Results 21 - 40 of 729
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: charis Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Is whate'er my God ordains right? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5439 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, The point of all of the above string of postings was to say that God is right? Well, I agree that He is absoulutely right. Logic would dictate, then, that He could not cause or be responsible for wrong, or evil. Perhaps I am too simple for this discussion. Pardon me if I have misjudged you or misinterpreted your words. Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
22 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5440 | ||
Dear Cephas, If all you can conclude thus far is that God made angels and men capable of evil(and good), that is slightly better that holding God personally responsible for evil. Does it not seem to you that this entire line of hypothesis is quite negative, even disrespectful toward God? Delving deeper than the universally accepted and Biblically-confirmed idea that Lucifer is the author of all our troubles seems counter-faith to me. The Lord Jesus has ordained the church and His chosen servants to disciple and nurture His people. Please avail yourself of this gift and see if your pastor can give you guidance. I must admit that I cannot fathom any reason for pursuing the 'ultimate root' of evil if you presuppose that the culprit is God. Because if one does not accept that it is Lucifer(satan), it must be his Creator. I personally cannot see God having anything to do at all with the introduction of evil into this world. Peace in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
23 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5513 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Welcome to the forum. I am aware that my solution to this problem has serious logical, philosophical, and theological problems. But, to be honest, I don't deal all that often with logical, philosophical, and theological people. Most saints are not as deep as this question has become. (I, personally, think the discussion has become inane) Most saints trust that God is absolutely good, and know that satan is the author of our troubles. Your answer, though perfectly acceptable, is more mystical (somehow) than plain. It is, however, better than saying that God is (ultimately) responsible for evil :-) (btw, is it truly logical to assume that because God made Lucifer, God made evil?) Blessings to you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
24 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5649 | ||
Dear Cephas, As with your namesake, please do move on to other, more uplifting things. I do not say this in anger or exasperation, but for your own sake and ours. Peter walked with the Lord Jesus, yet doubted and left Him and even denied Him. He later was filled with the Spirit and this took away every doubt, every bit of skeptisism. He trusted God completely from that time to his death. To speculate that "maybe God this..." or "maybe God that..." is not giving due glory to God, or honoring Him. "What if God made evil?" is a worldly, humanist idea for a new 'Star Trek' movie, or a new 'fantasy' bestseller. This is a forum for sharing our thoughts about a glorious God, full, completely full of goodness and lovingkindness. To investigate His holy Bible for truth and love. I don't know about others, but I find speculation about God's intentions and motives to be peace-robbing, not edifying or peace-giving. Bless you, dear friend, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
25 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5655 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Your claim that the Anabaptists are the only ones that practice baptism by a believer is outrageous! Also, your 'soteriology' does not allow or disallow anything. It is simply your opinion. We came to share and discuss, not pontificate :-) Bless you, dear fellow believer, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
26 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5656 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Sorry, I meant "Your claim that the Anabaptists are the only ones that practice re-baptism of a believer is outrageous." Bless you, dear fellow believer, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
27 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5670 | ||
Dear Cephas, I can call you 'dear' and 'friend' and 'fellow' because you have confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I made no accusations, but simply used your word 'weird' in accord with Websters Dictionary. I use censure in the manner of 'appraise' or 'critique,' which should be acceptable usage. I meant only to clarify the difference between useful discussion and useless speculation. My posting, though connected to your comments, was for a forum of believers in Christ, not a personal attack on your character. I don't know enough about you to do that. I replied to your (several) postings, with the motive of expounding my absolute faith in God as a good God. I thank you for your forgiveness. In fact, I treasure it, if it is genuine. Peace upon you, Cephas, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
28 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5695 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, You are perceptive! I am not an adherent of man-made tradition, no matter how old it is. But, you do me an injustice. The first paragraph was not all sarcasm, though I admit that a bit creeped in :-) I do admire people with definite beliefs. I admire more those whose strong beliefs are tempered with humility, breadth, and clear Bible foundation. Perhaps I did not construe your words correctly. You did make a very strong statement that had a 'us and them' 'we are right, they are wrong' quality to it. And 'they' are not just a pitiful little minority. You make it sound as if anyone that has forsaken the tradition of infant baptism is but a deceived follower of Anabaptist heresy. Your view of historical 'offshoots' is terribly over-simplified. My friend, this is hardly the way to 'make friends and influence people.' "Only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants." Well, believe it or not, there are a good number of saints that read the Bible and came to that conclusion as a result of conviction by the Holy Spirit. Your 'compartmentalization' of Christian belief and history is astounding. I do 'look around,' and I do not see that "we all came from Rome at one point." I know that I didn't! "Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history." I order to prove that, you will have to come up with incontrovertible proof that Jesus taught infant baptism and the apostles and new testament saints practiced it. As yet, you have not even started to do so. Thus far, you have only potificated your denominational bent. Give us some Scripture! Bless you in the name of Jesus, charis |
||||||
29 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5766 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Please tell me who is being insulting? You have denounced every Christian that has Anabaptist, Baptist, or Pentecostal roots, and thrown in 'some' Charismatic, Methodist, and independents on the side, and declared them heretic for their non-traditional view of Scripture. Once you have aligned your tradition with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, you are indeed in the majority, and state that 'majority rules, and others drool.' What a bigoted form of faith.(bigot-a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices-Webster) When you state that 'we all come from Rome.' you are saying that every Christian's faith rides upon tradition. I prefer to believe that personal faith in Jesus Christ and the personal revelation of the Bible by the unction of the Holy Spirit are still working in the church. Am I wrong to believe this? "...Almost exclusively in the US." Please tell me, how much have you travelled, and how many years of study brought you to this conclusion? We finally come to Scripture. Your doctrine is based wholly on the assumption that 'household' MUST include infants and children, and that NT circumcision is baptism, and must be done on the eighth day (or whenever it is convenient for infant-parents-church facilities). Is this generally correct? I am sorry to ask the 'utterly impossible' of you, but don't you think that a reference that Jesus instituted this rite, or the apostles practiced it is in order? Your extrapolation of Scripture is strained. Does not the Old Testament promise of a 'circumcision of heart' (Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4) speak of faith on the part of the individual, as compared to a rite performed by religious officials with the parents consent? What I am saying is that the bulk of you argument rests on majority and tradition, not the Bible. You state that you "...cannot detect anything offensive..." in "proclaiming the truths of Scripture." I, the minority, heartily disagree. This Bible Study Forum is not a 'soapbox' for denominations, but a place for research of the tenets of Christian faith. I would be glad to discuss with you the doctrine of baptism in it's various forms, but please keep your label of 'heresy' and the like to yourself. If I 'cross the line' by denying the virgin birth, the Triune nature of God, the efficacy of the name of Jesus, the Blood of Jesus, or the like, then bring out your accusations, dear brother-in-Christ. Peace upon you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
30 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5801 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, I am not 'denounced' but my faith is 'rooted in heresy.'(?) Why don't I feel better about this? Friend, I am not an Anabaptist or Baptist. Never have been. I am not influenced by them. I am not just a product of someone's teaching, who is a product of someone's teaching, back to Rome. I am a believer in the Bible, and have come to my conclusions after reading and studying the Bible, Seeking the direction of the Holy Spirit, and studying the history of the church. I take offense at the suggestion that I could not come to some conclusions on my own. (and I don't take offense easily) "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)" John 4:1,2 NASB 'Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."'Acts 2:38 NASB I believe the above Scriptures speaks of baptism of believers. "Household" includes goats and camels. Please continue to sprinkle or pour water on you children, at your convenience, and believe that you have performed a work in their heart. I choose to wait, believing that God will keep them until their own faith comes forth. I believe that you are a Christian brother, and would hope to receive reciprocal courtesy. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect" -Wesley Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
31 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5808 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, We agree that we are both Christians, and disagree on the method and timing of baptism, but not the necessity. I prefer the baptism of a believer, and think that the leading of the Holy Spirit should guide the individual to decide whether to be baptized as a believer or not. You prefer the tradition of your church, which needs no restatement here. Fine. I have no further arguments, I think it would be unfruitful. Your statements are abrasive and your attitude toward the me is patronizing and offensive, not caring or loving. You know almost nothing of my salvation experience, my environment, or my walk in Christ, yet insist that you must offend. The whole thing about Rome has nothing to do with Biblical faith, yet you are bigoted and stiff-necked. I know that you think that you have no need of 'people skills,' but I think you do if you are to serve the body of Christ. Shu Iesu Kirisuto no shukufuku ga yutaka ni anata no ue ni arimasu you ni. Douka, kono kudaranai arasoi wo ato ni shite, sei naru majiwari ga dekimasu you ni. Kami no megumi ga kyoukai no ue ni sosogaremasu you ni. Shu Iesu no na ni yori, karisu May the Lord Jesus Christ put His abundant blessings upon you. O, that we may put this meaningless argument behind us, and engage in holy fellowship. May the grace of God be poured upon His church. In the name of the Lord Jesus, charis |
||||||
32 | Where are guardian angels mentioned? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5880 | ||
Dear Nolan, As I wrote in answer to HeirofGod, I certainly believe that angels are charged with protecting His people in accordance with His wishes, the reality of a full-time, personally-assigned angel or angels for every child or every saint is not supported in Scripture. I read all your references, as well as all the previous references in this line of postings. Your posting about Peter is the most challenging to understand, but not very conclusive about the existence of guardian angels. Why the others would taunt her that 'it was his angel' seems to be ridiculing her, as if she was seeing a ghost. Peter's angel was off the job? Guardian angels look like their charges? Why didn't they want to see who it was? I don't know. Matthew 18:10, These angels are constantly in heaven. Also, as every child does stumble on rocks and every other available protrubance, and suffer all kinds of accidents (some more than others), then God is a God Who does not send the angels to protect all that often. That God *withholds* His angels is a stumbling point. (pun intended :-) As a parent, I would be pretty upset every time my child skinned her knee, or got a fever. Those times are heart-wrenching! "Where were you, Guardian?!?!" That "more than 12 legions" are available at any time does not surprise me at all. I believe in myriads of angels! I have experienced angelic intervention both before and after I was apprehended by the Lord. However, *my own* angel is a bit hard to grasp. Possibly those few people that never have any problems could claim their constant companionship? In any case, dear friend, I don't lose sleep wrestling with this, and I hope you don't :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
33 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5881 | ||
Dear Orthodoxy, In my previous posting I ended in a prayer of peace between us. I was not being sarcastic or facetious. However, before that I was rude, and broke my own rules of propriety. I would like to beg your pardon. You do not know my circumstance, but I don't know yours either. Please accept my apology. Though further discussion of infant baptism seems fruitless, I am sure that we will have other topics to discuss in the future. I will try to curb my uncivil tongue, and glorify Jesus in our fellowship. Yours in Christ, charis |
||||||
34 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5985 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Subtlety and tact never hurt anyone. Jesus was straightforward and firm, and spoke with absolute authority, but he also was compassionate and full of grace. Tradition is fine, but bear in mind that our true roots are recorded in the Bible, in the actions and hearts of the saints in places such as Jerusalem and Antioch. This tradition is the holy Word of God, which is living and active, while subsequent tradition cannot share this quality. Yes, we must learn from the past, but often tradition is a history of mistakes and foolishness of man (which can be a great tutor). Please, please! This is a Bible study forum of saints from many backgrounds, pursuing unity of faith in Christ Jesus. Denominational or traditional bent is out of place, and courtesy will be rewarded by our Lord. Trust, friend, we all have more thoughts than we portray here, but hold back for the sake of fellowship. Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
35 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6011 | ||
Dear Cephas, Your last statement was "God does not have free will in the way we have." It's like putting the cart in front of the horse. It wil move, but not very well. The sin that we have does not let us enjoy the freedom from sin that is an attribute of God. What if the answer was "No"? Does it feel better? Does it make sense? Does it strengthen your faith? Does it encourage believers and unbelievers? What if the answer was "Yes"? Does it feel better? Does it make sense? Does it strengthen your faith? Does it encourage believers and unbelievers? Philosophical questions can have merit. This particular question defies merit. (and maybe God, too.) Finally, are you so sure that you have as much free will as you assume? That you can 'choose to do good or evil' to the extent that God does not enter in as a variable? I, too, believe in the limited free will of man, but have found that God can supersede our will at any time He wishes. (unless, of course, you are one that has succeeded in blaspheming the Holy Spirit) And Praise be to the Lord that this is so! Bless you, dear Cephas, to get your answer. Then, move on, for there are a lot more important things to dwell on. In Jesus, charis |
||||||
36 | Please help. Post your comments. | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6012 | ||
Dear EdB, I know it's good to vent, but... At least I know that I wasn't the culprit that red-flagged orthodoxy :-) I hope my advice to others was not ungodly and from the pit of hell. I pray that my motives were not an effort to esteem myself above others by making others look like fools. I still think that this is the best Christian forum I have seen. Full disclosure of voters defeats the purpose of secret ballot. Where questions are allowed, advice will be solicited. Advice from hell will probably be obvious to most of this audience. I suppose a lot of us are 'wannabe scholars.' Even the fellows with (or seeking) acronyms and abbreviations after their names :-) Then again, I trust that most want to serve God and His people by participating in this forum. Peace upon you, friend, in the name of Jesus, charis |
||||||
37 | Biblical support for animals in heaven? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6056 | ||
Dear prayon, I think there is Biblical argument for animals in the future kingdom of God. It is a bit harder to clearly justify personal pets. But, sitting in front of my PC (Sorry, not a Mac) with my Papillon, Sophie, faithfully warming my lap, it is hard to exclude them :-) "Heaven goes by favour. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in."—Mark Twain "I care not for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."—Abraham Lincoln Before you all jump on me, I know that this is a Bible forum. I also know that the people that are the most outraged don't have pets :-) Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
38 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6069 | ||
Dear Cephas, I am very sorry if my English is strange. I share my communicative skills with another language, so maybe I get fuzzy at times. Please know that I was not saying that you, personally, are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Allow me to explain myself: Please take out my parenthesis, (unless, of course, you are one that has succeeded in blaspheming the Holy Spirit). This side-thought was meant to say that if you, or anyone else, has succeeded in blaspheming the Holy Spirit, then maybe God will not supersede your will. i.e. you have declared yourself outside of his love and care. I, personally, believe it is difficult to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, thus the word 'succeeded.' Now look at my sentence below without this parenthesis, and 'Praise the Lord' should make sense, meaning that it is a good thing that the Lord can save us from the foolishness of man. "Finally, are you so sure that you have as much free will as you assume? That you can 'choose to do good or evil' to the extent that God does not enter in as a variable? I, too, believe in the limited free will of man, but have found that God can supersede our will at any time He wishes. And Praise be to the Lord that this is so!" Cephas, I truly have no intention of offending you. Please don't be so quick to think you are under attack. I really would like to know why you dwell on philosophically 'proving' God's sovereignty. Again, I ask: What if the answer was "No, God has no free will"? Does it feel better? Does it make sense? Does it strengthen your faith? Does it encourage believers and unbelievers? This was my point, with no subtle barbs. Peace upon you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
39 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6070 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, For the most part I agree with you. Seeing that you addressed many of my comments in this posting, I would like to clarify my statements. I still think that the question, "Does God have free will" is a philosophical conundrum. If this were truly the study of God, then His Holy attributes would be recognized as such, not questioned or doubted. It is similar to "Is there a God?" Now, as a Christian, we define God as holy, almighty, righteous, sovereign, and yes, good. We are not talking about gods, who are notoriously similar to man. So, I do believe that the question is a philosophical one, asking about the (not accepted) attributes of God. My term, 'limited free will' is indeed ambiguous. For this I apologize. I meant by it that I don't think that God 'micro-manages' our lives. I believe that His intrinsic knowledge of the future gives Him the ability to send His angels to intervene at any moment. I doubt if He has to constantly monitor our choice of peanut butter or the like. (Though, I am sure He is able to do so if He so chooses) Please, let us not get involved in a discussion of time paradox :-) As I said earlier, I agree with most of your posting. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
40 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6079 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Indeed, 'household' does appear to mean every member of the house, including slaves, also their menagerie, and the utensils. But you are still assuming the presence of children, and assuming that the people of those times did not require faith to be a part of a holy rite, but neither of these has any Biblical proof, one way or the other. As to evidence that the church has been baptizing for 1850 years, we have no such proof that all churches did so, or that this was approved by God. Even so, 150 AD is not good enough. When we ask if infant baptism is Biblical, we use the Bible as the source of the answer. Otherwise, the question becomes, "Is infant baptism traditional?" The answer to this one is 'Yes.' How many complete copies of the New Testament we have from when is irrelevant. (Just ask Josh McDowell :-) The original question was from a sincere believer seeking the opinions of this forum, but moreover seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit. I did not ridicule his baptism as a baby, or say it was meaningless or based on heretical teaching. I simply pointed out that the Bible should be the source of his decision. I still pray that he is baptized (if he so chooses) in accordance with the leading of the Spirit, not in accord with his church's tradition. Orthodoxy, I do not ridicule your opinion, I just prefer my understanding of Scripture, praying before God that it may be acceptable to Him. Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [37] >> |