|
| |
How do you then interpret the verses... |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
I want to thank you for the dialogue we've been having. I do appreciate your views and I hope I can be of some help. Of course, the Calvinism vs. Arianism debate has been raging for centuries. It is said that every Christian believes in Election; but not every Christian defines Election in the same way. Because of the length of my answer, I will send this in 2 parts.
. . . WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT ELECTION?
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence.
. . . The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
. . . The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him."
. . . This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
. . . Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
. . . Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
. . . Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
. . . Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."
. . . Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."
. . . (article by John MacArthur at www.gty.org - listed in Issues and Answers archives) To be continued in next message.
|
| |
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) |
| |
Predetermined or Free Will |
|
|
|
Luke 8:13
|
| |
Do you actually believe what you wrote?
I said God's plan of salvation was predestined. That is, He knew it was going to happen and it will happen no matter what. However, individuals are not predestined to be saved. God wants all to be saved but knows that not all will accept his gift of Grace. God's Will will succeed no matter what man may do.
1 Tim 2:1-7 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.
Please keep the verses you spout off in context. I have showed you many verses (in context) that talk about our choice and have showed you your verses (in context) that either have nothing to do with what you are using them for or could also be interpreted as free will. I have not seen one verse (taken in context) that says otherwise. Don't you wonder why there are so many verses that talk about "Free Will" and that the only verses Calvinists come up with are taken out of context and based on a faulty premise or that you have to twist the words of non-calvinists to imply things that were not stated? Please read the entire bible. Not just the verses that, on the surface, seem to fit you interpretation.
Eph 2:1-2 - The "dead in transgressions and sin" is not a literal term. How could he be talking to them if they were dead? What he's telling the Ephesians is how they are no longer following the ways of the world (they are dead to those ways) but are now saved through the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. Later in that same chapter he tells us that the Gentiles used to be separte from God are now included in the promise of being saved through Jesus.
As I stated previously:
You mentioned John 6:44. I agree that no sinner can make the first move in the salvation process. Fortunately, God has already made the first move through Jesus. It's now up to us to accept this. Also, if you put John 6:44 in context and read the entire section, you'll see a whole different meaning. John 6:38-40 - tells us that Jesus is sent to do the Father's will which is that EVERYONE who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life. John 6:44 in simply saying that no one is going to Heaven unless God Allows it. God wants everyone to be saved (this is backed up by other verses I'll supply if needed). John 6:45 "...EVERYONE who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." It doesn't say "only those I choose will come to me" John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." John 6:51 "...This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." He's saying that he will give his life for the world, not a elect group in the world.
Another example, read the parable of the Lost Sheep. God didn't want any to be lost.
If you need more verses about All having the opportinity for salvation, let me know.
To close on, did Jesus die for everyone's sins or just some of the people?
|
| |
Are the unevangelized people really lost |
|
|
|
Rom 2:15
|
| |
Yes, we need to fulfill the Great Commission at all costs! Because people have sinned, and even thou they have never heard of Jesus, they still have the law written on their hearts. Once the one goes against the law written on their heart, they have sinned (and we all do).
Romans 2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (NAS) |
| |
Is Passover celebrated by Messianic Jews |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Again, to answer, we are going to have to ask the question: Did the twelve apostles, and those who came after them, stop keeping the passover?
If you are a Jew, then you are obligated by your circumcision to do so; however, if you're a gentile, not being of that circumcision of the flesh, then there is no obligation. The book of Galatians deals with the result of the gentiles who sought to be justified by circumcision and strict following of the works of the law - they fell from grace (Eph. 2:8,9). For we are justified "by grace and through faith", sanctified "by grace and through faith", and baptized with the Holy Spirit "by grace and through faith".
Noone could ever be saved (justified, sanctified, or receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit) by working the law, for all have sinned (transgressed the law - I John 3:4) and fallen short of the glory of "God" (Romans 3:9-31, specifically 23 and also 19,20). Neither the Jew nor the gentile can be justified "by the deeds of (by strict observing of) the law", "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (see verse 28 of the above passage in Romans). Neither are we made perfect by strictly observing the law; but, by our walk in His Holy Spirit in us (who are in Him by that Spirit) we grow on into perfection.
I believe that if your a gentile who is going to observe the passover to gain a deeper insight and understanding of the type, and not because you feel you have to do so, you are doing well. Otherwise, you have stumbled; but, be of good cheer, YHVH will uphold you even in your darkest hour. That is why he gave Paul the words to speak to the Galatians, and in a way to us today, so that we could be convicted of walking in legalism (if we do so) and repent. |
| |
IS PETER |
|
|
|
Matt 16:18
|
| |
Yes. In Matt 16:19, Peter was given the keys (the authority to open the doors to Christendom). He used this authority for Jews on the Day of the Pentecost and for Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10). The church began on the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2). When Christ said, "I will build...", this shows that the formation of the church was still in the future. The word church appears in the Gospels only here and in Matt 18:17. |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
I'm not putting you down, bobmoy. I'm simply saying that if you believe the heretical teachings of the Urantia Book then you are lost. That's not a put-down, that's just the facts. Living by the words of Jesus is indeed the path to eternal life, but if you include in those words of Jesus the ones supposedly attributed to him by the Urantia Book then you are in error.
In one of your other messages, you said, "I use this half of the book [referring to section 4 of the Urantia Book] as a commentary that helps me with my own Bible study and teaching." In another message, you claim that the Bible is the first of the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation, the Urantia Book being the other. Both of these seem to indicate that you believe the Bible to be God-inspired. At the very least you put the Bible and the Urantia Book on par with one another as co-witnesses. But then in your most recent response to me you said, "Yes, the Scriptures are man-made." I can only take this to mean that you agree with the Urantia Book's denial of the God-inspired authenticity and accuracy of the Bible since that's what I was talking about. But then you go on to say, "However, the words of Jesus that are printed in The Bible are accurate and true." Can't you see that this is double-talk? If the Scriptures are simply man made documents, devoid of divine inspiration, then how can you cherry-pick the recorded words of Jesus out and say that they are accurate while at the same time denying the accuracy of everything else? If the Bible is simply man made then none of it can be trusted. And if the Bible is man made while the Urantia Book is God-inspired (you said as much when you claimed it was the sealed scroll mentioned in Daniel), then how can the Bible be co-equal with the Urantia Book as one of the two witnesses? How can something man made be a witness to God's word and works? Finally, if the Bible is simply man made while the Urantia Book is God-inspired then why do you use the Urantia Book as merely a commentary while studying the Bible? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
You said, "The Word was not made 'book'." This is an attempt to twist the argument by hanging the whole thing on a single definition of "word". The term "word" has several different but closely related shades of meaning, especially in Greek thought (remember that the New Testament was written in Greek). When John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," the Greek term for "word" has other meanings as well. To quote from a study note in my NIV Study Bible: "'Word.' Greeks used this term not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind -- the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational principle that governs all things. Jews, on the other hand, used it as a way of referring to God. Thus John used a term that was meaningful to both Jews and Gentiles." So the fact that the Word was made flesh and lived among us does not mean that the word in another sense could not also be recorded on paper for posterity. You are attempting to deny the God-inspired origin of the Bible by playing word games.
In one of your other responses to me, you said: "Yes, all of The Urantia Book is valid and accurate." I can only take this to mean that you don't believe in a single Trinity, you don't believe in original sin or the fall of man, and you don't believe in the redemptive death of Jesus, since all of these denials are taught by the Urantia Book, which you claim is entirely valid and accurate. You say that you believe the words of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels? Then how do you reconcile the Urantia Book's denial of the redemptive death of Jesus with Luke 24:45-47: "Then he [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations....'" (NIV). For that matter, the fact that Jesus caused them to understand the Scriptures demonstrates that He thought the Scriptures were authoritative rather than man made.
I must confess bobmoy that I don't understand you. Between your self-contradictory statements, your attempt to villify me, and your highly improbably claims (like the Urantia Book driving people insane), I strongly suspect that you are a troll. At the very least you are trying to lead others into the Urantia Book heresy. But whatever the case may be, I think it is apparent that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything so I suggest that we quit trying. |
| |
Jesus closes the door? |
|
|
|
Matt 18:17
|
| |
Dear bjanko, And how did our Lord treat Gentiles and tax-gatherers? I well understand the need for church discipline. I also know that Jesus seemed to think that the sinners were capable of repentance. If I correctly understand your comments, Paul left a door open for reconciliation and repentance, but Jesus closed the door? I appreciate your comments. In Christ Jesus. |
| |
Jesus closes the door? |
|
|
|
Matt 18:17
|
| |
The Matthew verse says to treat them like Gentiles and tax collectors; in other words, they were to be excommunicated; this is plain because they were the lowest scoundrels in society.
I agree with your point, but let me clarify. The only good tax collector was a repentant one, to borrow a phrase. The image of the tax collector is to emphasis that they should be put out of the church.
The issue you are raising now is different? You seem to really be asking, "How should we treat the apostate, those who are excommunicated?" And here is where we agree: we should treat the excommunicated as Jesus did, offering the gift of God's free grace and inviting them into the Kingdom; however, the church officers cannot allow them into the kingdom until they are will to repentant and believe, which also implies coming under church authority.
In excommunication, the door is always open for reconciliation and repentance. But only those who actually do repent and believe should be allowed back in through the door. |
| |
where do blacks come from? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
As near as I can tell, the Bible only singles out Jews as distinguished from other people (Gentiles). Moreover, in the NT, God tells us that that distinction was merely to prepare the way for Jesus Christ, and that now there is no such distinction. Since the Gospel was revealed to the world, it's now a moot point from where blacks, whites, yellows, (or greens or blues for that matter) come or to where they might migrate. |
| |
Covenant to Abraham revoked? |
|
|
|
Gen 17:7
|
| |
I don't remember the bible talking about canceling the old covenant in favor of the new. I've always interpreted as the new covenant grafted the gentiles onto the old covenant so that all would be included in God's plan. There are many verses that mention Jews and Gentiles... I don't recall anything implying any sort of cancellation. I was always told that contracts could be broken but not God's covenants (of course this could be oppinion). If you know of any verses that people use to state otherwise, I'd be curious to see them. |
| |
This is why...? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
JVH0212 is right about the need to use the right definition for words like "chosen", but we also need to understand the context in which they are used.
Please look carefully at Galations and Romans. To a large extent, these books are dealing with the problem of the judiazing teachers of Acts 15.
The gentiles to whom Paul was writing were made to feel like "second class Christians", at least as compared to the Christians with Jewish heritage. I think Paul used the terms "chosen" and "elect" as often as he did to underscore to the gentile Christians that they were special too. It is the
same sentiment he was expressing in 1CO 12:13: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
Notice that Paul goes on to encourage the Galatian and Roman Christians to live their lives righteously, like special "chosen" people
are supposed to.
In light of the overwhelming evidence that it is up to man to "choose" to follow God (to convince man to do so is the purpose of the Bible and even the sacrifice of Christ), in light of that evidence, it is clear that "predestined" and "chosen" do NOT mean that God decides for us. I think that the terms apply to a CATEGORY of people - God determined that those who would "call on the name of the Lord" would be saved - He did not predetermine who it was who would call on His name. |
| |
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) |
| |
Steward of the mysteries of God? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 4:1
|
| |
This is a good answer, but I would like to add something if I could. Mysteries are not always things we cannot understand, most of the time a mystery in the Bible is something that could not be understood with O.T. revelation, but was made clear in the N.T.
(Mat 13:11) He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
The mystery here is the teaching of the Kingdom of God.
Also, Paul said one of the mysteries that he was in charge of was how the Gentiles could be fellowhiers with the Jews, in other words, how Gentiles could be saved.
(Eph 3:1) For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
(Eph 3:2) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
(Eph 3:3) How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
(Eph 3:4) Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
(Eph 3:5) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
(Eph 3:6) That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
The gospel was a mystery until it was made plain in Christ.
So given all that, those that preach the gospel, even today, are stewards of the mysteries of God because God has entrusted with the charge and calling of preaching His good news to all mankind. We like Paul, must preach it from the purest motives, empowered by the Holy Spirit, so that God can be honored by that preaching and reach those that hear it.
In another sense, every one of us that are children of God are stewards of the mysteries of God because every one of us are to be witnesses to His saving grace on a daily basis. We should all walk with the same fear Paul had:
(1 Cor 9:27) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Our purpose as stewards is 1. to be faithful and obedient to our Master. 2. Live so as to honor Him. 3. Study and present the mysteries that we have been entrusted with as clearly as possible to those that God brings into our lives.
your fellow steward,
later...wdc
|
| |
Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? |
|
|
|
Job 38:1
|
| |
When Paul wrote Ephesians (Chapter 1) he was worshiping God in his introduction by stating what is true of God -- we are instructed to worship in Spirit and TRUTH in John 4. The text gives no evidence that his purpose was to encourage the mostly Gentile Believers in Ephesus with Jewish promises..” that all along God knew His plan of salvation which, don’t worry included you outside Israel as well.” What could possibly make us think they were worried about how long God knew His plan of salvation, and how it might relate to gentiles? This is making non-sense out of clear teachings about the Sovereign God of the universe. I hardly fault the desire to learn what was the author’s purpose for writing. But wouldn't it be reasonable to expect to see a different clue in the text of why he launches into such statements about predestination and foreknowledge? Notice how Paul doesn’t give any kind of evidence that he’s answering anybody or that he is in any way exhorting them -- just worshiping God with all the power of understanding he has about God’s inestimable worth!
There is no tidy disclaimer that places these statements (Rom 8; Eph. 1; 1 Pet 1, etc.) into a category of mere up building alone. Sure it does that, every time we worship God in Spirit and Truth it greatly upbuilds us. It hardly would make any more sense that Paul would take such a tact to refer to salvation as being pre-planned with Jews either, since this would not have been common ground for most Jews. They didn’t understand the Prophets concerning salvation, and besides Paul is not quoting the Prophets here, what other common ground could he have with the Jews? He does that in other areas for other reasons, but he is not doing that here.
As Paul’s introduction to Ephesians continues the text indicates (Eph 1:15-23) that he does want to encourage them with Spiritual wisdom “that the eyes of your understanding be enlightened that you may know what is the hope of His calling...” here is the text giving a clue as to what he wants them to get out of this. To understand who God is and how does knowing Him affect them. The essential points that he makes are God’s greatness ...segway into man’s huge need for just this very God!
...being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will
|
| |
Why the 7th day bent? |
|
|
|
Col 2:16
|
| |
In the beginning,God created heaven and the earth in 6 literal days, on the 7th day He rested, and made this day Holy. God new that man needed a day of rest (sabbath means rest) to renew,rest,worship and remember Him as God and creator. God reaffirmed this to Moses with the ten commanment law written with His own finger,engraved in stone.(the only scripture that was not given through men).
What day is the Sabbath day? Saturday. Read the account of the crucifixion in the book of Luke. Christ was crucified on Friday( the preperation day),rested on the sabbath day in the tomb,(saturday),and arose on the first day of the week(sunday). Christ kept the sabbath,even in his death. The apostles kept the sabbath,even Paul. He taught the Jews and the Gentiles alike on the sabbath day.
Sould we keep the Sabbath today? Yes! I challenge anyone to show me from scripture where God changed the day to sunday.(first day of the week)
How did the change take place? Study chruch history. It happened during roman times when the church and government became one. During the reign of Constintine,(a pagan and nominal christian), who worshiped the sun.there festival day was sunday (the venerable day of the sun).In order to unite the empire,with the churches apostasy,to incorporate the pagans into the chruch (along with many of there practices and idol worship),the day was slowly changed to sunday.
Will we keep the Sabbath in the future? Read the book of Isa.66th chapter.verses22-23. Yes we will.
Gods ten commandment laws have not changed nor will they change.
Was this part of the law given by inspiration through Moses? No. the mosaic law and ordinances were nailed to the cross with Christ. He was the fulfilment of these. The Sabbath is Gods seal ( as mentioned many times in scripture) His rightful
claim as God and creator. How can someone justify pulling the 4th commandment out of the ten commandments and and deceide not to keep that one command. Would it be ok to not keep "thou shalt not Murder",or say "thou shalt no commit adultery"
its that one ok not to keep. You can try and explain it away anyway you like. The facts are as they stand.Sunday keeping is a product of man,not Gods plan for us.
|
| |
Sabbath because it is a rule? |
|
|
|
Col 2:16
|
| |
Dear Rayteck, Do you keep the Sabbath because it is a rule? Are the Ten Commandments observed only because God commanded them? All of the Ten should be kept because of their intent, and because we want to please our Lord and Savior.
Indeed, your argument is well presented. But Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. The intent of the Ten Commandments is intact, but the religious observance of any 'special day' has has been superceded by the fact that every day is special in Christ Jesus. This cannot be said of the Sabbath. We gather on Sunday because the early Christians from the beginning (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) found a new beginning in Jesus. This was continued, as confirmed by Ignatius (circa 110AD). It was made an 'institution' in the 4th century, but, had been practiced from the time that the Lord revealed to Paul and others the salvation of the Gentiles. Yes, Paul went to the synagogues on Saturday, where else would he find the Jews? But he taught Christ on the first day of the week. (I have studied church history a bit :-)
By the way, you said that Jesus 'rested in the tomb' on Saturday. I don't think so... He was breaking the Sabbath by working, a holy work that gave you and I freedom from death and Satan.
How you get 'observe the Sabbath' from Isaiah 66 is beyond me. It says clearly that we will worship Him daily, that new moons and sabbath are inconsequential.
Friend, every day is the Lord's day. Church history shows that the early Christians gathered on the 'first day' to celebrate a risen Savior, even the Jewish Christians did so after the destruction of the Temple. If you choose to worship on Saturday, this is allowed. I pray that you gather because it is the Lord's day to you, not because it is 'Commandment Number 4.'
Blessings and love in Jesus' name, charis |
| |
Beautiful |
|
|
|
Acts 3:2
|
| |
Acts 3:2 "'gate...called Beautiful.' The favorite entrance to the temple court, it was probably the bronze-sheathed gate that is elsewhere called the Nicanor Gate. Apparently it led from the court of the Gentiles to the court of women, on the east wall of the temple proper." (p. 1577, Zondervan NASB Study Bible, Zondervan, 1999) |
| |
When was the Holy Spirit first given? |
|
|
|
John 20:22
|
| |
Well said, JHVH0212. I actually think that we are in fairly strong agreement on this topic (which probably seems amazing in and of itself to some), and I see that I (and others whom I got it from) may well have been using the term "baptize" erroneously. Being "baptized with" the Spirit does appear to belong together with "receive" rather than "be filled with" -- as you point out.
You ask the question, 'Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past?' I also pointed out the same passage from Acts 1 to "prayon" in our parallel thread, and I agree that there was something missing prior to Pentecost. However, I would argue (contrary to MacArthur and to you) that the most natural reading is that the apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 but still needed the pouring out of the Spirit (or "filling") at Pentecost (and again in Acts 4 and later) for empowerment to effectively proclaim the Gospel.
For the record, I am also convinced that tongues are not "the sign" of the filling of the Spirit; this was a view (ab)used in Corinth, and it is still abused today. Most of the examples (of being filled with the Spirit) given in Scripture make no mention of tongues, and many make no mention of any gifts whatsoever. The initial pouring out (or filling) at Pentecost apparently released the expanded availability of the gifts (in a directly observable way), as happened again later when a similar event proved to Jewish Christians (through direct observation) that the same promises and full availability of the Spirit applied to Samaritans and Gentiles as to Jews. This is completely separate from the question of the gifts; there is no necessity of consistently linking them to the filling of the Spirit. Gifts can be exercised without such filling (See Mt 7:22-23, about people who didn't even know Christ at all yet exercised supernatural gifts); likewise such filling often takes place throughout Acts without resulting in the use of any specific gifts. Their concurrence is unusual rather than typical. |
| |
Can man refuse God's invitation? |
|
|
|
Luke 14:16
|
| |
You are right. The parable refers to God offering His kingdom and the gift of salvation to the Jewish people 2000 years ago. The Jewish people refused not believing that Christ was the true Messiah. This refussal is the gift of God called free will. In Genesis 2:15-16 it tells us that God gave Adam the responsibility of caring for the Garden of Eden and told him not to eat of the fruit rather than physically preventing him from doing so. In other words God gave Adam the choice of eating the fruit or not eating the fruit. Throughout the bible are countless stories when man went against God's wishes and chose to do what God commanded them not to do.
The Luke parable is just another example of man not choosing God's way.
God's call is irresistable. If it were not there would be no evil in the world. Man would not be able to refuse God if His call was indeed irresistable.
(When the Jewish people refused the invitation God then extended that invitation to the Gentiles).
|
| |
Num 13 and spiritual mapping. Yes or no? |
|
|
|
Numbers
|
| |
Dear geoffc, I cannot see that you can get any help from Numbers chapter 13. 10 out of 12 'heads of the sons of Israel' had no faith, and the 'mapping' of the land was for the purpose of killing, enslaving or displacing the inhabitants. Hardly evangelism! Spiritual mapping does take any rocket science; our first 'territory' is our own immediate family (spouse, children), then our extended family (including in-laws). The next obvious group would be friends, acquaintances, coworkers, classmates, etc. Next is the people that 'the Lord sends to you' in your daily walk. We have a responsibility to share the Gospel with those that we know, which is much more difficult than people we do not know. Our most effective tool is the 'preaching' of the Gospel, the power of the Word of God, spoken in faith. The next most effective tool is our example of faith, the 'testimony' of our lives. This 'testimony' is not money or position, but the holy manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit. "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation." 1 Peter 2:12 NASB. Then you will be effective to evangelize the lost. I am not saying that you cannot go out and evangelize until you have 'saved' all your family and friends. But I look askance at a believer that is 'full of charisma and the 'gift of gab,' brimming with convincing evangelism and enthusiasm, but their natural life is in a shambles. I also wonder about a church that goes to great lengths to 'fill the pews,' but does not shepherd the flock. This is not a judgment on any man or church, just an observation.
Blessings in Christ Jesus, charis
|
| |
do churches need to be founded by an apo |
|
|
|
2 Timothy
|
| |
Christian churches are to be founded on the teachings of the Apostles. The Lord Jesus commanded the apostles to teach and preach what He taught them. In the case of the Apostle Paul he was given grace to know the mystery of a new humanity made up of Jew and Gentiles (Eph.3)
In 2 Tim.3:5 the apostle Paul is describing what it will be like in the last days.
Should Christian fellowship with those who believe ministers should cast out demons and lay hands on the sick? The Cross of Christ should be our focus of our preaching and teaching and not the casting out of demons and physical health. Once again look over the Bible and one will see that Christ Jesus is the focus and not the casting out of demons or physical healing. We should attend churches where the whole counsel of God (the Bible) is preached and taught. |
| |
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part 0 |
|
|
|
1 Pet 3:21
|
| |
Okay, I have read through your response, but you didn't answer one vital question, in fact, you ask the very same from me. Let's cover your points one by one.
1. You are right in that those verses you point out speak nothing to the necesity of baptism, but talk about the root core of the salvation process, it is grace through faith. But it doesn't end there, nor can it end there, otherwise you "leave out" unrefutible evidence that baptism is a necessary component of that salvation. You need also be careful to not take out of context these verse and truly examine what the teachings are here. You will find that a majority of these verses deal with the problems between Jew and Gentile and the fact that Gentiles are not circumcised.
2. You point out the fact that Peter refers to baptism at pentecost in chp 2 but not in chp 3. Well, let me turn the point back around once more and ask you the same thing as I asked before, if baptism is not important to salvation, why did he include it in chp 2? To answer your question, probably the reason why is two fold, first a great deal of them probably already heard it in chp. 2 and second, the were dragged away before they had a chance to finish. What would he have said if he would have been able to finish?
3. Your next point you should go back and re-study before everything else. He did speak about baptism and he did baptize. Be care you don't take out of context what he says in 1 Cor. chp 1. He did baptise which he himself points out, but the message that he is getting across is that it is not important who baptized you, in authority issues, but that the body of Chirst is one. He is not down playing baptism at all, in fact I think it is a reinforcement of the idea that baptism is between the person and God and no one else. Don't put things into this passage that are not there. One last thing for this point before I go onto the next, if he wasn't referring to baptism, what was he talking about in Romans 6?
4. In this point, you fall into a very common trap, those were all before pentecost which I stated in my previous note. Jesus had the power to forgive sin as he was, and is God. Only the father has the power to forgive sin, and thus we see several examples of Jesus not only healing but forgiving sin. You should note that all of those occurrances happened after a demonstration of faith by the person, healed for forgiven. What is baptism? Is it not a demonstration of faith?
5. This one is probably your best point and it is the hardest to refute, however, I challenge you to find where it says they were saved, even though they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Further, if you read on, you will note that they were baptized immediately. Just because a person is filled with the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean that they are saved. We do not have evidence that makes that abundantly clear, you are going on assumption, and not evidence. But like I said before this is the most compelling of your argument so far. However, if it is just this one point, with all of the other evidence that points to the necessity of baptism, assumptions are not enough.
6. If I were to take the same way of examining scripture as you have, then our faith alone does nothing for us, as James 2:26 states. Faith by itself is dead, james tells us, and thus if our faith is dead, how can we ever receive that grace of God? This is a feeble argument that shows no study of the truth in that passage. Don't look to interpret and harmonize, search for the truth and nothing but the truth, being careful to rightly divide the word and give an accurate representation of what is written and not what is assumed or what we want to believe. |
| |
Should women be teaching in churches? |
|
|
|
1 Tim 2:12
|
| |
Paul often admists that what he writes is his opinion. The Judeo-Mesopotamian culture dictated men's superiority. The Patriarchal Church has taken the culture of thousands of years ago and tried to make it "God Breathed" for our direction, admonition and edification. The culture of the Mesopotamians should ahve been relegated to the same status as the law, however, men have been in control for centuries and have perpetuated the pain suffered by the women of antiquity. Galations 3:28 - "for in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free."
We must read the Bible in context and regard God's actions in the Old Testament as the history of His movement toward the grace of His Son Jesus Christ.
The requirement for man is to Love God and Love His Fellow Man. We are not to keep rules to find favor with God. Keeping women under our thumb is one of those rules that is similar to "the law." Read God's word for principles and not for literalism.
It is much harder for mankind to follow Jesus Christ and to respond naturally to Him instead of trying to measure up by following the rules. The law says do not kill, Jesus says "do not hate." The law says do not commit adultery, Jesus says "do not lust." Following Christ is a much harder task that following the rules of the law keepers and literalists.
Paul continuosly elevated women in his teachings, although it seems harsh to us today. When Christ came to the earth, many Jews were still practicing polygamy and the gentiles practiced it freely. A woman had no rights in either Jewish or Greek culture. They could be sold into slavery or even killed with no impunity for the husband if they were caught in the act of adultery. Women could not own property or sue in courts. It took two women witnesses to equal the witness of one man.
We men must elevate women continuously. We must model Christ's respectful and loving treatment of women. God gave them equal rights, it is not for us (or Paul) to take away....
Women are equal to men. Women can teach, preach, and in many cases better than a man...
Marriage is best served if there is mutual submission by each partner. If the literal interpretation of Ephesians 5:22 is followed, marriages are doomed unless the women has no self respect or does not wish to be free from the yoke of Patriarchal, Judeo-Mesopotamian slavery.
|
| |
How about faithful Jews? |
|
|
|
John 14:6
|
| |
Charis-
Check out Matthew 10. Jesus sends out his disciples to the Jews first. Jesus says, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near..' (Verses 5-7)
Then Jesus later instructs his disciples in this chapter..'If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town...' (Verse 14-15)
Ultimately, what this means for us, is that woe unto you if you have heard the message of the Gospel and rejected it. It will be worse for those persons than the two cities that fell under God's judgement.
Regarding the old covenant; Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant. Check out Hebrew 8:8-12 for a comparison of between the old and new covenant. Jesus' new covenant can be read in Matthew 26:28 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Or Luke 22:20 "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'" Check out 1 Corinthians 11:25 also.
The new covenant was Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our sins and our forgiveness. But you must believe and confess..Romans 10:9 |
| |
God can use woman in the ministry? |
|
|
|
Gal 3:28
|
| |
dpettway22,
Galatians 3:28 is referencing superiority standing within the realm of salvation which none have. We are all saved equally and have an equal standing in the Kingdom of God. A Jew does not have any greater position simply because he is a Jew. The same goes for Gentiles over Jews, men over women or women over men.
It does not reference either a right or forbidding for women to be involved with a ministry. There are other scriptures that clearly cover that isse.
Sam Hughey |
| |
Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 12:13
|
| |
The most natural reading of John 20:21-22 indicates that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles at that time and that the "filling" of Pentecost was something different, which empowered them to be effective in proclaiming the Gospel more powerfully. However, it is a mistake to equate this with any specific gift. It is also a mistake to equate this with current practices involving certain procedures. Please consider the following as merely an attempt at exposition and NOT intended to bash anyone or to question anyone's intentions; while some may be offended by the directness, this is not meant as an attack.
The utterances of praise that were given at Pentecost were real languages (Acts 2:4-11), and there is no mention whatsoever (here or elsewhere) of anyone speaking in some kind of "heavenly" language being connected with the Holy Spirit. In contrast, I have never seen nor heard of modern-day scheduled or choreographed "Holy Spirit baptisms" being accompanied by an actual foreign language (unknown to the speaker) that a bonafide foreign language speaker testified to -- never; yet this is precisely what happened spontaneously at Pentecost. Nor have I ever heard of modern conditions where physical tongues of fire actually came down upon "recipients". It's simply not the same as the event that they claim it to be equal to. Correctly spoken praise in real languages (by non-speakers) can be easily tested by actual speakers -- as at Pentecost and likewise again in Acts 10:44-47;11:15-16 when the Gospel and the Spirit first went out to the Gentiles. Claims of unknown languages are neither verifiable nor (therefore) authoritative, since (by their very nature) they can prove nothing.
This is not to say that there is no such separate experience of being "filled" with the Spirit, but Pentecost and claims of modern parallels are completely different. Can this happen? Perhaps (and most likely in a place where the Gospel is first appearing), but it should be expected to happen as a unique and spontaneous event initiated by the Spirit -- not led, encouraged or brought on by any action of man.
Doubtless someone somewhere may think of 1 Corinthians 13:1 indicating at least a possibility for angelic tongues -- but this is clearly hyperbole in its immediate context, which includes parallel references to people who literally "move mountains" with their faith and-or "know all mysteries and all knowledge" -- which they don't. Paul is using hyperbole to make a point about the priority of love far beyond even greatly exaggerated versions of real gifts. Please look at the context carefully.
I'd like to expand more on the idea of the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, but I can feel myself ready to ramble too quickly and loosely. Besides, I'm sure others can add some of the same ideas with Scripture references. Another time. |
| |
Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Is Interracial marriage supported in the Bible?
I have completed a study tonight after recently
wondering if the Bible supports or does not support
marriage between two people of a different race (I am
referring to a Male/Female marriage of course, since
homosexuality and lesbianism is forbidden [Gen. 19:5;
Lev. 18:22-23,20:13; Deut. 23:17; Judg. 19:22-24; 1
Kings 14:24,15:12; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10].
Polygamy is also forbidden [Lev. 18:18; Deut. 17:17;
Titus 1:6]).
Now you must understand me: I have a great and healthy
respect for all people since we are all one in Christ
(Gal. 3:28). In fact, skin color is the Creator's
choice (Jer. 13:23), and a black man named Simon (of
Cyrene, which was a city in North Africa) helped Jesus
carry His cross (Mark 15:21). I have many friends who
are of a different race than I am and that is not the
aim or goal of this study. My question is: Does the
Bible permit people of different race to intermarry?
First of all, there are situations in the Bible that
condemn interracial marriage. Isaac sought a wife
from his own father's family (Gen. 24:1-4) and so did
Jacob (Gen. 27:46-28:2). The Israelites were
commanded not to intermarry (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3-4;
Ezra 9:1-2,12; Neh. 10:30, 13:23-27; Josh. 23:12-13),
but this was mostly on the basis of leading the people
astray through foreign gods (Mal. 2:11; Deut. 17:17;
1 Cor. 7:39).
However, God did permit the Israelites to marry
foreign women in other situations: captives from war
(Deut. 21:10-13), and because of a 'shortage' of women
(Judges 21:21-23). Timothy, the youthful early church
leader, was a half-Jew (Acts 16:1) and Moses's wife
Zipporah was an Ethiopian woman (Num. 12:1).
The Bible does not clearly state whether or not God's
people should marry interracially, but it does say
that the partner should be a believer in Christ (1
Cor. 7:39, 2 Cor. 6:14). It is interesting to note that all nations and people are important to God (Amos 9:7) and having black skin
is beautiful (Song Of Solomon 1:5-6). Jesus usurped
the racist traditions of the Israelites (Matt.
15:21-28; Luke 10:25-37) and the Bible even speaks
of 'hatred without reason' (Psalm 69:4) and anti-Semitism
(Esther 3:8-9, 5:10-14). Also, Gentiles are despised,
the Israelites are despised (Gen. 43:32) and
foreigners are excluded from fellowship (Neh.
13:1-3). The Bible also encourages freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21; The book of Exodus)
In conclusion, interracial marriage is not against the will of God based upon the Bible. It remains a
question of being yoked/unequally yoked in fellowship
with God Himself and choosing a husband/wife that
will help you to enrich your walk in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:35).
I wanted to share this with you, since I was wondering what the Bible specifically said about such things. Feel free to tell me how you agree/disagree.
|
| |
Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? |
|
|
|
2 Corinthians
|
| |
Is Interracial marriage supported in the Bible?
I have completed a study tonight after recently
wondering if the Bible supports or does not support
marriage between two people of a different race (I am
referring to a Male/Female marriage of course, since
homosexuality and lesbianism is forbidden [Gen. 19:5;
Lev. 18:22-23,20:13; Deut. 23:17; Judg. 19:22-24; 1
Kings 14:24,15:12; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10].
Polygamy is also forbidden [Lev. 18:18; Deut. 17:17;
Titus 1:6]).
Now you must understand me: I have a great and healthy
respect for all people since we are all one in Christ
(Gal. 3:28). In fact, skin color is the Creator's
choice (Jer. 13:23), and a black man named Simon (of
Cyrene, which was a city in North Africa) helped Jesus
carry His cross (Mark 15:21). I have many friends who
are of a different race than I am and that is not the
aim or goal of this study. My question is: Does the
Bible permit people of different race to intermarry?
First of all, there are situations in the Bible that
condemn interracial marriage. Isaac sought a wife
from his own father's family (Gen. 24:1-4) and so did
Jacob (Gen. 27:46-28:2). The Israelites were
commanded not to intermarry (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3-4;
Ezra 9:1-2,12; Neh. 10:30, 13:23-27; Josh. 23:12-13),
but this was mostly on the basis of leading the people
astray through foreign gods (Mal. 2:11; Deut. 17:17;
1 Cor. 7:39).
However, God did permit the Israelites to marry
foreign women in other situations: captives from war
(Deut. 21:10-13), and because of a 'shortage' of women
(Judges 21:21-23). Timothy, the youthful early church
leader, was a half-Jew (Acts 16:1) and Moses's wife
Zipporah was an Ethiopian woman (Num. 12:1).
The Bible does not clearly state whether or not God's
people should marry interracially, but it does say
that the partner should be a believer in Christ (1
Cor. 7:39, 2 Cor. 6:14). It is interesting to note that all nations and people are important to God (Amos 9:7) and having black skin
is beautiful (Song Of Solomon 1:5-6). Jesus usurped
the racist traditions of the Israelites (Matt.
15:21-28; Luke 10:25-37) and the Bible even speaks
of 'hatred without reason' (Psalm 69:4) and anti-Semitism
(Esther 3:8-9, 5:10-14). Also, Gentiles are despised,
the Israelites are despised (Gen. 43:32) and
foreigners are excluded from fellowship (Neh.
13:1-3). The Bible also encourages freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21; The book of Exodus)
In conclusion, interracial marriage is not against the will of God based upon the Bible. It remains a
question of being yoked/unequally yoked in fellowship
with God Himself and choosing a husband/wife that
will help you to enrich your walk in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:35).
I wanted to share this with you, since I was wondering what the Bible specifically said about such things. Feel free to tell me how you agree/disagree.
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
