Results 321 - 340 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224512 | ||
Setonahill, Yes, I ofcourse was speaking with regards to something that came later in the thread rather than the question of the initial post. Sometimes threads do go astray from the original question. I hope you won't hold it against us. I do think your original question was a fair study question to ask. I skimmed over 1 Peter and I can't say that I can point to a verse which difinitively answers your question. I do think due to the quoting of Hosea 1, it removes the possibility of the corresponding verse in 1 Peter from being difinitive proof. All I can offer is my opinion with regards to your question. My opinion is simply that Peter is portraying the Church as the reconstitution of the people of God. This new people of God are looking forward to a heavenly inheritance/country and therefore in this current world are, wherever they are, are living as strangers and pilgrims. I think this is significant theme in his letter. Therefore given that I believe that I do not think he is writing to exclusively Jewish Christians but rather are he is using some very jewish/people of God language to describe all Christians both Jew and Gentile. The one place I can argue for this is in early chapter two when he describes this new people/temple being built on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Those who reject Christ have stumbled over the stumbling stone and in verse 8 he says that indeed to this they were appointed. Now those who reject Christ are doomed and this applies to both Jew and Gentile. Further those who receive Christ he says these receive the blessings and then he speaks to them in this manner. 1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; Now note that this is the exact language of Exodus which God speaks to the people of Israel to institute them as the people of God. Who does he apply it to here in 1 peter? To them who believe in this precious stone Jesus Christ, and we agree that that applies to all whether Jew or Gentile. So this new holy nation of God is composed of all believers of any and all nations and it are these who live now as aliens and strangers in the land. This is how I understand it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
322 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224509 | ||
Tim, Yep. I would wager there are more we aren't thinking of as well. So to apply this to the original point which prompted me to bring this up, anybody who says that the promises made to Israel must not be applied to the gentiles in Christ, that we must not teach it and indeed it is even false teaching, they find themselves in the very awkward position of correcting the NT writers who say these things! For it is the new testament that does this. It is Paul who says it, not us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
323 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224500 | ||
Ariel Levin, Its not an issue of Hebrew Grammer, but rather of scripture and theology. I'm not trying to argue that Hosea was referring to gentiles but yes, he was referring to Israel. But is he making it anymore clear than Jeremiah did in chapter 31? He specifically said to the house of Israel and Judah. That's pretty clear. Yet still the fulfillment is in Christ and His Church, the new covenant. I'm sayin the old testament promises are specifically to Abraham, Israel, David, etc. But these promises through Christ become extended to a larger group than their original groups to whom they are promised. This is because Christ becomes the recipient of every promise, and through my being in Christ, I participate in these promise. In Christ! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
324 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224499 | ||
Forum, Let me just jump the gun and respond to my own post and say that I happily call many many dispensationalists my brothers and sisters in Christ. Just incase it came across wrong I in no way see their doctrine as heresy or a fellowship dividing issue. I simply believe they are wrong about an issue that will cause them to missinterpret a great number of scriptures. The denomination which I am a pastor in is 99.9 percent dispensational if I had to guess. The 0.1 percent being the few I've gotten ahold of! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
325 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Beja | 224497 | ||
Setonahill, There are many places where scripture specifically sees the church and the gentiles included to be the fulfillment of promises made specifically to Israel. 1 Peter 2 quoting Hosea is one example. Another would be what James says in Acts 15. However perhaps the most clear example is Hebrew 8 quoting the new covenant, a covenant very specifically said that it was going to be made with Israel and Judah. This notion that all promises to Israel and Judah must necessarily exclude gentile believers and can not be fulfilled by what is happening in the church is basically the heart of the theology known as dispensationalism. In my opinion this thinking is demonstratably in opposition to what scripture teaches. If we are going to understand scripture, I believe that we must accept that the fulfillments of the promises are bigger than the actual promises themselves. Here is an example. Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. Now I challenge you to show me where Abraham was promised this. Paul is seeing the inheritance of all creation for those who are in Christ as fulfilling a smaller land promise to Abraham. So did God's promise to Abraham fail? Not at all, it is rather a much much bigger fulfillment that yet fulfills the promise. In the same way as this all the promises to Abraham and Israel and Judah all belong to Gentile believers who are in Christ, Abraham's seed. (Galatians 3.) Did God then lie to the Hebrew people? Absolutely not, they are still their promises too, only God has now through the grace in Christ Jesus extended those promises to be to all who trust in Christ. Rom 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Gal 3:9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. Gal 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (that last one is in KJV because it draws out the same word is being used for seed/descendants) So once again we see the fulfillments are larger than the promises. Because what was promised to Abraham and Israel and Judah are extended to all those in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
326 | Actions to preach the kingdom of God | Luke 9:2 | Beja | 224444 | ||
00123, Its a pretty interesting question you are asking. One that I admitedly haven't thought of much in the past. I'll give you some of my own thoughts on this matter and you can judge their worth for yourself. First, what message exactly was this kingdom message they went and preached? We must noticed that we aren't given any examples of it. I am left with the assumption that their message was the same message as Christ when He Himself preached the kingdom. So what did Christ do? That we have many examples of yet we then notice that Christ spoke in parables. Shall we assume that the preaching of the disciples were also them going out in parables? I couldn't say. Now, let me direct the question a bit further. If the case is that we are asking this question from just some trivial interest then we are forced to stop there. We are given no further evidence of how their preaching differed from post-ressurection preaching. But, if we are asking such a question because we feel it is of the utmost importance because we ourselves must know what we are to preach, then I suggest we reshape the question. Let us state it clearly in that case and ask what shall we preach? Now there we have very much guidance in the scriptures. We see very clearly what those disciples of Christ preached once the Holy Spirit came and they were filled with power on high. They preached Jesus Christ crucified for sins. They preached justification through faith. They preached the gospel. So what are we to be preaching? The gospel. And truely, that may be what preaching the Kingdom of God was from the beggining. Mar 1:14,15 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." In this verse we see Christ preaching the coming of the kingdom to be a motivation to believing the gospel and repenting. And again scripture says Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So when Christ preached the kingdom of God, central to that was calling people to repent and believe the gospel. This is exactly what we see the aposltes take up after pentecost. Paul says his constant teaching was Act 20:21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. So there is no question what you and I are to be preaching. We are to call people to repentence and preach the gospel as ambassadors of Christ urging them to be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
327 | Greetings to all on this Lord's Holy Day | Is 58:13 | Beja | 224421 | ||
findrichard, I intend this post in kindness in hopes that we can perhaps reverse the effects of our initial disagreements in hopes for a happy long stay at these forums resulting in mutual edification. I hope you take the post as such. I want you to know that we here at these forums are not hostile towards differing opinions. If somebody were to come on these forums and to say with all sincerity that they had been raised and/or taught from a sabbatarian perspective and that they sincerely did not understand why it was that most of the Christian world felt that sunday was the appropriate day of worship and that they would love to hear how such a view point is balanced with scripture, then I think you would have found us to be a rather willing lot. Such an approach would have involved a very open admission to your own pressupositions and invited a polite discussion. However, in your original post to the forums you rather approached in a scolding tone and asked this, "Why do we ignore clear scripture and accept assumptions about other scripture as facts in order to validate custom?" Do you see how that question is quite a different thing? It is not the type of question asked when one wishes to sincerely learn or be informed, but is more akin to throwing down a challenge. Unfortunately, in our experience when individuals usually come with such an opening post, they have one issue they wish to fight about and have a very short and hostile stay. I hope this isn't the case with you, but it is the norm with such posters. Then your next broaching of the subject was again, not a sincere question seeking honest discussion, but rather a way of again bringing it up and posting scripture you felt we should hear. If you hold to this view then fine and well. If you wish to openly ask a question with regards to it then fine and well. But what has caused our reaction is that you have not done this, you have made these posts not in the spirit of discussion which is the intentions of these forums, but rather to simply post your view and then give verses why it is everybody should accept it. In other words in your posts regarding the sabbath you are asking nothing, only trying to teach where we have NOT asked. This is the issue. It leads only to conflict and that is why it is against the TOU. If simply this changes I think you will find us more than welcoming. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
328 | Christians who convert to other faiths? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224416 | ||
Searcher, I think that is another fine example of what I'm suggesting. Thank you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
329 | Christians who convert to other faiths? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224413 | ||
To thread as a whole, I believe scripture teaches that one who abandons the faith was never saved previously. Let me offer just two places in scripture that teach this. 1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. Now in context John is referring to what he calls antichrists, but I think its a fair application I'm making. He says the reason they left us is to show that they never were truely of us. How does John know this? Because if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. Pretty straight forward. Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, For we have become partakers, past tense, if we hold fast until the end, future tense. This is a remarkable conditional sentense. We have become partakers of Christ in the past, if we hold fast in the future. So if we fall from the faith in the future, we never were partakers of Christ in the past. I think these two passages show very clearly that a falling away from the faith is not the loss of salvation, but rather the revealing that salvation was never present. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
330 | Greetings to all on this Lord's Holy Day | Is 58:13 | Beja | 224384 | ||
findrichard, You are trying very hard to start an arguement on the forums over this. I ask you again, please don't come here trying to start a debate on your pet issue. That is not what the forums are for but rather for sincere inquiries and study, not a place to come argue and evangelize for your sabbatarian views. Part of the terms of use which you agreed to is that you agree to not push your denominational views that cause strife. In fact, let me copy and paiste some for you. "Pushing ones own personal and denominational views Please limit, to the best of your ability, the known denominational biases that produce potential strife and undue conflict. Please avoid interjecting obvious denominational biases, especially when urged by peers to cease. Otherwise, it becomes a battle of wills, and only tears down morale and causes division. If we are notified that this situation is occurring we will review it and act as necessary." The insistence of meeting on saturday rather than sunday is exactly this type of thing, and you have been plainly asked by your peer to cease. Please respect our host enough to follow their wishes. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
331 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Beja | 224331 | ||
Setonahill, I think you might have missed the main idea of my post, and that very well may be due to a lack of clarity on my part. But essentially it boils down to this. Different types of sin can require different signs of repentance. That was pretty much the sum of my post. Also, trying to suggest that because the church is unable to effectively root out hidden sins that therefore they can not deal with exposed sins is a weak arguement which, should we take it to its logical conclusion, leads only to us failing to obey scripture which tells us to practice church discipline and expect repentence. Now, that being said, in this particular church they could be handling it wrongly, or unfairly, or partially. All of this would be wrong of them. Furthermore, for them to look down their noses at such a woman after she has expressed and shown sincere repentence would be wrong of them. So I'm not defending any of these things. But going the route of saying that since we can not root out every tax cheat in the church and demand such a thing of them, therefore we must tolerate exposed unrepentant sin in the church is not only flawed, it is extremely unbiblical. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
332 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Beja | 224324 | ||
Setonahill, I don't mean for this to be a post for or against what you are discussing but a post to help see what may be the reasoning behind it. When a person sins and they are called to account what is needed is repentence. Some things are very simple, if a person is doing drugs they can cease doing drugs. If a person is cheating on their wife they can cease cheating on their wife. The list could go on and on. However, for some sins repentence is more difficult to spot. Allow me to give an admitedly extreme example. If a person in a fit of rage committed a murder, how would we see repentence? Its not really repentence to say they won't commit murder again is it? They never had a desire to become a habitual murderer. They can easily "quit" the sin with no real repentence at all. How do we ask for a show of repentence in such instances? So the question doesn't revolve around certain biblical mandated penalties for certain sins, but rather it is a matter of a church trying to perceive repentence. Other times it is the church who feels they were sinned against. I recall when David sinned with Bathseba the prophet pronounced his punishment because he had given the the enemeies of the LORD a chance to blaspheme. Now unbelievers could point and say, "Look, christians really are no different." In this way the church might feel they were wronged when a member commits a particularly notorious sin. By forcing them to apologize to the church it is a way of publicly stating for all to know that the church declares this is not how a christian is to act. The motives for what is happening could be many or varied, or it could have began as such things and now simply become the adopted tradition of the church to expect such things for that particular sin. My point being, try to understand the motives behind it first. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
333 | Bible reference to infant baptism | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224278 | ||
sonofmom, I am a very committed advocate of credo baptism (believer's baptism as opposed to infant baptism.) However, such a light dismissal of the view of infant baptism shows not only serious lack of understanding their arguements but also almost unavoidably contains a bit of ungracious disdain for its proponents, since it necessarily sees them as unable to grasp a simple truth which the rest of us grasp. Do you really believe they just decided to start baptizing infants because they ran out of adults? Did you listen to the debate which he posted before so lightly dismissing the idea? As stated, I am against infant baptism, but I do not think we do the discussion justice by so lightly dismissing it but rather show that we have yet to truly see the issues. Forgive me if this post sounds unkind. I do not mean to offend, but I sincerly want to encourage you to actually hear and understand why they believe what they do before assuming they are simpletons. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
334 | how do you explain to someone that does | 2 Cor 4:6 | Beja | 224267 | ||
lionheart, No, I haven't read that one in particular but I have read a few of those types of books. I use to be very interested in apologetics. Currently I'm watching a large video series which I bought from Answers in Genesis ( www.answersingenesis.org ) However, I think those things are primarily usefull for Christians to build up their faith and edify them. I don't think they serve a primary role in conversion, though I'm not suggesting that they hurt. I can't help but think to the passage about the rich man and lazarus. The rich man pleaded to Abraham that he would send Lazarus from the dead to his brothers. Abraham responded that he should listen to Moses and the Prophets. Lazarus countered that if one came up from the dead that then they would listen. The key response was when Abraham said that if they will not listen to Moses and the Prophets then they would not listen even though one should rise from the dead. I think so often we are of the same bent. We keep thinking that if we had more evidence they would listen; or perhaps if we had better facilities, more exciting events, a somewhat less judgmental gosepl etc etc etc. But the truth is if they will not listen to the scripture they won't listen. Because it is at the preaching of Christ that God has been pleased to shine that saving light into our hearts such that we would truely perceive the "light of the glory of God in the face of Christ." However, as stated, I do enjoy apologetics and have often been edified by such things. I just want the many people who may happen to read this post to never substitute them for the clear presentation of the gospel, for it is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. (Rom 1:16) My apologies, have been on vacation so I haven't preached in two weeks and I might be getting a little long winded as a result. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
335 | women in Baptist Church | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224251 | ||
To the thread as a whole, As I stated earlier, I am a pastor of a missionary baptist church, and our church has a woman as our song director/worship leader. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
336 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224148 | ||
justme, For lack of writing skills allow me to use numbers to organize my thoughts. 1.) You wrote that in 1 Cor 7:10-11 the situation of if the wife should happen to leave. From there you conclude that there are therefore reasons that the wife would leave. Lets examine the verses. 1Co 7:10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 1Co 7:11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. So these verses start with a very clear command that the wife is to not leave. It then says that if she should do that thing which he just commanded not to do, then she is not to get remmarried. This does not at all look like it is giving circumstance in which the wife may leave. I think to infer from this passage that there must be reasons a wife can leave, and from there to make the remarkable leap that we should as you said "With that in mind examine a reason a Christian wife would want to seperate from her husband" is quite simply an abuse of the text. 2.) You ask if I know anywhere in scripture that permits a husband to do such things. Absolutely not, nor have I argued any such thing. The question is not at all whether a husband should do things like this. The question is what should a believing wife do in response. 3.) So, that leads us to the third point. Can I provide scripture to support the notion that a spouse is to remain with a husband that is acting in an ungodly way? Yes I can. 1Pe 3:1,2 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. It says that wives "in the same way." In the same way as what? Well, we have two options. Previously it has discussed slaves being submissive to masters who are being unreasonable towards them. But, the even closer context is Peter discussing how Christ willingly submitted to wicked men for the sake of bringing salvation. So the context is that wives, just as Christ suffered in ways He didn't deserve, and submitted himself willingly to this, so also wives are to submit to husbands, even ones who are "disobediant to the word." Why? So that through their willing and submissive sufferings they may be converted by the wife's conduct. So yes, I can very much provide scripture to support the wife staying with a husband who is being quite ungodly. So, since this is the clear testimony of scripture, I personally would want a very good scriptural reason to contradict it in counseling a woman. So I ask, what scriptural support do you have to simply give a wife permission to leave her husband? I take no joy in asking a wife to endure such a thing. It is truely a horrific thought. But dare I contradict scripture? The question of a ministers responsibility under such circumstances isn't really under discussion. The question simply being what does God expect of the wife? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
337 | Crowns we cast at Jesus feet real or not | Rev 4:10 | Beja | 224145 | ||
Just my opinion on the crowns. I think we've sorely missed the type of language used on these. Are we suggesting that we are going to have a large hat wardrobe in heaven? Shall we coordinate and all decide that today is the crown of rejoicing day, and another day we shall wear our crown of life? Honestly I think we've missed the point. The crown of life, is not a crown, it is life. The notion of crown is a metaphor. The crown is the thing itself. When God says He will give us the crown of life, he means that He will give us the reward of life. When He gives us the crown of righteousness He is saying to give us righteousness. A crown is a metaphor for the thing itself. So with this in mind, we are not going to throw down our righteousness, our life, and our rejoicing literally at the feet of Jesus. IF we wish to say that is what the 24 elders in Revelations represents (which I don't agree with) then at the very least we should say it is a complete acknowledging that all these things are from God alone and not ourselves, certainly not literally throwing down a wardrobe of crowns. Again, just my interpretation of the passages. This certainly is not an issue worth dividing anybody. But I highly encourage anybody interested to look at the verse references that have been giving and see if you don't agree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
338 | Should I leave, or stay? | 1 Pet 2:1 | Beja | 224144 | ||
justme, I know that you can support what the husband ought to be doing with scriptures. But can you support your instructing her to seperate from her husband with scripture of any kind? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
339 | Explain inaccuracy of | Amos 9:15 | Beja | 224129 | ||
Infinity700, I'm not sure if you are trying to make a different point, but if you are saying that Amos is a false prophet you are in violoation of the terms of use of these forums. To use these forums you have agreed to abide by and not contradict the notions of sola scriptura. Part of that is that all of the Bible is inspired and inerrant. I hope you will respond and clarify to us all that you are not suggesting that Amos was a false prophet. Furthermore, I encourage you to see how the new testament interprets this passage in acts 15:16 and following verses. It indeed does see the church as the fullfillment of these promises. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
340 | God glorified in suffering | 2 Cor 1:9 | Beja | 224128 | ||
For your edification, http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/665_americas_ugly_exported_gospel/ In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [26] >> |