Results 61 - 80 of 1260
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: charis Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Is whate'er my God ordains right? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5439 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, The point of all of the above string of postings was to say that God is right? Well, I agree that He is absoulutely right. Logic would dictate, then, that He could not cause or be responsible for wrong, or evil. Perhaps I am too simple for this discussion. Pardon me if I have misjudged you or misinterpreted your words. Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
62 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5440 | ||
Dear Cephas, If all you can conclude thus far is that God made angels and men capable of evil(and good), that is slightly better that holding God personally responsible for evil. Does it not seem to you that this entire line of hypothesis is quite negative, even disrespectful toward God? Delving deeper than the universally accepted and Biblically-confirmed idea that Lucifer is the author of all our troubles seems counter-faith to me. The Lord Jesus has ordained the church and His chosen servants to disciple and nurture His people. Please avail yourself of this gift and see if your pastor can give you guidance. I must admit that I cannot fathom any reason for pursuing the 'ultimate root' of evil if you presuppose that the culprit is God. Because if one does not accept that it is Lucifer(satan), it must be his Creator. I personally cannot see God having anything to do at all with the introduction of evil into this world. Peace in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
63 | Why do you continue to ask? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5513 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Welcome to the forum. I am aware that my solution to this problem has serious logical, philosophical, and theological problems. But, to be honest, I don't deal all that often with logical, philosophical, and theological people. Most saints are not as deep as this question has become. (I, personally, think the discussion has become inane) Most saints trust that God is absolutely good, and know that satan is the author of our troubles. Your answer, though perfectly acceptable, is more mystical (somehow) than plain. It is, however, better than saying that God is (ultimately) responsible for evil :-) (btw, is it truly logical to assume that because God made Lucifer, God made evil?) Blessings to you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
64 | What about Ex. 4:11 does that apply? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5634 | ||
Dear EdB, I have looked at Exodus 4:11, and concluded that it does not change my answer. One reason would be that the context could easily mean simply that God allows us to see, hear, and speak in accord with His will, regardless of the functionality of these physical organs. Then, of course, there is the literal understanding of this passage meaning that God makes us physically handicapped. I either case, I submit to the sovereignty of God, saying that He is good. His purposes are never evil. He is incapable of evil, even in the perspective of our own selfish viewpoint. I have a minor physical handicap, the result of an accident at a job site (I used to work as a carpenter). It hurt! It also impaired my ability to work in the exact manner that I had been. It also humbled me a great deal, especially in the area of physical prowess (I pray that the humility worked into my spirit, too :-) There was a tendency in my soul (emotions) to want to blame God, but I knew that He could hold no blame. I still believe that, absolutely. I can find no fruit in assigning any kind of evil to my Lord and Savior in the light of His overwhelming goodness. It would only make Him into a mystical puppeteer, creating us for amusement. This is unacceptable to my faith. Thank you for your question, as it encourages me in my trust in God. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
65 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5649 | ||
Dear Cephas, As with your namesake, please do move on to other, more uplifting things. I do not say this in anger or exasperation, but for your own sake and ours. Peter walked with the Lord Jesus, yet doubted and left Him and even denied Him. He later was filled with the Spirit and this took away every doubt, every bit of skeptisism. He trusted God completely from that time to his death. To speculate that "maybe God this..." or "maybe God that..." is not giving due glory to God, or honoring Him. "What if God made evil?" is a worldly, humanist idea for a new 'Star Trek' movie, or a new 'fantasy' bestseller. This is a forum for sharing our thoughts about a glorious God, full, completely full of goodness and lovingkindness. To investigate His holy Bible for truth and love. I don't know about others, but I find speculation about God's intentions and motives to be peace-robbing, not edifying or peace-giving. Bless you, dear friend, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
66 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5652 | ||
Dear Cephas, No, you are not being censored. Only the Lockman Foundation could do that. You are being censured by your peers, as is acceptable in a public forum. Please, no 'weird' questions. The word means magical and connected with witchcraft. In a way, this is a 'cosy club for insiders,' as you suggest. We all know and trust in the Lord Jesus, and are 'inside' His grace. If a non-Christian were to visit this site, I would hope to show him trust in God, the lively fellowship of the saints, and wisdom and even wit. Not unedifying rhetoric, speculation about our God's motives, or stiff-necked argument. This is my prayer for this online forum. It would appear, my friend, that you have brought out the worst in some of the brethren, by questioning the foundations of faith in Christ Jesus, who is God. Peace upon you, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
67 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5654 | ||
Dear Nolan Keck, You should seek to be baptized. There is no 're-baptism' if there is only one (water) baptism, as clearly stated in Ephesians 4:5. As you well, know, I am not a Conservative Mennonite, but their Anabaptist roots come from a restoration of truth to the church. Infant baptism was simply a method of insuring membership in a denomination of the church, a convenience. They believed that the church was salvation, not personal faith in Christ. Your faith is your faith, not your parent's faith any longer. Infant baptism is a 'christening' or naming ceremony, a prayer offered in hope that the child will grow up into Christ Jesus. Nothing more, and nothing less. I do not 'condemn' this practice, but do put it into Biblical perspective. I pray that you will make a holy decision based on the Spirit that indwells you, and the Bible that tells you, not on the traditions of your church. In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
68 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5655 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Your claim that the Anabaptists are the only ones that practice baptism by a believer is outrageous! Also, your 'soteriology' does not allow or disallow anything. It is simply your opinion. We came to share and discuss, not pontificate :-) Bless you, dear fellow believer, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
69 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5656 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Sorry, I meant "Your claim that the Anabaptists are the only ones that practice re-baptism of a believer is outrageous." Bless you, dear fellow believer, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
70 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5669 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, I am happy for you. Absolute faith in personal dogma is admirable. I agree that you should stand by it. I am not sure where you got 'it is simply a historical fact that the church had always baptised its infants until the Anabaptists came along in the sixteenth century and the Baptists in the eighteenth.' Please tell me from the Bible your clear references for child-or-infant baptism. Only Anabaptists and Baptists (but not all Baptists) recommend the baptism of a believer? (there is but one baptism into Christ per believer) Obviously you have not met many Pentecostals or Charismatics or independents that have strayed from your form of orthodoxy. It is possible that they were not included in your education. My friend, there are quite a few Christians that do not follow the pattern you have been taught. I can only humbly suggest that you go to a variety of churches and fellowships to broaden your outlook toward 'other' believers. This might help you in your pursuit to serve Christ by serving Christians, rather than a limited form of Christianity. Print out this conversation and ask the opinion of your teachers. As I read the Word of God, I see that the Lord desires us to be of one faith in Him, not in lockstep tradition. In any case, I personally depart from the 're-baptism' topic, and simply state that water baptism in the Bible was for believers in Christ Jesus as a gift and a strength to their walk in Him. Peace upon you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
71 | Am I being censored? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5670 | ||
Dear Cephas, I can call you 'dear' and 'friend' and 'fellow' because you have confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I made no accusations, but simply used your word 'weird' in accord with Websters Dictionary. I use censure in the manner of 'appraise' or 'critique,' which should be acceptable usage. I meant only to clarify the difference between useful discussion and useless speculation. My posting, though connected to your comments, was for a forum of believers in Christ, not a personal attack on your character. I don't know enough about you to do that. I replied to your (several) postings, with the motive of expounding my absolute faith in God as a good God. I thank you for your forgiveness. In fact, I treasure it, if it is genuine. Peace upon you, Cephas, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
72 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5695 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, You are perceptive! I am not an adherent of man-made tradition, no matter how old it is. But, you do me an injustice. The first paragraph was not all sarcasm, though I admit that a bit creeped in :-) I do admire people with definite beliefs. I admire more those whose strong beliefs are tempered with humility, breadth, and clear Bible foundation. Perhaps I did not construe your words correctly. You did make a very strong statement that had a 'us and them' 'we are right, they are wrong' quality to it. And 'they' are not just a pitiful little minority. You make it sound as if anyone that has forsaken the tradition of infant baptism is but a deceived follower of Anabaptist heresy. Your view of historical 'offshoots' is terribly over-simplified. My friend, this is hardly the way to 'make friends and influence people.' "Only churches that have come out of traditions that have been influenced by the Anabaptists refuse to baptise infants." Well, believe it or not, there are a good number of saints that read the Bible and came to that conclusion as a result of conviction by the Holy Spirit. Your 'compartmentalization' of Christian belief and history is astounding. I do 'look around,' and I do not see that "we all came from Rome at one point." I know that I didn't! "Ceasing to baptise infants into the covenant is not the norm, but an anomaly in church history." I order to prove that, you will have to come up with incontrovertible proof that Jesus taught infant baptism and the apostles and new testament saints practiced it. As yet, you have not even started to do so. Thus far, you have only potificated your denominational bent. Give us some Scripture! Bless you in the name of Jesus, charis |
||||||
73 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5766 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Please tell me who is being insulting? You have denounced every Christian that has Anabaptist, Baptist, or Pentecostal roots, and thrown in 'some' Charismatic, Methodist, and independents on the side, and declared them heretic for their non-traditional view of Scripture. Once you have aligned your tradition with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, you are indeed in the majority, and state that 'majority rules, and others drool.' What a bigoted form of faith.(bigot-a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices-Webster) When you state that 'we all come from Rome.' you are saying that every Christian's faith rides upon tradition. I prefer to believe that personal faith in Jesus Christ and the personal revelation of the Bible by the unction of the Holy Spirit are still working in the church. Am I wrong to believe this? "...Almost exclusively in the US." Please tell me, how much have you travelled, and how many years of study brought you to this conclusion? We finally come to Scripture. Your doctrine is based wholly on the assumption that 'household' MUST include infants and children, and that NT circumcision is baptism, and must be done on the eighth day (or whenever it is convenient for infant-parents-church facilities). Is this generally correct? I am sorry to ask the 'utterly impossible' of you, but don't you think that a reference that Jesus instituted this rite, or the apostles practiced it is in order? Your extrapolation of Scripture is strained. Does not the Old Testament promise of a 'circumcision of heart' (Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4) speak of faith on the part of the individual, as compared to a rite performed by religious officials with the parents consent? What I am saying is that the bulk of you argument rests on majority and tradition, not the Bible. You state that you "...cannot detect anything offensive..." in "proclaiming the truths of Scripture." I, the minority, heartily disagree. This Bible Study Forum is not a 'soapbox' for denominations, but a place for research of the tenets of Christian faith. I would be glad to discuss with you the doctrine of baptism in it's various forms, but please keep your label of 'heresy' and the like to yourself. If I 'cross the line' by denying the virgin birth, the Triune nature of God, the efficacy of the name of Jesus, the Blood of Jesus, or the like, then bring out your accusations, dear brother-in-Christ. Peace upon you in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
74 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5801 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, I am not 'denounced' but my faith is 'rooted in heresy.'(?) Why don't I feel better about this? Friend, I am not an Anabaptist or Baptist. Never have been. I am not influenced by them. I am not just a product of someone's teaching, who is a product of someone's teaching, back to Rome. I am a believer in the Bible, and have come to my conclusions after reading and studying the Bible, Seeking the direction of the Holy Spirit, and studying the history of the church. I take offense at the suggestion that I could not come to some conclusions on my own. (and I don't take offense easily) "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)" John 4:1,2 NASB 'Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."'Acts 2:38 NASB I believe the above Scriptures speaks of baptism of believers. "Household" includes goats and camels. Please continue to sprinkle or pour water on you children, at your convenience, and believe that you have performed a work in their heart. I choose to wait, believing that God will keep them until their own faith comes forth. I believe that you are a Christian brother, and would hope to receive reciprocal courtesy. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect" -Wesley Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
75 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5808 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, We agree that we are both Christians, and disagree on the method and timing of baptism, but not the necessity. I prefer the baptism of a believer, and think that the leading of the Holy Spirit should guide the individual to decide whether to be baptized as a believer or not. You prefer the tradition of your church, which needs no restatement here. Fine. I have no further arguments, I think it would be unfruitful. Your statements are abrasive and your attitude toward the me is patronizing and offensive, not caring or loving. You know almost nothing of my salvation experience, my environment, or my walk in Christ, yet insist that you must offend. The whole thing about Rome has nothing to do with Biblical faith, yet you are bigoted and stiff-necked. I know that you think that you have no need of 'people skills,' but I think you do if you are to serve the body of Christ. Shu Iesu Kirisuto no shukufuku ga yutaka ni anata no ue ni arimasu you ni. Douka, kono kudaranai arasoi wo ato ni shite, sei naru majiwari ga dekimasu you ni. Kami no megumi ga kyoukai no ue ni sosogaremasu you ni. Shu Iesu no na ni yori, karisu May the Lord Jesus Christ put His abundant blessings upon you. O, that we may put this meaningless argument behind us, and engage in holy fellowship. May the grace of God be poured upon His church. In the name of the Lord Jesus, charis |
||||||
76 | Where are guardian angels mentioned? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5880 | ||
Dear Nolan, As I wrote in answer to HeirofGod, I certainly believe that angels are charged with protecting His people in accordance with His wishes, the reality of a full-time, personally-assigned angel or angels for every child or every saint is not supported in Scripture. I read all your references, as well as all the previous references in this line of postings. Your posting about Peter is the most challenging to understand, but not very conclusive about the existence of guardian angels. Why the others would taunt her that 'it was his angel' seems to be ridiculing her, as if she was seeing a ghost. Peter's angel was off the job? Guardian angels look like their charges? Why didn't they want to see who it was? I don't know. Matthew 18:10, These angels are constantly in heaven. Also, as every child does stumble on rocks and every other available protrubance, and suffer all kinds of accidents (some more than others), then God is a God Who does not send the angels to protect all that often. That God *withholds* His angels is a stumbling point. (pun intended :-) As a parent, I would be pretty upset every time my child skinned her knee, or got a fever. Those times are heart-wrenching! "Where were you, Guardian?!?!" That "more than 12 legions" are available at any time does not surprise me at all. I believe in myriads of angels! I have experienced angelic intervention both before and after I was apprehended by the Lord. However, *my own* angel is a bit hard to grasp. Possibly those few people that never have any problems could claim their constant companionship? In any case, dear friend, I don't lose sleep wrestling with this, and I hope you don't :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
77 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5881 | ||
Dear Orthodoxy, In my previous posting I ended in a prayer of peace between us. I was not being sarcastic or facetious. However, before that I was rude, and broke my own rules of propriety. I would like to beg your pardon. You do not know my circumstance, but I don't know yours either. Please accept my apology. Though further discussion of infant baptism seems fruitless, I am sure that we will have other topics to discuss in the future. I will try to curb my uncivil tongue, and glorify Jesus in our fellowship. Yours in Christ, charis |
||||||
78 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5932 | ||
Dear Nolan, I can find no direct reference to babies and children going to heaven. Often, babies are referred to as 'cherubic.' As to the salvation of children, it becomes a bit sticky. First, children of the unsaved: Regarding children, unborn or born of the unsaved, there is little Scriptural indication that they are considered 'innocent.' In fact, the Word says we are "by nature children of wrath." There is the place where Jesus says, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." in Luke 18:16, but this Scripture is often quoted as speaking of believers, not literal children. Suggesting a dual-meaning could be dangerous. Verse 15 might mean the literal children of believers, while verse 17 leads us to a figurative meaning of believers in Christ, but neither seems to mean 'all' children. In the book-movie "Left Behind," all children, born and unborn, of saved and unsaved were 'raptured.' I find this hard to support Biblically. Please, I am not being unfeeling, judgmental, or proclaiming that children of the unsaved will go to Hell. I am just saying that the *assumption* that all children are innocent and all deserve to go to heaven is hard to back up. God will save whom He will save. Next, children of the saved: The main scripture that might give hope to parents is 1 Corinthians 7:14 "...but now they are holy." MacArthur writes: 'They would be unclean if both parents were unsaved, but the presence of one believing parent exposes the children to blessing and brings them protection. The presence of even one Christian parent will protect children from undue spiritual harm, and they will receive many blessings, and often that includes salvation.' My personal hope is that it guarantees salvation. If we try to say that children are saved through infant baptism, then the unborn or unbaptized would not be saved. (Note: not an argument against infant baptism, only against baptism required for salvation) It is my belief that if our children are saved, they will be in heaven. Finally, when are they no longer children? I do not believe there is a set age. My experience with kids suggest that they can really know Jesus (as compared to know about Jesus) between 12 and 15. (Please, people with 11 and younger children, don't jump on me! Every Christian parent wants their children to be personally saved earlier than that :-) But truly, children are children until they begin to shoulder the burdens and responsibilities of adult life. This would include marital, financial, parental, social, church fellowship, and spiritual burdens. Those who are 'in between' phases, are just that, and God is much more aware of their situation than anyone else. They are His. Trust God to do the right thing. "Let God be true...!" In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
79 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 5985 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Subtlety and tact never hurt anyone. Jesus was straightforward and firm, and spoke with absolute authority, but he also was compassionate and full of grace. Tradition is fine, but bear in mind that our true roots are recorded in the Bible, in the actions and hearts of the saints in places such as Jerusalem and Antioch. This tradition is the holy Word of God, which is living and active, while subsequent tradition cannot share this quality. Yes, we must learn from the past, but often tradition is a history of mistakes and foolishness of man (which can be a great tutor). Please, please! This is a Bible study forum of saints from many backgrounds, pursuing unity of faith in Christ Jesus. Denominational or traditional bent is out of place, and courtesy will be rewarded by our Lord. Trust, friend, we all have more thoughts than we portray here, but hold back for the sake of fellowship. Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
80 | Would you explain your action? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6006 | ||
Dear EdB, I did not vote on this thread, but the idea behind voting was to have a way to point out a *remarkably* biased or controversial opinion. The leadership at Lockman can use this as a way to 'feel the pulse' of the participants. I think that many times it is not the content so much as the attitude that would bring one to *remark* on a posting. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [63] >> |