Results 41 - 60 of 253
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Exegete this verse please. | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230148 | ||
The one God which eternally exists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which in scripture is revealed by multiple titles but the personal name of Yahweh, or Jehovah. He is the one and only God and beside Him there is no other. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
42 | What? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230150 | ||
ewq1938, My sincere apologies. I think I see now the heart of your question. The reason I misread you is that usually when somebody new posts a question on a verse like this, it is a preface to them challenging the deity of Christ. My expectations that you might be doing such pressed my attention to the second half of the verse. So I apologize for my presuming something harsh like that. Now with regards to the other half of the verse, I presume the difficulty is that it sounds as if it is saying that the LORD the King has a redeemer as if our great Holy God could need to be redeemed. However, the word "his" would better be understood with Israel as its referant. In that light the text would be saying that the same LORD is both king and redeemer of Israel. Hope that helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
43 | who was the first person jesus saved? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230648 | ||
Pastorsma, The answer is Adam. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
44 | Salvation if not heard of God? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230922 | ||
Marnie, I believe scripture teaches that without hearing the gospel that there is no hope. This is because... 1. No man comes to the Father but through Christ. 2. Paul gives great care to show that all people, even those who have never heard of anything from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are both inexcusable, and sinners. Take a careful look at the first three chapters of Romans for support for this. Paul claims natural revelation is sufficient to condemn but not to save. 3. In Romans chapter 10 Paul excludes the possibility of saving faith apart from hearing the word preached. It does not take hearing the message of the gospel to be a sinner guilty before God, however it does take the gospel to trust upon Christ and be forgiven. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
45 | Balance: Faith and Works | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231156 | ||
Bill, If I understood the post correctly, then it sounds like a good display of historical orthodox Christianity. There is a sense in which we may rightly say that nobody will be saved apart from holiness (Hebrews 12:14). However, we must constantly affirm with Paul, and indeed all scripture, that not one of these works hold any merit with regards to our justification before God. Renewed dispositions and resultant actions are always present with true faith because our faith does not merely unite us to the benefits of Christ's death, it also unites us to Christ in His ongoing life unto God in an ongoing manner (Romans ch 6). And indeed, we can not go on blatantly in sin because His seed abides in us (1 John 3:9). Not that I am suggesting perfection in this life (Philip 3:12-15.) So because we are not only united to the benefits of Christ's death, but by faith and by the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:10) we who believe are being transformed from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18.) But all of this ongoing conformity to the image of Christ is part of our salvation (Eph 2:8-10) NOT a means in any way of meriting salvation! Our justification before God comes through the merit and attonement of Jesus Christ to be received through faith alone. So let us speak boldly of works in that all Christians must seek to be rich in good works (1 Tim 6:18), but let us always loudly affirm that all good things that we will ever do are devoid of any merit in our justification before God. For God's acceptance of us is from faith receiving both the righteousness of Christ on our behalf, and the suffering of Christ on our behalf. God recieves us for Christ's sake and not for any good thing we do. And with regard to any man suggesting a faith that is devoid of any good works, let join James and decry that as a dead faith, a mockery of real faith. Not because works are any part of faith, not because works are needed prior to faith, not because works have any part in our justification, but only because we affirm that those who are by faith united to Christ and justified by Christ will then certainly be filled by the Spirit (Rom 8:9) and will unavoidably bear the fruit of the Spirit in due time. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
46 | Do you go to hell if you kill yourself | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231575 | ||
Cas, If you believe that a man can "loose" their salvation, then you probably will see suicide as causing a professing Christian to go to Hell. If you believe in the eternal security of the believer because you believe "once saved always saved," then you will probably see suicide as irrelevant to your salvation, but certainly a sad event. If you believe in the eternal security of the believer because you believe in the historical doctrine of "the perseverance of the saints," then you will likely see suicide as an extremely worrisome event that MIGHT be indicating that the person was never truely belonging to Christ. This last one is my view. But to clarify, I see suicide as a "red flag," not as a certain conclusion of their fate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
47 | Perseverance of the saints | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231619 | ||
Dear Cas, Forgive the delay in my response. My nephew has gone into the ministry and I had the privledge of taking him to an expository preaching workshop in Texas the beginning of this week so I have been away from the computer. And thanks to Doc for giving him assurance of my reply when I was delayed. Since Doc has given you an excellent answer in terms of being precise and sound, I will rather aim for a very simple grasp of the concept. I will contrast it to how most people teach "once saved always saved" in my area. Now, it is important to understand that both views believe that a truely saved individual will never loose their salvation. However, here is were the views differ as tought in my area. "Once saved always saved" believes that we will not loose our salvation -based upon- the foundation that no matter what we might do we are alright. We might live the most terrible lives of sin, or might very well denounce Christ Himself yet we are alright because "once saved always saved." "Perseverance of the Saints" believes that we are secure, but NOT because we may do whatever we please and still be alright. After all, scripture repeatedly states that falling away from the faith is fatal. But, our security is -based on- the fact that God will through His ommipotent power will never fail to keep us in the faith and keep us growing in holiness. This is not to suggest that we wont sin, and even have brief periods of backsliding. But ultimately the saints will, by God's power in them, persevere. Now, the difference is very vividly portrayed when in how they respond to a professing Christian falling into radically gross sin, or renouncing the faith. Once saved always saved will affirm that they are fine. Perseverance of the saints will see it as a warning that they may have never belonged to Christ to begin with. Why? Because God never lets truely saved individuals ultimately/finally fall away or be completely overcome by sin. How are we to know if they are false professors or if they are truely saved individuals who have just temporarily been entangled in sin? The answer is repentance. When we see them whole heartedly repent, we breathe easy and thank God. Until they repent, we can never be assured they belong to Christ. Why? Because by God's work in us, true Christians will always eventually repent. Now lets go back to suicide. The problem with suicide is that it is a final and unreversable, unrepentable departure from the path of righteousness. There is nothing really that special about the sin itself, the especially troubling nature of suicide is ONLY that the "so-called believer" has ultimately and finally finished their race in a departure from the will of God. And that is not the picture we have in scripture of how truely saved finish their race. That is why its so troubling. I hope this helps clarify. I really pictured my post being more concise when I began! : ) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
48 | should we attend church together | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231878 | ||
Amare, This forum is extremely limited for giving advice for such situations. This is not because God's word is limited, but rather because there are many variables that could be in play. We have no idea why your husband is leaving, nor do we know where he intends to go or whether he simply plans to abandon church altogether. Many other details could drastically effect a change in our answer. So the point being, you need to seek some solid biblical counsel in your life on this question. That being said, I will give my attempt to answer the question in the raw as it is. 1. If your husband plans to go to either no church or an unbiblical church then I would remain in your current church. 2. If your husband plans to go to a biblical church then I would stick by your husband. The only time that you should ever place anything over your submission to your husband is when that submission would mean violating a direct command for God. Attending Church is a command of God. Which particular church you attend (assuming they are both sound) is not an explicit command of God. Submission to your husband is a command of God. Further, the family united in worship is meant to be an indispensible foundation for the Christian religion. 3. Prior to doing either, I would try to lovingly discuss this decision with your husband. If your husband is a man that is serious about following Christ, there are clear biblical commands on attempting to reconcile with regards to whatever disagreement he has with the pastor's wife. Now here is especially where the details matter. For some roots of the disagreement scripture would tell your husband to say nothing and simply show Christian love despite the differences. For some there would need to be discussion and attempt at reconciliation and for yet others it would be time to confront the pastor's wife over the sin. I can't tell you which is appropriate, but I can tell you that simply getting mad and leaving is almost certainly not what his Lord would have him do. If you can not speak to him about it without it becoming a fight or without being gentle then I would simply refer you to points 1 or 2. Understand this, even if your husband is the one who is wrong, you are still called to follow him so long as he does not press you to violate clear commands of Gods (1 Peter 3:1). Be very careful of those whose advice to you is to be faithful to God by means of rebellion against God appointed authority. I hope this is of some help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
49 | what is inspirational about this story | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231902 | ||
water100, Try to imagine that you are a man who is fairly comfortable in life. Your needs and many of your wants are pretty much met. You've so far managed to basically ignore the word of God's appeals to you for repentance and faith. Now read the story and see if it speaks relevantly to you. The passage reveals the turn of fate that is heading towards those who are content and in love with this world as their good now gives way to eternal torment. Second the passage calls very direct attention to the fact that no greater sign is coming, either they will respond to scripture's demand for repentance or they will continue their path until the day they lift up their eyes in hell. Think less about historical context and ask what purpose was this passage meant for in the conviction and salvation of lost sinners. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
50 | why was the bible written? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231981 | ||
goldy, The Bible was written that God might be glorified. The Bible was written that God might be made revealed in His manifold splendor that He might be glorified. The Bible was written that God might be revealed in His glorious three in one state consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and therefore be glorified. The Bible was written that God's holy and righteous wrath against sin might be known and through this God be glorified. The Bible was written that God's wrath on sin might drive us to seek refuge in Christ as our glorious savior who died on the cross to redeem a chosen people that God might be glorified in His unfathomable love, grace and mercy that is in Jesus Christ. The Bible was written that we might have abundant joy in all the manifold aspects of God including his holiness, great salvation, wonderful creation, and multitudes of perfections that are revealed in his word; and that through God being our all satisfying joy He be glorified. God's word was written that the people whom He had redeemed might learn what pleases the Lord and render to Him God-fearing, God-pleasing, God-enabled obedience so that that through His people rendering due, holy, and joyful obedience God would be glorified. The Bible was written that God's people would look forward in faith to the coming hope of the new creation resulting in abundant joy and hope in this life so that God would be glorified through our faith driven joy. The Bible was written for God's glory and our good. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
51 | saved or sinners? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231991 | ||
Goldy,, Yes, both. But I think I included both. In, Christ Beja |
||||||
52 | Should Ephesians 5:18 be "in Spirit" ? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232022 | ||
I_defender, The greek preposition "Ev" is remarkably flexible. However, one thing of note is that the normal means of being filled "with" something is usually the terrain of the genitive. Grammatically the most likely effect of "Spirit" being Dative makes this a matter of agency. In other words this is most likely saying that the Spirit is doing the filling rather than saying that we are being filled up with the Spirit itself. Now, I affirm that scripture teaches the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers. However, from the perspective of greek syntax it is very unlikely that this is what Paul is saying in this particular verse. It is possible, just very unlikely. But making any blanket statement about "ev" would be hazardous. It functions many ways in the dative. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
53 | who was thrown out of heaven and why | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232075 | ||
matricesmith, Though I do not think they actually refer to what many have often ascribed to them, I believe that both Isaiah and Jeremiah have the texts that are traditional suggested in answer to this question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
54 | Target language problem? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232076 | ||
Loavesnfish, Its pretty straight forward in the greek. The "BE" that is inserted is simply a translation of an imperitive verb, a command. "Be filled" is a very normal and legitimate translation. The only possible question is what does "en pneumati" mean? Which is what I was addressing. Sorry if I missed your point. It is 1 am here at the moment so it didn't come across very clearly to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
55 | Who was Theophilus? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232078 | ||
Loavesnfish, The word "Theophilus" literally means "Lover of God." Ofcourse there is no erotic connotation there but rather a right and due love to their creator and savior. So one possible understanding of the Luke/Acts combination is that Luke is simply addressing any Christian that gets their hands on the books. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
56 | satan's activities | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232087 | ||
begbie, I can not think of any sense in which he is "destroyed." What passage says that he is? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
57 | Ezekiel's Temple vision-when, why, who? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232089 | ||
Loavesnfishes, The answer is Christ and His church. Really understanding why I feel so confident in this requires to think through the entire theology of the "temple" throughout scripture. I'll chart some beginning things to study. 1. Creation. No temple, God's presence unhindered walking in the midst of the garden with Adam and Eve. 2. The fall. Man removed from God's presence. Cherubim guards the entrance to the garden. 3. Tabernacle built. Especially note the garden imagry. The candlestick looks essentially like a tree of light in the midst of the dark tabernacle. Parallels to the tree of life. It constantly shines upon the showbread which represents God's convenant people. Key thought: Tabernacle from the beginning was meant to depict the "presence of God with His people." The tabernacle is now where God meets fallen man. Enabled through sacrifice. 4. Temple continues this exact theme. Garden imagery. Presence of God with His People. 5. Time of Ezekiel. Temple is destroyed but another greater temple is being promised. This temple is also notable in that a river is going to flow from it that gives life wherever it goes. 6. People return from exile and rebuild solomon's temple. However, the people who actually saw solomon's temple weep over how insignificant this temple is compared to the previous one. In other words, the rebuilding of the temple at this time most certainly did not fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy. Greater temple still expected. 7. Jesus Christ comes. John's gospel tells us that he "tabernacled" with us. Jesus comes claiming three things. First, his body is a temple. Keep in mind the entire point of the temple is the presence of God with His people. Christ is now the temple in the most literal sense in that He is where God meets with His people. Second, Christ claims that He is greater than Solomon's temple. Third, Christ claims that water flows from Him that whomever drinks it shall live forever. This he said refers to the Holy Spirit which He gives. Christ has become the next progression in the temple story throughout the biblical narrative. 8. Christ dies, is ressurected, ascends, and poors out the Spirit upon the Church. God now dwells in the midst of His church via the Spirit. New Testament writers repeatedly refer to the church as the temple. Christ in us has become the new dwelling place of God with His people (temple). 9. Rev 20-22. John tells us that ultimately in his vision of the new heaven and the new earth that there is no temple there because finally God walks unmediated in the midst of his people. And a river that gives life everywhere it goes flows from not a literal temple building, but the throne where the lamb of God sits, Jesus Christ who is the ultimate fulfillment of God's presence with His people, the true greater temple. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
58 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232093 | ||
Loavesnfish, I think you are pressing details too far. In every vision and prophecy we see a tendancy to provide details that are simply filling out the vision. Usually, not always but usually, prophecies tend to have one central point. However, here is what I think we should get from the measurements. First, the scope of the temple is huge. It is a "greater" temple than solomon's. Hence we are looking to something bigger and better than what had come before. Second, the entire thing is a square. The only other two places we see this in scripture is the most holy place, and the new Jerusalem. In both the later cases the square measurments are meant to draw on the significance of the first occurance. The "Holy of Holies" the very presence of God has filled the entire temple in Ezekiel's vision just as we now have direct access to the very presence of God through Christ. And ultimate in the new Jerusalem, John is not trying to tell us we are going to eternally dwell in a giant cube but rather it is meant to show that the direct presence of God has filled the entirity of the new Jerusalem. In the end, this is my view. I did not invent it, and it is well represented through the history of Christianity. But I leave it to your own prayerful consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
59 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232094 | ||
Loavesnfishes, One further thought. Let me tell you what convinces me. I am not convinced of this interpretation because I can go and show how every little measurement represents some spiritual truth. I know a lot of end time preachers tend to see old testament prophecy this way and glory in their ability to make something of every little detail. What pursuades me is that I am thoroughly convinced that when Christ showed up claiming to be a greater temple with a unquenchable flow of living giving water coming from Himself, He did not do so in ignorance of what Ezekiel wrote concerning an eschatological temple. I simply can not help but to believe that Christ was in fact interpreting Ezekiel vision. Are we really to suggest that Christ was unfamiliar with Ezekiel's writings? And if He was familiar with it, are we really going to suggest that Christ was reaching back, grabbing hold of Ezekiel imagery on purpose, then applying those things directly to himself and yet suggest He was not claiming himself as the greater temple? Are we really to think that the apostles weren't following this train of thought? That they did not see the redifining of the meeting place between God in his people when they claimed the church was now the temple of God? Did John not intend to weigh in on the concept of where we are heading in terms of an eschatological temple when he affirmed that in eternity to come there was no physical building as a temple but rather the temple theme was specifically fulfilled by the unmediated presence of God? Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. In the end. I was not pursuaded simply by reading Ezekiel. I was pursuaded by what Christ and his apostles did with what Ezekiel said. I believe they got the right of it. Why would we read the new testament continually affirming these things yet continue to look for a mound of bricks to call a temple? I personally have more trouble getting past that issue than I do some unexplained details in Ezekial. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
60 | Help me understand how do the parts fit? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232097 | ||
Loavesnfishes, I wouldn't reduce the vision to a picture of the attonement if that's what you mean. I think it is pointing to a future temple. I just believe that temple is fulfilled in Christ and His Church. Keep in mind, the key to understanding what I'm saying is to remember that the temple always has been centrally about the presence of God with His people. Therefore God in our midst as Christ, then as the Spirit in the Church, and ultimately the fulness of God in our midst unmediated is a very logical and greater fulfillment of what the temple was always about. As far as helping you understand the minor details of Ezekiel's temple, I can't do that. I don't believe they are all meant to be individual nuggets of truth. As I was saying, I don't believe in prophecies that every detail is meant to be analized. For example in Zechariah's scroll when we are told it measured 20 cubits (if I recall correctly) to ask what the 20 cubits meant would be to totally focus on the wrong point, missing what he is trying to say. What I centrally what to know is how did Jesus and his apostles handle the old testament text in question. In the New Testament, we have a divinely inspired and authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament. That's how I approach the issue. P.S. Its best to use "note" when replying. I will still be alerted via e-mail that you have responded. In Chrst, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [13] >> |