Results 301 - 320 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224807 | ||
Inquisitor, I'm not using a source. I'm simply speaking from commonly understood terminology. "Nomian" means law in greek. "Anomian" means no law, or perhaps it is better translated as the NASB renders it, "lawlessness." These two words have been brought over into our language to those things to some extent. Though I am not using a source I will happily give you one for your edification. Marrow of Modern Divinity. I highly highly encourage you to get and read this book. You'll understand the term once you do, but more than that I think it is a book that every Christian should read. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
302 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224803 | ||
Makarious, I agree. I would not argue that it is the only error being discussed. I do think its a very big one though. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
303 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224800 | ||
Inquisitor, Thank you for your thoughts. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
304 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224793 | ||
Inquisitor, Antinomianism is the error in which Christians take the truth of God's grace and bring it to a wrong conclusion. The truth is that we are no longer "under the law" but rather "under grace." The problem is a missunderstanding of what this means. What it rightly means is that once Christ has died for our sins and given us His righteousness the Law has no more ability to condem us. What they wrongly conclude is that since we are not "under Law" therefore that means none of the Old Testament morality rules apply to us anymore. In other words, a Christian can rightly say that, "Thou shall not steal" can no longer condemn me before God because Christ has died for me, but though it can not condemn me I still am to follow that command. An Antinomian would say that the command, "Thou shall not steal" no longer even applies to me because I am not under the Law. Therefore grace becomes a license to sin. That's me trying to explain it myself, Doc probably has a two sentence quote from some mighty saint of the past that captures it perfectly where I failed in a few paragraphs! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
305 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224775 | ||
Ariel, Allow me to rephrase the question then. Do you think that the error being addressed is that they were living out the idea that since we are under grace we need not worry about avoiding sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
306 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | 2 Peter | Beja | 224774 | ||
Makarios, Thank you for the reply. Let me ask a question to help me consider your answer. Do you believe antinomianism is an error? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
307 | wHO ARE SHEEP FROM ANOTHER FOLD | John 10:16 | Beja | 224727 | ||
Inquisitor, I think its pretty hard to offer proof for any interpretation of this. The reason being that Jesus simply assumed they knew who He was talking about so didn't qualify it. But I think Brad is exactly right. After you read the scripture enough sometimes it becomes pretty apparent what their categories of thought are. "This flock" in this passage obviously refers to the Jews. The contrasting category in their minds is the Gentiles. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
308 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224698 | ||
Inquisitory, I'm very sorry, I meant for my post to be in response to post 224677, reread my post in light of your statements in that thread and perhaps what I said will make some actual sense this time. Sorry 8-) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
309 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224695 | ||
Inquisitor, You took a verse in Galatians and also Acts 15 and came to the conclusion that God doesn't want to micro-manage the details of how we do church, rather he just wants us to figure it out. This took some good bit of speculation and doesn't agree with the rest of scripture. I'll let Doc answer for himself but that's just what jumped out at me. How you go there was not exegesis but rather imagination. Jas 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
310 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224604 | ||
John, Slight correction. The rule is actually when you have an article followed by that construction. So it would be something like, "The coach and companion" or "The Lord and Savior" etc. However, in the examples given they are still good examples of the correct rule. So I agree whole heartedly just wanted to make sure it was being said correctly. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
311 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224602 | ||
Bradk, I agree with everything you said but one single point. Nouns in greek can be one of three stripes when it is not accompanied by the article. These are indefinite, definite, or qualitative. Definite is when even though the article is not present it still has the force of a singular thing. For example when you see the word Paul without the article you don't translate it as "a Paul." Indefinite is when you see the word book and you do infact translate it as "a book." Qualitative is when you make a statement about the thing itself. Now the way that phrase in John 1, "and the Word was God" is a contruction where overwhelmingly the second noun is a qualitative noun when we see that construct in greek. So what this means is that almost certainly what John is trying to say is that this word is qualitatively God. However, to take this to mean that the Word was just a god is dead wrong. That is missing the point of how John is using Theos completely. The idea of Theos here is not just a divine being. It is essentially what God the Father is. What John is saying is that there was God the Father and this Word was with Him from all eternity; and exactly what God the Father was, so also this Word was too. This "Word" was of essence the very same thing as God in every way. The phrase does not mean "the quality of being a God" it rather means "the quality of being the very same thing as the very God the Father being referred to in the verse." So I believe it is qualitative, but at the same time it fits perfectly with our trinitarian understanding of God. Isn't this what we teach? Jesus was with God in the beginning, and of his very essence He was the exact same thing as God the Father. This passage thoroughly refutes any notion that Jesus Christ was a created being, or that there was any time prior to His existense. I'll say one other point. Whoever tries, upon the basis of Greek grammer, to deny that this "Word," Jesus Christ, is in fact the one true eternal God is so blind that I pity them. You do not need to know greek grammer to see this. Why do I say that? How can we conceive it any other way? Look at what John is doing here. He takes a phrase that is so burned into the very fiber and soul of every Jewish man that it is a phrase undeniably reserved for Yahweh(Jehovah) alone and gives it to Jesus Christ. Genesis1:1 In the beggining God... John1:1 In the beggining was the Word... Is there any question that this was intentionally done by John here? This great being that was eternal and The One who created everything, this majestic God of creation is in fact our Lord Jesus Christ! To deny that Jesus is so is clear evidence false teaching. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
312 | what does GOD think of us? | John 3:16 | Beja | 224598 | ||
Bradk, This is not me disagreeing, but rather I think the last verse in that chapter should also be given to round out the answer. Joh 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." God surely is love, but lets all not forget that is wrath is on those who are not in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
313 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224586 | ||
Inquisitor, I didn't respond to your verses because I had no idea what you were trying to show by them. If anything the verses you used thoroughly established my view! For did not Christ himself give their errant doctrine a name? I can only come to one of two conclusions. Either you intend to argue against something regardless of whether it is what anybody is saying which is called a strawman arguement, or you completely don't understand my view I'm trying to express. Here are some things you are speaking against as if we are taking the opposite view when nobody, including myself would disagree with you. 1.) You say that nobody should regard a particular mans's teaching above scripture. Nobody is arguing that a person should! When I say that I am a Calvinist I do not mean by that that I am an ardent follower of John Calvin. There are several things that Calvin says which I believe he is dead wrong about. He believed in and tought infant baptism and I think he's dead wrong. I am not a follower of John Calvin. BUT the particular five doctrines that have come to be termed today as Calvinism, those I do believe and I believe them only because I believe they are clearly taught by scripture, not because John Calvin happened to teach them. When I say I am a calvinist it is not declaring myself as a follower of John Calvin but rather a simple way in one word to express my affirmation that those particular five doctrines are actually taught in scripture as true. It really seems, as I said, either you don't know what I mean when I say that, or you intend to argue against a strawman position which nobody is defending. 2.) You keep insisting scripture is against name calling. Nobody thinks scripture is for it! We are not at all suggesting that scripture is in favor of insulting or calling people derrogatory phrases at all. That you think we are defending such a position makes me think once again, either you don't at all understand what I'm saying or you intend to argue against this strawman position which nobody is defending. So let me offer this. I agree that we should not say mean things to each other, and I agree that we should exclusively follow the teachings of scripture and not those of any man who is teaching something contrary. Does that bring us into agreement? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
314 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224582 | ||
Inquisitor, I don't understand your post at all unless you are saying the following. 1.) That anybody who accepts a label by that are saying they follow a man other than Jesus. That is rediculous. 2.) All Christians should naturally respond to being given a label as if they are being told that they are not a Christian, which again is rediculous. You ask me what I think. And here is my honest opinion. There are some Christians who spend time discussing matters of theology and some who try to avoid it. Those who try to discuss it by absolute necessity must use titles to refer to different views or the entire process of communication breaks down. Now when those who aren't use to discussing various theological positions happens upon these conversations, sometimes they get deeply offended because they think all these lables are being thrown around out of pure meanness. And it is at times very hard to get them to understand that this is not at all the case. I'll give you a good example. I am a calvinist, I readily admit it. My wife has come to believe the same doctrines which I mean when I say this. However, she's not use to these titles and is slightly offended to be given a title that SOUNDS like it means she is something other than Christian. So in response she has now decided to rename calvinism as biblicism. So now that's how she refers to it. Its from this same sensibility you are expressing. Well, what shall we think of that? Well, in one sense we think, "good for her." However should she come into discussion with other believers and start refering to her "biblicism" either one or two things will happen. One, they will have no clue what she is talking about because nobody knows what a biblicist is! Or the second thing that will happen is that they will automatically assume she is referring to what they themselves believe. Because at the end of the day, we all own the title of biblicist in our own mind don't we? We all believe that what we think is the "biblical" view point. So just simply saying we all believe scripture does not communicate. We can't discuss with terms we all define with our own meaning. So what we need are terms that freely and openly communicate what I personally believe scripture teaches. It is a necessity of communication, nothing more. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
315 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224579 | ||
Inquisitor, You said, "I'm acknowledging that you, Beja and Searcher have all made good points about the weaknesses of mankind over the centuries." Ack! I'm more than willing to let the thread die but I feel I've been sorely missrepresented here! You took a minor thought in my post and made it the main idea. I confessed that I thought calvinist and amillinialist was poor titles yes. But my POINT was that even though I think that I own and accept those titles because I believe we do need them! We must have ways of talking about contrasting theologies. When somebody calls me a baptist I don't take offense to that. It would be silly to. I don't stop them and say, "Wait a minute...call me simply christian if you will. For everybody needs to recognize that what I believe is the true Christian Faith!" No no, I accept these titles and I use them with regards to others. Would I love it if the whole world of Christianity all became united in one doctrine and one title? Absolutely I would. But I freely confess that the only way that would ever happen is if the whole world converted to my own beliefs because here I stand! I do not think we should all ignore our differences. The only way anybody should be ashamed of their title is if they are ashamed of the doctrines which it represents. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
316 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224569 | ||
Inquisitor, I had to go back and reread this thread to know where this was coming from. But if this is in response to somebody asking if another person was a campbellite I truely don't think that should be referred to as name calling. Over the centuries doctrinal view points will unavoidably be given some sort of name because we have to refer to it somehow don't we? It is very burdensome to everytime we wish to refer to that particular doctrinal view point to say, "those who believe baptism is an active cause of salvation" or some sort. So they get names. My own view points have names that I myself did not give them. I am a calvinist. I think that is a horrible name for what I believe. Why? Because calvin didn't come up with these teachings. Yet we must refer to that theological view point in some means for the sake of being able to communicate with each other. I'm an amillinialist. That label is actually horribly innacurate! Why? Because it literally means "No millinium." The rub is, amilliniallist do NOT deny a the millinial reign of Christ! Yet I own the title for the sake of us being able to identify and communicate what I believe. A while back on these forums somebody was very upset with me because I kept using the term dispensational to refer to their theology. They hadn't heard the term and felt I was insulting them. But I meant no insult, it was just much easier than laying out their entire doctrinal stance each time I refered to it, when their doctrinal stance had a ready title. So to sum, I don't think when we have titles for doctrinal stances that we should see that as name calling. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
317 | The true Gospel Jesus proclaimed | Matt 4:23 | Beja | 224558 | ||
123, (I tried to post this once and there was some error, forgive me if it double posts.) I contend that the gospel which Jesus Christ preached was this: That men every where repent of their sins and rather than trusting in their own righteousness trust in the attoning sacrificial death of Jesus Christ; and that this was their only means of escaping the coming judgement of God. Now let me defend this. 1.) That men everywhere should repent Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." This next one should be of particular interest to you. Just after Jesus sends out his disciples for the preaching, it reports this: Mar 6:12 They went out and preached that men should repent. 2.) That he called them to cease trusting in their own righteousness. Luke18:9-14 This story is to large to quote here but I urge you to see if Jesus did not clearly rebuke people from trusting in any righteousness of their own for justification before God. We see clearly these are the target of this parable in verse 9. Luk 18:9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous... 3.) That they trust rather in the attoning sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This one will be slightly more challenging to show because Jesus often concealed it in parables, but I think we can show it presuasively enough. Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." This gospel we clearly have defined elsewhere though I think primarily outside the gospels. But lets look at additional passages. John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.(ESV) Here we see Christ clearly as the solution to the wrath of God rather than our own righteousness. Joh 3:14,15 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." (ESV) Here we again not only see that belief in Jesus is the answer in opposition to our own righteousness but we also see his crucifiction as central to this. One last passage for this point: Luke 22:37 "For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfilment." Now here he is quoting Isaiah 53:12. I know that you want 'just' the gospels in this but I think you'd not be rightly exegeting this passage without looking at the verse in Isaiah which Jesus is quoting. So here is Isaiah 53:12 Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors." Now look carefully at this. Because in Luke 22:37 Jesus clearly claimed that this verse was referring to Him. So what do we see from this to show us how Jesus himself saw His own ministry? He saw that through pouring out His own soul to death and being numbered as a transgressor HE WAS BEARING THE SINS OF MANY AND MAKING INTERCESSION FOR THE TRANSGRESSORS. Christ was teaching clearly that his death was a sacrificial substituation for us. And through his death the many are made righteous. Isaiah 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 4.) This was their escape from the judgement of God. I only offer this verse from John the Baptist, because anybody who honestly reads the gospels but once should be clear that whatever this gospel is it is the means which we are spared God's wrath. Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? I think my assertion is sufficiently established. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
318 | The true Gospel Jesus proclaimed | Matt 4:23 | Beja | 224555 | ||
To the whole thread, Might I humbly suggest this thread has gotten pretty far from being a study of any particular scripture? In my experience this type of discussion can never be fruitful because you can never box it in. If somebody is being shown wrong in one area they simply say, "well what about this?" as they bring up a different point. Perhaps this should be brought down to the exposition of a relevent passage? And if we can't think of a relevent passage then we really don't have anything to say about it do we? From the pot to the kettle, Beja |
||||||
319 | A Godly reason for disobeying husband | Eph 5:24 | Beja | 224536 | ||
Just as a point of clarification. If a husband commands his wife to contradict the word of God she must disobey THAT command. That doesn't mean she now may disobey all commands. I would assume this is in fact what justme meant. Though correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth, Justme. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
320 | does this refer to exodus or creation? | Ps 18:1 | Beja | 224520 | ||
vnct blzn, I think the key here is to recognize that this is poetry, not history. We don't accuse poetry of falsehood or deception because it describes things in over the top ways. For example if in a poem where I had been jilted I wrote something along the lines of... "You have torn out my heart yet I can not hate you. All my life has been reduced to ruins and ashes for the loss of you." NONE of that actually happened. She did not pull my heart out of my chest, nothing has been burned. Yet you would not read my poem then stand up and say, "Wait! That didn't happen!." Because you would understand that this is poetry and that such standards are not the realm of poetry. We need to realize the Psalm in question is poetry. David is speaking of God delivering him in over the top ways. To do such when writing poetry isn't error, falsehood, or being deceitful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [26] >> |