Results 81 - 100 of 515
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: humbledbyhisgrace Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208197 | ||
Brother John, The way I view that is this is the only picture in scripture we have of mankind truly having a free will! One not dead in sin! Scary to think of all the sin tainted hearts out there that think they would have made a different choice! But it seems to me a great error for us to say God created them with a fallen nature. After all, He removed them from the garden because he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever after man was corrupted by his sin. Steve |
||||||
82 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208195 | ||
Azure, Yes you have been clear sister! And I'm working this out myself, not trying to correct :-) What I am trying to do is view this without any speculation and making no assumptions. That's why I'm hung up on the words in 3:3 God has said. One of the problems I have had in the past in trying to understand some of Genesis 1, 2 and 3 is that as you say, there is a lot of blanks so to speak. I can't help but wonder how many of those so called blanks are our own doing though because we end up making assumptions :-) Anyway, it seems to me given what we have before us that it is possible that either God told Eve or Adam told Eve. Problem is, we have no text to back up either in the way of a direct statement from them. Yet we do have text that clearly reveals Eve was told and the text says, God has said. So if we eliminate all assumptions and keep with the text, this is what we have :-) Now, what does that mean???????? Does that mean God told her directly or Adam told her directly? I don't think we can answer that from the text. And it seems to me, anything else is speculation on what she said. I really don't think, at least in my understanding, that we can attribute anything here to Eve's knowledge being inferior. I can however confirm my knowledge is inferior :-) By the way, I'm probably the one muddying the water :-) Steve |
||||||
83 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208184 | ||
Hi Cheri, Yes, I have enjoyed it also. I've always been intrigued by the first three chapters of the bible and find myself still trying to figure it all out! You ask the question and I'm getting the workout :-) Steve |
||||||
84 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208181 | ||
Greetings Imm, Ah, it looks as if you have worked your way through this also :-) These are the type discussions I love to see! Lot's of good thoughts and questions by all who have attempted to work through this. I love it! First, let me address the beginning assumption. I'm not clear on what you are trying to say here. I will say this, I personally don't see any reason to assume anything. After all, that is what usually leads us astray from the text in the first place. What we do know is that God commanded Adam, and according to the written word, Eve said that God said etc... So, I'm afraid I don't see the need to assume what they might have thought on the matter. What is clear is that they were disobedient to what God had said. Perhaps I misunderstand your first comments??? Your comment... "It sounds to me as though she was in transgression before eating, she picked it, at that point she didn't die, she had just told the serpent, God said don't touch it! Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." If in fact God told her as she stated in 3:3, then it would seem to me she would be in transgression before eating. Your comment... "This scripture might be stretching the point, but she was now looking at the tree with desire, and curiosity can it be applied in different situations? Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This would seem to attribute a fallen nature to Eve before she had disobeyed so it doesn't seem applicable to me. Your comment... "I believe Satan went to Eve, as the weaker vessel, knowing he stood a better chance, than with Adam. Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Can we actually apply this passage to this? Would it be true if we are dealing with lust in the heart of Eve then she was fallen even before satan appeared? Same as above, it seems to attribute a fallen nature to Eve before the transgression. Your thoughts? And thinks for the post! It's interesting working through this and the differing views and thoughts are good to work through. I've always found the first three chapters of the word interesting and I love trying to understand it all! Steve |
||||||
85 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208162 | ||
Seeker, Welcome to the Study Bible Forum! On your point about the command being an arbitrary command. Well, let's not forget who's command it was. The fact they disobeyed this command you call arbitrary is clearly taught as the fall of mankind. (Genesis 3:6-7) You say "Another potential problem with this idea that they could not do evil because they hadn't eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that if this was the case, how could they be held accountable for eating of the tree?" Your assumption is they have to know what is good and evil before they know to obey. God had told them not to, there is no scripture to point to that would give us any reason at all to think they did not understand that they were not to. Mankind is not held accountable because he knows the difference between good and evil. He is held accountable when he does not obey! The simple fact we now know the difference between good and evil is a direct result of man not obeying the absolute command of God (again, Genesis 3:6-7) God's commands are never arbitrary. They are clear and He expects full compliance! Steve |
||||||
86 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208161 | ||
Brother John, You say "Good question; but we see that the serpent didn't refute her repeating of what she considered to be the gist of God's command" and you speak of her pride etc.. Given the text, is this not attributing to her a fallen nature prior to the fall? It seems that way to me and this is why I struggle with what seems to me to be much assumption attributed to this passage. However, I can understand because everyone looks back to the written account we have where God commands Adam. And perhaps that is actually the correct way to view this but I'm struggling lining that view up with the actual text. Steve |
||||||
87 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208151 | ||
Greetings Brother! See my response to Azure in post 208149. I would be interested in your thoughts! I've done front flips and back flips through these passages many times and have reasoned much the same way you have in the past but it seems to me there is much assumption in our reasoning this way. Given the actual text we have available to us and without adding assumptions to the text, and let me add with my limited mind and ability to understand, it seems to me our reasoning on this is done outside of what the text actually says. So I would be interested in my thoughts on this as I have laid out in the post to Azure (208149). Thanks Brother, Steve |
||||||
88 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208149 | ||
Azure, Given the text, it would seem to me that looking back to the written command of God to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17 and comparing it to what Eve said in Genesis 3:3 we assume that Eve has lied, misquoted, twisted the word etc, etc... I've even reasoned this myself in the past :-) But the text of Genesis 3:3 as I understand seems to prevent such reasoning based on the fact Eve said "God has said". I'm not seeing a harmony issue. I think perhaps it may appear that way because we compare the written account of God to Adam and the written account of Eve to the serpent. I don't deny the difference in what Eve has said. But considering all the text, are we not making assumptions of what Eve said by comparing the two passages? For me, I can't get past the words "God has said" and that she said this before the transgression. She did not say Adam had told her, she said "God has said". So, although I agree there is no written account of God speaking this, the written account is that "God has said" and it comes before the transgression as I understand the transgression is found in v3:6. If indeed she lied, then how do we account for the fallen nature before the transgression (v3:6)? :-) In regards to 1 Timothy 2:11-14 I'm not sure of your point or thoughts on this passage. However, in regards to what we are discussing, I think verse 14 is key. She "fell into transgression". If she was in error regarding what she said in Genesis 3:3 would that not then be the point in which she fell into transgression? Or is the proper understanding that she fell into transgression when "she took from its fruit and ate" (Genesis 3:6)? I've probably repeated myself in trying to explain my understand of this but hopefully you can see how I'm understanding it! Your thoughts? Steve |
||||||
89 | Adam and Eve Perfect or Flawed | 1 Tim 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208142 | ||
Dear Cheri, John and Azure, I was reading through the thread and thinking about all that was said and what the scriptures reveal to us on this matter. Eve's statement in Genesis 3:2-3 (NASB) "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " Considering at this point we are not dealing with the fallen nature and Eve's words are "God has said", should our view of the matter be that God indeed had said "You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die" ? Certainly, if Eve spoke on behalf of God saying something that God had not said, not only would she be lying, but she also would be making God out to be a liar. Steve |
||||||
90 | Will suicide condem my soul to hell? | Ex 20:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 208115 | ||
sog, I agree with all who have pointed out to you of the error in the teaching "suicide is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost the unpardonable sin." But I'm also very interested in discussing the theology of what you have said beyond that. You say "You may reject God the father and the blood of Jesus can redeem you, you may drop the ball with Christ and the Holy Spirit can save you, but after the Holy Ghost there is nothing left." Could you explain this teaching please? Here is why I'm asking for clarification. You said in part "You may reject God the father and the blood of Jesus can redeem you" This verse comes to mind John 17:3 (NASB) "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Then you said in part "you may drop the ball with Christ and the Holy Spirit can save you" This verse comes to mind Romans 10:9 (NASB) "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" That's just a quick sample of scripture that comes to mind when I saw your statement. The implications of the statement seems to me to undermine much we are taught in scripture! So if you would could you explain what you mean? Steve |
||||||
91 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207934 | ||
Dear Cheri, Did you actually read the post you referenced by bowler? Do you really qualify this as a “marvelous” job? I am amazed not only at his post but at your acceptance of his teaching. Perhaps it is good you see no need to parrot him. Correcting is what is needed! He wrongly interprets the scripture and even has gone so far to say our Lord actually broke the law which scripture clearly teaches us He is sinless. This is unbelievable coming from some of those I see accepting of these teachings including you! There is so much wrong with what he has said it’s hard to even know where to start! But I will attempt to point out what I see as the fallacy in his understanding simply by pointing to his wrong interpretation of the scripture he is hanging his hat on. He pointed to Luke 14:5. And from this verse he develops his argument that even the Lord Himself would break one law for the better good. Unfortunately, bowler should allow scripture to interpret scripture. Matthew 12:11-12 (NASB) 11 And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Note the Lord says in verse 12, it is LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath. bowler on the other hand presents it as the breaking of the law which in fact is the same thing those who set out to trap the Lord was doing. bowler even goes so far to say that “Jesus said to them, "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" Well, where in scripture does it say that? bowler explains it as the Lord breaking one law for the better good. Problem with bowlers interpretation is it contradicts the scripture. The Lord did not break one law for what bowler believes to be the better good. Nor did the Lord ask "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" as bowler said He did. The scripture teaches us He is without sin! According to the scripture, He did not break the law at all for He said (not bowler, but the Lord Himself said) it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath! See, there is no law against doing good! As a matter of fact, doing good is a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit! So what you attribute as a “marvelous” job, actually wrongly interprets scripture, accuses our Lord Jesus as breaking the law, and promotes to others it is better to sin then to obey. At this point I am dumbfounded by his teaching and your acceptance of such. Steve |
||||||
92 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207933 | ||
Bowler, “Both had their actions approved by God and that included lying, although the scriptures do not say that God condoned that particular part. But since there was never going to be plan B, then God ordained that they would lie, whether that was a sin or not, to save some lives that were central to God's plan…” Really?! You seek to justify lying but your reasoning falls short. Why? Because it contradicts God’s laws! God ordained that we not lie! How could you possibly even think that a holy God would ordain the very thing His law prohibits? I am amazed at such a statement! Surely there is a great need for us to be mindful of who He is. Are you really advocating that God’s plan was dependent on a lie? Wow! You said “I am not saying God condones sin”. Well, you did this very thing when you say He ordained it. You said “I would say to you that you are right God's laws are never limited and they are absolute. But by the same token whatever He decides will happen are righteous and holy decisions that may include all kinds of things that His laws state are not righteous and holy - He never contradicts the law because He is perfect.” Then how is it you reason He ordained they would lie? I’m not sure you even understand your own argument. Your heart tells you that He is a holy God, perfect in all His ways which we are clearly taught in Scripture. But you reason like a fallen man! I’m guilty of this too so don’t take the statement the wrong way. My intentions in our discussion are not to condemn and I know first hand the struggle of understanding His ways. But I have to ask, are you even thinking your way through before commenting? You ask the question, “why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying?” Because the biblical principles are those of God. They are His laws not mankind’s to rank and to implement as he sees fit to suit his own needs and understanding. Now, let me ask you why would you assume God would accept and/or condone the disobeying of His laws to fulfill the requirements of another? Does this question help you see the fallacy in your argument? In your comments about Anne Frank, what lie of omission are you talking about? You said “Question; why would you assume that God would be pleased that you stood on Biblical principle and refused to lie as if that were a better good than saving a life just to save a life by lying? Which one is worse lying, or being complicit in murder? That reminds me of a certain group of people that believed you could not do anything on the Sabbath because it was one of the Ten Commandment sins, as is lying, but Jesus said to them, "which one of you would not break the law to save the life of his live stock if it fell down the well?" to paraphrase that is the jist of what He meant. I think that says it all right there. I think we should be willing to consider that there are higher goods and acts than law keeping and preservation of somebody elses life might be one of them.” I do not assume God would be pleased that I stood on biblical principles and refused to lie as if that were a better good then saving a life. The assumption is with you not me! What needs to be understood is that both are sinful, God does not expect nor condone we do either one nor does he present us with the option of choosing one over the other. It is the fallacy in fallen men to think he has to lie to save the life. It is the fallacy in the hearts and minds of fallen men who also misunderstand and misrepresent God’s laws. Case in point, the paraphrase you gave is not what the scripture teaches so let’s be careful how we approach the word to bolster our position. Matthew 12:11-12 (NASB) 11 And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Note the Lord says in verse 12, it is LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath. You on the other hand present it as the breaking of the law which in fact is the same thing those who set out to trap the Lord was doing. Can you see the error? He did not break one law for what you would call a better good. There is no “better good” in breaking any law! Steve |
||||||
93 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207915 | ||
Dear Cheri, If it is not condoned by the Father, why dear would we dare lead another to consider it? I can think of no biblical or moral reasoning for such. Perhaps it is how you are viewing this. You said "knowingly play a part in the death of another human being". Well let me ask you, if you were faced with the scenario you have laid out, what part of their death would you play? And further more, what mandate is there that you even speak? Do you have to say anything at all? Certainly we would not say that if ask the question "where is this person I wish to kill" that not speaking is a lie of omission would we? There's is no requirement at all for one to speak. Now there may be motivation for one to protect there own life and/or interest but no mandate to lie. It would seem to me that in fact if one chose to lie in such a case it is out of convenience. And yes, I agree with you God puts a very high value on life which is reflected in His laws that He commands us to obey. God bless, Steve PS. I too hope we are never faced with such a trial! |
||||||
94 | is it ok to lie in certain cases | Col 3:9 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207909 | ||
Dear Cheri, Wouldn't the fallacy in that teaching be that one believes the answer to protecting the life of another requires them to lie? This appears to be mankind's way of justifying sin. God says not to and mankind says, well okay however, if this or that takes place then I believe I am justified. And even worse then that, you are saying God condones the very thing He prohibits in His law. How is it one can ever justify their disobedience to God? Truly His ways are much higher then ours! Also, consider what it is you are actually teaching. This concept would bring into question that God's laws are limited and not absolute! This would in fact insert fallacy in the perfect laws of a perfect God. His laws do not contradict one another nor is there any thing lacking in them. They are absolute, perfect, solid through and through! They come from a perfect and holy God! Something else to consider. You speak for God as if your theory is His when you say "BUT in God's eyes a human life is the priority if and when that choice arises against an innocent person." Where in scripture do we find this teaching? John 15:13 (NASB) "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." - Now why would one approve of lying (sinning) when there is no requirement for them to lie (sin) and most importantly, God's law teaches us not to? If your concern was for the persons life, scriptures says the greater love is to lay down ones life. Lying for them is not love, it's more like a selfish act to protect one's own interest. Steve |
||||||
95 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207550 | ||
Imm, Excellent point! John 10:28-29 in fact does not say as you pointed out "it doesn't say we cant walk away." And a follow up point that needs to be made is that John 10:28-29 does not say we can or do either! Verse 28 however does clearly teach that He gave them eternal life and they shall never perish. It doesn't get any clearer then that! Steve |
||||||
96 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207488 | ||
Joe, Did you respond to me by mistake? I was pointing out to you what Scripture teaches us about sin and salvation in direct response to your statement "but she and Adam received everlasting life for their sin." Regardless of where one might believe Adam to be it does not change what is taught in scripture regarding sin and salvation so I'm a little confused on your response to me and thought perhaps you responded to the wrong post??? Steve |
||||||
97 | Death God's friend or enemy? | 1 Cor 15:25 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207461 | ||
Joe, Adam and Eve did not receive eternal life for their sin (Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:13-24). The word clearly teaches us "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23 NASB). Salvation is a gift of God, it is by his grace through faith that we are saved, not our sins (Ephesians 2:4-8)! Steve |
||||||
98 | matt. 26:73 describes Peter as Christs | Matt 26:73 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207411 | ||
:-) | ||||||
99 | selfmurder | Rom 10:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207364 | ||
justme, Hebrews 4:12 is one of my favorite verses. That along with Isaiah 55:11 are two verses that have taught me to have great confidence in the Power of God's word. So I'm in agreement with you on that point!!! By the way, see my original post again and note the reference verse I used. I did have a scripture in mind for such an occasion :-) By the way, I did regard your post as you said and understand your heart on the matter and thank God for the brethren and your love and concern for others!!! Steve |
||||||
100 | selfmurder | Rom 10:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 207349 | ||
justme, I can certainly appreciate your opinion and response and I do, sir, take it kindly as I believe you meant it to be. Just so happens, I feel as strongly about my position on the matter as you do yours. First let me assure you in matters of importance like suicide my concern is not for myself nor Lockman nor any other then the person who may be in trouble. Second, your view of just passing a person off shows a lack of understanding my position. It is not passing the person off, it is encouraging the person to seek help from someone equipped to help them. This text based forum in my opinion is far from that place. Many may mean well, but I've seen all to often on this text based forum a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding in what people read into a post. Not to mention some of the absolute nonsense that some will post. Brother, consider the response you and Cody Mac gave. If this person is so depressed they are considering harming themselves, do you really think they are capable of wading through so much on their own without proper guidance? I think not personally. Actually, I could see how such a response could be harmful in that the person could become even more depressed and frustrated not understanding all the information. Let's face it, when a person reaches such a point, confusion is the last thing they need! I would encourage all to be wise enough to understand their limitations in matters such as these and the limitations of the format in which we communicate in this forum. And let's not forget... The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |