Results 641 - 660 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
641 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221323 | ||
Bruno, You missunderstood my last post, sir. I was not in any way suggesting that you claimed to have found truth. I'm not sure what you are wanting to know with regard to "biblical justice" thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
642 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221322 | ||
Keily, Wow, how much discussion I have missed in a single evening! Anyways, answering your question is a short one. Yes, I am saying they exist in the same time frame. The millenial reign of Christ is occuring right this moment. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
643 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221292 | ||
Meta, Sounds like you've got a very good head on your shoulders with regards to these things. We should all have as much humility. Indeed, the word millenium isn't used. This, as you've stated, refers to the 1000 years of satan's binding which itself is only referenced in Revelations chapter 20. Now many will argue that other passages is speaking of this period of time, but it is only explicitly called out in this one passage. However, I don't begrudge people using the word millenium which after all only means 1,000 years. As I said I myself am an Amillenialist. This means that I think the 1,000 years referred to in Rev 20 to be speaking of the present age from a heavenly perspective. The 1000 years being simply a simbolic number referring to an undisclosed amount of time, however long the church age ends up. If you are interested in learning more about this view then Kim Riddlebarger is writer who has much influenced my thinking. He has a decent book out called "The Case for Amillenialism." However his sermons are just as good and require less effort. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
644 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221291 | ||
Dear Bruno, We live in a time where the search for truth is considered most noble, but to have dared to suggest you've found it is the ultimate heresy. I refer to your search as "youthful questioning" because it is quite normal. However, viewed from after the fact, once one has made up their mind with certainty regarding where that truth is located, can you not see how a person would look back at the former wanderings as a more youthful point in their life? I do not look to condemn you for your search, however, understand that the point of the search is to eventually make a stand. Do not be one forever searching and never finding. Also, keep in mind that when you joined these forums the terms of use laid out "sola scriptura" as something you agreed to. This means that every person on these forums has agreed that scripture and scripture alone is the final arbiter of what is true. A person might not personally embrace that, but these forums are not the place to debate it. Let us respect our gracious host in that. Let me tell you why I think my view is not only opposed to your three theories, but fundamentally so. The essence of your anterior and simultaneous views, is that morality is not dependant on God or who He is. It is in someway seperate from Him. I say that morality flows directly from who God is. The essence of your posterior view is that God actually decides between various options and picks one to be right or wrong. What I'm saying is that it flows unavoidably from who God is and could not have been different. Hence, each of your views is saying something radically different from what I'm saying. Not because they are anterior, posterior, or simultaneous, but because of WHY each view is suggesting they are. Finally let me tell you that anybody who is a true Christian is so because God has so pursuaded them. 2 Cor 4:1-6 tells us quite plainly that any who has seen the truth has done so because God has opened their eyes to it. This is something that I would urge any person to seek from God in earnest prayer. Also, if you can remember to, please put future responses to threads marked as a "note." This leaves the question section open for true questions. Any time you respond to me I'm e-mailed about that response so no need to worry over me missing it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
645 | step by step - PART 2 | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221273 | ||
....answered with first post.... | ||||||
646 | answer step by step | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221272 | ||
Dear Bruno, Yes, I do believe completely what scripture says. I understand though where you are at in your journey in that respect. Scripture will hold up to your questioning of it. However, once you find it reliable, I encourage you to move beyond that youthful questioning to complete trust. You will find that it is in this you be able to begin thinking scriptures thoughts after it and shapping yourself most fully into the image of our Lord Jesus. I do not think that what I said in anyway corresponds to your first option, that God chose what is good and evil. God could not have chosen for Himself to be belittled to be a good thing. My view is fundamentally opposed to either of your options. When I say that I do not believe there is any abstract morality, what I mean is that everything is wrong or right based on its relationship to who God is. Nothing is simply wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me or that it would rob my joy. God could throw me in the pits of hell and it would be perfectly just though it would certainly rob me of my joy! I find it something odd that you disagree with what I said about governments given that all I did was quote a scripture. Do you disagree with the truth of the scripture? I would not suggest that we are to obey governments in an occassion when they command us contrary to scripture. But doesn't this go along perfectly with my post? We hold God above every and all authorities, anything else would be to belittle Him. In the end I think my first post stands. I can think of no way to improve upon it or clarify it, yet I hope this post helps. May God bless you as you study His Word. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
647 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221271 | ||
Meta, I wouldn't want to put words into somebody else's mouth but if I recall he mentioned this with reference to the last several chapters in Ezekiel, which deal with a new temple. I would simply guess that the logic was that a new temple implied renewed sacrifices. I disagree with this reading of Ezekiel but I suspect that might have been the logic. Personally I hold that Christ and His church is the new temple which was fortold of in Ezekiel. I'm curious, Meta, what end times view point you subscribe to. I found you challenging the use of the term Millenium very interesting. Personally I hold to an amill position, and wonder if you have a similiar outlook. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
648 | why five stones | 1 Samuel | Beja | 221219 | ||
Dear watchman, Clearly scripture does not answer this. So I take it that you are inviting friendly speculation. Let me share something with you that might help you think it through. Faith trusts in God for the deliverence. Presumption assumes it will be easy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
649 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221216 | ||
Dear Bruno, ...to continue my post... Let me give the starting point for our thinking. The number one foundational truth of reality is this: There is nothing so wonderful, powerful, worthy, glorious, desirable, spectacular, unique or worthy of praise as God. Let that be the beginning of all our thinking. Now, if this is true the greatest good in all existence is for God to be made much of, and the greatest evil in all of existence would be for God to be belittled. Can you see how that follows? God's "holiness" is the starting point. Things are right in as much as they come into line with that reality. Things are wrong in as much as they diverge from that. Lets see if scripture indicates this? What is the worst of crimes? Or rather what is the most important thing that you should do or not do? If we thought of morality as divorced from flowing from God's holiness then we might say murder, rape, child molestation or some other horrid sin. Yet what did Christ say the greatest of all commandments was? To love God with all our being! Doing this is the greatest good, and failure is the greatest wrong! All other morality flows in a similiar way. Why was it wrong to take advantage of the poor? Proverbs 14:31 "He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him." Do you see how morality here is flowing from whether one honors or despises God rather than abstract right and wrong? Why is it wrong to take a life? Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." When God gives permission to us to take the life of all other living things for food, He excludes Man why? Because man is in the image of God. Do you see how it doesn't flow from abstract morality but the honoring or belitteling of God? Why is it wrong to disobey governments? Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Why are we to obey them? Because they are established by God, and to resist them is to resist God Paul goes on to say. Do you see how its not an abstract morality but rather making much or belittling God? I can not cover all possible examples. But I hope this post can turn your train of thoughts onto a biblical course. God is not under some authority, but He is ALWAYS behaving consistent with His holiness, which means He is always working to glorify Himself. Nor could God have chosen for things to be differently, because this morality unavoidably flows from who He is. How great is our God and our savior through whom He is revealed! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
650 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221215 | ||
Dear Bruno, Indulge me a long response in three steps. First let me state your question in easier terms. I'm not sure everybody understands words like "caprice" and "anterior." The sum of the question is this. Is morality something that God authoritative even over God Himself such that He is obligated to follow it, or is morality rather something that God has chosen and set out of His own good pleasure? The real "catch" that this question seems to give us is two troubling thoughts. On one side is the notion that there is something above God that governs his actions. On the other side we wonder if it would have been just as possible for God to perhaps have decided that murder, stealing, and survival of the fittest was "good." Could God have chosen a completely backwards set of morality, right? Alright, so there is the question. Let me continue by offering some pastoral advice on questions like this. This is a question that I suspect many Christians ponder as they mature and think more deeply about God. I myself have wondered over this before, so I would never be harsh with one who did. However, just because it is a common question does not mean that it is a good one. Contrary to popular sentiments, there are such things as bad questions. Let me give you my deffinition of a bad question. A bad question is any question that is continual pursued despite scripture not addressing it. What I am saying is that when you've managed to frame a question that no passage in scripture seeks to answer, then you've framed a poor question. Somewhere in your mind, prior to the question, you have some sort of unbiblical thinking. The best thing you can do at this point is go back to studying what scripture does say, and about what lest you wander off into speculations and eventually heresy. I repeat: when you ask a question that scripture doesn't, you know you've gone wrong somewhere. Ofcourse we typically have to study quite sometime before we realize it doesn't. Ok, now to an answer. As I ponder this I think where the question has gone wrong, is in understanding morality as something so seperated from who God is, rather than flowing from who He is. We are asking is it something prior to God that God must bow to, or is it God's invention? Neither is true. Let's find a starting point for exploring this...I suspect I'm going to reach my limit in length here so I will post this and finish in a reply to my own response. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
651 | Scrpture on helping selfish? | Ex 20:9 | Beja | 221214 | ||
Dear Puppytoes, Our church does its best to use our benevolence to balance three different scriptures. 1 Tim 5:8, Titus 3:14, 2 Thess 3:10. These are not the only relevant passages but fine examples of three strains of thought. First being that we absolutely must take care of our own. Second being that we are trying to become a people that actually wants to help whoever we can through good deeds, not just those we feel obligated to. Third being that if a man a person is simply being lazy rather than dealing with misfortune then well...they don't work, they don't eat. So first we prioritize our money with these things in mind. I think you will find there is too little to give and too much need to provide sluggards. Next, our goal is to sincerely help people, not just to feed them. So this means different things at different times. We try to ask ourselves one question. Why are they in this jam? This isn't to judge them but rather to help them best. If it is a situation where a person is doing a really horrible job with their money and clearly have no experience using a budget then the best way to help them is not simply to hand them money and see them back in 6 months in the same bind. In that case we offer financial counseling. www.daveramsey.com is a great educational program for money. So we may still help them while they are learning, but the answer to a lack of understanding is not money, its learning. Second, if the problem isn't their know how, but lazyness, then sometimes the only way you can help a person is to let them fall. Enabling a person isn't helping them either. It breaks my heart, but it breaks my heart more when we tell a single mom we are out of money because we gave it to a man who doesn't work who is perfectly capable. Don't let this excuse mask an ungiving spirit though. Finally though, if somebody is seriously doing what they ought and they simply have some bad misfortune, then we just help them. This is just how our church has tried to think through the issue, it may or may not be helpful to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
652 | How could Satan sin? | Ephesians | Beja | 221209 | ||
Dhudspeth15, I encourage you to do a few things. First, what scripture are you using to state that there is no sin in heaven? I know that is going to, from a knee jerk reaction, sound heretical, but consider it. And if you find something, make sure you aren't confusing eternity past, with the new heavens and the new earth which God is preparing for those in Christ. So first, make sure you are thinking in scriptural terms. Second, I encourage you to look at the references in the book of Ephesians to the place referred to as the "heavenlies." Ephesians 1:3,20 2:6, 3:10, 6:12. Especially the last reference. See if these things can help you come to any conclusion on the matter. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
653 | Gen 6:6-7 vs. allmighty and omniscient | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221199 | ||
Dear Bruno Dosca, I wanted reply to your original post so forgive me if I side step some of the later discussion. The question you posted is how does God in his omnicience and his omnipotence ever feel sorrow for his actions. The answer is that God's "relenting" is in fact a constant aspect of God. Keep in mind that we are trying to convey Hebrew words here into english concepts. So, lets look at the passage you cited. Gen 6:6 "The Lord was sorry (nacham) that He made man on the earth." The word used for sorry here is actually the hebrew word nacham. Now its a good question that you asked, but lets look at a passage that specifically talks about God doing this. We should always let scripture answer our questions when possible. Jer 18:7-10 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent(nacham) concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of (nacham) the good with which I had promised to bless it." Can you see here how scripture is saying that this "sorrow/relenting/repenting/changing His mind" is actually a constant feature of God? It is not to suggest that God failed to see something coming and then thought to Himself, "Man, I sure blew that one!" Rather it is trying to communicate in human terms that whenever God sees such sin as He did in the context of Gen 6 He will revoke His blessings, and whenever He sees repentence, He will forgive and pardon, relenting from the judgment that would have come had the sinner continued his path. When we let Jeremiah 18 inform us how to understand this language concerning God, it moves from a troubling notion, to a beautiful and constant attribute of God. Praise God that we serve One who in Jesus Christ relents of the evil we deserve when we repent in faith! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
654 | Leviticus 26:29 | 2 Kin 6:29 | Beja | 221112 | ||
Dotanddro, This was a warning of what horrors would come upon Israel should they continue in disobedience to God. It was referring to the depraved actions that would happen while they were starved from armies laying siege to their cities. This actually did come to pass. See 2 kings 6:29 and Lamentations 4:10. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
655 | contraception | Rom 14:1 | Beja | 221041 | ||
Dear Rajeeb, Here is a sermon that drastically changed my perspective with regards to children. No single scripture impacted me as did grasping a biblical opinion of kids. I hope this can help you and your wife as well. I will pray for you. http://www.evangelismteam.com/sermons_vbaucham.php In Christ, Beja |
||||||
656 | IS BAPTISM NECESSARY | NT general | Beja | 220863 | ||
Mamametal, I believe this is a reference to Ezekiel 36:25-27. In that passage it speaks of the new birth in a few different terms. These are: sprinkling with clean water for clensing, taking out the heart of stone for a heart of flesh, and putting His Spirit within us. I can't prove that is what He was referring to, but I can tell you I'm not alone in this interpretation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
657 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220839 | ||
Lightedsteps, Sin seperates us from God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
658 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220830 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm not trying to argue that one can loose their salvation. I don't think that this passage is teaching that a person can loose it. I believe whole heartedly in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. But I can tell you for certain where the IF came from. If you want to have IF in there at all it is unavoidably connected to the "falling away." Your end conclusion I wouldn't begrudge. But you have to translate the falling away some how and the options are limited. I can tell you for certain that what it is defined as impossible is the renewing to repentence. In the greek there is really no room for confusion. The main clause is "For it is impossible to renew them to repentence." Now from there you can argue the passage multiple ways, but that much greek grammer constrains us to. There is a fellow that frequents these forums, Bro. Tim. He seems to be more proficient in greek than I am and I would urge him to validate or correct my claims here if he notices this post. But once again, I don't think you are comming to a wrong conclusion, you are just reaching it in a way the grammer won't support. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
659 | What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 | Heb 6:9 | Beja | 220821 | ||
Fundamentals, I've debated this question more than once on this site, so when you asked I was rather determined not to get involved in the conversation once more. However, the answer given by lightedsteps very much should be addressed. To put it simply, what he has told you about the "IF" in the sentence is wrong. His interpretation is literally impossible due to the way it is written in the original greek. Verse 6 says, "Kai parapesontas, palin anakeinidzein" Feel free to take my word for it, but anybody who does not take my word for it let me break this phrase down for you. Kai (and, even, also) This word simply connects this section to what has come before. 'Palin anakeinidzein" means to renew again. It goes on to say "to repentence" but I didn't want to reproduce the entire verse in Greek. Now here is the point. There is one word left, "parapesontas." This is a participle of the verb which means "to fall away." Notice this, there is no IF or WHEN in the text at all. In fact, this is true of all verses 4-6, there is no word in this entire text for IF or WHEN. The word IF isn't even in the text! Either of those words ONLY comes into the text as you try to translate this participle. Participles can be translated in different ways. Some possibilities could be, When they fall away Having fallen away If they fall away because they fall away etc. Translations deal with this participle in different ways. I'm not trying to tell you or anybody how to translate this participle. But what I am saying is that you can not translate it in a conditional sense, into "If they fall away," And then take the if and move it else where into the sentence! The IF is ONLY there by virtue of you taking the "to fall away" participle in that sense. You can not treat the IF as an independent word in the sentence and debate where it is applied. This is literally a grammatically impossible interpretation of the greek. I hope this helps. I know it didn't answer the verse for you, but I didn't want you to go away with an answer that is literally impossible grammatically. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
660 | Can you be pro-life but not do anything? | Genesis | Beja | 220761 | ||
Arundel, There is, of course, no biblical basis for our inaction. I believe if I recall correctly that it is around 3 percent of churchmembers that even support their church financially. If we can't motivate them to do this, how much more difficult for a pastor to get his people to join a protest? I can assure you that the biggest obstical in my own church is not a lack of pro-life protests. If it makes you feel any better I loathe abortion and I try to instill the same mindset in the church I serve. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Next > Last [40] >> |