Results 61 - 77 of 77
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Further to previous question. | 1 Corinthians | jonp | 184134 | ||
Hi ceebee7 It is doubtful whether a practising homosexual who continues permanently in such a relationship can be a born again Christian. If he/her had truly been born again and had become a new creation in Christ his/her conscience would not allow him/her to continue in a relationship so clearly condemned as shameful by God in Romans 1.26-27. I must stress here that we must differentiate between those with such tendencies, who are to be loved in Christ, and those who put it into practise in sinful relationships, who if they claim to be Christians are to be loved but should be disciplined by the church as in 1 Corinthians 5, (even if they are bishops). As you may be aware this issue is so serious that it may well cause the Anglican/Episcopalian church to divide up in the not too distant future. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
62 | Does God use extreme punishment | 1 Cor 5:5 | jonp | 184630 | ||
Hi Does God use extreme punishments? The simple answer is 'yes'. 1 Corinthians 11.30. | ||||||
63 | why is Love greater than faith | 1 Cor 13:3 | jonp | 184337 | ||
Love is the greatest because faith results in love. Faith is as it were the stem but love is the flowering. True faith works by love (Galatians 5.6; Ephesians 3.17). But they are continually very closely connected. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
64 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183800 | ||
Hi The work of the Holy Spirit commences in us before we become Christians. We are elect according to the foreknowledge of God through the setting apart work of the Holy Spirit to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1.2). But we can only be said to have received the Holy Spirit when we truly believe. At that moment we become His, and if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8.9). At that point we are drenched in the Spirit into the body of Christ (whether we are baptised in water or not) - 1 Corinthians 12.12-13). From then on we can experience the working of the Spirit in our lives in different ways. He gives His gifts as He wills (1 Corinthians 12.11). And by looking to Christ and walking with Him we can drink of the Spirit and thus be 'filled with the Spirit' (Ephesians 5.18; John 7.37-39). In order to maintain this we must walk step by step with the Spirit, crucifying the flesh with its affections and desires (Galatians 5.24-25). How full we are will depend on how close our walk with Christ. In the early days of the church everyone who believed was immeduately baptised with water. The message was 'believe and be baptised'. Now that baptism does not occur at the time of believing it ceases to be the time at which the Spirit is received. Although that being said it can result in spiritual blessing through the Holy Spirit. | ||||||
65 | What is the IMAGE of the Glory of God | 2 Cor 3:18 | jonp | 183888 | ||
Hi the knowledge of the glory of God is found in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corintians 4.4-6). You can find it by reading the Gospels and becoming fully acquainted wih Jesus Christ, and as you do so your life will slowly change. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
66 | what is the mark of Christ | Gal 6:17 | jonp | 184419 | ||
Hi Paul said in Gal:6:17: From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. From this point of view the mark of Christ is the sign of persecution. Paul of course bore physical evidence of having suffered for Christ's sake. Not all Christians will bear physical marks, but all will at some stage, if they are true to Jesus Christ, suffer persecution. Bear it proudly (in the right sense). For it is the mark of Christ. However from another point of view we could say that the mark of Christ is true faith (Galatians 3.1-5), and possession of the Spirit of God. If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8.9). Best wishes Jonp. |
||||||
67 | what does ephesians 4:9 mean-"descended" | Eph 4:9 | jonp | 183984 | ||
Hi Minerva Paul's point is that Jesus descended into the grave, the world of the dead, before rising from the dead having broken the power of Satan (Colossians 2.15)and breaking the power of death for all believers (Hebrews 2.14) by rising far above all (compare Ephesians 1.19-22). Best wishes jonp. | ||||||
68 | the fight against evil( the armor ) | Eph 6:14 | jonp | 184633 | ||
Hi you could point out that when Roman soldiers used to go into battle they needed to protect themselves with armour. Show them a picture of a Roman soldier in his armour. In the same way a Christian going into battle against evil and against Satan also needs to protect himself with armour. But in his case it is a special type of armour. Just as a soldier needs to be properly belted up so that his armour does not flap about, so the Christian should build himself up in the truth by studyimg God's word and listening to faithful ministry. Then he will not flap about when he faces the enemy. Just as the soldier wears a breastplate to protect his heart, so the Christian will protect himself by living a good, true and pure life. Then he will not be open to attack. He can also protect himself by covering himself with the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5.21). Just as a soldier needs to wear stout shoes so that he does not become weary or stumble, so we can make sure that we are not impeded in our walk by having a good knowledge of the Gospel of peace. peace with God and peace from God. Furthermore the Roman soldier often had spikes on his shoes so that he could trample on the enemy. So the Christian can trample on the Enemy by proclaiming the Gospel of peace. Just as a Roman soldier would protect himself from spears, arrows and sword thrusts with his shield so are we to memorise Scripture so that when Satan attacks us with the arrows of doubt and uncertainty we can hold up the shield of faith by quoting Scripture in order to protect ourselves, just like Jesus did when He was tempted. Just as the Roman soldier protected his head with his helmet, so should the Christian protect his mind by having a full understanding of what salvation means, both initial salvation through being put in the right with God, and daily salvation through God keeping us and working within us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). And just as the Roman soldier used his sword both to protect himself and to defeat the enemy so should we learn to use the word of God in defence and attack, parrying Satan's blows with Scripture and striking at his heart by proclaiming the Gospel.. . |
||||||
69 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 183986 | ||
Hi, Paul had sacrificed all that he had previously believed in and all the efforts that he had made to attain righteousness through the law, so that he might 'gain Christ'. He had had to choose between holding on to his own life or losing his old life and receiving Christ, and he chose to receive Christ (because Christ had chosen him). Having received Christ all his efforts were now being put into knowing Christ more and more. The verb for to know is ginosko which means to know by experience. He was growing in his knowledge of Christ day by day (Ephesians 3.17-19). And through knowing Christ he also knew and experienced more of the power of His resurrection, and of being made conformable to his death, dying to himself and living to Christ (compare Galatians 2.20; Romans 6.3 ff). And all this with his final goal in mind to attain the resurrection from the dead in response to God's upward call in Christ. He did not attain it himself. He attained it by receiving the gift of Christ Jesus and by persevering in Him. That was his side of it. But that perseverance was guaranteed by the grace and working of God (Philippians 2.13; 1 Corinthians 1.8-9; Philippians 1.6). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
70 | I can use Galatians 4:16 as a support. | 1 Tim 5:19 | jonp | 184386 | ||
Hi You have asked a difficult question :-))). Presumably you are referring to confronting those who have been set in authority over the church. One problem clearly is that most of our information is provided by those who were in authority. Paul spoke as one who was set over the churches mainly because he established the churches. He did not tend to exercise his authority outside those churches. We must be very careful how we undermine authority. 'The powers that be are ordained of God', whether civil or ecclesiastical (Romans 13.1-10). Undermining them can have serious consequences. Of course both Jesus, and the Apostles in Acts confronted religious authorities, but they did it not by rebelling against them, but by positive proclamation of the truth. Jesus was always careful to support 'the establishment' as such, but not at the expense of truth. What He spoke up against was hypocrisy and teaching contrary to the Scriptures. The same was true of the prophets. We must beware of causing splits or disharmony over secondary matters which may seem primary to us but are not really so. Of course where there is open sin, then the course is clear. It must first be dealt with on a personal level, then by consulting with others, especially those respected in leadership, and then finally by consulting the church (Matthew 18.15-17). It is salutary to recognise that your very question indicates the difficulty of genuinely finding Scriptures to support your case. The great reformers of history did not usually set out to attack authority as such but to win authority over. It was the authorities who caused the schism by throwing them out. Of course we can find individual exceptions, but on the whole this was true. (And the fact that a man was greatly used of God does not necessarily mean that he was always right. There are many cases of those who acted and regretted it later). Yet there can be no doubt that situations can arise when some kind of action is necessary, although even then the answer is often better found by approaching some other authority, and must certainly be accompanied by much prayer. We must not be seeking our will but His will. What we do have to consider is the long term effects of what we are doing on others besides ourselves. What we must ever remember is that love is the fulfilment of the Law. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
71 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183695 | ||
Hi, The books you mention were not part of the Jewish canon and Jesus laid His seal on the Hebrew canon (Luke 24.44 - 'Psalms' covered the the other sacred writings) but not on anything outside it. Thus we only have Jesus authority for the three groups of book in the Hebrew canon. On a practical level while Maccabees is of value historically it is clearly in some parts unreliable. Martin Luther was his own man. His decisions about the acceptability of books is not reliable. He was an evangelist and preacher not a Biblical scholar. If he did not think that a book fitted into his ideas her simply discarded it. By all means read Maccabees as a history book which is partly reliable but we have no genuine grounds for accepting it as 'inspired'. Best wishes Peter | ||||||
72 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183876 | ||
Hi. Phew! Three books required all at once. For the Jewish canon may I suggest you read 'The Canonisation of Hebrew Scripture' by A C Sundberg. But of course we have clear evidence of the final decision of the Scribes in the Jewish Scriptures as contained for example in the Massoretic Text, and as accepted by the Jews today. The Jews of Alexandria, who were very liberal, incorporated the Apocryphal book into the Septuagint, but it is significant that no Hebrew versions of these books were preserved. They were not seen as Scripture by the vast majority of Jews. And this is confirmed by the resurrected Jesus in His definition of the Scriptures as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24.44). He thus excluded the Apocryphal books You are quite right in saying that no person, church or council has the right to declare which books are the inspired word of God. However, apart from in the initial stages when all was overseen by the Apostles there was never a time when there was 'one church on earth' in an hierarchical sense. The church was one spiritually and looked on themselves as one body, but they certainly did not all look to Rome. Had you gone to Alexandria or Antioch around say 300 AD and said to them 'You are in submission to the see of Rome' you would have been lucky to escape with being tarred and feathered. Naturally the great cities began to be looked to as places which could settle disputes, for they had the largest churches and attracted the most prominent persons (including at first the Apostles). In the early church the see of Antioch originally held the position of primary see on prestigious grounds, although not as having authority over the remainder. It gained this privilege from its ancient heritage (Acts 13.1-2). Gradually the see of Alexandria began to claim prime importance. But neither paid any heed to Rome except as fellow brethren. Indeed the first weak attempt of Rome to claim primacy was at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and that was firmly put in its place, even in spite of the support of Constantine the Great who was trying to insist on it. (Which was why they tried it in the first place). This is all well documented. In fact there has never been a time when the sees of Antioch or Alexandria genuinely accepted the priority of Rome. Of course Rome tried its best and having (a thousand years after the time of Christ) brought the leaders of Alexandria and Antioch together forced them to submit at the point of the sword (a truly-Christ like action) but they rejected it as soon as the sword was removed from their necks. Such a submission under duress meant nothing, except that they were cowards. So you see there never has been one hierarchical church. Of course the Roman Catholics are a denomination (given a name to disinguish them from the others) as are the Eastern Orthodox. More to follow later about the canon, but you might like to consider this bit first. With all best wishes. Jonp |
||||||
73 | what are the 5 crowns and scripture? | James 1:12 | jonp | 184260 | ||
Hi Perhaps the incorruptible crown (1 Cor. 9.25), the crown of rejoicing (1 Thess 2.19; the crown of righteousness (2 Tim 4.8); the crown of life (James 1.12; Rev 2.10); the crown of glory (1 Pet 5.4). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
74 | What about physical attraction? | 1 John 2:16 | jonp | 184318 | ||
Hi, I am going to speak very plainly for I can see that you are eyeing up the tree of knowing good and evil and I am a little concerned for you. The first thing that we have to recognise is that Jesus clearly taught that when a man and woman marry they are one for life unless there is adultery, and that regardless of their sexual attraction for each other. Of course in Jesus' day men and women were often not able to choose their partners. They had to put up with what they got. But this made no difference to God's requirement. While I consider that your wife should be in Christian submission and should thus seek to do what pleases you, just as you should be seeking to do what pleases her, nevertheless we cannot allow, a failure to do this to cancel out the greater commandment. To let your eyes wander will be to make you a spiritual adulterer. That is unquestionable. Modern man lays too much emphasis on his rights to this and that. But as Christians we have no rights. We have handed them over to Jesus Christ. What about Jesus' rights? Being attracted to each other in marriage is a bonus. But not being so does not affect the underlying priciple that two have been made one in God's eyes for life. Building up theories which Scripture knows nothing about will not countermand that, and however soothing they may sound they are clearly wrong if they go against God's clear commandment. As the text which you began with points out what you are talking about is not of the Father but is of the world. You talk as though being attracted to women who are fit is OK. But it is not of the Father, but is of the world. What is of the Father is that you should be wholly given over to serving Him and that includes ensuring that you maintain your Christian love for the woman you have married, even if the 'attraction' fails. If she sadly lets herself go, and you have my full sympayhies, that does not affect God's spiritual requirement for you which is paramount. So no excuse or web of clever thinking can release you from your basic obligation in God's eyes. That way leads to shipwreck. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
75 | What about song of Soloman? | 1 John 2:16 | jonp | 184356 | ||
Hi Thank you for your reply. I do genuinely sympathise with your position but did want to establish the foundations first. There are so many who reason themselves into disobedience and bring great harm on themselves. Certainly there is no reason why you should not gently hint to your wife that if she wishes to keep her sexual attraction for you she needs to do her part to enable it. Then she can choose what matters most to her. And hopefully you can expect her to respond, for it is not an unreasonable hope, especially if as you say she likes to be admired. As you rightly indicate the Song of Solomon is a reminder that physical love is not to be despised. All I wish to stress is that it is important to keep it in its place. It is a very small book in a very large Bible. It is depicting one of many things that call upon our time, and not in the end one of the most important ones, even though important in its place as a part of a well orbed Chhistian life. The rest of the Bible, however, is taken up with the need to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Thus it is vital that you do not let your longings interfere with that. For at some stage the desires of the flesh will lessen. At that point how sad, even disastrous, it would be if that had caused the desires of the Spirit to cease. So yes do feel that you can remind your wife that you must both play your part in your relationship, but recognise also that even that is secondary to walking faithfully with the Master. Believe me I do not talk glibly. I have had to learn the lesson the hard way. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
76 | explain 1 John 5:1 | 1 John 5:1 | jonp | 184635 | ||
The first lesson being taught is that in order to become a child of God a person has to believe in Jesus Christ. 'To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His Name -- who are thereby born of God' (John 1.12-13). The second lesson is that if we have become children of God we will love our Father. The third lesson is that if Christians love the Father then they will love all His children. We cannot claim to love the Father if we treat His children badly or are unkind to them. It would be to indicate that our love for the Father was not genuine. |
||||||
77 | Jesus getting the keys to hell | Rev 1:18 | jonp | 184443 | ||
Hi The fact that Jesus holds the keys of Hades and of death does not mean that He was going there but that He decided who would be released from them. The idea is that Death and Hades held men captive, but that through His death and resurrection He has provided a way of release for all who look to Him (before they die). In the words of Jesus in John 5.21, 'the Son gives life to whom He will'. 'I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in Me will never die (John 11.25). Why? Because He has the keys of death and of Hades. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |