|
| |
Exasperate - examples? |
|
|
|
Col 3:21
|
| |
Clearly we cannot, as parents, not set limits or rules. I believe the context here is that we shouldn't set rules that we, as our children's role models, don't follow. We should not have the "Do as I say, not as I do" rule in affect. This causes our children to be confused as to what to do. The best way to raise a child (in the ways of the Lord) is to be the example for them. I also believe 'exasperate' means we should not set unattainable limits or rules for our children, then punish them when they CAN'T follow them. Additionally, I think that parents should always explain to their children what they've done wrong and remind them of the consequences. It is unfair, and exasperating, for a child to be punished without any idea that an action was wrong, or not even knowing what they did wrong. Being a parent is difficult. As a parent, especially a father, you set the ground rules of how your child perceives and understands God. What a frightenening and awesome, and exciting, responsibility! As far as an example of some of this: We have some friends who have set limits on their teen that cannot possibly be followed. He has to sit still, not flip through TV channels, and is basically treated the same as the younger kids. I've seen him explode more than once with, "What am I doing wrong? It's not fair!" and similar statements. When we 'box' our children in too tight, they will explode and we may lose them. Be kind, gentle, but firm. Let them know their limitations and boundaries. Never punish in anger and always explain what they did wrong, remind them of the rules and consequences, and love them with your whole heart. Make sure you tell them that often! Hope this helps. |
| |
Was Jesus Christ circumsized? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Was Jesus Christ circumsized? I guess that by The Covenant of Circumcision in Genesis 17:9-14 he would have been. But it's difficult for me to understand that God would have to be circumsized. |
| |
when did it rain for the first time? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
At first, the plants were watered by a mist that used to rise from the surface of the ground.
Rain did not begin till after the "floodgates" of the sky were opened.
Compare these verses:
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Gen 2:6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
AND
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
Gen 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
|
| |
Interpretation of Bible teachings |
|
|
|
James 5:14
|
| |
Please understand that a complete answer to this question would be quite long. Take this information and consider it while you search for Gods answer...and He will definately have one.
1. Most importantly, the idea that scripture has many different interpretations is not true. Hear me out. Yes there is a Priesthood of believers and we do not need to consult anyone but God to understand His Word. But this is not a license to interpret scripture in whatever way best fits our lives or beliefs. God wrote the Bible...end of discussion. To believe that it was a product of man and it may have mistakes is wrong. If it has one mistake, the whole of it can not be trusted. It may have a second mistake and we dont know where it is, so can you trust any of it? What if the part about how to enter into heaven has an error... It is either God Breathed or its not. See 1 Peter 1:20. The Bible must be interpreted with this question settled in your heart. God had only ONE meaning when He wrote it. Scripture has an abundance of Applications to our lives today...it is Living and active, and able..., but only one meaning. Try not to forget that God chose a certain generation and people group to unveil Himself to for the purpose of recording scripture, and that is not us. The epistle to the Corinthians does not begin with greetings to the 21st century Christians in So in So USA. It was to them in their time and their cultural setting. It does apply to us, but it was written to them.
2. Anointing ones head with oil may not mean what you think. In the cultural setting, way back in the time of Moses, God gave very discriptive laws about treatment of the sick. It was the priest who one went to when they were sick and they told them what requirement God gave for that situation. There were no doctors, only priest...elders. For many of the wounds then, a bandage soaked in wine and olive oil was appropriate to heal it. It was the elders responsibility to make sure you took care of the wound properly. This was the case later in the lives of mostly Jewish converts to Christianity in the time James wrote his epistle. In other words, the elders made sure you took their medicine. The wording Anoint your head with oil would have a profoundly different meaning to someone in the first century than it does today. This answer can be studied much more, especially using the Greek language it was written in which gives more details as to its meaning...ie.does the Greek word in place of head in English mean the literal head or does it have a broader meaning for the whole body...the head is control of the entire body as is with Christ being the head of the Church...
Consider this limited answer and go back to the text and look again.
Remember, if you hold that this taking to the elders and anointing someones head with some oil could lead poeple to believe doctors and medicine is not necessary. Maybe all that anointing ones head with oil does is get their hair all greesy!
Hope I helped some... |
| |
What I am asking is baptism a requiement |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
A few years ago when my youngest daughter wanted to be baptized. She and I studied the subject together. I put all of our study into a short message which I shared that night. It exceeds the max length by 4x, so I will just tell you what I have. You can then tell me which you want to see and I will post it.
The pieces are:
1) What is Baptism? (Water, Spirit and Fire Baptism)
2) Why should we get baptized?
3) Who, when and how should someone be baptized?
4) Explanations of dificult verses.
|
| |
What I am asking is baptism a requiement |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
A few years ago when my youngest daughter wanted to be baptized. She and I studied the subject together. I put all of our study into a short message which I shared that night. It exceeds the max length by 4x, so I will just tell you what I have. You can then tell me which you want to see and I will post it.
The pieces are:
1) What is Baptism? (Water, Spirit and Fire Baptism)
2) Why should we get baptized?
3) Who, when and how should someone be baptized?
4) Explanations of dificult verses.
|
| |
Explanations of difficult verses |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
How about "Explanations of difficult verses?" Thanks. |
| |
Explanations of difficult verses |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Difficult Verses on Baptism
Mark 16:16
Some say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. This doctrine flies in the face of salvation by grace through faith alone. What then does it mean? The two possible answers are:
It is not speaking of water baptism at all, but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This occurs at the time of our conversion, the time of our belief, and hence could be linked directly with belief in the verse.
The other possibility is that since baptism is so closely linked to the our belief in Christ that it is listed here as part of that process. This verse does not say that we must be baptized to be saved, but that when we are saved, we should be baptized. If it were saying that both belief AND baptism are requirements for salvation, it would have to list "not believe OR not been baptized" as the reason for condemnation. In fact, the grammatical construct of this sentence in Greek does not require that both parts on the left be true for the result on the right to be true. While this is not definitive proof that only belief is required to be saved, it leaves open that possibility. We can prove the interpretation with the rest of Scripture.
Luke 7:29-30
These two verses seem to indicate that someone's baptism has some effect on their ability to discern certain things. It is more likely that the condition of their heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit which led them to be baptized or not be baptized is the driving force in their discernment.
Acts 2:38
Some say that since receiving of the Holy Spirit occurs when we are save, then since baptism is required to receive the Holy Spirit, it is required to be saved.
This verse falls into the same Greek construct of not requiring both parts on the left to be true for the right of the equation to be true, again leaving open the possibility of repentance being the only requirement. Repentance (turning away from our sin), in the name of Jesus can only happen to those who receive Him as their Savior. It is when we receive Jesus, that our sins are forgiven. This verse shows once again how closely the time of a new Christian's baptism should be to the time they are saved.
Acts 8:14-17
Here we have an occurrence where people have been saved (Samaria had received the word of God), and yet had not received the Holy Spirit. Why?
The Holy Spirit typically comes to live inside of someone at the moment they are saved. But in this case, in order that God's acceptance of the Samaritans would be fully evident, the gift of the Spirit was delayed. God needed to show that His grace was available to ALL MEN. He needed to show it in a mighty way to the Jews. What better way than to have them actually see the Holy Spirit being received by the Samaritans, people whom the Jews loathed.
1 Corinthians 15:29
Some attempt to be baptized for someone who has already died, so that they may have eternal life and be saved. Such doctrine is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. Baptism, which comes after we receive Jesus as our Savior and Lord, looks forward to our eternity in heaven. If none of this is true (heaven, eternal life, etc.), then our belief and baptism would be foolish. Praise be to God, that it ALL IS TRUE! Some early Christians may have dedicated their baptisms to those who had led them to Jesus who may have died or been killed.
1 Peter 3:21
Some find support for the idea that baptism is a requirement for salvation, in fact is the major requirement. This is simply not true. Peter specifically indicates that it is not water baptism he is speaking of (-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--), but Spirit baptism. Water baptism does not save us, but symbolizes that we are saved. The waters of the flood brought death to those who did not believe, but life to Noah and his family. Yet in it all, it was God who provided the way of escape in the Ark, In the same way, God provides a way of escape for us in the cross of Jesus. The waters of baptism are for us a symbol of God's provision through the cross, just as the waters of the flood symbolize his provision for Noah's family through the ark.
Acts 16:31-34
Some claim that we may believe in Christ for the purpose of saving our infant children and that the Bible supports infant baptism for salvation of those infants.
This verse does not indicate that the belief of the jailhouse guard would save his household, but that salvation through belief was available to everyone in his household. Each of them must believe on their own as seen in verse 34 "with his whole household", as opposed to" for his whole household". Also, there is no indication here that this man had younger children who were too young to make their own profession of faith, hence there is no support for either believing or being baptized for the purpose of saving our infant children. |
| |
WHERE DID MAGI'S COME FROM? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I had to look this one up, I never thought about that question before. Good question PYLE! ............................
MAGI (Gr. magoi). Originally a religious caste among the Persians. Their devotion to astrology, divination, and the interpretation of dreams led to an extension in the meaning of the word, and by the first century B.C. the terms "magi" and "Chaldean" were applied generally to fortune tellers and the exponents of esoteric religious cults throughout the Mediterranean world. Magus or "sorcerer" is the name given to Simon (Acts 8:9), Bar-Jesus (13:6), and Elymas (13:8). The "wise men from the East" (Matt 2) are often referred to as "the Magi." Nothing is known of their land of origin, but it is a likely theory that they came from Arabia Felix (Southern Arabia). Astrology was practiced there, and a tradition of Israelite messianic expectation may have survived in the region since the days of the Queen of Sheba. Early legend connects Southern Arabia with Solomon's Israel, but the legend of "the Three Kings" is late and medieval.
(NIV Bible Dictionary) |
| |
Uprightness is...scepter of Thy kingdom |
|
|
|
Psalm
|
| |
As an addition to the comment about the Jehovah's Witness bible, it could be noted that it would be a small "g" as in "the Word was a god."
I would think with you also, Bonnie, that God is not a place so "God is thy throne forever" would be a difficult reading. However, if you thought of the throne as an attribute of God, it could be meaningful. I would connect the idea of throne with the attribute of righteousness. God rules in righteousness. Ps. 92:15 says that there is no unrighteousness in Him. Hebrews l:9 speaks of the Son saying that "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness...and Thou remainest...and Thy years will not come to an end." God's throne is forever and He will always be righteous. More than that, God is our righteousness, and our eternal life is in His Son. I Jn 5:ll
So I don't think that God is a place but He is love, He is light andor Light, He is good, He is a rock andor Rock; our King and Ruler.
Ps. 39:4 Sing praises to the Lord, you His godly ones. Ray V.H. |
| |
CRUCFICTION OF JESUS. |
|
|
|
Matt 16:21
|
| |
To Jewish thinking any part of a day is a day. The day begins at sundown. He was put in the tomb on Friday afternoon (day 1) at sundown Friday it was day two, and at sundown saturday it was day three. Sunday morning was part of day three. The most frequent phrase used was "he rose on the third day." If he was literally in the tomb three days and three nights, he would have risen on the fourth day which would be a contridiction. Jesus words are understood in light of historal and cultural context. |
| |
Lowest Common Denominator |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is a difficult question to answer because it's hard to determine exactly what you're suggesting and what prompted the suggestion. Is this a reaction or response to something that was said on the list, or simply a general suggestion that we should not take the Bible too literally or too seriously in judging the merit of theological "truths"? If this is a reaction to someone dismissing a biblically orthodox view based on their interpretations, I would agree that we should practice humility in recognizing our fallibility (as well as that of Calvin, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, etc.). However, if you're suggesting that (in the name of tolerance and good will) we ignore contrary arguments or retreat from using Biblical texts to test someone's theological claims, I think you're way off base. When (you or) I find that my (or my most respected theologian's) understanding disagrees with God, I need to have the humility to acknowledge that He is infallible (and therefore correct) and that we are fallible (and therefore wrong). Likewise, if you and I agree to usurp the authority of Scripture and place our own sensibilities over those of the Scriptures, we have rejected the only authoritative source by which to test doctrine. We become "like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind" and simply go after the doctrines that "tickle our ears" most. This is anathema to the discovery of Truth; this would be futile and foolish. |
| |
TV Show "Crossing Over" - Dead Speaks? |
|
|
|
Deut 18:11
|
| |
Read the entire text Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
Be vary careful with anything like this. I read a book once by a Christian author that describes some of the ways that the occult (witchcraft)works. The purpose of this book was to inform Christians so they would not be ignorant to this type of stuff and fall ignorantly under demonic influence. This book indicated that there are demonic spirits called "familiar spirits" these spirits follow people around and observe them in their lives. Some men or women under the influence or by using these "familiar spirits" are able to speak in detail of a person's past. These are the same spirits that so called "psychics" operate through. They are able to with moderate accuracy predict what is going to occur in someone's life by seeing what they have done. Those who claim to be "communicating with the dead" are doing what called "necromansing" In the above text it actually says "one who calls up the dead" in the KJV this is referred to as "necromansing"
Also read in the New Testament Luke 16:19-31 - it indicates that the dead cannot "come back" or communicate with the living. If this dead rich man could have simply communicated with his 5 brothers he so dearly wanted to warn - then he would have.
Also check out the account in Acts 16:16-19 - this young girl was a soothsayer (psychic)and it describes that she was possed with a spirit of divination. This may shed some light for you also.
Please be prayerful about what you allow into your mind through television, internet, etc. The devil doesn't always come with pointy ears, a fork and a red tail. If he did - no one would fall for him - he comes appealing to whatever seems logical or interesting to you. I pray that you are a Christian and that your walk with God would be strengthened. |
| |
when did it rain for the first time? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is certainly not a doctrine to die for, as there is no direct statement that rain did not start at some time after man and cultivated plants appeared but prior to the flood. However, there are enough descriptions (like this one, as well as the statement that there was water on the earth and water above the earth separated by the air in Genesis 1:6-8, and the drastic drop in lifespan after the flood) that indicate some kind of major increase in aging after the flood that was probably caused by the changes surrounding the event. The theory of a protective thick vapor "firmanent" that was opened and emptied out during the flood is the most logical and conceivable explanation I have heard given the information available from the Scriptures. |
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is a fascinating question for fantasy, but there is really nothing clear about it in Scripture. Since any other story one may find is simply a story, we have no way of knowing. If Adam and Eve were there a long time, however, it brings up all sorts of difficulties that the Scriptures do not address. For example, the command to be fruitful and multiply was given from the beginning, so what became of the children born before the fall. They would not have inherited original sin (so would presumably remain sinless unless they foolishly ate of the fruit as well). What would have become of them? Are the males the "Sons of God" (adopted by God since they couldn't be under Adam's authority)? You see how this leads to complete abiblical fantasy. If left without recognition of its lack of root in any direct truth, this kind of speculation could open the way to all sorts of gruesome heresy (Christ merely a "Son of God" rather than the one who "was with God in the beginning" and "through whom all things were made". I do not suggest it is forbidden to fantasize on the possibilities of this or other such questions (as I obviously have), but such fantasy should never be mistaken as theology, doctrine, or an actual answer to such a question.
The real answer is, "We don't know how long they were there." It was either a very short time, or God decided that it was not important for us to know in this earthly life about the interim. |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Dear bobmoy, Of course you are free to express any opinion you like. I only meant that as this is generally considered to be a Bible-based discussion, it might be difficult to find others willing to discuss Urantia as truth. I have bothered to look into the information available on the internet, and cannot find any hard evidence that this is revelation or prophecy in accord with Scripture, except as noted by soladescriptura. I would also be interested to hear your defense of this spurious doctrine. |
| |
Have you ever looked at Urantia Book? |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Been there, done that! This is the exact challenge that a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, a Moonie or a Kokufu-no-Kagaku (Ogawa Ryuho's Science of Happiness)accolyte would use. I find it similar to someone who says, "You haven't really lived until you've played Russian Roulette. Sure, there is (one) drawback" I find that I have more than enough truth in the Bible, and after studying broadly various claims to 'enhanced' revelation, they are all spurious by nature. Any time I hear 'revelation of Revelation,' alarm signals go off in my spirit. Next thing said is that those who do not have this 'special' knowledge are inferior, and spiritually-challenged. It's a Devil's disguise-an angel of enlightenment. God has already sent His Spirit to guide and comfort His church. What more could we need than the Spirit of Christ? If you can come up with a short, compelling explanation of this cult, do it. Otherwise, thanks, but no thanks. May the Spirit of Jesus Christ give you peace. |
| |
Have you ever looked at Urantia Book? |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
The words that Jesus says in The Urantia Book are true. These descriptions of the events of his life gives us greater depth of who, what, when, where, why and how he lived and went about his Father's business. The descriptions reveal Jesus as he walked and talked among us. The added details of his walk provide the beauty of this man and show how he loved us without conditions. Yes, you are correct about the cult aspects of the book. We are called to enjoy the wheat and throw away the chaft. One Urantia Reader did just that. He published only the section of the book devoted to the life and teachings of Jesus. His version tells the true story of the wonderful men we call Savior, Lord, Master, Friend and King. I only tell people to go to the chapters about Jesus unless they are seeking an answer to a question such as who the 24 elders are. This is the good news of The Urantia Book. I believe The Urantia Book plays a role in the final drama before Christ returns. I personally believe the Urantia Book is the scroll that Daniel was told to seal up until the end of the age. The words of Jesus that are reported in The Urantia Book may also be one of the two witnesses (The Bible being the other) that appear in the Book of Revelation. These of course of only the opinions of a servant of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Have a blessed day. |
| |
Have you ever looked at Urantia Book? |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Bobmoy wrote: "Yes, you are correct about the cult aspects of the book. We are called to enjoy the wheat and throw away the chaft [sic]." I could ask where in the Bible you find that doctrine, but I'll overlook that for the moment. If the Urantia Book is suppose to be a divine revelation, then how can any of it be chaff? If you admit that some of it is chaff, then you admit that the source which revealed it is at least partially in error. How can God be in error? Further, if you admit that some of it is chaff and therefore its source is known to be error-prone, then how can you trust any of it? How do you know, for example, that it isn't wrong about the names of the 24 elders? |
| |
Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? |
|
|
|
Job 38:1
|
| |
If you are new to this thread, please read the prior two postings before this one to understand where I am coming from. Thank you.
Why is it that when something in the Bible doesn't fit with your interpretation, you feel you must either horribly twist it out of context or in this case give the simple answer that since it doesn't make sense then it must just be because we don't know everyting God does? Couldn't this mean that your interpretation doesn't hold up and that Calvinism is no better than the other religions or cults that base their entire belief structure on a few verses taken out of context so that the can separate themselves and "Feel" superior to others?
Why can't you see that the whole bible fits in with the "Free Will" theory while only a small portion can be used to justify "Election".
Is there anyone out there can interpret this without the standard "It's just one of those mysteries"? I'm sorry if I come off as being harsh, but it's just that I'm getting frustrated trying to understand how someone can honestly read and interpret the whole bible and come away thinking that God chose some people to be saved and chose others that would not.
I am willing to admit that I could be interpreting this incorrectly, but as of yet, have not been able to see where my interpretations err (on major subjects) when taking the whole bible into context. |
| |
Questions for my Calvinists friends. |
|
|
|
Job 38:1
|
| |
In reply to: "Questions for my Calvinists friends."
. . . Re: your question 1. I'm not sure that there is an answer to your hypothetical question, "Why go to all the trouble of populating the world and wipe it out with a flood?" For that matter, why did God go to the trouble of creating a world of humankind when He knew that the vast majority of that creation would be lost and never see eternal life? This is the kind of "Why" question that is God's business and none of my business. I would not dare question God about WHY He does this or that? One thing we do know is that all God's acts are consistent with His Eternal nature. All God's acts are done in perfect justice and righteousness. And, like it or not, our finite minds cannot grasp all the ways of God.
. . . Nor does He owe us an explanation. Deuteronomy 29:29 (KJV) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." What IS revealed is, not Calvinism, but a BIBLE doctrine of election. What is NOT revealed is questions that ask: if election were true, then why would God do this and why would God not do that?
. . . Re: your question 2. Heb 9:22 KVH "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Without shedding of blood is NO remission -- for neither the elect nor the non-elect nor the undecided. That is why Jesus had to die on the cross.
. . . Re: your question 3, Matt:19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25. Q: "Why would it be harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" A: It is more difficult because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does.
. . . (Compare, for example, the conversion rate in the mud hut villages of Zambia, Africa with those of Marin County, California, Beverly Hills, California or Jupiter Beach and Jupiter Island, Florida. This may or may not be an apt comment on the above question or answer. However, it remains a fact that it IS more difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and it is a fact for the reason given, i.e., because a rich person seldom senses his personal need for salvation as readily as a poorer man does.)
. . . Now I have given sincere, if not lengthy, answers to your original 3 questions. I'm not trying to win a battle of wits; I merely seek to answer your questions as they were asked.
. . . (More to come) |
| |
where do blacks come from? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Where do blacks come from.....
You know, I've never really heard anyone ask that question before. My immediate response (prove me otherwise) is God, my long answer is God. Not to be smart or anything, but we can sit here and argue the point for years and still not get anywhere. It's about the same as asking where does every other ethnic race come from. It doesn't matter, and the tensions caused by ethnic divide are just another way of Satan trying to differentiate races, classes, whatever. God has His mighty hand on EVERYTHING, and is in control of ALL. This can also be considered asking "Where does a Gentile come from?" as far as different in class and race. We are washed clean by the blood of Jesus, and His salvation was meant to be available to all who ask for it.
I'm not sure of your aim, but I will say this: Skin differences or not, we all belong to God. I look at it as variety. The world would be boring (in my opinion) if there weren't different people and different cultures to populate it, as well as different forms of praising God. We all have our different ways of giving God the praise, as long as we give Him the praise. I don't know if I answered your question correctly or not (if you want technical earthly meaning, then HeirofGod got it), but I hope that I was able to provide some insight as to why God does what He does. |
| |
Does Bible support capital punishment? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Good Bible! Well thought out and well said, brother. (now that I am fairly certain of the gender.) I am certain that punishment according to the Bible would be much more effective than what we have, regardless of the faith or lack of faith of the perpetrator of a crime. I agree, incarceration is degrading and 'cruel and unusual' punishment, making it very difficult for a person to repent of his (or her) ways. In Christ Jesus. |
| |
Are you kidding? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
Elijah, are you kidding? No one has ever done it, but maybe I can help you? I hope you are saying that we can discuss it here and maybe clarify some specific areas through this forum. Yes there are lots of commentaries, but the best is the Bible. Take your time. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. A study Bible will give you a good start. Click one of the tabs at the top of this page. My own advice: if someone professes to 'understand' the Book of Revelation, watch out! Ask if they are affiliated with the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Unification Church (Moonies),or any other cult. Look at their eyes when they answer! May the Lord lead your path, and guard your soul in Him. In Christ Jesus. |
| |
A pastor who is there? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
IN THEORY: if a mega-church existed where it was subdivided and there REAL pastors and elders who shepherded their assigned portions of the flock, then I suppose all would be well.
Unfortunately, mega-churches seem to operate much in the way you describe and so I do not think they are healthy. Theoretically, there could be an exception, but it is certainly very difficult to consider it a wise rule.
It is more biblical, because you do have a pastor familiar with the individuals of his flock, if you have a smaller congregation.
I am in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery, which covers So. California and some of Arizona is really what is called the "church." So, in that sense, it is indeed a mega church.
However, the Presbytery oversees Sessions, which are two to four trained men -- a teaching elder, a couple ruling elders and perhaps a deacon or two. These men are usually over a smaller congregation, from say 50 to 200. And the number of men to congregants is sufficient for their to be proper care and feeding of the sheep. If the proportion is not adequate for that, then they should make two smaller churches out of it, in my opinion. |
| |
Violence by force? Matt 11:12 |
|
|
|
Matt 11:12
|
| |
I'd like to hear some opinions on the meaning of this verse. I've heard teachers say that this is a "good thing" indicating that we should be "violent" in our pursuit of the kingdom of heaven, but it is difficult for me to accept this interpretation. To "suffer violence" seems to be something that undesirable, and an improper way to secure the kingdom of heaven. No "right" or "wrong" answers on this one that I know of, but I'd love to hear your comments. |
| |
Snatch? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Snatching? Snap decisions to turn away from salvation in Jesus? Great semantics war! If I read this tit-for-tat correctly, one of you (I forget which) states that you cannot lose your salvation, because if you lost it you never had it. The other is saying that losing your salvation is a theoretical possiblity, but no one would purposely throw it away. It started with 'snatching.' Aside from the 'theological, theoretical, emotional' side of things, I would like to interject a few comments. 'Snatch' implies that Satan has the ability to steal you away when God is not looking. This is impossible! As to the eternal viewpoint, from God's eyes. We can't know what will happen. God has not revealed to us who is saved, and who is not. So, talking about a hypothetical 'saved, then backslidden, then repentant, then...' and trying to identify a person's eternal 'situation' is academic and moot. As to throwing away your faith, it DOES seem possible, but not like, "Here I am, a servant of God... but wait! All of a sudden I feel like I don't want to be saved anymore!" Deception, pride, and subtle change of direction CAN lead a saved person away from God. In the most extreme cases, maybe even to the point of denying the Holy Spirit. I think this is very difficult, nigh-impossible, but the Bible does say the possibility exists. How many have 'fallen' in this manner (if any) is known only to God. I am at peace with this. It satifies the Bible. Satan cannot 'snatch,' but he can whittle pretty well. There are too many practical examples of real-life Christians who have forsaken their faith, and sometimes fallen into abominable sin to discount the possibility of blaspheming the Spirit. Tell me what you think? I must go. Real life beckons :-) In Christ Jesus. |
| |
Snatch? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Well, I did a word study on the word knowledge, since it would seem like a key to understanding the verse. One could make a point that the word doesn't necessarily mean experiential knowledge, but it would be weak. I can't in clear conscience say that the word doesn't mean what it looks like. But, let me add these thoughts.
1. There seems to be a parallel here to what Jesus said about driving out a demon and not filling the place, but sweeping it clean and the demon returns and brings with him seven demons that are worse.
2. Since I am sealed with the Holy Spirit, and He cannot deny Himself, it would seem difficult at best for me to renounce Christ, when his alter-ego is sealed in me.
3. God promised to finish the work that He started because he is faithful.
4. Paul seemed to deal with Christians that went astray. Leaving the flesh to be destroyed, with the confidence that the spirit would be saved.
To sum up:
God is faithful when we are not, He knew we would fall.
God has a plan for when we won't listen, and being turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh sounds like a worse state to me.
The Holy Spirit cannot deny Himself, so we can't casually walk away from God. We would have to tear ourselves free from the greatest force on earth, the force that kept Jesus on the cross, God's incredible love.
I believe that as a believer, we are secure in the love of God, we have a holy and righteous fear of God, and we know in the depths of our being that God is the answer to all of our needs, and therefore choosing to leave is not even a possibility to the redeemed, to those that have been changed from the inside out. |
| |
Only 144,000 virgins in heaven? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
Dear HeirofGod, What did you mean about 'virgins?' As far as I know, some sects of the Mormons also use this number, as well as the Unification Church (the Moonies). It seems that almost all cults that 'use' the Bible for their own purposes point to this number in order to attempt to 'legitimatize' their religion. In other words, theirs is the 'true' faith, and the rest of Christians are deceived or 'faith-challenged.' I find it interesting to note that some of these cults have more than 144k members (even discounting their 'inflation' of the numbers), which causes me to wonder how they account for this to their own people. Are they trampling one another for a 'reservation?' ;-)
It seems to me that even Bible-believing Christians can interpret this number to be a 'saved-unsaved' or 'saved-more saved' competition. I do not know exactly what this number depicts, but I do know that is dangerous to focus too much attention on it. In Jesus. |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
