Results 401 - 420 of 465
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46923 | ||
I agree with you, Hank. There is an old saying, "the truth that needs to be proven is only half-true". To me, it means we trust "obvious" truths and we are always suspicious of those that need to be "proven", especially when the derivations depend on questionable assumptions and complicated reasoning. The idea that truth is relative comes from the idea that our standard of reference for comparison cannot be defined absolutely. In science, this most definitely true, because we have no way to determine that a location is absolutely fixed, so there is no way to establish a reference frame that is completely non-inertial, a fundamental requirement for absolute measurements. And, even if the speed of light may be the upper limit on velocity, it is not clear that this limit is fixed, especially in the vicinity of a black hole, because velocity refers to location and space itself becomes warped near black holes. Furthermore, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle establishes limits on how precisely we can know position and momentum or energy and time for a given system. This implies that science itself has established that it is not possible to measure absolutely precise values for anything. In other words, it simply is not possible to eliminate uncertainty from any measurement. Your point about arithmetic is different and it is because arithmetic is counting and that seems to be one of those "obvious" truths we accept. Despite our other problems, we seem to be able to count things very well. In fact, all branches of mathematics can be related back to the simple act of counting, which is not the same as taking a measurement, and this is why we put such stock in mathematics. Of all the sciences, math is the only one where we say the answer is right or wrong, but even this is subject to the qualification that the fundamental axioms apply. The bottom line is, science explores the wonder and beauty of Creation, but it cannot speak directly to issues that are best addressed through faith. |
||||||
402 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46906 | ||
This followup is not intended to address biblical matters, but rather explain my perspective on science in general in light of my faith in Christ. Science addresses our knowledge of the universe. As a human endeavor, science is subject to both the constraints and the liberties afforded by the human condition. Thus, the structure and meaning of science give insight to both the universe in general, and the human condition in particular. If this were not true, science would not have meaning for us as we strive to build a world view in which we make sense of what we experience and observe. In other words, science can help us to understand ourselves as part of the universe. And, perhaps more profoundly, because the human condition shapes how we practice science, the structure and content of science inherently imply something about the human condition that we cannot elucidate directly. So, in effect we get two jewels for the price of one, if we are able to see the human condition reflected in our knowledge system called science. Perhaps most importantly, in the limitations of science, we see the limitations of ourselves. Ultimately, according to the purely scientific approach, all observable phenomena are explainable in terms of fundamental physical processes alone. These phenomena include not only the processes of physics, chemistry and biology, but also the processes of psychology, sociology, history, religion and art, to name a few. Perhaps the most elegant accomplishment of science will be the understanding of consciousness, self-awareness, emotion, logic, mathematics, language, memory and imagination. I suspect these latter phenomena may be understood by induction from the human condition as reflected in science rather than through deduction from the data per se, yet this understanding is no less valid for being gained in this way. In science, the universe is not defined, but its properties are modeled in terms of four fundamental elements, i.e. matter, space, energy and time. The ultimate goal of science is to develop an understanding of how matter, space, time and energy can be explained in terms of each other, or as diverse manifestations of one ultimate fundamental reality, such that all observable phenomena can be understood, including the origin of the universe and its ultimate destiny. For example, a central question is how matter and energy can be equivalent, as inspired by the observation that matter can be converted entirely into energy, according to Einstein's famous equivalence, as in nuclear fission, for example. Another is how the force of gravity can be communicated between masses and how gravity is somehow equivalent to the other three fundamental forces, i.e. electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Yet another is how the entirety of the universe can be accounted for in an infinitely dense, dimensionless singularity at the start of space-time, as hypothesized in the cosmological theory of the Big Bang. Finally, given what we believe from science, what will happen at the end of time? The Big Crunch, the infinite expansion of the universe until it gets spread so thin as to be reduced to nothing, or some other possibility we have yet to imagine? To me, faith in Christ liberates us from the hopelessness and tyranny imposed by a purely scientific world view and nothing in science, when done properly, can ever contradict the Word of God. |
||||||
403 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 46892 | ||
start of part 3 of 3 About my wife I said "...whom I love dearly". Worshipping and idolizing her are not loving, so the answer to your first question is "no, I don't worship and idolize my wife". For reasons not appropriate to discuss here, my wife and I have not been able to enjoy sexual intimacy for several years, surely a time longer than Paul means when he says "for a while". This has not been by mutual consent, as Paul suggests, but rather of necessity, and it has been difficult for both of us. Yet I have remained faithful, patient and loving. For me, thinking of my wife as my only sexual partner has helped me avoid the temptation to be with others. What makes this real is I have options if I wanted to pursue them. At least for now, occasional masturbation is how I maintain some semblance of sexual intimacy with my wife. Of course, its not a meaningful substitute for the real thing, but until such time as it is possible for us to do come together, it reinforces my desire for her to be my only partner. I acknowledge this is not ideal, but I do feel fidelity is what God is calling me to do and how I occassionally experience my passion for her is not sin and in fact helps keep me from sin. Perhaps this is an example of how "all things work for the good of those in Christ Jesus" -- Romans 8:28 You said: "Many men who I have known have fallen prey to the sin of masturbation, only to see their marriages falter and their sins multiplied into pornography.. Such disgusting consequences of a "seemingly" harmless or unnoticable sin are brought out into the open when the door to that sin has been crossed and, now, other sins, such as looking at other women besides your wife, now suddenly become much more desirable to you than before." I never said masturbation was "seemingly" harmless or unnoticeable, I said it was "unseemly". Regardless, I agree the problem you describe is real, but it has not been the case in my situation. You said: "Do you truly see no harm in it? Do you have no inclination or leading to give it up? Can you honestly say that you have experienced great spiritual growth while practicing masturbation? Masturbation is not wholesome, not edifying, not healthy to your marriage, and it is certainly not something that you want on your conscience as not being 'repented of' when you have to give an account of yourself to the Lord." I see the potential for harm, yet I believe in my case it has been part of preserving my marriage. You said: "But I have written here about how I honestly perceive the subject of masturbation, and I believe that it will prove very costly to your marriage if not discontinued, my friend and brother in Christ." This may be true, but to date, it has not become excessive or lead me astray, quite the opposite in fact. You said: "Just a few weeks ago, the youth pastor of our church got up in front of the entire congregation and confessed to his sin of masturbation, and we have begun an accountability group that consists of myself and several others, to keep this dear friend and brother in the Lord on 'the cutting edge' of his spiritual relationship with God. Also, his wife is very supportive of helping her husband deal with this problem, which is a great blessing!" I will pray for your youth pastor, his wife and your group. To be honest, I am disturbed by the idea you and your group think you can do anything to keep anyone on the "cutting edge" of a relationship with God. Yet, if masturbation has become a problem for your youth pastor, it is good for him to deal with it and if your group can help him, praise God! Finally, in all sincerity, I am wondering if the following 2 verses are part of what you teach in this group: Mark 9:43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out... My interest lies in the possible mis-interpretion that a sexually immoral person should castrate or otherwise mutilate themselves in order to avoid sin if they can't seem to avoid it in any other way. And, Matthew 19:11 "Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." which seems to suggest that continence is not intended for everyone, but only those "who can accept it". Grace and Peace. Your brother in Christ, Parable |
||||||
404 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 46888 | ||
start of part 2 of 3 Next, I'd like to respond to certain of your comments and questions to me. You said: "I would still direct you to 1 Thess. 4:3-7." OK. Here it is, complete with the Bible Gateway footnote: "3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body[1] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." Footnote [1] reads -- 4:4 "Or learn to live with his own wife; or learn to acquire a wife." This meaning for the word "body" implies the point is to keep sexual contact limited to one's spouse, i.e. to avoid adultery and fornication, as practiced by the heathen. You said: "Please read 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. Your body is not your own to do with as you please! You have been bought with a price." Here it is: 1Cor6:12-20 "12Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." Verses 12 tells me that not everything is good for me and I should not be a slave to anything. I concur. In verse 15, mention of the prostitute seems to again emphasize that the nature of immorality most certainly includes joining flesh with others. Of course, Christ said such sin begins in our hearts, so depending on what is in the heart, masturbation may be to adultery/fornication what anger is to murder and what greed is to stealing. You said: "And also, to use 1 Cor. 7 to justify masturbation is a blatant attempt to misapply Scripture to justify a sinful act. Do you worship and idolize your wife in such a way that you misuse your own body parts for her glorification? Or is it simply the indulgment of sinful flesh?" As I said earlier, I'm not trying to encourage or justify masturbation, but rather understand what the Bible says and does not say about it as compared to what people say the Bible intends. end of part 2 of 3 |
||||||
405 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 46885 | ||
Part 1, Makarios, You have supported your position well; your interpretation of the scriptures you cite is most righteous. And your points about the potential risks associated with masturbation are insightful and important. I feel your comments deserve my best effort, so I have tried to respond in a meaningful way. Thanks for your patience with the length of my response here. (and no, I did not write this in one sitting!) I hope you will be interested in what I have to say, especially about how masturbation has been part of something good in my life, see part 1 of 3. Regarding myself, I recognize there are many who are far wiser and far more mature in Christ than I am, so I am open to what you and others have said about masturbation. Indeed, much of what you describe about purity and holiness I see happening in myself, as the Holy Spirit does His miracle in me, so to answer one of your questions, I do have a desire to grow in purity and holiness, so masturbation is not big on my list for today. In that spirit, however, I must admit I am not convinced that what you have said about masturbation, i.e. that it is always sexual immorality and sin, necessarily follows from what you have presented. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong or that what you say cannot be accepted, indeed you may be right, but rather that it is not the only interpretation that we, as vessels for the Holy Spirit, may hold. To support this, I note that in the following 18 instances (listed in The Complete Book of Bible Lists, by H.L. Wilmington), in which sexually impure people are identified, not one is described as impure by virtue of masturbation or anything like it: Gen19:5, Gen19:30-38, Gen34:1-2, Gen35:22, Gen38:9, Gen38:14-18, Num25:6-14, Judg16:1, 1Sam2:22, 2Sam11:4, 2Sam13:14, 2Sam16:22, Hos 1-2, John 4, John 8:1-11, Luke 7:36-39, 1Cor5:1, Rev2:20. Rather, the issues are homosexuality, incest, rape, adultery, refusal to father a child by the wife of a dead brother, fornication, sex in the tabernacle and in public, and leading others to sexual immorality. Please note: I'm NOT encouraging anyone to masturbate or do anything else they feels God calls them not to do. Given this, I am concerned that the zero tolerance approach, as applied to masturbation, 1. may be a stumbling block for those who might otherwise come to faith in Christ and 2. it is not helpful to those who may be dealing with masturbation as they learn to walk with Him. Indeed, I fear it may actually be harmful to those for whom guilt over this is excessive; in addition to God's truth, they need compassionate understanding in order to fully accept God's grace and forgiveness and to be open to the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. I'm not suggesting masturbation should be dismissed as irrelevant, for we agree there are serious problems that can develop, as is the case for eating and drinking. Rather, I'm suggesting that since the Bible does not expressly classify masturbation as sexual immorality or sin, we should help others to deal with it in a way that does not condemn them, as per Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." We can be assured of this, despite our daily failures to live pure and holy lives after coming to Christ, and it is this truth that helps us to grow toward perfection in Him as we allow the Holy Spirit to work in us. As I see it, I am emphasizing that those who masturbate are not necessarily condemned, i.e. not necessarily among the sexually immoral because the Bible does not say this, while you have rightly addressed the freedom we have from the law of sin and death and this is how we become pure and holy. end of part 1 of 3 |
||||||
406 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46876 | ||
As they say, "if you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention!" You have described the problem accurately. I will add to your point with my view of science in general in my next post to this thread. |
||||||
407 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46865 | ||
Evolution is not a prerequisite to Dr. Ross' thesis. However, I'm not a life scientist, so I don't know the details of that THEORY. However, I do know that the theory of evolution, for whatever utility it may have in modelling the process of speciation, has been extrapolated way beyond what the biological evidence supports. This theory attempts to explain a narrowly defined set of observations and cannot be reasonably generalized to the whole of creation. What I do know is, as we learn more about Creation, we learn more about ourselves, for we are part of Creation, and these things can only confirm what God reveals in His Word. I agree God does as He wills, so we cannot impose constraints on Him, except of course that He is Holy and does not lie to us in His Creation, Word, Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension, Glorification, Indwelling, Outpouring or Return. |
||||||
408 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46864 | ||
My apologies if I put words in your mouth or twisted your meaning. The two statements you did make, "it sounds like the Dr. is simply imposing unbiblical premises on the Bible to make it conform to the current winds of scientific doctrine" and "if one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions" logically imply Dr. Ross's conclusions are unbiblical. If this is not what you meant, please clarify. Also, I was not challenging your second premise, in fact I concur. But, I submit your first premise does not hold, therefore the inference about Dr. Ross' work does not follow. On your other point, showing the Bible to be accurate or otherwise consistent with our understanding of God's creation does NOT render the Word subordinate to anything. In fact, it does just the opposite. I grant that some may try to justify their unbelief in this way, but for Christians, this is not a problem, for they know Creation is God's most basic revelation of Himself to us, see Romans 1:20, we are called to "test everything", see 1 Thess 5:21, and to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and MIND, see Luke 10:27. The point is not that science proves the Bible, but rather that science, when done properly, as a means of looking at God's creation, cannot be contrary to the Word and in fact must agree. In the end, when all is known, we will see that there is no discrepancy between Creation and the Word, for such would imply a schism between what God does and what He says. Finally, I acknowledge the ultimate authority of the Word, yet I question your idea that the Bible alone is to be the rule of our faith and practice. The Bible itself tells us that the Holy Spirit is the agent of our faith and practice, see Luke 12:12, John 14:26, John 20:22. Perhaps the place we agree is seen in the old saying "Put your trust in the Lord, but always cut the cards!" That is, as a scientist, I am most skeptical of science in order that I can understand it and its fruit for what it is, a human attempt to see Creation. As a believer, I trust Christ completely because He is the Truth. Nothing science does can ever change that. |
||||||
409 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46796 | ||
Your points are well taken. Dr. Ross founded "Reasons to Believe" and more about his ministry is available at www.reasons.org He takes great pains to explain the biblical basis for his views, and he would be the first to agree with you that we must not impose our preferences on the Bible and that Moses was indeed inspired by God. Yet also, I think he would suggest that we must not impose our prejudices on the Bible either. He examines the original language in light of the best OT scholarship and goes from there, leading us along a "straight forward" reading, as you suggest, a reading based on detailed study of the original words used. He does not take current science and mold Genesis to make it agree. Your assertion that his conclusions are unbiblical is ironic in that he concludes Genesis is accurate! If you're not willing to accept his argument, how do you answer the original question about how plants were created before the stars? Kudos to Dr. Ross for demonstrating that the Bible is accurate! |
||||||
410 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 46773 | ||
See "The Genesis Question" by Dr. Hugh Ross. Therein, he explains that current scientific understanding is consistent with the Genesis account of the creation of Earth. His argument is based on the premises that the initial conditions of the earth and perspective of the observer must be understood in a way that he supports well in his treatment. To summarize his thesis: 1. the perspective of the Genesis account is that of an observer on Earth, not someone viewing the creation of the entire cosmos from some astronomical location. 2. the initial conditions of the Genesis account are not the first stages of cosmic or even planetary formation, but rather when the opacity of the atmosphere prevents anyone from seeing the stars, and not that light or the stars were created then. I don't necessarily agree with everything Dr. Ross says later in the book, but I find his treatment of Genesis 1 to be quite reasonable. Furthermore, he espouses that ultimately, there will be no conflict with our scientific understanding of creation and what the Bible teaches and we must work to remove the supposed conflict between science and faith, surely an artificial stumbling block, from the paths of those who might otherwise come to faith in Christ. Parable |
||||||
411 | Christ and doctrines revealed to us? | John 15:16 | Parable | 46761 | ||
Yes, progressive revelation is the continuing truth of God to us, not revision or correction to what has already been shown. Perhaps Pauls has addressed your question about the origin of "different" denominational doctrines: Romans 12: 4-5 "4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." But, he also exhorts us to be ONE body, not divided: 1Cor 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." He explains the reasons we have these divisions: 1Cor 3:3 "You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?" And finally, what we can expect on the Day of the Lord, regardless our denomination: 1Cor3:10-11 "By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1Cor 3:13-15 "his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." To me, this means we should accept the role or function the Lord has assigned to us in His Body, including our relationships with the other parts, such that we not only understand our interdependence, but work together for His glory, and not try to glorify our doctrines. By this I do NOT mean that we should accept all religions or anything like that, but rather only in regard to the Body of Christ as recognized by His life in and through us as believers in Him. |
||||||
412 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 46182 | ||
I will pray on your answer. For now, though, I must respond to the charge of using scripture in an attempt to justify a sinful act. You gave your interpretation of 1Cor7:2-5a, but you did not address verse 5b "Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." What is Paul's intent with 5b? I look forward to continuing our dialogue. Grace and Peace to you Makarios, Parable |
||||||
413 | Christ and doctrines revealed to us? | John 15:16 | Parable | 46181 | ||
We do believe in progressive revelation, such as the foreshadowing of Christ in the OT followed by His Incarnation. In that sense, different groups (in time) receive different revelations. Perhaps it would help if you provided some examples of Bible doctrines that are "different" or somehow conflict in your mind. |
||||||
414 | Recognize Christ? | John 15:16 | Parable | 46164 | ||
Christ revealed HIMSELF to us. There is a 1:1 correspondence between what He said, what He did and Who He is. It is we who make doctrines in an effort to codify Christ, to organize His truth in a systematic way. Of course, some people such as Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, can do this with authority, but it is we who must read and understand what Paul wrote. Think about how different people remember the same event. Each person has their own view of it and each person interprets what they experienced in the context of their human condition. For this reason, I believe we are unreliable witnesses apart from God, and this explains why there are so many different ideas about what the Bible teaches. Even so, there are several fundamental truths that all Christians hold, if they be true Christians. Such include the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, His resurrection, ascension and glorification. Regarding the interpretation of Revelation, I respectfully leave that to those who are much better qualified to speak about apocalyptic writing. |
||||||
415 | 2 followups, masturbation and 1Cor7:2-5 | Bible general Archive 1 | Parable | 46161 | ||
Of course, James is right, and this is why all of us continue to sin each day. We fail to act according to love for the good we know we should do. Unfortunately, this verse doesn't help someone if they are in fact looking to the Bible to understand what is the good they ought to do, as is the point of the original question about masturbation. My questions merely illustrate that, to the best of my knowlege, the Bible has not established that masturbation, in itself, is necessarily sin, yet the first answer seemed to suggest this is the case. My concern lies with how this conclusion was reached, i.e. what are the assumptions and inferences used to interpret God's intent with this matter. Remarkably, your question about how I "honestly feel" makes my point for me. We are not to interpret scripture in terms of our feelings, rather we are to interpret our feelings in terms of scripture. To answer your questions, I "feel" we are blessed by God and one of his many gifts to us is our sexuality. Others include the enjoyment of food and drink. For the details of my position on the topic of masturbation perse, see my posting of 4/3/02. I'm not saying God blesses acts of masturbation, and I'm not saying he curses them either. Its just that I don't see any biblical basis for cursing ourselves if we do it, unless of course it leads to sexual immorality or overwhelming guilt. I have two points to address this possible risk. First, is it a sin, if when I am far from home for a long time, I masturbate and I think only of my wife, whom I love dearly? In light of what Paul suggests in 1Cor7, I can't see why this would be sinful. 1Cor7:2-5 "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." Is Paul suggesting that marriage is an acceptable way to indulge the fleshly desire for sex? Is he suggesting that the fleshly desire for sex is a legitimate reason to marry? Second, isn't verse 5 saying that release of sexual tension with the spouse is preferable to becoming so frustrated that the person falls prey to temptation? If so, then might Paul not also suggest that masturbation, while unseemly, might actually be a way to avoid falling into temptations that are most definitely sin, such as adultery or fornication? I have read many of your postings and I have come to respect your insights and bible knowledge. If I come across as argumentative, I am, but in the classical sense of the word and not in the sense of bickering or quarreling. Thanks, Parable |
||||||
416 | recognize Christ? | John 15:16 | Parable | 46060 | ||
Yes to both, sort of. Not only has He given us the truth, He IS the truth. We can do nothing for ourselves apart from Him, He has done it all for us, but not because He is "responsible" to, but out of love for us, by grace. There's another interesting point here; it has to do with the word "recognize". In a personal sense, to recognize is to identify as familiar. In a political sense, as in a public meeting or diplomacy, to recognize is to grant formal status or standing. I think your question involves both the personal and political senses of the word, not only when Christ recognizes us as his children, but also when we recognize Him as Lord. |
||||||
417 | How to forget my hurts and pains | 1 Peter | Parable | 46057 | ||
Forgiving them and praying for them are a good way to start the healing process. You may never be able to forget, but it is possible that God can make it so those memories no longer have any power over you. I suggest that you pray for yourself, (In the garden, Jesus prayed for himself),that you can be delivered from the pain of these memories, that those experiences can be used through you to further the Kingdom of God, that your recovery and reconcilation will be a witness to others of God's glory! There is nothing wrong with working out your recovery by talking, unless it becomes self-serving. Don't make your experiences a topic for gossip, and don't talk about them with just anyone or in just any way. It is possible that you may nurture and revitalize these hurts by revisiting them without putting them to rest. For this, perhaps speaking with your pastor or a trusted friend who is mature in Christ would be helpful. If you choose not to discuss these things with anyone, I fear you may become isolated, cutoff from the Body, vulnerable to spiritual attack. The book of 1Peter is all about HOPE. Check it out. |
||||||
418 | If Jesus became sin why is he in Heaven? | NT general Archive 1 | Parable | 46005 | ||
If I may add something to the excellent comments so far...when Christ died for us, He suffered not only physical death, but also spiritual death, i.e. separation from the Father. For the One who was so intimate with the Father as to call Him "Abba", this separation was more painful than we can possibly imagine. Also, from the Father's perspective, the loss of His only Son was infinitely real and infinitely grievous to Him. Because Christ's perfect sacrifice, made out of love for us, fulfilled the demands of justice on our behalf, the Father raised Christ from the ultimate death and glorified Him to confirm that the penalty for humanity was paid in full, all at once, for all. | ||||||
419 | If Jesus became sin why is he in Heaven? | NT general Archive 1 | Parable | 46004 | ||
TM, I agree. Good explanation of a profound truth. | ||||||
420 | Would you have recognized Christ? | John 15:16 | Parable | 46002 | ||
Yes! I would recognize Him by His recognition of me, just like today. "You did not choose me, but I chose you..." --John 15:16 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [24] >> |