Results 741 - 760 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
741 | is a christian allowed to drink | 1 Cor 6:10 | Beja | 213553 | ||
I think this is very unlikely in the great. In the greek it basically says the negative in between each. NOT addicted to wine, NOT pugnacious. Makes rendering it in a complex phrase such as the cause of each other highly unlikely. However, I'm not a greek master and it is possible that that combination can have some funny uses possible. My greek books are at the office so I can't say but as stated, very doubtful. In love, Beja |
||||||
742 | many are called but only few are chosen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213546 | ||
Doc, Well laid out, sir. I agree. In love, Beja |
||||||
743 | many are called but only few are chosen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 213515 | ||
I'm curious as to your understanding of the call to ministry and would like to clarify it with a question. Does it seem to you that depending on how faithful and repentent and responsive to God's grace a man is, that he can then be chosen by God for ministry at a certain point when before he wasn't? | ||||||
744 | Greiving the Holy Spirit | Is 63:10 | Beja | 213496 | ||
Sometimes when we read a statement like that we look so hard for something deep we miss that the answer is right there. I take it to be referring to all the other things in ephesians 4:25-32. Not beggining to work out these changes in your life grieves God's Spirit which desires to see Christ fully formed in us (our thinking, our conduct, our relationships, etc.). In love, Beja |
||||||
745 | How Holy Is Marriage? | Matt 16:6 | Beja | 213494 | ||
I respond to an earlier post in this thread but I make this post thinking of many things in it. To those who would correct Robert, and I ask you to consider what I say from love's eyes, he has shared with us the sin that his son lives in and scripture is clear. But for love's sake realize that you can not simply come to him with verses of scripture. You are not trying to persuade him simply of some abstract piece of theology or doctrine, what you are trying to persuade him of is that his son, his own flesh and blood, is not welcomed in the church, lost, whatever it is each of you are try to persuade him of. If your heart will not weap for it as his, he will not hear you. Let us teach with gentleness and compassion. Next, Robert, there are hard truths that are going to be hard for you to hear. Though it is with no joy and with pain that I say it, I direct your attention to 1 Corinthians 5:9-12. In this Paul says if a so called brother is immorral we are not to associate with him, not even to eat with him. This word immorral is not referring to general sin but refers specifically to sexual immorrality. Now that is certainly not the only sin on the list, but it is among them, and it is a command. We can not discard it for compassion's sake. I will gladly speak with, eat with, walk with, and spend time with a homosexual. The sin itself does not scare me away from loving a person at all. But the moment that person calls themself a Christian, I am obligated to step away and not associate with them. Why? Because now it is an issue of slandering the teaching of Jesus Christ. Just as in Romans it says, "As it is written My name is slandered among the gentiles all day long because of you." This is a neccessity for two reasons. First is because the world must plainly see that Christ has no part in that. That His teachings do not permit that. Second, we must teach an errant brother that to follow Christ means to turn from his sin. Ofcourse he will make mistakes, but deciding to just live in it isn't acceptable to Christ or us. Do we take joy in doing this? No! On the contrary it breaks our hearts, but love compels us to it, not judgement or hate! We care too much for him and his soulnot to try to push him to repentance. Beyond that we must for the sake of obedience to this command in 1 Cor 5. Now, I speak for myself in this next thing, and I pray I do not teach against God, but I personally expect direct family members to still have contact and time with such people. If nothing else to continually remind them that the Church is longing for their repentence and return so that they do not mistakenly interpret it as hate. Do not in your hurt accuse wrong doing on the Church. Next, let us not think that because a person will cling to sin through persecution that it is therefore not sinful lusts or worldliness. How many times as we read the prophets do we see God go through the acts of "punish then call to repent", "punish then call to repent"; only to be met with absolute committment to sin. Finally let me say something about the discussion regarding the law that has come up in this thread. And keep in mind that we are talking about the moral aspects of it, not the ordinances such as not eating pork and sacrifices. In Romans chapter 3 verse 19 Paul states for us the purpose of the Law. "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God." The point of the law was so that all those not under grace, would see the law and when they saw its drastic demand for perfection, their mouths would be closed meaning that they could say nothing at all in their defense. That is because each would see with clarity that they are a sinner in need of saving. But let us consider what it is that God sent to accomplish this. Was it not perfection? Was it not the very standard by which we can measure Christ's life and say he was perfect? So while what he sent was meant to show us we can not obey, we have to stop and realize that the very thing he sent to accomplish that is an elaborate picture of what perfect righteousness looks like. Therefore even though the law has completely lost its ability to condemn any person in Christ, the law can never completely loose its value! For even after it can no longer condemn us does not a perfect picture of Godly righteousness have value to teach us still? Now that you are set free in Christ (because you could not measure up to His perfection on your own), will you turn to something else to show you perfection? Understand then that Christ overcame the moral law, that Christ disarmed the moral law from its power to condemn those who have faith in Him, but never teach that Christ came to abolish the moral law. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17 |
||||||
746 | What about these sins? | Matt 16:6 | Beja | 213467 | ||
Let me just begin by saying that scripture does not actually give explicit advice for your situation. I mean that in the sense that while it gives plenty of advice for marriage and rules against divorce, had you followed the rules in existence you would not be married to this second spouse, yet the only way for you to in a sense go back and undo this would be yet another divorce. So you are caught between looking back to see sin led you here, and now you wonder if sin itself is the way out. That specific circumstance is not singled out in scripture. However, I will give you my attempt to answer your situation as long as we are both understood that what I am giving you is my best attempt at processing all the commands God gives concerning marriage and all that I know of God to try to think within the mind of Christ to answer this question. This is my attempt, and not "Thus saith the LORD." What we know is that any divorce is a sin to the one who divorces unless their spouse actually cheated on them. These are Christ's words. Paul also in 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 says that is a wife does through sin leaves her husband that she now has two options, she may either remain unmarried, or return to her husband. First I assume this applies to a husband who leaves also. Now what I'd like you to see is that after this person had sinned in unlawfully leaving a spouse, the sin was done and now must be decided how to keep from sinning further which naturally assumes the person is wishing to do God's will after the first sin, and there is some degree of repentence. You find yourself yet one step further in sin, you committed the divorce, then you married again, but now again you must see where do you go not to sin further. The first step is that this assumes the same repentence from you. You have sinned, you have done wrong in getting to where you are, and you do need to turn to go in serious repentence for this. However, you now have found yourself in the situation that you have made a second covenant before God in marriage. You can not make your past mistakes right by committing divorce a second time. Only the blood of Christ can make that right. If you repent, and you turn to fully seek God's will in your new situation, and you give your current spouse the committment before God you didn't give your first one, God will bless your marriage. We do not fix sin with sin. Cling to your new spouse with all your life. A critique against what I have said will surely be this: does this not leave people a way to do what they want, to leave their spouse, to marry again, and then cleverly say oh well, I guess now to obey God I must get exactly what I wanted! Surely people can play games with you and I and any rules we set up, but rest assured God knows their hearts. Galatians 6:7 says, "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." So I say to you this, if it is your heart to repent entirely and turn both your life and this marriage you are currently in to God, you do well. If you seek to use this simply as a stamp of approval for your sin, God will know, and God will repay. Finally, I beg you to see no judgement of you in my post for that is certainly not my intention. Rather, fully edifying whoever should read this post, and not leading them to sin from halfly revealed truths has compelled me to portray fully the path to life and the path to condemnation within your situation. Read 1 Samuel chapter 12 for an encouraging story on God calling people on in faith when they have found that they have sinned. In love, Beja |
||||||
747 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213435 | ||
((CONTINUATION OF FIRST POST)) Why then? If we are not superior or we do not have greater honor, why then are we leaders? I believe that God meant for marriage to serve as a picture of bigger realities. It is undeniable that scripture does see it as a picture for bigger realities. These include a picture of God that we all can very much relate to, a picture of a Father; and also it includes the marriage of Christ and his church (ephesians 5). We all agree that marriage serves as these illustrations but what I would suggest to you is this: God did not look around and say, "hey, marriage is like this, I'll compare it to that." Rather, God in his infinite wisdom as he set out his purpose in creation, chose to create an institution of marriage that would reflect greater truths which he planned to unfold in his perfect time. To that end he crafted marriage and the first marriage between Adam and Eve, to reflect these things. The male, took the picture of the instigator of all these covenants. His role as father is meant to serve as illuminating light on God our Father. Authority is part of that. He is meant to represent Christ and his love to the church. Authority is part of that. So while the husband has no claims to superiority, do to the role God has given him he has all claims to authority over his wife. This naturally carries over into the church because beyond the family, the church is the other location in which God wants to illustrate and paint pictures concerning Himself. Also I believe whole heartedly the Church is meant to be modeled after a family. See 1 timothy 5:1-2 (these verses do not prove that idea but lend support to it.) So, these are the two areas where we see scripture give clear instruction on male authority. I do not believe that men are meant to have any God given authority over women outside the family and the church. For example I have no God given authority whatsoever to come up to some lady I don't know and tell her to obey me. Now given that all these are things God had placed upon creation as his intention, where does the curse come in? In this I give my humble opinion. The curse was that your desire would be for your husband and he shall rule over you. It is an interesting point that the word for "desire" in this passage is not at all a common word, but it is the same word used in the account of Cain and Abel when God says that "sin desires you." So one is not to think this is a "healthy submission to proper authority" type of desire. I would suggest to you this is a combative desire perhaps even longing to take his authority for her own. I would also suggest to you that the husband ruling over her is not the God intended type of ruling that was originally the idea. You see the husbands God given authority is meant to be of a most peculiar type, that of Christ to the Church (ephesians 5). Also Matthew 20:24-28 is absolutely key in revealing that proper Godly leadership is one in service to and for the interest of those who are led. These passages are how a man is suppose to be leading his wife. This new desire of man to now "rule" is more of a dominating interest I would suggest. So what we see is that now sin has marred this relationship of a beautiful picture of Christ and his church. Now there is rebellion and self interested leadership. Need we look far in our times to overly support this? I wince as I think of how unclear I've been, I ask for God's grace in the readers understanding, and I ask for the readers grace in their responses. In love, Beja |
||||||
748 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213434 | ||
Well I was reluctant earlier to say anymore than simply answering your question for two reasons. First, many people can be aggressive over such a topic. I do not in any way expect you to be so, but I don't know who all will be reading this post and reply. Second, because once you say just a little on this topic, there is a great deal that ought to be said. This topic is peculiar in that just part of it seems to be unfair unless the whole picture is laid out. For example male authority without discussion on what that authority is meant to look like can appear hateful and power hungry. However, these concerns stated I'll share a bit and feel free to stop reading at any point...as I said, much must be stated. First, we must cling tightly to what is revealed, and hold lightly what we must speculate beyond that. So here is what we know with absolute certainty. 1 Timothy 12-14 makes it clear that males are to be the head of the church, they are to be the only ones teaching other men or holding any authority over other men. So male's have authority in the church, with the obvious disclaimer that all authority in the Church is ultimately Christ's. We also know with absolute certainty that a husband has complete authority in the marriage. Ephesians 5:22-24 states that a wife is to obey her husband to the same extent to which the church is to obey Christ. Now, these are the things we know with absolute certainty and that all Christians will either agree with or they are in disobedience to God's word. I can speak with that certainty because I've done nothing but put forward two Bible verses with no speculation on their meaning so far. Now, the rest of this letter is my doing the best I can to teach how these things begin to impact and work themselves out, so in what follows there can be loving discussion and questioning and even dissagreement. Correct me with scripture if I am off. Within this I would first humbly suggest we must do away with the notion of superiority. The husband being given superiority is a mistaken fancy we have. Authority in marriage does not imply superiority any more than a government having authority over us implies the senators have superiority to us in God's eyes. First consider the first recording of making mankind without looking to the specifics of how it happened. Genesis 1:26-27. Keep in mind the term for man there can equally refer to humanity as a whole. He made them male and female and both of these were said to be made in His image. There is no superiority in the relationship but there is authority. 1 Peter 3:7 commands husbands to show their wives honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life so that our prayers would not be hindered. Our authority is not about superiority or greater honor, but only about authority. ((MORE COMING IN SECOND POST)) |
||||||
749 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213413 | ||
The basis for man's authority certainly goes beyond what I posted. My post was only attempting to show that it was not something that was contingent on the fall. By showing that there were verses that indicated the authority was in place prior to the fall (1 Cor 11:8 and the 1 timothy passage) it proves only one thing: man's authority was not because of the fall. Hence answering the original question of whether it was based on the fall or not. What it is in fact based on and a detailed account of what these passages are trying to teach is not something I'm intending to even hint at. Hope that helps to clarify my post. In love, beja |
||||||
750 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213409 | ||
1 Cor 11:8 involves a highly disputed passage which speaks of men having authority over women and how that plays out in church. The details of the passage are not what I draw attention to so much as the basis for which Paul anchors his male authority view point. In verse 8 he says, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." (NASB) Let us move to a second verse which we find in 1 Timothy chapter 2. 1tim 2:11,12 states that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over a man within the church. Once again the interesting thing to note is the reasons for which Paul states this. The first of his two reasons is stated in verse 13 when he says, "For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve." He does then go on to state what happened in the fall as a second reason. My concluding statement to your first question is this: it does seem that Paul set forth what took place in creation (prior to the fall) as a reason of the husband being head over the wife. I don't submit this as absolute conclusive proof, but I think since scripture doesn't explicitly anywhere state whether it was based on the fall or creation then these two verses should definitly lean us towards a creation view. As for your second question I believe the answer is yes, it did signify his authority over her. However I know of nowhere that scripture states this and it would have to be backed up from simply viewing extrabiblical traditions and studying the Jewish mind set. So I put forth this part of my response most humbly as my opinion. Hope the first part was helpful, Beja |
||||||
751 | Offended by a Christian | Matt 18:35 | Beja | 207901 | ||
Milen, Let me add something to what has been said thus far. First there is a question that matters a lot. Is this a person who is really and sincerely saying they are sorry? Bowler's answer was a great one if it was a person who was not actually sorry and just using forgiveness as a means to facilitate sin. If that is really the case, stick with his answer. However, if this person is sincere in repenting and asking forgiveness then you are searching for an answer that doesn't exist. Because you have the responsibility as a Christian to forgive him. In short, if he is being sincere then he is actually right. None of us can show you a scripture that says you don't have to forgive somebody who seeks forgiveness. It just isn't there. It may be God has allowed this person to put you in this situation so that you can learn the virtue of forgiveness. But, as I said, this is dependent on the answer to the question. Is he really seeking forgiveness or playing games? |
||||||
752 | Are the "people" in Matt. 13 unsaveable? | Matt 13:36 | Beja | 207816 | ||
It seems clear to me from this and your other post that you believe that those who die without Christ in this life are later restored after the second judgement and enter heaven with the saved. If I'm wrong do correct me please. You cite verses such as rev 20:13 saying that death and Hades gave up the dead. However, just two versus later he tells us that these people were then judged and thrown into the lake of fire. They won't be getting a second chance and taught how not to sin. One key to understanding correct teaching on the eternal punishment of the lost is to understand that the "lake of fire" and hades is two different places. Whatever translation you are using is calling hades, hell. The real word is hades in verse 13. This is a temporary place until hades and all who are in it are then thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:14-15. Matthew 25:46 says that the lost were sent away to "eternal punishment." Not a time of punishment until restored. On another note, what Bible translation are you using? |
||||||
753 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207784 | ||
lookn, You had asked if I thought that the author considered apostasy something that could actually happen. My response was that I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. What I meant about that was this: That if apostasy is indeed what he is referring to, then he must see it as a real possibility. I says "whatever" simply because we have not yet determined with any certainty what exactly he is talking about. But whatever it is, whether apostasy, or something else, he is speaking of a situation that is a real threat to whichever group he is talking about. Now granted, a few verses later he is clear that he expects better from his readers, but whatever he is warning of is real. It is hard to be more specific when we are not talking about some concrete examples. For example, if what we determine this text to mean that you can loose the opportunity to be saved but not loose your salvation, then clearly this is a real danger, but it is a real danger that a saved christian could not face. And in such a case the warning would just be to those who have not yet become christians among them. But regardless, that would still be something very real to worry about for whoever it is he is warning. However, I hope I've clarified what I mean. |
||||||
754 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207764 | ||
1. Yes, I have a calvinistic outlook on security of the believer. I ofcourse want to know the intended meaning of the text regardless what that may be. But I originally put forward the question to be resolved within this security of the believer framework not because its what I believe, but because outside of that understanding its not a problem. What I mean is this, if you are comfortable with the idea you can loose your salvation then this text is no difficulty at all, so why debate it with that assumption? However, in a sense you could say I'm trying to fit it into this security of the believer framework because I believe scripture teaches that and therefore whatever the answer to this will therefore be in harmony with that teaching. 2. I believe that whatever he is talking about here is something that could happen. When I originally stated that I wasn't looking for that explination I meant that I have heard people argue the following: Paul is arguing that if a person lost their salvation they couldn't get it back but it could never happen and he just wants us to know what would hypothetically happen if we could. I find this horribly lacking. These are what I was meaining in my original post when I said those things. |
||||||
755 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207741 | ||
My apologies bowler. Please understand I have not been short on responses that were telling me that I was simply being hard to talk to and was being given sufficient answers that I simply unwilling to listen to. When your post ended in you saying you wish to give your 2 cents then posted a scripture where the author was saying the reader was hard headed and dull of hearing, it seemed a jab. If that was not your intent, do forgive me, and I hope you can see how it would seem that from my shoes. I should have read your post with more grace assuming the best of my brother in Christ until proven otherwise. Forgive me. My e-mail is jw_dobbins@hotmail.com you are welcome to e-mail me if you wish. I do still eagerly follow this thread, but as I've said, I don't have the spirit to participate in it any further. Regardless, Tim Moran is expressing what I have suspected all along to be the answer so ably that there is little point. Well done, Tim. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
756 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207731 | ||
Dear Bowler, Could you just not please? If you'd look at the post times for the thread you'll see I've stepped out of this discussion. I lost the spirit to discuss it some time ago now. I repent of ever having brought this issue up, and I repent of having been willing to say that I thought certain explinations were lacking. And since I seem to not have the skill for being able to discuss differing view points without seeming abrasive I simply wish to step away from this discussion. I really do apologize to any I may have offended, I am simply use to an environment where people could debate view points on a verse, seeking the best understanding and cirtiques and counter views were not held in disdain. And I can not say your little jab at me does anything to make me desire to return to the conversation. So if you feel like debating this passage with others do feel free, but please don't do so on my account, rather discuss it with those who still wish to. With all respect, Beja |
||||||
757 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207677 | ||
I'm sorry I didn't know the bible version question was directed towards me. Hands down my preferred version is the NASB, but if you are asking which I think does the best with this passage I can't say. I've just been working with the NASB and the greek. | ||||||
758 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207638 | ||
I agree with basically everything you said theologically, I'm not sure this passage is to that point of uncertainty however where we can't simply determine what he said from context. I think part of the confusion from this whole thread is that people assumed since I was asking how to understand this passage that I didn't believe these things. When in reality I was simply trying to understand exactly what the author intended within this frame work. And as a result people, rather than explaining the verse, began to argue once saved alway saved thinking, which was rather waisted, because I never doubted that. However, with regards to the passage at the moment I disagree. I do think its talking about saved individuals. But I do not think its talking about them loosing their salvation. Part of the reason I think this is because I consider it not to be very clearly translated. If you will note that your NASB in fact gives an alternative meaning in one point that it could be WHILE they crucify, rather than SINCE. I think while would be correct along with some clearer meanings of some of the participles involved. Morant61 posted some numbers that you can look up. Numbers in which he very clearly explains my thoughts on the passage, I would highly encourage you to look those up, its a bit more than I ought to repost. The understanding of the passage which he posts is completely compatable with the theological statements which you've made (perseverance of the saints, irresistable grace, etc.) However, while it may not seem it at first glance from this thread, I truely do hold this interpretation of this passage very lightly. And I am willing to change my stance should the evidence grammatical, syntactical, from literary context or otherwise truely merit it. But with what has been discussed so far, and in my own studies, I simply can not -yet- accept that the author is not referring to saved individuals. If the passage could not be understood on its on and within its context to have a clear meaning that does not violate these doctrines we hold dear, then perhaps I would lean more on the evidence people are suggesting. But while I do believe it might have an alternative explination that satisfactoraly explains it, and avoids clashing with clearly revealed doctrine, and fits the context then I think there is no merit in trying to say that the author is not talking about the saved when he says these things and he says moving them "again" to repentence. Read those links and tell me what you think, I very much would love to hear your thoughts on what they present. |
||||||
759 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207630 | ||
I attempted to respond to this post earlier but it didn't seem to go through. In the links to these posts Tim Moran posts my theory on how this verse is to be understood. I won't restate it since he does an amazing job. Thank you Tim, the whole reason I never said it and have been waiting for somebody to offer a good explination is that I wish the answer didn't require us to say that the NASB interpreters translated in a way that made the true meaning rather hidden. | ||||||
760 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 207629 | ||
I agree whole heartedly that repentence is a gift from God. I ask that if you are frustrated with this conversation you just stop reading with that, if you are instead wanting to know my thoughts on it then read the next paragraph. I do not want to continue if this is upsetting you. I agree that repentence is a gift from God. But do you really think the author is saying, these guys who were never saved and have fallen/walked away, they can not be "again" brought to repentence because they are recrucifying Christ and putting Him to shame? If it is simply a matter of God needing to grant a repentence, what does recrucifying Him have to do with it? Does it not at all seem to you that he is talking about something here more than that? Otherwise in what way are they recrucifying God that everybody isn't? Please don't think I'm saying repentence is not a gift from God. I am simply suggesting that so far, with this answer, the pieces haven't all fit together yet. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |