Results 81 - 100 of 2030
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | I have a problem with Mat 27:53 | Matt 27:53 | mark d seyler | 187694 | ||
Hi Edwin, Interesting thoughts! I checked the word forms for "his resurrection", and the words are singular, so I am still leaning towards this being after Jesus' resurrection. I agree with you that capitalization is not definitive, but if this were saying that they came out after their own resurrections, I would expect to find plural forms, even as I had to use in here. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
82 | I have a problem with Mat 27:53 | Matt 27:53 | mark d seyler | 187653 | ||
Hi Edwin, As I look at the grammer, it seems like they rose when Jesus died, and came out of their tombs when Jesus rose. That seems strange to me, but if that's the way it happened, then, ok. If that's the correct understanding, this would be an indication to me that they didn't rise to eternal life, since Jesus is the firstborn of the dead. But I'm not convinced that I know for sure on this one! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
83 | What qualifies a cultist? | Is 43:7 | mark d seyler | 187651 | ||
Personally, I sure miss Walter Martin! And that's all I'm gonna say! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
84 | What qualifies a cultist? | Is 43:7 | mark d seyler | 187648 | ||
Hi Psalm 25, Just a reminder, be sure to include a source reference when quoting previously published material. I am certain this was merely an oversight. :-) For any that are interested, you can read the full article at: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c174.html Love in Christ, Mark Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
85 | What Am I doing wrong? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 187639 | ||
Hi Cheri, I feel safe speaking for a number of us here, We love e-sword! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
86 | Jesus' thoughts on child abuse | Matt 18:6 | mark d seyler | 187625 | ||
Hi Lookn, Without correct Biblical interpretation, how do we define acts of love? Our own sensibilities? It seems pretty obvious when we are talking about child abuse, but the fact is that pretty soon we all tend to wander off into the weeds without an objective standard. Nonetheless, since this is a Bible Study Forum, we consider it extremely important that we confine ourselves to the actual teaching of Scripture, and to do that, we have to stick with the actual meanings of the word used. This verse in question teaches that one would be better off by tying a millstone to their next an casting themselves into the deep part of the sea than doing something that leads one of these children into sin. But the fact is, the Bible teaches against all manner of sin committed against anyone, including children. There is no free pass just because the victim of your sin is a child. But staying with this verse a moment, child abuse is a major stumbling block to children, as those being abused very often emerge with deep emotional scars, which lead to sinful behaviors. Drop down a couple more verses, as Jesus warns against despising one of these little ones. This "despising" is from "kataphroneo", to have a mind against. It seems to me that this is the seed from which child abuse comes from. Its when the abuser fails to value the child as God does; God, Who appoints them angels who stand in His very presence. We need not worry that God will overlook any unrighteousness, and leave it unpunished. God clearly has a heart for children. He witnesses every abuse, every misdeed, and He will avenge them all. But we only have this certain commitment if we stay true to His Word, and simply allow it to speak to us. Anything else is just making stuff up. Love in Chirst, Mark |
||||||
87 | Animals in the New Testament? | Prov 12:12 | mark d seyler | 187581 | ||
Hi MW, I gotta agree with you that we need to be conscious of what we spend our time on, and examine ourselves lest we waste what God's given to us. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
88 | When did "after" change to before? | Joel 2:31 | mark d seyler | 187575 | ||
Jesus will send His angels to gather His chosen upon His physical return, after the tribulation of those days. This does not change. But these chosen are the remnant of Israel, as can be demonstrated by the subsequent sheep and goats judgment. The rapture of the called out assembly takes place prior to the wrath of God, prior to the Day of the Lord. A careful comparision between Matt 245:29-31 and Acts 2:17-20 will show that they do not describe the same event. Joel 3 more closely matches the second coming of Christ, with Joel 2 transpiring before that time. To go into greater detail on this, please contact me at markdseyler@yahoo.com. Love in Chirst, Mark |
||||||
89 | Animals in the New Testament? | Prov 12:12 | mark d seyler | 187574 | ||
When I decided I wanted to marry the woman who is my wife, it was because of what I saw in her heart. And the love, and forgiveness, that she shows to me spills out towards all that God has made. She's sad when the Easter Lilly dries up. How much more so when a cat suffers? She has a depth and appreciation for the value and meaningfulness of life. What a greater burden she feels towards those of humanity who are lost, and dying in their sins! Even God takes the time and concern to feed His creatures, great and small. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
90 | I am edified, can I help you? | Prov 12:12 | mark d seyler | 187573 | ||
Hi MWLaine, I'm just curious, do you see any connection between the time I spend cleaning my hermit crab tank, and the time you spend planting bulbs? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
91 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187571 | ||
Hi John, To put this in the words of a simple little song that I just love: "God will make a way Where there seems to be no way He works in ways we cannot see He will make a way for me" To me, just like what you wrote, this sums up nicely the Old and New Covenants. We are all guilty, but God has made a way. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
92 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187570 | ||
Hi Hoppy, It's very important to me to not only understand my views, but to also understand those opposing views. If I cannot be open to correction, and receiving a greater understanding, then I have set myself as my own foundation, and what sort of foolishness is that? I am constantly learning from others, and sometimes the best lessons come from those with whom I have initial disagreement. You wrote "Oh that the Holy Spirit would give us fresh eyes each time we break open Holy Writ!" I could not agree more than I do! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
93 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187542 | ||
Hi Cheri, This reminds me of 1 Corinthians 15:8 "and last of all, even as if to one born out of time, He was also seen by me." This seems to me like Paul is saying that the normal process of his being born again was interupted, as it were "forced labor". Interesting! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
94 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187541 | ||
Hi John, An interesting and well written article! Thanks for bringing it up. Although looking at someone’s critique of their presentation of a view they disagree with isn’t quite the same as real discussion, it can be a good starting point. I agreed wholeheartedly with their description of man’s fallen state, and their description of Prevenient Grace seemed fair enough. But when I got to the for and against arguments, they gave a very weak “pro”, while naturally devoting the lion’s share to the “con”. In my opinion, they completely ignored some of the strongest arguments in favor of prevenient grace. Nor do they address the most commonly held difficulties with their assertions. Their first argument centers on John 1:9, the light that enlightens. I have never actually thought of this myself as rock solid in favor of prevenient grace, and I agree with them that it can be taken in different ways. But they do not include an analysis of John 1:12, which argues most strongly against the argument they present concerning 1:9. They discuss prevenient grace as it relates to Christ’s atonement without any mention of Romans 5. I find the discussion to be thouroughly incomplete without this. They present the Wesleyan argument that since God commands repentance, then repentance must be possible to do. Their argument against this is that it is theoretically possible for all people, just not actually possible for all people. To support the validity of their view, they use obedience to the Law for comparison. Even though God commands perfect obedience to the Law, and perfect obedience if “physically possible”, man is not morally able. It is possible in theory, but not actuality, and they transfer this to the New Covenant as well. But the Scripture doesn’t make this same comparison, and in fact, goes to great length to show the great differences between the Old and New Covenants. At the end of the day, they are simply saying that man cannot believe because he cannot. They have not presented a refutation at all. They have, for instance, quoted “none come unless they are drawn” without indicating who might be and who might not be drawn. Its not an argument that relates to the topic. The writer finalizes the presentation of pro and con arguments with the claim that the Wesleyan view is simply imposing an unBiblical world view upon the Scriptures. This is a common claim, and can be used equally by both sides, but not to the furthering of the discussion. Their response is, as it always is, to say that God can do what He wants. Of course, no one is arguing with that. He can even, if He wants, sovereignly choose to save only those certain people who are the willing recipients of His great and wonderful salvation. The writer warns against the “trap” of thinking that unless God shows mercy to all, then He isn’t just. I could counter with the warning against summarily limiting the love of God just to try to explain to one’s self why Joe doesn’t get saved. “Well, I guess its cuz God didn’t want Joe.” He finishes with the standard, “well, no one can really understand it anyway.” I guess he would include himself? The only thing I would add is that whoever might read this article needs to remember that this writer is stongly biased in favor of unconditional election. Even if he is in fact presenting a fair and complete portrayal of the Wesleyan view of prevenient grace, this “Wesleyan view” may not be the best presentation of this view. In my opinion, there are much stronger arguments in favor of prevenient grace than those presented. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
95 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187514 | ||
Hi John, One other thing I'd like to add is that I am reluctant to identify myself with "people groups" such as "Wesleyans" or "Calvinists". I wish to discuss Biblical Doctrine without the baggage often carried in "theological systems". I find it much easier that way to stay focused on specific points of Scripture. I'm not so much interested in examining how much agreement or disagreement there may be between Wesleyans and Calvinists. In my opinion (which is certainly of questionable value), both of these men had some things right and some things wrong, as I think is generally true of the lot of us. So my primary interest is simply to examine a Scripture, and see what it teaches. In doing that I believe I can know the truth of a matter. And as I am taught by others, I primarily wish to examine what they are teaching by Scripture itself, to see if it is in agreement. I have every confidence that you wish to do the same, I simply say this for clarity. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
96 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187513 | ||
Hi John, I'll take a look at this article. Do you think you could distill the essence of its argurment into a paragraph or three? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
97 | Christians? | Matt 7:21 | mark d seyler | 187512 | ||
Hi John, I agree with you that we are able to receive God's truth even from a poor translation. I think that Webster has more to say about the translator's choice than about the original expression, but I have a great deal of confidence in many who have translated the Holy Scripture, and a little more insight in how they decided to express God's Word in English is a good thing. Esau's cry for repentence is, I think, a great example of just what you say, that the context is extremely useful in showing us the nuance even though we don't know the original language. I totally believe that it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us from the Bible, and He can overcome these minor issues in translation. I do not mean to denigrate the many fine translations that have been made in obedience to Jesus' instruction, go ye into all the world . . . teaching them. I personally believe that God uses each one. But I will also say that some are better than others, and some give a more accurate or complete expression of God's Word, simply because they differentiate a little more distictly. I do not say that we shouldn't use a dictionary. I use them frequently myself, even for words I already "know", just to be sure I am actually using them correct. Sometimes I find I am not. I am saying that we need to keep in mind that Webster simply tells us about the word which a man chose to translated a different word God wrote, and Webster contributes to our knowledge to the extent that the English definition agrees with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek definition. And that's something that can't really be known until one confirms tha original definition, something that Webster can't do. Again, though, let me stress my belief that we have many very fine translations to read and study from, and read them and study them I do! As always, it is a pleasure it discuss these things with you, John, and I'm glad you found our little corner of the www. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
98 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187511 | ||
Hi Hoppy, No apology needed, but yours is cheerfully recieved! :-) I know that people's experiences often contribute to their understanding of spiritual matters. I, for one, find that I must carefully guard against that. I will agree with you that left to himself, man is lost, without hope or recoures. But I have yet to see a convincing argument from Scripture that regeneration, being reborn, comes before repentance, or that faith comes from rebirth, rather than by hearing the Word of God. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
99 | What was the purpose of the law? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187510 | ||
Thank you, Tim. I value your opinion. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
100 | God grant repentance? | Gal 3:23 | mark d seyler | 187509 | ||
HI Cheri, Perhaps, although I would point out that that passage is simply describing the actions of a particular group of people during a specific event, and does not give us a principle or rule to be used for general application. So I don't think this actually teaches what Hopalong was talking about. I can't think of any others either. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [102] >> |