Results 81 - 100 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224582 | ||
Inquisitor, I don't understand your post at all unless you are saying the following. 1.) That anybody who accepts a label by that are saying they follow a man other than Jesus. That is rediculous. 2.) All Christians should naturally respond to being given a label as if they are being told that they are not a Christian, which again is rediculous. You ask me what I think. And here is my honest opinion. There are some Christians who spend time discussing matters of theology and some who try to avoid it. Those who try to discuss it by absolute necessity must use titles to refer to different views or the entire process of communication breaks down. Now when those who aren't use to discussing various theological positions happens upon these conversations, sometimes they get deeply offended because they think all these lables are being thrown around out of pure meanness. And it is at times very hard to get them to understand that this is not at all the case. I'll give you a good example. I am a calvinist, I readily admit it. My wife has come to believe the same doctrines which I mean when I say this. However, she's not use to these titles and is slightly offended to be given a title that SOUNDS like it means she is something other than Christian. So in response she has now decided to rename calvinism as biblicism. So now that's how she refers to it. Its from this same sensibility you are expressing. Well, what shall we think of that? Well, in one sense we think, "good for her." However should she come into discussion with other believers and start refering to her "biblicism" either one or two things will happen. One, they will have no clue what she is talking about because nobody knows what a biblicist is! Or the second thing that will happen is that they will automatically assume she is referring to what they themselves believe. Because at the end of the day, we all own the title of biblicist in our own mind don't we? We all believe that what we think is the "biblical" view point. So just simply saying we all believe scripture does not communicate. We can't discuss with terms we all define with our own meaning. So what we need are terms that freely and openly communicate what I personally believe scripture teaches. It is a necessity of communication, nothing more. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
82 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224586 | ||
Inquisitor, I didn't respond to your verses because I had no idea what you were trying to show by them. If anything the verses you used thoroughly established my view! For did not Christ himself give their errant doctrine a name? I can only come to one of two conclusions. Either you intend to argue against something regardless of whether it is what anybody is saying which is called a strawman arguement, or you completely don't understand my view I'm trying to express. Here are some things you are speaking against as if we are taking the opposite view when nobody, including myself would disagree with you. 1.) You say that nobody should regard a particular mans's teaching above scripture. Nobody is arguing that a person should! When I say that I am a Calvinist I do not mean by that that I am an ardent follower of John Calvin. There are several things that Calvin says which I believe he is dead wrong about. He believed in and tought infant baptism and I think he's dead wrong. I am not a follower of John Calvin. BUT the particular five doctrines that have come to be termed today as Calvinism, those I do believe and I believe them only because I believe they are clearly taught by scripture, not because John Calvin happened to teach them. When I say I am a calvinist it is not declaring myself as a follower of John Calvin but rather a simple way in one word to express my affirmation that those particular five doctrines are actually taught in scripture as true. It really seems, as I said, either you don't know what I mean when I say that, or you intend to argue against a strawman position which nobody is defending. 2.) You keep insisting scripture is against name calling. Nobody thinks scripture is for it! We are not at all suggesting that scripture is in favor of insulting or calling people derrogatory phrases at all. That you think we are defending such a position makes me think once again, either you don't at all understand what I'm saying or you intend to argue against this strawman position which nobody is defending. So let me offer this. I agree that we should not say mean things to each other, and I agree that we should exclusively follow the teachings of scripture and not those of any man who is teaching something contrary. Does that bring us into agreement? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
83 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224602 | ||
Bradk, I agree with everything you said but one single point. Nouns in greek can be one of three stripes when it is not accompanied by the article. These are indefinite, definite, or qualitative. Definite is when even though the article is not present it still has the force of a singular thing. For example when you see the word Paul without the article you don't translate it as "a Paul." Indefinite is when you see the word book and you do infact translate it as "a book." Qualitative is when you make a statement about the thing itself. Now the way that phrase in John 1, "and the Word was God" is a contruction where overwhelmingly the second noun is a qualitative noun when we see that construct in greek. So what this means is that almost certainly what John is trying to say is that this word is qualitatively God. However, to take this to mean that the Word was just a god is dead wrong. That is missing the point of how John is using Theos completely. The idea of Theos here is not just a divine being. It is essentially what God the Father is. What John is saying is that there was God the Father and this Word was with Him from all eternity; and exactly what God the Father was, so also this Word was too. This "Word" was of essence the very same thing as God in every way. The phrase does not mean "the quality of being a God" it rather means "the quality of being the very same thing as the very God the Father being referred to in the verse." So I believe it is qualitative, but at the same time it fits perfectly with our trinitarian understanding of God. Isn't this what we teach? Jesus was with God in the beginning, and of his very essence He was the exact same thing as God the Father. This passage thoroughly refutes any notion that Jesus Christ was a created being, or that there was any time prior to His existense. I'll say one other point. Whoever tries, upon the basis of Greek grammer, to deny that this "Word," Jesus Christ, is in fact the one true eternal God is so blind that I pity them. You do not need to know greek grammer to see this. Why do I say that? How can we conceive it any other way? Look at what John is doing here. He takes a phrase that is so burned into the very fiber and soul of every Jewish man that it is a phrase undeniably reserved for Yahweh(Jehovah) alone and gives it to Jesus Christ. Genesis1:1 In the beggining God... John1:1 In the beggining was the Word... Is there any question that this was intentionally done by John here? This great being that was eternal and The One who created everything, this majestic God of creation is in fact our Lord Jesus Christ! To deny that Jesus is so is clear evidence false teaching. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
84 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224604 | ||
John, Slight correction. The rule is actually when you have an article followed by that construction. So it would be something like, "The coach and companion" or "The Lord and Savior" etc. However, in the examples given they are still good examples of the correct rule. So I agree whole heartedly just wanted to make sure it was being said correctly. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
85 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224771 | ||
Am I wrong to think that the driving concern/error being addressed in 2 Peter is anitnomianism? To me it seems to absolutely be so yet I have not seen any commentators view it as such yet. Here are verses to notice throughout the book. Especially note 2Pet 3:17,18 where the final exhortation is not to be carried away by the error of lawless people. 2Peter 1:3,4,9,12 2:2,9,10,13,14,15,18,19,20-22 3:11,14,17 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
86 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224775 | ||
Ariel, Allow me to rephrase the question then. Do you think that the error being addressed is that they were living out the idea that since we are under grace we need not worry about avoiding sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
87 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224793 | ||
Inquisitor, Antinomianism is the error in which Christians take the truth of God's grace and bring it to a wrong conclusion. The truth is that we are no longer "under the law" but rather "under grace." The problem is a missunderstanding of what this means. What it rightly means is that once Christ has died for our sins and given us His righteousness the Law has no more ability to condem us. What they wrongly conclude is that since we are not "under Law" therefore that means none of the Old Testament morality rules apply to us anymore. In other words, a Christian can rightly say that, "Thou shall not steal" can no longer condemn me before God because Christ has died for me, but though it can not condemn me I still am to follow that command. An Antinomian would say that the command, "Thou shall not steal" no longer even applies to me because I am not under the Law. Therefore grace becomes a license to sin. That's me trying to explain it myself, Doc probably has a two sentence quote from some mighty saint of the past that captures it perfectly where I failed in a few paragraphs! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
88 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224800 | ||
Inquisitor, Thank you for your thoughts. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
89 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224807 | ||
Inquisitor, I'm not using a source. I'm simply speaking from commonly understood terminology. "Nomian" means law in greek. "Anomian" means no law, or perhaps it is better translated as the NASB renders it, "lawlessness." These two words have been brought over into our language to those things to some extent. Though I am not using a source I will happily give you one for your edification. Marrow of Modern Divinity. I highly highly encourage you to get and read this book. You'll understand the term once you do, but more than that I think it is a book that every Christian should read. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
90 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224811 | ||
Doc, Two things: 1.) You said, "Remember, in Judaic thinking, Gentiles are not subject to the Mosaic Law, only to the Nohaic Law." Can you elaborate on that? I've never heard anybody say such a thing and would love to better understand what you are saying. 2.) The reason I suspect antinomianism is a big error in Peter's mind isn't based on the use of any given greek word. Rather it seems to be the cumulative sum of the book. First, it seems clear that the people he are rebuking are actually in the Church. So they are professing Christians. Second, he repeatedly focuses on how they eagerly sin. He focuses on it so much in fact, that it begins to feel like that is actually the error he is rebuking and not simply that the main error is accompanied by this rampant sin. I actually begin to feel like the error of the teaching is that it allows that. Also, in the first chapter when he is giving positive advice rather than rebuking, it still seems he is speaking against a Christian life that continues in sin. Then I see its close parallels to Jude, who seems to focus on the same three major errors that 2 Peter does, and I read in Jude 4, "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Now turning grace into licentousness really sounds like their teaching turned the grace of God into license to sin. This is why I ask the question. Though to be clear, I would not and do not suggest that antinomianism is the only error being addressed in the book. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
91 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224820 | ||
Doc, Acts 15 had immediately come to my mind and compelled me to ask! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
92 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224854 | ||
Doc, I did notice the emphasis on those "knowing" words. I wonder what significance, if any, there is in his choices of which he used at various times. However, I've not had time to study the book in the greek. I believe I have diagrammed 2 Peter 1:1-10 before but its been too long. This question came up just in my own devotional time rather than any in depth study. I did as a result preach on the passage drawing out how it flows from what God has already done for us and then moves into what we are to pursue. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
93 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224865 | ||
Doc, That's what has always kept me from really nailing this down in my mind. The notion of gaining one before the other doesn't really work. However, if we resist the notion of perfection in one before the other it helps some. I could see it in the sense of to your faith add virture (perhaps the desire to do right), then you build upon that foundation with knowledge (biblical definitions of right), then self control (The discipline to act on that right knowledge and desire), then perseverance (doing this over the long run. Then I almost see the next step as a cap or culmination of all the previous. The end result of having all four of those being godliness. I intend to do a word study on that greek word when I get a chance to see if that could work or if by godliness the notion is something that doesn't fit that thinking. But if godliness was meant to be a high point in this list, before moving on to the two that orient around love that would fit well with verse 3 which gives godliness as one of the two things God has provided everything necessary for. Just some thoughts. I certainly haven't figured it out. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
94 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224866 | ||
I did a small search on that "godliness." My theory doesn't really fit because its meaning is more along the lines of a passion and devotion to the things of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
95 | RIDING A CLOUD OR A WHITE HORSE? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 225592 | ||
legsrandall, I really have no idea the context of the phrase in that song, so context would make all the difference....but.... If I told you that a cowboy was riding on the road would you tell me that I was wrong and that he was clearly on a horse? Language is a little bit more flexible than that. What if the idea meant was that Jesus was riding his white horse on the clouds towards them? However, context would make a difference how to understand what the song is saying. Though here is a verse that might ease your mind. Isaiah 19:1 "The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them." I don't post this to suggest that he is NOT riding a white horse at the second coming. But I hope to open your eyes to how scripture often uses metaphorical language to try to express the glory and terror of the Almighty. Perhaps the song needs to be given the same opportunity. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
96 | who had 4 kids and was a singer | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 225819 | ||
Zeze, Welcome to the forum. I hope you have a great experience here and that it goes a long way to building you up in Christ. However, the intent of the forum is not for trivia, rather it is for help in serious Bible study. Again, I hope my dismissal of your question doesn't disuade you from joining us in studying God's word. For you are quite welcome here. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
97 | Are we born a sinner or do we become one | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 225862 | ||
Tracey, I would disagree with some of the answers given to you thus far. Let me quote Ephesians. Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Now this passage says we were by nature children of wrath. The problem wasn't merely our actions, but that by our very nature we were something oppossed to God. Now my question would simply be: At what point did our very nature, and not merely our actions become this way? Think it through how you will, I would say birth. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
98 | Did God the Father create Jesus | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 226007 | ||
Makarios, Very fitting to answer from a quote. I would love to even see an ancient quote answering this objection; I know there must be several. The reason it is so fitting is that not only does it answer the question, but it also serves to remind us that such heretical objections are nothing new. They have been raised before, and they will be raised again. Praise God that we have not only godly men in the present to answer such objections, but that He has gifted us throughout the history of the church with a long lineage of men who have risen up to rebuke challenges to the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
99 | will suiside send you to hell | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 226157 | ||
jlhetrik, I hope EdB will forgive me if I'm misrepresenting his side of the arguement, but let me chime in and try to clarify what I think is being said. Scripture nowhere clearly states that suicides go to hell. What it does teach is that a saved individual will partake of an ongoing sanctification that leads them to greater and greater Christ likeness, despite the fact that we will never be sinless in this life. Now suicide is not simply struggling with a particular sin, but instead it is a radical and finally unresolvable departure from that pattern. Thus, it may cause us to question salvation in the same way we would question the salvation of a professing Christian that is completely overcome in sin and dies with no fruits or evidence of repentence. So the arguement is not one of perfectionism, it is simply having a hard time placing suicide with scriptures affirmation of the ongoing sanctification of believers. I too, for this very reason, struggle to believe a suicide is a saved individual even though I can not rule out the possibility for certain. It simply seems that one of the marks of saving faith is a perseverance which is quite contrary to suicide. May God grant that I am wrong! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
100 | where is Christ battling Satan in HELL | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 226242 | ||
Glenda June, If you are asking for a place in scripture that records such a thing, then you won't find it because there is no such story there. Personally I do not believe such a notion is true. If you are wondering if there are sources outside the Bible that depict such a thing, then that I'm not aware of. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |