|
| |
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... |
| |
Sabbath laws....do? or don't? |
|
|
|
Col 2:16
|
| |
Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?
. . . We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view.
. . . In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
. . . The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.
. . . The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
. . . In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
. . . Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.
. . . There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
. . . When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
. . . The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.
. . . In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).
. . . In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
. . . The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).
. . . Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).
. . . So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."
. . . (www.gty.org Click on Issues and Answers. Click on Previous Topics) |
| |
What is the sin unto death? |
|
|
|
1 John 5:16
|
| |
That is a very tough question, and although scholars have several differnt theorys, none can be considered definate, although I believe that most can be ruled out. I will present these theorys:1)Possably a specific sin requiring the death sentance(see OT on murder or dissobidiance towards parents). 2) Sins committed intentionally v. accidentaly-in other words, and accidental sin would not carry with it the sentance of death. 3) Mortal sins v. venial sins- this would be most Catholic interpretations, although the Bible clearly teaches in many places elsewhere that all sin is sin, and the penalty is death(Rom.3)4) State of habitual sin willfully chosen and persisted in-This theory has merits, as Jihn has claimed in this epistle that the true believer does not willfully sin habitually, so it would seem to be talking about non-believers.5)Apostacy 6) Mark 3-blasphemy against the Holy Spirit(accrediting the work of the Spirit to the devil) 7) My professor has this theory, and it is the one that I would go with as well-Remember the context of the passage, and that is prayer for believers, that they might escape the sin that has them entangled. The context of the book as a whole has been the hereesy of the false teachers, and John has gone to great lengths to prove that they are not in the Light, but are in fact, un-believers. Their sin is unbelief, and that sin can not be forgiven,since it is a slap in the face of a God who had spilled His blood tht they might be saved(1 John 2:2). When we see our brother committing sin, we need to pray for them, as they have the Spirit in them, and that makes them recoverable. These false teachers have not that help, and so the sin, unbelief, is indeed a sin leading to eternal death. I hope that this helps. Let me know if I can try to comment further. Sean Lillis Emmaus Bible College |
| |
Author of James, brother of Jesus? |
|
|
|
James
|
| |
"Of the 4 men named James in the NT, only two are candidates for authorship of this epistle. No one has seriously considered James the Less, the son of Alphaeus . . . , or James the father of Judas, not Iscariot . . . Some have suggested James the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Matt. 4:21), but he was martyred too early to have written it (Acts 12:2). That leaves only James, the oldest half-brother of Christ (Mark 6:3) and brother of Jude (Matt 13:55)." (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1924) |
| |
Author of James, brother of Jesus? |
|
|
|
James
|
| |
"Of the 4 men named James in the NT, only two are candidates for authorship of this epistle. No one has seriously considered James the Less, the son of Alphaeus . . . , or James the father of Judas, not Iscariot . . . Some have suggested James the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Matt. 4:21), but he was martyred too early to have written it (Acts 12:2). That leaves only James, the oldest half-brother of Christ (Mark 6:3) and brother of Jude (Matt 13:55)." (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1924) |
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
Most people that have a problem with the doctrine treat it as if the Bible doesn't teach it at all or that it's an isolated subject. When I first studied it, I found that every time I did research, I kept finding verses all over the New Testament - from the Gospels, thoughout Acts, and scattered all throughout the Epistles. And the Calvinist were just too dogmatic about Calvin (TULIP, Institutes, etc.). Don't get me wrong. It's good to have supplemental study guides and resources from the reformers on up to assist in doctrinal studies, but not so much that you put greater emphasis on the reformers themselves and their teachings over the Scriptures and the illumination of the HOLY SPIRIT.
But, what about "agorazo" or just the entire verse? |
| |
Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Who wrote this letter?
My old AV calls Hebrews "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews," but no one seems to ascribe it to Paul anymore. I have heard Barnabas suggested as the author, and seem to recall the argument was convincing (but I didn't take any notes). Is anyone aware of sound reasons to ascribe this letter to one particular author?
|
| |
Another Angel Flying In Midheaven |
|
|
|
Rev 14:6
|
| |
This is the same gospel. I don't know exactly where the verse I'm thinking of is found, but Pauls says in one of his epistles that (roughly) "if we, or an angel of heaven preach to you a different gospel than the one we taught, let him be accursed; I repeat--let him be accursed." Your right; it pretty much "completes" the Great Commission in my opinion, because most, if not all, of chapter 14 of Revelation jumps forward to the end of the Tribulation Hour. It really doesn't connect to Matthew 24:14. That verse in Matthew connects w/the 7th chapter of Revelation. |
| |
Is Jesus God? |
|
|
|
John 1:1
|
| |
Your question: Can anyone show me any passages that show that Jesus is God?
. . . The following outline is taken from Baker Topical Guide to the Bible, Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1991), ISBN 0-8010-2255-X, pp. 88-106. The Scripture references are far too numerous to include here. Also, if your friend is sincere, I would suggest he read (without the accompanying interpretation of The Watchtower organization) the entire New Testament, particularly the Gospel of John and the other gospels. As to your friend's unbelief, as Jesus said in Luke 16:31: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead." Likewise, if they do not listen to Jesus Himself (the Gospels) and the Apostles (NT Epistles), they wouldn't believe if they were eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection.
Here is my answer.
The Deity of Christ.
...A. Jesus' Claims to Deity.
. . . 1. Claims Relating to God.
. . . a) Jesus Claimed Equality with God. Matt 10:40; Matt 11; Matt 28; John 3; 5; 6; 8; 10; 12; 14; 15; 16; 17.
. . . b) Jesus Claimed the Rights of God.
. . . (1) Jesus Claimed to Forgive Sins.
. . . (2) Jesus Claimed to Give Life.
. . . (3) Jesus Claimed to Judge.
. . . (4) Jesus Claimed to Grant Spiritual Blessings.
. . . (5) Jesus Did Miracles.
. . . (6) Jesus Cleansed the Temple.
. . . (7) Jesus Claimed to Establish God's Kingdom.
. . . (8) Jesus Exorcised Demons.
. . . (9) Jesus Claimed to Defeat Satan.
. . . (10) Jesus Claimed to Be Lord of the Sabbath.
. . . (11) Jesus Claimed to Be David's Lord.
. . . c) Jesus Claimed the Authority of God.
. . . d) Jesus Described Himself as God's Counterpart on Earth.
. . . e) Jesus Accepted Prayer, Praise and Worship.
. . . f) Jesus Found the Source of Power within Himself.
. . . g) Jesus Never Showed Any Consciousness of Sin.
. . . 2. Claims Relating to Human Beings.
. . . a) Jesus Promised Peace and Rest to Those Who Trust Him.
. . . b) Jesus Claimed Power over All Life, Space, and Time.
. . . c) Jesus Claimed to Determine People's Eternal Destiny.
. . . d) Jesus Claimed Final Authority over People.
. . . 3. Claims Relating to Jesus' Mission.
. . . a) Jesus Came to Be People's Savior.
. . . b) Jesus Came to Make God Known.
. . . c) Jesus Came to Sum Up the Entire OT.
B. NT Claims to Jesus' Deity.
. . . 1. Jesus Is Considered Equal with God. Acts 2; 1 Cor 1; 12; 13; Eph 4; 6; Phil 2:6; Col 1; 2; 3; 1 Thess 3; 2 Thess 2; 1 John 2; 1 John 5; Rev 20; Rev 22.
. . . 2. Jesus Possesses God's Attributes. E.g., Omnipotence; Omnipresence; Omniscience; etc.
. . . 3. Jesus Does the Work of God.
. . . a) God's Work Related to the Created Order.
. . . b) God's Work Related to Mankind.
. . . c) God's Work Related to the Problem of Sin.
. . . d) God's Work Related to Believers.
. . . e) God's Work Related to Scripture.
. . . 4. Jesus Is Identified with God.
. . . 5. Jesus Is Paralleled with God.
. . . 6. Jesus Is Assigned OT Designations of God.
. . . 7. Jesus Is Superior to Men and Angels.
. . . 8. Jesus Receives Prayer, Praise, and Worship.
. . . C. The Sinlessness of Jesus.
. . . D. The Glory of Christ.
. . . E. The Resurrection of Christ.
. . . F. The Exaltation of Christ. |
| |
Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath |
|
|
|
Col 2:16
|
| |
Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?
. . . We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view.
. . . In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
. . . The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.
. . . The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
. . . In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
. . . Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.
. . . There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
. . . When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
. . . The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.
. . . In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).
. . . In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
. . . The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).
. . . Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).
. . . So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."
. . . (www.gty.org Click on Issues and Answers. Click on Previous Topics) |
| |
Valid 'gifts?' |
|
|
|
Eph 4:11
|
| |
With the closing of the canon of scripture we would allways need pastors teachers and evangelists,in order to continue . love RC Scroll there are no other epistles to be written nor new prophesy or revalation from God rather than that which we have. Other wise how would we test in scripture. the just shall live by faith. |
| |
Did James (author) know as much as Paul? |
|
|
|
James
|
| |
They are equally inspired. Your question seems to be based around the usage of the word "faith" in the Pauline epistles and the book of James. I truly believe both "faith alone" (Paul) and "faith without works is dead" (James) are complimentary. True "faith" is ACTIVE and requires a certain measure of trust (not simple intellectual assent like demons have). In the same manner, faith without works (which are a byproduct of a faith enacted) is dead, i.e., a false faith. When Paul speaks of works, he is talking of works of righteousness meant to GAIN salvation. When James speaks of works, he is talking of deeds RESULTING from salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. |
| |
Following Moses' Laws |
|
|
|
Matt 8:4
|
| |
We must recognize that before the death of Christ the Old Covenant or the Mosaic Covenant was still in operation-therefore the Jews were still under OT Torah-but after the Cross Death of Jesus a New Covenant was instituted that replaced the Old Covenant-read the Epistle to the Hebrews-we are not to observe OT Torah-for further study read the book "The Shadow of Christ In The Law Of Moses" by Vern Poythress. |
| |
Women starting churches....???? |
|
|
|
1 Tim 2:12
|
| |
The letter (LAW) killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. Paul was speaking favorably about God the Holy Spirit in the new covenant. He uses words to say this so we can't conclude he finds words to be evil. Especially when we consider John's awesome use of the Word. Here in 2 Cor. 3:6 Paul is speaking favorably about the past use of the law, but it has done its job and it is no longer what we are looking to. Notice v. 1, the commending is walking by sight, not by faith. He talks about letters of commendation being unnecessary because you Corinthinians are a living epistle, meaning your lives are a letter read by all who know you. Our sufficiency is from God. |
| |
God can use woman in the ministry? |
|
|
|
Gal 3:28
|
| |
Male dominance is an unfortunate unbiblical way to live out the gospel. Equality between men and women is the Biblically accurate approach. Especially in marriage and it carries over into all of life including co-laboring in the gospel. Therefore the Biblical reason for not placing women in authority over men in the church has nothing to do with dominance or tradition or attitudes toward women. The real issue prohibiting women pastors is headship, that is what 1 Tim 2:8-15 is referring to. The reason given is directly related to Adam’s accountability to God. Adam was first created, not Eve, therefore God communed in different ways with him than with the woman. Essentially Adam was originally given the responsibility to account to God for the woman, we see that is still true in Paul's epistle to Timothy. Paul says so by saying that it is substantive that Adam was not deceived, Eve was. God doesn't let the woman off the hook, instead He calls out for the responsible party to speak for the couple (remember Adam was given the command to tend the garden and not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil--Eve wasn’t created yet). “Eve was deceived not Adam”, Adam shrunk from his position as head, Eve in her deception usurped Adam’s headship. Why else did God hold Adam responsible (rom. 5:18-19), since he wasn't deceived, the woman was? Certainly Paul is faithful enough to not shrink from crediting Eve if it was true that she is to blame? Adam tried to blame Eve but God holds him responsible. Look at the curses: Eve was cursed with pain in childbirth and in the eternal struggle with her husband’s authority; Adam was cursed with death, starting with effort/pain in work, and death (return to the earth). But Eve died also, because what happens through the head also happens to the woman. The issue that prohibits women in leadership is unhangable due to the creation order. Adam was the head over Eve before the fall and after the fall, and men today are the head over women (Eph 5:22). Eve’s accountability failings from the fall are permanent according to the New Testament, just as Adam’s are; sin (death) is still with us and the woman’s struggle for headship over the man is too. It is the latter issue that states women are not to be put in authority over a man spiritually.
Review, male domination is not Biblical, equality with male headship is. Through the fall conditions stated in the curses are permanent, one of these that really comes from the creation order is unhangable no matter what trends exist in modern Evangelicalism. Namely, female headship is unbiblical. I have had the benefit to learn from my former pastor (who taught Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Div./ Deerfield Ill.) who you can read more on this subject in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an Evangelical Response” by Piper and Grudem (it is a great book with many contributions in it). Read Chapter three by Raymond Ortlund Jr. on this to get the full thought, he was my teacher, I commend him to you. His conclusion about the similarity between male dominance and Evangelical Feminism is hot, and for some may prove to be life changing. |
| |
No apology needed |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Hey Chris no apology needed, I knew where you where coming from when I asked you the first question.
My conviction is that God has already fixed the time of the rapture by His own authority. Acts 1:7 In researching this topic years ago I performed a little exercise that helped me come to the conclusions I now hold. I went through the book of Acts, made note of every prophecy, and the looked for its fulfillment. In the time span between the prophecy and its fulfillment, the return of Christ would be impossible, the reason being that if the Lord returned before the fulfillment of the prophecy it would cause the prophecy to be false. That cannot happen! Also you may be able to coordinate the prophecies with the epistles time wise. Below is an example, try it sometime.
ACT 1:8 but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth. "
ACT 2:3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
ACT 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
We see in Acts 1:8 the prediction made that the Holy Spirit would come upon them in Acts 2:3-4 we see the prediction fulfilled.
Lord Bless
Mike Piles
By the way do you think that there might be another way to interpret 1 John 2:28 so as not leave 2000 years worth of Chistians with a false hope? |
| |
Blood sacrifices during the Millenium? |
|
|
|
Heb 10:12
|
| |
Nrojac,
I truly do not mean for this note to be disrespectful to you or anyone else in anyway whatsoever, however, I do intend it to be firm and serious.
The dispensational idea of blood sacrifices at "ANY" time since Christ's once and for all blood sacrifice is blashpemy and the epistle to the Hebrews clearly warns those who do not accept the finished work of Christ as the only propitiatory redemptive act that they cannot redeem themselves again through vainful human effort of repetitive acts of blood sacrifices.
What you are talking about is nothing more than imaginative eschatology. There is no such thing as a future "literal" millennium, rebuilt temple and especially blood sacrifice. This is nowhere found in scripture. It sounds like this DD is a hyper-dispensationalist who really doesn't understand the scriptures.
The typical place dispensationalists use to teach a future temple and sacrifices is in Ezekiel 40 and further. The supposed future earthly millennium is Revelation 20:4.
You are correct in not believing in a future blood sacrifice for the remission of sin or as a remembrance of "anything".
Sam Hughey |
| |
i need a bio on paul the apostle |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Paul is one of my favorites. He was born in Tarsus as a Jew. It was Paul, who was called Saul at that time, who passionately hated Christians and persecuted them unmercifully. He went to the high priest and asked permission to bring them bound to Jerusalem. It was because of Saul that the Christians scattered and the gospel began to spread world wide. While on his was to Damascus a bright light from heaven shined around him and he fell to the ground and was blinded. Jesus then asked him why he persecuted him so. Jesus sent him to on tho Damascus to a disciple named Ananias. Ananias after a word from the Lord healed Saul. He got up and was baptised at that time. He stayed several days with the disciples, dedicated his life to Christ, and boldly started preaching the gospel, however it did take some time for people to trust him again. The Jews in Damascus plotted to kill him so the other disciples let him down over the wall in a basket.
He traveled all over as a missionary and taught the gospel to thousands upon thousands. Until Paul was converted little was done about carrying the gospel to the non-Jews. He preached in Rome 3 times.
He was a tentmaker by trade and very strong willed but always obedient to Christ. He wrote most of the NT epistles. Paul was believed to of been, according to tradition, beheaded after a imprisonment in Rome about 62 AD |
| |
"Catch Twenty-two?" |
|
|
|
Gal 5:16
|
| |
In Second Corinthians we read in chapter 3 verse 3 we read "clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart"-this verse points to the Old Testment passages where God would in the Messianic Age write His law upon the hearts of His covenant people-if you turn to chapter 8 of the Epistle to the Hebrews the apostle Paul quotes the OT passage where God promised He would write His laws on the hearts of His chosen people "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their god, and they shall be My people" Hebrews 8:11. To walk in the Spirit is to walk according the Law of Christ. The Holy Spirit has written God's laws on our hearts. As we grow spiritually we come to know and love the will of God. We can only walk in the ways of the Lord as we live in the Scriptures-sit under the preaching of the Scriptures-study the Scriptures-in time the Scriptures become a living thing in us-we are to have the Scriptures dwelling in us richly-we become aware how we are to walk in order to stay in constant fellowship with God-we know the way we are to walk if we are to have our hearts open to the love of God-our desires keep us fixed on the Lord-we find our hearts burning with love for the Lord that is seen in our walk. |
| |
Must all the Bible be taken literally? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
When reading the Old Testament we must realize the the people of God-the Jews were given laws to govern them as a nation-we find these laws in the first five books of the OT. These laws-statutes-ordinances or commandments were to rule the people of God till the Messiah would come to usher in the Kingdom of God. The nation of Israel or God's dealing only with the Jewish nation came to end when they rejected the Messiah-then God commanded the Gospel of be preached to all the world-read Romans 14:8-12;Acts 28:20ff; Hebrews 10). When we read the New Testament we find in the Pauline Epistles laws that govern the new people of God-the New Covenant People-the Church-the New Testament is not to go by the OT Torah that governed the nation of Israel.
We are for example not to follow OT dietary laws or sacrifical laws. We are to follow the teachings of the New Moses the Lord Jesus-for example the laws found in the Sermon of the Mount Matthew chapters 5 through 7.
I recommend you do a indepth study of the Epistle to the Hebrews to get further insight why we are not to live like Old Testament Jews but New Covenant saints. |
| |
How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? |
|
|
|
Heb 4:15
|
| |
I contend that James' epistle is describing succumbing to temptation, not only being tempted by some external source. Remember that Jesus taught us to pray "Lead us not into temptation." It would make no sense that we should pray "Lead us not into being carried away by own own lusts," since God is not the encourager of sinful behavior, as James said in his letter.
Therefore, James must have something different in mind, and the context seems to indicate that he is talking about giving into sinfulness which already exists within us, which Jesus did not have, of course.
It is always important to remember that while Jesus took on the form of a servant (i.e. took on a human nature), he did not stop BEING God. While he was exposed to every external avenue to sin as we are (and more so, I would contend), it is impossible for God to sin. During his earthly ministry, although he looked like us, morally he was infinitely different from us. Remember that he said that even sinful thoughts carry the weight of actually committing the offense. Therefore, if there was even a shadow, a flicker of immorality even in his thinking, he did not reflect the unchangeable character of our perfect God. Since all Christians acknowledge that he indeed is God the Son, he was completely unable to be swayed even in the briefest of moments from complete obedience in thought, word, and deed to the Father. Thanks to that, we can receive a righteousness not our own -- His. Praise be to God!
--Joe! |
| |
JOE THROWS ONENESS INTO HERESY |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Luke 16:31 (ASV) And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets [and Christ and the writers of the Epistles], neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead. |
| |
Will you join me? |
|
|
|
Acts 2:33
|
| |
I join you.
Whereas I am in agreement with Charis in his posting of Tue, 05-08-2001, 10:23am;
and whereas I must obey the following Scriptures:
2 Tim 2:14 "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging [them] in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear";
2 Tim 2:16 "But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness";
2 Tim 2:23 "But foolish and ignorant questionings refuse, knowing that they gender strifes"; and
2 Peter 3:16 "as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction";
Therefore, I have determined to take the following action:
I join Charis and Hank in that I am forthwith boycotting any further discussion of the 'Oneness' or 'Jesus-only' topics.
-JVH0212
Tuesday, -05-08-2001, 1:00pm |
| |
Can Modes Interact with One Another? |
|
|
|
John 6:56
|
| |
Tim thanks for your post it is very informative. I have been arguing with several concerning oneness/trinity issue ...please address the following if you get timeI would like to look at a passage in Revelation 21, which clearly indicates that Jesus is the Father. Starting at verse 5 it reads And He who sits on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new we are made new by being in Christ 2 Cor. 5:17 And He said, Write, for these words are faithful and true in Rev. 3:14 and 19:11 Jesus is called faithful and true 6 Then He said to me, It is done. compare to John 19:30, "it is finished I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. [In the very next chapter Jesus says this same thing, 22:13-16 I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost Jesus gives the water of life, John 4:10-14; Rev. 7:17. 7 He who overcomes Jesus spoke these words seven times to each of the seven churches in the beginning of this epistle, 2:7,11,17,26;3:5,12,21 will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son emphasis added. Everything in this passage points towards Jesus as the speaker, yet at the end of the passage we realize that it is God the Father.
|
| |
Is this a discussion group? |
|
|
|
2 Tim 2:23
|
| |
Did you know? According to the Lockman Foundation, StudyBibleForum.com is "not a discussion group or topical survey" (http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/studybibleforum/about.php).
2 Tim 2:14 "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging [them] in the sight of the Lord, that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear.";
2 Tim 2:16 "But shun profane babblings: for they will proceed further in ungodliness.";
2 Tim 2:23 "But foolish and ignorant questionings refuse, knowing that they gender strifes."
2 Peter 3:16 "as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"; |
| |
How is comunion only symbolic? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 10:16
|
| |
Jesus expected His disciples to take His words at the Last Supper in their figurative sense. The bread and wine did not change, but were symbols of His body and blood. The following arguments support this view.
There is no indication in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper that the Lord’s disciples thought that the bread and wine changed or that they worshiped them as divine.
No reasonable person present at the Last Supper would have taken Jesus’ words to mean that He was now both at the table and on the table (and later under the table as crumbs were scattered).
The Lord frequently used figurative language in His teachings even using the same verb translated “is” in His words “This is My body” (see John 6:48; 8:12; 10:9,11; 11:25 14:6; 15:1).
Immediately after the Lord said of the wine, "This is my blood" (Matthew v 26:28), He said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29). If the wine had changed into blood by His first statement, Jesus would not have referred to it in the second statement as “this fruit of the vine.”
At the conclusion of the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples, “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language” (John 16:25).
There is nothing in the Book of Acts indicating that the first Christians believed the bread and wine changed. Neither do the Epistles of the New Testament speak of any change.
One interpretation requires the eating of human flesh and drinking of human blood. This is strictly forbidden by Scripture (Leviticus 17:10-14; Acts 15:29).
Scripture never ascribes more than one location at any given time to Christ’s bodily presence. According to the Bible, He is now enthroned in heaven. Christians are awaiting His Second Coming. He is not, therefore, bodily present in thousands of churches around the world.
There is no precedent in Scripture for a miracle in which God expects the faithful to believe that something supernatural has happened despite all outward evidence indicating that nothing has happened. God has never dealt with people in this manner. |
| |
What is the sin unto death? |
|
|
|
1 John 5:16
|
| |
While it is certainly true that these believers in 1 Cor 11 are expieriencing discipline in the form even of death as a result of partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily, context, I believe, will not allow us to push this to far into making the two passages speaking of the same reason for death, or in my opinion, the same kind of death. The corinthians were in the habit of really making a mess of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. They were making it as a meal to have a good time and to drink, not as a memorial to the Lord's death. As a result, God was punishing them to the point of sickness, and even PHYSICAL death. This should not be confused with SPIRITUAL death, which seems to be Johns point in his epistle. Since his context has been to point out and test the false teachers in the midst of this church to whom he was writing, I feel satisfied that he was continuing to do this here, and saying that the false teachers unbelief was not to be prayed for, as it was going to lead them to spiritual death, or eternal seperation from God. The Corinthians, on the other hand, were in some cases suffering from physical death as discipline, but this had no effect upon their eternal destiny. Paul has made numerous refferences in this letter, and more in 2 Cor to the fact thet they were believers, and this stands in stark contrast to the scathing that John gives to the false teachers who were not believers. Do I make sense to you? I must say, you are highly regarded in my mind for searching the Scripture and asking your question. God bless.
Sean Lillis |
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
Part 2 to Nolan,
To your statements; “Grace refers to salvation, kindness is a different thing” and “…you have to maintain that grace is universally available”, well, it is but that does not mean that all grace is universally salvific in nature. God’s grace bestows mercy on the godless as well as the godly just as He bestows wrath on the godly just as He does on the godless. You have erred in forcing the word “grace” to have reference only to salvation. John 1:14 states that Jesus was full of grace but that hardly refers to Jesus needing salvation, does it Nolan? Don’t force words to have only the meaning you want them to have. This is wrongly dividing the Word of God.
Nolan, perhaps you need to heed your own adivce by your following statements to Reformer Joe; “Another missed point, you really must get back to context on Romans! Paul wrote Romans to those that were already saved. His references to 'elect' are to those who have FOLLOWED the 'Roman's road' to salvation”. Actually Nolan, what you call “Romans road” did not exist when Paul wrote this epistle. Don’t you think both God and Paul knew what they were writing? Since when do you think God needs 20th century slogans to save those whom He calls? In fact, the actual contextual recipients of Romans are those to whom God has called to receive salvation (v. 6,7). And, if Isa. 55:11 can escape your inclusionary opinions, then God means what He says and not what you want Him to be saying. If God calls an individual to receive salvation (which, by the way, no person can come to Christ unless they are called by the Father, John 6:44), then according to Isa. 55:11 God’s intent to save that person by calling him to receive salvation will be successfully accomplished.
So, your statement, “God intends to save everyone but the failure is not His but belongs to the individual” is also false. If God’s intention is to save everyone, then everyone must be called by the Father for the purpose of receiving salvation according to Isa. 55:11 and John 6:44. John also states that whomever the Fathers calls, the Son will raise him up on the last day which refers to the eternal resurrection of those who are found in the Lamb’s book of life. There is absolutey nothing at all in either Isaiah or John that says anything at all about man choosing or the fault is man’s for not being saved. This is clearly an Arminian inclusion or insertion onto the text in order to self-justify a man-centered doctrine of a false gospel. If anyone preaches a gospel other than what John clearly and unambiguously states in verses 44, then one is preaching a false gospel.
To your statement to Reformer Joe; “I hope that you can answer some of these flaws that I have shown about your Calvinistic beliefs”, perhaps Nolan, you would spend your time gaining a more correct understanding of Holy Scripture and Calvinistic theology. Reformer Joe has not consulted with me and he doesn’t need to. He merely relies on what God states without embellishing God’s word.
Sam Hughey |
| |
Re: God's gospel or Man's gospel? |
|
|
|
2 Pet 3:16
|
| |
2 Peter 3:16 (NASB) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Re: God's gospel or Man's gospel? (?)Unanswered Rom 5:6 reformedreader Wed 05/30/01, 10:43am
Sam: I am not answering for anyone other than myself. I merely point out that *facts are facts*. Hope you don't mind my input. Always good to read your postings, Sam.
Q: What scripture do you use to support the view that all humans were written into the Lamb's book of life before creation?
A: No scripture supports such a view.
Q: Where does scripture say we are predestined to be conformed to His image only if we surrender?
A: Nowhere does Scripture say any such thing.
Q: Why do you say "no matter what happens you will end up at your fate" and also say we choose our destiny? If nothing we say or do matters (as you stated) then why would any choice or decison matter since fate controls our destiny?
A: I won't even touch that one since I deal only in reality.
Q: And most importantly, where did you find the following quote from scripture; "You have been Predestined to live with me for eternity as the Bride of my Son which makes you and my Son one. It is your choice, i have chosen the path for you, although you some times seem afar off. Your decisions for me and your choice to change ,will bring you to my arms. In which i have predestined you to be. SAYS THE LORD"?
A: A search for the above in any online concordance of any translation will yield the following: "Your search query did not return any results. Please modify your search query and try again."
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
