Results 221 - 240 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219808 | ||
I think we need to be slow with this issue. Our modern time has taken a biblical concept, "once saved always saved," and added some very unbiblical thoughts to this. This is often used to argue that a person who is completely devoid of any fruits of the spirit, most notably repentance, is saved because we remember them making a profession early in life. Sometimes it is foolishly even applied to those who once professed faith but no longer even believe the gosple. What has happened is that we have striped the doctrine away from "the perseverance of the saints." Those who are saved are indeed saved eternally, but they are also kept in the faith by the power of God. Consider passages like the one in Hebrews, but also Colossians 1:21-23, Galatians 5:2-5, Hebrews 3:5-6,14. This list could be expanded but if you look up these passages you get the point. We can not simply explain away all of these. We must finally reach the point that we admit that turning from the gospel is indeed fatal. And by fatal I mean eternally damning unless there is later repentence and faith. Keep in mind the issue here is not that we sin, but that we turn from the gospel. Once saved always saved? Yes, but saving faith is life long faith. To have a faith that only lasts a certain season is to show it was not true faith at all. Is this not in harmony with Johnn when he says in 1 John 2:19 that they went out from us but weren't really of us? And that they went out from us for the purpose of showing that they were not really of us? Is this not what Jesus is portraying in the parable of the soils when he shows two soils that apparently received the gospel quickly but then later showed that they weren't the good soil? So, it would be far better that we hold tightly to the "Perseverance of the Saints" rather than to "Once saved always saved." Both teach that salvation can not be lost, but one clings fast to the doctrine of perseverance at the same time, and assures that new Christians are not ambushed by the passages I listed, and as a result think eternal security is refuted. Brother John, just for clarification I don't lay any of this at your feet personally, but only used your post as an excuse to preach. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
222 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219818 | ||
Val, You've stated that these refer to proofs of salvation, not means of salvation. To that I say a hearty amen. I'm sorry if what I typed sounded like I meant otherwise. Though I would prefer the term evidence rather than proof but I think we are of the same mind in that. The point I was trying to make is that these are evidences that God brings about in us, and not from our own doing. Not only this, but these evidences (continuing to trust in Christ via the gospel) are things that God always work in us. Therefore in situations where there is a lack of them, we say no salvation has occurred. Not because they are necessary as a means, but they always flow as a result. This is the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. That those whom God saves, He also keeps in the faith throughout their life. Summing it up: Saving faith is a life long faith. I hope this helps to clarify, my first response didn't go through but perhaps that was God's mercy. It was written hastily before church this morning and this one has a bit more organization to it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
223 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219833 | ||
Am I to understand that you are saying that the IF is connected to everything that comes before rather than to the IF they fall away? Such that the passage reads more along the lines of, if they are all these things, they can not fall away? I'm not certain this is what you are saying, but in the greek the word IF is not present at all. It is how a particular translation chooses to translate the participle "falling away." In other words if that is what you are saying it is literally an impossible interpretation of the passage. Since the IF is literally coming from the word "fall away" itself. What translation are you quoting? The NASB doesn't insert the IF. Basically your dealing with the participle form of "fall away." Which could be translated many different ways. It could be "after falling away" "when falling way" "since they fell away". The only way you get the if into the sentence at all, is if you choose to translate that participle as conditional, which would render it "if they fall away." Therefore you could not translate it conditional and then say the if was with another part of the passage. The very insertion of the word if is tied to how "falling away" connects to the sentence. Hope that made sense. Regardless, I wasn't intending to discuss your interpretation of Hebrew, only to interact with the discussion it prompted. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
224 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219867 | ||
Justme, Yes, it does indeed go right along with what I was trying to say. I regret to hear that you have such a vivid example. God is still saving soul's though, and the day may come that he knows Christ in truth. I'll join you in praying to that end. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
225 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219883 | ||
Light, Thank you for posting this! I very much enjoyed reading it. However, I can't say for certain I agree with him. Help me think through this to make sure I understand his point. (I say this sincerely with no sarcasim.) His point is that the author is in reality presenting an impossible scenario. He is talking about true saved people, he is talking about real falling away of saved people, and he asserts that such a situation would render salvation impossible for that individual. Only the author of Hebrews point is that this could never happen. Now, to me the real crucial point of such a take on the passage, is that you must show a reason the author of Hebrews would have said this. It has to contribute to his arguement in some way or form. In other words, why would the author of Hebrews have ever brought up a situation that will never happen? It has to have some contribution to the larger context. Now, if I understand correctly, Spurgeon would have asserted that the contribution to the larger context would be as follows... In verses 1-3, the author is stating a desire to push on to things of maturity. Stating in verse 3 that, "this we will do if God, Permits." That being said, our text under scrutiny is the reason he is so confident that they will be able to push on to maturity. His arguement being thus... The recipients would push on to maturity Because if they were to have finally fallen away, Then there would be no hope of salvation for them, Yet none of us would believe such a thing, So therefore we have confidence they will press on And finally in verse 9 he reasserts his confidence and presses on with the discussion. Is this how you would understand this passages contribution to the greater context, as simply the reason we can push on with confidence? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
226 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219947 | ||
Light, I've finally managed to read part 10 and 11 of Spurgeon's sermon, and I must say I was hoping for more on how this fits into the context. I am not saying he is wrong or right, but due to the great contention over this passage I was hoping he would make his case stronger. Basically I think if one was to debate the issue and argue his view (not that we are debating) two things would need to be established in light of what he said. 1. First it would need to be established that the notion of unshakeable salvation was so imbedded into the author and reader's thinking, that they would have understood an impossible situation was being discussed as Spurgeon is suggesting. My point being that there is no such assertion in the text. The only way you can put it there is to consider it "a given." For those who might find this alarming, once again I do not believe you can loose your salvation. 2. Second, Spurgeon adressed what would be the point of stating an impossible situation, but he did not explain the point trying to be accomplished by telling us this in Hebrews chapter 6. In other words, how does this reading of the passage fit with what comes both before and after it in the book of Hebrews. Once again, I'm not saying he was wrong. I'm just saying that I'd like to hear somebody explain those things. Once again, thank you for posting it. I enjoyed it very much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
227 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219976 | ||
Light, Let me clarify my thoughts in a few concise statements, so that any further statements I make in a less organized way aren't misunderstood. 1. I believe that none who come to saving faith and repentance through Christ will ever loose their salvation. 2. I believe all scripture when rightly understood agrees with itself, therefore this passage can not be teaching the elect loosing their salvation. 3. I believe that this is a difficult passage, and therefore we can not simply say it says one thing without a strong defense, and then wonder why people don't just "believe it" to be the right interpretation. 4. Anytime, anywhere in scripture that I can not see -why- an author said what he did when he did, then I assume there is something I have not fully understood yet, even though I might understand the passage for the most part. Some of the best insights I've gleaned in the past why preparing sermons, was when I refused to stop until I knew why the train of thought went from one subject to the next the way it did. 5. I do not see why at this point in time, the author of Hebrews decided to present a hypothetically impossible situation about loosing salvation. I can understand somebody doing that, and I can understand the values of it as Spurgeon presented it, though I can not understand how that particular thing fits into what the author of hebrews was saying before and after he said it. 6. Because I can not see how it fits with that context, I assume there is something I do not yet grasp about the passage. That could mean that Spurgeon is right, and I just need to figure out how it fits. Or, that could mean Spurgeon is wrong. But what it certainly means is that I haven't fully figured it out yet and therefore I must keep questioning my understanding of the passage and putting it to the test. That sums up my thoughts on it, I hope it helped clarify what I am thinking. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
228 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 221728 | ||
CDBJ, I have no real concern about this discussion, but just from pure logic...if this passage proves that angels existed before the earth, then it also proves that stars existed before the earth by the exact same logic. So either scripture is contradicting itself, or you are putting more weight on this passage than it was intended to bare. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
229 | word of God from a man of God | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 223471 | ||
14 hours of D.A. Carson explaining the scriptures! There are far worse uses of your time! http://www.monergism.com/mp3/2010/07/d_a_carsons_the_god_who_is_the_1.php In Christ, Beja |
||||||
230 | God's wrath in the old testament | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 223938 | ||
Bibleuser, In my opinion we should warn them solemly that such a day is coming again. When Christ returns it will be in wrath and fire and all those who are not Christ's will perish. We should not hide from these things but rather use them to show clearly that God will come with holy wrath as he has in the past. And I'm willing to bet when he comes there will be children in those days as well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
231 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216047 | ||
FTK, 2 Corinthians 7:9-11 "I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, sot hat you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow has produced in you; what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what lo9nging, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter." Consider this passage. The difference between the anguish the world feels and the anguish that we as Christians feel is not warm and happy versus sad, but rather the difference lies in one sorrow over sin leading to death and one sorrow over sin leading to repentance and life. If you would suggest to me, "Ah! but look at the end result!" Then ofcourse, nobody here would argue with you that the end result of God's dealings with His children are to their ultimate good and joy! But what do we find here is the road to that ultimate good and joy? We find that God's word pierces deep into our hearts and creates painful sorrow and anguish over our sins in order to produces repentance in us. God's word cuts deep, it wounds our pride and selfishness in order that it may ultimately heal us. You tell us that we must be cautious and weigh the scripture according to how they make us feel, yet John urges us to rather test what we are told by scriptural standards, by the confessions of what we believe about Christ! (John 4:1ff) Surely this bedrock we must test it against is scripture's revelation of Christ. You challenge our confidence in God's word by pointing out that a word can have multiple meanings. Ofcourse they can. They do also in English and greek is no different. Context shapes the meaning's of words. If we were climbing a cliff face and I told you to "give me your hand" you would not stop and point out to me that the word "hand" could mean 5 cards in a game of poker, a piece of a clock which points to either minutes or hours, that it could be a verb and therefore I'm using it wrongly etc. The fact that it can mean various things would no way disturb your trust in what I meant in that particular moment. You are discovering what a novice of language discovers: words have different meanings in different contexts. Do you think Peter was ignorant of this fact when he uttered, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21) Do you think Peter would revoke his statment of confidence in scripture due to finding out that words have different meanings in various contexts! Unfortunately the scriptures assume the capacity to read. Part of this capacity is grasping context and how that shapes words. Your own example gives evidence of this! You quote our Lord in saying that my words shall not pass away! Then you tell us it could mean either to come or to go! Could really both actually equally be what He meant? If you say yes then you show your "hand" in that you don't have the skill to determine the obvious. If you say no then you rob yourself of your own example. Am I being harsh here? Will you respond of how I have unduely taken offence? Will you challenge the bedrocks of assurance in which newly converted Christians place their faith telling them to trust their own hearts instead then wonder that those who keep watch over them rebuke you sternly? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
232 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216068 | ||
Doc, I'm afraid it was nothing so meaningful. A pastor friend of mine had a very young daughter who would often say words backwards. When she tried to say my name it came out "Beja." Ever since then it has just been my name for any such thing when you select something other than your real name. And no, that isn't at all the reverse of my name so I'm not sure how she came to that. In Love, Beja |
||||||
233 | Ruling and Reigning | Gen 1:26 | Beja | 224976 | ||
Ariel, I would point to Genesis 1 for the answer. What was mankind originally to rule over? Answer: Creation. We also have indication in the gospels that this will include the angels. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
234 | What is adamic covenant? | Gen 2:16 | Beja | 227878 | ||
Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. This verse is what gives a good deal of confidence in saying that there was a covenant between God and Adam. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
235 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213409 | ||
1 Cor 11:8 involves a highly disputed passage which speaks of men having authority over women and how that plays out in church. The details of the passage are not what I draw attention to so much as the basis for which Paul anchors his male authority view point. In verse 8 he says, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." (NASB) Let us move to a second verse which we find in 1 Timothy chapter 2. 1tim 2:11,12 states that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over a man within the church. Once again the interesting thing to note is the reasons for which Paul states this. The first of his two reasons is stated in verse 13 when he says, "For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve." He does then go on to state what happened in the fall as a second reason. My concluding statement to your first question is this: it does seem that Paul set forth what took place in creation (prior to the fall) as a reason of the husband being head over the wife. I don't submit this as absolute conclusive proof, but I think since scripture doesn't explicitly anywhere state whether it was based on the fall or creation then these two verses should definitly lean us towards a creation view. As for your second question I believe the answer is yes, it did signify his authority over her. However I know of nowhere that scripture states this and it would have to be backed up from simply viewing extrabiblical traditions and studying the Jewish mind set. So I put forth this part of my response most humbly as my opinion. Hope the first part was helpful, Beja |
||||||
236 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213413 | ||
The basis for man's authority certainly goes beyond what I posted. My post was only attempting to show that it was not something that was contingent on the fall. By showing that there were verses that indicated the authority was in place prior to the fall (1 Cor 11:8 and the 1 timothy passage) it proves only one thing: man's authority was not because of the fall. Hence answering the original question of whether it was based on the fall or not. What it is in fact based on and a detailed account of what these passages are trying to teach is not something I'm intending to even hint at. Hope that helps to clarify my post. In love, beja |
||||||
237 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213434 | ||
Well I was reluctant earlier to say anymore than simply answering your question for two reasons. First, many people can be aggressive over such a topic. I do not in any way expect you to be so, but I don't know who all will be reading this post and reply. Second, because once you say just a little on this topic, there is a great deal that ought to be said. This topic is peculiar in that just part of it seems to be unfair unless the whole picture is laid out. For example male authority without discussion on what that authority is meant to look like can appear hateful and power hungry. However, these concerns stated I'll share a bit and feel free to stop reading at any point...as I said, much must be stated. First, we must cling tightly to what is revealed, and hold lightly what we must speculate beyond that. So here is what we know with absolute certainty. 1 Timothy 12-14 makes it clear that males are to be the head of the church, they are to be the only ones teaching other men or holding any authority over other men. So male's have authority in the church, with the obvious disclaimer that all authority in the Church is ultimately Christ's. We also know with absolute certainty that a husband has complete authority in the marriage. Ephesians 5:22-24 states that a wife is to obey her husband to the same extent to which the church is to obey Christ. Now, these are the things we know with absolute certainty and that all Christians will either agree with or they are in disobedience to God's word. I can speak with that certainty because I've done nothing but put forward two Bible verses with no speculation on their meaning so far. Now, the rest of this letter is my doing the best I can to teach how these things begin to impact and work themselves out, so in what follows there can be loving discussion and questioning and even dissagreement. Correct me with scripture if I am off. Within this I would first humbly suggest we must do away with the notion of superiority. The husband being given superiority is a mistaken fancy we have. Authority in marriage does not imply superiority any more than a government having authority over us implies the senators have superiority to us in God's eyes. First consider the first recording of making mankind without looking to the specifics of how it happened. Genesis 1:26-27. Keep in mind the term for man there can equally refer to humanity as a whole. He made them male and female and both of these were said to be made in His image. There is no superiority in the relationship but there is authority. 1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to show their wives honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life so that our prayers would not be hindered. Our authority is not about superiority or greater honor, but only about authority. ((MORE COMING IN SECOND POST)) |
||||||
238 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213435 | ||
((CONTINUATION OF FIRST POST)) Why then? If we are not superior or we do not have greater honor, why then are we leaders? I believe that God meant for marriage to serve as a picture of bigger realities. It is undeniable that scripture does see it as a picture for bigger realities. These include a picture of God that we all can very much relate to, a picture of a Father; and also it includes the marriage of Christ and his church (ephesians 5). We all agree that marriage serves as these illustrations but what I would suggest to you is this: God did not look around and say, "hey, marriage is like this, I'll compare it to that." Rather, God in his infinite wisdom as he set out his purpose in creation, chose to create an institution of marriage that would reflect greater truths which he planned to unfold in his perfect time. To that end he crafted marriage and the first marriage between Adam and Eve, to reflect these things. The male, took the picture of the instigator of all these covenants. His role as father is meant to serve as illuminating light on God our Father. Authority is part of that. He is meant to represent Christ and his love to the church. Authority is part of that. So while the husband has no claims to superiority, do to the role God has given him he has all claims to authority over his wife. This naturally carries over into the church because beyond the family, the church is the other location in which God wants to illustrate and paint pictures concerning Himself. Also I believe whole heartedly the Church is meant to be modeled after a family. See 1 timothy 5:1-2 (these verses do not prove that idea but lend support to it.) So, these are the two areas where we see scripture give clear instruction on male authority. I do not believe that men are meant to have any God given authority over women outside the family and the church. For example I have no God given authority whatsoever to come up to some lady I don't know and tell her to obey me. Now given that all these are things God had placed upon creation as his intention, where does the curse come in? In this I give my humble opinion. The curse was that your desire would be for your husband and he shall rule over you. It is an interesting point that the word for "desire" in this passage is not at all a common word, but it is the same word used in the account of Cain and Abel when God says that "sin desires you." So one is not to think this is a "healthy submission to proper authority" type of desire. I would suggest to you this is a combative desire perhaps even longing to take his authority for her own. I would also suggest to you that the husband ruling over her is not the God intended type of ruling that was originally the idea. You see the husbands God given authority is meant to be of a most peculiar type, that of Christ to the Church (ephesians 5). Also Matthew 20:24-28 is absolutely key in revealing that proper Godly leadership is one in service to and for the interest of those who are led. These passages are how a man is suppose to be leading his wife. This new desire of man to now "rule" is more of a dominating interest I would suggest. So what we see is that now sin has marred this relationship of a beautiful picture of Christ and his church. Now there is rebellion and self interested leadership. Need we look far in our times to overly support this? I wince as I think of how unclear I've been, I ask for God's grace in the readers understanding, and I ask for the readers grace in their responses. In love, Beja |
||||||
239 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223956 | ||
Sonofmom, Absolutely God is capable of sarcasm. For just one example I refer you to Job chapter 38:18-21 "Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you now all this. Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!" Obviously what God means by this is that he was in fact NOT born then and the number of his days are NOT great. This is ofcourse God being sarcastic to make a point. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
240 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223972 | ||
Sonofmom, "The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them." With regard to God saying they are "one," I do not think this is sarcasm but rather figurative language perhaps. What he means here is that they are all one language and one people group so to speak. Perhaps we would say "one nation." The point being that humanity was essentially united with no difference in culture, language, or ethnicity. Where God says that nothing that they purpose to do will be impossible for them is a little harder for me to answer. I don't get, the impression that it is sarcasm. If it was sarcasm God would be saying the opposite, that they really couldn't do anything and that doesn't seem to be the case. But neither do I think he means by this that they can for example, create a bird from thin air. So certainly he doesn't mean absolutely nothing is impossible for them. In the end all I think we can say definitively is that their very real ability to achieve their goals coupled with their "man glorifying" focus had them headed for spiritual destruction for the sake of temporal power. See verse 4 for their man centered goals and keep in mind God had commanded them to spread through the whole earth. Coincidentally, I just listened to a sermon on this passage that might interest you. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2007/2354_The_Pride_of_Babel_and_the_Praise_of_Christ/ In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [40] >> |