Results 21 - 40 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21187 | ||
I nominate sirpent to be the forum leader for the Song of Solomon! :-) | ||||||
22 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21197 | ||
:-) | ||||||
23 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21710 | ||
I have read Ed's post and agree with many things he has pointed out. Let me tell you my take on this matter. I think human nature is what has divided us into denominational boundaries. We naturally gravitate to people who agree with our interpretation of the Bible on pet doctrinal beliefs (I am not referring to Orthodox vs. un-Orthodox teachings. I am referring to those beliefs that most would consider secondary issues: Rapture of the church; Bible Prophecy charts; Sanctification issues etc.). Whenever someone stands in the pulpit and declares something as true and others don't see that teaching as true they only have 3 options at their disposal: 1.) Choose to stay in the church and not make a big deal out of it 2.) Attempt to change the other person’s view 3.) Choose to leave the church and attend one that views the Bible the same way they do on the issue at hand. Let me share a personal testimony that my wife and I had in a church in Texas. For a short period of time my wife and I attended Hillcrest Christian Church. This church comes from a background that espouses the belief, “No Creed But Christ.” They had no official creed (statement of beliefs on paper) and actually criticized churches that chose to write down their beliefs on paper stating “all creeds do is divide the church of Jesus Christ!” Therefore, creeds were looked at as something evil and not to be tolerated among real Christian churches. The only difference I found in the “Creedal Church” and the “Christian Church” was the former laid everything they believed out in the open and the latter left you guessing and probing in the dark trying to find out where they stood on issues. My family spun our wheels until finally we boiled down what the church body as a whole embraced: Their un-written creed! Yes, they had a creed but chose not to write it down. I will list 4 beliefs that I did not agree with that most of the church body at Hillcrest did: 1. Baptismal regeneration. 2. Amellinanism 3. Dispensationalism 4. O.T has no application to the N.T. believer By the way, the pastor found out that he violated one of the unspoken creeds of the church after 10 plus years of ministry: Verbal Plenanary Inspiration of the Bible. He did not believe in the verbal plenenary inspiration of the scriptures. Talk about one ugly scene that would have been avoided if the Elders of the church had produced, in writing, their doctrinal beliefs prior to hiring him as their minister. Allow me to make two observations about this church’s denominational attempt to unify the body of Christ: 1.) In the name of Unity, they produced another division in the body of Christ. You now have a “non creedal” division in Christ’s body. 2.) The slogan “No creed but Christ” sounds spiritual but it is not practical. They have creeds, they just choose not to write them down on paper. You will find out what their creeds are when you find yourself thrown into World War XXXXXX in their adult Sunday school class. I appreciate this denomination's attempt to unify the church but feel it will never work until Christ comes back for His bride. Yes, denominational biases are reflected in our forum but let me ask you and others on this forum a question: Do you embrace a truth because it comes from your denomination? Or do you reflect the beliefs of your denomination because it is True? |
||||||
24 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21721 | ||
That was funny LOL! I wonder how long that lasted? | ||||||
25 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21735 | ||
I have three levels of belief: 1.) Essential Christian Doctrine. A church must believe these core beliefs: Deity of Christ; Salvation by Grace etc. 2.) Peripheral issues that I consider important to me. Example: I will only attend a church that is Armenianist in their view on election, spiritual gifts must be more than a good Bible study (not just theory) etc. 3.) Perepheral but not "personally" essential to me. Usually teachings that I havn't put my fingers around fall into this category. An example would be my current denominations end-time scheme. I disagree with it but I allow a lot of grace when it comes to eschatology. I believe point one is essential just to be considered orthodox and Point 2 and 3 will vary from person to person. If a church does not embrace a doctrine they consider important it is better to leave than cause dissension in the body--which by the way is a sin. |
||||||
26 | Pre exilic old testament prophets | OT general | userdoe220 | 19089 | ||
Pre-Exilic Obadiah Joel Amos Hosea Jonah Micah Isaiah Nahum Zehpaniah Habakkuk Jeremiah Wow! The Lord Sure was patient and Longsuffering! Exilic Prophets Ezekiel Daniel Haggai Zechariah Malachi I hope that helps. I got this information from Toward and O.T Theology Walter C. Kaiser, Jr Zondervan Pulisher House 1991 |
||||||
27 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9859 | ||
I think when you use literal, you have to look at the authors intent. Let me give you an example that you could apply to many of your examples above. Gospels (as a whole) were never meant to be a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of Jesus' life. Does it mean he is not literal because, like in Matthew's case, he chose to re-arrange some of the events in Jesus' life to shape the perception of Jesus to his readers? Because he did re-arrange some of the historical events, does that mean they never happened? Or, what if Matthew leaves out a piece of informaiton, does that mean we have to discard his testimony or doubt that the event even happened? If all the above were true, we would have to throw out every single history text book ever written! I speak as a history major. Every author takes their own slant or focus when writing history. In fact, every history book on World War 2 contains details about events that will not be in most history books. Does that mean we should discard the book. Of Course not. I think we would go a long way in this dialogue by first determining the purpose of the authors. Was the purpose in Matt's geneology meant to be a complete accurate tree of Jesus? No. Neither do I beleive he made up Jesus' lineage to prove his Messiahship. So, your might be right on your first, point and way off base on your second. Just because someone is using parables does not mean they are not speaking a factual truth. Every day individuals use stories to illustrate truth and sometimes those stories are not even true! I could take a Stephen King Novel and use it to illustrate truth. Does that mean I am not factual? Of course not. The second issue I would address is Jesus' and the writers use of Hyperbole. My son hit a ball and ran very fast to first base. When he finally got back to the dug-out I said, "Son, you ran as fast as a rabbit." Am I lying or trying to make people believe my son could actually keep pace with a rabbit? Of course not. Lets allow Jesus to use the same tactis that we use on a day-to-day basis and not accuse him or the gospel writers of lying. Or accuse them of speaking falsehood. There is a really good book entitled the Hermenutical Spiral that would greatly help you tackle some of these issues. I see where you are going and agree with some of what you are said, but I do not believe that the Bible is full of errors. I guess what I am saying is the Bible is literature and shouldn't be judged by a different standard. It seems like the Bible is held to a very high, hypocritical standard and nitpicked more than any other book in existance. |
||||||
28 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9961 | ||
I would agree with most of what you posted, but for shock value would never teach a sunday school class on it in most church--I only feel called to crucify my flesh figuratively not literally. It is sad that many people take these instances (like how come in an O.T. battle scene exactly 20,000 or 5,000 men were killed not 20,001?) and say, "see, I told you the Bible was riddled with errors!" When most of the time the author just surveys the crowd and says, "Well, I don't feel like counting every dead person on the battle field, but it sure looks like 20k to me. And anyway, I don't care if they know exactly how many people died, I just want to record a military victory to show the blessing of being obedient to God." The hermenuetical Spiral covers many of these issues you have brought up and I think we are probably on the same page. Got to get back to work. |
||||||
29 | The bible is a work of fiction - discuss | Gen 1:1 | userdoe220 | 15491 | ||
What do you believe in? | ||||||
30 | Is this promise for believers today? | Deut 8:18 | userdoe220 | 11694 | ||
Is this promise for believers today? | ||||||
31 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15406 | ||
Well, you could use the "Anthropormorphic" argument. Since God is perfectly holy, He cannot be the cause of Evil. Therefore, this passage must be anthropormorphic in nature. This line of reasoning is used when a passage states that God repented/changed His mind over performing some act. |
||||||
32 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15453 | ||
One of the greatest arguments against the Christian understanding of God (and I will say against God in general) is the concept of evil. If God is perfect, just, soveriegn (in complete control over his creation), and completly good how come there is evil in the world? Does he allow evil to exist? If he does and he is completly in control of his creation, does that nullify his goodness? These are questions Christians have to wrestle with and provide a cogent answers to in a post-Christian age. I minister to people who demand answers to these valid questions. I also agree with you that these questions have caused people to lose their faith (calvanistic: to show that they were never truly part of God's elect) and abandon the truths of Christianity. We need great thinkers to wrestle with these questions but realize that faith would not be faith if we had all the answers neatly wrapped up in a package and given to us. Got to get some work done. |
||||||
33 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15456 | ||
I am going to have to remember that qoute. | ||||||
34 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15658 | ||
I think we are on the same page on this subject. I will respond to your one objection--although I fully understand where you are coming from and for the most part fully agree that sin is the root cause. However, I have met people who have left Christianity ( I will not be dragged into someone's theology over this statement) over this issue and this issue alone. I have listened to numerous debates on University campus's between Christian and athiestic philosophers and the one argument they will use and dwell on the most is the issue of sin. My brother, XA pastor of Jackson State University, would disagree with you on this particular issue as well. Honest people, not those just wanting an excuse to live it up, have come across this argument on a secular University campus and will look back on that moment as a watershed issue that made them turn away from the faith. You can call this a second cause if you would like, with first cause being sin and that would be fine with me On a positive note, you have brought up a very valid point. A number of those students I have encoutered took at face value the God painted by their atheistic philosophy teacher or friend who happened to bring up this topic. It did cause their faith to be shaken, but thank God there are college campus ministries out there ready to shed a Christian light to this issue. My answer: Pastor's start equipping your people and stop preaching those worn-out, 3 point, shallow messages that happen to sound cute. My brother is tired of facing Assembly of God and other Christian kids from various denominations (I mention my denomination by name because it is mine. I am sure this problem exists in others as well) kids who have NO spiritual foundation to deal with these issues because their pastor's are more concerned with flair in their sermons than substance. Youth Pastors. Put the shaving cream, pizza and coke away one service a month and deal with these issues. I am sure if you don't feel equipped, there are those out there who would be willing to address these topics with your youth. Probe Ministries is one group that immediately comes to mind. Great post Joe. As you can see, I am a little passionate about this issue :-) |
||||||
35 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 16461 | ||
I would agree with you. I was just being a little Facetious. It seems like when we come across a passage that doesn't fit our Theology we make up a new term in order to explain away the passage. It seems like many, not all, never stop to ask the question, "why is this passage considered....? You fill in the blank with a "theological" term. Got to run. |
||||||
36 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 16462 | ||
P.S. There are those that would say your understanding of those passages are anthropormorphic. God never changes in response to a human act; It only appears that God changes from our perspective. For God to change his mind would make God less than perfect. And since God is perfect, God cannot change. |
||||||
37 | Thanks, but... | Psalm | userdoe220 | 20400 | ||
In the epistles, Paul and other authors responded to issues in the church that was brougt to their attention. The reason why musical instruments never came up is because it was never an issue. I have a few questions to ask you and those who happen to believe this way. Why are you (they) throwing out the book of Psalms and other O.T. worship passages that include musical instruments? Where in the N.T. does it tell you to exclude passages in the O.T. that include musical instruments? Didn't James qoute the O.T more than 30 times in his short book? Doesn't the book of Hebrews, Matthew, I and II Peter and other N.T. books qoute heavily from the Bible of their day--O.T? How about the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers (early church fathers)? They qouted heavily from O.T. passages. By the way, musical instruments are mentioned in the N.T. Rev 5:8-9 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song: NIV I hope this gives you a number of things to think about. |
||||||
38 | Can God change His mind? | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13858 | ||
Does this imply that God can change His mind? It seems in Jer 18 the emphasis is on God's power/authority to make the vessel how he desires, but that desire can be changed by the heart of a nation! There are a number of verses in the Bible that at least imply if not directly state that God can change His mind. ...it repented the Lord that he had made man..." Gen 6:6; " Vines "And the Lord repented (The NASB "changed his mind") of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" Ex 32:14, KJV. "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them" Jer 18:8 Even this verse implies that the potter will set out to make a vessel (kingdom) a certain way, but if they Repent God will change his mind about the vessel. How do you, on the forum, reconcile these numerous passages with the view that God cannot change? |
||||||
39 | followup | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13865 | ||
Is it anthropopathic because our theology dictates it to be? Another words, our we letting our presuppositions dictate our interpretation, or are we letting the Bible speak without our presuppositions. I listed just a couple of examples, but there is a number of instances in scripture which seem to really say just that...God changed his mind. I guess the big question would be, "who defines what verse is Anthropopathic?" There are many verses where everyone in Orthodox Christianity would agree on; However, Dr. Harden feels that the account in Genesis addressing God's sorrow is Anthropapathic. Why? Because feelings like sorrow imply lack and since God is totally complete he can never lack anything. I would disagree and believe that passages that write about God's emotions are not anthropapathic at all. However, where is the line drawn? Have we allowed Platonic reason to form our understanding of the Biblical God? Is the label, Anthropapathic, used to do away with verses that don't fit our understanding of who God is? |
||||||
40 | followup | Jer 18:8 | userdoe220 | 13880 | ||
For now I agree with you wholeheartedly on this issue. I was asked a question by a skeptic and he didn't buy my/our explanation. He felt we adopted the term, anthorpormiphic, to 1.) help undue an obvious Biblica Contradiction and 2.) wedge "another" Bible verse into our theology and make God fit into our understanding. Disgruntled X-Preachers are the hardest to reach out too. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |