Results 81 - 100 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Believing but Falling Away? | Heb 3:12 | RWC | 233540 | ||
How is it possible to ever 'fall away from the Living God"? That is a difficult question because it gets complicated by all kinds of assumptions and complications. Let's begin at the beginning: did Adam and Eve 'fall away' from God? Yes, I think that is a fair description. They had a direct and personal relationship with God that none of us can understand. And they knowingly broke that relationship through direct and willful disobedience. Yes, they fell away from God and were literally kicked out of the Garden and later died physically as a result of that falling away. But had they fallen away from an 'eternal life' relationship with God? That's a different thing. Fast forward to the Exodus: the Hebrews did not really know too much about God at this point. But by the time they left Egypt, they had more than enough knowledge about Him to know that *He* was in charge and that He was taking charge over them to make them His people, His Nation, His testimony among the nations (people groups) of the world. They were not entirely happy with everything that this would mean, and they rebelled... repeatedly! Did they 'fall away' from God? Yes, again that seems like fair description. But, again, had they (even Moses and Aaron) fallen away from an 'eternal life' relationship with God? That seems like something very different. And now we fast forward to the world of the early church when Christ has come, has died, has been buried, resurrected, and ascended to the place where He is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father (He. 1:3), and where the Gospel (the good news) of God's incredible grace and mercy (He. 4:16) is being preached to people, beginning with the Jews (Hebrews) first. Are there those who are falling away from God? Well, first of all, there are those who are Hebrews that are rejecting the gospel. Are they falling away from God? That would seem to be an apt description comparable in many ways to the 'falling away' of both the first humans and the million or more people that fell dead in the wilderness over the 40 years of wandering. They have considerable knowledge of God but still reject the gospel. But are they falling from an 'eternal life' relationship? That is a different thing, I think. It is, I think, possible for people to fall away from particular kinds of relationships with God; the kinds of relationships that are of an earthly and non-eternal nature. And there are consequences for doing so, sometimes very serious consequences. But those consequences are not necessarily eternal. The rebelliousness of even Aaron and Moses eventually cost them their life and the privilege of entering the Promised Land. But that does not mean that it cost them their 'eternal life' relationship with God. In much the same way, it is also true that those who *seem* to have an 'eternal life' relationship with God through faith in Jesus may not, in fact, *actually* have such a relationship. Sometimes the reality of the lack of an 'eternal life' relationship becomes apparent in this life (He. 3:14). Sometimes, the reality of the lack of such a relationship does not become apparent until the judgement (Mt. 7:21-23 - one of the most terrifying passages in the whole of scripture!). |
||||||
82 | Believing but Falling Away? | Heb 3:12 | RWC | 233541 | ||
The second to last sentence, "Sometimes the reality of the lack of an 'eternal life' relationship becomes apparent in this life (He. 3:14)" could also have Ga. 5:4 as a reference. | ||||||
83 | should not enter into his rest | Heb 3:18 | RWC | 233542 | ||
see Nu. 14:23,28-30; De. 1:34-35; Psalm 95:7-11. These are the ones being used as the example - the foreshadowing - to avoid. The Promised Land of Israel is not the greater reality. The new Heaven and new Earth is the greater reality. We all need to make sure that we are not forbidden from entering *that* resting place because of disobedience *to the Gospel,* not because of our disobedience to the Law. Live ready! |
||||||
84 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 817 | ||
If Jesus is God, and God cannot be tempted, how could Jesus really be tempted? I think I have an answer, but I would like to hear from others. Ref. Mt. 4.1; Heb. 4.15; Jms. 1.13 |
||||||
85 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 823 | ||
That is one of the common answers to this question, but it seems to me to fall short of really answering the question. If Jesus' divine nature prevents His human nature from being "tempted to the point of sin," then would it not also prevent Him from being truly tempted at all? | ||||||
86 | Can we be truely sinless and not perfect | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4758 | ||
Do I understand correctly from your comment that you believe that you are now in fact sinless but not yet perfect? If so, I am afraid that I would have to disagree with you. Anyone who is a member of God's family (and still in this world) will one day be made perfectly sinless. For now though, we are only "declared" perfectly sinless because of the blood of Jesus. The full reality of that declaration is a future event. I am struggling with your comment that the "flesh is imperfect." Certainly that is true, but it sounds as though you may be implying that the root of our sinfulness is found in our physical body (flesh) and that this is what Jesus had to overcome. Again, if that is what you mean, then I must disagree. Sin (sinfulness) is primarily a spiritual matter, not a physical problem. Death does mean separation. But that is a Biblical concept, not a Greek one or one based on the Greek language. As I understand it, there are two kinds of death: physical and spiritual. Physical death is the separation of the body (flesh) from the spirit (soul). Spiritual death is the separation of the spirit (soul) from God. The little girl that Jesus raised from the dead was very dead at least physically, and perhaps spiritually as well. Jesus made the same comment about Lazarus, and then proceeded to say that he (Lazarus) was actually dead. Did Jesus mean that the little girl was not separated from God but that Lazarus was? And regarding your comment about Jesus dying separated from the Father, I would have agreed with you up until a couple of weeks ago. But I recently read a very thought provoking article on a website. And now I have to re-think this. The link to this article is below. http://answers.org/Theology/forsaken.html |
||||||
87 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4761 | ||
I think I can buy that. As you (and others in this discussion) have suggested, there seems to be two different kinds of temptation: internal (coming from within us) and external (originating in our circumstances or surroundings). As I understand it, Jesus was never dragged away and enticed by His own evil desires (as it says in James): He had none. His temptations were always external and never internal. I also believe that this was true for Adam and Eve, at least up until they had disobeyed the first time. I suppose that it should also be said that this does not mean that Jesus' temptations were any easier to deal with (humanly speaking), since He bore the full weight of _all_ His temptations by resisting them completely, even to the point of death. |
||||||
88 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4766 | ||
Hmmm.... When God created humans, He made us significantly different from the rest of the animal world: He gave us the ability to make choices (the ability to exercise will). Whether that will is free or not or to what degree it might be free we will leave for another discussion! That ability to exercise will is the primary ingredient in what God wants most from us: love (agape love!). In order to love with God's kind of love (agape), we need to have BOTH the ability AND the opportunity. If either of those two things are removed, then we cannot love with God's love. And, as you said in part at least, that is precisely what God did in the Garden: He gave Adam and Eve both the ability to choose and the opportunity to choose. This brings me back to this discussion, and to the issue with which I wrestle. There is no doubt that Jesus had the opportunity to sin. He was tempted (externally) in every way that we are. But did He have the ability to do anything other than obey? If not, how does that qualify as an act of obedience or real temptation? The only explanation that I have been able to come up, thus far at least, is that when Jesus became a human being, He set aside all of His divine nature (not character, but power and abilities - see Php. 2.6-8 where we are told that Christ "emptied Himself" in order to prove His obedience) and became totally dependant upon the Holy Spirit, just as we are. In so doing, I wonder if Jesus was just as capable of disobeying as Adam had been. And yet, suggesting that this might be true sounds like it might be blasphemous! Thus my struggle! |
||||||
89 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4767 | ||
I agree with you completely that Jesus had no inward desire or inclination to sin. I am not so sure that the reason He did not sin when He was tempted is because of the fact that He was (and is) God. To avoid repetition, please see the note from Reformer Joe ("I hold that the reason for his temptation...") and my reply ("Hmmm... When God created humans, He made...") Your comments would be appreciated. | ||||||
90 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4907 | ||
Just brief reply. I have posted a question under the verse that we now seem to be discussing (Phil. 2.7). It might be good if you could copy your note above and make it a response to the question on that verse. I think that this is a pretty good explanation. I do not believe that Jesus' divinity was in any way reduced by His becoming a human being. I am just wondering if (and even of the opinion that) Jesus had set aside the use of the power that is His because of Who He is. (See my question on Phil. 2.7 for a little further expanation.) |
||||||
91 | "desirable though wrong" and Jesus? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5244 | ||
I just wanted to follow up this posting with you here under the discussion on temptation. You defined temptation as being "exposed to that which you find desirable though wrong." James describes our temptation as being "dragged away and enticed by our own evil desire." But I do not think that this could be said for Jesus. He had no evil desires whatsoever. Now, I don't think that this is what you meant, but I thought I should just ask you to clarify what you think about how Jesus was tempted. | ||||||
92 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5755 | ||
I first read this message several days ago and I started to write a response offline. Now I see that someone has already responded to you and said basically what I wanted to say, and in FAR fewer words! But please consider my comments below. The repeated stand of the trintarian point of view, if I understand it all, is that there is one (and only one!) God who exists in three persons, and who has done so for all of eternity. Without question, the emphatic point of Is. 44.6-8 (and many other verses like it) is that there is only one living and true God, maker of Heaven and Earth, and that there is none (absolutely none!) besides Him. You have two statements in your posting that seem to somehow miss that. The first is your statement, "If language means anything then by Myself" and alone mean that there was no other person present." You are making a jump from the statement "there is one God" (which is what that verse and the others like it actually says) to "therefore there can only be one Person." Secondly, your last question, ("If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would... he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead?") makes the same mistake of jumping from "one God" to "one person." These statements imply (or at least it seems to me that they imply) that the trinitarian view point must believe in a multiplicity of gods because it holds to a multiplicity of persons within the one true and living God. And that of course, does not represent the trinitarian point of view at all. Trinitarians hold to Is. 44.6-8 (and all of the other verses that claim monotheism!) just as strongly as you do. And trinitarians are just as strongly opposed to theologies and ideologies that teach polytheism as you are. In defending or explaining your "oneness" point of view, don't allow yourself to "set up a straw man" or otherwise miss the real issue. We agree, I think, that there is only one God. We agree, I think, that Jesus was and is both fully God and fully human at the same time. The crux of the issue, if I understand it, is the question: are there three separate individual persons or only one person who takes on three forms or roles? It occurs to me that this discussion is headed down a significantly different path than the current subject. If you would be kind enough to cross-post your note to which this message is responding (and then let me know), I will do the same. Perhaps post it as a note or a question attached to Is. 44.6 or some other verse of your choosing. Just put a line at the top of the new message explaining that it is a cross-posted message and where it had originally come from. If you will do that, save your response to my message until we have these both cross-posted, and then we can keep the discussion on the subject and attached to the verse (or principle) that we are actually discussing. |
||||||
93 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5979 | ||
Please forgive me if I wasn't very clear. Or perhaps you didn't read my note thoroughly. Or maybe both are true. First of all, my understanding of the Scripture is very much Trinitarian. I was only trying to clarify exactly what the point of difference is between the Trinitarian view and the "oneness" view. If you have not already done so, please read the message to which I was responding. That might help to clear up some of the misunderstanding. Secondly, even though I agree with you in our view on the Trinity, I am not at all sure that I would consider a creedal statement to be an authoritative proof providing "a simple answer." There is certainly some value in knowing how the people of history have understood the Scriptures. But that is not the same thing as the Scripture itself. A "simple answer," in my estimation, would be a few quotes from Scripture (taken in their context, of course!) |
||||||
94 | journal article | Heb 6:4 | RWC | 233715 | ||
Here is the new link to this article: http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/heb6.pdf |
||||||
95 | plz help. need answers to quest | James 1:5 | RWC | 232557 | ||
Hi Jenny, I have started to pick away at your questions. Others may be doing the same. I have a son who is doing the same (asking these questions, I mean), not from college, but from 'new atheist' websites (and there are lots of them). I will keep trying work through some of these with you. Pray for him, and pray for the wisdom that can only come from God (Jms. 1:5; Col. 1:9). |
||||||
96 | plz help. need answers to quest | James 1:5 | RWC | 233530 | ||
So Jenny, it has been nearly three months since you posted your several questions. Just wanted you to know that people are praying for you and your son and we hope that the Summer has been a good time for you and son to discuss some of these issues. They are important. They are issues of truth. It is not wrong for your son to be asking these questions. But it would be a dangerous thing for your son to assume that by just asking these questions, he has answered them. If you have new questions from him or follow up questions to what you have already asked, please feel free to post them. This forum may not be the quickest way to get answers, but it does eventually get there. Maybe you could, if you haven't already, even encourage your son to log on and post his own questions here. | ||||||
97 | Can God really be tempted? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131672 | ||
Can God in fact be tempted? If translated correctly by modern English Bibles, this verse would say that it is impossible for God to be tempted. But then we have passages like Mt 4.1 ff. (temptations in wilderness) and Heb. 4.15 that tell us that Jesus was in fact tempted. If Jesus is God in the flesh (and yes, I am convinced of the deity of Jesus), how are we to understand this verse? Do the modern English versions (which all seem to basically agree on the reading of the text) translate this verse well? I have had someone recently suggest that the verse would be better translated as "God ought not to be tempted." I do not know Greek well enough to deal with the translation issues, so if anyone can shed some light on that, I would appreciate it. Also, I think I have an answer for how these verses can all be reconciled using the modern English readings, but I would very much like to hear from others on how they understand this verse first. So if anyone would be willing to share how you interpret (understand) this verse, especially in comparison to Mt 4.1 and Heb. 4.15, I would greatly appreciate it! | ||||||
98 | Is His humanity a reasonable explanation | James 1:13 | RWC | 131784 | ||
Yes, I have heard the explanation that Christ was tempted in His humanity but not in His divinity. I find that explanation to be somewhat unsatisfying though. Yes, Jesus was and is fully human and fully divine. Those two natures were somehow brought into a single union; by this I mean that Jesus is and was one individual being. But by saying that Jesus was tempted as a human though not in His divinity, are we not then suggesting that there is a "division" between Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the Son of Man; that they are somehow two different entities? That certainly seems, to me at least, to be where that explanation leads, and that is not good place to go. Does the Commentary Critical to which you refer offer this explanation for Jas. 1.13? I don't know of this commentary so I can't check myself. I agree with you that there is a difference between being tempted and falling to that temptation. But that difference really doesn't come into play in understanding this verse, although it is certainly part of the context of the verse (cf. vv. 14-15). This verse, or at least the part I am asking about, says quite directly (in the modern English translations) that God cannot be tempted, not just that He cannot fall to temptation. The problem comes around though because we know (Mt. 4.1 and He. 4.15) that Jesus the eternal Son of God was tempted. What are we not understanding that makes this seem like a contradiction? |
||||||
99 | Greek help in translation anyone? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131785 | ||
Would the translation "God ought not to be tempted" be a more reasonable (or better) translation of the Greek in thsi verse instead of "God cannot be tempted"? Is there anyone out there with enough of a background in Greek to be able to offer a litle insight here? | ||||||
100 | How do they go together? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131821 | ||
To answer your question first, I don't think that it should be translated any differently than it is commonly communicated in the major modern English versions. That translation was offered to me as a "possibly better" rendering of the text by someone whom I respect a great deal and who knows Greek far better than I (though he is no expert either and he would never suggest that he was). My guess is that he read a definition for apeirastos similar to the one you quoted (untried, that is, not temptable: not to be tempted) and then he grabbed on to the last part of the definition (not to be tempted) as a means to try to deal with this apparent contradiction. I told him at the time that I thought he was on pretty thin ice textually, but that I would think about it and research it a little. So that is where the Greek part of the question comes from. I still think he is on thin ice textually. I would like to ask you a question from your comments though. You wrote that "God cannot sin, so He cannot be tempted to sin." If that is true, exactly and litterally as you have put it, how do you understand verses and passages that say that Jesus was tempted (Mt. 4.1 and He. 4.15 for example)? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |