Results 61 - 80 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235017 | ||
Doc, As is often the case, I find myself in substantial agreement with you. Thank you for humoring my curiosity. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
62 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235012 | ||
Doc, When you say that, do you mean the roles of elders by the word leadership (whether or not they go by the name of elders in a particular church), or would you extend your statement beyond that? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
63 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Beja | 234565 | ||
Andy, Since it seems to matter what other people thought of Tim's answer, I thought he answered very well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
64 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234413 | ||
DPMartin, I disagree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
65 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234411 | ||
Doc, I agree that there is always a danger of things being said that are an incomplete picture. This is why such discussions are to primarilly be done in the context of the church community, an environment in which any statement is restrained by the fact that you know what that person has consistently said ongoingly. I'll just share a few thoughts though. 1.) We can't always restate all of our theological frameworks. At some point we have to leave something either unstated or assumed. 2.) I think we follow scriptural patterns when we do this. When scripture speaks of God having a strong arm. It never makes an effort to simultaneously make sure we understand that such language is metaphorical and that God in fact does not have a body like us. Rather we find such teaching elsewhere. Scripture never restrains itself in this fashion. But more to the point of what the current thread was about. We quite continually see scripture speak of God responding to our plight with love, compassion, and redemption. And usually it is in other passages that we find out that God eternally purposed to be a redeeming God and elected individuals unto salvation, the fall serving his eternal purposes to be a redeeming God. Because scripture speaks freely in these ways without theologically qualifying these statements, I do not thing we should be concerned with avoiding speaking in the same ways. Our examples could be multiplied. Do we need to make sure to verbally affirm Christ's humanity in every instance that we cry out, "My God!" Or at somepoint is it alright to assume that issue is either understood or will be covered in its own place? Is it not biblical to say that the LORD is the God of Israel without at that moment taking the time to teach the union of believing gentiles and jews into one people per ephesians four. Every wonderful statement we could cry out or truth we could proclaim at some point must be qualified by other truth. But surely there are times to just say the truth. 3.) What we should be concerned about, is that our teaching is well rounded enough that anytime somebody takes our statements to unbiblical conclusions, it is not very long before they hear the flip side of it which ought to restrain them to the correct theological framework. But as I said, this most naturally happens in the context of the church, in which God's word is being discussed continually, and with concern to the entirety of its witness being taught. In short, I think we are being too restrictive with either the implications of our theology or the guarding over our theology when we can no longer permit ourselves to speak as scripture speaks. I say this of course with all love, as I happily know that you and I agree on an overwhelmingly vast majority of doctrinal issues. And I take no offense but rather delight in your care for theological accuracy. I know that you are aware of our many agreements, but I state it for the sake of other readers knowing that they are reading a dialogue between two brothers in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
66 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234406 | ||
Doc, I was purposefully trying not to delve into infra/supra lapsarian discussions in my post. I do not deny that is is a valid discussion. But I was not wanting to add to the question the layer of what God "Purposed" first. As an supralapsarian would state, the order of how it played out, is exactly in reverse to how it was purposed in the creator's mind. They would suggest this happens in the same way that a builder would first purpose a completed house and then would purpose an adiquate foundation; so then he would build in reverse. First would come the foundation and then the house. So also they view salvation. That being said, even should one adopt the supralapsarian view, it is valid to set the purposing aside and speak purely from the "building" side of the equation. Surely it remains valid in some sense to speak of the foundation coming first despite the final building coming first in the architect's mind, no? On the actualizing side sin and wrath preceded redemption, though in purposing redemption preceded and wrath was then purposed for the reason of setting the stage for redemption. Love in God is of the first order I concede. However, we ought not to let such structures forbid us to speak as scripture speaks. And scripture speaks plentifully about God's compassionate response to our plight in the face of his wrath. So in responding to DPMartin, I could try to explain all that, or for the post limit myself to the "building" part of the discussion rather than the "planning." His question, after all, was which "came" first. Not which was "purposed" first. All that being said, for your curiosity sake I will tell you that I am a mildly committed infra-lapsarian. Scripture just too frequently speaks in that order for me to allow the theory of supralapsarian, despite the sense it makes, to pursuade me. Despite what some would say regarding my inconsistency, I still affirm that the cross was God's "plan A." I grant I can't explain exactly how that is consistent. But I view as submissiveness to something that is quite beyond me as it is revealed to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
67 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234404 | ||
DPMartin, The answer is both. God's wrath is upon all mankind due to sin, his love is what has prompted him to redeem us. Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Note that the wrath of God "abides." This greek word means to remain. In other words, the wrath has not first come upon them for rejecting Christ. The wrath of God was already looming on them, and now in their rejection it remians, or abides. And yet love prompted God to give Christ for the salvation of believers. The wrath of God on sinners is what made the coming of Christ necessary. The love of God towards sinners is what directly prompted God to send his son. Both are why. One created the need, the other created the deed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
68 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234400 | ||
DPMartin, My comment about mercy was specifically meant in regard to pre-fall eden. Ofcourse we need mercy now. Beyond this, I honestly am not very sure what the second half of your post is saying regarding wrath. I think you might have misunderstood my statements regarding wrath as well but I'm not following you well enough to be sure. If you have a question of me it would help me if you could try to boil your question down to a bit more precise version of it. My confusion partly stems from what appear to be contradictory statements you are making. You critique my view of God's wrath coming in response to sin by asking me "If that were true then what is Jesus' offering on the Cross all about?" My answer would be, "Exactly that." His death was an attonement to satisfy God's wrath against sin on behalf of those who trust in Him. I'm not sure how you see the cross as a case against God's wrath upon sin? Sorry that I couldn't follow you. I'm sure it is probably more related to my own shortcomings than your post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
69 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233657 | ||
emethalethia, I understand completely where you are coming from. I am a calvinist, 99.9 percent of the people I know are not calvinist. What has given me the most heartache in that situation is not that people I know disagree with me, but rather when they simply will not even look at what scripture has to say. They will simply say, "no that can't be" or as you say, simply walk away with no discussion at all, all the while judging me for my belief. It is as if they truely do not want to know what God's word says on the issue. When I actually find somebody who will look scripture straight in the face, acknowledge what calvinism actually teaches and yet ultimately tell me they disagree with me I count it an absolute joy. Even if they disagree with me I am very delighted because I am so use to people refusing to even consider scripture that I find it so refreshing for somebody to at least do that! The point being I know exactly how you feel. However...I also know how much that wounded me. It took me a long time to realize that no matter how sincere and pure my desires were, being faced with that type of willfull blindness hurt badly(I do not refer to non calvinists, only to those who will condemn it while refusing to consider scripture on it.) And for awhile it caused a bitterness within me and a skepticism towards most other people who professed religion. It took me some time to work out those feelings, and what I did not realize at the time was that in the mean time while I worked through that hurt, most of my conversations were colored by that. I found myself entering conversations actually expecting people to not consider scripture. I expected them to choose their comfort zone rather than the often discomforting realities of what God's word said. And my expectations doomed the conversations to be unedifying at the least and harmful and sinful at worst. I choose to walk away from this conversation not from an unwillingness to look at scripture concerning this question, but becaue I can see there have been many professors of religion who have done the same to you. They have absolutely dismissed your question with no sincere desire to see whether scripture agrees with you. I can truely see that, and I can see it has caused you the same pain that it did me. And I can see hints of the same hurt that it left in me. And I can see you expecting me to respond to you with the same shallowness that they did. That is why I choose not to discuss it with you, because I know from experience that converstations undertaken in that context will seldom end well. Know that you have my prayers and sympathy. Continue seeking to know scripture and to submit to it and in time the precious Spirit of truth will perfect us both. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
70 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233642 | ||
Emeth, It is clear to me that you have had some rough conversations regarding this topic in the past. This topic is not worth quarreling over in my estimate. I feel like you have gotten so used to being attacked by those who feel threatened by what you are saying that you have come into this discussion with your "dukes up" so to speak. Therefore, I see no reason to continue this conversation. I end my participation of this thread with no harsh feelings and I hope you are a long fruitful participant on the forum. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
71 | Adultery always involves married woman? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233633 | ||
Emethalethia, I disagree finally on the way to answer this question but I recognize that you are sincerely trying to make sense of scripture and I respect that. However, let me caution you not to fall into one particular mistake. Just because others face less hostility for holding to the more normal view on this, do not think that others are coming to a different interpretation of scriptural evidence on this issue that they are doing so out of an urge to avoid negative social consequences. As long as another's actions allow us to believe the best of them, we are bound in christian charity to do so. Therefore we ought to assume that they would be willing to follow their beliefs into persecution, only sincere opinion has happen to place them with the majority. As you have given me no reason to assume you do anything but give the benefit of the doubt, I assume you agree with the sentiment. Now with regard to considering your view, what do you make of 1 Timothy chapter three requiring elders to be a "one woman man"? What does it mean, and why is this obligation placed upon them? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
72 | John 13 - Five ways to reproduce | John | Beja | 233361 | ||
Sixela, Well, whenever a baby is born I tend to assume it was done the old fashioned way. And so far I've been right more often than not. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
73 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233234 | ||
EdB, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel that while I wouldn't be perfectly comfortable explaining your thoughts on this to another, I do understand you much better. If I'm understanding you correctly I don't think I'd take much issue with what you are saying (as if that matters). If you are suggesting that prior to the reformers articulating the notion of sola scriptura, things were good then I would probably disagree there. However, the only concern that I would have had is something I think you answered in a previous post. I think you do affirm that if something is actually contrary to scripture then it is invalid for the churches. I'm pretty sure you said as much. Might I offer some help with terminology? Now I may be mistaken but it seems to be that what you take objection with is not sola scriptura but rather what many call the "regulative principle." The regulative principle teaches that ONLY things found in scripture have any place within the church. I myself struggle with this concept as to whether it is biblical. I have a good book on my "to-read" pile that will give me the chance to hear its reasoning articulated but I'm not sure whether I will find it persuasive or not. I think sola scriptura would be more about having the Bible alone as the ultimate authority for the church. Sola scriptura would not imply that we must throw out christmas eve services because we don't find that in the new testament portrayal of the church. Sola scriptura does not forbid those practices which are unfound in scirpture but not contrary to scripture. It does object to teachings contrary to scripture. For example we wouldn't introduce a doctrine of angels from outside of scripture as absolutely trustworthy. However it seems to me that what you are objecting to is blanket forbidding of practices which scripture does not address. That would be the regulative principle, which is also popular among reformed theologians. I think I'm accurate on all of that. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
74 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233228 | ||
EdB, Well perhaps I am too slow on the uptake, but as stated I don't understand your view. However, should your hesitation be because your view might be out of line with the notion of sola scriptura in a way not welcomed by the forum, then I can completely respect your restraint. My understanding of the TOU is that it does not demand that we agree with sola scriptura, but merely that our posts must not be contrary to it. This seems to be what we are pressing up against. So I accept the dismisal of the topic with no ill feelings. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
75 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233226 | ||
EdB, I'm afraid that I don't understand your view much more than before. You mostly just indicated what you agreed with concerning my view but didn't clarify yours much. 1. What "more than shedding light on the word of God" would you affirm? Can you give me an example to help me understand? 2. It sounds like you affirm ongoing authoritative special revelation outside of scripture, am I missunderstanding you? Please don't be upset if this is way off, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just not sure what specifically you are saying. Can you help me understand your view? Right now I could not clearly explain to somebody else what it is you are either affirming or denying. Can you explain it to me without using the term Sola Scriptura? Thank you for your patience with me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
76 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | Beja | 233218 | ||
EdB, I'm somewhat surprised at what you are saying. Perhaps we mean different things when we say the term "sola scriptura." Might I ask what it is exactly that you would suggest that the term means which is not scriptural? It would be a shame for a debate to happen if in reality I also would join you in rejecting what YOU mean by the term and at the same time you would affirm what I mean by the term. I would say: 1. Scripture is the very word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 2. As such it is inerrant in the original. 3. It holds complete authority over our lives. 4. It is sufficient for all things needful for the saint for life and godliness. (2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim 3:16 again). 5. It is the boundary of our understanding which we are not to go beyond in speculating. Therefore anything granted to us by wonderful saints later must be merely a shedding of light on the word of God so that we understand it more clearly, because going beyond it is forbidden. 1 Cor 4:6 Now perhaps with discussion I would affirm more points but those are the ones which come to mind immediately. What say you? What does "sola scriptura" affirm and which part of it is unscriptural? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
77 | Book of Life | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 233176 | ||
I knew this thread looked familiar! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v[equal]sShMA85pv8M You'll have to replace [equal] with an actual equal sign for the link to work. I think it best we accept that no verses are forthcoming, friends. Just my 2 cents. :) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
78 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233014 | ||
00123, Given your response to my post 232996, I'm a little surprised at your reasoning here. Wouldn't it be safe to say that your mind is quite resolved on this issue? I have always found that some of the worst fights happen on this forum when people ask questions for which they are already pursuaded on a particular view. It ends up being nothing but bait for an arguement, a way to get the forum onto the topic desired. I don't accuse you of intending such, but it seems this thread is close to following the pattern. And since it has a track record of being a very unedifying pattern I considered it worth pointing out to the participants. Of course you are all big boys/girls and can make up your own mind. God bless. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
79 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233006 | ||
Searcher, We are speaking of unleavened/leavened bread in jest but in all sincerity the first time my wife and I was exposed to the Lord's supper with leavened bread it was a complete shock to us. We actually had to take a minute to pause and evaluate whether we thought it was right to do so. If I recall right, I had decided it was fine by the time that it came around to me but my wife had not yet settled her conscience on it in that brief time so she abstained. We had just never heard of such a thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
80 | What liquid was in the communion cup? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Beja | 233005 | ||
Doc, Ironically I am reading Calvin on the sacraments in the institutes. I'll let you know if I he is for a specific type of grape. Haha. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |