Results 381 - 400 of 559
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Wild Olive Shoot Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Suicide: a question on sin | 1 Cor 6:19 | Wild Olive Shoot | 162039 | ||
Isn't this sort of like testing God? If it weren’t truly God’s will for us to be healed in a situation, then no medical treatment would heal us otherwise. But if we take the treatment and are healed, then maybe it was God’s will for us to be healed. How would you know for sure if treatment is refused. God’s given man the ability to treat medical conditions, wisdom is a gift, (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) and if we don’t use it to His glory then we forsake the gift He has given us. Matthew 4:7(NASB) Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test. Deuteronomy 6:16(NASB)"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. Exodus 17 (NASB): 2Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, "Give us water that we may drink " And Moses said to them, "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?" 3But the people thirsted there for water; and they grumbled against Moses and said, "Why, now, have you brought us up from Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?" 4So Moses cried out to the LORD, saying, "What shall I do to this people? A little more and they will stone me." 5Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pass before the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand your staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6"Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?" Just some thoughts. WOS |
||||||
382 | Is it always a sin to lie? | Ex 20:16 | Wild Olive Shoot | 162004 | ||
Doc, Although I would have never been able to state it as eloquently as you have, those are my sentiments exactly, thus my quoting Romans 8:28. But simply because of God’s use of secondary causes, and that being His use of them to accomplish His own eternal purpose, He does not condone or justify the sinful things we do. In His sovereignty He can and does use our sinful acts to further His plan but I don’t find where He actually rewards us for those acts. The final results may be positive, but not because God rewarded a sinful act. Only because that is God’s sovereign choice to use those secondary causes for His purpose. WOS |
||||||
383 | Is it always a sin to lie? | Ex 20:16 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161996 | ||
Dear Kalos, Brother, an apology surely was not necessary but truly appreciated. I have great respect for what you have done in service to your country as well, and concerning this forum, genuinely believe that you post with great wisdom and from the heart. So we disagreed, not a big deal and I understand the frustration brother when you feel so passionately about something and can’t get it through thick skulls like mine. Opinions can differ; it’s our loyalty that cannot. Semper Fi brother. WOS |
||||||
384 | Is it always a sin to lie? | Ex 20:16 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161995 | ||
Greetings Makarios, You ask: “Was the fact that Moses lived to help deliver Israel from the Egyptians an example of misery, loss and judgment?” No it was not, but do you really believe the reward of a lie resulted in Moses being Israel’s deliverer? God blessed the midwives for not killing innocent babies. Exodus 2:6 states that Pharaoh’s daughter had compassion on him when she saw that the baby wept. Don’t you think it was God touching her heart? God chose Moses and would have raised Him up for His purpose regardless. God doesn’t need anything from us to accomplish His plan. God doesn’t need lies to accomplish His plan. The lie was a sin sure enough and I just don’t believe God rewards sin. Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t times when to lie seems appropriate. I’m just simply stating that all lies are sins and are not condoned in Scripture and are surely not rewarded by God. My little girl was developing a complex concerning her teeth. A few kids in her school had made fun of her because they were crooked. Her mother and I knew they were crooked. But do you think when she asked us how they looked we told her the truth. No, we told her that her teeth were fine and didn’t make her look funny. But they did. So we lied. Do you think God rewarded me for that lie? I don’t know, but it sure took a good bit of money to get them corrected. Anyway, my point is simply this, a lie is a lie and is a sin according to God’s Word, no matter how small or insignificant or innocent or even correct it may seem. It is what it is and cannot be rewarded by God. You ask: “And can you find any mention in all of Genesis of Jacob being 'punished' for his lie?” Did Jacob ever see his mother again, whom he loved so dearly? He feared for his life as his brother now wanted to kill him. Laban sure through him for a loop. His family was torn by dissension. His brother became the founder of an enemy nation. He was exiled from his family for years. And imagine, according to Genesis 25:23, he would have received the birthright anyway. His deceitfulness wasn’t even necessary. Ponder this, how different could this world possibly be had Jacob and his mother waited for God to work things His way instead of taking matters into their own hands? WOS |
||||||
385 | Is it always a sin to lie? | Ex 20:16 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161965 | ||
Me too. Being an infant, I’m not sure how helpful I would have been. But enduring Desert Storm (not making any comparison) you would have been welcomed in mine. And being that tomorrow is the day for honoring our veterans, thank you. WOS |
||||||
386 | Is it always a sin to lie? | Ex 20:16 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161959 | ||
Romans 8:28(NIV)And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Just because we would do it and expect others to do it, does not make it right in God’s eyes. How can God condone or reward something that He hates. Isn’t that going against His very nature? It wasn’t the midwives lies or actions that secured the “greater good” making it right. It was almighty God. WOS Question: "Is it ever right to lie?" Answer: It is never right to lie. The ninth commandment prohibits bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16). Proverbs 6:16-18 lists “a lying tongue” and “a false witness that speaketh lies” as two of the seven abominations to the Lord. Love “rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). See also Psalm 119:29, 163; 120:2; Proverbs 12:22; 13:5; Ephesians 4:25; and Colossians 3:9. There are many examples of liars in Scripture, from Jacob’s deceit in Genesis 27 to the pretense of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Time after time, we see that falsehood leads to misery, loss, and judgment. Sometimes a question arises concerning lies that seem to have positive results. For example, the lie the Hebrew midwives tell Pharaoh seems to result in the Lord’s blessing (Exodus 1:15-21). However, it should be obvious that the Lord is blessing the midwives’ rescue of the children, rather than any falsehood they told. God in His mercy blessed them in spite of the lie, rather than because of it. Another example is Rahab’s lie in Joshua 2:5. God never condones her lie, but He does forgive it. Rahab’s life is spared in response to her faith, which she expresses in verses 9-11. God not only forgives Rahab’s lying, but also her idolatry and harlotry—another example of God’s mercy in action. Copyright 2002-2005 Got Questions Ministries. All Rights Reserved.www.gotquestions.org - Is it ever right to lie? |
||||||
387 | Is the name Christian being ridiculed? | James 2:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161746 | ||
Hi Mark, Don’t ever hesitate to offer your thoughts. I’ll gladly listen to what you have to offer. After reading your thoughts, I think I see my error. James was admonishing the brethren for showing favoritism thus becoming judges with evil thoughts as stated in v4. But the blasphemous slanderers were the rich (in general) that were coming in, maybe not necessarily all of the rich coming into the assembly, but some of to whom they (the assembly) were showing favoritism. I would also think that if these rich men accepted the more prestigious positions being offered and let the poor be discriminated upon, they were more than likely not Christians or not acting as such anyhow. In any case, it seems I had the wrong idea here, as the blasphemers that are referenced would not have been the professing members of the assembly that James was addressing. Thanks for your thoughts and the redirect Mark, they helped, and I think I’m on the same page. WOS |
||||||
388 | Is the name Christian being ridiculed? | James 2:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161742 | ||
Hi Hank, Wasn't James directing these comments to professing Christians though? I get the sense that he was reprimanding the brethren for showing favoritism to the rich and those who were actually oppressing or despising the poor, which is sinful in and of itself. Diminishing the grandeur of our Lord by exhibiting respect for outward appearances rather than inward grace. In a sense, it was Christians doing the blaspheming, but not for reasons of ridicule but because of their own ignorant, or not so ignorant, actions? Your thoughts on that would be appreciated. WOS |
||||||
389 | Is the name Christian being ridiculed? | James 2:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161696 | ||
Excellent post Mark. There never was and never shall be dishonor in being called a Christian. For to be a “true” Christian means you are among God’s chosen, the saved. WOS |
||||||
390 | Biblical era culture, abd Understanding | 1 Tim 2:12 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161544 | ||
Searcher, You’re correct and I apologize. Problem was, I copied form within e-sword so I didn’t have a link directly. In the future, I’ll try to link to a reliable web-site. I’m curious concerning your comments: “Matthew Henry is looking at this passage ... but not others on this subject, which can be dangerous.” In referencing his commentary on the subject throughout scripture, I have found them to very consistently speak on the same terms. This is the case with other commentators as well. Have you found otherwise? WOS |
||||||
391 | Biblical era culture, abd Understanding | 1 Tim 2:12 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161539 | ||
I wondered if you would be interested in how Matthew Henry thought on the subject? 1Co 14:34-35 - Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach, 1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12. There is indeed an intimation (1Co_11:5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs. They are not permitted to speak (1Co_14:34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Act_22:9), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised? For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home. Note, As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home. 2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God's law and commandment that they should be under obedience (1Co_14:34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind's uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man.--Matthew Henry WOS |
||||||
392 | devon what's the diff w/ rhema and logos | Rom 10:8 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161445 | ||
The following is taken from an official position paper located on The Assemblies of God USA web-site. A distinction is generally made by proponents of this view between the words logos and rhema. The first, it is claimed, refers to the written word. The second, to that which is presently spoken by faith. According to this view whatever is spoken by faith becomes inspired and takes on the creative power of God. There are two major problems with this distinction. First, the distinction is not justified by usage either in the Greek New Testament or in the Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament). The words are used synonymously in both. A second problem also exists among those who make a distinction between the words logos and rhema. Passages of Scripture are sometimes selected without regard to context or analogy of faith which they claim to speak by faith. In this kind of application of the so-called rhema principle, adherents are more concerned with making the Word mean what they want it to mean than in becoming what the Word wants them to become. In some instances it becomes obvious they love God more for what He does than for who He is. http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4183_confession.cfm This does not even line up with your definition. Please tell us from where your definition of the words are from. WOS |
||||||
393 | Biblical era culture, abd Understanding | 1 Tim 2:12 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161439 | ||
I’m well aware of what the words mean. In the post I responded to, you claimed God speaks rhema to your spirit and what the bible teaches is overlooked because of a dogmatic approach. You separated the two of them, rhema and logos. Rhema and logos are in fact interchangeable words with the same basic meaning. What happens is some take rhema to mean only God actually speaking or uttering to them privately. The same claim logos is only God’s written word as recorded in our Bible. But the words are not that different. The problem with separating rhema and logos is that you claim with rhema, that God can and often does speak to you outside of His Word pertaining to a subject within His Word and also those not covered by His written Word. If He does that, to what do you have to compare it to? Nothing. Therefore you have not the confidence you should have to know that it was in fact God speaking to you. God’s word will speak to you. He doesn’t need to give private sessions. Just my opinion. WOS |
||||||
394 | Biblical era culture, abd Understanding | 1 Tim 2:12 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161426 | ||
Just a question if I may? I thought rhema never contradicted logos. Isn't that what is happening here with the scriptural support being giving. I'm only asking because I'm curious and would like to understand a little better. If rhema doesn’t reconcile with logos, is it really rhema? WOS |
||||||
395 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161213 | ||
I think it may have been restricted because it became so long. I didn't see any warning posted of any offenses to have it restricted. I'm not a moderator, only a participant. I wish it wasn’t restricted. I thought it was a good topic of discussion and it becomes much more difficult to follow when it is restricted. WOS |
||||||
396 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161194 | ||
Just a quick response to this. Please realize it is not and never was my intent to have you change your thoughts or view Scripture from the way that you currently view it. Just my attempt to show you support from the other side of the fence concerning Scripture as being the Word of God which is where I reside. I believe if your thought or opinion is going to change, or even need to for that matter, in your searching, God will enable you to do this, through His Word or through other means. Keep the faith and keep searching for the truth. That's about all you and I can do really. In love, WOS P.S. in one of my last posts to hetfield, I included a link to some other reading material you may find interesting if you would like to check them out. I did. http://www.mbrem.com/bible/bible.htm |
||||||
397 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161153 | ||
The following are some excerpts from an article by Michael Bremmer. Below it is the web address where you can read it in its entirety. There are some other articles there that you may find interesting. “Inspiration is plenary, meaning the whole Bible is inspired.” “Inspired is the Greek word theopneustos and means "God-breathed." When we say that Scripture is inspired by God we mean the same thing as the apostle Paul, that Scripture is God-breathed. At onetime, this definition was adequate for defining the doctrine of inspiration, but the constant attacks on this doctrine have made it necessary to particularize the definition of inspiration.” “Some insist that not everything in the Bible is Scripture, but only what is inspired can rightly be called Scripture. Not surprisingly, they decide what is inspired and what is not. To illustrate the problem, a person can say that he believes Scripture is inspired by God, yet does not believe that the events in Genesis 1-3 are actually historical events.” “Obviously, the word "Scripture" does not have the same meaning with all, therefore, it is important in any discussion on inspiration that all do have the same understanding of what Scripture means. Those who hold to Biblical view of inspiration agree that the word "Scripture" refers to the whole Bible, all sixty-six books. From Genesis to Revelation, all Scripture is God-breathed. The Scriptures are verbally inspired. Verbal inspiration means every word of Scripture is exactly the words that God meant. This view is supported by both Jesus statements on the subject, and by His use of Scripture. Although the Scriptures teach verbal inspiration, they do not teach the idea of mechanical dictation. The mechanical dictation theory of inspiration teaches that God used the writers of Scripture as robots, only writing as God dictates, and their personality was not a factor in the Scripture's composition. The Scripture, however, teaches the Divine-human authorship. Every word divine; and every stroke of the pen human. The original Scriptures are without error, "Thy word is Truth" (Jn. 17.17). Both the Old and New Testaments are without error in all that they affirm. They are truth without any mixture of error. Inspiration is plenary, meaning the whole Bible is inspired. The apostle Paul states, "All Scripture is inspired of God" (2 Tm. 3.16), not "Some Scripture is inspired of God." However, there are some who do not believe that all Scripture is inspired of God. We will now consider some of these partial inspiration views.” -- Michael Bremmer Please read the entire article at: http://www.mbrem.com/bible/bible.htm Concerning plenary: plenary is simply defined as being “full in all respects”. So plenary inspiration would indicate that God inspired all scripture. Inspiration - "That extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of our Sacred Books, by which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (by Benjamin Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, P R, 1948; page 420) Verbal Inspiration - The inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture. Plenary Inspiration - The inspiration extends to every part of Scripture. Verbal Plenary Inspiration - This is the traditional orthodox view. It teaches a verbal inspiration, meaning that the Holy Spirit guided the human choice of every word in the original autographs. However, the human authorship was respected and the characteristics pf the human author was preserved. It teaches a plenary inspiration, always meaning that every portion of the original autographs is equally inspired, resulting in an inerrant, infallible and authoritative record of divine revelation. This is the best view for maintaining the "dual authorship" of the Bible. "By the term dual authorship two facts are indicated, namely, that, on the divine side, the Scriptures are the Word of God in the sense that they originate with Him and are the expressions of His mind alone; and, on the human side, certain men have been chosen of God for the high honor and responsibility of receiving God's Word and transcribing it into written form" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol . 1 of 8, page 72). http://www.calvarychapel.com/redbarn/terms You ask: “Does paul know what he is writing will be considered some day to be the WOG?” I don’t know if he knew it would be compiled into a book with the others, but he spoke with the authority of speaking the word of God. He knew his source of inspiration. He specified he spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit. WOS |
||||||
398 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161140 | ||
Lead Pipe, Have you actually read this article? It puts to rest any claims that you and hetfeild have made that the New Testament is not the Word of God. This totally shoots down your reasoning, and in no way supports your stance. Read the Scripture it notes as you read the article. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. According to your position, this reference would be irrelevant because you claim the New Testament is not the Word of God. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Study what? According to you, this would be referencing the Old Testament. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Read further in Acts 17. This Article quotes Acts 17:11 that they searched the Scriptures daily. Reading further in v13 Paul is preaching the word of God. But yet even further in v19 what Paul is preaching is referred to as a new Doctrine. So what was new? Was it that the Old Testament was new to these Greeks or was Paul preaching the word of God beyond what the Old Testament taught? 13But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? Quotes from this article: 1. “God expects every individual to put to the test various doctrines and beliefs, and then to reach only such conclusions as are warranted by adequate evidence. Rather, all people are obligated to rely upon the properly studied written directives of God (2 Timothy 2:15; John 12:48; 2 Peter 3:16)” Wait a minute, the article quotes New Testament verses as written directives of God. But you say they are not. So tell me Lead Pipe, are they or are they not “written directives of God”? 2. “The Bible insists that evidence is abundantly available for those who will engage in unprejudiced, rational inquiry.” You’ll notice in my post to hetfield, I made the same claim. Our evidence, as this article points out, is the Gospel and New Testament. These are the things that we cannot see and must rely on their accurate witness. 3. “we can know that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and intended to be comprehended in much the same way that any written human communication is to be understood;” The article you use to support the claim that the New Testament is not the Word of God very definitely points out that in fact, we can know it is the Word of God. So your stance is now what? That only the Old Testament is being referenced in this article? 4. “By abandoning the Bible as a literal, inerrant, infallible standard by which all human behavior is to be measured, the scientist has effectively rendered biblical religion, biblical faith, and New Testament Christianity sterile…” The Bible can only be infallible if it is the inspired Word of God. You are part of those making New Testament Christianity sterile when you abandon it as inerrant and infallible and you do just that when you claim it was simply written by men and not God. All men our fallible. Only God is not. So you see, your argument that the New Testament is not the inspired Word of God has no substance. It’s a weak argument at most and easily refuted. You disproved your claim yourself with this article. Thank you for the article. I found it very informative. WOS |
||||||
399 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161127 | ||
You wrote: “You are more sure that Paul is speaking from the spirit than he is.” Paul was pretty confident: 1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Easton’s Bible Dictionary Inspiration That extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (R.V., “Every scripture inspired of God”), 2Ti_3:16. This is true of all the “sacred writings,” not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as “theopneustic,” i.e., “breathed into by God” in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given. As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers. (See BIBLE; WORD OF GOD.) Word of God (Heb_4:12, etc.). The Bible so called because the writers of its several books were God's organs in communicating his will to men. It is his “word,” because he speaks to us in its sacred pages. Whatever the inspired writers here declare to be true and binding upon us, God declares to be true and binding. This word is infallible, because written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore free from all error of fact or doctrine or precept. (See INSPIRATION, BIBLE.) All saving knowledge is obtained from the word of God. In the case of adults it is an indispensable means of salvation, and is efficacious thereunto by the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit (Joh_17:17; 2Ti_3:15, 2Ti_3:16; 1Pe_1:23). WOS |
||||||
400 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161112 | ||
Matthew Henry states it rather well: In general, he tells them that marriage, by Christ's command, is for life; and therefore those who are married must not think of separation. The wife must not depart from the husband (1Co 7:10), nor the husband put away his wife, 1Co 7:11. This I command, says the apostle; yet not I, but the Lord. Not that he commanded any thing of his own head, or upon his own authority. Whatever he commanded was the Lord's command, dictated by his Spirit and enjoined by his authority. But his meaning is that the Lord himself, with his own mouth, had forbidden such separations, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Mar 10:11; Luk 16:18. He brings the general advice home to the case of such as had an unbelieving mate (1Co 7:12): But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; that is, the Lord had not so expressly spoken to this case as to the former divorce. It does not mean that the apostle spoke without authority from the Lord, or decided this case by his own wisdom, without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He closes this subject with a declaration to the contrary (1Co 7:40), I think also that I have the Spirit of God. I could never put it better than that right there. Have you ever attempted to find that which supports the Bible as being the Word of God rather than looking for that which would disprove it? I think your search would be more profitable in every way if you attempted to see proofs rather than that which disproves it. Many, many men have been trying for many years to approach his as you seem to be and haven’t been successful. Ah, another proof that the Word of God can stand the test of time and the test of men. Simple uninspired words penned by men couldn’t do that. Do you think? WOS |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [28] >> |