Results 421 - 440 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229602 | ||
"Some like myself, would say, scrutinise and thoroughly investigate, examine each and every instance that the culture of the time of Paul writtings might be limited to that epoc." Of course, before you do that investigation, you must first ignore that Paul clearly says exactly why he forbids it in the very same passage, where he reveals that it has nothing to do with current cultural phenomenon but rather he forbid it based on creation and the fall. 1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
422 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229608 | ||
justme, I agree that it has been debated more than enough. I also have no desire to debate the issue. However, when a person 1.) discuses 1 Tim 2:12 while intentionally leaving of verses 13 and 14 which explicitely give the foundation of it, and 2.) goes on to discuss other possible foundations for Paul's command, which coincidentally lay the foundation for ignoring the command, 3.) and all to what appears to be a younger and perhaps unaware questioner who would not know that something crucial is being carefully left off... That I suppose will always prompt a response from myself. I have no thoughts of changing your mind. But I can't bring myself to remain silent in the face of that knowing that the continuation of Paul's thought is being edited out in order to make a speculation of what Paul would "think about women today." I would have to be removed from the forum first. I agree and am satisfied for you and I to disagree. However, you have made your decision in light of verses 14 and 15. I ask that you grant inquirers the same courtesy as to let them make up their mind in light of that crucial bit of scripture. That being said, I hope for a peaceful forum. But as in the church, peace bought at any price is wrong. But, having alerted the young lady to the remainder of Paul's statement, I am happy to drop the subject. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
423 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229615 | ||
Justme, you asked, "We disagree. So why do you keep this going?" I only responded again in order to make clear that my objection with your post was not concerning a disagreement over the role of women (though I do disagree). For me to prolong a debate over such an issue is, I think, against the spirit of, and possibly even the letter of, the TOU. My objection and reason for posting was over your mishandling scripture. That is infact exactly the purpose of the forum. To discuss rightly exegeting passages. My objection to you is not: Women must not teach in churches. My objection to you is: When a statment is followed by a "For" plus a grounds of explination, we do not divorce the two when we teach or exegete the passage. On that issue, I hope we can find agreement. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
424 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235012 | ||
Doc, When you say that, do you mean the roles of elders by the word leadership (whether or not they go by the name of elders in a particular church), or would you extend your statement beyond that? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
425 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235017 | ||
Doc, As is often the case, I find myself in substantial agreement with you. Thank you for humoring my curiosity. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
426 | 3 levels of christianity | 2 Tim 2:15 | Beja | 229054 | ||
Bnabirye, Here in about twenty minutes I am on my way to continue a class with the ladies in my church over the book of Ephesians. And I believe whole heartedly that one of the major points of the book is that there is only one level of Christianity. Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
427 | Speculation? | 2 Tim 2:23 | Beja | 206840 | ||
With regards to getting a wholistic view of scriptures take on a topic I'm in whole hearted agreement with you. This would be rather clear if we were dealing with any concrete examples. As was I was simply defining in the abstract what foolish speculation was since you had asked. Part of the wisdom of identifying such is knowing when you have indeed hit an end of what scripture has shown and when more study is required to understand what scripture has in fact revealed. With regards to the passage in 1 cor. I believe this to be the primary thing he is speaking of when he talks about "exceeding what is written." I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on it but I'll try to in but a very few sentences at least give a hint of why I think so. I believe that the first 4 chapters of 1 Cor are all one long disertation on the factions that are going on in Corinth. Chapter one is the where the discussion over the "apollo" and "paul" factions begins. Paul's reasoning follows roughly this train of thought. You are boasting in men therefore you are arrogant and mistakenly think the wisdom of men are worthy of esteem. However, at the cross Christ made foolishness the wisdom of man and therefore men and their wisdom are worth nothing and therefore exalting them is foolishness and therefore your factions split among these mere men "appolos and paul" is stupidty. So in our passage in chapter four this has been his train of thought so we must understand as he is talking about these factions between these groups he has viewed a false worldly wisdom as the root of it all. Therefore the understanding I sugested regarding "exceeding what is written" makes perfect sense as the primary point he is trying to make. I'd rather not debate this as if you disagree we would be trying to hash out how to understand 4 full chapters of context which I'm not interested in doing over this medium. But I felt I did owe you at least a brief explination of my take on the passage. God bless, Beja |
||||||
428 | scriptues for the falsely accused? | 2 Tim 3:12 | Beja | 225091 | ||
Is there any better illustration of what you just told him, and specifically regarding his particular question, than the story of Joseph found in Genesis? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
429 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207537 | ||
I do appreciate you wanting to help with my question and I appreciate your view point, but I must admit I wish you had read my post more carefully as I specifically took measure to avoid such a response. I whole heartedly agree that you can not loose your salvation. What I want to know is given that, what is being said in Heb 6:4-6? I encourage anybody who responds to this to please do re-read my original post so you can clearly see what I'm not asking and what I am asking. Please forgive any apparent harshness this might sound like over internet as it is not intended and such would be clear if I could say it in the tone which I wish, which is regretfully lost over this medium. | ||||||
430 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207590 | ||
Azure, since I feel your post seems to be the one that best grasped the question I'm replying to this one, but some comments will be meant to reply to other posts so please don't feel I'm putting words in your mouth, rather I'm really replying to the entire thread. First, lets lay out more clearly what exactly the problem is. Hebrews 6:4-6 describes a person who is described as this: 1. Once been enlightened 2. have tasated of the heavenly gift 3. have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit 4 have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. 5. And then have fallen away Now, lets be open and honest and say that in any other context than what he says about these people following, we would all assume 1-4 describes a saved person. In fact, it seems a very strong description of a saved person. Perhaps it does not, and perhaps that is the answer, but if we are going to argue that we have an uphill battle. If anybody wishes to argue this the burden of proof is on them to really truely explain how you can possibly understand this to mean something other than somebody who has been saved. The problem developes in that it says they have fallen away, and it is impossible to renew them again to repentence. This appears to be saying they are now lost. Perhaps it does not. But we should be honest and admit that at first blush, that is how an honest person would see that description. The problem of the passage develops further when it apparently explains why they can not be renewed again to repentence. Since they again crucify again to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. This appears that it is saying that the reason that they can not be moved to repentence is that it would require another sacrifice of Christ which obviously isn't coming. Now, lets recap. What this passage appears to be saying upon a very basic glance over is the following. 1. A save person is being discussed. 2. In the IF scenerio they fall away 3. They can no longer be made to repent 4. Another death of Christ would be needed for them to do so. Now, for somebody like myself whoes does NOT believe you can loose your salvation. This is a problem verse. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that this is how the verse must be understood. Quite the contrary, I intend for us to debunk that understanding of it. However, it will not help me, nor any other Christian who struggles with this verse for us to pretend it does not at first glance say the above. So, we must admit what it appears to say, then through showing what it actually was meaning to convey, give an alternative understanding of the verse. Now, in response to your post Azure. I think your repsonse merits some thought. There is certainly in scripture the idea of a person becoming very nearly a Christian, very much involved in Christianity and then falling away because they never truely were converted. I take the passage you refered to as a primary example of this. But ofcourse the question becomes, is the description in Heb 6:4-6, particularly meaining a partaker of the Holy Spirit too strong to be refering to somebody who wasn't actually saved and indwelt of the Holy Spirit? I'll certainly think about it. I'm leaning at the moment to this person described being saved but clearly I'm open to thoughts on it. |
||||||
431 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207605 | ||
First, your arguement about the context is ill founded for a few reasons. First, Hebrews is one of the most contested books in the NT with regards to who wrote it since even it does not make any claim. It seems it was written to Jewish Christians before the destruction of the temple in 70AD. So to argue that pursecution of Christians in Rome was the driving mentality is highly unlikely. Much more likely any persecution ideas was from the unbelieving Jews. But even if you were correct, the arguement that Hebrews is meant to be an exhortation to Christians in times of trouble does nothing to answer the question being put forward. Now in your mind you may be thinking of how it applies, but you aren't saying it clearly if that is the case. I'm not struggling with the meaning of Hebrews. I'm trying to simply see what others understand to be specifically talking about in this one passage. You are only barely touching upon that question, and when you do so it is in a passing way by which I mean, you are simply casually giving your opinion of what it is -not- meaning without really defending it. If you are certain this passage is not talking about somebody who is saved, then it is important that you forward a clear alternative understanding of this particular passage. What kind of person is Paul specifically referring to when he says those who, "have once been englightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit?" Particularly the reference to partakers of the Holy Spirit needs to be explained. And if you propose the answer is a Christian who is simply scared off by persecutions then why is it they can not be renewed to repentence? Do we become permenantly judged when a saved person falls away because of persecution? Or if your repsonse is that this person was never saved and the persecutions showed them to not be saved via their falling away, then why again can they not be brought to repentence later? Your answer deals with none of these issues. Explain what is being said in this particular passage by these particular words rather than saying in passing what is not being said by it. I pray that this post gives no offense, I am a preacher that is use to having a great many other non verbal tools to clarify good will and compassion as I speak and I find that these forums rob me of a good many of them. | ||||||
432 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207613 | ||
I apologize if I'm not communicating this clearly. The answer to the apparent inconsistencies, that you did accurately quote from me, is that one possible solution is that the passage is not saying they have lost their salvation. I do in fact have an idea of how this might be resolved and I had from the start intended to post this after I had received some alternative views. With regards to not understanding the problem I must admit it seems that I am finding a way to make unclear something that should be very clear. I had thought that anybody who reads the passage could understand the complication. The passage -appears- to be making the following statements. There are people who... 1. Were saved. 2. Have fallen away 3. Can not return to repentence 4. Because they would need to recrucify christ to do so. If the above 4 points are to be understood as I just stated them, then "once saved, always saved" is shown false. I know no other way to more clearly state the problem within this verse. The IF/THEN statement I made is absolute and can't be contested. The only thing you can do is try to prove the IF part false. Which means that you must -show how- those 4 statements are not what that passage is actually meaning to say. Possible solutions are: 1. These terms are not referring to a saved person. 2. "Falling away" is not referring to loosing your salvation. These are not the only options most likely but the most obvious ones. However, here is the rub, if you think the author is NOT talking about saved people, or is not talking about loosing your salvation then you must explain what he IS talking about. What does he mean when he refers to "those who have partaken of the Holy Spirit" or "those who have fallen away." Just saying that its not saying those four statements because the result would be something we don't want to believe is insufficient. I do not know how to more clearly sate the problem. If this attempt does not make it clear and result in stimulating a productive discussion of the above I'll give what meager answer I've come up with on my own and simply not pursue it any further. P.S. The only reason I gave the discussion the pre-determined idea that you can't loose your salvation is because if you don't believe that then the passage is obviously not a problem at all. |
||||||
433 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207616 | ||
Ok, this is a valid view point. I disagree. But it is a valid view. The question I forward to you is this, if these people are not believers, and never were. Why can't they be moved to repentance? And why does it say moved to repentance "again." If we hold this position, then we are in essence saying that at a certain amount of hearing the gospel, then people are finally excluded from it. Yet how many people hear it for decades and finally surrender to it? As I said, its a valid view point but I personally at the moment can't bring myself to agree both based on the basis of the words the passage uses, and then based on the scenerio that seems to represent. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying I currently think there isn't enough to tip the scales for me to buy into it. | ||||||
434 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207617 | ||
Ok, now we are getting into some good thoughts! This is exactly what I'm looking for. You are actually trying to address the passage rather than just stating some doctrinal statment and leaving me to wonder how it applies in my particular passage. However... This is not an if/then clause in the greek. In the greek, the main phrase is basically this: For to again renew to repentence is impossible. The rest of it is just phrases qualifying who it is moving to repentence, those who have this and this and this. Adunaton gar...palin anakainidzein eis metanoian. How I wish we had greek font for this! Following this it says roughly "because they crucify...etc." If you are able to read greek yourself do take a look at it in the greek to verify. The dots that I have inserted in the phrase are skipping over the entire description of who it is talking about but when you diagram it out this is the central phrase. So this doesn't really resolve it either since there are no conditional sentences in it. On the other hand I completely agree with your logical assessment. |
||||||
435 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207623 | ||
You seem to think I am arguing against Hebrews as an exhortation. I am not. I can now understand your entire view on the verse up until one point. What do you believe he said a non-legit christian who falls away at persecution can not later be brought to repentence? If you stated in this post I apologize, I got everything but that. | ||||||
436 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207624 | ||
I have yet to see this mountain to which you refer. I can though see what your view point is, I will forward the question to you which I have asked of each of the others who have held this interpretation. Why is it that somebody who was not saved but has walked away from it not later repent? And why does the author state that the reason they can't is because they again crucify the christ for themselves? Shall I just not point out the weak points in various arguements so we can persue the best understanding possible? |
||||||
437 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207629 | ||
I agree whole heartedly that repentence is a gift from God. I ask that if you are frustrated with this conversation you just stop reading with that, if you are instead wanting to know my thoughts on it then read the next paragraph. I do not want to continue if this is upsetting you. I agree that repentence is a gift from God. But do you really think the author is saying, these guys who were never saved and have fallen/walked away, they can not be "again" brought to repentence because they are recrucifying Christ and putting Him to shame? If it is simply a matter of God needing to grant a repentence, what does recrucifying Him have to do with it? Does it not at all seem to you that he is talking about something here more than that? Otherwise in what way are they recrucifying God that everybody isn't? Please don't think I'm saying repentence is not a gift from God. I am simply suggesting that so far, with this answer, the pieces haven't all fit together yet. |
||||||
438 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207630 | ||
I attempted to respond to this post earlier but it didn't seem to go through. In the links to these posts Tim Moran posts my theory on how this verse is to be understood. I won't restate it since he does an amazing job. Thank you Tim, the whole reason I never said it and have been waiting for somebody to offer a good explination is that I wish the answer didn't require us to say that the NASB interpreters translated in a way that made the true meaning rather hidden. | ||||||
439 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207638 | ||
I agree with basically everything you said theologically, I'm not sure this passage is to that point of uncertainty however where we can't simply determine what he said from context. I think part of the confusion from this whole thread is that people assumed since I was asking how to understand this passage that I didn't believe these things. When in reality I was simply trying to understand exactly what the author intended within this frame work. And as a result people, rather than explaining the verse, began to argue once saved alway saved thinking, which was rather waisted, because I never doubted that. However, with regards to the passage at the moment I disagree. I do think its talking about saved individuals. But I do not think its talking about them loosing their salvation. Part of the reason I think this is because I consider it not to be very clearly translated. If you will note that your NASB in fact gives an alternative meaning in one point that it could be WHILE they crucify, rather than SINCE. I think while would be correct along with some clearer meanings of some of the participles involved. Morant61 posted some numbers that you can look up. Numbers in which he very clearly explains my thoughts on the passage, I would highly encourage you to look those up, its a bit more than I ought to repost. The understanding of the passage which he posts is completely compatable with the theological statements which you've made (perseverance of the saints, irresistable grace, etc.) However, while it may not seem it at first glance from this thread, I truely do hold this interpretation of this passage very lightly. And I am willing to change my stance should the evidence grammatical, syntactical, from literary context or otherwise truely merit it. But with what has been discussed so far, and in my own studies, I simply can not -yet- accept that the author is not referring to saved individuals. If the passage could not be understood on its on and within its context to have a clear meaning that does not violate these doctrines we hold dear, then perhaps I would lean more on the evidence people are suggesting. But while I do believe it might have an alternative explination that satisfactoraly explains it, and avoids clashing with clearly revealed doctrine, and fits the context then I think there is no merit in trying to say that the author is not talking about the saved when he says these things and he says moving them "again" to repentence. Read those links and tell me what you think, I very much would love to hear your thoughts on what they present. |
||||||
440 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207677 | ||
I'm sorry I didn't know the bible version question was directed towards me. Hands down my preferred version is the NASB, but if you are asking which I think does the best with this passage I can't say. I've just been working with the NASB and the greek. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [26] >> |