Results 21 - 40 of 62
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Robin Hass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170869 | ||
Depends what you mean by 'different.' I'm thinking more of terms of 'in addition to' especially making explicit and clarifying. Whatever the Bible means, it is certainly referring to MORE INFORMATION. Reread 3 Jn 13 and 2 Jn 12. I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, THAT OUR JOY MAY BE FULL. |
||||||
22 | the Bible Alone | 2 Thess 2:15 | Robin Hass | 170861 | ||
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter from us. Okay, I've checked out previous posts for this verse and have found nothing. The Bible in the aforesaid passage, and other places, teaches the Bible is not the only store-house of divine knowledge, does it not? Here are a few other Scriptures that seem to contradict the doctrine of sola scriptura: 2 Tim 2:2 The things which you have , HEARD FROM ME in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the APOSTLES' TEACHING and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. This APOSTLES' TEACHING would have been oral teaching surely, none of the books of the New Testament had been written by Acts 2. 1 Thess 4:2 For you know what COMMANDMENTS we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 2 Thes 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. I mention this because the Thessalonian disciples 'know what restrains' from another source than Scripture, as this is not to be found in Scripture but in Paul's oral teaching. 1 Cor 11:34 ...The remaining matters I will arrange when I come, (or in the Amplified '...About the other matters, I will give you directions [personally] when I come.') Presumably, these remaining matters were delivered orally. 1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. Presumably this was orally-delivered tradition. 2 Jn 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. A clear reference to teaching that is not paper and ink which will add completion to the disciples' joy. 3 Jn 13 I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; So is the sola scripture (Scripture alone) doctrine 'more biblical than the Bible.' Robin All I can think of in response would be 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Where is any reference here to i) the exclusion of Tradition ii) the SUFFICIENCY of Scripture |
||||||
23 | words | Gen 24:9 | Robin Hass | 170844 | ||
It's just something which has bothered me for years: that the Greek Lexicons are produced by people with possible denominational biases. I wouldn't automatically accept a Baptist's lexiconography, e.g. for glossa / 'tongues' if I was a Pentecostal. At least I'd want to know the principles he was using to reach his conclusions. I certainly haven't implied any infallibility for my own views, and have asked genuine questions modestly. I'm not preaching at anybody. However, I will make an observation about this forum. I think that most of you are reading the Bible through a narrow low-Church "Non-Conformist" interpretative system and not always reading the text literally, at face value, and according to historic Christianity. By historic Christianity I don't mean ye olde 17th-century Baptists, I mean the whole 2,000 year Christian heritage. I base this observation not on my "infallibility" but simply that I've been around a bit and studied the History of Theology at University. In fact, I have no illusion I'm anything more than just a bright student along with the hordes of others who have had an university education down the ages. However, I do think I am educated enough to be more broadminded and lateral thinking than many. |
||||||
24 | words | Gen 24:9 | Robin Hass | 170821 | ||
Is Dr. James Strong's work devoid of denominational bias? For example, if a Greek Orthodox professor disagreed with the theological implications of Strong's Concordance would Strong automatically be in the right. Surely, a Pentecostal or a Baptist or a Catholic would argue about explicating various biblical words. Are there rivals to Strong's work. |
||||||
25 | Dead works | Heb 6:1 | Robin Hass | 170818 | ||
Thanks for the great reply. I suppose 'dead works' could also include works of the Jewish Law performed before conversion to Christianity, particularly as the letter is to the Hebrews. | ||||||
26 | Dead works | Heb 6:1 | Robin Hass | 170785 | ||
What does the biblical writer mean by repentance from 'dead works'. The NLT paraphases it 'evil deeds' which of course is more obvious as to the meaning but merely an interpretation. What are 'dead works' in this context? Robin |
||||||
27 | Biblical Interpretation Term | Heb 10:11 | Robin Hass | 170346 | ||
Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. I will study your thread #156916 when time allows. |
||||||
28 | Biblical Interpretation Term | Heb 10:11 | Robin Hass | 170323 | ||
I want to ask whether a specific method of biblical interpretation is valid and does it have a term. (Please don’t get too hung up on the specific example I choose because I’m interested in the validity of the principle, not the specific example.) Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; The above verse contrasts Christ’s once and for all sacrifice with the ongoing sacrifices of the OT Jews. Now sacerdotalist Christians (Catholics, Orthodox etc) say ‘their Eucharist is a sacrifice’ which clearly is repeated daily. Heb 10:11 is not specifically referring to the Catholic Mass but to the repeated sacrifices of Judaism. Obviously similar, but not exactly the same. So is this type of extrapolation a valid way of reading the Bible. It is simply a clumsy way of reading Scripture or allowable? Please remember I’m asking about a principle, I could have given another example. But I think that the principle is very important. |
||||||
29 | Propitiation vs Expiation | 1 John 4:10 | Robin Hass | 168763 | ||
Why do evangelical bible translations (NASB, ESV, HCSB et al) always prefer 'propitiation' over 'expiation' which is invariably found in the liberal / Catholic / mainline Protestant bibles (RSV, NJB, NAB, NRSV). I can't find much difference in the meanings between the two words in dictionaries. Robin |
||||||
30 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | Robin Hass | 168336 | ||
Is the belief that God gives specific financial blessing when you give generously only a Word of Faith dogma or do we all believe it is taught by Scripture? | ||||||
31 | Homosexual debate at school help please | 2 Cor 4:4 | Robin Hass | 168334 | ||
Well we are called to show love to unregenerate sinners, of that I am sure. To eat with them, drink with them and share Christ with them... When God redeems a person He will bring them into truth regarding the sin of homosexuality. I don't think a neo-nazi who hates homosexuals or a liberal who accepts them with humanitarian benevolence will if born-again accept the proper Christian teaching on homosexuality diffferently. Only 'works' which originate from God are genuine. The former are not already in possession of the truth. In the OT Scriptures you cite I contend that God is the only Judge and we are called to love the sinner whilst condemning sin. |
||||||
32 | Are faithful Jews saved? | Deut 7:9 | Robin Hass | 168329 | ||
I believe the Sinai Covenant stood on its own and was thus 'complete.' However, your Jer 31:31-32 makes a powerful argument that the Sinai Convenant is not everlasting because the Jews reneged on it. Very good OT Scriptural quote. I'm convinced. |
||||||
33 | Homosexual debate at school help please | 2 Cor 4:4 | Robin Hass | 168328 | ||
I am never particularly impressed when godless people condemn homosexuality which usually comes from a root of hate. I've visited ex-concentration camps in Germany and I don't believe the world's hatred of homosexuals comes from God. They just hate them because they're different and for the same reasons all godless people are divided and alienated from each other and God. Love the sinner, hate the sin is the Christian message. It matters not whether the godless hate homosexuality in their unregenerate state. It's a false commonality. |
||||||
34 | Are faithful Jews saved? | Deut 7:9 | Robin Hass | 168314 | ||
"Faithful" to the Sinai Covenant as temporally revealed to the OT Jews. A complete covenant in and of itself with an eternal validity promised by God. | ||||||
35 | Are faithful Jews saved? | Deut 7:9 | Robin Hass | 168313 | ||
"Faithful" to the Sinai Covenant as temporally revealed to the OT Jews. A full covenant in and of itself. | ||||||
36 | Are faithful Jews saved? | Deut 7:9 | Robin Hass | 168304 | ||
Presumably "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh," is not meant to say that the Sinai Covenant never saved anyone. I checked out John Hagee on Wikipedia.net as I'm over in the UK and haven't heard of him. It asserts 'Hagee believes that Jews will go to Heaven automatically, whereas Gentiles of all ethnicities must convert to Christianity.' This is clearly nonsense, I was thinking in terms of those Torah-observant Jews who would have made it in the OT era but not today? Robin |
||||||
37 | Are faithful Jews saved? | Deut 7:9 | Robin Hass | 168302 | ||
I'm not claiming to know one way on the other. Certainly I don't really care whether the Jews like being the target for evangelism. If the Sinai Covenant historically had the ability to save certain observant Jews then I think it may well continue to do so. God's covenants don't expire. Certainly there is a newer and better way... |
||||||
38 | Are faithful Jews saved? | Deut 7:9 | Robin Hass | 168295 | ||
Jews tell us today that targeting them for evangelism is 'anti-semitic' and claim that the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament, unequivocally states that their covenants are never-ending; their priesthood is perpetual (Exodus 40:15, Numbers 25:13); their statutes are forever (Leviticus 16:34); and their practice of circumcision is to be everlasting (Gen.17:13). Consider Deuteronomy 7:9: ‘Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.’ (25,000 years if taken literally?) Does the universalistic saving covenant established in Jesus Christ really cancel the antecedent everlasting Jewish covenant. I think it is very difficult to maintain that the Sinai covenant is impermanent in the view of the Old Testament’s promises. Why are faithful Jews who follow the earlier covenant not saved. Surely to answer this properly we have to do more than use verses which counter the abovementioned 'proof-texts' and incorporate ALL the Bible teaches in our response. Robin |
||||||
39 | Can a Divorced couple Remarry Each other | Acts 20:28 | Robin Hass | 165851 | ||
Dear Ann, Your friend was never married to the girl in question. This is because the marriage ceremony needs subsequent validation by consummation (sexual intercourse). His intended bride is and remains a virgin: there was no marriage. If your friend’s marriage to the second girl was valid and duly consummated then in the eyes of God they ACT-ually married. It hardly matters if he held reservations; if he had sexual intercourse with his bride in the privacy of their wedding night it was an act of his will. The resolution of this case is very complex and I question the wisdom of referring this question to a forum mainly for cessationist evangelicals immersed in an American cultural milieu. What could they really know about this. They would have little idea as to the social and familial fabric of Pakistani society and especially arranged marriage. Your friends could easily be murdered in a ‘honour killing’ or at least be disowned by their families if they decide to follow their own preferences. Evangelicals do not consider a valid marriage is absolutely irrevocable unto death, they often divorce when it suits them. Are you seeking their ‘relativist’ permission to throw out any marriages here which aren’t wanted. I can hardly follow the complexities of the many divorces and re-marriages by all the parties cited in your post. It is shambolic: marriage is for life. The first valid (consummated) marriage anyone undertook is valid as long as their spouse lives. The bi-millenial Christian Church has always taught this. I know plenty of evangelicals who divorced because God ‘told them to...’ Within which Christian tradition have these events occurred, some Eastern rite perhaps? What do their Christian leaders say? Are they rebelling against their counsel? It is these Christian leaders who are answerable before God for how they shepherd their flock. I led a young man to the Lord from such an Asian society; because of the trouble this caused with his family this man is dead. If Pakistani family headship and associated cultural traditions are ignored when seeking a resolution for this conundrum, make no mistake the couple risk serious personal harm and at best will end up fleeing Pakistan to save their lives. |
||||||
40 | Coffee and Cigarettes a sin ? | 1 Cor 3:17 | Robin Hass | 158446 | ||
Smoking tobacco is a sin, every doctor tells us to give it up because it is a killer. Tobacco contains 4,000 dangerous chemicals and is a leading cause of heart disease, lung cancer, leg amputations and more. The tobacco companies have waged a war of misinformation against the American public and covered up the truth about how harmful smoking really is. Coffee drinking is not a sin; I have never heard drinking coffee is a problem except from Adventists who would have you believe: "The Christian is surrounded with seductive invitations to use drugs. Even many innocent-appearing, popular beverages contain drugs: Coffee, tea, and colas contain caffeine...Research has shown that these milder gateway drugs tend to lead progressively to stronger mind-altering drugs." How pathetic, I've been drinking coffee for 30 years and I've never progressed onto heroin, crack cocaine or LSD, amazing isn't it, I must be one of the lucky ones. Recent medical extracts have increasingly claimed coffee is full of antioxidants and is neuroprotective. Coffee drinking taken to excess is probably harmful but what isn't. Moderation is the key never gluttony. The best way to consume coffee is to invite a non-Christian to go for a cup with you and tell him about the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Tell him about the true freedom that can only be found in Christ, and how our faith isn't about silly religious strictures. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |