Results 21 - 40 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 23464 | ||
I argue no more. I am not conceding the point but one last thing -- Baptism is never by sprinkling or pouring, it is by immersion only. You don't bury a body by throwing a few grains of sand on the head -- you completely cover it. Baptism means immersion. The Greek Orthodox Church have always practiced baptism by immersion because they understand the force of the Greek word 'baptizo'. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring can be shown historically to have originated only about 400AD. Sorry, still disagree with your conclusions but I suppose that's life. In Christ Tim |
||||||
22 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Tim Sheasby | 23459 | ||
Thank you. As far as serving as a pastor, this is to some extent a congregational matter. If the majority of my congregation, or even a significant minority, were to object to me serving in that role I would not serve anyway, in spite of anything I might personally believe on the matter. But that does not, and will not, stop me from performing the tasks of a pastor anyway since these are things that all Christians should aspire to and do anyway. Amen? In the absence of elders or pastors in our congregation we have a group of concerned Christians who are trying to fill the role of the eldership and deaconate in an unofficial way. As it stands at the moment the group is open to any who desire to attend and this group handles preaching and teaching schedules, worship, benevolence, visitation etc. Our preacher said once, "we won't have elders and deacons until we have them." Elders or pastors are appointed because they are already doing the work. It is something that is deeply ingrained in their personalities perhaps. They have a strong desire to serve God and do it anyway, recognised or not. Of a congregation of 150 there are 8 men and 4 women who are in this group. This is regretably not the biblical pattern and we are working actively toward that ideal but in the mean time we have to do what we have to do. We are not self appointed guardians of the church, we are just the only ones who turn up for these meetings. Do I qualify? As to being the husband of one wife, that I am. As to the other requirements that is a matter for my brethren and congregation to determine and judge. Whether my having been divorced means I am not 'above reproach' or not is also something the congregation is to decide, I believe. I strive for those ideals and pray God, by His grace, brings me there one day. I will continue to serve Him to the best of my ability anyway. To Him be the glory. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
23 | What does baptism consist? | 1 John 5:6 | Tim Sheasby | 23455 | ||
OK, I agree that "faith works". Works demonstrate faith in other words. Though most on this forum seem to agree that baptism is important they do not agree with me on just how important it is. At the same time I have read postings that point to the idea that baptism is not optional -- which says to me it is essential. This may be semantics, I know, and we may be closer in belief that I want to admit but the issue is not whether we are saved by grace or faith or the Blood of Christ since I agree with you on all those points. The issue is at what instant are your sins forgiven? Not what saves you but at what point in time are you saved? When Jesus died on the cross he paid the debt for all our sins -- Rom 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". Yes, there are many references that say we are saved by grace, saved by faith. But the only verses I recall that talk about remission of sins or washing away sins (except when the Saviour spoke directly to individuals while He was still alive) are in Acts 2:38 "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." and Acts 22:16 "'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'" Since sin has to be removed and baptism is the mechanism for that I cannot see how one can be saved without it. Furthermore Romans 6 draws the analogy even further and says we are baptized into Christ's death and then are raised to walk in newness of life. Not the other way around. According to the timetable of most on this forum you are raised from the dead spiritually (saved) first and then you get burried to prove it. This does not work for me. I was baptised to show I had repented and so that I could wash away my sins (as opposed to the filth of the flesh). Water baptism does not represent spiritual baptism to me -- it is part of the same event. I must now apologise, I get drawn into this argument so easily but that is because I feel it is so vital. I can't help myself! In Jesus Christ our Redeemer Tim Sheasby |
||||||
24 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Tim Sheasby | 23323 | ||
Word from a divorcee. When my wife left me for another man I looked long and hard at myself. I come from a family who do not get divorced. It was a total shock to me that my ex could commit adultery, that she could even contemplate divorce. Yet as events unfolded I was the one who filed for divorce. Do I feel some guilt for errors I made in my marriage? YES. Unfortunately though, there are many things that might contribute to a divorce. My wife said it had nothing to do with any failure on my part. I thank her for that but still know I had some part at least in my divorce. When I saw signs of trouble I hid my head in the sand. I learned something from that though. It didn't make me weaker as a Christian. Ultimately it made me stronger, wiser, more sensitive, more human. It made me a better minister of God's word. Rom 8:28 "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Tim |
||||||
25 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Tim Sheasby | 23322 | ||
Remember too that God himself divorced his wife Israel -- Jeremiah 3:8 And verse 1 of the same chapter indicates that once divorced the marriage cannot be reinstated (See also Deut 24:1 following). Divorce is a terrible thing but though there may be sin attached, sin repented of can and should be forgiven. For some reason divorce has become an unforgivable sin in the church. Jesus said we should forgive seventy times seven times Matt 18:22. |
||||||
26 | Elder must be 'the husband of one wife'? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Tim Sheasby | 23320 | ||
By the same token, though, It is difficult for someone who has not been through divorce, for any reason, to understand divorce. As a divorcee myself, I hate divorce. I hate that I got divorced. I hate that my ex had no commitment to our marriage and looked for fun and entertainment elsewhere. Now I cannot change that but my experience has helped me support a woman in my congregation who was going through similar things. I am remarried and thank God everyday for my wife Jackie. Do we ever have problems? Of course we do. In fact some of the things that drove my first wife crazy drive my second wife crazy. The difference is that my second wife has the same commitment to our marriage that I have. I must also point out that my divorce from my first wife changed me in some way. It changed my perspectives and priorities and brought me closer to God again. Does the failure of my marriage eight years ago mean that NOW I am unable to handle the affairs of my household properly? Divorce can perhaps make or break you. Other Christians who have also been divorced have expressed similar views to me -- they also hate divorce. Those who were divorced "unscripturally" have repented of that sin. Forgiven of the sin does the sin still preclude them from leadership in the church? If not, why not? In Christ, Tim |
||||||
27 | What does 1 Tim 3:2 mean? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Tim Sheasby | 23319 | ||
I have been divorced. Perhaps my testimony on this will be of assistance. At the time I felt some anger toward my ex-wife because it had always been my aspiration to be an elder in the church. In my understanding at the time I believed my divorce now prevented me from that great work. My divorce might have been considered "scriptural" because my ex-wife committed adultery, yet I was treated by some in the church as if I had committed the unforgivable sin. My divorce was difficult not only for me but for my parents as well. I grew up with a strong belief that you do not get divorced. In the closing years of my marriage I went out of my way to please my ex and this only seemed to rouse her disdain. Her conviction of my weakness. When I found out about her infidelity (I had no choice, she and her boyfriend came to my house to get her things so they could move in with each other), I went the next day to see a lawyer. This was not a hasty thing, I had known about the boyfriend for some time and had tried several times to get my wife to go with me for counseling. I only managed to get her to go 2 times but clearly she was defiant and unrepentant at that point. She told me later that she was also surprised that I went and filed for divorce at all. She didn't think I had it in me. Now, many years later, we are both remarried and I hear that she has returned to the church (which she also left at the time of our separation). I have also looked at the scriptures again because a divorced friend of mine suggested I should be nominated as an elder in my congregation. Most people in my congregation do not even know of my divorce since it happened long ago and in another city. It is not that I keep is secret but it just usually does not come up in conversation. However the point that my friend made is that Paul does not say "one wife ever" but rather "one wife now". It is my commitment to my wife and my marriage that is important. At this point I am not assuming the position of elder, but, along with several other men, I strive to the best of my ability to do the duties and works of an elder anyway. I preach and teach, I counsel, I visit and pray for the sick, I give to my brethren who are in hardship, I do not get drunk, I do not brawl, I welcome strangers into my home. Lest I boast, though, I also sin in ways I am ashamed of. I often marvel that I am what I am today even though I have so often strayed from the straight and narrow and can only believe it the grace of God that keeps bringing me back. Was I guilty of sin against my first wife? Probably, I cannot concieve of a relationship where neither party never sins against the other. But if commitment is there, and love is there, then that sin can be forgiven. Can I serve as an elder? Perhaps. And perhaps only if my congregation accepts me in that position. I still desire the office and whether my brethren believe me qualified or not I believe that it is the duty of every Christian to try live up to the qualifications of an elder anyway. I pray God will help me to do that. "Above reproach" may be against me -- but that is something that is in the eyes of the congregation and community in which I work. It is for them to determine that aspect of my life. Tim Sheasby |
||||||
28 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 23317 | ||
Dear Nolan. I know I said I was going to lay this to rest but some of your comments made me look at a few things this weekend. (Actually had a lot more I would have like to have done but on Saturday morning the wife of our Sunday morning preacher phoned to tell me that her husband was terribly ill with bronchitis and would not be able to preach Sunday Morning and his son baled out at the last minute on the Sunday evening sermon at the house church we assist on Sunday evenings. I found myself in a situation where I needed to dedicate some time to lesson preparation instead of personal research. On top of that my wife came down with the same condition so I was cooking, cleaning and changing nappies as well. Quite a hectic weekend!) Looked at 2 different grammars to investigate the usage of 'eis' in the new testament. Moulton stated that Acts 2:38 could either be translated "because of" or "with a view to" DEPENDING ON YOUR DOCTRINAL BIAS. (Paraphrase). Dana and Mantey (well known baptist gramarians) state that 'eis' is used over 1700 times in the New Testament. Yet they could only quote 2 possible places where this should be translated "because of" -- Acts 2:38 being one of these (sorry, cant remember the other right now). In the writing of Luke (Luke and Acts) this usage only occurs once. This puts serious doubt on the usage to me and looks like a case of a grammatical rule being created to support a pre-decided doctrine. Unconvincing to say the least. As I have mentioned before (I think), there are two aspects to Salvation. The important part is God's part. When explaining God's part it is not always necessary to mention Mans's part (Belief/repentance, baptism). For example I have no problem with Acts 4:12 which explains that salvation is in no one else but Christ. That is not talking about belief or faith either! I started writing something on Friday and don't recall whether I ever completed and submitted it -- Friday started getting crazy. The gist of what I wanted to say is that just like Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac, to prove his faith, so in a sense is baptism a proof of our faith. Popular doctrine says baptism is a symbol of salvation already received. I think it is more a symbol of a person's faith (as per your own comments on James 2). I believe baptism and belief are essentially tied together. In the same context as Romans 5:1-2 we are told in verses 6, 8 and 10 what this is about. Christ's part in salvation was done BEFORE we were saved. Romans 6 gives a very detailed account of the process -- Baptized into Christ equals Baptized into his death v3. Baptism equals burrial v4. New life comes AFTER death and burrial therefore AFTER baptism. I am trying to not over-strees the importance of baptism but IT IS ESSENTIAL. It is something that we have to do when we believe. We are doing a course on personal evangelism for some of our newer members at the moment. The brother who is conducting the course commented that he has almost never converted "Bible Schollars". Can we be deceived by preconceptions and doctrines we have grown up with. I believe so and of course am in the same boat. My belief structures are also influenced by my own background, experience and training. But I do try to keep an open mind. If you are right and I am wrong, I pray God will forgive me and help me see the light. I pray He will help me to keep a 'love of the truth'. I pray the same for you and all others on this forum. I think I'm right, and you think you are. We can't both be right, but we could both be wrong. The only chance we have is to seek earnestly for the truth. In Christian Love My prayers are with you Tim |
||||||
29 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22841 | ||
Actually, to take this one step further, if grape koolaid did exist it might not have been able to ferment at all. Your point on fermentation is well made. The only way we can have grape juice available today without freshly squeezing it yourself is by pasteurising and preserving -- which in itself changes the substance. A friend of mine tried fermenting store bought grape-juice and found that it just went mouldy, not alcoholic. | ||||||
30 | Per 2Thes 2:3 isn't the rapture postrib? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22840 | ||
Still theorising and studying. If the man is the Pope as has been suggested by a good friend of mine, then has he not set himself up as the world head of the spiritual temple of God, the church? Man, the more I think about this the more I think my friend may be on the right track here. Tim |
||||||
31 | anti-christ revealed before rapture? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22834 | ||
This puts an interesting slant on our debate about the work of the Holy Spirit in the "is baptism necessary" debate. In the church of Christ we believe the "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit ended (as opposed to the "indwelling") by the end of the first century AD. If the antichrist is the earthly Pope then this would be in line with your timetable of events above. My version: 1. Tribulation (Matt 24) 2. Stepping aside of Holy Spirit (2 Thes 2:6-7) 3. Second coming (1 Thess 4:16-18) 4. Final destruction of the antichrist (2 Thess 2:8) As Nolan says so say I also -- This is my interpretation but this is a current theme of study of mine. Tim |
||||||
32 | Per 2Thes 2:3 isn't the rapture postrib? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22832 | ||
I did a posting on Matthew 24 that deals with my personal view on tribulation. I don't use the term rapture personally but assuming you are referring to the second coming then I believe this to be post tribulation since I believe we are already living in post tribulation times. | ||||||
33 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22829 | ||
From Eastons Bible Dictionary: HERESY From a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Galatians 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Corinthians 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Peter 2:1). From: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia APOSTASY a-pos'-ta-si, a-pos'-tat (he apostasia, "a standing away from"): I.e. a falling away, a withdrawal, a defection. Not found in the English Versions of the Bible, but used twice in the New Testament, in the Greek original, to express abandonment of the faith. In Christ Tim |
||||||
34 | What Was The Curse Of Canaan? | Gen 9:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22828 | ||
A youngster in our church recently asked why Noah cursed Canaan instead of Ham. Initial reaction was to say it wasn't too important because it was the curse of a drunken man caught "in his nakedness". This youngster put us right by reminding us that Noah was inspired and that this curse was part of God's inspired message to us. Has this verse been abused? Absolutely. I live in post-apartheid South Africa but know many right-wing organisations who try to use this passage to proove that the black people should be our slaves. Well, we did further study of this and came to virtually the same conclusions as MacArthur. Our reasoning as follows: Gen 10:15-27 lists descendants of Canaan. As you look at these names you see names of the inhabitants of the land of Israel at the time of the conquest. The name of the patriarch (Canaan) is used here to refer to the descendant tribes who would be conquered by Israel (the nation) Joshua 3:10. Many of the same names as in the list of Canaan's descendants. Canaan was not the Black line as far as I know. His brother Cush (which means black in Hebrew) seems to have this honor. If Noah had indeed cursed Ham then this curse would have included the black people, but this is not the case. Conclusion: 1. The curse was on Canaan the nation -- descendants of Canaan living in the promised land. 2. The curse was because of the wickedness that the Canaanites would perpetrate -- eg. Human sacrifice to Molech and idolatry. 3. Why did this happen after Ham's embarrasment of Noah? Noah was clearly angry at Ham and this seems to have triggered the curse of Canaan. Pure theory here that perhaps God used the occasion of Noah's anger for this revelation/curse to be made. In Christ Tim |
||||||
35 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22827 | ||
Will check my grammar on this tonight as well to see if there are any linguistic clues in the original Greek and post a follow up on Monday. In Christ Tim |
||||||
36 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22826 | ||
AMEN! We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism. You seem to disagree that there are 2 different aspects of the Holy Spirit here. In Ephesians 1 Paul talks about the Holy Spirit as a seal and pledge. (vv 13 and 14). This in no way implies "Spiritual gifts" of miraculous proportion. This is an internal Spiritual function, a mark, a sign, a seal, a guarantee. Not all New Testament Christians had miraculous ability. Miraculous ability was no evidence of spiritaul maturity either. Just look at the Corinthian church where some were claiming superiority because they spoke in tongues while others did not. Paul does not praise them but tells them to grow up. Paul speaks of these miraculous manifestations as signs to unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). These are Christians. They have received the "indwelling" Holy Spirit or the Seal of the Holy Spirit as a sign to God that they are His. But in 1 Cor 14:1 Paul tells them to desire Spiritual Gifts (implying that some of them may not have had these gifts). In the Language of Acts 2:1 and following the Spirit came "upon" them. In Acts 10 the Spirit was "Poured out" on them. A gift external with external signs. A gift "of" something can be "from" that person or thing or a gift of that person or thing him/it-self. This is not a divided Spirit but different aspects of the Spirit received at different times by the same person/s. There is a receiving by outpouring and a straight gift and these are two different things. Or is this impossible? Yours in Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
37 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22823 | ||
Furthermore. I encourage all to support what they believe with scripture. I try to do this myself. If I cannot do this, at least to my own satisfaction, then I must acknowledge that I may be on the wrong track. Thank you in Christ Tim |
||||||
38 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22822 | ||
Amen. I am no more infallible than you. I teach my own congregation this very thing. I encourage all to be like the Bereans who "...were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." Acts 17:11 NASB Tim |
||||||
39 | When will the rapture occur???? | 1 Cor 15:52 | Tim Sheasby | 22820 | ||
I think this agrees with my conclusions also. From verse 35 onward I believe this is speaking of the Second Coming -- still to come. I think v 34 closes off the preceding section and refers back to those events. I don't believe it has any relevance in the verses that follow it. Many have tried to say that this verse does not talk about that specific generation (Most notably the Jehova Witnesses, though there are others). Many have claimed to be able to determine from scripture the date of the second coming -- and so far have been wrong every time. The day and hour can never be determined since v.36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Grace and Peace Tim |
||||||
40 | When will the rapture occur???? | 1 Cor 15:52 | Tim Sheasby | 22819 | ||
The "people will say" statement is my paraphrase. In Matt 24:5-8 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many. "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs." He is not saying these are signs, just that these are things that happen. They have not stopped happening since that day! The section does begin with people claiming to be the Christ and misleading many. But again also, in light of my understanding of the passage, these are evnts that precede the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. In answer to your points on Romans 11: 1. This was written by Paul BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. But once the Temple was destroyed the genealogical records of the Jewish people were destroyed. Without these they cannot proove their identity. Priests could not practice without proof of descent. That is why today there is no Jewish priesthood and no sacrifice. Paul said his gospel was "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (gentile)" Rom 1:16. Israel simply DOES NOT EXIST without these records. 2. Any faithful remnants of Israel came into the new Israel before AD 70. 3. vv. 7-10 tell us about this remnant. The faithful remnant are rewarded according to the promise of God (fulfilment of OT promises to the Jews) but the majority, who rejected God, are hardened and ultimately cut off. 4. Amen! 5. Amen! (At least we agree on something!) 6. They can only be grafted in if they do not continue in their unbelief. This had not happened by AD 70 (40 years after Christ died -- Interesting time period that), has not happened to this day, and has no evidence of ever changing. According to the passage you quote THEY HAVE ALREADY been cut off! (v 20). The warning to us, the gentiles, is that if God was willing to cut off the original branches then how can we expect Him to be unwilling to cut US off if necessary? 7. v.25b ". . . a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;" This is the lead up to AD 70. At AD 70 this prophesy is fulfilled. v.26a "and so all Israel will be saved;" is again fulfilled in AD 70 since after that there is no more physical Israel. The rest of v26 to the end of 27 quotes Isaiah 59:20. This refers to Jesus Christ, who has indeed come. This speaks of the first coming, not the second. In Christ, Tim |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |