Results 401 - 420 of 495
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Aixen7z4 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Do those things. | Phil 4:9 | Aixen7z4 | 154047 | ||
Is that all there is? That is the question many believers find it in their hearts to ask, before they are saved, and some, before, and they go looking for the answers. Some find the Christian life, as they see it somewhere, boring and unsatisfying, and unattractive, and they seek excitement in emotionalism and activity outside the church they knew initially. We sense that God has an exciting and full life for each of his children, and we want it. Jesus came that we might have an abundant life (John 10) and we sense that it must include more than attending church, singing a little, praying a little, and listening to sermons. We want ecstatic experiences, intense feelings, and physical activity. We manufacture these things, or expose ourselves to other spirits, unwittingly perhaps, in order to experience them. It is nothing less than amazing, what some believers sometimes do in their churches. It seems unnecessary to compile a list here, and it is embarrassing as well, but it would include boasting, screaming, laughing, shaking, running, spinning, falling, and the like. These activities, and the emotions that go with them, seem to fill the gap, forestall the boredom, and may suggest that there is that much to the Christian life. It might do us well to wonder whether those things are not a substitute for the ones that God would have us do. What did Jesus do? What did the apostles do? What are the things that the Philippians had seen and learned and heard and were supposed to do? Like Timothy, they would have known activity in the gospel (Philippians 1:12), his “doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions“ (2 Timothy 3:10). They were to follow his example (Philippians 3:17) in doing those things and enduring those things. And they were told that the God of peace would be with them, to give them peace (as in Numbers 6:26). There would be joy too, it is mentioned so often in that letter. And yet, that peace was to come after doing (Philippians 4:9) and joy was there to be received and expressed in the midst of suffering (Philippians 1:29). Believers were to find satisfaction, and fulfillment and joy and peace in serving the Lord, as Paul and Jesus did (John 4:34; Philippians 1:20). And we all should follow then (1 Corinthians 11:1; Hebrews 12:2). And neither one of them was known to seek out materialism or emotionalism. We should be imitators of Christ, and we should find our satisfaction in that. |
||||||
402 | How do Philippians 1:3-11 compare and... | Col 1:3 | Aixen7z4 | 135063 | ||
OK. One who are tired and unable to concentrate enough to proofread such a short post is not ready to do this assignment. | ||||||
403 | What is my role in my sanctification? | Col 2:6 | Aixen7z4 | 99737 | ||
I would like to suggest that what Princess is referring to is something the theologians call positional sanctification. That has been done for us. That is why Paul says (2 Thess 2:13) that God has from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Peter says (1 Peter 1:2) that we are the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit. But there is a practical side to sanctification, and we have to be actively involved in it. Paul says (Romans 13:12) The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. That is practical sanctification. He gives an example to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4:3). This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: Practical sanctification is a process of putting off things that are unlike Christ and putting on things that are like him. Colossians 3:8ff Put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. Ephesians 4:22ff Put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Holiness is another word for sanctification. Wherefore (Ephesians 4:25ff) putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. We are saved. Sanctified. Set apart for Christ. Paul says (2 Cor 6:11) we are washed, we are sanctified, we are justified. Positionally. In Christ. And (Rom 5:1) being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. But Peter says (2 Peter 1:5) we must give all diligence to add to our faith virtue. That is practical sanctification. May the Lord give us grace to put off the things that are unlike him, and put on the things that are like him. We are to be like him. And he is holy. 1 Peter 1:14ff: As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he who has called you is holy, so be holy in every area of life; because it is written, “Be holy; for I am holy”. |
||||||
404 | Taught of God? Walk in God? | 1 Thess 4:9 | Aixen7z4 | 152564 | ||
Is it really a concept unique to this letter to the Thessalonians, to be, or to have been, taught of God? Jesus said (John 6:45) that it had been written in the prophets, “They will all be taught by God“. It is apparent that he was referring to passages such as Isaiah 2 where the prophet speaks of a day, in the latter days, when “the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains” and many will be saying, "Come, let's go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths“. Micah may have been echoing that prophecy: In the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Micah 4). The psalmist sang of it: “Good and upright is the LORD Therefore will he teach sinners in the way. The meek will he guide in judgment And the meek will he teach his way“ (Psalm 25). The Spirit of God reminds (Hebrews 10) us of that which he had said before: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days“, says the Lord. “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them”. The Lord had said that through the prophet Jeremiah: “Behold, the days come“, says Jehovah, “that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them“, says Jehovah; “but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days“, says the Lord, “I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord‘; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them“, says Jehovah (Jeremiah 33). In that most intimate and personal way, they will have been taught by God. But we were also taught directly, the same message given to the Thessalonians, by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. If the message is to love one another, surely that is what Jesus taught. “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another“ (John 13:34). Again, “This is my commandment, that you love one another“ (John 15:12). “These things I command you, that ye love one another” (John 15:17). “This is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another“ (1 John 3:11). This is in fact what God had always taught. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). He has given many commandments. But this, “You shall not commit adultery“, “You shall not kill“, “You shall not steal“, “You shall not bear false witness“, “You shall not covet“; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Romans 13:9). In the law, and under grace, we have been taught by God to love one another. God promised to write his laws on the human heart. But meanwhile he sent Jesus to teach us personally. And the Holy Spirit brings it back to us, as it were, teaching us again. Therefore, when it comes to brotherly love, Paul hardly needed to write it again. We have been taught of God to love one another. |
||||||
405 | Taught of God? Walk in God? | 1 Thess 4:9 | Aixen7z4 | 152575 | ||
Hello, Doc. I did understand the reference to the Greek word and to its uniqueness. I did wonder whether the uniqueness of the word suggested something significant, such as a unique way in which the Thessalonians were being taught of God, or by God. I wondered why God might have communicated to them in a unique way, or whether love for our fellow-man is taught in a unique way. I do not know Greek, or Hebrew, for that matter, and I have resisted the idea that individual words have meanings not decipherable from the context in which they appear or in the context of the rest of Scripture. Therefore, I did not know what to make of the idea that this word was found in that passage and nowhere else in Scripture. For that reason, I turned from further thought on that to see where the idea, if not the particular word, was found again in Scripture. I thought of the possibility that God teaches us to love one another without the use of scripture. I know that he uses nature to teach us about his power (Romans 1) and his glory (Psalm 19). Through nature we understand that if a man should have long hair, it is a shame unto him, but when a woman has long hair, it is beautifies her (1 Corinthians 11). But is there evidence in Scripture that God teaches philadelphia through nature? He seems to do it through conscience, for “when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Romans 2). But that takes us back to the language thing, and though I have heard of it, I would not be sure of the essential difference between philadelphia and agapao. Paul seems to be saying, “As touching brotherly (philio) love you need not that I write unto you: for you yourselves are taught (by) of God to (agape) love one another“. And I am thinking that, in this case, “by” and “of” are the same thing, and “philio” and “agape” are essentially the same thing. Likewise, we have shown that there are many scriptures conveying the fact that God teaches us. Is there significance to the fact that in this one instance the phrasing is that we are God-taught? I really do not think so. Someone has noted that the word “Eternity” occurs only once in the KJV and “Trinity” does not occur at all. Yet it is clear that the Bible deals with both. I think the exact words being used are an artifact, and do not change the facts. I trust this does not raise any issues about the nature of inspiration. I do believe God told the writers what words to use. The point is that he is not necessarily saying something different because he uses a different word. God teaches us to love. That is one of the main things that we are God-taught. I hope it is true that love really finds its full expression among us, believers. |
||||||
406 | Searching for the truth | 1 Thess 5:23 | Aixen7z4 | 102216 | ||
Brother Hank, Please explain. I was not aware that this theory, of two-dimensional man, had found support in Scripture. But I would learn from you. It is true that "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably, throughout Scripture, (sometimes with body too) but they are never so used in the same sentence, as far as I can tell. In this case, the words in the original language are different. Am I not the man, who uses my mind to think and feel and know? What happens when my thoughts perish? Do I perish also? What happens if my mind ceases to function properly? Is my spirit then in danger? True also that the spirit here is not the Holy Spirit. He witnesses with our spirit. But what is it that wrestles with the Spirit? What is called "the flesh" in Romans 8 and Galatians 5? Is it our physical bodies? Is it not our carnal minds? It is the mind, as I suppose, which is identified with the soul. If man does have a tripartite nature, as I suppose, it seems to me that he is in that way reflective of his maker, the triune God. As the Father speaks to the Son (“Thou art my beloved”) so also a man can speak to his soul (Bless the Lord, O my soul”; “Why art thou cast down. O my soul?”; even “I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years”). He may not speak to his body, but he certainly speaks about it. (“I may tell all my bones …”) As the one member of the Godhead speaking to and about the others indicates the trinity, so also, my ability to address my soul indicates its separate identity. So far for now. I look forward to your accounting of these things. |
||||||
407 | How can we avoid deception? | 2 Thess 2:11 | Aixen7z4 | 122697 | ||
If you are confused, then perhaps you should ponder the facts presented a little further. We have seen that the Lord does send delusions, an evil spirit, a lying spirit, he gives people over to a reprobate mind. It is apparent that he sends those to people who have refused to obey him. You can judge for yourself whether this ever applies to a believer. My point was that a person who refuses to believe the gospel is in real danger. He may hear another message at a later time and he may be deceived into thinking that it is the truth. It is so important that a person respond to the simple gospel without waiting for more. If he refuses to accept the gospel, how will he know that God will not be sending him strong delusions next? He may be looking for miracles and signs and wonders. He may be presented with lying signs and wonders. He may believe the message associated with those and think he is hearing the truth. He may be looking for a more convincing message and he may fall into the hands of a manipulator. He may be looking to have his emotions stirred and he may be so moved that he cannot think. If you are still confused, I suggest you think about it a little more. If a person hears the gospel (that Christ died for our sins and was buried and rose again) and if he refuses to obey the gospel (by repenting and trusting Christ) how can he know that the next thing he hears (accept Christ, accept a doctrinal statement, join the church, or whatever) is the truth. It may be a strong delusion and yet he will believe it. Read 2 Thess 2:9-12 and related passages such as 2 Timothy 4:3,4 again and think about it. |
||||||
408 | How can we avoid deception? | 2 Thess 2:11 | Aixen7z4 | 122731 | ||
My dear friend, I agree with you that believers are secure in Christ. I understand that it is my post which was confusing to you. I think you said so very clearly. I have no reason to think that you are confused about what Scripture teaches, and I did not mean to suggest that you were. Now, please have patience with me, as I am exercising patience with you. The question was not whether a believer can lose his salvation. Rather it was whether a believer can be deceived, or deluded, or put to the test, or in some other way negatively influenced by a spirit other than the Holy Spirit sent to him by God. If you would like to think of this you might want to return to my first post and consider the cases that were cited. Consider what happened to Saul (1 Samuel 16:14). Consider what happened to Ahab (1 Kings 22:24). Consider what happened to David (2 Samuel 24:1). I asked you to judge for yourself whether this (God sending such a spirit) ever applies to a believer. This has nothing to do with a believer losing his salvation. At least, I am not suggesting that it does. You might want to consider that there are other unfortunate things that can happen to a believer even if, as you have rightly noted, he does not lose his salvation. You might want to think of 1 Timothy 1:19 where Paul speaks of some who, having put away concerning faith, have made shipwreck. You might want to think of 1 Timothy 4 where some depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. You might want to consider Galatians 1:6 where Paul says, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel”. You might want to think of Jeremiah 2:13 where God says that his people had committed two evils; they had forsaken him, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. You might want to think of 1 Timothy 6:9 where believers who want to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts. I am not saying that any of these are due to a spirit from God. I am saying that bad things can happen to believers even though, as you have rightly stated, they do not lose their salvation. Please consider that bad things happened to David and the others, even though Scripture does not suggest that they lost their salvation. I have written at length again to try to clear up any confusion. If you are still confused, I suggest you do not waste time commenting on the clarity or lack thereof in my expression. Perhaps you can just think about what I have said and if you cannot make anything of it, then move on to another matter. My real concern is for those who refused to accept and obey the gospel. Is it possible that God sends them strong delusions after that? Is it possible that they will later accept something that they perceive as the gospel but is really a lie. That is the situation suggested in the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage. I joined this discussion because I share the concern that Mommapbs expressed at the top of the thread. I am concerned that we believers can be deceived and can stray away from our service for God when we have failed to live in the light of God’s revealed truth. Also, I see that many people can believe they are saved when they are not, because they refused to believe the gospel when they heard it and later believed something else that they thought was the gospel but was not. I would love to see a discussion on those two points. First: Can it be that a believer will not endure sound doctrine? What happens to him then? (See 2 Timothy 4:3,4). Can this situation be connected to the shipwreck mentioned in1Timothy 1:19? Second: What happens when a person refuses to accept the Gospel? Can it be that he is then allowed to think that something else is the gospel? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11). If they believe a false gospel, won’t they be believing they are saved when they are not? |
||||||
409 | Isn't delusion dangerous? | 2 Thess 2:11 | Aixen7z4 | 122794 | ||
Hi. It was so good to hear from you. I trust that the Lord will be near and strengthen you as you face those “troubling issues”. But now I am forced to think long and deep on your responses. You say you are “not sure that people can believe they are saved when they are not” and I am surprised because this is one, perhaps the more important one, of my concerns here. I am almost always impressed with your observations and I am quite interested to see how you will support this one. Surely you are not unaware of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7 that there are many who will come to him in that day calling him “Lord, Lord”, and he will say to them, “I never knew you”, and the chilling “Depart from me”. Is that not a description of people going into judgment day thinking they are saved when they are not? I have known of many people who thought they were saved and then found they were not. I know of preachers that this has happened to. One man became saved in his own evangelistic crusade! Truth is, I was one of those though not that far gone, who found out I was not saved as I had thought. And what do all of the other statements mean: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith”, etc.? It is to me the most important matter in all of life, that a person make sure he is saved. It is also clear to me that a person can be deceived in to thinking they are saved, and I am really taken aback by the statement that you are “not sure that people can believe they are saved when they are not”. It is clearly true that the Holy Spirit gives us assurance of salvation. But, as you have also pointed out, Satan is the master counterfeiter. Does he not also give an “assurance” of “salvation” to the people under his control. That is to me the point, the most important point, in this discussion. I go back to the passage from 2 Thessalonians 2, and is that not the point? A person fails to obey the gospel and he is sent strong delusions that he will believe a lie? Yet how many people do we know who admit that they once rejected the gospel and later got saved. What do you then make of the fact they can’t even tell you what the gospel is. It is a fantastic thing to me that people would then say let’s not make an issue of it, let every man be persuaded I his own mind, etc. It is as though we believe that delusion is an illusion. I am deeply disturbed by these thoughts, not the least because at this point, here, I am alone in this. Makes me think that the powers that be are correct in restricting this thread from appearing on the homepage. And yet I think it is the most dastardly thing, for what is the harm in asking someone to consider whether he is really saved? Yet how unkind to fail to warn someone who is in danger? What if he is not saved? Is it better to shield him for the question, from considering the possibility? You say that a discussion such as this might prompt unnecessary doubt in the hearts and minds of some "babes in Christ”. I am not sure what “unnecessary doubt” is, but I have always found there is no harm in going back to double-check my salvation. In fact I can even appreciate the trial of my faith that proves it is really genuine. Yet at a time like this I really wonder why my thoughts would be so different from those of my brethren. In one breath we say we know that many in our midst are not saved, yet we think it is not good to ask them to check to see if they are really saved. I find this really strange. |
||||||
410 | Isn't delusion dangerous? | 2 Thess 2:11 | Aixen7z4 | 122795 | ||
In the matter of "What happens when a believer does not put up with sound doctrine?" I understand the quote from Scofield that came through Kalos to this page. But here again we have stopped at definition and not described the consequences that Paul described as shipwreck. Is that not a condition that we should guard against? It seems to me that there are many undesirable consequences which may be summarized with the word “shipwreck” but which are described in greater detail in passages such as Hebrews 12:15-17 and Revelation 2:5. But back to the more important issue, I did ask: "What happens when a person refuses to accept the Gospel? Can it be that they are then allowed to think that something else is the gospel? (See 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11)." You said, “First of all, there is only one true Gospel”. That is true. But does that not remind us that there are false gospels? What happens when a person believes one of those? I say he may get a false assurance of a salvation which is not. That assumes, of course, that he has previously heard the true Gospel and refused to submit to it. How do we know that God has not responded by sending strong delusion? I am afraid to think of that. It would cause me to urge people to accept the Gospel now, instead of waiting to hear it later. What they hear later may not be the gospel at all, but they might think it is if they are being deluded. You say that “the rejection of salvation by grace assumes that one relies upon works”, but I do not see why that would be the only other alternative. Nor do I see that people who reject the Gospel “most often refuse to believe that they are in need of saving”. Some believe they are too much of a sinner to be saved. Some believe it is too easy. Some cannot accept the resurrection. Some say Christianity is a bad thing. Some say “Unless I can see some signs and wonders I will not believe”, etc, etc. I guess my mind is not working well today, if it ever does. I hope I am not under some delusion. I am actually glad this time that this thread has been temporarily restricted from appearing on the homepage. I think I will go somewhere and think about these things. |
||||||
411 | is it wrong to wear fine clothing | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132104 | ||
I hesitate to get involved in this since it is not clear to me what is happening here. Are these women saved? Are they attending church because they want to be saved? Does that church make a distinction? Some churches recognize members, visitors and seekers. A distinction is made in Scripture between salvation and sanctification. I think we will find that practical sanctification is gradual (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Ephesians 5:26). But salvation is instantaneous (John 6:37;Luke 18:14; Romans 10:13), positional sanctification is instantaneous (1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 1:2) It is a good and needed ministry, to help a new believer in the practical ramifications of their decision to follow Christ. But I understand the point made by PasserBy. A person must be willing to forsake all in order to follow Christ. Otherwise, as he says, we cannot be his disciples. We should try to help the people who have made that decision (1 Thessalonians 2:7). And may I say, it is one of the goals of our counseling ministry. We do not judge anyone, but we seek to help everyone who comes to us (Galatians 6:2; Romans 15:1). We need not judge God’s servants either (Romans 14:4; 1 Corinthians 4:5) as each of us is accountable to him (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10). On the original question, may I say that it is possible to train one’s mind so that we respect each other and not lust after people’s bodies. Consider 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 2 Corinthians 5:16; 1Thessalonians 4:4,5. Meditate on these things. Think about God’s purposes for the human body. It might help to sanctify your thinking. People who dress and behave in a provocative way so as to arouse sexual desire in strangers should be pitied, especially if they earn their living that way. As we relate to them we would do well to remember the Lords word to Jeremiah, though it was given in a completely different context: “Let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them” (Jeremiah 15:19). You are to influence them; do not let them influence you! (NLT). |
||||||
412 | is it wrong to wear fine clothing | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132151 | ||
There is an answer, in the church. Our hearts were touched, and we came together at His Hows to discuss this case, almost as if it had been referred to us. What would we do? We think we have the answer and we trust that everyone everywhere can consider it. It is our judgment that this burden should be carried, not by one person, not by one family, but by the local church. We would base that principally on Galatians 5:2. We believe that other passages apply: 1 Thessalonians 5:14, Acts 20:35, Romans 12:13, Hebrews 13:6, etc. But we should not have left out Galatians 6:10. Luke 14:33 has been quoted, and it applies. But it does not stand in isolation from the rest of Scripture. In fact it goes very well with Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:30. “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life”. We believe that the Holy Spirit showed the early church how this was to be operational zed. So we read in Acts Act 4:34 “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need”. We anticipate that many would object to that as a form of communal socialism. But we believe the idea can work even in a capitalistic society. There is enough wealth to go around. The church consists of a wide variety of people, some with too much and some with too little. Or do people have to give away their things. There are businessmen in the church who can offer employment to the needy, teachers who can train workers, retired people who can offer their expertise, men who are older and wiser who can give advice, and rule and oversee. In fact, it seems that churches should be geared and prepared for situations like this. As a large group they can solve a problem like this that is too much for one individual to bear. We would appreciate your comments. Let me add before ending this, that we have tried this solution, taking needy cases to the church the client came from, and we have not always gotten a positive response. It seems that most church have other priorities, including building programs and suchlike. We do not mean to be critical here, nor do we attempt to dictate to the churches. If you think our idea is worthwhile, please share how we might get it across to the churches. If it is not, please also show us why with scripture. Again, I hope you will not decline to help us by sharing ideas, as we continue our attempts to help people. That includes worthy cases such as the one we are discussing here. |
||||||
413 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132153 | ||
Hello DocTrinesofgrace: I am attracted by the spirit that you project, so I will chance an exchange or two with you. Please excuse my timidity because I have been lured and zapped before and while I take a stand for truth, I try to avoid unpleasantness. May I say that I think most people try to be comfortable most of the time. They choose traditions and denominations where they can be comfortable. If they are not comfortable they would like to transfer to another or else to stay home. Some people have been in a tradition for a long time (They may have been born into it or brought into it at a time of great need, similar to that of an infant) and it is very difficult to leave, therefore they find ways to accommodate to the norms of the group. May I suggest that a position like that is inimical to a search for truth since we are somewhat compromised by our need to please the people in our group. Many groups have rules of thumb or principles that hold them together. Examples are “The Bible alone and in its entirety”, “We speak when the Bible speaks and we are silent when it is silent”, “The Bible explains itself”, “We accept any experience that does not violate Scripture”, etc. We apply these principles, but we are unable to determine why we accepted them in the first place, except that they were chosen for us by the group. Why, for example, why does “the Bible alone” include commentaries on the Bible? Why does “the Bible in its entirety” not include the Apocrypha? Why can we not live on John alone? What if that was all we had? And what if we were like Abraham, with no Bible at all? What I mean to say is in three parts. First, we should not discount the social pressure to conform to our group, and the attendant limitations on our own integrity. Secondly, it is difficult to hold to the rules and principles as our minds search for truth. Thirdly, as I think you have stated, the norms of a religious group are not essentially different from those of any other social group. What is the alternative, then? Is it possible to acknowledge the existence of splinter groups but to give allegiance only to the Holy Spirit and to seek to fellowship as widely as possible with all Christians? That is what some of us have chosen to do, acknowledging all of the traditions while eschewing divisions in the body of Christ. What do you think? |
||||||
414 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132268 | ||
Thank you for taking the time to respond. What I want to say is simple. I think we put ourselves at a disadvantage when we get tied up with traditions of men and intellectual schools of thought instead of simply opening our hearts to the Spirit of God and the word of God. One gets caught up in a world of ideas put forth by men (though they claim to have gotten them from God’s word) and it takes so much time and effort to disentangle ourselves from them. We might want to simply ignore those nets, while still being aware of them, and take ourselves directly into the presence of God. As I pointed out, Abraham had no Bible, and yet he was a friend of God. Moses wrote a part of the Bible, yet he did not wrestle with the words. He went to God. If we are not careful we may make the word the major thing and the Holy Spirit a minor factor, simply to help us as we focus on the word. May I suggest that the Holy Spirit is the more important factor. The word is a guide, yes, and a check. But happy is the man who finds confirmation is Scripture for the thoughts that God has given him inside, in his heart, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Of course, it happens the other way as well, that the Spirit shows us God’s will in his word and enlightens us as to the application in life. ‘The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days”, saith the Lord, “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them”’. Please note that the Lord is not interested in what we know nearly so much as what we do (1 Corinthians 8:1). Imagine what God thinks of the fact we know so much about love but do not practice it. Love is the principal thing. Yet studious and educated people can be so unloving. On this forum, we operate in the world of words and ideas. If we looked out the window of this ivory tower unto the streets we would realize that most of the people, even the Christians, are unable to relate to the words we are using here: Soteriology, exegesis, hermeneutics. Nor is it because they are uninterested in the things of God. Most people have no principles of textual interpretation, except it is to simply take God at his word. They have not been to seminary or read the works of the scholars. They may not understand Greek or Hebrew, or even English grammar. But they understand that God wants us to love him and to love each others All of the word feeds into that, and that makes it all so simple. “An highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein”. I do not want to criticize or to pick at any point of doctrine because I think God knows we only hold to those points that divide us because of the company we keep. If we are uncomfortable when we think outside of that box, it may be that God is calling us to freedom from that box. There is tension between the flesh and the spirit (Galatians 5:17) but we are not encouraged to enflame this but keeping a constant eye on the traditions of men. I think it is these traditions that keep us arguing and moving so slowly to the truth. Forgive me if I am wrong in sensing this, but I do sense that you are tightly tied to one of those traditions. I guess, from your screen name, that you find your very identity in it. There is a tension then, because you are pregnant with the ideas of that tradition and would like to bring them forth. If I am correct, it would be very difficult for you to shake free of it, since you consider it the truth. But I am so impressed that in every group there are those who feel as strongly that their tradition is the truth. Instead of identifying the rules of interpretation in our different traditions, I would encourage all of us to shake loose of those traditions. Am I suggesting the impossible? That is what Paul did (Galatians 1:13-16; Philippians 3:8-14). Nor was he giving up the bad for the good. He was giving up the good for the better (Hebrews 7:19,22, etc.). And we might do ourselves good by following suit. That is all I mean to say here. “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing“. “Consider what I say; and may the Lord give you understanding in all things”. |
||||||
415 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132408 | ||
And thank you for your kind offer of help. I trust it will be OK with you if I decline. There are many areas in which I need help. But another discussion of Reformed theology is not one of them. The idea of considering the traditions of men is already settled with me. Now, some men answer harshly, and I do my best to avoid that. The question: “Do you think you know everything?” is one I have heard before, and I am doing what I can here to forestall it. Let us just say I do not have a felt need for the traditions of men, and no felt need to discuss any of them. If it helps let me also say that I have read more books, done more analyses, written more papers, than I care now even to remember. Should I have studied the religions of the world? Should I have compared and contrasted the major denomination of Christendom? I do not know. Truly I have found that “Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). I have come to the conclusion that we are to “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man”. Then you may ask why I visit this forum. Truly it is not to discuss the ideas of men or to learn from them. I am here to discover and to share ways to put the word of God into practice. My business is counseling, and I help people to do what the Bible says. My ministry is evangelism, and I seek in every way to preach the Gospel. At my age, that is about it for me. I seek to lay aside every weight so that I might run this race and finish it with joy, and theoretical discussions are, for me, a distraction. I learned some time ago that the ideas of men give rise to denominations and to division in the church, and that is not a good thing. They give rise to endless discussions with accompanying rancor and the result is further division. I have learned that I need to be one with every person who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. I think we need to rely on the word of God alone, no other books, and the Holy Spirit. I realize there are others who think differently and I think we should not discuss it. As you can imagine, I think we can very well fulfill Deuteronomy 32:7 today. The days of old, and the years of many generations are covered in the Bible. Our father may very well be Abraham or Moses or Samuel or David or even Paul. He is the one who said “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Philippians 4:9). As for the elders, the apostles will do. They have told us (Hebrews 2:3,4; I john 1:3; etc.). We have always had to choose which tradition we would follow (Matthew 15:1-6;Galatians 1:14; etc.). I hope you find this response to be soft and gentle and loving, and that you can respond in kind (Colossians 4:6). I hope you will understand if I decide to stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught by our Apostle and High Priest, and by his apostles. The help I need is in practicing what they taught. |
||||||
416 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132462 | ||
The idea of evaluating all available traditions in order to accept or jettison them, I am not sure of. I am not sure that it is worth the time, or necessary. The other idea, that knowledge is necessary for obedience is so obvious; I am surprised we find the need to mention it. When we obey God, it is with an awareness of him and our relationship to him. It is also clear that we must understand what he has asked us to do. Thank God for thus revealing himself, our relationship with him, and his will for us, thus motivating us to obey him. When God gave the Ten Commandments, he began by saying who he is. “I am the Lord they God” (Exodus 20:2). The people knew who was giving the commandments. Though they did not have the literature and the scholarship with which to discuss him, God had given then a show with sound and light (Exodus 19) to give them an idea of his presence and nature. This came after the ten plagues, the crossing of the Red Sea and other examples of his love and power. They were aware of who he was that was commanding them, and that was enough. “And all the people answered together, and said, ‘All that the LORD hath spoken we will do’” (Exodus 19:8). It is consistently clear and obvious that God tells us who he is and who we are before he tells us what he wants. As you say, we see it in the epistles. We see it also in the Revelation. “These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand … ‘Repent, and do the first works’”. And the sheep hear his voice, and they follow him. What I find is the Lord saying, “Behold your God” Isaiah 40:9. He delights that we would seek him (Acts 17:27) and that we should know him (Jeremiah 9:24). He says we should know his will (Ephesians 5:17). He says, “If you know these things, happy are you if you do them” (John 13:17). “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein” (Revelation 1:3). What I do not find is the Lord saying, “Study your God”. I find it sad that people would be discussing evidences for the existence of God and strange the people would be trying to analyze him for his omniscience, his omnipresence, his omnipotence, etc. Notice that these characteristics are not the ones listed in Jeremiah 9 (loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness) or the ones in Exodus 34 (merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth). What is the difference? In one case, man is the scientist and God is the object. In the other case God is the sovereign and we are his subjects. What I do not find is the Lord saying to study his words. It is a fine point, because some equate searching the word with studying the word. Some scholars, incredibly, use “Study to shew thyself approved” to mean to make the word of God the object of intellectual exercises. Some believers read the word “Go” and they know what the Lord is saying, and they go. Some spend a lifetime studying words such as “Go” and they never get around to going. I never cease to be amazed at those who can analyze and explain the word “Love” to the nth degree, and yet they do not love. Their very presentations are characterized with so much pride and arrogance and aloofness, attitudes that one would not associate with love. The best experts in the word can also be so rude, so impatient, so dismissive, in their interactions. Yet they can explain the details of 1 Corinthians 13: that love is patient, love is kind. They do not show that they have learned to practice love. Yet they can explain why the simple expectations of our hearts are off base. Knowledge is necessary to obedience, but it seems that we can go too far in seeking knowledge, and forget to obey. God wants us to know him well enough to worship and to obey him. But it seems that it is the very awareness that God is too much for our minds that causes us to worship him. It may be, as Solomon says that study leaves us tired and too much study leaves us too tired to worship or obey. Yes, I know that some will say the more we understand God the more we will worship him. Some people never had a Bible. That includes Abraham back then, and the illiterate man in the jungle today. Some have only limited portions of the Bible in their language. Yet they have learned enough to respond to God. Thank God for the scriptures. We should read them. We should saturate our minds with them. We should seek the Lord and his will in them. But we can go too far. Some of us have gone to school to study the Bible. (It is not clear that we should have done that). But some have gone beyond that, to attach ourselves to particular schools of thought. That may be going too far. In so far as it fosters and maintains division within the church, it is clearly not desirable. The study of the word of God would have led to clear disobedience of the word. Surely they have studied the exhortation that there should be no schism in the body. |
||||||
417 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132482 | ||
Hi Brad: Make a list of the attributes of God as they are revealed in the Bible. Then tell yourself that it is only what God has revealed and that it is possibly only an infinitesimal part of what God is, that he has revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). Then tell yourself that the human mind is not able to grasp terms such as omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, that we cannot fathom infinity and eternity. One of the attributes of God is that he is inscrutable. We will never understand him in those terms. As I said before, he has provided that we can understand him in terms of his kindness, his mercy, and such. That is the way he wants us to know him (Exodus 34; Jeremiah 9). God is over us. We cannot put him under our microscopes. On the other point, please understand that 2 Timothy 2:15 is not talking about an intellectual exercise at all. Though some translations use the term “Study”, the apostle is really asking us to be careful. It is not asking us to do an intellectual thing to gain knowledge but to pay close attention to our behavior. Of course, we have to do that in light of Scripture. “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word” (Psalm 119:9)? “Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed" (James 1:25). Etc. But here again we find the need to match our knowledge with our practice. Even for the purposes of knowing him, we do not simply study. Knowing him is more than knowing about him. Knowing that he loves us, we decide that we should not henceforth live unto ourselves but unto him (2 Corinthians 5:15; 1 Peter 4:2). We count all else but loss so we can get to kow him better (Philippians 3:7,8). This will cause us some difficulty, but we embrace the fellowship of his suffering (Philippians 1:29; 1 Peter 2:21) and look forward to his resurrection (Roman 8:11; 2 Corinthians 4:11). We learn Christ by taking his yoke upon us (Matthew 11:29; Ephesians 4:20-32; Philippians 2:5, 12ff.). I think we understand that this knowledge (of him) is not an intellectual thing either, but a deeper understanding that comes from intimacy. We know him from the experience of walking with him (Revelation 3:20; John 14:21-23). |
||||||
418 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | Aixen7z4 | 132568 | ||
My Dear Friend: I am constantly amazed at our ability as humans to simply miss the point. This exchange reminds me of an experience with a Seventh Day Adventist who came to my house as a member of my wife’s family and proceeded to try to convince me that I should join his sect. After hearing for at least the twentieth time that I had no interest in his tradition or any other human tradition, he thanked me for listening. Now, I try to be kind and patient and all, but the fact is I had not listened to his spiel at all. I have said here that I have no interest in any human tradition. Yet I read, “Thanks again for taking the time to think through -- or at least talk -- about these things”. I am left with the question: “What things?”. I had already decided a long time ago that denominations are a wrong, bad, unscriptural thing. I had felt no need to give any more thought to that. I can understand why there is a wish that “we could have been of greater assistance to one another”. But again, I had I have no felt need for assistance in this matter. I am certain everyone realizes when they come to this forum that the forum is not interested in having anyone to advocate any tradition. It says at the top: “Pushing one's denominational bias and engaging in debates, such as Calvinism/Arminianism, are strictly forbidden on this Forum”. But I understand how someone can keep edging toward that, and itching to do just that. The chance came when someone mentioned that conversion was gradual. It is apparent that one tradition or another does not agree with that. Instead of producing scripture to show that conversion is not gradual, one may choose instead to suggest that the person was wrong simply because they are in the wrong tradition, with the wrong set of rules of thumb and wrong principles of interpretation. Now, I suppose one might wish they would change that person’s mind, not only about their view of the time it takes to be converted, but about their whole tradition. They were supposed to examine the way they arrived at doctrines in general. And of course, one would recommend one’s own tradition because one thinks it is correct and using the correct way to arrive at doctrines. Someone else might point out that they arrive at their beliefs by considering all of scripture. But one who is eager to promote his tradition might try to suggest that he not use, say, narrative, to derive doctrine, because ones own tradition does not do that. Meanwhile, the person may not have done that at all, no even said they would do that, but one who is anxious to promote one’s tradition that one might have seen an opportunity, an opening. If one is trying to seize an opportunity to promote one’s tradition, it will be very difficult to do that on this forum. It might be said that one should not do that at all, since it is divisive and contrary to scripture, but that one should endeavor to keep the unity in the bond of peace, as saith the Scripture. But the very name one chooses for this forum may tend to do that. Listen, my friend, I think that many of us come to this or any other forum with an agenda. Mine happens to be to promote discussion of practical applications for the knowledge of the word which the participants here so clearly have. I try to convince them that knowledge alone is not enough, that we should be talking about ways to implement the word. More than that, I say we should be more careful to practice what we know, even here. We can practice kindness and peace and unity even as we discuss the scriptures. I have said repeatedly that I understand, because my own agenda has met resistance in light of the stated goal of this forum, to discuss the Scriptures. I think that each of us will have to take stock whether it is worth the pain and the pains to try to get our agenda adopted. I frankly have never understood what the goal is in getting a tradition accepted. I think the actual result is schism and tension in the body. I dare not suggest that a subconscious goal is to make one feel good to know that his point of view is accepted, especially if one is not completely comfortable with it. But the psychologist in me may lead me to say that. I guess that for myself there is no feeling better, because actually practicing the word of God can bring pain. I may well feel guilty for having led a particular someone into that. But I do that, and I believe that the God of peace will be with them (Philippians 4:9). So I am pleased to leave them with him. And it may be time to leave this with you as well. Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things. |
||||||
419 | Women in Ministry | 1 Tim 2:12 | Aixen7z4 | 145880 | ||
Hello: I am very much impressed with your statements and questions. Rather than answering your questions, I would like to ask one of my own. Take it as a rhetorical question, if you will, and ponder it. The church has been on earth for thousands of years. With that in mind, des it not seem strange to you that we are still wrestling with that type of question? As human beings, and Christians, we have been male and female all along. Have we not known how we are to relate to each other? And yet it seems to me we are developing more questions, and creating more confusion, as time goes on. We are less and less sure how to relate to each other. In addition to the two passages you have mentioned, I would like to suggest 1 Corinthians 11. There we are told that even nature teaches us some proper roles for men and women. Our consciences can teach us too (Romans 1). But it is clear that we can know some things and yet refuse to allow that knowledge to guide our actions. More than that, we seem to have the capacity and the freedom not only to defy God, but also to urge others to do the same (Matthew 5:19). It seems to me that the teaching of Scripture is quite clear. But there are some among us who will try to use Scripture to question the idea of women joining in with congregational singing. And there are others who will find a way to justify placing a woman at the head of the local church. My point here is that the world and the church have been here for a long time, and we might have learned by now what the proper roles of men and women are, in the home and in the church. And perhaps, somewhere in our hearts and in our consciences, we do know these things. But we are getting further and further away from them. It is symptomatic of the state of the church, I think, because the role of the woman is not the only truth being questioned, not the only areas where we are straying. Let me encourage you if I may, by letting you know there are still assemblies where these things are not in question. True, in some places they are few and hard to find, but they are still with us. As in times past, God suffers all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he does not leave himself without witness. He still does good, and gives us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness (Acts 14). Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant that is faithful to God‘s word. I think it is not proper or allowable for us to recommend churches on this forum. But if you are led to write to me personally and tell me where you live, I may be able to direct you to an assembly that follows the word of God on this issue. Let me also suggest that it is context and not culture that helps us to know the meaning of Scripture. You seem to know your Bible well, and if you will ponder all of the passages you have referenced here, I do believe the meaning will be clear. You and your husband have questions, not because the passages are difficult, but because you are quite aware of what the churches are doing, and you would like to think they may be correct. But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith. But I am wondering why you ask the questions. Is it of academic interest only, or are you reconsidering your present role, or considering some other role for yourself. Your questions suggest you know a lot, and I’d encourage you to practice what you know. Consider what I say; and the Lord give you understanding in all things. |
||||||
420 | Church discipline? | 1 Tim 5:22 | Aixen7z4 | 152534 | ||
We must operate in the role God has assigned to us. The directive to “reprove, rebuke, exhort“, is given to an evangelist, in this case, Timothy (2 Timothy 4). It is he who was told to “lay hands suddenly on no man”, that is, to take the time to test someone’s qualifications and performance before appointing him to a position in the church. It was he, and, by implication, anyone else in a similar position, who must “rebuke them that sin, before all, that others also may fear” (1 Timothy 5) and so on. But there is also action that any individual Christian can take. For example, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted” (Galatians 6). “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death” (1 John 5). If anyone does err from the truth, and you convert him; you should know that he that converts the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins (James 5). There are times when individual action leads to official church action. For example, if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear youe, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church (Matthew 18). It is relatively easy to discharge our own individual responsibility. Although it makes our individual job easier when someone does go with us, it can be difficult to get someone else to go with us. We would have done our part when we have brought the matter to the church, or to people holding responsible positions there. But what if they do not take action? We can entreat them (1 Peter 5). We can bring it to the Chief Shepherd, the head of the whole church, in prayer (1 John 5). There are some questions we can ask ourselves, and the answers may serve to guide our actions. Are we concerned for the individual, that they get the help they need to see their sin and to be restored, as in Galatians 6? Are we concerned for the local church, its reputation and effectiveness, as in 2 Corinthians 11? Are we concerned for the others in the church, how sin unchallenged can affect them, as in 1 Corinthians 5? Is it the name of Christ and the Christian message in general that we see in jeopardy of disrepute, as in 2 Peter 2? As far as church discipline is concerned, there are definite scriptural guidelines to be followed. But we are living in a day of difficulty and declension. An individual church is often not structured in such a way that the word of God can be followed. The fact is that many churches do not seem to be operating in light of the word of God. When a matter of sin arises, it is often not possible to know how it will be dealt with, or whether it will be ignored. If we are concerned for the individual, and for the effect of their sin on the general testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, then we may act as an individual and confront the situation. It seems advisable that we approach the person with a clear desire to help and not to condemn. We can be as careful and as prayerful as can be, yet we are not assured of the desired response. The little word “If” (as in Matthew 18:15b) makes such a difference. When we are witnessing to an unbeliever, and when we confront a sinning brother or sister, we can only give the word of God and trust the Holy Spirit to use it to convert them. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [25] >> |