Results 341 - 360 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | To Snitch or Not To Snitch ??? | Phil 2:2 | Beja | 224117 | ||
PewPotato, That verse works both ways. I would assume deceiving for gain also implied the other party was being deceived resulting in loss. If you were being scammed would you want somebody to tell you? Should Mordecai have snitched on the people planning to murder the king? I think we all agree that he should. Should you snitch if you see a man breaking into your neighbors house? I think we would all agree. What difference is there in this beyond the greatness of the crime? In one sense your verses are finely spoken. He should not tell out of some sense of vengence or hostility, but rather out of love for the one being wrong. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
342 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 224012 | ||
Freeatlast, I'm not sure I was able to follow the point of your post. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then it seems you and I are agreeing. Also what translation are you using? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
343 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 224005 | ||
Bradk, So you are saying that your earlier thoughts were not a blanket statement on all the commands given to Israel, but something in particular about leviticus 18 makes it not for the church? I'm not sure how appealing to Leviticus 20 is different from appealing to Leviticus 18? I do hope you understand that I was in no way suggesting you accepted such a thing as beastiality. My line of reasoning was meant to suggest that your stance lead to a conclusion which you certainly would not accept so that you would rethink the stance. So my reasoning was based on the assumption that you would utterly reject such a thing. I read your bio for the first time, I very much enjoyed it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
344 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 223995 | ||
BradK, I ofcourse believe completely that our acceptance to God is based upon us being in Christ, and nothing other than this. However, just because I say that God expects us to behaive to a certain standard, does not mean that I am making that standard the means of salvation. It would be like me asking you if you believe that its ok for us to commit murder? You ofcourse would reply that it is not ok for us to commit murder. What if I then turned around and said you were suggesting we are saved and accepted before God baised on us not murdering? You would rightly reply that is completely unfounded. Your saying we are suppose to not murder in no way implies that you think this is the very grounds of our acceptance before God. The same goes for what I am saying. Just because I say we ought not do something, does not mean I am suggesting that it is the grounds for our acceptance before God. Now, as to your stating that nothing in Leviticus 18 is expected of the church. How would you reply to a member of your church who wanted your congregation to accept his practicing beastiality? I would personally turn to Leviticus 18:23. But you claim that Leviticus 18 has no application to us. How than will you respond? Nowhere in the new testament is bestiality addressed? Will you try to argue that it is implied in fornication or sexual immorality? What then if I said sexual immorality and fornication only applied to intercourse with men and women? How would you refute it if not to say that leviticus 18 is the biblical notion of sexual morality? Or would you agree that bestiality is acceptable conduct for a christian? (For any who are misreading me, I completely deny that beastiality is acceptable for a christian!) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
345 | is it a sin to have sex on your period | 1 Cor 7:3 | Beja | 223992 | ||
Brad and amour, I still can't make up my mind whether I agree with you on this. At least to be fair, we should admit to the fact that this was prohibited in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. (lev 18:19) However, the question then becomes how does this translate towards us under the new covenant. There are infact somethings that no longer apply to us as believers. Certain ceremonies, washings, festivals, food restrictions etc. where all meant to point forward to Christ in various ways, and as such are no longer something to be observed now that the reality has come. Colossians 2:16,17 "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day, things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." However, there are some things in the old testament that are certainly still valid to us today. Nobody would argue we are freed from things such as the commands not to murder, steal, or commit adultery. We are free in the sense that we not longer dwell under the ability of such laws to condemn us, if we are in Christ, but not free in the sense that those things cease to be our expected morality. The question I have, when you read through Leviticus 19, do those seem to be things pointing to Christ or do those things seem to be things that are actually in and of themselves abominable to God? I would suggest the ONLY one in that list that you would even consider saying is acceptable is the very one we are discussing. So it does seem likely that it should be viewed in the same way. Amour, I wish I could condense this into a concise answer, but unavoidably this runs into the much bigger question of how do we apply the old testament to Christians today. I have given you some strong hints on how I think about it, but unavoidably we are going to disagree about it here on this forum. What I do think we can all agree on is that if your conscience is not comfortable with it, then you should not do it. (Romans 14:22,23). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
346 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223986 | ||
To the thread and forum, If anybody is truely struggling with this question I bet this book by John Piper would help you work through the issue. And Piper is very biblical in the things he writes. Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? by John Piper You can find it for like six dollars in paperback on amazon.com. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
347 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223979 | ||
Sonofmom, Very true. I actually hesitated several times before actually daring to even write the word coincidence! Don't we serve a wonderful God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
348 | 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 |
||||||
349 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223965 | ||
Freeatlast, Let me respond in two parts. First, I will respond concerning the passage in 2 Samuel. As I have readily admitted, and will continue to do so, it is very possible that David simply means the grave. However, let me defend the possibility that he means in heaven with two observations. First, there is no flaw in the reasoning if we mean to say that it is possible that he meant it, and we do not mean to say dogmatically that he meant it. In other words, we can't say that he certainly meant the grave any more so than we can say he certainly meant heaven. There is some valid ambiguity here because of which we ought not be dogmatic on either side. The next observation, it seems that David is truely consoling himself in someway with what he says. He is finding some peace or assurance from it. It seems much more likely that he is professing something that comforts him rather than saying, "It's pointless at this point, so who cares?" Therefore, while I whole heartedly agree that David could be referring to the grave, I do not at all think it is a irresponsible reading of the text to suggest he means the child is in heaven. Though once again, I affirm we do not have the grounds to insist upon it dogmatically. Second, I will respond with regards to the age being thirteen. The one absolutely gaping problem is that scripture never in any way explicitely teaches a doctrine of "age of accountability." There are texts from which we infer that teaching, but nowhere can we point to a text and say that scripture was there specifically trying to teach us that children of a certain age go to heaven when they die. All passages are of the nature of the one in 2 Samuel which while we may look at them and have some grounds for hope, we certainly can't dogmatically assert such a doctrine. So then, if we can not dogmatically assert that scripture even teaches a doctrine of the age of accountability, how absolutely irresponsible it is of us to extend our speculation so far as to try to name an exact age! How can you argue that it must clearly be the age of thirteen, when you can not defend the doctrine even exists adiquately? Lets go one step further. What is to be gleaned from arguing a specific age? Nothing is gained except the risk of causing parents to be lax in their "laboring until Christ is formed" in them. I will state here what I will continue to teach in the Church which I pastor. We will extend the age of accountability as a comfort to a grieving parent, but we will never extend it as a comfort and a reason to be lax to the parent of a living child! May we stive mightily in the preaching of the gospel to our children! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
350 | Age of accountability? | OT general | Beja | 223962 | ||
Searcher, Indeed he could have meant that. When I preached on the topic I clearly pointed out as much. I can't recall my post but I meant to point it out there as well. In fact, the possibility that he could have meant that largely drove my application. I suggested that it is likely enough that he meant "heaven" that I feel we can validly offer hope to a grieving parent. However, we are on thin enough ice that we should never under any circumstances rest on this with regards to a living child. To a living child, we always rely on teaching the gospel rather than a notion of an "age of accountability." Hope this clarifies. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
351 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223871 | ||
Godinus, You've misread me on two points. The divisive search for truth isn't the utopian idea you've understood me to say. Also, a mistaken belief is not a "truth." If there are two contradictory statements then at least one of them is wrong. So I believe with two contradictory statements we can seek to show that one is contrary to scripture, if not both. Second, when I said "lets just let people preach baptismal regeneration" I was in no way suggesting we do that, but rather quoting the spirit of one of your previous posts. If you are suggesting that baptism is the means of our salvation then I fully believe this is a heresy and it should not be preached. So I apologize for that confusion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
352 | Heaven/hell - those never hearing gospel | Rom 10:12 | Beja | 223867 | ||
rclouviere, I completely understand that this is a hard thing to hear. Let me respond to a few things you said. "I would struggle with this if it is correct" For the immediate furture. I would encourage you to simply seek out if it is correct rather than trying to emotionally handle the implications. Study the passages I listed carefully. As you do pray that God would help you understand the truth regardless of how unpleasant the idea is. "I don't see how just creation is enough to find your way to heaven." I don't suggest that it is. The implication seems to be that creation is enough to leave us without excuse, yet not enough to reveal the gospel. "If someone doesn't ever know of the Gospel and the way to salvation, I don't see how they could end up in hell." We have to ask ourselves one simple yet troubling question. Do we or do we not truely deserve Hell? According to scripture the answer is yes. But if we truely do deserve it, then what that actually means is that God could have never done the slightest thing to save us and yet He would remain blameless. Fair would be to simply allow us all to suffer our punishment. That is what we are saying when we say we actually deserve Hell. If you can bring yourself to accept that, then it follows that God neither owes anybody the gospel nor salvation. If He is under obligation to none of us regarding the gospel and salvation, and He then in this freedom chooses to give the gospel it still does not put Him under obligation to give it to all. God in His freedom may choose to offer the gospel to you and not to me. He would still be doing no wrong, because I deserve Hell. The fact that He choose to be gracious to you, does not change the fact that He is being fair to me because I still deserve/ought to go to Hell. However, in fact God has freely extended the gospel to all. And yet even still He has done no wrong to those who have never heard it, because they still deserve/ought to go to Hell for the sins they have committed. The heart of all of this is that God doesn't owe this to anybody regardless of who it is extended to. I do not deny that this is a terrifying thought. But the more important question is whether it is true. Truth regarding life, Hell, God, and eternity are not meant to be comfortable. They are terrifyingly huge and real. I pray that God will lead you into truth as you study this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
353 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223862 | ||
I found a great quote from A.T. Robertson while doing a search on this stuff. For those who don't know who he is, his book on greek grammer is basically a major milestone in greek studies still to this day referenced by greek scholars. Here is what he has to say about Acts 2:38 This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36). Incase any couldn't follow what he is saying, the big daddy of greek grammer says that it is a perfectly and equally valid use of greek grammer to translate Acts 2:38 as, "because of/based upon the forgiveness of sins" rather than "for the forgiveness of sins." And that this other option is so equally a valid way to translate it, that one will ultimately decide based on their own theological bent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
354 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223861 | ||
Godinus, You've written so much I think its a little beyond me to respond to the entirety of it as it deserves, as it would require a very massive post. However, let me show a few examples of the assumptions and poor exegesis that characterises your whole post. You said, "In order for this statement of yours to be true and fill the position of their works like you are saying then the act of baptism itself would have to come from their own head that baptism was something they could do in order to gain salvation but as you can see it was a mandate to the disciples from Jesus Himself. By that mandate it is showing that baptism is not in the realm of - - their works." So anything Jesus commands us to do becomes not a work? Jesus commanded a great many things including to do all that the pharisees commanded because they sat in the seat of Moses, and to be perfect as our Father in heaven was perfect. So now because Christ commanded them I can validly say that this is how you must be saved and I'm completely immune to the accusation that I'm preaching a works rightousness? Where are you getting such a notion from? The truth is that Christ did command us to do some works, but that does not mean everything he commanded us is the means of salvation. Next, the rest being spoken of in Hebrews four seems to be a future rest, not at all speaking of a rest from the law currently in Christ. The verse in Titus never even mentions baptism! On the contrary it says "by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit." The regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit is being called a washing. In fact this is what we affirm. I'm still not sure how you are trying to connect this verse to the ones in Ephesians. Are you suggesting that the works mentioned in Ephesians 2:10 is referring to the work of baptism? If so I am baffled as to how you can come to this conclusion since it lacks any basis whatsoever. You are just saying a great deal of unfounded things then dressing them in some very missaplied scriptures. Also this seems to be a very far cry from you encouraging me to just let everybody believe what they desire and that doctrine is devisive so lets just let people preach baptismal regeneration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
355 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223842 | ||
Godinus, Why stop reading Peter there? Keep reading the very passage you quoted, verse 9 says, "obtaining as teh outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." Then later in verse 23, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is through the living and enduring word of God. He goes on in this discussion of being born again through the word to say in chapter 2 verse 7, "This precious value then, is for you who believe" And I can hardly believe anybody would dare use Romans to justify baptismal regeneration. Romans 5:1,2 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand." Romans 3:24 and following say, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (and on to verse 26)...for the demonstration, I say of His righteousness at the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
356 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223839 | ||
Godinus, I understand what you are saying. However, while I probably have no chance to convince clsx2, there are literally hundreds of people who frequent these forums to read them but never ever post. Among those people are some that read a post such as clsx2's and wonder how to respond to a verse such as what he referred to. Sometimes even when I have no expectation to persuade the person I'm speaking to, I post for the sake of the silent readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
357 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223836 | ||
Godinus, You said that we should not be concerned so long as we can agree on two things. 1.) That we are all saved. I am very hesitant to affirm that anybody who is depending on something which we do, is in fact a saved person. 2.) That arguing doctrine causes division. I agree that it does, but if you are implying by that that we should cease to argue doctrine then I disagree entirely. It is very important that we understand what scripture teaches. Give me a divisive search for truth rather than a happy unity in heresy any day. Though admitedly a happy unity in truth is the goal. To answer your questions. 1.) Corresponding to what? Noah and his family being brought safely through the waters of the flood. That should be pretty clear though how it corresponds to it is certainly less simple. 2.) The brackets signal an interruption from the train of thought. In this case, Peter is saying that baptism now saves us, but he interupts his train of thought to make sure that we all know that when he says this he does not mean the dunking in water. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
358 | is water-baptism needed for salvation? | Eph 2:8 | Beja | 223831 | ||
clsx2, Let's not forget that the very same man who was speaking in acts 2, Peter, later clarified that when he indicates baptism saves he does NOT refer to the actual act of baptism but rather what it represents which is the appeal to God for a good conscience on the basis of Jesus Christ (Faith.) See 1 Peter 3:21,22. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
359 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223623 | ||
Integrity, 1.) How could I be taking it out of context when I cited the entire post? What more context could there be? 2.) If you do not have time to look up scripture and cite scripture, then perhaps you shouldn't try to teach/explain it? Perhaps using your time you DO have to read scripture rather than put forward theories. 3.) You DID strongly suggest that the PHYSICAL death of Christ did not provide atonement. I'm following your posts just fine. You seem very reluctantly to truely own up to anything you are saying. The facts remains that this thread was begun by you for the purpose of asking what the real sacrifice of Christ was since it wasn't the physical death. Anybody reading this can go back to the original post and see it is true. One of the great things of this forum is that you can't pretend you didn't say something. Your words are there for everybody to see. So you can't initiate a discussion like this and then feel mistreated because we ask you to back up ideas with scripture. Studying scripture is the entire point of this forum. Suggesting theories to think about in absence of scriptural support, or thinking outside the box in that sense, is groundless, unedifying, and dangerous. This is what I truely hope you understand from this thread. I hope you find this forum to be a fruitful place of digging into scriptures, not a place to think outside the box. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
360 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223618 | ||
CDBJ, I'm very grateful that you brought Jesus' statement of it being finished up. I wish I had thought of it sooner. That certainly seems to debunk any mysterious punishment in hell being needed during those three days our Lord was in the grave. However, here is the verse: Joh 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. I think it is much more reasonable that since Christ said this phrase as He was actually dying, that he was referring to His physical death. That seems a much more reasonable understanding of this text than to speculate that He was signifying his spiritual death and seconds later his physical. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [26] >> |