Results 61 - 80 of 108
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18841 | ||
Let me clear up two points I feel there is a mis-udnerstanding on: 1.) I never said that the New Covenant abolished the Law. There are some within Christendom that believe the Law was abolished I do not. The real issue is what part(s) of the law are applicable to the believer today? Are women suppose to leave their house during their menstrul cycle? If I get into a fight with another man and his wife pulls on my testicals am I alloed to cut off her hand? Do we still observe the various feasts recorded in the O.T.? When was the last time you sacrificed a dove or gave a grain offering? Certainly you can see that some things changed from the time of Moses and the coming of Christ. The real question is, Just how much change occured? Another way to ask the same question is how much of the Law is applicable to the believer today? You tell me I am sinning because I do not hold the Sabbath as binding to the believer. You still never answered the 2 scripture passages I gave you before that I feel gives me liberty to choose that one day a week that I want to honor God and what festivals I am able to participate in. 2.) No one who has studied this issue feels that Sunday replaced the Sabbath. "If you think so, go and tell lies and kill people or even better: dishonour your parents. Or perhaps it gives you freedom to steal?...But remember Rom 3:31 and Matt 5:17 " Of course I feel I cannot do any of the above list of sins and still be a Christian in good standing with God. (I am glad you are qouting N.T. passages so now I do not have to look them up.) The N.T offers plenty of verses that instruct me how to live a holy life before God. But notice that nowhere in the N.T. is Sabbath Worship enforced...Just like there is nowhere in the N.T. that instructs me to continue partcipating in the Levitcal sacrifices. |
||||||
62 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18854 | ||
I don't think the sacrificial law was done away with at all...It was perfected in the perfect sacrifice--Jesus. I also believe that the moral law was not done away with. T he question I have...and I don't have a firm answer...is did the Sabbath apply to the ceremonial/sacrificial law or to the moral law? It seems to me that the very nature of the Sabbath worship was ceremonial. |
||||||
63 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18857 | ||
I have no doubt that Paul worshipped on the Sabbath, but that still does not negate the verse in Acts 20 that has him worshipping on Sunday. Acts 20:7 7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. "OH praise the Lord!, the Bible does validate teh adoration on" Sunday. If the Bible has Paul or any other apostle or church meeting on Sunday one time, that is enough for me to believe it is not a sin—Unless they were publicly rebuked for doing so which did not happen. You still have not commented on two very clear passages on this subject. I am not into playing Bible Verse Ping-pong. 1.) Paul and many other Christians did meet on Saturday 2.) They also met on Sundays as well. These two thoughts can be complimentary and not contradictory if you adopt my view on this issue: As long as you choose one day to honor the Lord, you will be right with God. Lets look at three ways you can approach this issue: 1. If I said that you could only worship on Sunday, I could be proven wrong scripturally. Why? Because there are verses that show the apostles attending the Synagogues on Saturday. 2. If I said that you could only worship on Saturday, I could also be proven wrong because in Acts 20, Paul is meeting together with the church in Ephesus breaking bread and holding a church service on Sunday. 3. However, if I told you that you could worship on Sunday or Saturday because in the N.T. you see apostles worshipping on both of those days, I could not be proven wrong. To use verses and completely ignore other verses that don’t coincide with your beliefs is what I call Bible ping-pong. I have my verse and you have your verse and whenever you pull out your verse I am going to pull out my verse. You have got to reconcile these passages. 1 Cor 16:1-3 16:1 Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. It seems like the custom for the Church of Corinth was to meet on Sunday's as well. Paul never told them they were in violation for "not keeping the Sabbath Law" nor did he tell them they were in sin. Acts 17:2. "As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures," What was Paul’s purpose for entering the Synagogue? To try and find converts not worship with them—although he might have joined in on the worship service. The whole purpose of recording this passage here and other places in the book of Acts is not to reinforce Sabbath worship, but to show that although Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, he still sought to win the lost in his old faith to Jesus Christ. I was kind enough to answer your objections and verses you supplied and am really anxious to hear your response. In His name Schwartzkm |
||||||
64 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18889 | ||
Where did you cut and paste this from? I don't mind discussing each individual point one at a time but when you cut and paste a whole article it makes it very difficult. So, I will cut and paste an article for you to respond to. For those reading this thread. Could you please try to summarize your beliefs in your own words. Don't cut and paste large articles that cover a myriad of points. I too can cut and paste with the best of you but choose not too. I find it makes the discussion more meaningful and personal for everyone on the thread |
||||||
65 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18890 | ||
here is my cut and paste argument: Proof Apostle Paul did not keep the Sabbath these 84 times: A. The Bible no where says that Paul or ANY Christian kept the Sabbath according to the commandment after the resurrection. 1. What we do have are frequent examples of Paul preaching to nonChristian Jews in THEIR synagogue on THEIR Sabbath day, that they are lost without Jesus! Should this surprise us? Do Sabbatarians Pastors "keep Sunday" if they preach in a Christian church on the first day of the week? B. These passages speak of Paul preaching to the non-Christian Jews in their synagogues. 1. None of these passages, or any other in the New Testament, ever speak of Christians worshipping on the Sabbath day. 2. If Paul preaching to Jews on the Sabbath day proves he kept the Sabbath, then it also proves Paul kept synagogue worship as well! C. If Paul "kept the Sabbath" because he preached Christ to non-Christian Jews on THEIR Sabbath day in THEIR synagogue: 1. then Paul also kept all the other ceremonial laws that the non-Christian Jews practiced while he was there as well. 2. then a Seventhday Adventist pastor "keeps Monday" just because he preaches to Muslims in their Mosque on Monday that they are lost without Christ! 3. then a Seventh-day Adventist pastor "keeps Sunday" just because he preaches to a church of "Sunday keeping" Christians on "Sunday" that they are breaking the Sabbath law! 4. What proves too much proves nothing at all! Adventist False Argument #2: "The fact that the Bible mentions Paul preaching on the Sabbath proves we must keep it" False Argument #2 Refuted: 1. Just because the very first preaching of the Gospel occurred on the day of Pentecost, does not mean Christian must keep Pentecost! Acts 2:1 thru 38 2. Paul also rushed to get back to Jerusalem on Pentecost: Acts 20:16 3. Pentecost always fell on a Sunday 4. Does this mean he was keeping Pentecost feast? 5. No! It provided him a great opportunity to teach. 6. No where after the resurrection "keeping the Sabbath according to the commandment" Adventist False Argument Number3: "Paul kept "the Law", therefore the Sabbath is still binding!" (Additional Sabbatarian proof texts: Acts 21:20-28; Acts 24:14; Acts 26:22; Rom 3:31) False Argument Number3 Refuted: A. Look closely at what Paul said: Acts 21:20-28 "And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 1. Acts 21:20-28: forsake Moses and circumcise equals keeping the Law 2. If Sabbatarians are right, then they better start also practicing circumcision |
||||||
66 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18891 | ||
3. What proves too much proves nothing at all! B. Paul understood that Moses had prophesied Jesus coming. To "give heed to Jesus" is to KEEP THE LAW of MOSES! Think of it as the law of Moses’ own self destruct mechanism. Moses told the Jews to keep his law UNTIL Jesus came. Then they were to ignore the Law of Moses and listen only to Jesus. In that way, a Christian who exclusively obey Jesus could be said to be keeping the Law of Moses. This is what Paul means by the following verses: · Acts 3:22 "Moses said, 'The Lord God shall raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed in everything He says to you. 'And it shall be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. · Acts 24:14 "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law, and that is written in the Prophets; having a hope in God · Rom 3:31 "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" · Acts 26:22 "And so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people When Paul says that he "kept the Law", he was referring to the fact that Moses and the prophets foretold of Christ. and that being a Christian was foretold in the law. In a very real sense it was the Jewish non-Christians who refused to heed Jesus who were in fact REJECTING WHAT MOSES SAID! |
||||||
67 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18892 | ||
If you want me to read someone elses writing and it is on the Internet, just provide me a link and I will be happy to read it. I prefer to read your beliefs in your own words. |
||||||
68 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18894 | ||
In Acts 20:7 the Greek phrase that is used is Mio Ton Sabbaton Mio equals First Ton equals Day and Sabbaton(pluaral) equals Weeks I don't see a problem with the way the NASB/KJV/NKJV/RSV Greek linguists translated this passage. Just because you see the word Sabbaton, does not automatically mean the Sabbath day. Lets look how the author you ar qouting Greek translation skills pan out in other passages in the N.T. Mark 16:1-2 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. “Sabbath”, in this passage, is the Greek word SABBATOU Which is in the singular and the expression that is used to designate the Sabbath in Scripture. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb “First Day of the week” uses the same Greek sentence Construction found in Acts 20:7: Mia Ton Sabbaton which is again correctly translate first day of the week as it is in Acts 20:7. If I used your argument, verse 1 and 2 would have occurred on the same day which the context of the text would not allow. Why? Verse one states “when the Sabbath day was OVER” (emphasis added is mine). So Mia Ton Sabbaton was used, as it is used elsewhere in scripture, to designate the first day of the week. I choose to let scripture interpret scripture. Acts 20:7 is not a difficult passage to understand at all as the author of the article you pasted states in the beginning. In light of Mark 16 it becomes clear that Mio Ton Sabbaton is the phrase used to designate the first day of the week, Sunday. The question I must ask is why did the author of your post go through such linguistic Gymnastics to have Paul not preaching on Sunday? Because it would violate his understanding of the Sabbath. It would mean that it is now OK for believers to worship on the Lord’s day. I really did enjoy your post and it caused me to dig back into the Greek Text and do some research; however, I would like to hear your thoughts penned in your own words. Could you please respond to the scripture in Collossians. I am anxious to hear how you understand those passages in the light of your view on the Sabbath. Thanks for your time and effort you have placed in this dialogue. I have really enjoyed it. Schwartzkm |
||||||
69 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18897 | ||
I don't see how the location of the Book of the Law and the Tables of the law means one is moral and the other is not or one is still binding but the other is not. The Jews understood--and I am going to use a modern understanding of the Law just to prove a point--the Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial aspects of the Law as Moral. The wouldn’t agree with the statement you just made—10 commandments are moral the ceremonial aspects of the law are not moral. You can't say the 10 commandments are moral therefore it applies today but the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law are not moral! If your whole basis for the 10 commandments applying to the life of the believer is because it is moral the whole law must apply--Ceremonial and Civil. Why? Because the Jews understood the whole law, not just the 10 commandments--to be morally binding to the believer. Ceremonial aspects of the Law was how a person worshipped God. That is why I believe the Sabbath is ceremonial...It deals with the believers life of worship. I hope you can see there is a difference between killing, coveting, adultry and a day set aside to acknowledge God and rest. |
||||||
70 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18905 | ||
I will check out the website. Sounds interesting. I will have to get back to you later on the rest. |
||||||
71 | When did the day of worship change? | Acts | userdoe220 | 18916 | ||
I know writing is an artfrom that I do not fully possess. I know that comments, although not intended to be rude, can be interpreted as such when read even thought that was not the authors intent. I have been accused of being "short" with people when I respond, because sometimes I do so hastily--I work 50 plus hours a week at EDS and sometimes I will fire off a note without doing a whole lot of proof reading. There is no rush on the response. The weekend is coming up and I have a number of things I have to get done so, I will unlikely have an opportunity before Monday to come back to the discussion. Got to run schwartzkm |
||||||
72 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21714 | ||
Calvanism equals all things Arminianism equals some things Calvminian equals most things. The middle between "all" and "some" is "most" :-) Just trying to be funny. |
||||||
73 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21731 | ||
I would agree with you on this issue. that was my poor attempt at humor. I know Geisler has attempted to strike a "middle" ground position in this debate in his book, Chosen but Free. I know Lionstrong did not like the book and I felt Geisler was attempting to merge Calvanism with Armenian but nevertheless at least he recognizes the difficulties present in this debate. |
||||||
74 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21736 | ||
I will check the book out. I have promised Lionstrong that I would read White's book and I might as well add another one to the list. |
||||||
75 | Is there middle ground? | Romans | userdoe220 | 21805 | ||
Weather we like it or not, Truth divides people (perceived or real truth). "...what is this morbid desire to know the theoretical extent of the application of the blood of Christ?" I don't think "morbid" is the word I would use to describe a desire to know the extent of Christ’s sacrifice. God created man with an intense desire to explore and make sense of the universe around him; that desire has poured into Theology. I think the problem with this curiosity lies when people feel they have hit the gold mine of truth and everyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant (that has been implied countless times. I remember one thread where someone made fun of a persons grammer and spelling! Talk about a red-herring.) or they are not applying correct hermeneutical tactics when approaching the scripture (I wish I had a nickel every time someone used the phrase “In context the passage really means…”), or you just don’t really understand what Calvin or Armenius taught (Usually what they are saying is they know more about what Calvin taught than….lets say Norman Geisler as a recent example of my latest debate on this issue.). Which I always wondered, having read a number of Norman Geisler’s books and listened to some of his debates, how they would fare in a debate with him on what Calvin taught? I am sure not well but I digress. Sometimes each point mentioned above is used legitimately during a debate. There are times when I don’t understand a person’s shade of calvanism, but that does not mean I have not wrestled with the issue and am not “in the know” as to what Calvinist generally believe. I recently read a book that covers the 3 major views on Calvanism concerning predestination and election! If there are 3 major views on Calvanism, I wonder how many variants of those three views exist? Sad to say, many times the tactics sited above is used as a subtle jab against their opponent attempting to attack their credibility to help aid in their “winning” the debate. After all, who would listen to someone who doesn’t know how to interpret scripture correctly and has no idea as to what Calvin really taught? I am sure that is what you feel is “morbid” about the C and A debate. I don’t mind lively, spirited discussions between C and A’s but we as believers must take the high-ground when debating and not use some of the more un-Christ like debate tactics taught in college and high-school debate teams. Our purpose should not be to “win” a debate but to arrive at truth. Just my 1 cent in this matter |
||||||
76 | Ninevah did. | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20506 | ||
I must have selected the wrong option button. I meant to hit note. Well, since my intent was not that obvious I will state it a little clearer. My intent is to stir up the forum a bit :-) on the question of Ninevah's repentance found in the book of Jonah. Did Ninevah change God's mind through their act of repentance or did God determine all along that Ninevah was going to repent and decided to dupe Jonah into thinking that His judgement was coming immediatley? Tough question that has come up in many of Sunday School classes. |
||||||
77 | Reformed and Arminian Gospel Preaching | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20546 | ||
Which one is reformed and which one is armenian? | ||||||
78 | Ninevah did. | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20548 | ||
Just baiting the forum. Trying to get some activity :-) | ||||||
79 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20550 | ||
You throw out passages many of which are taken out of context which means they are a proof text for you belief. This is the problem I have with Systamtic Theology: It usually starts off with an idea, pulls out the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, completly ignores the passage context and moves on to the next point he/she is trying to make. Is 46 will be answered in another post...In context. Rom 8:28. What is God's purpose in context? To be shaped and fashioned into the image of God. Not to fulfill some eternal decree where we act out some cosmic script in the sky. Please read teh remaining verses: verse 29. Whom he FOREKNEW (notice this comes first in Paul's mind), He also predestined (pre-determined something. What could that be?) to BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON (emphasis is obviously mine :-) It wasn't some cosmic script that he created before time to determine who would be saved and who wouldn't. He has pre-determined that each believer that he forknew would accept his plan would also be Christ-like! "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing WHAT I DESIRE, And without SUCEEDING IN THE MATTER FOR WHICH I SENT IT." --Isaiah 55:11 Of course when God declare that Israel will be judged for forsaken the covenant It will come to pass. I have no problem with that at all. The problem I have is that Israel's rebellion wasn't written down in a cosmic play for them to act out before time began. The plan laid forth in the law was simple: You obey me and I will bless you...YOu disobey and I will judge you. That is far fetched from saying that God has micro-organzied every detail of our lives. Exodus events. Does not prove that God dictated every event of PHaroh's life just the event that he determined would happen--the Exodus! God prophesied to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that he would give them the promised land. In order for God to fulfill His purpose he would have to act in the affairs of man; However, it is a far stretch to say off of those passages that God orchestrates every minute detail of every persons life--even pharoh! I believe he moved on pharohs heart enough to fulfill his purposes and that is all. How can I word this? God has determined certain things to happen--Look at Bible Prophesy the Birth of Christ etc., in those circumstances, God will move in the affairs of men to ensure that his word will "Not return to me void (Is 55:11)." That does not mean he has scripted all of creation! To try to suggest such by using any of the above verses would do damage to the context of scripture. |
||||||
80 | Ninevah did. | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20551 | ||
On a more personal note, EDS has announced to our group that they will be laying off a number of people the 15th of November. I have been layed off two times in the last 2 years and really don't want to repeat the expereince. I would def. appreciate your (as well as: Tim Morant, Lionstrong, Kalos, Casiv and the rest who post often on this forum) prayers in regard to this situation. Looking at the economy and being layed off in the fourth qaurter is unsettling to say the least. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |