Results 41 - 60 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223589 | ||
Integrity, Let me add some further thoughts. Scripture clearly affirms that the physical sufferings of Christ very much were the atoning factor. Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
42 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223616 | ||
Integrity, Here is the entirety of your original post that began this thread: "Christ Death was only physical and only lasted three days. I hear people from all corners state that the Death of Jesus was a great sacrafice. Jesus knew that his death was only temporal. 1.Why is this death considered such a sacrafice. 2. What was the true sacrafice of Jesus." So you basically said that Christ's death on the cross was not the sacrifice for our sins. Asking what the true sacrifice was implies that his physical death for us was not the true sacrifice. You are going to make an assertion like that and now you say, "I do not think I have to point to scripture to prove this?" All I can say is "wow." Sir, you must always point to scripture, not the least when you try to debunk an orthodox view of the sacrificial atonement of Jesus. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
43 | 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 |
||||||
44 | 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 |
||||||
45 | women in Baptist Church | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224251 | ||
To the thread as a whole, As I stated earlier, I am a pastor of a missionary baptist church, and our church has a woman as our song director/worship leader. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
46 | Bible reference to infant baptism | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224278 | ||
sonofmom, I am a very committed advocate of credo baptism (believer's baptism as opposed to infant baptism.) However, such a light dismissal of the view of infant baptism shows not only serious lack of understanding their arguements but also almost unavoidably contains a bit of ungracious disdain for its proponents, since it necessarily sees them as unable to grasp a simple truth which the rest of us grasp. Do you really believe they just decided to start baptizing infants because they ran out of adults? Did you listen to the debate which he posted before so lightly dismissing the idea? As stated, I am against infant baptism, but I do not think we do the discussion justice by so lightly dismissing it but rather show that we have yet to truly see the issues. Forgive me if this post sounds unkind. I do not mean to offend, but I sincerly want to encourage you to actually hear and understand why they believe what they do before assuming they are simpletons. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
47 | Christians who convert to other faiths? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224413 | ||
To thread as a whole, I believe scripture teaches that one who abandons the faith was never saved previously. Let me offer just two places in scripture that teach this. 1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. Now in context John is referring to what he calls antichrists, but I think its a fair application I'm making. He says the reason they left us is to show that they never were truely of us. How does John know this? Because if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. Pretty straight forward. Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, For we have become partakers, past tense, if we hold fast until the end, future tense. This is a remarkable conditional sentense. We have become partakers of Christ in the past, if we hold fast in the future. So if we fall from the faith in the future, we never were partakers of Christ in the past. I think these two passages show very clearly that a falling away from the faith is not the loss of salvation, but rather the revealing that salvation was never present. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
48 | Christians who convert to other faiths? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224416 | ||
Searcher, I think that is another fine example of what I'm suggesting. Thank you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
49 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224569 | ||
Inquisitor, I had to go back and reread this thread to know where this was coming from. But if this is in response to somebody asking if another person was a campbellite I truely don't think that should be referred to as name calling. Over the centuries doctrinal view points will unavoidably be given some sort of name because we have to refer to it somehow don't we? It is very burdensome to everytime we wish to refer to that particular doctrinal view point to say, "those who believe baptism is an active cause of salvation" or some sort. So they get names. My own view points have names that I myself did not give them. I am a calvinist. I think that is a horrible name for what I believe. Why? Because calvin didn't come up with these teachings. Yet we must refer to that theological view point in some means for the sake of being able to communicate with each other. I'm an amillinialist. That label is actually horribly innacurate! Why? Because it literally means "No millinium." The rub is, amilliniallist do NOT deny a the millinial reign of Christ! Yet I own the title for the sake of us being able to identify and communicate what I believe. A while back on these forums somebody was very upset with me because I kept using the term dispensational to refer to their theology. They hadn't heard the term and felt I was insulting them. But I meant no insult, it was just much easier than laying out their entire doctrinal stance each time I refered to it, when their doctrinal stance had a ready title. So to sum, I don't think when we have titles for doctrinal stances that we should see that as name calling. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
50 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224579 | ||
Inquisitor, You said, "I'm acknowledging that you, Beja and Searcher have all made good points about the weaknesses of mankind over the centuries." Ack! I'm more than willing to let the thread die but I feel I've been sorely missrepresented here! You took a minor thought in my post and made it the main idea. I confessed that I thought calvinist and amillinialist was poor titles yes. But my POINT was that even though I think that I own and accept those titles because I believe we do need them! We must have ways of talking about contrasting theologies. When somebody calls me a baptist I don't take offense to that. It would be silly to. I don't stop them and say, "Wait a minute...call me simply christian if you will. For everybody needs to recognize that what I believe is the true Christian Faith!" No no, I accept these titles and I use them with regards to others. Would I love it if the whole world of Christianity all became united in one doctrine and one title? Absolutely I would. But I freely confess that the only way that would ever happen is if the whole world converted to my own beliefs because here I stand! I do not think we should all ignore our differences. The only way anybody should be ashamed of their title is if they are ashamed of the doctrines which it represents. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
51 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224582 | ||
Inquisitor, I don't understand your post at all unless you are saying the following. 1.) That anybody who accepts a label by that are saying they follow a man other than Jesus. That is rediculous. 2.) All Christians should naturally respond to being given a label as if they are being told that they are not a Christian, which again is rediculous. You ask me what I think. And here is my honest opinion. There are some Christians who spend time discussing matters of theology and some who try to avoid it. Those who try to discuss it by absolute necessity must use titles to refer to different views or the entire process of communication breaks down. Now when those who aren't use to discussing various theological positions happens upon these conversations, sometimes they get deeply offended because they think all these lables are being thrown around out of pure meanness. And it is at times very hard to get them to understand that this is not at all the case. I'll give you a good example. I am a calvinist, I readily admit it. My wife has come to believe the same doctrines which I mean when I say this. However, she's not use to these titles and is slightly offended to be given a title that SOUNDS like it means she is something other than Christian. So in response she has now decided to rename calvinism as biblicism. So now that's how she refers to it. Its from this same sensibility you are expressing. Well, what shall we think of that? Well, in one sense we think, "good for her." However should she come into discussion with other believers and start refering to her "biblicism" either one or two things will happen. One, they will have no clue what she is talking about because nobody knows what a biblicist is! Or the second thing that will happen is that they will automatically assume she is referring to what they themselves believe. Because at the end of the day, we all own the title of biblicist in our own mind don't we? We all believe that what we think is the "biblical" view point. So just simply saying we all believe scripture does not communicate. We can't discuss with terms we all define with our own meaning. So what we need are terms that freely and openly communicate what I personally believe scripture teaches. It is a necessity of communication, nothing more. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
52 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224586 | ||
Inquisitor, I didn't respond to your verses because I had no idea what you were trying to show by them. If anything the verses you used thoroughly established my view! For did not Christ himself give their errant doctrine a name? I can only come to one of two conclusions. Either you intend to argue against something regardless of whether it is what anybody is saying which is called a strawman arguement, or you completely don't understand my view I'm trying to express. Here are some things you are speaking against as if we are taking the opposite view when nobody, including myself would disagree with you. 1.) You say that nobody should regard a particular mans's teaching above scripture. Nobody is arguing that a person should! When I say that I am a Calvinist I do not mean by that that I am an ardent follower of John Calvin. There are several things that Calvin says which I believe he is dead wrong about. He believed in and tought infant baptism and I think he's dead wrong. I am not a follower of John Calvin. BUT the particular five doctrines that have come to be termed today as Calvinism, those I do believe and I believe them only because I believe they are clearly taught by scripture, not because John Calvin happened to teach them. When I say I am a calvinist it is not declaring myself as a follower of John Calvin but rather a simple way in one word to express my affirmation that those particular five doctrines are actually taught in scripture as true. It really seems, as I said, either you don't know what I mean when I say that, or you intend to argue against a strawman position which nobody is defending. 2.) You keep insisting scripture is against name calling. Nobody thinks scripture is for it! We are not at all suggesting that scripture is in favor of insulting or calling people derrogatory phrases at all. That you think we are defending such a position makes me think once again, either you don't at all understand what I'm saying or you intend to argue against this strawman position which nobody is defending. So let me offer this. I agree that we should not say mean things to each other, and I agree that we should exclusively follow the teachings of scripture and not those of any man who is teaching something contrary. Does that bring us into agreement? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
53 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224602 | ||
Bradk, I agree with everything you said but one single point. Nouns in greek can be one of three stripes when it is not accompanied by the article. These are indefinite, definite, or qualitative. Definite is when even though the article is not present it still has the force of a singular thing. For example when you see the word Paul without the article you don't translate it as "a Paul." Indefinite is when you see the word book and you do infact translate it as "a book." Qualitative is when you make a statement about the thing itself. Now the way that phrase in John 1, "and the Word was God" is a contruction where overwhelmingly the second noun is a qualitative noun when we see that construct in greek. So what this means is that almost certainly what John is trying to say is that this word is qualitatively God. However, to take this to mean that the Word was just a god is dead wrong. That is missing the point of how John is using Theos completely. The idea of Theos here is not just a divine being. It is essentially what God the Father is. What John is saying is that there was God the Father and this Word was with Him from all eternity; and exactly what God the Father was, so also this Word was too. This "Word" was of essence the very same thing as God in every way. The phrase does not mean "the quality of being a God" it rather means "the quality of being the very same thing as the very God the Father being referred to in the verse." So I believe it is qualitative, but at the same time it fits perfectly with our trinitarian understanding of God. Isn't this what we teach? Jesus was with God in the beginning, and of his very essence He was the exact same thing as God the Father. This passage thoroughly refutes any notion that Jesus Christ was a created being, or that there was any time prior to His existense. I'll say one other point. Whoever tries, upon the basis of Greek grammer, to deny that this "Word," Jesus Christ, is in fact the one true eternal God is so blind that I pity them. You do not need to know greek grammer to see this. Why do I say that? How can we conceive it any other way? Look at what John is doing here. He takes a phrase that is so burned into the very fiber and soul of every Jewish man that it is a phrase undeniably reserved for Yahweh(Jehovah) alone and gives it to Jesus Christ. Genesis1:1 In the beggining God... John1:1 In the beggining was the Word... Is there any question that this was intentionally done by John here? This great being that was eternal and The One who created everything, this majestic God of creation is in fact our Lord Jesus Christ! To deny that Jesus is so is clear evidence false teaching. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
54 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224604 | ||
John, Slight correction. The rule is actually when you have an article followed by that construction. So it would be something like, "The coach and companion" or "The Lord and Savior" etc. However, in the examples given they are still good examples of the correct rule. So I agree whole heartedly just wanted to make sure it was being said correctly. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
55 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224775 | ||
Ariel, Allow me to rephrase the question then. Do you think that the error being addressed is that they were living out the idea that since we are under grace we need not worry about avoiding sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
56 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224793 | ||
Inquisitor, Antinomianism is the error in which Christians take the truth of God's grace and bring it to a wrong conclusion. The truth is that we are no longer "under the law" but rather "under grace." The problem is a missunderstanding of what this means. What it rightly means is that once Christ has died for our sins and given us His righteousness the Law has no more ability to condem us. What they wrongly conclude is that since we are not "under Law" therefore that means none of the Old Testament morality rules apply to us anymore. In other words, a Christian can rightly say that, "Thou shall not steal" can no longer condemn me before God because Christ has died for me, but though it can not condemn me I still am to follow that command. An Antinomian would say that the command, "Thou shall not steal" no longer even applies to me because I am not under the Law. Therefore grace becomes a license to sin. That's me trying to explain it myself, Doc probably has a two sentence quote from some mighty saint of the past that captures it perfectly where I failed in a few paragraphs! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
57 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224800 | ||
Inquisitor, Thank you for your thoughts. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
58 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224807 | ||
Inquisitor, I'm not using a source. I'm simply speaking from commonly understood terminology. "Nomian" means law in greek. "Anomian" means no law, or perhaps it is better translated as the NASB renders it, "lawlessness." These two words have been brought over into our language to those things to some extent. Though I am not using a source I will happily give you one for your edification. Marrow of Modern Divinity. I highly highly encourage you to get and read this book. You'll understand the term once you do, but more than that I think it is a book that every Christian should read. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
59 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224811 | ||
Doc, Two things: 1.) You said, "Remember, in Judaic thinking, Gentiles are not subject to the Mosaic Law, only to the Nohaic Law." Can you elaborate on that? I've never heard anybody say such a thing and would love to better understand what you are saying. 2.) The reason I suspect antinomianism is a big error in Peter's mind isn't based on the use of any given greek word. Rather it seems to be the cumulative sum of the book. First, it seems clear that the people he are rebuking are actually in the Church. So they are professing Christians. Second, he repeatedly focuses on how they eagerly sin. He focuses on it so much in fact, that it begins to feel like that is actually the error he is rebuking and not simply that the main error is accompanied by this rampant sin. I actually begin to feel like the error of the teaching is that it allows that. Also, in the first chapter when he is giving positive advice rather than rebuking, it still seems he is speaking against a Christian life that continues in sin. Then I see its close parallels to Jude, who seems to focus on the same three major errors that 2 Peter does, and I read in Jude 4, "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Now turning grace into licentousness really sounds like their teaching turned the grace of God into license to sin. This is why I ask the question. Though to be clear, I would not and do not suggest that antinomianism is the only error being addressed in the book. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
60 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224820 | ||
Doc, Acts 15 had immediately come to my mind and compelled me to ask! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |