Results 281 - 300 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Subsequent process | 1 Cor 1:2 | Beja | 228468 | ||
Thread, I recently did an in depth study on the word sanctification in the new testament. What I found was that as Biblicalman said, "The term has a variety of meaning to be determined by context." The word is extremely flexible. However, I was quite disturbed by the range. How can it mean "set apart" in a quite literal interpretation. Yet we see it universally discussed as an ongoing conformity to Christ in every discussion we read in books? I found this disturbing and decided to try to dig at the root of it all. I found that sometimes the word is meaning "set apart," sometimes the word is meaning the ongoing growth of holiness/conformity to Christ, and yet sometimes it seems to have the sense of a finished event accomplished at the cross. See Hebrews 10:10 for an example of that type. Other times it seems to be almost synonymous with our entire salvation. Now what is the common denominator in all of this? I found the Old Testament to hold the answer. In the law, the setting apart of something to God was always done by clensing it. Whether by water, fire, or most often by blood, clensing something of its defilements was the way in which one set something apart to God. We can not seperate the two. If you took a holy object and asked a Levite at what moment it became set apart to God, I believe they would say when it was clensed for that purpose by the blood of a sacrifice. The clensing by sacrifice was its being set apart, and its being set apart was its clensing. So in the same stripe, we are set apart unto God through clensing by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So in one sense, we were certainly sanctified once for all at the cross. Christ is our sanctification. Then again we can look to our sanctification as the moment the sacrifice was applied to us when we were united to Christ by Faith. And yet there is more. The sacrifice ofcourse was clensing. Our sanctification is our clensing of sin, and our clensing of sin is our being set apart to God. So we must look at that aspect. And we must notice that Christ has clensed us from sin and this happens in two ways. First, Christ has clensed us finally from the guilt of sin, justification. Second, Christ has (ongoing process) sealed our clensing from the actually practice of sin, holiness. See the new covenant in Hebrews 8 and you will see both forgiveness and obedience were bought for us at the cross. So this means though we previously have mentioned a sense in which our sanctification has been accomplished, now we see a sense in which although our sanctification is garaunteed, it is in the process of happening through the holy spirit's work in progressively securing our obedience. So here is a sense in which sanctification is ongoing and can even be commanded that we persue it (Heb 12:14). So this I think is the root of sanctification, our being clensed by the sacrifice of Christ both from guilt and practice of sin so that we are set apart to God Holy. This is why the word is so so very flexible. Sometimes it just means set apart, sometimes it is highlighting the fact that Christ accomplished it, sometimes it is focusing on the fact that it is not yet completed in practice, and sometimes it is highlighting the entire process. Yet if we keep the whole picture in mind, we can see where they are focusing on any given context. Hope this wasn't hopelessly jumbled and that somebody benefited. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
282 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228445 | ||
Oldone, Yes, that is what I am saying. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
283 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228431 | ||
Oldone, You said, "What this verse is telling me God and Christ became one, Like, body and soul. Another way I look at it is that Jesus was the man that God became." We understand clearly from John 1 that The Word was eternally with God and distinct from God, even though He actually was of the very same as God. We see that it was this Word which became flesh in Christ. So we should not think that the Father became flesh, nor should we think that Christ was ever a man while not being deity and somehow God later merged with him. Christ was the Word become flesh from the moment He was created in the womb. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
284 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228283 | ||
Biblicalman, Amen. I can't help but wonder if you are a fellow amillenialist. Regardless, I agree with your post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
285 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | Beja | 228274 | ||
Searcher, I do not want to answer for biblicalman, but I would suggest that it is coming into being through the Spirit working through the gospel. Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, Eph 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, Eph 2:22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
286 | regulation regarding tattooing | 1 Cor 6:19 | Beja | 228271 | ||
Beja, Here is a place where I think Paul is setting a principle as well, not merely a single effect statement. 1Co 7:18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. So we see that cuts or marks or doing something to the body is absolutely irrelevant. If we have them, we should not seek to remove them as if doing so would improve our standing with God. If we don't have them, we should not seek to gain them as if gaining them improved our standing with the Lord. None of these things mean anything and are indeed left over notions from Jewish ceremonial laws. I agree whole heartedly that our body is a temple which we should not defile. But Christ has clearly taught us what defiles us! Mat 15:18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. Mat 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. Mat 15:20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." All the other things that supposidly "defile" the body or man were but pictures so we could understand the concept of defilement. The purpose was that we might have the proper categories to understand sin and its effects on us and our need for clensing. It is the heart and the sin of the heart or the righteousness of the heart. We defile the temple of our body by the sinfulness of our hearts and minds and actions, not by ink. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
287 | Are tatoos allowed? | Lev 19:28 | Beja | 228243 | ||
Justme, I would be very careful not to give the impression that there is any virtue whatsoever in branding ourselves for Christ's sake. I do not suspect that you were suggesting that, but for the sake of clarity let us so. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
288 | Different beliefs and salvation | John 3:16 | Beja | 228236 | ||
Julia, First, I would ask you to look at those specific verses and ask yourself they hold water. Acts 5:42, is it discussing how to receive salvation? And as we look at the context of the Matthew verse, does it not say how we are to make disciples? It says by baptizing and teaching them. By his logic you are not a christian unless you are performing baptisms and teaching classes! Yet Paul says, 1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1Co 1:15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 1Co 1:16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. And Christ Himself baptized nobody! And again Paul states,"1Co 12:29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?" So I say to you that his verses prove nothing and accomplish nothing but to upset the faith of those not firmly taught in right doctrine. For we have clearly revealed to us how we are to receive God's gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (ESV) Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Eph 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Indeed, all the works and things that we do for God come as a result of salvation, not as a means of attaining salvation. Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. I will pray for you. How hard of a struggle you must have to stand fast in the gospel of pure grace when such things are often preached to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
289 | Are tatoos allowed? | Lev 19:28 | Beja | 228234 | ||
Magie, The only scripture that references it is Leveticus 19:28. Lev 19:28 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. Many believe that this command was oriented around the gentile practice of marking yourself in devotion to one of their gods. So it is very much debated as to whether this command was meant for us, or rather was part of the ceremonial distinctions of the time which Christ later did away with. It is a difficult call I suppose especially since the verse immediately follows a command that is certainly a ceremonial law done away with and yet precedes a ongoing moral point. Lev 19:27 'You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. Lev 19:28 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. Lev 19:29 'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness. For what my opinion is worth, I do not think a tattoo is inherently sinful. By this I mean some certainly are sinful, but this would be because of the nature of the tattoo. Such as if I had something blasphemous or sinful, such as a lustful picture of a naked woman, tattoed upon me. With regards to Christ having a tattoo they would almost certainly be referring to Revelation 19:16. Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." To which John Gill gives an excellent explination. "This name, afterwards expressed, is said to be written on his vesture, in allusion to the custom of persons of note and eminence having their names interwoven in their garments, and which was sometimes done in letters of gold." Ultimately we ought to push beyond the simple question of is it permissable to the question of is it something I "ought" to do. In this we must ask if it will be a stumbling block to others; will it edify or disrupt the church of God? I would suggest it could very easily become a sin along those lines. 1Co 8:11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 1Co 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. I say all this as a pastor who actually has a tattoo. Over a decade ago I decided to get a cross with a banner tattoo'd on me and the banner reads "Acts 20:24." I very much like the tattoo but now in retrospect I see it more as a mark of the ignorance I had at the time, an ignorance of what pleases God. I proceeded as if marking my body was how he'd be pleased for me to express my love for Him when doing His expressed will was how I had been told in His word to love Him. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
290 | Actual process? | Romans | Beja | 228175 | ||
Doc, Well said. Especially the summary recommendation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
291 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228095 | ||
Biblicalman, I was referring to what had been your most recent post rather than the entire thread. Post ID# 228078. However, at your encouragement I did look back over the entire thread to see if I had been unfair and found that you gave nothing in the way of scriptures other than your set of "the two shall become one flesh" passages (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 6:16, and Mark 10:8), which ofcourse the entire thread is questioning your interpretation of those passages. With regards to your dismissals, what I mean is your responses to my bringing up John 4 and Matthew 19. With regards to John 4 your response was that this was "worldly speaking" and that we can not take them seriously. This inspite of that we take the other things said to this woman by Christ quite seriously indeed. In Matthew 19 you simply said that he was talking about a lesser mode of marriage?? There is no sustaining a serious discussion when every passage that seems to reject what you are saying are so lightly dismissed without real discussion. I do not deny that you have a model with which you are explaining yourself. However, your entire arguement requires that we first before any exegesis to assume that all the things in scripture were said because of your prior framework. For example, you pointed out that they were forced to marry after sex. However, there is nothing whatsoever in that text that leads us to assume that the reason they were to marry is that sex formed a marriage bond. Your exegesis forces us to come to the passage already accpeting your framework in order for us to come to the conclusion you are coming to. However, the passage itself does not lend to that interpretation. Let's see it, and yes, I did recognize the reference. Deu 22:28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. Now, your assumption is that they must marry because in God's eyes the sex formed the marriage. But the passage actually tells us the "why." It says, "because he has violated her." Now many interpreters see this to point to something quite different. The fact is that she is no longer a virgin, and her opportunity of being married has severly diminished. For this reason the man must fulfill the role of husband to her. And beyond this, if the reason was simply that the sex formed the marriage in God's eyes, then the inability to divorce her later should she be unfaithful has no explination. Now whether you disagree with that interpretation or not (I know you don't) the point is that NOTHING in the passage or exegesis is pushing you to your interpretation over this one except your already pre-attained conclusion before you come to the passage. And this is the only reason to read any of the passages the way you do. These are the types of things I was referring to, not simply a score of who has quoted more scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
292 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228083 | ||
Biblicalman, Since you have given no scripture to support any of your statements (with the exceptions of the original one in question) there is really nothing further to discuss. You have only restated what you have already said and failed to give any additional biblical support for it. All I can say is that this elaborate scheme is not stated in scripture. The scripture which I have brought forward you have dismissed with statements such as, "Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage.." How on earth does one respond to such a statment that has no basis in scripture? Between such dismissals of passages I bring forward and you providing no scriptural support for what you are saying, we are left to discuss our own imaginations which is pointless. All I can say in order to end on a positive note is that this is not a fellowship breaking issue and you have my sincere Christian affections. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
293 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228075 | ||
Biblicalman, Let me just focus on your questions to me rather than try to respond to everything you said. If you think I'm avoiding a key point you wish to make then just repeat it and draw my attention to it and I'll respond. I have no intention of avoiding your points, but giving due time where I think its needed. 1.) You said "Why do you think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her?" But look at what you are saying and what you have said. You yourself have just said that as a result of the sex he was forced to marry her, but previously you have been arguing that the act of sex actually did make them married in God's eyes! It can't be both. So I turn the question back to you. If the act of sex ment they were already married in God's eyes, why then were they forced to marry? 2.) You asked, "Why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. The relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act." I think this is completely wrong. Look at Matthew 19 with me. Mat 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Mat 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mat 19:7 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" Mat 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. Now this is going to be a string of exegesis so I beg readers to give their best effort to follow me. They ask Jesus, if God has indeed made the two one flesh then why did Moses permit divorce? Now where on earth did Moses discuss divorce? You will find nowhere that these Jews could be referrring to (correct me if I'm wrong) other than Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Now take a look at that passage. I'd paste it but I fear I'd run out of space. Here he never says anything about divorce directly but assumes it. He says that if a man takes a wife an he finds indecency in her (she's found to be sexually impure) and then if he does put her away and then if she marries again and then she is later single again, he is forbidden to remarry his ex-wife. So here it is. We have Moses implicitly allowing for divorce when a wife is unfaithful. This then is what is being discussed in Matthew 19, now back to that passage with this Old Testament context in mind. They ask Christ why Moses allowed divorce in the case of a sexually defiled wife. Christ's answer is key. He says that Moses allowed it due to the hardness of their heart, but from the beginning it wasn't that way. So lets consider that answer. First, Jesus makes the point that even when a wife was unfaithful, divorce was permitted then only due to the man's shortcomings. Second, divorce in the face of marital unfaithfulness was NOT the original model. So we see that divorce when a spouse is unfaithful is a undesirable, unnatural, allowance by the law because mankind's heart can so seldom love in spite of this great wrong. Now here is my question. If this is the case how on earth can anybody say that because of the adultery the marriage is inherently and already severed!? No, the plan of marriage in its ideal form is that the husband is faithful and united to the woman even in the face of such betrayal. The adultery does not break the marriage. But God, because of our inability to love rightly, allows us the choice to break the marriage in the face of such betrayal. So, God's original design for marriage is NOT marriage is over when adultery happens, but rather a constant union not matter what and that means no matter what. But the law later comes along and reluctantly adds the option to divorce when adultery happens due to the fact that our hard hearts often fall short of loving as it ought to. Sexual sin does not sever a marriage in and of itself. So I say again, scripture does not bear out what you are saying. I agree that "becomming one flesh" is at the essence of marriage, but that doesn't mean we can read into 1 Cor 16 everything you are saying. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
294 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228073 | ||
Biblicalman, First, the passage that you are quoting does not say any of the things which you are saying. You are making inferences from the passage. Now those inferences could be correct or wrong, but the passage does not say them, they are inferences. Admitting as much is a matter of simply honesty, not debate. Second, you are making a lot of inferences from one statement. Third, your words do not agree with what Christ said. You said: "And that is marriage in God's eyes if we have not had sexual relations before. If we have tnen it still makes us one but in an adulterous relatonship." and "A second sexual union is adultery. It is not marriage in God's eyes because the person had been made one with someone through the first sexual union" Yet Jesus acknowledged 5 husbands as husbands. We do not have a clear explicit teaching but Scripture, and Jesus, do not appear to agree with your inferences which you are making from 1 Cor 6:16. I do not want to offend you as I have enjoyed and silently given my "amen" to many of your posts. However, I think you are off base on this one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
295 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Beja | 228071 | ||
Biblicalman, Though we are going on speculation and not clear verses, this passage seems imo to refute the notion that having sex means you are married in God's eyes. Joh 4:16 He *said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus *said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; Joh 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." Jesus clearly doesn't think her sleeping with the sixth man means they are married. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
296 | people on the other side of the mountain | Genesis | Beja | 228064 | ||
Mariaan, Can you give the passage in question? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
297 | 3 levels of Christianity as per Ephesian | Eph 1:3 | Beja | 228062 | ||
Soca, There are not three levels of Christianity in Ephesians. Everything is granted us from eternity in Christ (1:4), to be received in pledge upon our hearing and believing the truth (1:13,14) and climatically received in the ages to come (2:7). In fact, I would suggest that the notion that there are different categories of Christians to be completely contrary to the message of Ephesians. Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
298 | elder led, elder taught? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 228056 | ||
Julia, This link might be helpful to you. http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/leadership Actually, that entire website might benefit you greatly. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
299 | is it wrong? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 228050 | ||
Julia, As stated earlier in the thread, 1 tim 2:11-15 is the most crucial passage. 1Ti 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1Ti 2:15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. We must be very careful not to come up with reasons to explain away scriptures. Specifically this instruction is not grounded in anything but the creation and the fall. See verses 13 and 14. So the reason is not cultural, but something applicable today. Everybody is so eager to explain why Paul said this and therefore why it isn't applying to us. However, they overlook that Paul told us clearly why in those two verses. However, let me give you why I think this passage does have some limitation to its scope. Paul forbids "teaching and excercising authority over a man." However it breaks down like this. Paul's command verse 12 Grounding and clarification verses 13-15 (chapt end.) Approval of men seeking the role of overseer (2:1) Qualifications for a man wanting to be overseer (2:2 and following.) So, first, this command comes in the context of Paul leading into a discussion of the overseer role, which are the elders. Second, Paul forbids the two things that are specifically the role of the elders, teaching and excercising authority. This makes me think that what Paul has in mind is forbidding women from the role of elders. The elders, to my understanding, had the official teaching ministry of the church. But while they had the official teaching ministry, all members were ministers of the word to each other on a more informal basis and I'm sure some where more spiritually gifted for it than others and sometimes that was women. So while people may give many examples to you of women prophesying, I doubt they can give any examples of women elders. Now, here is how I put these observations together. The instructions in 1 Tim 2 do apply to us. However, they are primarily a statement that the role of elders in the church is limited to men. However, within the church, women are free to excercise their spiritual gifts to the edification of all believers. Though, they must not be placed in an authoritative teaching position over men. Unfortunately part of the confusion is the lack of biblical structure in our churches. For example, what if your church is not elder led and elder taught? This makes the question much much more complex. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
300 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [40] >> |