Results 21 - 40 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205897 | ||
Dear hopalong, Thank you very much for the history, much, much appreciated! And for the link too... God bless, Tamar |
||||||
22 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205896 | ||
Dear BradK, Thank you Thank you Thank you! Yes! I want to learn more! I am thirsty! Thankyou This is what I needed to know about creeds and where it all fits in. Thanks for being patient... God bless, Tamara |
||||||
23 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205894 | ||
Dear Steve, Thank you very much for that explanation there. So if I understand you correctly a doctrine is permanent unless God changed it as according to Hebrews as in the old priesthood and sacrifices were done away with because better one were found, I hear you. So then according to your line of reasoning here if God sets something up it is permanent, got it... Here is what I found out through research while I was waiting... 1.Constancy across cultures – identification of similarities in principles of worship and modes of living throughout the various cultures found in the Bible and today can illuminate things that are going to be unchanging in the message. 2.Universal settings – doctrines which contain things to be done in perpetuity come from practices proscribed by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as things to be done by all Christians transcending historical settings. 3.A recognized permanent factor as a basis – those things which are described in scripture as proscriptions for Christian practice by virtue of having a basis in a permanent Biblical precedence. 4.Indissoluble link with an essential experience –where an essential experience of the Christian believer has its basis in the actions and experience of Jesus Christ there is a link that cannot be dissolved; where such an experience was true for Christ, it must be true for us, if it were not true for Christ it could not separately be true for us - as in the resurrection of Jesus, since it was true for Him it will be true for us. 5.Final position within progressive revelation – the progression of how doctrine was used occurred over time in the Bible until the final position of the doctrine in the lives of believers was achieved and transcends Biblical times by virtue of the absolute truths they contain - example the doctrine of salvation was around since the OT but it has taken different modes until it arrived at Jesus on the cross and now that truth transcends Biblical times. So my point I guess would be that a doctrine is permanent if it can meet all these criteria that I found. God Bless, Tam |
||||||
24 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205891 | ||
Dear Doc, I have a feeling you won't answer me but understand one thing please... I am not into liberation theology or the Jesus movement at all. I am talking about applying the Biblical priciples of plain old hermeneutics as taught by the like of Gordon and Fee and many others to take first century incomparable settings to twenty-first century settings and trying to come up with a reasonable application without changing the text, without transforming the text, without changing the meaning of the text, without "making it relevant by altering it in any way shape or form", but by taking the essence of the teaching and applying it to today. You, all of you now have the wrong impression of what I am about, what I am a product of, how I would go about interpreting a text, because you have run away with the words, "relevant for today" and applied every crack pot theory of Biblical interpretation and decided that is what I am engaged in, nothing could be further from the truth here, you have misinterpreted what I meant by the onviously heinous phrase to you "make a relevant message for today" to mean something that I do not mean. I apologize if somehow you have not understood me, but I tried over and over to make clear by one little example of every one in here saying we cannot take the issue of hats and make that normative today to illustrate that we cannot just take a text and slap it on today's society and say that that is the essence of what literal interpretation means. There has to be a way to make what Paul taught about hats and make that understandable for today, which is all I meant by saying "relevant for today". But I doubt you will be open or listen or see anymore, I hope you will, I really do, because you have not understood anything yet, you have taken what you know about others who have used the words "relevant to today" and decided I mean what they mean and I do not! Tam |
||||||
25 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205890 | ||
Thank you hopalong, That was so apt I have read and heard some very long long confessions and creeds that were so enmeshed in loquaisous wording that whatever the intent was got lost in the sauce, been a very long time since this one was heard by me. But, it does not answer the question, you have found about 4 doctrines there without giving the reason why any of them should be forever, which they all should be forever, we know that. But what I am getting at is not "what is a permanent doctrine", but "why is any permanent doctrine permanent". Do you see now? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
26 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205889 | ||
Thanks hopalong | ||||||
27 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205887 | ||
Dear hopalong, Creeds and Confessions no matter how well grounded in scriptures are still the traditions of men! I will see AA Hodge, thank you.. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
28 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205886 | ||
Dear Doc, I would like to remind you of the basic principles of hermeneutics, not mine not yours but of exegesis; Please reread How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon and Fee, pages 77, 78 - the problem of pariticular that are not comparable, the problem of cultural relativity pages 80-84; We cannot ignore that there are problems with applying first century applications to twenty-first century settings that cannot be swept away under the umbrella of an over simplification of the priciple of a literal interpretation of the Bible and just rereading it or going to a commentator is not the issue, arriving at a real application for today without destroying the original application or the text is the issue. Don't act as if you dont' know this is true... Quote, Calvary Baptist Church web page; Here are the articles of faith for the church that run my school - 1.We believe in one God, eternally existent as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 2.We believe that the Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is God's inspired and infallible Word, and is the supreme standard and final authority for all conduct, faith, and doctrine. 3.We believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His premillenial, personal return in power and glory. 4.We believe that man was created in the image of God, but by willful transgression became sinful and is justly under the condemnation and wrath of Almighty God. 5.We believe that the only salvation from this guilt and condemnation is through faith in the righteousness and atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this salvation is the free gift of God's love and grace. 6. We believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit and that His ministry is to reveal Christ to men, to convict of sin, to regenerate repentant sinners and, by His presence and power, to sanctify the lives of the redeemed. 7. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted the ordinances of baptism and communion; that baptism is only to be administered upon profession of faith in Christ, by immersion, thereby declaring our faith in a crucified, buried and risen Saviour; that communion is only for believers, is to be preceded by faithful self-examination, and is in remembrance of the Lord's death until He comes. 8. We believe that a New Testament Church is a body of believers, baptized by immersion, associated for worship, service, and the spread of the Gospel of the grace of God to all the world. 9.We believe that there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust; the just, having been redeemed by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be with Him throughout eternity in glory; the unjust, having died impenitent and unreconciled to God, to eternal condemnation in Hell. Here are the objectives of the school - To encourage a systematic study of the Bible, both in its total sweep and in its integral parts. To assist Christians in the practical use of the Bible for daily living and effective witnessing. To arm God's people against the vagaries of our day and to equip them to meet contemporary questions with answers both Biblical and reasonable. To discover and develop skills for ministries within the church. To give encouragement to those who sense the call of God to church vocations at home or abroad. To lay a foundation of basic learning for those who wish to pursue further studies with a view to the ministerial office. Here is the doctrinal foundation of the school - Doctrinal Foundation of NYSB We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, inerrant in the original autographs, and the only infallible, authoritative Word of God. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential. Salvation is by God?s grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, they who are saved unto the resurrection of eternal life and they who are lost unto the resurrection of eternal damnation. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. |
||||||
29 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205882 | ||
Dear hopalong, Good answer! But tradition is traditon and not Sola Scriptura! So then why in the world would any of us go around submitting to any traditions even if they are Protestant, like the Westminster confessions and the Baptist Creeds my friend?! The question stands; why do certain Baptist churches go around following the traditons of men, even if those are Protestant creeds and confessions if we are adhering to Sola Scriptura? Do you see the problem yet? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
30 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205881 | ||
Dear Doc, Please expain how taking a scripture that was written to a different culture and historical setting according to the principles I laid out to you is going against Sola Scriptura? This is why I asked about Sola Scriptura last night... Perhaps you can explain it to me better than Lookin did in light of exactly what I described as "making relevant", not what you think that means, but what I have outlined it means to me. And I am still waiting to hear how to apply texts like the hat one, without getting into the particulars there without seeing how to use it today. The reason why is everyone except me is guilty who got involved in the hat issue of changing what Paul was specifically saying was the practice of the churches and saying it no longer applies. Do you see the problem yet? Or are you stuck on a phrase still without comprehending what was meant by the phrase rather than your experience of it the way you understand it? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
31 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205877 | ||
Dear Val, I see that you are concerned with "harder to comprehend". It is a fact that more people have purchased the NIV than any other translation for a while now and that the NASB is one of the least frequently purchased Bibles. Articles have been written about this and it has been found in surveys that the NASB is harder to read for a large amount of folks as opposed to the NASB. It may not be for you and me and Doc and so on, but it is for a whole lot of other people or the NASB would be a whole lot more popular than it is today. What makes you say that I was alluding or referring to the translators of the NASB as having interpreted Scripture through translation? I don't understand.... What your understanding is quite, is there any other way to interpret Scriptures written in Greek and Hebrew other than to translate them into English? That is how all Bibles get written Val... I do not recall saying much if anything about translators interpreting Scripture through translation, but that is what they all must do to arrive at a Bible. How else? I am just as aware as you are that the NASB is a literal interpretation of the Bible, so I don't understand what you mean there... The NIV is a functional equivalent and is not a literal intrepretation. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
32 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205875 | ||
Love thine enemy. Love thy neighbor. Love thy God with all your heart all your mind and all your soul. Wouldn't the context of what you said be that God's love is perfect in telling Abraham to go sacrifice his son, so He could test Abaham's love? But the context of our ability to love is not so very grand and we could not take that text you have there and just tell folks go sacrifice your son, we would have to explain the context to them and show them what the purpose of the verse is, it is not simple and self explanatory at all. Loving people does not mean letting them disobey God's word, but scripture gives us plenty of straight forward instructions about doing it in meekness, with gentleness and so on. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
33 | One Body In Christ. | 1 Cor 12:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205870 | ||
... | ||||||
34 | 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 |
||||||
35 | 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 |
||||||
36 | One Body In Christ. | 1 Cor 12:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205859 | ||
But earnestly desire the greater gifts. | ||||||
37 | One Body In Christ. | 1 Cor 12:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205858 | ||
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or the again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundandt honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. | ||||||
38 | homosexual brain wired that way at birth | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205856 | ||
Dear Doc, Great Doc! God's Day To You, Tam |
||||||
39 | 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 |
||||||
40 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [28] >> |