Results 441 - 460 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 220000 | ||
1 Tim 4:10 "because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." If we are to understand this passage rightly we are going to have to think carefully. First, lets honestly observe what is said. It says that God is a savior. This is qualified by all men, certainly. But at the end of the day it does NOT specifically say, that all men are saved. It simply affirms that God is a savior, and that of all men. Now, the question we must then try to answer is: In what sense is God the savior of all men? It is very important that you understand what I've just said. The verse rightly leads us to this question, and we must strive to answer it, but we must also be honest enough to say that it has not explicitely told us. It has affirmed that God is a Savior of all men, but not how so. Second, whatever interpretation we come up with, it must be in a different sense or in a different degree than how God is a savior to believers. If not, then we render the phrase "especially of those that believe" to be meaningless. So we will not be surprised when we come to a conclusion that does not see unbelievers with the same blissful rewards that accompany believers. Now, consider that for many times and places the name of the LORD was not known. In how many tragedies, and in how many sea voyages, and in how many battles in such places and times have men cried out to heaven to be delivered from their temporal and immediate plights? How many people, who have sternly denied the existence of God, has in those moments found themselves crying out to heaven in hopes that they were wrong, and somebody was hearing who was able to deliver them? Now, who has answered them if we are thinking according to the Christian view? Whether any man ever, has cried out to the name of some strange God, or has cried out with no name but only a desperate hope that "maybe somebody hears," if any deliverance has ever been granted from above to any man of any time, that deliverance has came only from the One True God. Now, don't leap to fast to insert this into the passage, but first contemplate it. From this can we not all here today agree that in this sense God is indeed the savior of all men everywhere of all time. You may think this is not the intent of what Paul is saying here, but if I was to say that God is the savior of all men, and if I meant it in this sense, would you disagree? I would expect most wouldn't. Now, if I were to make such an assertion, that God was in this way the savior of all men. I would then be making a statement about God being a savior, without making any statement of the eternal destiny of those being saved in this fashion. Which is all that we know for certain the text is saying. That God is a savior. But, then we assert that God is much more than just a savior from our temporary plights! To those that believe God is much more. He is the one who saves for all eternity from the wrath of that terrible day of the Lord, in which all men are judged. He is the one who washes us clean of our sin. So not only is He the savior of all men from their temporal plights, He is much more in a special way the savior of those who believe. Now, I find this to be a reading of the text that fits all the pieces of the puzzle. If we claim this is the proper reading we have robbed or slighted no portion of what Paul has stated. But at the end of the day, let us at least admit that what assures us that a reading of this type is the proper one is the rule of faith. What I mean that ofcourse there are other possiblities that while would seem to fit this passage just fine, those readings do make this passage the enemy and at odds with the rest of scripture. Therefore, if we have two possible interpretations of a single passage and both of them are equally fitting yet one contradicts the whole of scripture and one is in harmony with all of scripture, are we not bound to choose the interpretation in harmoney with scripture? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
442 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219976 | ||
Light, Let me clarify my thoughts in a few concise statements, so that any further statements I make in a less organized way aren't misunderstood. 1. I believe that none who come to saving faith and repentance through Christ will ever loose their salvation. 2. I believe all scripture when rightly understood agrees with itself, therefore this passage can not be teaching the elect loosing their salvation. 3. I believe that this is a difficult passage, and therefore we can not simply say it says one thing without a strong defense, and then wonder why people don't just "believe it" to be the right interpretation. 4. Anytime, anywhere in scripture that I can not see -why- an author said what he did when he did, then I assume there is something I have not fully understood yet, even though I might understand the passage for the most part. Some of the best insights I've gleaned in the past why preparing sermons, was when I refused to stop until I knew why the train of thought went from one subject to the next the way it did. 5. I do not see why at this point in time, the author of Hebrews decided to present a hypothetically impossible situation about loosing salvation. I can understand somebody doing that, and I can understand the values of it as Spurgeon presented it, though I can not understand how that particular thing fits into what the author of hebrews was saying before and after he said it. 6. Because I can not see how it fits with that context, I assume there is something I do not yet grasp about the passage. That could mean that Spurgeon is right, and I just need to figure out how it fits. Or, that could mean Spurgeon is wrong. But what it certainly means is that I haven't fully figured it out yet and therefore I must keep questioning my understanding of the passage and putting it to the test. That sums up my thoughts on it, I hope it helped clarify what I am thinking. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
443 | Is Salvation lump sum? | Heb 7:25 | Beja | 219950 | ||
Dodoy, I apologize for my other post where I asked about your take on the sabbath/first day debate. Had I read your profile the answer would have been obvious. My bad. Also, I do think you have been taught wrongly on a great many things. However, please let me hold off to write you why, and give scriptual support this coming week. I ask this because I do believe you ask for this in sincerity and from scripture rather than my opinion. As a result, I think you deserve a quality, scripture supported answer. This I can not give such as you and the question deserver at 10:30 PM before I preach the next morning. So, be patient and this week I will write you an answer on this that is fitting. If I think it is too long to trouble the forum with I'll send it to the address in your profile. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
444 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 219949 | ||
Dodoy, I have one question. In your mind what are the implications of what you are saying? Is it just a minute of accuracy in a detail? Or is there some practice or doctrine of the Church that you think this weighs on? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
445 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219947 | ||
Light, I've finally managed to read part 10 and 11 of Spurgeon's sermon, and I must say I was hoping for more on how this fits into the context. I am not saying he is wrong or right, but due to the great contention over this passage I was hoping he would make his case stronger. Basically I think if one was to debate the issue and argue his view (not that we are debating) two things would need to be established in light of what he said. 1. First it would need to be established that the notion of unshakeable salvation was so imbedded into the author and reader's thinking, that they would have understood an impossible situation was being discussed as Spurgeon is suggesting. My point being that there is no such assertion in the text. The only way you can put it there is to consider it "a given." For those who might find this alarming, once again I do not believe you can loose your salvation. 2. Second, Spurgeon adressed what would be the point of stating an impossible situation, but he did not explain the point trying to be accomplished by telling us this in Hebrews chapter 6. In other words, how does this reading of the passage fit with what comes both before and after it in the book of Hebrews. Once again, I'm not saying he was wrong. I'm just saying that I'd like to hear somebody explain those things. Once again, thank you for posting it. I enjoyed it very much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
446 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219883 | ||
Light, Thank you for posting this! I very much enjoyed reading it. However, I can't say for certain I agree with him. Help me think through this to make sure I understand his point. (I say this sincerely with no sarcasim.) His point is that the author is in reality presenting an impossible scenario. He is talking about true saved people, he is talking about real falling away of saved people, and he asserts that such a situation would render salvation impossible for that individual. Only the author of Hebrews point is that this could never happen. Now, to me the real crucial point of such a take on the passage, is that you must show a reason the author of Hebrews would have said this. It has to contribute to his arguement in some way or form. In other words, why would the author of Hebrews have ever brought up a situation that will never happen? It has to have some contribution to the larger context. Now, if I understand correctly, Spurgeon would have asserted that the contribution to the larger context would be as follows... In verses 1-3, the author is stating a desire to push on to things of maturity. Stating in verse 3 that, "this we will do if God, Permits." That being said, our text under scrutiny is the reason he is so confident that they will be able to push on to maturity. His arguement being thus... The recipients would push on to maturity Because if they were to have finally fallen away, Then there would be no hope of salvation for them, Yet none of us would believe such a thing, So therefore we have confidence they will press on And finally in verse 9 he reasserts his confidence and presses on with the discussion. Is this how you would understand this passages contribution to the greater context, as simply the reason we can push on with confidence? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
447 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219867 | ||
Justme, Yes, it does indeed go right along with what I was trying to say. I regret to hear that you have such a vivid example. God is still saving soul's though, and the day may come that he knows Christ in truth. I'll join you in praying to that end. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
448 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219833 | ||
Am I to understand that you are saying that the IF is connected to everything that comes before rather than to the IF they fall away? Such that the passage reads more along the lines of, if they are all these things, they can not fall away? I'm not certain this is what you are saying, but in the greek the word IF is not present at all. It is how a particular translation chooses to translate the participle "falling away." In other words if that is what you are saying it is literally an impossible interpretation of the passage. Since the IF is literally coming from the word "fall away" itself. What translation are you quoting? The NASB doesn't insert the IF. Basically your dealing with the participle form of "fall away." Which could be translated many different ways. It could be "after falling away" "when falling way" "since they fell away". The only way you get the if into the sentence at all, is if you choose to translate that participle as conditional, which would render it "if they fall away." Therefore you could not translate it conditional and then say the if was with another part of the passage. The very insertion of the word if is tied to how "falling away" connects to the sentence. Hope that made sense. Regardless, I wasn't intending to discuss your interpretation of Hebrew, only to interact with the discussion it prompted. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
449 | wednsday or friday Jesus died | NT general Archive 1 | Beja | 219821 | ||
Just a note. Protei does indeed mean "first." Its not hard to understand how this could extend to mean "chief" in certain contexts. Such as when we say the phrase "first among equals." At such times it takes on the idea of foremost, or cheif. Also, Sabbatou does indeed mean sabbath as in saturday, but it also can be used to refer to the entire period of time of a sabbath and in that sense basically takes on the meaning of "a week." So when it says "protei sabbatou" it is completely legitimate to translate it "first of the week" which would be sunday. Which is how all the translations, of which I am aware, translated it. So that being said I think we'd need great reason to state that every translation committee ever formed wrongly translated this text while we ourselves have discovered the right meaning. The very first flag that I have gotten it wrong, for me in my personal translating, is that no translation agrees with me. However, that is just food for thought. The person you are responding to wrote his post in 2003 if I saw correctly, so you may not get a response depending on if he still frequents these forums. All that said, welcome to the forums and I hope you are benefited greatly by it! In christ, Beja |
||||||
450 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219818 | ||
Val, You've stated that these refer to proofs of salvation, not means of salvation. To that I say a hearty amen. I'm sorry if what I typed sounded like I meant otherwise. Though I would prefer the term evidence rather than proof but I think we are of the same mind in that. The point I was trying to make is that these are evidences that God brings about in us, and not from our own doing. Not only this, but these evidences (continuing to trust in Christ via the gospel) are things that God always work in us. Therefore in situations where there is a lack of them, we say no salvation has occurred. Not because they are necessary as a means, but they always flow as a result. This is the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. That those whom God saves, He also keeps in the faith throughout their life. Summing it up: Saving faith is a life long faith. I hope this helps to clarify, my first response didn't go through but perhaps that was God's mercy. It was written hastily before church this morning and this one has a bit more organization to it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
451 | Truth or Consequences | John 3:16 | Beja | 219815 | ||
Colton, you have stated that when you read scripture, your practice is to pray and see if it agrees with the Holy Spirit inside you. I would submit this scripture to you for you to pray over. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." I would ask you to ask a few questions as you pray over this passage. From where does it say that Timothy has learned the things he is sure of? Isn't it the sacred writings? Does this teach that all scripture is inspired? Or does it teach some of it is mixed with error? Where does this teach that we learn all the things we ought about walking in life as a Christian? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
452 | Heb. 6:4-6 Security | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 219808 | ||
I think we need to be slow with this issue. Our modern time has taken a biblical concept, "once saved always saved," and added some very unbiblical thoughts to this. This is often used to argue that a person who is completely devoid of any fruits of the spirit, most notably repentance, is saved because we remember them making a profession early in life. Sometimes it is foolishly even applied to those who once professed faith but no longer even believe the gosple. What has happened is that we have striped the doctrine away from "the perseverance of the saints." Those who are saved are indeed saved eternally, but they are also kept in the faith by the power of God. Consider passages like the one in Hebrews, but also Colossians 1:21-23, Galatians 5:2-5, Hebrews 3:5-6,14. This list could be expanded but if you look up these passages you get the point. We can not simply explain away all of these. We must finally reach the point that we admit that turning from the gospel is indeed fatal. And by fatal I mean eternally damning unless there is later repentence and faith. Keep in mind the issue here is not that we sin, but that we turn from the gospel. Once saved always saved? Yes, but saving faith is life long faith. To have a faith that only lasts a certain season is to show it was not true faith at all. Is this not in harmony with Johnn when he says in 1 John 2:19 that they went out from us but weren't really of us? And that they went out from us for the purpose of showing that they were not really of us? Is this not what Jesus is portraying in the parable of the soils when he shows two soils that apparently received the gospel quickly but then later showed that they weren't the good soil? So, it would be far better that we hold tightly to the "Perseverance of the Saints" rather than to "Once saved always saved." Both teach that salvation can not be lost, but one clings fast to the doctrine of perseverance at the same time, and assures that new Christians are not ambushed by the passages I listed, and as a result think eternal security is refuted. Brother John, just for clarification I don't lay any of this at your feet personally, but only used your post as an excuse to preach. God bless you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
453 | Love is not a feeling | John 13:1 | Beja | 219719 | ||
Dear Yen, Its with a bit of hesitancy that I've chosen to write this in response, and to be perfectly honest my primary motive in writing it is so that John does not have to respond in the midst of being offended at what you just wrote, but rather another brother may respond. To be to the point, I've watched a series of your posts, scripture references, sarcasms and subtle statements all be ment for a single purpose, to insult somebody. Rather than recap other posts lets simply let this post speak for itself. First, you put things into John's mouth that he never said. You claimed you found other quotes from "your favorite Author, and Psychiatrist." Second you said that you can see, "that he is in your estimation, a perfect example of the type of person that could truly express the kind of love as taught by Jesus, in the Bible." Did John make either of these assertions? No, rather you inserted them into his own mouth simply because he stated one quote by the man which he thought to be well phrased. But more than that, why did you put these words into his mouth? So that you could then attack John via shaming the man he quoted. Perhaps you would respond that your intentions were purely noble and only that you intended to gently teach the lesson that we should be careful who we quote. But anybody who intended to do that could have easily pointed out the flaws in the man he quoted with kindness and simply offered that John not tie himself too tightly to this man's thinking. That is not what you did, rather you worded your post so that when you refuted Scott Peck, you could do the greatest possible shame to John. Your "politeness" that you paint your posts with does not hide the venom they contain. To my brother, John. You have every right to be offended. So does Christ each and every time we offend him with our sin. Yet his glorious grace overlooks our sin, and so let us immitate him by ignoring our own right to be offended, and loving in kind where it is not deserved. Let your peace be that your brothers see clearly such posts for what they are, but more importantly that our Lord does. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
454 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217287 | ||
Dear Val, I have no idea what I've said to offend you. Or to make you think I'm just interested in labeling people. If I recall when the conversation ended you had asked me to provide some scripture for the thoughts I had been forwarding? After some time, for which I apologized, I've come back with some scriptures laying out how Paul sees the promises to Abraham, and giving verses to show how scripture does not see them to "national Israel." I am seriously confused how the response I get is "We are just trying to study the bible and have been brought to a conclusion that you want to label and refute." Why did my presenting a scriptual arguement offend you? Why not just point out what was wrong with the scriptures I forwarded if they were off base? Also if what was offending you was my explination to Doc of what view I was arguing contrary to, then I'm not sure how that offended you either. Did I missrepresent the view? I was trying to give a fair explination of it and admitedly I might have failed since it is not my view that I was trying to explain. However, I thought I had explained it fairly. From your being upset I feel I got it wrong, but for what you said about God and Israel in your response I think I got it right. Regardless, I'm happy to let the discussion go if you wish, I only brought it back up because I've felt horrible this past month that I had said I would bring some scriptures and then failed to do so in how busy I got. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
455 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217270 | ||
Doc, I almost did restart it, but I feared some would want to know what came before and would need the connection. There are many who believe that the Jews are destined to receive rewards outside of those which are to all believers through Christ by virtue of their being Jews. The argue that they have specially land promises coming especially, because they believe that the promises to Abraham are specifically to national Israel, not to all elect in Christ. It is this view that I am attempting to refute. So given that context I think the question is a fair one. But truely, in "church" I do mean all elect of all time, including those of Jewish decent. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
456 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 217267 | ||
I am resurrecting a long dead post here, but I do so because I left it promising to return with some scripture support for it, since then I have had deaths of friends, and abundant interruptions from my church. I've been very swamped and I apologize that I simply abandoned the thread when I had been asked some very fair questions. I had been in a discussion with Val, and a Keily if I recall correctly. Now I finally have just a bit of time and wish to go ahead and post some scriptures for consideration. The discussion was about dispensationalism and the idea that the Church is the true Isreal. What I'd like to put forward right now is an arguement from scriptre that the Church, not Israel, rightly claims the promises made to Abraham. These promises were two fold 1) Promises of Land 2)Promises to be the tool through which He blesses the whole world. For sake of time and space I leave you each to look up the verses I reference here. Here is the defense: Who receives the promises to Abraham? The Church or Israel? First, note that there were promises specifically to the nation of Israel concerning land, however these promises were conditional on their obedience, and they were fulfilled, then later lost through disobedience. Deut 30:16-20 Joshua 21:43-45 However, in Genesis there were unconditional eternal promises made to Abraham. These are the promises we are concerned with. Who were the unconditional promises made to? First we see that the promises to Abraham were made to him and to his seed. Gen 15:8 Gen 17:6-8 Gen 26:4 Gen 26:4 Gen 28:14 It is extremely importand to note that in every instance the word "seed" is singular, not plural. How does Paul interpret the promises in Genesis? Galatians 3:16 says that the "seed" that was being spoken of is Christ. In other words, the unconditional promises in Genesis are not promises to the nation of Israel, but the promises were made to Jesus Christ, according to Paul. Paul says that the law, including its conditional temporary land promises to Israel that are made throughout Exodus, Num, and Deut. were all temporary promises made while we were waiting for the one who owned the eternal promises. Galatians 3:19. If you then look at Galatians 3:22-29, especially verses 22,26-29. Paul then goes on to explain that to the extent that we are in Christ through faith, we join Christ as heirs of these promises. In verse 29 he actually says that "if you belong to Christ, the you are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to promise." Who was the promise made to? Abraham and his SEED, which paul has here explained, the seed is Christ and those who belong to Christ. So the great promises to Abraham belong to the church, not the nation of Israel. I hope this is helpful, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
457 | Why is the Christian Church so divided? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 217266 | ||
Good thoughts Doc, sadly I find that the churches in my particular area of my particular denomination are every bit as hostile towards other denominations as could possibly be feared. It would seem that the pastors whom I am following in the foot steps of saw fit to do everything they could to demonize anybody and everybody who didn't agree to our particular fine points of doctrine. Many of the churches I am working among would see all other denominations as nothing more than cults! And ofcourse that leaves me defending "cults" in their mind. You can even catch flak for reading books written by those outside our denomination (which I do abundantly.) Pray for me! Anyways, sadly my point is that in some areas the churches are just as hostile towards each other as a person might dare to suggest, despite the overwhelming common ground we share. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
458 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216068 | ||
Doc, I'm afraid it was nothing so meaningful. A pastor friend of mine had a very young daughter who would often say words backwards. When she tried to say my name it came out "Beja." Ever since then it has just been my name for any such thing when you select something other than your real name. And no, that isn't at all the reverse of my name so I'm not sure how she came to that. In Love, Beja |
||||||
459 | world vs age | Gen 1:5 | Beja | 216047 | ||
FTK, 2 Corinthians 7:9-11 "I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, sot hat you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow has produced in you; what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what lo9nging, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter." Consider this passage. The difference between the anguish the world feels and the anguish that we as Christians feel is not warm and happy versus sad, but rather the difference lies in one sorrow over sin leading to death and one sorrow over sin leading to repentance and life. If you would suggest to me, "Ah! but look at the end result!" Then ofcourse, nobody here would argue with you that the end result of God's dealings with His children are to their ultimate good and joy! But what do we find here is the road to that ultimate good and joy? We find that God's word pierces deep into our hearts and creates painful sorrow and anguish over our sins in order to produces repentance in us. God's word cuts deep, it wounds our pride and selfishness in order that it may ultimately heal us. You tell us that we must be cautious and weigh the scripture according to how they make us feel, yet John urges us to rather test what we are told by scriptural standards, by the confessions of what we believe about Christ! (John 4:1ff) Surely this bedrock we must test it against is scripture's revelation of Christ. You challenge our confidence in God's word by pointing out that a word can have multiple meanings. Ofcourse they can. They do also in English and greek is no different. Context shapes the meaning's of words. If we were climbing a cliff face and I told you to "give me your hand" you would not stop and point out to me that the word "hand" could mean 5 cards in a game of poker, a piece of a clock which points to either minutes or hours, that it could be a verb and therefore I'm using it wrongly etc. The fact that it can mean various things would no way disturb your trust in what I meant in that particular moment. You are discovering what a novice of language discovers: words have different meanings in different contexts. Do you think Peter was ignorant of this fact when he uttered, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20,21) Do you think Peter would revoke his statment of confidence in scripture due to finding out that words have different meanings in various contexts! Unfortunately the scriptures assume the capacity to read. Part of this capacity is grasping context and how that shapes words. Your own example gives evidence of this! You quote our Lord in saying that my words shall not pass away! Then you tell us it could mean either to come or to go! Could really both actually equally be what He meant? If you say yes then you show your "hand" in that you don't have the skill to determine the obvious. If you say no then you rob yourself of your own example. Am I being harsh here? Will you respond of how I have unduely taken offence? Will you challenge the bedrocks of assurance in which newly converted Christians place their faith telling them to trust their own hearts instead then wonder that those who keep watch over them rebuke you sternly? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
460 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 215115 | ||
Dear Strts5, The reason that there is confusion over this is that in Greek a noun can be "definite" without the article. There are many reasons that it can be so. The one probably in light here is the idea of a proper noun. There is enough parallel in english that we could understand this. For example when you say, "I'm reading a post from, Beja." You do not understand it as "a Beja" but rather "the Beja." The one and only is still in mind even without the article. This happens in greek also along with many other reasons a noun can be "definite" without the article. In Love, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [26] >> |