Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: dgregg Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What was the man thinking? | Prov 23:7 | dgregg | 72491 | ||
"For as he thinks in his heart, so is he." I've heard this verse misquoted and taken out of context so many times, I'm confused about its real, intended meaning. Many like to quote it as "What a man thinks in his heart, so is he," as an effort to support the ideal that we can set the path of our life by the way we think - for good or bad. I.e., if you dwell on who you are in Christ, righteous, victorious, etc., you will eventually live that kind of life. It's kind of a mind-over-matter philosophy, I suppose. While it can be shown that thoughts have a huge impact on our lives, I don't know if it is scriptural to say that who we are heavily depends on what we think of ourselves. There are cases in scripture that would indicate that one is not always who they think they are: James 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. 1 Cor 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. Gal 6:3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. If I am using these verses out of context, please let me know. Back to the original verse, what is the man in Proverbs 23:7 thinking? NIV translates that first statement quite differently: "for he is the kind of man who is always thinking about the cost." If that translation is correct, there seems to be no direct application to the positive thinking ideal. Instead it's a statement to further describe the man, which helps to emphasize the thrust of the passage. Then, can we even say that this statement alone has a direct application in our own lives? So my question is three-fold: 1) What is the man thinking? 2) Does it support the mind-over-matter philosophy? (in light of the other said passages) 3) Does this statement have a practical application? If so, what is it? Any helpful exegetical advice would be much appreciated. :) -David |
||||||
2 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69895 | ||
EdB, I assume you didn't mean Hebrews 28. What scripture did you intend to refer to? :) -David |
||||||
3 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69799 | ||
John, I guess that's what I get for stating my position without having the time to to defend it scripturally. I won't have much time in the next few days to devote to this forum, so I can't explain anything in depth right now. I am a college student with finals on the way, so I need to devote my time to studying for that. Thank you for sharing your perspective and pointing me to some very intriguing scriptures. I will hopefully study them out in greater detail later. -David |
||||||
4 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69797 | ||
Hank, Sorry for misinterpreting your motives. I appreciate the time you've taken to bring outside commentary into the forum; I have learned a lot from your posts. I believe that you and Joe (in post #69767) have brought forth strong evidence to support the idea that sanctification by association does exist. As I recall, the Old Testament is filled with examples of entire cities and nations that were blessed because of the presence of a certain godly person. I have no reason to doubt you that it can and does happen. But, nowhere in the context of the Hebrews 10:29 passage do I find evidence that this kind of sactification IS what the Hebrews writer is talking about. When describing "sanctification" a few verses earlier, he gives it these qualities: -forgiveness (10:17-18) -perfection (10:14) -confidence before God (10:19-20) He does mention that some had forsaken the fellowship of the believers, but that is not the thrust of his message. It is a subordinate point to his message in verse 24 that we as Christians need to support one another. Having said all this, there are probably things that I have overlooked. If so, feel free to point them out to me. I just don't see any evidence that the Hebrew writer intended in 10:29 to mean a different kind of sanctification than the kind he had talked about a few verses earlier. -David |
||||||
5 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69706 | ||
John, Thanks for the humbling perspective. I wish I had more time to respond right now. I may have time later, but for now I'll just address a few major points. I do not have faith in myself for salvation. That would be foolishness. I accept what Christ has paid for me. Jesus has done everything necessary for me to have eternal life; my only role is to repent and believe in His saving work on Calvary. Also, this is not something that can be whimsically chosen, then rejected, then chosen again. At least by my interpretation of Hebrews 6, once a person has accepted it and then willfully rejected it, that person cannot be brought back to repentance again. I believe that such willful rejection is hard to do (Peter, for example, denying Christ 3 times, yet coming back to repentance). In fact, it is next to impossible. So, I DO NOT accept for a moment the idea that one has to become born again again every time he or she sins, mostly because one cannot be born again twice. You can't sin away your salvation - scripture is clear that salvation is not performance based. Your comments clearly stem from a Calvinist point of view (perhaps this is related to the "John Reformed" name?). It seems that you believe strongly in predestination, which is another issue entirely. I don't think I could discuss this any further without opening another debate. Thanks again. I think I nearly agree with you, but not quite. :) -David |
||||||
6 | How do I make sense of the context? | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69705 | ||
Hank, I'm not following your reasoning in your last post. Both of those views seem to refute your position. The second one is merely a statement of what the "non-eternal-security-people" (what is the proper term for us anyway) believe: "because only true believers are sanctified." That's the point. As for the first one, the passage clearly states that it was "the blood of the covenant" that sanctified these people, not necessarily the company they keep. It would require a pretty large stretch of my imagination to conclude that the Hebrews writer is talking about sactification by association here, especially after mentioning that such people had forsaken the fellowship of the believers (v.25) in the first place. Am I completely missing the point? And what is the nature of this sanctification that he's talking about? I've found: -forgiveness (10:17-18) -perfection (10:14) -confidence before God (10:19-20) Hardly a description of an unbeliever. But the context of Hebrews 10:29 puzzles me even further. Heb 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. This verse leads me to two contradicting conclusions. If those who are sanctified are perfected, he cannot be talking about unbelievers, can he? Thus, Hebrews 10:29 implies that a sanctified believer can "trample under foot the Son of God." But, 10:14 also says He has perfected them "for all time," implying that once a person is saved, there's nothing that could be done to reverse it. Also, as has been previously mentioned, 10:39 excludes the writer and his readers from the mix of those who "shrink back to distruction." However, because of 10:38, we cannot assume that the writer means to exclude all believers, stating clearly that if "MY RIGHTEOUS ONE" shrinks back, God has no pleasure in him. Are you sensing my confusion yet? So, in short, how can I make sense of all this? (By the way, I'm not trying to stir up trouble; I'm just trying to objectively hash through this issue by critiquing both sides of the issue and asking tough questions. As you can probably tell, I'm not a Bible scholar. I greatly appreciate all of the responses I've gotten from both sides. I apologize for the sometimes blunt tone; I mean nothing personally and have the utmost respect for my disagreeing forum companions.) God bless, David |
||||||
7 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69610 | ||
Tim Moran, Amen, brother! :) I couldn't agree more. Salvation can't be lost, but it can be rejected. This is very similar to what Andrew Wommack (www.awmi.net) has to say on this issue. Thanks for taking the time to relay your thoughts to me! You've been a tremendous help! |
||||||
8 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69608 | ||
Absolutely. This is why I'm concerned about the meaning of the phrase "the knowledge of the truth." If we know what that means, there should be no question about whether or not Hebrews 10:26 is talking about a saved or unsaved person. You bring up a good point by refering to another, yet related, issue in this debate - whether or not the people who accept and later reject Christ were saved in the first place. As Christians lovingly bash one another in the name of Christ over this issue, I think the point that gets lost is that, whether you believe in eternal security or not, the end result is the same: reject Christ and die, accept Him and live. The only issue, then, is whether or not that person was ever truly born again. |
||||||
9 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69605 | ||
I apologize for my poor wording. I didn't mean to imply anything by my capitalization of the word truth. My concern with Searcher56's post is the possible implication that the Bible itself is a relative book, open to interpretation based on whatever he or she thinks it sould say. I don't agree with this at all, which is why I asked for clarification. I don't want Searcher56 to be misunderstood, especially if that's not what was meant at all. Thanks for giving your interpretation of Titus 1:1-4! I'll take it into consideration. |
||||||
10 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69589 | ||
Thanks for all of your research! According to the scripts used in the Online Greek Bible (www.greekbible.com), the word epignosis is used in every one of these phrases. I'm not sure exactly what this word implies about the meaning of the phrase, but to me it strongly suggests that it means nearly, if not exactly, the same thing in every case. For clarification, I'd like to know what you mean by "each of us must choose what we think these passages mean." I don't want to assume that you're saying that the Truth of the Word is relative! Please expound your statement. Thanks! | ||||||
11 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69587 | ||
Tim Moran, Thanks for your input! I would tend to agree with your response. However, I'm interested in what others have to say in response to this interpretation, because Hebrews 10:26 would thus read (paraphrased - this is not inspired), "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received (salvation), no sacrifice for sins is left..." This passage then takes a bold stance against the idea of eternal security. Any other thoughts on the matter are certainly welcome! |
||||||
12 | I have a related question for anyone... | Acts 8:13 | dgregg | 69560 | ||
I have a related question for anyone who happens to read this. The central issue in the "eternal security" debate seems to be whether or not the kind of belief mentioned in Hebrews 6 and 10, Acts 8:13, and other places is the kind that produces salvation or not. I think we can agree on the basic point that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works, and that this faith is not a mere mental assertion of the truth, but a genuine trust in Christ for salvation. So is this the kind of faith that is mentioned in these and other verses? I think the key to understanding this is found in one phrase that is used in Hebrews 10:26 and all over New Testament scripture: "the knowledge of the truth." This exact phrase is used several times, with little explaination to its meaning. Is it synonymous with "saving faith," or is it refering to a mere mental acceptance? It seems to me that it indicates that the person has repented and become a genuine believer (see 2 Tim. 2:25), but I could be wrong. What is the correct way to interpret this rather ambiguous phrase? | ||||||