Results 41 - 60 of 61
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | orthodoxy | 5782 | ||
This question is easy to answer, for it has been asked and answered in church history. The Athanasian Creed states: Now the catholic* faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. Actually, the possibility you present, that God exists as one person with three manifestations, is a long recognized heresy, Sabellianism, also called modalism. This was officially recognized as heresy in the third century and Sabellius, the theory's originator, was excommunicated. It has been firmly established that one cannot be part of the Christian church and hold to modalism. This is not intended to be a condemnation of anyone, but a simple word of warning. *a word rich in tradition simply meaning "universal." It is only when capitalized, thus: "Catholic," that this term refers to Rome. |
||||||
42 | Aren't a lot more killed in chapter 16? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5780 | ||
Here's a suggestion: abandon dispensational premillenialism. You will never resolve your question as to who will be in the millennium unless you do. Being amillennial/preterist myself, I believe that the millennium is now, and that we, the saints, reign with Christ. Cf. Ephesians 2. Being "seated" is the symbol of authority, just as a king sits on a throne. We already reign with Christ, but await the final fulfillment that will come when Christ returns (cf. Rev. 2). | ||||||
43 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5772 | ||
Okay, let's step back a minute. First, I have not "denounced" anyone. To say that because a denomination has heretical roots that all of its members are heretics commits both the genetic and division fallacies. I want to do neither of those. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that the first instance of a strict believers' baptism as opposed to covenantal baptism makes its appearance in the Anabaptists. If you can provide evidence of strict believers' baptism earlier than that, please do so, but I believe you will find it difficult. Why do I consider this telling? Because if the church has never acted in a certain way, it is extremely dubious to suggest that they had it wrong the whole time and now we have it right. If you can provide evidence of opposition to infant baptism from a non-heretical group before the sixteenth century, you are welcome to do so. Your analysis of my argument about tradition totally ignores most of my points. Were you or were you not brought into the Christian faith by someone else? I would wager anything that the answer is that you were. If so, who brought them? And who brought them? And who brought them? You see? And I am not "aligning" myself with either Rome or the East. I would, in fact, attempt to strongly distance myself from both of them. But I, contrary to what you have stated, will freely admit that both of those ancient denominations have good things about them, including but not limited to, their views on infant baptism and reverence in worship. About the scope of the Baptist tradition. Judging from the size of the SBC (somewhere about 10,000,000), and including all the rest of the hundreds of Baptist denominations in the US, there are probably 20,000,000 Baptists here. Where else are there Baptists? Well, there are some in England, but they have always been a tiny minority. Everywhere else in the world they are the result of mission works and exist in small numbers. My evidence? Look on the net. Search Google for "baptist denominations" and tell me what you find. There are several respectible Baptist history sites there (stay away from the Landmarkist stuff though). All of them place the origin of the Baptistic denominations in England and America, and it has spread only through missionary work ever since. This doesn't take world travelling or years of study. A cursory examination of immediately available evidence should suffice. But I did not simply make this up on the spot: I have been studying denominational history for several years now. On to Scripture. The idea that household does not include children seems to run directly contrary to the use of the word everywhere else in Scripture. Just do a word search using "household" and see what you get. It _always_ means the entire house. Assumming that household does not include children is out of line with the rest of Scripture. You are welcome to provide places in Scripture where "household" does not refer to the whole thing. And references about baptism do not count since that would be circular reasoning. While I do believe that baptism has replaced circumcision, exactly how long after the birth baptism occurs is of no importance to me, provided it is done in a timely manner and as soon as convenient. The eighth day regulation is not important. Furthermore, Christ's institution of Christian baptism says nothing about baptizing believers only, and also says nothing about baptizing adult believers only. Making any argument on either of those grounds is fallacious at best. Just as I cannot clearly say that Christ instituted infant baptism, you cannot clearly say that he instituted believers' baptism. Yet, all of the promises of God to his people are "for you and your children" or something along those lines. God works through families, and always has. Not baptizing infants is a denial of God's chosen method of action in the world. I see Paul's baptism of households as evidence that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles, Paul being an apostle and all. Your mention of "circumcision of the heart" does not help you, for the thrust is that physical circumcision is simply a sign of what ought to happen in the heart. Baptism is exactly the same, a sign of what should happen on the inside. Just because there is a spiritual reality does not mean that physical reality may be abandoned. Oh, and please do not put in quotes anything that is not either from Scripture or actually taken verbatim from my post. To do otherwise only serves to put words in my mouth, a profoundly uncharitible, unfair, and illogical practice. |
||||||
44 | Messianic prophecy fulfilled? | John 6:19 | orthodoxy | 5771 | ||
Except for the promise that the Coming One would be God Himself, I can't think of one. But note that most messianic prophacies are not of the kind that follow a strict prediction/fulfillment pattern. The vast majority are images, shadows, and types. Every item in the tabernacle represents Christ. The lampstand; the light of the world. The table of bread; the bread of life. The ark of the covenant; the glory of God made present. The altar; the place of atonement. The laver; streams of living water. See? Christ's fulfilment of the Old Testament goes far beyond being the specific fulfillment of specifically messianic prophacies. He is the fulfillment of all of history. | ||||||
45 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5734 | ||
John's baptism has never been considered Christian baptism. The believers here were not repbaptized in that sense. They were first baptized into John, then Christ. We were talking about something significantly different, namely, being baptized into Christ as an infant and then again as an adult. My views on justification are simply Scriptural. Romans is a just about the best book for talking about justification, but Galatians is good as well. Namely, justification is an act of God based solely upon the council of his own will and based in no part upon anything that we have done or will do. Rom. 3:24; 5:15-16; 8:30; Rom. 3:22-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; II Cor. 5:19, 21; Titus 3:5, 7; Eph. 1:7; Jer. 23:6; I Cor. 1:30-31; John 1:12; 6:44-45, 65; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Eph. 2:7-8 For passages specifically relating to baptism, see: Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15; Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14 |
||||||
46 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5730 | ||
I can take your first paragraph as either deliberately insulting or significant misunderstanding, and I'm not sure which would be more appropriate. I'll let you determine that. In any case, it is a red herring and quite possibly ad hominum abusive. I'll let it go at that. Your second paragraph is a little better. I am glad that you recognize, or at least make mention of, Anabaptism being heresy. At its inception, it was recognized as such by all of the branches of the church that were in existence at the time, Protestant and Catholic. Still, you are setting up a straw-man by restating my position in a manner that I do not condone and then proceeding to mock this restatement. This is not a sufficient answer. I recognize that a paragraph devoted to denominational history hardly does justice to the complexities involved, nor do I deny that those of ages past acted in good conscience. But there is no other way of tracing the development of the church without resorting to such "oversimplifications" as you call them. Everything I said was true, and I am not aware that I inadvertently suppressed relevant evidence. If I have, please present it for consideration instead of simply dismissing my arguments with a wave of your hand. If you find my words offensive, be that as it may. I am sorry of my manner offends you, but I cannot detect anything offensive in it. I am not primarily interested in "making friends and influencing people." I am primarily interested in proclaiming the truths of Scripture. It is not my responsibility to ensure that you or anyone else likes or agrees with me. It is my responsibility to tell it like it is, which I trust that I have done. Furthermore, when I said "we call came from Rome at one point" I was not referring to us personally, but our traditions. And you cannot possibly deny that you belong to a tradition. You were brought into the faith by someone, and you adhere to a church. When I say "tradition" I do not mean the Romish conception of tradition that is equal with the Word. I simply mean the history of the people of God. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, and I see that you are not, then your church can be traced to Rome eventually, even if it be independant. Your profile indicates that you are probably a missionary of some kind. Who brought you into the faith? Who brought them into the faith? Trace it back through history far enough and you will come to Rome. Unless, that is, you hold to the exceptionally bizarre "Baptist Bride" idea. I am not simply "pontificating my denominational bent." When counting traditions, I am in the majority. On the infant baptistic side, we have the East, Rome, the Reformed tradition, the Anglican tradition, the Lutheran tradition, and some Methodist groups. On the believers' baptism side there are the Baptists and Anabaptists, which, I might add, are almost exclusively in the US. So I will call that into evidence. The requirements you set before me are utterly impossible. It seems that nothing I can say will have any affect on you. Since you are currently defining "incontrovertable" and "truth," you can redefine them as you see fit. Still, I will make a stab at it. Note in Acts 10, Peter oversees the baptism of Cornelius' whole household. In Acts 16, Paul baptizes Lydia's household. Later in Acts 16, Paul baptizes the household of the Corinthian jailer. In 1Cor. 15 Paul recounts the households he baptized in Corinth. It is safe to assume that infants were present at in all of these households. Since these are all of the times that baptism occurs where families are present, it would seem that infant baptism is not without significant support in the NT. Then there is circumcision. Yes, I know we no longer circumcise. But the Jews did. And they circimcised on the eighth day of life as a sign and seal of the covenant. Since baptism is the same thing, the sign and seal of the covenant, it makes sense that we should do as they did. The sign of the covenant is no longer a physical sign upon the body, but it is done shortly after birth all the same. |
||||||
47 | Why did Jesus walk on water? | John 6:19 | orthodoxy | 5694 | ||
I believe that Christ walked on water to reassure the disciples. Look at the preceeding passages. Christ had just turned down an offer of kingship and lost a significant number of followers. It is not inappropriate to think that the disciples were a bit discouraged. They had thought that Christ was going to shake things up, and would think this till after the ascension, but Christ had just passed up a great opportunity. I think that Christ is showing the disciples that his mission has not changed through this demonstration of sovereignty over the elements. Also, note that this is one of the seven signs that John includes in his gospel. John picked and chose the miracles he included, and has many fewer than the Synoptics. All of the signs demonstrate Christ's mastery over something of importance in popular thought at the time. The first sign, changing water to wine, demonstrates mastery over quality. The second sign, the healing from a distance, demonstrates mastery over space. The third sign, the healing of a congenital disease, demonstrates mastery over time. The fourth sign, the feeding of the five thousand demonstrates mastery over quantity. The fifth sign, the walking on water, demonstrates mastery over natural law. The sixth sign, the healing of the man born blind, demonstrates mastery over common misfortune. The seventh sign, the raising of Lazarus, demonstrates mastery over death. All seven of these things were very powerful concepts in the conceptual climate of the time, and John uses these seven signs to show that Christ is the Lord of all. |
||||||
48 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5691 | ||
Well, if he is denying the use of all music in worship, then I really don't know where he's getting that. Paul indicates the use of songs in worship. I'm afraid I can't help here. | ||||||
49 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5690 | ||
Yes, I know the largest denomination in the US is Baptist. Their origins are in Holland, with the English Separatists. The movement's founder originally had close ties with the Mennonites, an Anabaptist group. There are several Churches of Christ (by name of course), so I can't comment on those. But I think that both of them are Pentecostal, which would allow one to trace their history to Anabaptism through Wesley. When I said difficult, I meant historically. Until quite recently they have been in a minority position. In Europe they were persecuted by just about everybody. That's all I was getting at. |
||||||
50 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5688 | ||
Oh my. First of all, I detect a distinct, anti-tradition vibe here. Your first paragraph is simply sarcasm. Next, you have misconstrued me again. I never meant to say that only Anabaptists and Baptists baptise. How you could have gotten that from my post is beyond me. I assumed that believers' baptism would be understood as contra infant baptism. Of course I believe in baptism. Every Christian church baptizes believers, but only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants. The Pentecostal/charismatic denominations are offshoots of the Holiness movement, an offshoot from Methodism. Methodism was founded by John Wesley, who was converted by a Moravian Anabaptist. As to historical church tradition, simply look around. We all came from Rome at one point, and they have always baptised infants, and still do. The Reformed denominations baptise infants, as do the Lutherans. Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history. |
||||||
51 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5665 | ||
I'll leave the disproving to others, but I think that I can explain a bit. First, it depends on whether he is reacting to music as a whole, or just the music in youth group. If it is the latter, I would not only understand but wholeheartedly agree. I am coming to believe that "contemporary worship" does not count as worship. Look at the majesterial forms of worship set up in the Old Testament, and see how Hebrews says that we have come to something even more impressive. Then think about the kinds of music commonly played in youth groups. Doesn't exactly fit. Music is to contribute to a proper attitude, an attitude of awe, reverence, fear, and joy. Worship is entering into the very throne room of the risen Christ, and should reflect the gravity of the situation. Most music used in worship simply does not do this. If the gentlemen in question is thinking along these lines, his position is fairly understandable. However, if he holds that music of any kind is not permissible in worship, I am at somewhat of a loss to provide an explanation. It seems that music has always been used by the people of God in worship from the very earliest. My guess is that he is overreacting to the sentimental tripe that passes for "worship" nowadays. |
||||||
52 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5664 | ||
Cephas: Point your newsreader to alt.religion.christian-teen. There's very interesting conversation there from time to time, and regardless of what the name indicates, most of the people there aren't either Christian or in their teens. Any question is fair game. This forum seems to be intended for Christians to ask other Christians about Scripture. |
||||||
53 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5663 | ||
I fail to see how this is true. The Anabaptists were the first ones to rebaptise believers (hence their name, which means "to baptise again"). Other traditions took up the practice after contact with Anabaptists. But it is simply a historical fact that the church had always baptised its infants until the Anabaptists came along in the sixteenth century and the Baptists in the eighteenth. And most Baptist churches do not require rebaptism, they simply will not baptise infants themselves. As to soteriology, I stand by my statement. All it means is that my views on justification will not allow _me_ to support rebaptism. Since I obviously believe my soteriology to be generally correct, I believe that rebaptism is wrong. |
||||||
54 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5607 | ||
No, you should not. Your current position is understandable, considering the significant amount of animosity between the Anabaptists and just about everyone else. Even though Protestants and Romans fought wars with each other, both of them allied against the Anabaptists, who were viewed as apostate. You have chosen a singularly difficult tradition. I believe, as does the historical tradition of everyone but the Anabaptists, that rebaptism is not only unnecessary, but sinful. It declares that God did not fulfill His promises when you were baptised the first time. Baptism is the sign and seal of entering into the covenant community. It should not be partaken of more than once. More than that, my soteriology does not allow for baptism to be received more than once. Since I believe that free will has nothing at all to do with salvation, strict believers baptism makes no sense, and rebaptism becomes an act of unbelief in the promises of God. |
||||||
55 | Which mountain or the same mountain? | 2 Chr 3:1 | orthodoxy | 5602 | ||
Yes, it is the same mountain. And the Mount of Olives is the same one as in the Old Testament as well. For more parallelism, note that Adam fell in a garden, Eden, and Christ atoned in a garden (probable location of Golgotha). Also, the atonement sacrifice was sent outside the camp, and Christ was crucified outside the city. The entire Old Testament shouts out the gospel. | ||||||
56 | How was Jesus' body different? | Luke 24:31 | orthodoxy | 5571 | ||
A good question. Basically, we don't really know. But we do know that we will receive a body like his after the resurrection. There are a few things that we do know. First, resurrection bodies seem to be significantly more substantial than regular bodies. Witness Christ's ability to apparently walk through walls as if they were fog. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that he is not necessarily limited by normal spatial laws. He appears to be able to come and go at will. Whether we will be able to do this is pure speculation. I personally think it'd be pretty cool, but there isn't really grounds for thinking one way or the other. The one thing we can say for sure is that we will have a body like his. | ||||||
57 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5512 | ||
I've jumped in in the middle of this conversation, but if I am correct in my understanding of Cephas question, your answer, charis, is not satisfactory. If God is good and created only good, and evil comes from Lucifer, where then where did Lucifer come from? We know God made him. In all honesty, the serious Christian does not have an answer to the question, "Where does evil come from?" Every single answer has serious logical, philosophical, and theological problems. The only answer we can give is that evil somehow serves to further God's glory. For the Christian, this is an acceptable answer. Credo ut intelligam. I believe that I may understand. |
||||||
58 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | orthodoxy | 5510 | ||
I have always considered questions to become "foolish and ignorant" when asked by people who are more interested in causing controversy or picking a fight than producing edifying dialogue. Pagans raising the same objections again and again is foolish and ignorant. So is nagging at a doctrine when one is not interested in changing one's own opinion or anyone elses. I believe that all subjects are open to honest speculation, but no subjects are open to foolish and ignorant speculation. Question for you though: do you have any Scriptural support for the idea of human free will? I've always considered it to be an extra-biblical concept and would be interested in another opinion. |
||||||
59 | Joshua wrong in giving choice to serve | Joshua | orthodoxy | 5508 | ||
Absolutely not. Even though we are called by God without reference to anything at all that has to do with us, He calls us _to_ something: obedience. Joshua was presenting the Israelites with the same choice that all Christians face. Will we act as members of the covenant community or not? | ||||||
60 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 5472 | ||
Nolan, I believe that you are wrong here. Consider the following: There are several options as to what and who Christ died for. 1) Christ died for all sins of all men. 2) Christ died for all sins of some me. 3) Christ died for some sins of all men. 4) Christ died for some sins of some men. Now consider the implications of each of these choices. 3 and 4 aren't really options, cause they don't save anyone. If the second is true, we have Reformed election. If the first is true, then everyone goes to heaven, for all sins are paid for. But, you say, can't people resist God's grace? Perhaps (but I think not). Assuming they can, would this not be sin? And would Christ not have died for it? Would that not make it forgiven? If not, why not? The only real option is particular redemption. Ryan Davidson |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |