Results 461 - 480 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | speaking in tounges | 1 Cor 12:30 | Beja | 215111 | ||
Dear Azure, While you are getting at something very important in your post, namely that the focus should be on the edification of others, your post concerns me on one account. I very well may be misreading your post but I get the impression that you are saying something along the lines of: -Paul was catagorically dismissing speaking in tongues as an intrussion of pagan religion into Christianity. The main evidence that it is not truely a spiritual gift was that it does not edify other men.- Now, if I've misread you, forgive me. However, if I am correct allow me to give you a few verses to consider. 1 Cor 14:5 "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues but even more that you would prophesy." While Paul clearly says that tongues is a less desirable gift in comparison to the ones that edify the Church as a whole, he still claims it is a desirable gift. Next, he even claims this as a gift he participates in. 1 Cor 14:18 "I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all" And if there is any doubt whether he was referring to a speaking in tongues that others could not understand he continues in the next verse to say... 1 Cor 14:19 "however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue." So while you are touching on a very much needed point in charismatic circles, namely that they have over desired and over emphasized speaking in tongues rather than gifts that edify the church, do not go so far as to read Paul as condeming this as a non Christian gift. For Paul's summary is this: Pursue love, desire prophecy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Cor 14:1,39) But as I said, if I've misread your statements, forgive me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
462 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214954 | ||
Dear Val, Alright, I've got a few in mind, but give me a bit to collect my thoughts on it. I think we are both in agreement that the author of the book of Hebrews in chapter 8 is stating that this "new covenant" is entirely a Christian covenant. It is the very New covenant that Christ's blood inaugerated in the gospels. Now, if we agree on this, next go back to Jeremiah chapter 31 and read about the promise that the new covenant was coming. And notice that this new covenant is explicitly promised to Israel and Judah. There is no mention of the gentiles in relation to this covenant. Now, how is it that the author of Hebrews sees this covenant as fulfilled in Christ, which is clearly a covenant made to all those in Christ, the church? This is just one example of what I'm talking about. The New Testament routinely takes the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament and claims them for the followers of Christ. My arguement in our discussion will be that these promises were always pointing to what was going to happen in Christ and in the Church. But at the time people could no have fully grasped what was going to take place. They couldn't have understood that God's national kingdom was always something that was meant to prefigure his Spiritual kingdom. This is the kingdom he referred to speaking to Pilate when he said that, My kingdom is not of this world." That was the intense confusion over his coming, they all thought He was going to begin a physical worldly kingdom, but the surprise was all along the prophets had meant the kingdom of Christianity, in which Christ even now sits as king enthroned at the right hand of the Father in heaven. That is the view I will be arguing, for now consider the Hebrews 8 new covenant in relation to Jeremiah 31. In Love, Beja In Love, Beja |
||||||
463 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214952 | ||
Dear Keily, You've provided me just the very thing to finally drag out exactly the difference in our view points. You said, "Interpreting Historically means simply that passages must be interpreted in the way the people would take them at the time the human author wrote them." I have spent most of my life in complete agreement with this statement. This statement leads to the views you hold, the assumptions I hold, lead to my particular views. You are exactly correct that the people at their time would have heard these promises to regard a national Israel. However, it is my belief, that the apostles, Jesus, and the new testament as a whole disagree with this. I believe those took all these promises and saw the fulfillment of these promises in Christ and in the Church. I hold to your statement in almost all areas of interpretation except the promises granted to Israel which I see as our promises in Christ. That is the heart of where we have been disagreeing the past several days. In my discussion with Val it has now become my task to give some specific support for why I say that is so. That will be coming if not today (two days of vacation left!) but I'll probably get around to it sooner than when I go home. As I said, its hard for me to look down on your view since all good sense and just an honest approach to scripture would certainly begin with such a view. I've just been convinced (rightly or wrongly) that scripture doesn't hold that view. And thank you for your explination, it sounds like we do hold the same view on salvation in the various times. In Love, Beja |
||||||
464 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214869 | ||
Val, You have said so much in that post. I wish to honor what you've asked with regards to dropping labels, but to fill in what dispensationals think with regards to Israel and the Church...they believe that the Old Testament promises are specifically for national Israel. The two should never be confused. My stance that I"m arguing is that the promises for Israel made in the Old testament, are really promises that are fulfilled in Christ and in the Church. That is the heart of what is being discussed and disagreed upon. Now, those who think as I do, do not look to national Israel to fulfill a hosts of promises. However, God is not done with ethnic Israel in this view point either. Paul is clear that they will be restored (Romans 11) but the implications of that restoration is not a new successful national identity, but rather a large spread conversion to Christ. The people of God, and the promises of God, are found in Christ and in the Church. That's the heart of the disagreement without the passage work explaining why. I understand that somebody who hears this would wonder why anybody would ever come to such a conclusion, shouldn't we just understand Israel to be Israel? And the answer to that is really that it seems the new testament writers do not see fit to make such a distinction. In my understanding, the New Testament offers see all the promises to Israel fulfilled in Christ and the Church. All I can say is as you continue your study, watch how they quote and make use of the Old Testament. Now, the danger in this view is still absent. Why would we take land from Israel? That doesn't fit in anybody's theology. But you are correct that this effectively takes the spot light off of the nation of Israel and puts it onto the church. There is not a plan for the Church, and a plan for Israel. There is one plan for the people of God and that has always been salvation by grace through faith in the promises of Christ. I'm not sure about our capability of carrying this discussion further, I think you and I are pretty clear about the differences of the views now between the two of us. But we'd have to work through a great many scriptures to talk it out. Your last post was very clear and excellently presented your view point, but you also illustrated just what a massive discussion we've begun. Whether we like it or not, we've embarked upon systematic theology at this point rather than single passage exegisis. In Love, Beja |
||||||
465 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214868 | ||
Keily, Perhaps I am in fact misunderstanding your stance. To help me clarify, could you tell me what you see as the means of acquiring salvation in the various dispensations. Perhaps this question will not help me to understand, but it might drag out the distinctives in your stance for me. In Love, Beja |
||||||
466 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214862 | ||
Dear Wild Olive Shoot, That really has become the next question hasn't it? And a very fair one I might add. First, it is important to consider that the first time we see tithing is not in the law, but rather in Abraham tithing to Melchizedek in Genesis Chapter 14. Now, why would Abraham do this? My suggested answer is that God had taught his people more about relating to Him than is revealed to you and I in the first 14 chapters of Genesis. I think the notion of honoring God with the first fruits of your increase is a moral teaching that God has always taught His people before even the law. It is a moral issue because it is not a matter of symbolism, but rather a matter of Christlikeness (being a giver) and a matter of honoring God. This is the very essensce of being a moral issue rather than ceremony. Now, I will grant this is hardly an answer that proves my view point as it relies very heavily on my assumptions I bring to that passage to interpret it. A second reason that it makes sense to me is that this is exactly how you would teach a child to become a giver. I have a daughter, I will require my daughter to give in order to help shape her into a giver. Now, the goal is for her to become somebody who gives without compulsion. But in order to create that you don't just say to a child, do whatever you please and I shall hope you choose what is good. No, first you require some giving in order to teach them that this is important, and in my family we will do so. Second, you encourage, bless, and praise further giving so that the child is moving from knowing this is important, to developing a taste and love for it. This is exactly what I perceive God to be doing in tithes and offerings. Now, I whole heartedly agree that what I have said does not prove my stance. But as I said in a previous post, I very much appreciate the view point of a Christian that says we are to give willingly and sacrificially and if we follow the Spirit's lead in this its probably going to be more than a tenth. I would not spend my time arguing with such a generous heart. My entrance in this discussion was instead based on the answers assuming a dispensational view point for instruction. Hope this helps. In Love, Beja |
||||||
467 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214860 | ||
Since I've said so very much, I might as well go ahead and share what I believe is the "tell" in dispensational thinking. I use this word in the sense that it is used in a poker game. In poker, a "tell" is something that reveals what's going on in somebody's hand. For example they may get giggly during a good hand, or fidget with their ear, or try to act cool in an obvious way. In the same sense I believe that dispensational theology has a glaring "tell" that while it does not prove it is wrong, it should give us all a very serious flag that it is wrong. The "tell" of dispensational thinking is how many times they will say with regards to scripture, "that doesn't apply to us." Their view of massive portions of scripture is that was meant for them, and this is meant for us. Something in our gut ought to feel very uneasy about such statements, especially made so frequently. The NT writers thought differently. See 1 Corinthians 10 where Paul is describing the Exodus and wanderings in the wilderness when in verse 6 he says, "Now these things happened as examples for us." The point was for our teaching! Second in 1 Peter 1:10-12 it says, "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of CHrist within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of CHrist and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but YOU" The New testament seems to be written under the assumption that the things in the Old Testament were for us! While I would not say this proves dispensational thought wrong, it is the most glaring thing that we should all feel wrong with it, in my opinion. In Love, Beja |
||||||
468 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214857 | ||
Hey Tim, I'll gladly grant the term Israel of promise. And this mainly comes into play as we see that all the promises to Israel were our promises and points to Christ. The effect this has on the law is very much secondary. But let me elaborate on how I see that affecting Christians. First, we have to deal with how Jesus discuses the law in Matthew Chapter 5. Our instructor is no merely Paul, but he entirety of the scripture (a view I know you wholely agree with.) In Matthew 5:17-20 Christ says not to think he came to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it. Second and perhaps more important for our current discussion He states that whoever teaches to not do one of the commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Now, unless we wish to argue that Christ was giving a command that was specifically only meant to be in place in the span of time between when he said this and when he died on the cross then this command is on us. I do not think that Matthew, chose to include a command that he thought to be obsolete. So I confess to you that my assumption is that in some sense Matthew 5:19 is binding on christian believers. Now, following that, we see from other places in scripture, Paul and Hebrews come to mind, that sacrifice commands of the Law are certainly gone, second, in Ephesians Paul is clear that the dividing wall of the Law seperating gentiles and God's people is Gone. (I think that's chapter 2.) In that laws that had no lasting moral value but were only meant to seperate Jews from gentiles vanished. So we began to see that if we assume that the whole bible agrees with itself, which I do believe, that scripture must be speaking of the law with different key meanings, and that it leaves Christ to be speaking of ideas such as do not covet, do not steal, do not murder which are moral laws. Here is the point, understanding this distinction in the law is necessary to harmonize scripture, and in truth I do not think it to be twisting scripture but really what was in the minds of its authors. Did Paul see us as still having this moral law? See Ephesians 4:17-24. Paul speaks of the sins they must cast aside in their following Christ and even goes so far to say that if you have learned Christ, you learned that you must do this. Think of the impact of what Paul is saying, if you haven't learned this you have not be rightly taught Christ! I urge you to read that passage now, then finish reading my post so it will be clear in your mind what I speak of. So next, as you say, Paul considers us done with all the law, how do I fit that into my view? First, as just stated, he doesn't see us as completely done with the morality presented in the law. But in another sense he does see us as done with it. He sees this firt in the sense that it no longer holds any sting of condemnation over us. The aspect of it that says, "Do this and live" is gone. We now live by faith. But there is a second way that he sees us finished with it that goes a lot further to explain what we are talking about. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 reveals his thinking on this. And keep in mind he doesn't make his distinction here based on Christians and non Christians. He divides it based on the just and lawless, those who do good and those who do bad. He points out that the law is there to restrain the evil of evil doers, not the good of those who do good. Allow me to sum up what I believe him to be thinking here (but do read the passage). The idea is this, if we are truely following the spirit, and following Christ's leading we will be so far from the idea of stealing that the rule is pointless to us. We will be so far from the idea of murdering that the rule will have no bearing on us. It would be like telling somebody headed to Mexico that they can not go into Canada. The law has no application on one that is constantly asking "How may I most glorify Christ and serve others today?" So the law wholely remains upon us that stealing is wrong, that coveting is wrong, that lying is wrong, that murder is wrong, and we shall not do these things, no will it ever be abolished (as Christ said), it will never be permisable to us. Righteousness did not stope being righteousness when you and I were saved. But in Paul's eyes, "what does that have to do with you and me?" We are bound to Righteousness and following Christ, a restriction holding back the evil of an evil doer is not our concern, following Christ is. I hope this wasn't massively confussing. And at the end of this all I can entirely accept that a brother in Christ doesn't see tithing as one of these moral things such as stealing, lying, coveting, etc. If that is all we disagree on from what I've said its a small departure indeed. In Love, Beja |
||||||
469 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214856 | ||
Dear Val, First, I much welcome the term "inhouse debate" as I know well you and I are like minded on the great majority of our faith, as shown by many posts. Second, perhaps what I said was a mildly bold statement, but lets not make it more so than it really was. What I meant was simply this: in the course of reading scripture I have found dispensational thought to not measure up. Dispensational thought aside, is this not what we want from a Christian? To constantly let their view points be corrected by reading scripture? It was not a claim to being a master of all scripture or a master of all theology, rather a statement that as I have read I have found scripture to have a view point that was contrary to dispensational thought. (I say dispensational thought, but I am specifically thinking of their view point of Israel and the Church.) Third, you said that my view was a dangerous one, and I am uncertain as to which of my view points you refer to. I've talked about Israel/church, Law as it relates to a Christian, and tithing. I am thinking you meant the Israel/church view point and will answer this post assuming that to be the case, but please clarify which view point and also share with me what danger you believe is in it. Finally, a brief offering of passages for you to consider. I've mentioned these in my previous post. Romans 4, 6 and 11 specifically are worth reading. As you read through these ask yourself whether it sounds like Paul is seeing Israel and the Church as two distinct things from beggining to end or rather if he sees Christians as fulfilling what was going on in Israel, or the true children spoken of with regards to abrahams children, or something grafted in, etc. Also there are verses like Galatians 3:7, and Philippians 3:3 to consider. Finally we must account for the fact that very often the apostles themselves do exactly what a dispensational thinkers says they must not do! Namely they take a prophecy which was clearly in reference to Israel and they say it was to be applied to the church. How are we to understand this? A dispensationalist will typically say, "well, the apostles can do what they want since they are inspired." Which may well be true, but what if they did this not because they were inspired to read scripture in a way none of the rest of us could predict, but rather they understood the church to be the rightful and proper heirs to all the promises of God to Israel? The view that the old testament was a series of failed dispensations between God and man in my opinion leaves us with a horribly malnourished view of scripture and sense of God. Granted under that view point all these dispensations were known to be going to fail ahead of time by God. Rather the view point which I would commend to you sees the entire of scripture as one plan, with one end (the cross), exalting one figure (christ.) The promises were always pointing towards the Cross and Christ. Hope this helps clarify and I very much look forward to hearing your concerns with this view as your voice is certainly one I hold with respect on this forum. In Love, Beja |
||||||
470 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214833 | ||
To all who responded to me, My apologies for taking so long to respond! I'm on vacation currently. It seems the discussion has left me behind to the point that my answers now are moot but I'll say a few things. First let me preface with a few points. 1. I in no way ment for my brief answer to be smug. My only intentions were to bring up that there was an entire theological presupposition behind the answers given and if you wanted to be sure of the answers, you had to agree with the presuppositions. I have my own view through which I read scripture, so I don't mean to insult anybody by saying you have presuppositions. 2. I highly respect the view that says we are now to be cheerful givers and that will typically manifest itself in giving much more than a tithe. I don't agree with it, but I certainly respect the brothers and sisters who hold that view. It shows a good heart even if I am correct in thinking it shows flawed assumptions. 3. Finally, I offer further thoughts concerning the church and Israel only in the spirit of enjoyable discussion. My view is that when Christ came what constituted the people of God changed. Not replaced, changed. The people of God was no longer a national identity, but with the influx of all believers of all peoples it grew into the church. Galatians 3, Romans 4 and 9 and 11 reflect this view point. All the promises of Israel belong to us, the church, not the nation. (with a few exceptions that are extremely short term promises.) So the old testament is not ancient history that has no meaning to us because it was God's working with a different people. That is the story of God dealing with his people, of whom we are a part. The question comes then, am I saying we still are under the law? Not in the same sense the jews were. The law of sacrifices, the laws of ceremonial distinctions for the sake of keeping jews visably seperate from other nations, no, those have nothing to do with us except to teach us that we as Christians are to be distinct, or to teach us as Christians something about what Christ's sacrifice meant. The moral laws however, not to steal, not to covet, not to murder...shall any of you argue that those are not the expectations of our God on us today? They no longer carry the sting of judgement for those who are in Christ but as an expectation they do. In fact living in sin with regards to these things without repentance is a pretty good indication that somebody has never come to Christ by faith and repentance. So the question then becomes where do tithes fall into place in this scheme? My opinion, its a moral issue. So in summary, I believe the Church is the true Israel. Why? Because I think Paul and therefore the new testament teaches that. And IF that is what the New Testament teaches, all our arguements mean nothing. I don't care how much or how little you think it makes sense, I intend to subject my thinking to correction by scripture. I use to hold a dispensational view, after enough reading of scripture, I saw that needed correcting. Sorry if this is unclear, I am on vacation without my books, also clearly I mean to offer this as explination of my views rather than a detailed defense. In Love, Beja |
||||||
471 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Beja | 214801 | ||
The answers being given which argue that malachi chapter 3 doesn't apply to the church are arguing from a dispensational view point with regards to the church and Israel. As dispensational thought falls, so do their answers. I leave you all to your own thoughts on this. As for me I think it does apply to us. In Love, Beja |
||||||
472 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214116 | ||
Val, I'll certainly try to visit that link soon, probably won't be today with all the church things. However, I have heard the arguement before about the first ressurection being in phases, and right now all I can say is it seems completely ad hoc. Meaning that there is no reason anybody would believe this from scripture except for the fact that the pre trib view is sunk without it. Therefore if you want to believe pretrib you must buy into this idea also. But perhaps this link will provide a better arguement for it than I've heard in the past. I'll look at it and let you know. As I've always said, if the pre-trib stance could provide a good arguement I'd certainly like to believe them! Who would want to believe we'd be here for that? But I will go look at it with as much of an open mind as possible as soon as I have oportunity. In Love, Beja |
||||||
473 | Rapture | Rev 20:1 | Beja | 214114 | ||
crk, There might be more to think about than just rev 3:9-10. In fact, I find pretrib rapture very hard to argue in light of a couple passages. 1 Thess 4:13-18 make it plainly clear that the dead in Christ will rise(the ressurection) before the rapture. Second when we turn to Revelations 20:4,5 we see that in the FIRST ressurection are those who died for refusing to take the mark of the beast. Now, I feel confident that you yourself believe the mark of the beast happens during the tribulation. So lets put this together, the rapture will not happen until after the first ressurection. The first ressurection will not happen until after the mark of the beast, and the mark of the beast will not happen until during the tribulation. As for Revelations 3:9-10, I'd like to suggest to you that a ratpure is not God's only way of keeping people from evil. Check out Isaiah 57:1 as an example. You just might be misunderstanding God's intentions. In Love, Beja |
||||||
474 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 214065 | ||
Bill, First of many points and perhaps most importantly, you responded to nothing I said previously. I mean this in the sense that you apparently had no ability to show those scriptures either invalid, or misrepresented by myself. If you and I are actually going to arrive anywhere in a discussion, those points must be dealt with. Because a trust in scripture is the only starting point we could possibly have. Now, you did respond to what I said in another sense, in that you suggested to me that the implications of what I am saying would not be something I hold to and therefore I myself must abandon the statement because of that. That appears to me to be your logic in your last post. Your critiques however show that you do not understand any of what a person with my views actually believes. I'd like to state a few that would help with some of your specific objections. I'm not going to spend the time scripture hunting for all these, I have no illusions of convincing you of anything at this point, I merely want to give you a hint of what scripture teaches in these things. First, the Old Testament Law consists of two parts, the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral law consists of right and wrong, the cermonial law were simply temporary ordinances which were meant to depict what was coming in Christ. When Christ came, he did away with the ceremonial law because all these were pointing to something coming in Him. (I say these things not from picking and choosing but because this is what scripture says about itself) So things like eating regulations, sowing a field with two seeds, mixed cloths in clothing, sacrificial system, all this was done away with. The laws concerning right and wrong and morality however remain in a sense. The reason being, that even though Christ has destroyed the law's ability to condemn those who have faith in Christ, the moral law is still a picture of perfect righteousness, and hence how are we to dicard something such as that? Another major problem is you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of one time commands. You remarked that we would need to kill our enemies such as Moses or Joshua. Surely anybody of any intelligence at all can see that in such passages God is commanding the death of certain particular sinners by the hands of His people rather than commanding some holy jihad against our enemies! Lets not throw out such silly statements as we discuss these things, for you know that there is no compulsion to see scripture in that way. In short, the fact that scripture is all or none does not mean to rob scripture of its own sense of progressive revelation that it teaches! The scripture shows us how to interpret such things, so believeing all of scripture to be inerrant forces none of the silly things that you are accusing us of. Also, with regards to Jesus' gospel we certainly should not take his Isaiah teaching as a comprehensive explination of His gospel! Jesus Himself never even said as much, he simply said that today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. You seem to be completely unaware of all the many statements Jesus said concerning those who believe in him have life and those who do not don't. He fleshes out His Gospel in many places in his own teachings, friend. There is so many things you are saying to correct that I can not hope to correct them all, and even if I could you would not hear because you begin with the most fundamental error of all. That God's word is not trustworthy. Oh, and yes, I do believe 5 point calvinism, and I think you'll find it in the gospel of John if you want to hear it from Jesus. A good deal of it can be found in John chapter 6. In Love, Beja |
||||||
475 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 214060 | ||
Bill, 1 Peter 1:20-21 "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." We see that the Bible does claim to be inspired by God and therefore not by man's authority. It is not Jesus versus Peter, it is Jesus along with the other word's of God. 2 Peter 3: 15-16 "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." And here we see Peter claim that Paul's writing are also to be considered scripture. As well the key comment about the wisdom that was "given him." Paul's teaching was given him by God, which he defends very aggresively in Galatians. Scripture clearly teaches its own authority and inspiration by God. But lets take a look at something Christ Himself said since that is your focus. Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." We can see clearly that Jesus Himself rebukes anybody who would teach that the Law is invalid. This would be Moses, whom you said a Christian shouldn't be teaching you to follow. Scripture is an all or none I'm afraid. Any part you wish to choose will rebuke you for the part you reject. Every part of it is inspired by God and therefore inerrent. Finally, I want to bring up what might be a touchy correction. And that is that I would gently and humbly ask you to beware pride. That may sound like a surprising thing for me to say but there is one thing that is absolutely essential to your view. And that thing is that in order to believe what you say, you must assume that essentially every Christian throughout history must be deluded and not intelligent enough to see what you deem obvious. I assure you many men of which we will be hard pressed to find their equal today has set their minds to these things. Yet you hold your mind to have trumped them all. Now I do not suggest that you have ever openly thought of it this way, but whether you have or not you must believe that in order to so freely correct all of Christian history. Beware pride, friend. 1 Cor 3:18 "Let no man deceive himself If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise" In Love, Beja |
||||||
476 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | Beja | 213897 | ||
I'm sorry if what I posted made it sound like we don't know what state we are going to be in, that is not at all what I meant. It is my opinion that what John was talking about in the verse I posted was that we aren't sure all the ways our heavenly bodies (as it is called by paul) are going to be distinct from our earthly ones. I think that is all he was referring to, not that it is uncertain if we will have human bodies. If my post sounded that way then I certainly apologize. Like I said though, the high light for me is going to be that we finally are free from this cursed inclination towards sin, that we can finally stop being our own worst enemies as far as righteousness is concerned. The main point I was wanting to introduce is that there is no need to speculate as to every aspect of what is going to be different since it is clearly not known. Thank you for clarifying my post if it sounded as if it meant more. In Love, Beja |
||||||
477 | The people that never heard of Jesus? | Rom 1:20 | Beja | 213836 | ||
Vintage, You are sorely in error here. The entire idea in this section of romans is that this group of people are without excuse. The entire point is that the idea of some noble minded, good man out there who perished and just didn't get a fair shake is a myth that Paul is purposely doing away with in this passage. Pay close attention to verses 18-20. Also, consider chapter 3, verse 9. This is a key verse for interpreting everything that has come before because in it he states what in his mind is what has already been covered, "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin." The entirety of Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that nobody is excusable. Not through ignorance, not through presuming on God's mercy, not through hearing the law, not through doing the law, not from anything at all. We are all under God's righteous judgement. Understanding this, is key to understanding the amazing gospel that follows in 3:21 and on. There is no second arrangement! There is no other criteria of judgement! It is Christ or the inexcusable law. The fact the gentiles have it written on their hearts IS what makes them without excuse! Because deep down they knew what was right and they chose evil anyways. NOBODY will arrive at heaven and hear God say, "Gee, you never got a chance to hear my gospel, and you didn't get the law, but I see you always did right by your concience, come on in to heave because you are a good guy!" EVERYBODY has chosen wrong, sin and wickedness, and we will all be judged apart from Christ. I would give a much more thorough and organized defense of what I've stated, but its 2:15 am here right now and I just logged on because I couldn't sleep. I look forward to the more well laid statements of what I've just said that are sure to come! In Love, Beja |
||||||
478 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213748 | ||
CDBJ Your statement: "I don’t see faith as something that grows or the necessity for it." 1thessalonians 1:3 "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged.." 2 Corinthians 10:15 "not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men's labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be..." In Love, Beja |
||||||
479 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213725 | ||
After reading over my last post to you, I can see I was pretty horridly unclear, I usually am when trying to explain greek. I understand greek in my head but I do a poor job of explaining it, I'll try once more, not for any reason of trying to be right, or trying to win an arguement, but simply because reading over my last post it was painfully unclear. First, the list you posted is true: Verb: Participle Tense: Present Voice: Middle or passive deponent Case: Accusative Gender: Masculine Person: ---- Number: Singular That's all true. My point's were two. First: Middle/passive deponent This by definition means a word that has a middle/passive form, but an active function. Second: An accusative, while often does have the sense of being acted on, is often used as the subject of an infinitive phrase; and in such instances it looses that "acted upon" sense and instead is treated simply as a subject. Now, I may be completely missing your original arguement, but your arguement seemed to go something like this to me, if I'm wrong I'm sorry: Your arguement was based on the participle "He who comes" being middle and accusative and the particular emphasis of idea that gives it. What I am trying to say, is that it being deponent, and being used as the subject of the infinitive, does NOT change that it is middle and accusative, but it DOES change the function of those. Meaning they do not carry the typical emphasis' that they normally do. Now, I don't know if you know greek or not. I'm not sure if you are just using a greek tool, or you've actually had some classes in greek, but the above statements are true. If you do know greek I point you to "Greek Grammer beyond the basics" by wallace, I can look up page numbers for you tommorrow if you want me to. If you don't know greek I know of no way to prove these things to you and we'll just have to disagree. But I hope in the least that this clarifies what I was trying to say, and I"m not trying to argue against these being in the middle/passive deponent voice and in the accusative case. In Love, Beja |
||||||
480 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213712 | ||
Mmmmm, the best I can tell from your post you are saying it means just the second of the two options I presented, the one about it referring to salvation. However, I'm not really sure that's what you said. I'm afraid I couldn't follow it very well, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. As far as the greek word that word is what we call "deponent." Meaning that it is a word that does not have a present tense form and as a result the fact that it seems to be in the middle tense does not merit a middle tense interpretation but rather an active sense. So it should be treated as an active verb. So it is not interpreted as something that is caused, at least not by any grammatical reason. And I don't think that it is accusative due to it being acted upon, it is accusative because it is a subject of the infinitival imperative (must believe.) The kind Mr. Tim that frequents this forum can correct me if I'm mistaken as he seems to have a better handle on greek than I do. Finally, let me suggest that it is both of these two things that I put forward in my original question. I think it does apply to salvation and I think it does apply to continual instinces of pleasing God. The same faith that we are saved by is the same faith we are to continue to please God by living by. I did not intend this to be a trick question that I knew the answer to but since I posted it I found a sermon by spurgeon that suggested this answer that I was already begginning to expect. He drew both truths out of this verse. But, perhaps I'm wrong. I do thank you for your input. In Love, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [26] >> |