Results 61 - 80 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196746 | ||
But with no fruit at all -- except for rejecting and denigrating God's Word -- you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as saved, wise, and smart? Suspending discernment so as not to comply with Matthew 7:1-2 is a violation of verse 20 in the same chapter. (cf Proverbs 17:15) | ||||||
62 | Who is the one holding back? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196789 | ||
Hi, val... That's a dispensational exegesis that is not even shared by all dispensationalists. Furthermore, there are other good and Godly people who interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:6 very differently. I believe we do a superior job of instructing our readers by disclosing to them those passages which afford a basis for dogmatic interpretation, and which passages do not. Eschatological passages tend to be in this latter group. Hermeneutic presuppositions can have a dramatic influence on their exegesis. In Him, Doc |
||||||
63 | Who is the one holding back? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196795 | ||
The passage you quoted, doesn't speak to the one how restrains. The questioner was asking about 2 Thessalonians 2:7. That which restrains (or holds back) is mentioned in the prior verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:6: And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. (NASB) And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time]; it is so that he may be manifested (revealed) in his own [appointed] time. (AMP) And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. (ESV) And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. (KJV) And now, you* know the [thing] restraining, for him to be revealed in his own time. (ALT) |
||||||
64 | 1 thess. 5:23 | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196798 | ||
Hi, Brother John... Scripture uses the word "soul" and "spirit" interchangeably. For example, in John 12:27, our Lord says, "now is my soul troubled." However, in a very similar context, in the next chapter, John tells us that Jesus was "troubled in spirit" (13:21). There are a number of places where it is used in Hebrew Parallelism; e.g., Luke 1:46-47. Dead people are both spoken of as "spirits" (Hebrew 12:23; 1 Peter 3:19) and "souls" (Revelation 6:9; 20:4). At death, Scripture says either that the "soul" departs or the "spirit" departs (cf Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46; Ecclesiastes 12:7; John 19:30; Acts 7:59; etc.). The Bible says that the "soul" can sin or the "spirit" can sin (cf 1 Peter 1:22; Revelation 18:14; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 7:34; etc.). Indeed, everything that the soul is said to do, the spirit is also said to do and vice versa. This includes thinking, feeling, choosing, and worshiping. In Jewish thinking human beings are not bipartite or tripartite creatures. Dividing of the various components is such a difficult thing, that no human can untangle the parts or even find the dividing lines. (Hence the surgical imagery of Hebrews 4:12.) Just as today we'd not be able to find the dividing line between our minds and our bodies. The trichotomy of man was an idea introduced by the Greeks -- Aristotle in particular. (Not that it isn't "true" -- only that it has its origins from extra-Biblical sources.) Later Gnostic thinking liked this idea, as they deemed that pure reason was higher, more noble, and distinct from baser attributes. Even later, Augustine argued that the image of God's triune nature was reflected in a triune nature of man. The Roman Church still holds to this perspective, although with a bit of a Gnostic twist. Even our language reflects some of our opinions regarding the components of a man. The ancient Hebrew thought of the heart the same way the average American thinks of the brain. The modern man does not expect to cut into a brain and find the real person. In the same way, the Hebrew would not have expected to cut into a heart and reveal the real person. Yet both understand that a blob of tissue exists, but both tend to think of it as somehow containing a person's essence. This is a deep and complex subject. It has been discussed by theologians and philosophers for multiple millenia. The Scripture tells us things that we could not have known by introspection. However, it does not entirely settle all of the questions. What we can say definitively, though, is that man is a being who thinks, feels, acts, and communicates. Furthermore, we know that the soul/spirit can be separated from the body in death, but that that is an abnormal state -- one that won't exist when God restores creation, for every soul/spirit will be joined with their resurrected body. Anyway, I'm not arguing. I can't, because I find myself unsettled on the issue -- sometimes persuaded in one direction and other times persuaded in another. Sometimes I simply fall back on my Jewish presuppositions, avoiding the drawing lines altogether! :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
65 | Who is the one holding back? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196808 | ||
Dear Val, Thank you for your exposition of the passage in 2 Thessalonians. It is well done and very interesting. When you wrote, "This is my view, not dogmatic, just a view." That properly qualifies the assertion which you subsequently explained. When you wrote "It is the Holy Spirit in the believers. When the believers all leave the earth there will not be as much godly influence" (in post #196786) it had no qualification and no explanation. Consequently, the latter gave the impression of unequivocal truth. I'm not sure what you mean by "what you and I differ on." I haven't stated my eschatological position in this thread, and I haven't even said I disagreed with your view. You see, I don't really have a position! Mainly that's because I haven't yet found a perfectly clear answer in Scripture, nor have I been fully persuaded by those who insist that they have found one! So I tend to adopt Spurgeon's approach, per the quote below. As to breaking of fellowship: I should certainly hope that a deliberation over one of the hard sayings of Scripture wouldn't do that! My goodness! This is only discussion... not a matter of church discipline! Or was it my use of the word "dogmatic" that troubled you? Please see posts #180437 and #190313. That word is not a bad word, nor is the practice of being dogmatic a bad thing. When the Scripture asserts a thing in no uncertain terms, then we can and must only do the same. As a sister in the Lord, I expect you to be dogmatic on such matters of doctrine. You should expect the same of me. We should never be ashamed of those matters of dogmatics when they are enjoined to us by our Lord. In Him, Doc "You will bear me witness, my friends, that it is exceedingly seldom I ever intrude into the mysteries of the future with regard to the second advent, the millennial reign, or the first and second resurrection. As often as we come across it in our expositions we do not turn aside from the point, but if guilty at all on this point, it is rather in being too silent than saying too much." --Charles Spurgeon |
||||||
66 | Ammonites and Moabites today? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196907 | ||
Hi, Brother John... I think that might be speculative leap regarding God's judgment of Moab and Ammon. We really don't have that stated in Scripture. We even have Biblical instances of God protecting them (Deuteronomy 29:1). On the other hands, we have a lot -- no pun intended -- of other good reasons to know that God was not pleased with these people (Isaiah 16:6-7). Josephus, in his "Antiquities of the Jews" writes, "But his daughters, thinking that all mankind were destroyed, approached to their father, though taking care not to be perceived. This they did, that human kind might not utterly fail: and they bare sons; the son of the elder was named Moab, Which denotes one derived from his father; the younger bare Ammon, which name denotes one derived from a kinsman. The former of whom was the father of the Moabites, which is even still a great nation; the latter was the father of the Ammonites; and both of them are inhabitants of Celesyria." Josephus is reflecting the Rabbinic consensus that their efforts were rooted in fundamentally good intentions. Although they tend to agree that Lot dropped the ball, by allowing his family to become integrated into the culture around them without properly instructing his family. Of course, you have to take all of that with a grain of salt... a kosher one of course. In Him, Doc |
||||||
67 | missing pages? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196958 | ||
See post #129218. | ||||||
68 | difference between the soul and spirit? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196990 | ||
Hi, Irish... Welcome to the forum! The subject of Hebrews 12:4 is the Word itself. In that passage we read of the judicial nature of the Word. It divides, excluding unbelievers who inappropriately call themselves Christians from those who are true believers (Hebrews 4:2). Two other images come to mind: the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:17) and the image of Christ bringing judgment on the nations (Revelation 19:15). The Word as a twoedged sword is an interesting analogy in which its ability to divide what is humanly hidden (v13) and indivisible (v14) is interesting. However, idiomatic structures like this aren't intended to convey doctrine beyond the actual subject of the passage's context. Consequently, you may be right in your explanation of the tripartite nature of man, how those parts are effected in regeneration, and how they change in sanctification. However, if they are correct, they need to be built out on soteriological passages that directly speak to those subjects. In Him, Doc |
||||||
69 | Amp Ver of Matthew 3 reading online | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 197219 | ||
Dear Brother Hank, That's a handy tool! How long does one have to be on the forum before they discover such things? Or is this simply a matter of the hairs of my head being less hoary than your own? :-) Regardless, thank you! In Him, Doc |
||||||
70 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 197720 | ||
Hi, bobby... You're right. Sorry... I should have read your quote more carefully! In Him, Doc |
||||||
71 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 197724 | ||
Hi, bobby... I don't see them suggesting they will change the gender of a pronoun. At the risk of a second misunderstanding, let me see if we can create another example: "Bobby is new to the forum. He has posted a question. His post was answered." They might then do the following: "Bobby is new to the forum. The new forum member posted a question. Bobby's post was answered." Note that the pronouns are replaced first with a title and second with the name. Maybe it isn't a good example, but I think it demonstrates the quote you gave us. This could be done without altering the strict meaning of the text. Indeed, it might make it more clear to the target language readers. As I pointed out in my first reply, how we look at antecedents has changed over the years. Certainly there must be significant differences of just that nature when going from one language to another. Anyway, I think you've got the right sense of their objective in the last sentence of your last post. In Him, Doc |
||||||
72 | Pronouns in NASB? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 197733 | ||
Interesting, Bobby... thank you for the information! | ||||||
73 | salvation | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 198437 | ||
Dear Mr. Keener, The desire you have for a holy life is evidence of the change wrought in your life by the Holy Spirit in redemption. The lost always accommodate themselves to sin. I don't know what is currently manifesting itself as a particularly unchristlike issue in your life. However, any of the free courses at www.settingcaptivesfree.com Will instruct you in what it means to walk in Christ as one of His own. In Him, Doc |
||||||
74 | salvation | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 198627 | ||
Well said, Brother Steve! | ||||||
75 | salvation | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 198705 | ||
Dear Dr. Steeno, You asked, "Is it the words that are valuable, or the thought behind the words that is valuable?" (sic) This is what is called a false dichotomy. Words without thoughts are as useless as thoughts without words. The doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration of the Word emphasizes that each jot and tittle has a Providential purpose. This is why Paul can base an entire theological argument on whether a Hebrew word is plural or not (Galatians 3:16). In Greek, "word" (logos) carries along with it the same thought as the English word "logic," from which it is derived. Only in a more visceral language, like English or Hebrew, can you ask a question like the one you posed without it sounding utterly silly. If words mattered more than thoughts, or vice versa, there would be little value in interacting on a forum like this one. The fundamental presupposition of this forum -- and those who join -- is the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Furthermore, the Word of God is not equivalent to the mind of God. God reveals truth to men in two ways: general revelation (what they see about them) and special revelation (the Word of God comprising the Old and New Testaments as originally penned). God has not revealed everything about Himself or about creation (Deuteronomy 29:29). All of Scripture is true, but not all truth is in Scripture. In Him, Doc |
||||||
76 | salvation | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 198739 | ||
Dear Dr. Steeno, Rebuke is the application of truth. Wise men love rebuke (Proverbs 9:8). Our reaction to rebuke reveals a measure of our humility and love of the truth. In Him, Doc |
||||||
77 | salvation | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 198763 | ||
Ah. | ||||||
78 | how do i convince my wife to follow me | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 198993 | ||
Dear Wisdom, I think you meant "as" instead of "and" in your statement. Nevertheless, it was a very good point! The greatest power to teach or lead is in our lives! I believe it was Francis of Assisi wo said, "Preach the gospel always. Add words if necessary." In Him, Doc |
||||||
79 | God's Zeal? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 199101 | ||
You get an A plus... you gave the right answer and you added further pertinent Scriptures! :-) As a reward, here's a good quote on the topic. :-) "The question I most often hear in response to this is that if God loves Himself pre-eminently, how can He love me at all? How can we say that God is for us and that He desires our happiness if He is primarily for Himself and His own glory? I want to argue that it is precisely because God loves Himself that He loves you. Here's how: "I assume you will agree that your greatest good consists of enjoying the most excellent Being in the universe. That Being, of course, is God. Therefore, the most loving and kind thing that God can do for you is to devote all His energy and effort to elicit from your heart praise of Himself. Why? Because praise is the consummation of enjoyment. All enjoyment tends towards praise and adoration as its appointed end. In this way, God's seeking His own glory and God's seeking your good converge. "Listen again. Your greatest good is in the enjoyment of God. God's greatest glory is in being enjoyed. So, for God to seek His glory in your worship of Him is the most loving thing He can do for you. Only by seeking His glory pre-eminently can God seek your good passionately. "For God to work for your enjoyment of Him (that's his love for you) and for His glory in being enjoyed (that's His love for Himself) are not properly distinct. "So, God comes to you in His Word and says: 'Here I am in all my glory: incomparable, infinite, immeasurable, unsurpassed. See Me! Be satisfied with Me! Enjoy Me! Celebrate who I am! Experience the height and depth and width and breadth of savoring and relishing Me!' "Does that sound like God pursuing His own glory? Yes. "But it also sounds like God loving you and me perfectly and passionately. The only way it is not real love is if there is something for us better than God: something more beautiful than God that He can show us, something more pleasing and satisfying than God with which He can fill our hearts, something more glorious and majestic than God with which we can occupy ourselves for eternity. But there is no such thing! Anywhere! Ever!" --Sam Storm |
||||||
80 | God's Zeal? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 199114 | ||
Amen! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [302] >> |