Results 61 - 80 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What qualifies a cultist? | Is 43:7 | mark d seyler | 187648 | ||
Hi Psalm 25, Just a reminder, be sure to include a source reference when quoting previously published material. I am certain this was merely an oversight. :-) For any that are interested, you can read the full article at: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c174.html Love in Christ, Mark Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
62 | What Am I doing wrong? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 187639 | ||
Hi Cheri, I feel safe speaking for a number of us here, We love e-sword! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
63 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | mark d seyler | 187625 | ||
Hi Lookn, Without correct Biblical interpretation, how do we define acts of love? Our own sensibilities? It seems pretty obvious when we are talking about child abuse, but the fact is that pretty soon we all tend to wander off into the weeds without an objective standard. Nonetheless, since this is a Bible Study Forum, we consider it extremely important that we confine ourselves to the actual teaching of Scripture, and to do that, we have to stick with the actual meanings of the word used. This verse in question teaches that one would be better off by tying a millstone to their next an casting themselves into the deep part of the sea than doing something that leads one of these children into sin. But the fact is, the Bible teaches against all manner of sin committed against anyone, including children. There is no free pass just because the victim of your sin is a child. But staying with this verse a moment, child abuse is a major stumbling block to children, as those being abused very often emerge with deep emotional scars, which lead to sinful behaviors. Drop down a couple more verses, as Jesus warns against despising one of these little ones. This "despising" is from "kataphroneo", to have a mind against. It seems to me that this is the seed from which child abuse comes from. Its when the abuser fails to value the child as God does; God, Who appoints them angels who stand in His very presence. We need not worry that God will overlook any unrighteousness, and leave it unpunished. God clearly has a heart for children. He witnesses every abuse, every misdeed, and He will avenge them all. But we only have this certain commitment if we stay true to His Word, and simply allow it to speak to us. Anything else is just making stuff up. Love in Chirst, Mark |
||||||
64 | Animals in the New Testament? | Prov 12:12 | mark d seyler | 187581 | ||
Hi MW, I gotta agree with you that we need to be conscious of what we spend our time on, and examine ourselves lest we waste what God's given to us. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
65 | Animals in the New Testament? | Prov 12:12 | mark d seyler | 187574 | ||
When I decided I wanted to marry the woman who is my wife, it was because of what I saw in her heart. And the love, and forgiveness, that she shows to me spills out towards all that God has made. She's sad when the Easter Lilly dries up. How much more so when a cat suffers? She has a depth and appreciation for the value and meaningfulness of life. What a greater burden she feels towards those of humanity who are lost, and dying in their sins! Even God takes the time and concern to feed His creatures, great and small. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
66 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187571 | ||
Hi John, To put this in the words of a simple little song that I just love: "God will make a way Where there seems to be no way He works in ways we cannot see He will make a way for me" To me, just like what you wrote, this sums up nicely the Old and New Covenants. We are all guilty, but God has made a way. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
67 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187570 | ||
Hi Hoppy, It's very important to me to not only understand my views, but to also understand those opposing views. If I cannot be open to correction, and receiving a greater understanding, then I have set myself as my own foundation, and what sort of foolishness is that? I am constantly learning from others, and sometimes the best lessons come from those with whom I have initial disagreement. You wrote "Oh that the Holy Spirit would give us fresh eyes each time we break open Holy Writ!" I could not agree more than I do! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
68 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187542 | ||
Hi Cheri, This reminds me of 1 Corinthians 15:8 "and last of all, even as if to one born out of time, He was also seen by me." This seems to me like Paul is saying that the normal process of his being born again was interupted, as it were "forced labor". Interesting! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
69 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187541 | ||
Hi John, An interesting and well written article! Thanks for bringing it up. Although looking at someone’s critique of their presentation of a view they disagree with isn’t quite the same as real discussion, it can be a good starting point. I agreed wholeheartedly with their description of man’s fallen state, and their description of Prevenient Grace seemed fair enough. But when I got to the for and against arguments, they gave a very weak “pro”, while naturally devoting the lion’s share to the “con”. In my opinion, they completely ignored some of the strongest arguments in favor of prevenient grace. Nor do they address the most commonly held difficulties with their assertions. Their first argument centers on John 1:9, the light that enlightens. I have never actually thought of this myself as rock solid in favor of prevenient grace, and I agree with them that it can be taken in different ways. But they do not include an analysis of John 1:12, which argues most strongly against the argument they present concerning 1:9. They discuss prevenient grace as it relates to Christ’s atonement without any mention of Romans 5. I find the discussion to be thouroughly incomplete without this. They present the Wesleyan argument that since God commands repentance, then repentance must be possible to do. Their argument against this is that it is theoretically possible for all people, just not actually possible for all people. To support the validity of their view, they use obedience to the Law for comparison. Even though God commands perfect obedience to the Law, and perfect obedience if “physically possible”, man is not morally able. It is possible in theory, but not actuality, and they transfer this to the New Covenant as well. But the Scripture doesn’t make this same comparison, and in fact, goes to great length to show the great differences between the Old and New Covenants. At the end of the day, they are simply saying that man cannot believe because he cannot. They have not presented a refutation at all. They have, for instance, quoted “none come unless they are drawn” without indicating who might be and who might not be drawn. Its not an argument that relates to the topic. The writer finalizes the presentation of pro and con arguments with the claim that the Wesleyan view is simply imposing an unBiblical world view upon the Scriptures. This is a common claim, and can be used equally by both sides, but not to the furthering of the discussion. Their response is, as it always is, to say that God can do what He wants. Of course, no one is arguing with that. He can even, if He wants, sovereignly choose to save only those certain people who are the willing recipients of His great and wonderful salvation. The writer warns against the “trap” of thinking that unless God shows mercy to all, then He isn’t just. I could counter with the warning against summarily limiting the love of God just to try to explain to one’s self why Joe doesn’t get saved. “Well, I guess its cuz God didn’t want Joe.” He finishes with the standard, “well, no one can really understand it anyway.” I guess he would include himself? The only thing I would add is that whoever might read this article needs to remember that this writer is stongly biased in favor of unconditional election. Even if he is in fact presenting a fair and complete portrayal of the Wesleyan view of prevenient grace, this “Wesleyan view” may not be the best presentation of this view. In my opinion, there are much stronger arguments in favor of prevenient grace than those presented. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
70 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187514 | ||
Hi John, One other thing I'd like to add is that I am reluctant to identify myself with "people groups" such as "Wesleyans" or "Calvinists". I wish to discuss Biblical Doctrine without the baggage often carried in "theological systems". I find it much easier that way to stay focused on specific points of Scripture. I'm not so much interested in examining how much agreement or disagreement there may be between Wesleyans and Calvinists. In my opinion (which is certainly of questionable value), both of these men had some things right and some things wrong, as I think is generally true of the lot of us. So my primary interest is simply to examine a Scripture, and see what it teaches. In doing that I believe I can know the truth of a matter. And as I am taught by others, I primarily wish to examine what they are teaching by Scripture itself, to see if it is in agreement. I have every confidence that you wish to do the same, I simply say this for clarity. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
71 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187513 | ||
Hi John, I'll take a look at this article. Do you think you could distill the essence of its argurment into a paragraph or three? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
72 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187512 | ||
Hi John, I agree with you that we are able to receive God's truth even from a poor translation. I think that Webster has more to say about the translator's choice than about the original expression, but I have a great deal of confidence in many who have translated the Holy Scripture, and a little more insight in how they decided to express God's Word in English is a good thing. Esau's cry for repentence is, I think, a great example of just what you say, that the context is extremely useful in showing us the nuance even though we don't know the original language. I totally believe that it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us from the Bible, and He can overcome these minor issues in translation. I do not mean to denigrate the many fine translations that have been made in obedience to Jesus' instruction, go ye into all the world . . . teaching them. I personally believe that God uses each one. But I will also say that some are better than others, and some give a more accurate or complete expression of God's Word, simply because they differentiate a little more distictly. I do not say that we shouldn't use a dictionary. I use them frequently myself, even for words I already "know", just to be sure I am actually using them correct. Sometimes I find I am not. I am saying that we need to keep in mind that Webster simply tells us about the word which a man chose to translated a different word God wrote, and Webster contributes to our knowledge to the extent that the English definition agrees with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek definition. And that's something that can't really be known until one confirms tha original definition, something that Webster can't do. Again, though, let me stress my belief that we have many very fine translations to read and study from, and read them and study them I do! As always, it is a pleasure it discuss these things with you, John, and I'm glad you found our little corner of the www. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
73 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187511 | ||
Hi Hoppy, No apology needed, but yours is cheerfully recieved! :-) I know that people's experiences often contribute to their understanding of spiritual matters. I, for one, find that I must carefully guard against that. I will agree with you that left to himself, man is lost, without hope or recoures. But I have yet to see a convincing argument from Scripture that regeneration, being reborn, comes before repentance, or that faith comes from rebirth, rather than by hearing the Word of God. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
74 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187510 | ||
Thank you, Tim. I value your opinion. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
75 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187509 | ||
HI Cheri, Perhaps, although I would point out that that passage is simply describing the actions of a particular group of people during a specific event, and does not give us a principle or rule to be used for general application. So I don't think this actually teaches what Hopalong was talking about. I can't think of any others either. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
76 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187489 | ||
Hi Hopalong, I think, if I may be so bold, that you are endeavoring to answer a different question than what Searcher is actually asking you. While we know that all Scripture will be in harmony if we have a correct understanding of its teaching, we also know that any correct doctrine will do no harm to the exact teaching of a passage in its context. Personally, I think that many stretch to reach a doctrine before correctly understanding a verse. I think that if we focus on simply understanding a verse, that then a doctrine will present itself when we have understood All of it's foundation stones individually. There is the underlying presupposition that if the human heart is incurably corrupt, that salvation can come only if God first acts upon it, and in this I believe that you and I would agree. But there is another underlying presupposition which says that were God to act upon the human heart, the only possible action that He would perform would be to effect a complete and full regeneration. Is it not possible that God could act upon the human heart in such a manner as to permit the understanding of the Gospel, while still allowing that each individual would make their own choice of whether or not they were willing to yield to God? Of course it's possible. This is a valid alternative, and serves to address many of the objections within this debate. I believe that this subject is often arbitrarily limited to two alternates when more exist. Next the argument is made, well, look at all these people who say its not so. This is another fallacy, as we do not determine truth by head count, but rather by the exact teaching of Scripture. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I have a great deal of respect for those who have gone before me, and who teach the Scripture, but I must compare what they say with what the Bible says, and be willing to hold to Scripture when it disagrees, no matter how greatly I may respect a given commentator. Then there is another error often introduced, that of mis-characterizing one's opponent's argument, then arguing against that mis-characterization. This is often manifested as claiming that the one who believes that God allows man the choice to receive salvation or not believes that man somehow "saves himself". This is akin to saying that the one who cashed the million dollar check from Bill Gates has enriched themself by their own works, or that the one who went willingly under the surgeon's knife gave themself a heart transplant. "Well, you only have yourself to thank, so the praise goes to you!" Right. Tell me that my choice to have a heart translant has any significance without the ability and willingness of the surgeon. Semi-Pelagianism, I think, will be the label against this notion, claiming that salvation is somehow a joint effort between God and man, that somehow God's work of salvation is inadequate without my help. That God can't save man unless man permits it. But this again is a mis-direction, as there is no disagreement that salvation is entirely a work of God. What we are talking about here is the criteria He uses in choosing who it is that He alone saves. In all the passages that address personal salvation, including such matters of election and predestination, the only ones that speak specifically of the criteria God uses speak of those that receive Him, those that are willing, "as many as received Him, to them. . ." These issues must be addressed and answered if we are to have a real and meaningful discussion on this topic. They need to be answered without mis-direction, mis-characterization, and without skirting difficult passages. All alternatives need to be considered, and and above all, we have to accept the plain teaching of Scripture, even it is seems strange, and even if it means we have to change our views. Ok, obviously I'm answering more than just your short post. I will allow this to be my reply to some others I have recently read as well. Thank you for bearing with me! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
77 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187486 | ||
Hi Hopalong, You wrote: "The unsaved individual ,not only does not esteem the God's Word, but he cannot even bear listening to it," I didn't notice that in the quoted passage. Did you have a different passage in mind, that says "the unsaved cannot even bear listening to God's Word"? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
78 | Who and why..... must be a reason? | Is 43:7 | mark d seyler | 187485 | ||
Hi Psalm 25, If you wish to, email me at markdseyler@yahoo.com. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
79 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187484 | ||
Hi John, Actually, my point was that I think sometimes an English word will actually convey more than was intended in the Hebrew or Greek word, such as this exemplifies. So while the English "repentance", as you say, covers the bases, we would have to go back to the Hebrew to actually distinguish if what is being said is a feeling or regret, or a change of behavior. The English translation of "repentance" doesn't tell us which it is, while determining which Hebrew word was used would tell us that information. So while I say the English translation doesn't "steer us wrong", we can get a little closer to the target with a little more homework. Since the Bible wasn't written in English, English words only serve well to the extent that they correctly transmit the exact meaning of the original communication. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
80 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187396 | ||
Hi John, Doesn't it strike you as a sound practice to compare the English translations to a more in-depth study of the original lanuages? This is a good example, since the Webster definition of Repentance actually combines the two different Hebrew words that are translated as Repentance, "nacham", which is more the feeling of regret, and "shub", which is to change your direction. One refers to an emotional or mental state, and the other is behavioral. The Greek Metanoia is different still, refering to a change of mind. Since all of these are translated by the single word Repentance, I don't see how we are able to fully differentiate the exact statement that is being made without bringing to bear the original meanings of the original languages. Oh, not that if we read "repentance" in the KJV we'll be steered in a wrong direction, but doesn't it strike you as a sound practice to define our theology by the languages it was expressed in? It does me. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [63] >> |