Results 41 - 60 of 100
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bjanko Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1618 | ||
You wrote: "Let us be firm in our dicatation of ethics where the Bible is firm; and let us be moderate in our dictation of ethics where the Bible is silent or unclear." Well said! Is this yours, or should we give credit to another wise man? My response: Let's just say that it was a collaboration between you and I, brother -- to God's glory. Blessings in Christ to you and your family. |
||||||
42 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1603 | ||
I have answered as well as I can on trying to apply biblical principles to the general subject. I could only speak hypothetically concerning the specific situations you have mentioned. I could tell you that in situation X an exception can be made, whereas in situation Y there does not seem to be an excuse for not applying the general rule. And I would hope I could be objective enough to live out my convictions were I in a similar situation. Of course, sometimes it is getting into a different situation which causes one to change his convictions -- not alwasy just because "now it's happening to ME!" but because in light of the new situation, the whole principle looks different and your perspective is broadened. Anyway, I do not think I could really lay out my ideas in any more concrete way than I have already. If I did, I do not believe there would be any benefit of it to anyone. You said you were "simply making a case for us to be moderate in our dictation of ethics, especially where the Bible is silent or unclear." I agree in spirit, but to be more precise, I would say it like this: "Let us be firm in our dicatation of ethics where the Bible is firm; and let us be moderate in our dictation of ethics where the Bible is silent or unclear." The issue we have been discussing is not something which Scripture pronounces a firm ethic about. I would agree with you that we should be wise, and would add that we take great pains to think it out carefully. I finally say that we must be cautious in the "rules" we lay out in regard to this issue, because the Bible simply does not address the mattter. I think you and I, discussing this, have done a pretty good job of it. Blessings to you. |
||||||
43 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1529 | ||
Maybe you could list the other variations of circumstances where a believer's situation should come into play. Because unless I have a specific idea as to the various types of scenarios I'm omitting, I'm unable to more properly -- or "wisely" -- admit modification of what I have already exressed. In a general discussion, after all, we cannot always account for every situation, but it would be good to account for EVERY TYPE of situation. So, maybe you can itemize a little more clearly the TYPES of situations I might be omitting, rather than just toss out of a handful of examples. By the way, I never said or implied that "Under no circumstance is it allowable!"; I simply gave a general principle/guideline. And in fact far from making the above statement, I even admitted that my view might not apply in certain circumstances which I have not considered. A refrain of mine has been, though, that even if we allow for exceptions in certain situations, I think the tendency would be for most Christians to claim these exceptions rather than just bite the bullet and do the right thing. But even so: there might still very well be some exceptions. You seemed to say that in your country (or somewhere) there are people living in poverty, etc. Having many children in such a situation would not be a new or unusual thing. Anway, I don't say they should have many children; they just ought not prevent the having of children. You are right: this is not directly addressed in the Bible. What I am saying is based on a bit of inference and also the idea that we should resist modernist ideas which smack of worldly wisdom and rob of us the opportunity to trust the Lord. However, since this is something which is less clear in Scripture, I could concede that it may be like the food which Paul mentions in Romans 14. Some feel right about contraception and others do not; each one should be led by his own conscience. However, we should remember that any form of contraception which retroactively destroys the egg after conception is really an abortion! Birth control pills are not safe. So, the only thing I can think of that's left would be condoms, which are not, of course, one hundred percent reliable. If a pregnant woman is likely to die while in labor, I would say that is a very, very unfortunate situation, like having a fatal disease. Yet, to "save" her by murdering the child is still murder. In your own case, since your wife is not yet pregnant, then I would say that contraception is not only called for, but demanded. There is no child to "abort" at this point, and the best thing to do is to prevent that, since it might prove fatal for your wife. While nothing is one hundred percent, it would seem wise in your particular instance, to save your wife's life, that she have her tubes tied or you have a vasectomy or BOTH! How can I turn around and suddenly advocate such a radical form of contraception in your case, after all I have said? Because I believe the biblical precept which does apply here is "Thou shalt not murder." This is broader than it sounds; we know from the Sermon on the Mount that it ranges from hatred to murder and therefore, we can assume that the preserving of innocent life in all cases in which we can is the correct option. You and I agree that abortion is murder. Well, since the Lord, in His goodness, has allowed you to know about your wife's tumor, Lord willing the doctors will be able to remove it. But if you know pregnancy could bring her into a condition which might cost her life, then you should do all that you can to prevent that from occurring. Total abstinence is unhealthy and unbiblical for a marriage. But in a case such as yours, it would seem that a radical form of contraception -- tubal ligation AND vasectomy would be called for. Realize friend, I'm approaching this all in the abstract; I cannot empathize or share your worries as much as I would like, since we are only communicating in these little boxes. But forgive me if my tone sounds harsh and uncaring. I'm trying to respond as best and honestly and as helpfully, I pray, that I can. Regards. |
||||||
44 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1523 | ||
Well, I had hoped it would have been clear that I was addressing your "general" question about the topic. I suggested in my last post, that certain "specifics" might bring in other factors which might make other conclusions valid. I cannot speak to your specific situation, since I do not fully understand it. As far as I understand this issue -- IN GENERAL -- I have to stand by what I said until I have further data. Again, this is presuming that we are having a GENERAL discussion about the topic. If you have a SPECIFIC question, I would hope you first consult your spiritual leader (pastor, or whoever) and then other trusted Christians. I would hope that you would not trust advice coming from strangers on a message board. But anyway, I wish you the best and will pray for the healing of your wife's tumor. Regards, bjanko |
||||||
45 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1512 | ||
Whoa! You bring up a lot of specific situations and quite possibly in some of these situations, we might need to rethink our main premises. But I was just speaking in a general way. If you wanted to discuss specific instances, we could try that; but it would be mostly hypothetical -- and involve experiences neither you or I are experiencing ourselves. Modern contraception is a new idea, at least for Christians. I believe it's just another area where the church is becoming more and more like the world. Common sense is certainly a blessed gift in ordering our lives, but in the coming and going of the lives of others -- our children, I do not think it is an argument for contraception. Let's certainly use common sense in how we raise them, however. Common sense can be godly; and it can also be heathen. We have to start with trust of God, (which is the main message of Scripture anyhow), and only after His Word do we start to fill in the blanks with our own reasonings. I realize there can be differing views on this; I just don't happen to agree with any of them. |
||||||
46 | How about common sense? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1488 | ||
I would ask you to supply Scripture for some of the things you have stated as well. The main thrust of what I am saying is that we should trust the Lord with our children, i.e., with how many He blesses us with and when. And this fits perfectly into the context of us living a life of total trust and dependence on the sovereign will of God. I do not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, or even when the mother's life is in danger. An abortion is the murdering of a guiltless person and Scripture says, "Thou shalt not murder." Anyway, it is a fact that instances where it's the child's life or the mother's are extremely rare. These are hyped-up scenarios in the media, unbelieving secularists, to bring fear confusion to the issue. God is in control and He is sovereign over all. Many forms of contraception, like RUD480 (or whatever it's called) and the IUD, simply kill the fertilized egg,or at least they at times work in that manner. So even some "contraceptions" actually work like tiny abortions. I do not think we ought to try and have as many kids as possible; but I also do not think we ought to try to prevent having any kids either. Again, my reasons come down to this: 1. If a Christian mother becomes pregnant God has provided that child for the family and its care. 2. We have a loving God, a God who provides for us, one Whom we can trust. 3. If God gives us a child, we should trust Him in that matter. "Practical matters" just do not come into these precepts; although I acknowledge that there could be some scenarios where things become less clear and we have to use our God-given wisdom. I just think those scenarios are the exception rather than the rule. My points are not so much about childbirth, but on absolute trust and dependence on the One who brought US into the world. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." (Prov 3:5-6) |
||||||
47 | Scripture please? | Bible general Archive 1 | bjanko | 1482 | ||
I did give you verses, I just didn't cite Chap and verse, assuming you would be familiar with them. I said, "I think it is Proverbs that says children are a blessing from the Lord." I was wrong; it's Psalm 127:3 "Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward" It follows that a gift not be returned to the Giver, but be enjoyed and appreciated. For instance, another great gift of God is the righteousness He has imputed to us in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's not something we would take it upon ourselves to deny or return to Him. There are other passages which show God's nature and so "by inference" I see that life and death are in his hands. If nothing else, look at the providential way He gave victory and defeat to Israel, depending on their obedience/disobedience. I could perhaps say more or be more specific, but I find myself falling asleep at my computer as I type, so I must go. Forgive me, Good night, bjanko |
||||||
48 | If our answers relied on Scripture alone | Hebrews | bjanko | 1472 | ||
You're welcome. I figured you were not really out to pick a fight. I was just kidding about that part. I think your view of how to go about interpretation is very sound. I wish you a good day as well. | ||||||
49 | If our answers relied on Scripture alone | Hebrews | bjanko | 1459 | ||
Thank you for clarification. You'll be glad to know that you have still not succeeded in causing me to disagree with you. We remain in 100 percent agreement. :) | ||||||
50 | If our answers relied on Scripture alone | Hebrews | bjanko | 1402 | ||
I agree with you 100 percent. | ||||||
51 | No hope for unity of faith? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1401 | ||
We already have a unified church. It is the invisible church -- those who are God's people and have true faith. Not all who attend church are true Christians. But the invisible church is made of those who are truly saved and Christ is their head. Spiritually, we already have unity. In discussing doctrinal issues, we will not have total agreement until Christ's return. |
||||||
52 | If our answers relied on Scripture alone | Hebrews | bjanko | 1365 | ||
No. Scripture does need to be interpreted. And that's always the sticking point. Unfortunately, these "arguments" will never cease till the Lord returns. | ||||||
53 | Does Genesis predict Jesus? | Genesis | bjanko | 1234 | ||
The protoevangel (however you spell it); the first proclamation of the Gospel is in Gen 3:15. "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." He who will bruise Satan on the head is Christ. |
||||||
54 | Satisfactory? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1215 | ||
Yes, you have done a very good job of explaining. And I agree with you. But concerning have "no CLEAR word from the Lord," I have this to say: The verse in 2 Peter is not a simple or easy one. A lot more study would have to be done. But I have always learned to interpret the obscure passages in light of the clear passages. So, I do not even base my views on this simple verse. I believe there are much clearer passages elsewhere, which I have discussed with jg8ball in another thread. But in response to what seems to be your main concern, that of not making judgment, I agree with you totally. I am merely speaking of the teaching or doctrine that says that a saved person cannot fall away and anyone who appears to was never really saved. However, this does not mean that I am in favor of judging who is saved and who is not. I am only discussing a principle declared in Scripture, not a means of how Christian should judge Christian. I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from a little better. |
||||||
55 | Snatch? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1201 | ||
I'm using the NASB, which can be found in the search boxes on the right of your screen. I'm also saying that verse 21 -- where "the way of righteousness" is found -- clarifies verse 20. Verse 21 has the same phrase in both NASB and NIV. In either case, "escaping the corruption of the world by *knowing* our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" is not the same as being saved by Jesus Christ. We can speculate about the degrees along this spectrum, but we cannot speculate about this verse: it simply says they knew Jesus. It does not say they were saved by Him. Going beyond this would be reading into the text. |
||||||
56 | When are we 'securely' saved? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1200 | ||
"I find it 'a bit of a stretch' to say that the 'knowledge of God' and 'way of righteousness' do not speak 'necessarily' of salvation" Maybe it is a stretch; maybe it is not. But I think you need to explain WHY it is a stretch in order to support your comment. |
||||||
57 | When are we saved? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1192 | ||
But I would again add, the verse is summed up in the next verse were this state is referred to as the "way of righteousness." I do not see that "way of righteousness" and being saved from hell are necessarily the same thing. On the way to salvatiion, you confront this righteous way; but not all necessarily complete the journey to where they are securely saved. |
||||||
58 | When are we saved? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1188 | ||
But I would again add, the verse is summed up in the next verse were this state is referred to as the "way of righteousness." I do not see that "way of righteousness" and being saved from hell are necessarily the same thing. On the way to salvatiion, you confront this righteous way; but not all necessarily complete the journey to where they are securely saved. |
||||||
59 | Snatch? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1187 | ||
Okay.... I'll risk it, I'll take the plunge, although I know I'll hate my self for it later. But in short, 2 Pet. 2:2 says it would have better if they had not turned after having "known the way of righteousness." It never says they were saved. One can know about Christ, and even believe He is who He says He is -- but that is not salvation. And one can turn from that way of righteousness. But when one truly takes that assent to the truth about Christ and trusts their very eternal destiny's to it, then they are truly saved; one can only do that when God has regenerated them. They cannot fall away from that state of true trust in Christ. But anyone can turn away from knowing about Christ and even agreeing that that knowledge is true. Anyone can turn away from the "way of righteousness." They just can't turn away if God has actually rescued them and given them the faith that saves their soul. | ||||||
60 | Snatch? | Hebrews | bjanko | 1185 | ||
I think, as far as I understand you, that I agree. There is a difference between not being really saved and drawing near or then turning away from God on the one hand; and being truly saved and not being willing or able to turn away. Just my 2 cents in reply to you, though this is becoming a wearying topic. :) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |