Results 481 - 500 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | Study Bible | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213711 | ||
If I could be permited a bit of rambling due to the fact I find this conversation interesting. I spent a very great amount of time in my own Christian life avoiding commentaries. I did this for two reasons. First because I found that those around me used them too quickly and it left their minds dull. They did not first give their minds to the study of scripture and knowing it then latter consult commentaries to check if their thoughts were affirmed by other Christian witness, rather they just grabbed the nearest answer. I found this to be terrible. The second reason is because you can find a commentary that says anything and everything. How was I to know whether I was being taught heresy or truth? Commentaries are not inerrent rather the scriptures are. So it was not for any high opinion of my own understanding but from a fear at my inability to truely recognize foolishness that I shunned them. I believe I was very right to do so because I think my path would have surely led to poor thinking and falsehood if I had grabbed for the commentators who would have been handed to me at that time. So I am glad I avoided them. On the other hand, now that I know well enough what is in scripture that I can readily recognize truth and falsehood when I hear it, I find that I can actually identify those great souls of the past who have much to teach me! Now, I find past saints to be a source of knowledge and spiritual guidance I never could have from them before in my inability to trust them. But even to this day my firm commitment is to never take in more writtings of men than I take in scripture. For a vivid and constantly refreshed knowledge of scripture is what makes these commentators safe. It is by this that we can mine their amazing worth without taking in any false teaching. I will always observe this caution, but no more will I avoid such rich treasures. Anyways, take this for what little it is worth to you, I'm mostly typing because I enjoy the conversation. In Love, Beja |
||||||
482 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213689 | ||
Kcabm14, I hardly know where to begin, though I'm certain where to end. First let me point out the root of your error in this specific instance. You first are reading into the scripture. Deuteronomy 22:5 says specifically this, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." Now, that is exactly what it says. Where in that do you see pants mentioned? Nowhere. Nor does it go on to clarify what those clothing articles might be. It leaves it completely blank. All we know with certainty is that a woman's clothing is off limits for a man, and a man's clothing is off limits for a woman. Nowhere does it identify any single article as specific to either a man or woman such as pants. So where shall we determine that from? It is specific to the culture to where the gospel travels. In this case the norm for society (within reason) determines what clothing is gender specific. You are bringing the presuposition that pants are male only. This presuposition is wrong even though it may have been true a century ago. Why does a Christian not have an obligation to cling to the standards of a century ago? Because it is purely incidental to morality. Nudity and lust are not incidental, but things such as pants, the color pink, are incidental. To go from this to the accusation that the church should let society establish its morality is absolutely rediculous and to suggest that I am making that suggestion from this arguement shows a shameful lack in reluctance to judge another man's servant. I'm not angry in the least at your suggesting this, my sterness in writing this is that I see in you this passage: "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Tim 1:3-7 I hold no animosity towards you, I have no anger or frustration towards you, but you really need to turn from such speculative, unedifying issues. In Love, Beja |
||||||
483 | How Holy Is Marriage? | Matt 16:6 | Beja | 213625 | ||
Kcabm14, This is not new, this is not something God started doing differently or some progression in judgement. This is how God always dealt. Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." The Exodus 20:5 statement of the iniquities of the fathers being visited on his decendents needs to be interpreted in light of this. However, your statements about applying this truth to his situation was very well done. In love, Beja |
||||||
484 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213568 | ||
Justme, I wish I could let myself leave it as just what you have said. I wish I could leave it, "this has been abused and therefore lets just not mess with it, and not bother defending it." However, it is with a regret that I suggest to you this position is a luxury. It is a luxury of which few of us, especially a pastor can indulge. Consider this, a church that is convinced that alcohol is wrong, and a new Christian who wants to join who drinks a glass of wine before bed. The church wants to exclude this person based on drinking. What then? I dearly wish it could simply be solved by saying, "lets all keep our opinions to ourselves and not judge." I do not say this mockingly or with sarcasim, I truely wish it! There are times we need to know the truth about this. In such a situation do we need to exclude the person or are we putting requirements on church membership which God Himself did not place? Dare we exclude one that God does not find fault with for our own traditions? So I say this, at points we must know the truth on this topic, and we must stand fast in it. But until that is forced upon us I agree with you. There is no need to pursue it to the point that we are known as the "pro-booze church." In love, Beja |
||||||
485 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213558 | ||
Lion, Not sure quite how to respond. I was never trying to make any statement in the discussion except to let azure know what was in the greek, since she(or he?) showed interest. If you look at the post I responded to she asked if the idea of not being pugnacious and not drinking could validly be combined into one phrase in the greek. The answer is no. But, if you do want to know my opinion then I think having a drink is not a sin. Second, the question of whether one should or not can certainly not be given a universal answer. For me, as a Baptist pastor, in my given congregation, the answer is certainly no I should not drink (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 9). Besides, the stuff is remarkably foul tasting so I wouldn't want to. God bless you and sorry for the confusion. In Love, Beja |
||||||
486 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213554 | ||
heh, in the greek, not "in the great". Little fuzzy today, monday's are recooperation days for pastors. Beja |
||||||
487 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213553 | ||
I think this is very unlikely in the great. In the greek it basically says the negative in between each. NOT addicted to wine, NOT pugnacious. Makes rendering it in a complex phrase such as the cause of each other highly unlikely. However, I'm not a greek master and it is possible that that combination can have some funny uses possible. My greek books are at the office so I can't say but as stated, very doubtful. In love, Beja |
||||||
488 | many are called but only few are chosen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213546 | ||
Doc, Well laid out, sir. I agree. In love, Beja |
||||||
489 | many are called but only few are chosen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213515 | ||
I'm curious as to your understanding of the call to ministry and would like to clarify it with a question. Does it seem to you that depending on how faithful and repentent and responsive to God's grace a man is, that he can then be chosen by God for ministry at a certain point when before he wasn't? | ||||||
490 | How Holy Is Marriage? | Matt 16:6 | Beja | 213494 | ||
I respond to an earlier post in this thread but I make this post thinking of many things in it. To those who would correct Robert, and I ask you to consider what I say from love's eyes, he has shared with us the sin that his son lives in and scripture is clear. But for love's sake realize that you can not simply come to him with verses of scripture. You are not trying to persuade him simply of some abstract piece of theology or doctrine, what you are trying to persuade him of is that his son, his own flesh and blood, is not welcomed in the church, lost, whatever it is each of you are try to persuade him of. If your heart will not weap for it as his, he will not hear you. Let us teach with gentleness and compassion. Next, Robert, there are hard truths that are going to be hard for you to hear. Though it is with no joy and with pain that I say it, I direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 5:9-12. In this Paul says if a so called brother is immorral we are not to associate with him, not even to eat with him. This word immorral is not referring to general sin but refers specifically to sexual immorrality. Now that is certainly not the only sin on the list, but it is among them, and it is a command. We can not discard it for compassion's sake. I will gladly speak with, eat with, walk with, and spend time with a homosexual. The sin itself does not scare me away from loving a person at all. But the moment that person calls themself a Christian, I am obligated to step away and not associate with them. Why? Because now it is an issue of slandering the teaching of Jesus Christ. Just as in Romans it says, "As it is written My name is slandered among the gentiles all day long because of you." This is a neccessity for two reasons. First is because the world must plainly see that Christ has no part in that. That His teachings do not permit that. Second, we must teach an errant brother that to follow Christ means to turn from his sin. Ofcourse he will make mistakes, but deciding to just live in it isn't acceptable to Christ or us. Do we take joy in doing this? No! On the contrary it breaks our hearts, but love compels us to it, not judgement or hate! We care too much for him and his soulnot to try to push him to repentance. Beyond that we must for the sake of obedience to this command in 1 Cor 5. Now, I speak for myself in this next thing, and I pray I do not teach against God, but I personally expect direct family members to still have contact and time with such people. If nothing else to continually remind them that the Church is longing for their repentence and return so that they do not mistakenly interpret it as hate. Do not in your hurt accuse wrong doing on the Church. Next, let us not think that because a person will cling to sin through persecution that it is therefore not sinful lusts or worldliness. How many times as we read the prophets do we see God go through the acts of "punish then call to repent", "punish then call to repent"; only to be met with absolute committment to sin. Finally let me say something about the discussion regarding the law that has come up in this thread. And keep in mind that we are talking about the moral aspects of it, not the ordinances such as not eating pork and sacrifices. In Romans chapter 3 verse 19 Paul states for us the purpose of the Law. "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God." The point of the law was so that all those not under grace, would see the law and when they saw its drastic demand for perfection, their mouths would be closed meaning that they could say nothing at all in their defense. That is because each would see with clarity that they are a sinner in need of saving. But let us consider what it is that God sent to accomplish this. Was it not perfection? Was it not the very standard by which we can measure Christ's life and say he was perfect? So while what he sent was meant to show us we can not obey, we have to stop and realize that the very thing he sent to accomplish that is an elaborate picture of what perfect righteousness looks like. Therefore even though the law has completely lost its ability to condemn any person in Christ, the law can never completely loose its value! For even after it can no longer condemn us does not a perfect picture of Godly righteousness have value to teach us still? Now that you are set free in Christ (because you could not measure up to His perfection on your own), will you turn to something else to show you perfection? Understand then that Christ overcame the moral law, that Christ disarmed the moral law from its power to condemn those who have faith in Him, but never teach that Christ came to abolish the moral law. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17 |
||||||
491 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213435 | ||
((CONTINUATION OF FIRST POST)) Why then? If we are not superior or we do not have greater honor, why then are we leaders? I believe that God meant for marriage to serve as a picture of bigger realities. It is undeniable that scripture does see it as a picture for bigger realities. These include a picture of God that we all can very much relate to, a picture of a Father; and also it includes the marriage of Christ and his church (ephesians 5). We all agree that marriage serves as these illustrations but what I would suggest to you is this: God did not look around and say, "hey, marriage is like this, I'll compare it to that." Rather, God in his infinite wisdom as he set out his purpose in creation, chose to create an institution of marriage that would reflect greater truths which he planned to unfold in his perfect time. To that end he crafted marriage and the first marriage between Adam and Eve, to reflect these things. The male, took the picture of the instigator of all these covenants. His role as father is meant to serve as illuminating light on God our Father. Authority is part of that. He is meant to represent Christ and his love to the church. Authority is part of that. So while the husband has no claims to superiority, do to the role God has given him he has all claims to authority over his wife. This naturally carries over into the church because beyond the family, the church is the other location in which God wants to illustrate and paint pictures concerning Himself. Also I believe whole heartedly the Church is meant to be modeled after a family. See 1 timothy 5:1-2 (these verses do not prove that idea but lend support to it.) So, these are the two areas where we see scripture give clear instruction on male authority. I do not believe that men are meant to have any God given authority over women outside the family and the church. For example I have no God given authority whatsoever to come up to some lady I don't know and tell her to obey me. Now given that all these are things God had placed upon creation as his intention, where does the curse come in? In this I give my humble opinion. The curse was that your desire would be for your husband and he shall rule over you. It is an interesting point that the word for "desire" in this passage is not at all a common word, but it is the same word used in the account of Cain and Abel when God says that "sin desires you." So one is not to think this is a "healthy submission to proper authority" type of desire. I would suggest to you this is a combative desire perhaps even longing to take his authority for her own. I would also suggest to you that the husband ruling over her is not the God intended type of ruling that was originally the idea. You see the husbands God given authority is meant to be of a most peculiar type, that of Christ to the Church (ephesians 5). Also Matthew 20:24-28 is absolutely key in revealing that proper Godly leadership is one in service to and for the interest of those who are led. These passages are how a man is suppose to be leading his wife. This new desire of man to now "rule" is more of a dominating interest I would suggest. So what we see is that now sin has marred this relationship of a beautiful picture of Christ and his church. Now there is rebellion and self interested leadership. Need we look far in our times to overly support this? I wince as I think of how unclear I've been, I ask for God's grace in the readers understanding, and I ask for the readers grace in their responses. In love, Beja |
||||||
492 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213434 | ||
Well I was reluctant earlier to say anymore than simply answering your question for two reasons. First, many people can be aggressive over such a topic. I do not in any way expect you to be so, but I don't know who all will be reading this post and reply. Second, because once you say just a little on this topic, there is a great deal that ought to be said. This topic is peculiar in that just part of it seems to be unfair unless the whole picture is laid out. For example male authority without discussion on what that authority is meant to look like can appear hateful and power hungry. However, these concerns stated I'll share a bit and feel free to stop reading at any point...as I said, much must be stated. First, we must cling tightly to what is revealed, and hold lightly what we must speculate beyond that. So here is what we know with absolute certainty. 1 Timothy 12-14 makes it clear that males are to be the head of the church, they are to be the only ones teaching other men or holding any authority over other men. So male's have authority in the church, with the obvious disclaimer that all authority in the Church is ultimately Christ's. We also know with absolute certainty that a husband has complete authority in the marriage. Ephesians 5:22-24 states that a wife is to obey her husband to the same extent to which the church is to obey Christ. Now, these are the things we know with absolute certainty and that all Christians will either agree with or they are in disobedience to God's word. I can speak with that certainty because I've done nothing but put forward two Bible verses with no speculation on their meaning so far. Now, the rest of this letter is my doing the best I can to teach how these things begin to impact and work themselves out, so in what follows there can be loving discussion and questioning and even dissagreement. Correct me with scripture if I am off. Within this I would first humbly suggest we must do away with the notion of superiority. The husband being given superiority is a mistaken fancy we have. Authority in marriage does not imply superiority any more than a government having authority over us implies the senators have superiority to us in God's eyes. First consider the first recording of making mankind without looking to the specifics of how it happened. Genesis 1:26-27. Keep in mind the term for man there can equally refer to humanity as a whole. He made them male and female and both of these were said to be made in His image. There is no superiority in the relationship but there is authority. 1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to show their wives honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life so that our prayers would not be hindered. Our authority is not about superiority or greater honor, but only about authority. ((MORE COMING IN SECOND POST)) |
||||||
493 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213413 | ||
The basis for man's authority certainly goes beyond what I posted. My post was only attempting to show that it was not something that was contingent on the fall. By showing that there were verses that indicated the authority was in place prior to the fall (1 Cor 11:8 and the 1 timothy passage) it proves only one thing: man's authority was not because of the fall. Hence answering the original question of whether it was based on the fall or not. What it is in fact based on and a detailed account of what these passages are trying to teach is not something I'm intending to even hint at. Hope that helps to clarify my post. In love, beja |
||||||
494 | Offended by a Christian | Matt 18:35 | Beja | 207901 | ||
Milen, Let me add something to what has been said thus far. First there is a question that matters a lot. Is this a person who is really and sincerely saying they are sorry? Bowler's answer was a great one if it was a person who was not actually sorry and just using forgiveness as a means to facilitate sin. If that is really the case, stick with his answer. However, if this person is sincere in repenting and asking forgiveness then you are searching for an answer that doesn't exist. Because you have the responsibility as a Christian to forgive him. In short, if he is being sincere then he is actually right. None of us can show you a scripture that says you don't have to forgive somebody who seeks forgiveness. It just isn't there. It may be God has allowed this person to put you in this situation so that you can learn the virtue of forgiveness. But, as I said, this is dependent on the answer to the question. Is he really seeking forgiveness or playing games? |
||||||
495 | Are the "people" in Matt. 13 unsaveable? | Matt 13:36 | Beja | 207816 | ||
It seems clear to me from this and your other post that you believe that those who die without Christ in this life are later restored after the second judgement and enter heaven with the saved. If I'm wrong do correct me please. You cite verses such as rev 20:13 saying that death and Hades gave up the dead. However, just two versus later he tells us that these people were then judged and thrown into the lake of fire. They won't be getting a second chance and taught how not to sin. One key to understanding correct teaching on the eternal punishment of the lost is to understand that the "lake of fire" and hades is two different places. Whatever translation you are using is calling hades, hell. The real word is hades in verse 13. This is a temporary place until hades and all who are in it are then thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:14-15. Matthew 25:46 says that the lost were sent away to "eternal punishment." Not a time of punishment until restored. On another note, what Bible translation are you using? |
||||||
496 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207784 | ||
lookn, You had asked if I thought that the author considered apostasy something that could actually happen. My response was that I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. What I meant about that was this: That if apostasy is indeed what he is referring to, then he must see it as a real possibility. I says "whatever" simply because we have not yet determined with any certainty what exactly he is talking about. But whatever it is, whether apostasy, or something else, he is speaking of a situation that is a real threat to whichever group he is talking about. Now granted, a few verses later he is clear that he expects better from his readers, but whatever he is warning of is real. It is hard to be more specific when we are not talking about some concrete examples. For example, if what we determine this text to mean that you can loose the opportunity to be saved but not loose your salvation, then clearly this is a real danger, but it is a real danger that a saved christian could not face. And in such a case the warning would just be to those who have not yet become christians among them. But regardless, that would still be something very real to worry about for whoever it is he is warning. However, I hope I've clarified what I mean. |
||||||
497 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207764 | ||
1. Yes, I have a calvinistic outlook on security of the believer. I ofcourse want to know the intended meaning of the text regardless what that may be. But I originally put forward the question to be resolved within this security of the believer framework not because its what I believe, but because outside of that understanding its not a problem. What I mean is this, if you are comfortable with the idea you can loose your salvation then this text is no difficulty at all, so why debate it with that assumption? However, in a sense you could say I'm trying to fit it into this security of the believer framework because I believe scripture teaches that and therefore whatever the answer to this will therefore be in harmony with that teaching. 2. I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. When I originally stated that I wasn't looking for that explination I meant that I have heard people argue the following: Paul is arguing that if a person lost their salvation they couldn't get it back but it could never happen and he just wants us to know what would hypothetically happen if we could. I find this horribly lacking. These are what I was meaining in my original post when I said those things. |
||||||
498 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207741 | ||
My apologies bowler. Please understand I have not been short on responses that were telling me that I was simply being hard to talk to and was being given sufficient answers that I simply unwilling to listen to. When your post ended in you saying you wish to give your 2 cents then posted a scripture where the author was saying the reader was hard headed and dull of hearing, it seemed a jab. If that was not your intent, do forgive me, and I hope you can see how it would seem that from my shoes. I should have read your post with more grace assuming the best of my brother in Christ until proven otherwise. Forgive me. My e-mail is jw_dobbins@hotmail.com you are welcome to e-mail me if you wish. I do still eagerly follow this thread, but as I've said, I don't have the spirit to participate in it any further. Regardless, Tim Moran is expressing what I have suspected all along to be the answer so ably that there is little point. Well done, Tim. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
499 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207731 | ||
Dear Bowler, Could you just not please? If you'd look at the post times for the thread you'll see I've stepped out of this discussion. I lost the spirit to discuss it some time ago now. I repent of ever having brought this issue up, and I repent of having been willing to say that I thought certain explinations were lacking. And since I seem to not have the skill for being able to discuss differing view points without seeming abrasive I simply wish to step away from this discussion. I really do apologize to any I may have offended, I am simply use to an environment where people could debate view points on a verse, seeking the best understanding and cirtiques and counter views were not held in disdain. And I can not say your little jab at me does anything to make me desire to return to the conversation. So if you feel like debating this passage with others do feel free, but please don't do so on my account, rather discuss it with those who still wish to. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
500 | 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] >> |