Results 8321 - 8340 of 8433
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
8321 | Elder must be 'the husband of one wife'? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7052 | ||
Okay I yield (whew! finally the man shuts up). I saw something in Steve's argument that I thought was interesting. It seems it interests me only and to pursue this any further is non productive. Again I did not get involved in this discussion to be a thorn in anyone's side nor to threaten the health of the forum in any way. |
||||||
8322 | Elder must be 'the husband of one wife'? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7022 | ||
Hank again I ask that you take no offense, and I’m not impugning someone I don’t even know. The fact remains after years of marriage counseling I have never seen a problem marriage that both parties didn't have major issues that needed to be dealt with. Were those issues severe enough to take a man out of ministry, I don’t know but God does. I too have known men and women that have successfully carried on in the ministry after the disaster of divorce. But I’m forced to ask a question was it God’s perfect will or something else? Just because they succeed, and just because they did good things does not mean God preferred or even wanted it that way. Surveys today say an alarming percentage of clergy and missionaries are involved in internet pornography, are they still ministering? Yes. Are they successful? Some are some aren’t. I heard a testimony from a man that had a very fast growing church in the south and it was happening while he was up into ears in porn, seeing hookers, and thinking about suicide. He had the gun to his head before he broke. Praise God! God is still on the throne. The man came to senses, resigned his church, sought help and is well on the road to recovery. Please brother this was not attack against your friend or his ministry. I’m just raising a question of the logic that says I know someone that has done it, so therefore it must be okay. |
||||||
8323 | I'm not sure what your saying? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7020 | ||
No JVH0212 I take it to mean a husband with one wife nothing more nothing less. If a divorced man, single man, or a widower can met that qualification then I say let him get to it. | ||||||
8324 | I'm not sure what your saying? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7015 | ||
I don't follow you on that. If we would take this verse literally we have to say God was talking about a husband married to one wife nothing more nothing less. Explain to me what you saying? |
||||||
8325 | But didn't He? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7014 | ||
But didn't He? Just by the fact that God used terms that are so synonymous with marriage. Doesn't husband and wife at least infer if not insist on marriage? | ||||||
8326 | Doesn't make you wonder | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7007 | ||
Hank my brother again forgive me for appearing to be so much like a donkey. Your answer “the consensus among wiser men than me says thus and such.” Yet when I used that same rebuttal point in another thread I was told we can’t do that we have to go by what the Bible says. I’m trying to show a double standard here, one place we say we must go by the Bible literally and others we say we yield to wiser men. Look at the message we are giving the world, here this verse and this verse has to be taken literally. However this verse and this verse can’t be. What does the world really see? Doesn’t it see the church living by laws they are comfortable with yet condemning the world for living by laws it is comfortable with. I have always held this passage by the interpretation you just gave. I had formed that interpretation not by what I had read in the Bible but rather by what I had been taught. However after reading what Steve had said, I noticed God had gone out of his way to mention husband and wife rather than saying sexually pure or abstained from immorality, and I began to wonder why. Doesn't that even make you wonder? |
||||||
8327 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7005 | ||
Thanks JVH0212 you have a good answer from a good teacher. However even MacArthur sort of falls back into what I have been saying and what I’m trying to get everyone to see. In the last paragraph when he says "A 'one-woman man' is one totally devoted to his wife, maintaining singular devotion, affection and sexual purity in both thought and deed. To violate this is to forfeit blamelessness and no longer be 'above reproach' (Titus 1:6,7) Compare Prov 6:32,33" (p. 1864, MacArthur Study Bible, Word, 1997).” Notice his use of the word “WIFE”. Wife still implies marriage. While MacArthur is right the Greek words “aner” and “gune” used here do mean a one woman man, but show me any translation that doesn’t understand that to mean a husband and wife. Can we at least agree if the guy is married he should have only one wife :-) |
||||||
8328 | Why is this a problem? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 7003 | ||
Guys you keep skating around the real issue. Why did God chose to use the words husband and wife if all he intended was a man or woman of sexual purity? God doesn’t have a problem coming to the point other places 1 Thes. 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; Why do you insist God is talking so cryptic here? Using words like husband and wife that everyone seems to maintain means merely sexual purity. |
||||||
8329 | Can you be a husband without marriage? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6993 | ||
Hank thanks for showing compassion on me by your kind words. But I have a question. How do you get around the words husband and wife? I might be reading something into this but in my humble mind husband and wife suggest marriage, shouldn't it? | ||||||
8330 | How do we pull marriage out? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6992 | ||
Thank you my brother I thought I was destined to the abyss by tone some of the responses to my comments. Maybe there is hope for me. Praise the Lord! Here is an answer I would have hoped for. Notice it doesn’t say I’m wrong (therefore my emotions aren’t charged) It presents the writer’s opinions which everyone is entitled to. However I would like to know how the writer came to his opinion. In the passage in question the word husband and wife are both used. These two words are synonymous with marriage. If we are going to eliminate marriage as a requirement how are we getting around this obvious verbal connection? We have to forget what we have been taught or feel on this subject and analyze what is being said. Doesn’t the use of the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ force the issue of marriage? How do can we linguistically reduce it down to meaning sexual purity? I think this passage also eliminates any person that has been divorced since again we see the requirement of ‘one’ here. However death and remarriage since I believe the scriptures teach death ends the original marriage contract or vow, would be permissible. |
||||||
8331 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6989 | ||
I totally and honestly apologize if I threatened the health of this forum in any way. That was never my intention. I responded to the thread that I responded in not to the whole discussion for a reason. In I Tim. 3:2 it says an elder should be a husband of one wife. Steve said this meant he should be married. Everyone else said no that is not what it means it means an elder should have sexual purity. I happened to see Steve’s point. All he was saying is if God meant it to say sexual purity why did he say husband (denotes marriage) of one wife (again denotes marriage). Is that so wrong as to threaten the health of this forum? |
||||||
8332 | Can you be a husband without marriage? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6982 | ||
Please excuse me I’m not trying to be argumentative. If God was conveying the idea, as many suggest, that elder must have sexual purity or at least the lack of immorality, don’t you think He would have said that? God has no problem conveying the idea of sexual purity in Revelation chapter 21 for instance. Instead the scriptures say he should be the husband of one wife. Again not wanting to split hairs how does one become the husband of a woman without marriage? See what has happened? In an effort to explain God we really have changed what he said. I think there are two qualifications here, one the man is to be a husband. Two he is to have sexual purity in his marriage. I know most people disagree with this, and we have men and women filling the position that are single, married, divorced, remarried, and etc. Again can I submit a point for thought, could this be the reason the church today doesn’t hold the place it once did? Is the church sending the wrong message to the world? Has the church suggested that compromise is okay? As to the example using the money issue. I know many poor people or people without money that are lovers of money. But I don’t know any husbands without wives. Please excuse the sarcasm but I hope it would make you think. |
||||||
8333 | Is Steve really all wrong? | 1 Tim 3:2 | EdB | 6974 | ||
I think this response is a little harsh and maybe even wrong if it was directed, as I suspect, at Steve. I asked a question awhile back in the forum “Should the Bible be taken literally?” Nearly everyone wanted to place a qualifier to my question. No one that I recall would give a black and white answer except Steve. Yet scripture tells us to let our yea be yea and nay’s be nay. (For everyone that is ready to jump, yes, I know I took this out of context, bear with me a moment). I belong to a denomination that allows men that were convicted murderers to become ordained ministers, provided they committed the murder before they were saved. However no divorced man can ever be a Pastor. No matter if the divorce happened before salvation or not. I always thought that to be wrong or at least unfair. I was talking about my feelings on this subject to a man one day and he said, “Yes in man’s eyes that is categorically unfair, however God has an excellent reason for insisting on the standards He did. If we do what seems right in our eyes we are weakening what God intended. God’s standards are much higher than ours, His ways are different than ours, His ways are always right.” “Maybe too much of man’s “fairness” has gotten into the church and that may be one of the reasons the church instead of being the dominate force of society it was meant to be, finds itself defending its every move.” There was wisdom in that man’s response! I’m not ready to take everything quite as literally as Steve does, but open your thought process, is there not some validity in what Steve is saying? Could it be God has a reason why He wanted a man that was to be the leader of a local body to know exactly what is was like to have a wife and children? So that man could have real compassion and understanding of marital problems or what it is really like to have kids. To hear the person you love most in the world standing before you with their little twisted up faces and shout I hate you. The argument that Paul wasn’t married and didn’t have kids, I don't think stands here. He was an Apostle on a mission not a pastor of a local work. Also we have made being a pastor a profession rather than a calling. We in our human wisdom say should a man not be allowed to follow his chosen profession just because he never married? May be we should. Maybe the man himself should reexamine what it is God has called him to do. Maybe he was called to be a teacher, missionary, an evangelist, social worker, and the list goes on. Think about this discussion. If we rightly divide the scripture is it all wrong to take the Bible literally? Throughout history every society or age has placed it’s assumed meaning to Bible passages. The results of this many times has been far less than desirable and many times even disastrous. Is it time we get back to where God is? Where is that, some may ask? May it be in the literal interpretation of the bible? Is it all wrong to hold a pastor’s calling in such high esteem that not every person is qualifies? If your going to respond to this question please respond to the questions I asked and points I made not to the examples I used. I intended no offense by anything I said, please take none. Be blessed and be a blessing |
||||||
8334 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | EdB | 6887 | ||
Dear Charis, I probably should answer you directly but I think others may want to understand what I mean when I say "from the pit of hell." By that I mean I have seen some responses that are so close to being right, so close to the truth that on first reading you find yourself shaking your head in agreement. However on closer inspection you see slight, subtle errors that open a door for misinformation. False doctrine is not 100 percent wrong but usually only 1 percent wrong. If it was 100 percent wrong even the newest of believers would be able to detect the error and fail to be deceived, however when it is 1 percent or less many take it in. This deception or falsehood germinates and soon distorts the truth already received. Why do I say from the pit of hell because I think no man is subtle enough to do this on his own, it takes the 'father of deception' to accomplish this. Does that mean there are responders that are cohorts of Satan? No! But I think there are people that have let things like pride, anger, selfishness, past hurts, past deceptions, and/or a lack of love, creep into their responses and I think this has opened the door for the wiry finger of deception slink in. No, Charis none of yours, that I know of :), fall into this group and I pray none of mine has either, but I think we all need to be in prayer before we ever attempt to respond. Anytime we are offering spiritual advice, effecting a way a person believes or teaching scripture it is serious business, something not to be taken lightly. |
||||||
8335 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | EdB | 6837 | ||
Hank, didn’t we just talk about this? I think there is an even more insidious problem than the endless displays of ego, intellect and argumentative skills. There is the problem is misinformation. Take almost any subject discussed that has more than three responses and you will probably find one saying the answer is ‘yes’ and one saying the answer is “no’ and a third saying it is in the “maybe”. The problem is which answer should a new believer hold onto? In the debate over Calvinism and Arminianism, there is so much information, misinformation, name calling, verbal abuse, opinion, point and counter point it bewilders the mind. It would be virtually impossible for a new believer to read through all of that and come up with an informed answer. Or the debate over whether Nebuchadnezzar was saved or not. Endless speculation through point and counter point, information, misinformation, opinion and pure argumentative input on this subject. How could a new believer ever expect to come up with an answer? Yet we say we are creating a study bible with wide margins, Hank I submit to you we are creating a study bible that contains the confusion of the world through the opinions of man. Now read the questions that have only one or two responses. Many have answers that have totally misleading information in them. But since they weren’t a provocative enough subjects no one read the responses to see if it was Biblical or not. Again more bad information. I have seen some that are pure trash yet they go unchallenged, while everyone focuses on the juicier topics. I believe for this forum to be what it is meant to be, people will have to step up to some issues. First there must be a way to limit or avoid endless point and counter point discussions. Secondly every question and every answer given must have a Biblical answer and any that does not must somehow be eliminated or corrected. Any question that has multiple commonly accepted theological answers needs to be summarized to say so, (example the Calvinism and Arminianism debate). There needs to be a way to neutralize any question that baits an argument, thus enabling their submitter to constructively contribute to this forum. Lastly a way has to be found to prevent all responses that are purely from the pit of hell from effecting or at least appearing to be Biblically correct answers. I believe the if these issues were addressed and solutions put in place to correct them then this forum would stand a chance to become a limitless wide margin study bible that I think everyone desires. I'm in agreement with you unless change happens quickly this forum is in danger of becoming another “use to be”! |
||||||
8336 | Where is "paradise" in Luke 23:43 | Luke 23:43 | EdB | 6828 | ||
Dear Dana permit me to stick my nose in. The definitions of Paradise you were given were correct but I think they left some very important things out and one may have been a little misleading. Jesus when he died went to paradise which is correct, however He then ascended into heaven taking with him the believers that resided in paradise. “…"When He ascended on high, He led CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, And He gave gifts to men."” Ephes. 4:8. Paradise was a holding place for Old Testament saints (believers) to reside until the blood of Jesus was shed to cleanse them of sin. After Jesus’ death and the shedding of the His blood the holding place for believers was no longer needed. When believers die now we do not go to paradise as was inferred in one of the responses but rather straight to heaven. How do we know this well first we know Jesus sits on the right hand of God the Father. We also know the throne is located in Heaven God’s immediate domain. Secondly Paul tells us in 2 Cor. 5:8 2 “we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” Meaning when we died as believers we go directly into the presence of Jesus. And He is at the right hand of God. Jesus also ascended into Heaven after His death to fulfill the obligation of presenting of His blood upon the altar. “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” Hebrews 9:12 Dana I pray this will answer your question. |
||||||
8337 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | EdB | 6566 | ||
I read the book the Prayer of Jabez this morning. All in all, the book is pretty good. The thrust of the message is asking God to use you. The author explains how he graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary and wasn't sure how God wanted to use to use him. He prayed the Prayer of Jabez and God has opened doors beyond his wildest dreams. He started and is the president of Walk Through the Bible (which in itself is excellent). While the message of the book is solid it can easily be abused, as I said before the whole thing can quickly become a Talisman. |
||||||
8338 | More thoughts on the prayer of Jabez? | 1 Chr 4:9 | EdB | 6469 | ||
My biggest fear is that the prayer of Jabez will/has become a talisman for some people. People will be putting their faith and hope in the prayer rather than God. Has anybody seen this? | ||||||
8339 | Can you see my position? | Rom 5:6 | EdB | 6457 | ||
Okay, what does the word mean and no fair looking at JVH0212's answer. And if you do who is 'us'? Us the readers or us the saved reading this passage? | ||||||
8340 | Did you have a particular source? | Mark 10:25 | EdB | 6456 | ||
In Matt 19:24 and Mark 10:25 the word for needle in the original is 'raphis' which means to sew or sewing needle. In Luke 18:25 the word is 'belone' which means needle and was the term used by the people of time to speak of a needle used by a physician versus the needle used in sewing. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 ] Next > Last [422] >> |