Results 21 - 40 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Allocation or possession? | Heb 11:1 | orthodoxy | 6209 | ||
I was trying to dispel the common illustration about faith that equates it with assuming that the chair will hold me when I sit on it, or that the car will work when I drive it. That is most decidedly not faith. The popular argument goes something like: You put faith in the chair when you sit, so put your faith in God and be saved. The problem is not only is this not real faith, but we possess no saving faith of our own. And I do believe that some believers are given more faith than others. Certainly all are given "enough" to be saved. But some people have a much more difficult time trusting God than others. |
||||||
22 | Where is faith from? | Heb 11:1 | orthodoxy | 6156 | ||
Faith is a gift from God, and is the means through which God applies his grace in our lives (Eph. 2:8). Hebrews 11:1 is a good starting place, but there is more to it than that. Faith is the gift of God's spirit and has no origin in man (Rom 1:5, 5:2, 12:3, 1Tim. 1:14). It is the same for all believers, but is not something that we naturally possess and may allocate as we see fit. | ||||||
23 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6031 | ||
I think that if you look at the way that "household" is used in Scripture, it refers to every member of the house, contrary to opinions that have been voiced earlier. Plus, as EdB has pointed out, there is evidence that the church has been baptizing infants for at least the past 1850 years. If 150AD isn't early enough, I don't know what is. Heck, our earliest complete compies of the New Testament are some time after that. | ||||||
24 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5967 | ||
I seem to have touched a nerve. What do you have against confessional theology anyway? The fact that there is, oh, some kind of standard for what you are allowed to believe? If you will not mine the riches in your own tradition, so be it. But don't expect me to impoverish myself of the wisdom of saints gone before. I will make reference to historic creeds as I see fit, and I encourage you to do the same. You may cut yourself off from the past if you wish; such is nothing of my concern. But let it never be said of me. |
||||||
25 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5962 | ||
See my other response to this. I believe that prophacy is valid, and often is not fulfilled until centuries after when it is given. But two things are different between ancient nations and the US. First, the ancient nations fit with Biblical narrative, not to mention the prophacy itself, much better than the US. Also, the Israelites knew where these ancient nations were. Would they have understood completely? Not until the prophacy came to pass. But they would not have been totally mystified, as they would have if the passage refers to the US. | ||||||
26 | Must prophesy speak to original audience | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5961 | ||
I am not disputing the fact that Scripture can prophacy about events that have not occurred yet. And yes, Daniel 7:7 does refer to Rome. But this does not mean that the original audience had no idea what was going on. They may have only had a crude, simplistic, and incomplete undesrtanding. But the imagery itself probably meant something to them. Furthermore, assigning ancient empires to Daniel 7 fits with the rest of Scripture pretty well. Rome, Medo-Persia, the Ptolamies, the Selucids, and the Greeks all make showings later in Scripture. The American continent was not even known to the old world for more than two millennia after the time of Daniel. Prophacy? Sure, but I think that's pushing it. Yes, I do say that the church should have no interest in Jerusalem than in any other city. It's just a place, like any other. And you have to be more than a "Futurist" to think that Jerusalem plays an important role in the eschaton. You also have to be at least a bit dispensational. I do believe that the Second Coming is still to come, but I'm self-consciously anti-dispensational. In Revelation, I believe that "Jerusalem" is used both literally and figuratively. But I also believe that all of the literal uses have occurred in the events surroinding its destruction in the war around 70AD. The references that are figurative have to do with "Jerusalem" as the ideal city of God, and nothing at all to do with an earthly location that is not simply a contribution to the imagery. About Zech. 14. Unless someone can provide a better interpretation, I believe that this happened during the first Advent and the destruction of Jerusalem. |
||||||
27 | Is the United States in the Bible? | Dan 7:4 | orthodoxy | 5952 | ||
This is nonsense and an abuse of Scripture. I do not believe that God has placed things in Scripture that are useless for 2500 years, and if Daniel 7:4 has to do with Britain and the US, then that's exactly what's happening. Not only that, but Baxer is, or at least seems to be, dispensational. I'm willing to ditch his entire method of interpretation from start to finish :) |
||||||
28 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5930 | ||
That isn't exactly it. God regenerates elect infants, whoever they may be. Christian parents have a right to expect the salvation of their children while unbelieving parents do not. This does not mean that God saves no children of unbelieving parents, only that they have no right to expect it. You are correct in saying that the WCF is not canon. No one believes that. I myself take issue with it on several points (six day creation, the immortality of the soul, Scripture as the source of all knowledge), and recognize that it is not a perfect document. I simply believe that it is one of the best, completest crystallizations of correct, Biblical doctrine. It's nothing more than that. If you'd prefer the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvitic Confession, the French Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelburg Catechism, or some other Reformed confession, I can gladly go there for support. I can even do better than that. Read the Canons of Council of Orange from 529 AD, written against the damnable heretic Pelagius. Beautiful, except for the last paragraph. |
||||||
29 | Binding and Loosing power over darkness? | Matt 18:18 | orthodoxy | 5929 | ||
Sorry about the ambiguity. The covenant is simply the people of God. We are in the covenant as Abraham's children. There have been exactly three covenants. The Covenant of Redemption was between God the Father and God the Son, and the promises from the former to the latter are therein. The Covenant of Works was between God and Adam, and stated that if Adam did not eat from the tree he could remain in the garden forever. The third is the Covenant of Grace, and includes all of God's dealing with man after the Fall. Since the shift from "old covenant" to "new covenant" is simply a development in time and not the ending of one thing and the beginning of another, I like to refer to the church as the covenant. It reminds me and others of who we are: the people of God's choice and promise. For specific application, let me illumine a few of those verses. John 1:14 "the Word became flesh and 'dwelt' among us..." The word "dwelt" is "tented" or "tabernacled." John is saying that Christ is the fulfillment of the greatest covenant promise, that God would dwell with his people. Immanuel indeed. John 3:16 Note the atoning work of Christ. What is the entire Old Testament sacrificial system pointing to? Christ and his work on the cross. John 5:24 Those who cross over from death to life are God's own, his people: the covenant people. John 20:31 Life from God is one of the great covenant promises. Romans 10:9-13 There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. All are under the same Covenant of Grace, and justification is as it has always been: by grace through faith. The Old Testament believers had faith that God would provide a lamb (Genesis 22:8). New Testament believers (us) have faith that God has provided a lamb. There really is no difference. All who call upon the name of the Lord have always been saved. That's part of what I'm getting at when I talk about the covenant: one people of God throughout history. |
||||||
30 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5927 | ||
1) It is true that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. This is unquestioned by everyone who may call themselves a Christian. But look at what the verse actually says. It only speaks about those who call on the name of the Lord. It says nothing at all about those who do not. You have to look elsewhere for that. You want get around Scriptural teaching on justification, go ahead, but don't expect help from this direction. 2) What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on who I will have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display mt power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objecdts of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea, "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people, and I will call her 'my loved one' who was not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people," that they will be called sons of the living God.'" The above is Romans 9:14-26. I did not quote it or state the reference first, because I want you, all of you, to read it. Just read it as an argument. It is abundantly clear in its thrust. Paul leaves no room for difference of opinion or subtlety of meaning. There is no way you can get out of it. This is what Scripture says, clearly, directly, and in a book devoted to justification. The context is justification, the purpose is education about justification, and the conclusion is that _God justifies whoever he wants irrespective of human considerations_. Deal with it. 3) I have no idea where you get the concept of "God's grandchildren." Certainly nothing from what I said. 4) If all you have to contribute is derogatory comments, then keep them for yourself. You only succeed in making yourself look foolish. |
||||||
31 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5885 | ||
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter X, item iii: Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39, 4:12; John 3:3, 5, 8, 16:7-8, ; I John 5:12 Of course, that is the Reformed position, and it doesn't work unless you have Reformed soteriology. Also, faithful members of the covenant have the right, based upon the promises of God, to expect that God will work in their children. Thus, Christians who lose a child may be comforted thus, but unbelievers may not. |
||||||
32 | Binding and Loosing power over darkness? | Matt 18:18 | orthodoxy | 5884 | ||
From the context, no. Christ is speaking about the authority of the church to enforce its discipline. Whatever is "bound" or "loosed" by the church will be witnessed and validated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. The authority here is only over those inside the covenant. | ||||||
33 | big sins / litle sins | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5833 | ||
The answer is both no and yes. On one hand, Scipture clearly indicates that the slightest transgression of the law imputes enough guilt for damnation. Practically though, this shouldn't make much difference, since all of us sin so much that making distinctions on this basis is a bit futile. On the other hand, it does seem that God views some sins as more serious than others. Examine the civil code in the Old Testament. Some sins require death, others do not. And the level of punishment short of death varies, apparently with the severity of the harm caused. I guess the way to harmonize these answers is that from God's perspective, one sin is just as serious as another. But from a human, especially a human judical perspective, some sins are more serious than others. |
||||||
34 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5830 | ||
I would say not. Every part of Scripture meant something to the original audience. If Rev. 16 is referring to the tripartite division of Jerusalem between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, what good would that have done for the first century church? Islam would not come into existence for another seven centuries, and would not take over Jerusalem for a few centuries after that. Also, the land of Palestine ceased to be specifically Jewish in the second century AD. There had not been Jewish/Islamic strife there until this century. If Rev. 16 does refer to Jewish/Islamic/Christian division, it would be of utterly no use to Christians that lived before this century. Scripture does not work this way. More than that though, the church really oughtn't to have any interest in Jerusalem more than any other place on earth. The sacrificial system is _over_ and the temple is no longer necessary. Judaism has served its purpose. Read Hebrews. Now that the new has come the old is dispensed with. |
||||||
35 | Urgent and swift help needed!! | Matt 18:15 | orthodoxy | 5815 | ||
The first thing you need to do is to look into your church's position on church discipline, and find out whether or not your pastor and elders are willing to enforce it. If your church does not have a clear statement about how church discipline occurs, or your pastor and elders will not abide by it, you will have a difficult time of it. Hopefully neither of these is the case. The second thing you need to do is to see if what this man is teaching actually goes against what your church has in its statement of faith. I do not know what that is, and I am not sure exactly all that this man is teaching. If your statement of faith is vague enough, you will have a difficult time bringing any action against him. If your church is anything like the church I left last year, people can teach just about anything they want. Hopefully your elders will be willing to exercise discipline, and your statement of faith is detailed enough to bring action against this confuser of the youth. Once you have determined the state of affairs regarding the first two things, you should take your husband with you and confront this man. If he does not repent, take someone else (another deacon or an elder would be good) with you. If he still refuses to repent, bring it before the elders. If he still refuses to repent, you may eventually have to excommunicate him. I pray that none of these steps will be necessary, but all of this is taken directly from the Scriptures, specifically Matthew 18:15-20. The Holy Spirit is present to validate and witness to the judgements of His church. |
||||||
36 | More help with the millennium | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5811 | ||
Yes, I do believe that Satan is restrained. His capacity for deceiving the nations was removed at Pentecost. But "the nations" is simply a term for "the Gentiles." No longer is the Word only for the Israelites and those who choose to identify themselves with the Israelite nation. Also, just because Satan's activity is restricted does not mean that he no longer has any activity in the world. Also, I do not believe that the sin in the world comes from Satan. It comes from us; we don't need his help. We are quite capable on our own. Satan was the accuser of the brethren. But "who shall bring an accusation against God's elect." Satan no longer has anything to bring against God's own, for justice has been served in the atoning work of Christ. He can no longer accuse the brethren. About Rev. 16:19. During the siege of Jerusalem, a three-faction civil war broke out between the Jews. Stones weighing up to 90 pounds were hurled over the walls by Roman catapults. Check out http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-4eschaton.php and http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-5eschaton.php for more information on this subject. In fact, the entire Eschaton section on that site is definitely worth reading. Also, Kenneth Gentry's book _Before Jerusalem Fell_ is an excellent exposition of preterism, even though he himself goes the postmillennial route instead of my own amillennial direction. |
||||||
37 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5805 | ||
Well, on one hand, heretical roots should be of great concern. We should strive to be as Biblical as humanly possible by the grace of God. But don't let it bother you too much. Nowadays, almost everyone has been influenced by many numbers of people, some of whom are bound to be heretics. This is only a problem if one refuses to reconsider one's beliefs in light of Scripture. Besides, it is the grace of God that saves, not correct theology. If I were to "denounce" everyone with partly heretical theology, I'd have to ditch almost the entire American church, since I believe that Arminianism is heresy (no, I really don't want to go here now. just an example). I guess this is one point where I am going to have to offend. Charis, there is no way on earth that you could have come to your conclusions "on your own" for one simple reason: your conclusions are not new. You do not exist in a conceptual vaccuum, separated from all influence on the outside. You exist in a conceptual climate whose origins can be traced. You have been influenced by someone. The mere fact that you study anything but the Bible requires that you be influenced by at least one tradition. This is not a problem! It is a very good thing, provided one chooses one's tradition wisely. And don't be worried about tracing your origins to Rome. Mine are there too. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, everyone does. The Reformers, whose tradition I follow, came out of Rome, and while they vilified the Roman Church, had no problem with admitting that they were once part of it. It's simply a historical fact, nothing more. Again, judging a thing because of its historical origins is illogical (genetic fallacy). Things change. But, if a problem has been dealt with in history and then resurfaces (or never goes away), such as belivers' only baptism, it is appropriate to bring out the answers that were given centuries ago. The verses you quote do not help you much. The passage in John is speaking only of Christ's disciples. Only adult men could be disciples. If you push your interpretation on this, only adult men may be baptized. You would obviously include women, which would require you to introduce a category of baptism not included in this verse. Why not children too? The passage from Acts quite likely included children. The speech was given during one of the Jewish holy feasts, when Jewish families from all across the Mediterranian region came to celebrate. The crowd was almost certainly men, women, and children. Once again, the text says nothing about children being excluded. Finally, what if they do speak of the baptism of adults? I certainly approve of that, provided they were not baptized before. So does everyone who believes in infant baptism. Since the crowd was entirely unbaptized, requiring them to be baptized only makes sense. Show me one instance where "household" does not include every member of the house. And the fact (which I may yet dispute) that "household" may include animals does not help you either. Scripture never puts animals and humans in the same category as far as I can tell. I have no doubt that you are a Christian, and part of the family of God. No one has to have all of their theology and practice perfect to belong to Him. I certainly do not. But insofar as I see disparity between myself and others, I will argue for my position until I either convince, am convinced, or the argument becomes unfruitful. |
||||||
38 | What about chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5804 | ||
I believe that Revelation has a threefold purpose. The first is to provide the church with a glimpse of heaven, which in turn makes a gigantic part of Scripture make a lot more sense. All of the tabernacle furniture? Mirrored in Revelation at some point. The great covenant promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7? Cf. Revelation 21:3. The entire book is filled with parallels of this kind. The second purpose, and the most directly applicable to the original audience, is to prophacy about the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. The similarities are striking. And in Josephus, who records the war in 67-73AD, says that the Christians had fled Jerusalem for they had a word of revelation. This is the preterist part of my eschatology. I believe that most of Revelation except for the second half of 20-22 has already happened in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem. The army from the north (Rome), came through the land and killed upwards of a million Jews. Severe famine, widespread death, disease, and destruction. The third purpose of Revelation is to provide the church with snapshots of what life will be like between the Advents. There are many possible "fulfillments" of these passages, for in this sense are not intended to speak about a single event (except for, of course, the great white throne, New Jerusalem, and imagery of that type). As such, saying that Revelation 16 "has already taken place" doesn't make much sense when using Revelation in this third way. It has happened many times before, and will happen many times again. The passage is intended to be a comfort to the church, stranger in a strange land, that God will come to judge her enemies and vindicate the righteous. |
||||||
39 | Six fingered man today? | 2 Sam 21:20 | orthodoxy | 5784 | ||
This is a recognized congenital anomaly, and occurrs, albiet infrequently, even today. Most of the time the sixth digit is unusable, but this does not have to have been the case for the giants. Since I'm something of a fantasy fan, I'm personally fond of theories that involve characters and beings of truly mythical stature in Scripture. The Nephilim, etc. But this is little more than a pet theory and I wouldn't base much on it. In any case, Scripture makes very little hay out of any of these things, so it would be unwise to do so ourselves. |
||||||
40 | David's son named after the prophet? | 1 Chr 14:4 | orthodoxy | 5783 | ||
It is possible, but since the text says nothing to that effect, building anything on that idea is unwise. For all we know, Nathan could simply have been the name to have that year. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |