Results 81 - 100 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | John 10:10 Who is responsible for death? | Rev 1:18 | Beja | 236817 | ||
Doc, A fit response, sir. Well said. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
82 | why is "wield" in only the Ampl. trans.? | Rev 2:12 | Beja | 236040 | ||
Wolfie11, If I am not mistaking the translators' motive, they are simply translating the word "echo" as "wield." This word would less colorfully mean simply "to have." You'd normally just say "the one who has" However, when discussing weapon which one is carrying, "wield" becomes a fair way of expressing possession. That's all that the translators are doing there. Simply read it to refer to the one who has the sharp two edged sword. There is nothing in the greek implying usage of the sword -in this particular verse- In Christ,Beja |
||||||
83 | TWO TRIBULATIONS | Genesis | Beja | 235980 | ||
Escar, Agree to disagree. One thing I would like to share. While you are entitled to your opinion you should know that most people on the forum are expecting to be answerig a question when they answer a question. One of the surest causes of strife and disagreement on the forum is when somebody asks a question that they don't actually want an answer for. They simply want somebody to answer so that they can then "teach" them the correct answer. That may have worked for rabbi's and Jesus, but unfortunately we are not disciples of any poster here. Please keep the question space available for true questions that you are really looking for an answer on. Many of us are actually taking a few minutes we have before work to attempt to be helpful to somebody. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
84 | TWO TRIBULATIONS | Genesis | Beja | 235968 | ||
Escar, The way I understand it is that Christ gathers up the one who is taken. Keep in mind that Matthew 24:44 is not just describing the end. From a literary standpoint it is comparing the flood with the end. So just as on the day of the flood some were "taken" and others left, so will the end be. In the flood, taken was being upon the ark, left was perishing in the flood. So one group is taken up in Christ, the other is left to perish in God's earth shattering judgment. That's how I read it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
85 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235877 | ||
EdB, At least you can understand my confusion. I came late to the thread and clicked on the thread name reading back through the posts to gain the context. From that view it appeared you had simply taken offense to somebody being cessationist. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Though I did say from the start that I felt I must have been missing something. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
86 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235874 | ||
EdB, Well, I'm not sure what to say after looking it over. I can totally understand your taking offense. However, I'm pretty fond of hearing quotes from great Christians of the past, so I don't have an interest in censuring that. The down side of that is that those past Christians are not going to be in agreement with the modern pentacostal movement on any of there distinctive doctrines. Historic Christianity just won't agree with you. In addition, they weren't concerned with being politically correct about it, particularly Pink. So I don't know. I don't blame your reaction, but at the same time I think restricting awesome quotes from the past would be horrible idea. Regardless, my opinion on that issue is irrelevant, I simply thought I owed you a post acknowledging the validity of your taking exception to the post since I had engaged you in this thread about it. God bless, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
87 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235871 | ||
EdB, Peace friend. Perhaps my use of the idiom "way out of bounds" was unclear. I only meant that I would totally agree with you that any such post as your hypothetical example would be quite unwelcome on the forum. Second, as I suggested in my previous post, I apparently missed the quote you are reacting against. I have not seen the statement you quoted, can you give me the post number? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
88 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235869 | ||
Escar, No, I'm afraid I'm not understanding how anything you said helps your position. First, I think you have failed to deal with 1 Corinthians 14. You have dismissed it as applying to translators for missions. However this has two serious faults. 1. You only addressed tongues, not prophecy. 2. Paul specifically singles this out for the church. 1 Corinthians 14:19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Now this was said in context of comparing prophecy with tongues. And again he says... 1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the CHURCH may be built up. Clearly the prophecy is in and for the church, not foreign advancement. So I think you have failed to address the text successfully. Now that being said, I am ok with that. I don't need help solving this dilemma because I don't share your presupposition that John was the last prophet. In fact I don't see how I could possibly affirm that while at the same time affirming that Christ is my prophet, priest, and king. For Christ came after John. I merely pointed you to a passage with which you ought to wrestle with and have an answer in your own mind given your theological position regarding John. Since you seem to have your mind settled with regards to 1 Corinthians fourteen then all is well. I don't need to understand. My theological position needs no answer for it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
89 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235867 | ||
EscarSmith, Perhaps, but you must then wrestle with why Paul encouraged the Corinthian church to desire that they might have the gift of prophecy above all other gifts. (1 Cor 14:1). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
90 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235855 | ||
EdB, Obviously the hypothetical you have given is way out of bounds. However, in reviewing this thread I have not seen anything at all even remotely like that. Perhaps I have missed something. You hinted at private correspondence at one point. Perhaps the insult was in that. Unless of course you consider the cessassionist view to be inherently offensive itself. Keep in mind that the view by its very nature necessitates assigning the "false prophet" tag to those currently calling themselves prophets in the miraculous sense. To say that a person can not believe that modern "prophets" are false is to actually forbid the cessationist view point. Unless it is directed as a personal attack on somebody on the forum, we have to see it simply as the articulation of the view. Sure, its probably offensive to those who claim the title "prophet," but as you have said, this view is within the bounds of orthodoxy that the forum allows. But again, perhaps I've just missed what you are referring to. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
91 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235850 | ||
EdB, Hey, I appreciate what you are saying. "it is my understanding that any one theological positon I s not t be championed." The only distinction here is that this principle is that the forum shouldn't champion a view. But certainly we are to grant individuals the right to champion a view. It is precisely when we do NOT allow an individual to champion a view that the FORUM begins to champion a view. Doc, posted his view as an individual holding to a particular theological stance. So long as the forum doesn't restrain the opposing view, or a poster doesn't contentiously belittle a POSTER for holding that view, it isn't censure. An individual has the freedom to say a certain view is in their estimate, wrong. You champion certain views. I champion certain views. We each champion certain views. The fact that we are allowed to do so is the very essence of the forum NOT championing a view. Now granted there are two big limitations. First, the forum has set certain boundaries such as Sola Scriptura. Second, my championing my view ought never to be mixed with my attacking another poster rather than my discussing the merits of his view. Being a jerk doesn't have to go hand and hand with voicing my views. The point being, forum fairness is not an obligation on individual posters to personally give equal support to views they don't hold. They just have to let others voice them. Don't you agree? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
92 | the word "world" and "all" refer to all | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 235647 | ||
Hupogramos, This is necessarily going to be impacted by our other views on this topic. I personally believe in predestination, but the topic of limited attonement has been a doctrine I have been slow to accept. I was determined to first look carefully at passages such as John 3:16. To that end John Owen's classic, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" was invaluable. He particularly satisfied me with regards to John the apostle. I would dig there. It is hard reading though. Either way, we should all remember this is a volatile issue and while on the forum should approach it in the spirit of understanding one another rather than any spirit debate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
93 | Love towards fellow man inspite of flaws | Matt 22:39 | Beja | 235018 | ||
"All men are endued with rational and immortal souls, with the understandings and wills capable of the highest and most excellent things; and if they be at the present disordered, and put out of tune by wickedness and folly, this may indeed move our compassion, but ought not, in reason, to extinguish our love. When we see a person of rugged humour, and perverse disposition, full of malice and dissimulation, very foolish and very proud, it is hard to fall in love with an object that presents itself unto us under an idea so little grateful and lovely. But when we shall consider these evil qualities as the diseases and distempers of a soul wich, in itself, is capable of all that wisdom and goodness wherewith the best of saints have ever been adorned, and which may, one day, come to be raised unto such heights of perfection as shall render it a fit companion ofr the holy angels, this will turn our aversion into pity, and make us behold him with such resentments as we should have when we look upon a beautiful body that was mangled with wounds, or disfigured by some loathsome disease: and however we hate the vices, we shall not cease to love the man." -Henry Scougal in The Life of God in the Soul of Man. | ||||||
94 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235017 | ||
Doc, As is often the case, I find myself in substantial agreement with you. Thank you for humoring my curiosity. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
95 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235012 | ||
Doc, When you say that, do you mean the roles of elders by the word leadership (whether or not they go by the name of elders in a particular church), or would you extend your statement beyond that? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
96 | Interpret John 8:24 | John 8:24 | Beja | 234565 | ||
Andy, Since it seems to matter what other people thought of Tim's answer, I thought he answered very well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
97 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234413 | ||
DPMartin, I disagree. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
98 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234411 | ||
Doc, I agree that there is always a danger of things being said that are an incomplete picture. This is why such discussions are to primarilly be done in the context of the church community, an environment in which any statement is restrained by the fact that you know what that person has consistently said ongoingly. I'll just share a few thoughts though. 1.) We can't always restate all of our theological frameworks. At some point we have to leave something either unstated or assumed. 2.) I think we follow scriptural patterns when we do this. When scripture speaks of God having a strong arm. It never makes an effort to simultaneously make sure we understand that such language is metaphorical and that God in fact does not have a body like us. Rather we find such teaching elsewhere. Scripture never restrains itself in this fashion. But more to the point of what the current thread was about. We quite continually see scripture speak of God responding to our plight with love, compassion, and redemption. And usually it is in other passages that we find out that God eternally purposed to be a redeeming God and elected individuals unto salvation, the fall serving his eternal purposes to be a redeeming God. Because scripture speaks freely in these ways without theologically qualifying these statements, I do not thing we should be concerned with avoiding speaking in the same ways. Our examples could be multiplied. Do we need to make sure to verbally affirm Christ's humanity in every instance that we cry out, "My God!" Or at somepoint is it alright to assume that issue is either understood or will be covered in its own place? Is it not biblical to say that the LORD is the God of Israel without at that moment taking the time to teach the union of believing gentiles and jews into one people per ephesians four. Every wonderful statement we could cry out or truth we could proclaim at some point must be qualified by other truth. But surely there are times to just say the truth. 3.) What we should be concerned about, is that our teaching is well rounded enough that anytime somebody takes our statements to unbiblical conclusions, it is not very long before they hear the flip side of it which ought to restrain them to the correct theological framework. But as I said, this most naturally happens in the context of the church, in which God's word is being discussed continually, and with concern to the entirety of its witness being taught. In short, I think we are being too restrictive with either the implications of our theology or the guarding over our theology when we can no longer permit ourselves to speak as scripture speaks. I say this of course with all love, as I happily know that you and I agree on an overwhelmingly vast majority of doctrinal issues. And I take no offense but rather delight in your care for theological accuracy. I know that you are aware of our many agreements, but I state it for the sake of other readers knowing that they are reading a dialogue between two brothers in Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
99 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234406 | ||
Doc, I was purposefully trying not to delve into infra/supra lapsarian discussions in my post. I do not deny that is is a valid discussion. But I was not wanting to add to the question the layer of what God "Purposed" first. As an supralapsarian would state, the order of how it played out, is exactly in reverse to how it was purposed in the creator's mind. They would suggest this happens in the same way that a builder would first purpose a completed house and then would purpose an adiquate foundation; so then he would build in reverse. First would come the foundation and then the house. So also they view salvation. That being said, even should one adopt the supralapsarian view, it is valid to set the purposing aside and speak purely from the "building" side of the equation. Surely it remains valid in some sense to speak of the foundation coming first despite the final building coming first in the architect's mind, no? On the actualizing side sin and wrath preceded redemption, though in purposing redemption preceded and wrath was then purposed for the reason of setting the stage for redemption. Love in God is of the first order I concede. However, we ought not to let such structures forbid us to speak as scripture speaks. And scripture speaks plentifully about God's compassionate response to our plight in the face of his wrath. So in responding to DPMartin, I could try to explain all that, or for the post limit myself to the "building" part of the discussion rather than the "planning." His question, after all, was which "came" first. Not which was "purposed" first. All that being said, for your curiosity sake I will tell you that I am a mildly committed infra-lapsarian. Scripture just too frequently speaks in that order for me to allow the theory of supralapsarian, despite the sense it makes, to pursuade me. Despite what some would say regarding my inconsistency, I still affirm that the cross was God's "plan A." I grant I can't explain exactly how that is consistent. But I view as submissiveness to something that is quite beyond me as it is revealed to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
100 | Which is first, wrath or Grace? | Rom 2:2 | Beja | 234404 | ||
DPMartin, The answer is both. God's wrath is upon all mankind due to sin, his love is what has prompted him to redeem us. Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Joh 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Note that the wrath of God "abides." This greek word means to remain. In other words, the wrath has not first come upon them for rejecting Christ. The wrath of God was already looming on them, and now in their rejection it remians, or abides. And yet love prompted God to give Christ for the salvation of believers. The wrath of God on sinners is what made the coming of Christ necessary. The love of God towards sinners is what directly prompted God to send his son. Both are why. One created the need, the other created the deed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |