signs in 2008 Valid? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205735 | ||
Well thanks for the Help Jim! By the way I am still working on our project my friend! eamil you later! Tam |
||||||
40 | homosexual brain wired that way at birth | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205733 | ||
Dear believer, Quote, Christian Ethics and Morals, essay by Tamara Brewington 2008; Medical Aspects The Kinsey Report was responisble for flawed data concerning the percentages of sexual exploitation in children and adults. Some researchers state that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals are chromosomally, or hormonally differetn than hertosexuals. Sexual behavior has been found to be the result of learned behavior, rather than genetic disposition. The pathology of the family psychology has been found to have little to no effect on becoming homosexual or bisexual. There have been attempts at treatment of homosexuality and research has not proven that sexual orientation is determined by the age of three. Research shows that homosexual behavior can be reversed. Homosexuality has been the cause of a rise in sexually transmitted diseases of all types due to promiscuous activity, accounting for 50 percent of all sexually transmitted diseases. Hepatitis B is prevalent in the homosexual culture and there has been a rise in the incidences of rectal cancer. This causes a public health problem touching the interests of the general public at large. I think it is safe to say there is no merit to the beliefs of homosexuals that they are "born that way" the Bible says that they got the was they are for worshippping something other than God and science clearly shows that their "feelings that they are born that way" are unfounded to date. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [14] >> |