Results 1 - 14 of 14
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: winstonchurchill Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Quench the Spirit until extinguish? | Gal 5:17 | winstonchurchill | 116393 | ||
CurtMan, Adam Clarke was a famous preacher and commentator of the Wesleyan movement and is thus generally of the Arminian (non-determinist) position. Because his commentaries are in the public domain, they are available in many CD-ROM collections. They are also available on-line at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke.htm. As to your questions on his views on Romans 8, you will find his comments on Romans 8 at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerom8.htm. By way of full disclosure, I (in accord with New Creature) agree with Clarke and disagree with the determinist position. That is my unsolicited, one and one-half cents worth. Winston Churchill |
||||||
2 | how did we get the bible? | NT general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 116241 | ||
The various books of the (New Testament) Bible were written beginning about 20-30 years after the resurrection of Christ and were widely circulated in the ensuing years of the 1st and 2nd century. Gradually, a consensus formed as to which of the many available books were truly inspired by God (we know call them 'canonical'), culminating in the preparation of largely coterminous versions of the New Testament as early as the middle of the second century. Our earliest copies of the complete New Testament date from the mid-4th century, although we have many partial copies from earlier period. The Bible was difficult and voluminous to copy in ancient methods and it remained for the invention of the printing press to fully turn the power of the Scriptures loose upon the world. |
||||||
3 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 82094 | ||
Graceful, Thanks for your lengthy post. Much of what you cite appears to be the traditional teaching of the Biblical doctrine of sanctification, i.e. the impact of God's relationship with us through Christ in our daily lives. Now, we should recognize that our Calvinist brethren have a much different (and more truncated) view of sanctification and see the benefits of salvation primarily as a change of legal status before God. Naturally, they will have great problems with teaching which discuss or encourage a sanctifying effect upon us here. Having said that, I have great concern for the 'prosperity' concepts which I have heard discussed (although it is unclear to me how much of this Copeland supports). Material prosperity is no more a sign of a sanctified believer than is good physical health. The Gospel is not an insurance policy against adversity in this life. |
||||||
4 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 81966 | ||
I certainly agree with your caution about accepting 'mission statements' at face value. However, as one who (admittedly) knows relatively little about Copeland's 'theology', I find the criticisms offered here confusing. Most of them would be persausive only to those already convinced. What specific unscriptual practice does the Copeland 'theology' support or encourage? Do the proponents agree that his theology does so support or encourage the cited practice? |
||||||
5 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | winstonchurchill | 81963 | ||
I find this discussion fascinating. Some of the posters try to make light of the differences as 'much ado about nothing'. Others try to stress that the earlier church folk 'got it right' and only later types messed it up. Still others try the syncretistic approach: 'a plague on all your houses' or 'let's find the golden mean.' A couple of thoughts. The early (1st century) church never intended to set up an organization (too bad, RCC) because they didn't think they would be here long enough to worry about it. Moreover, 'doctrines' weren't important because those who were valued were (quite logically) those who personally knew Jesus and could relate first-hand knowledge. However, by the second century, fissures had sprung open. I think there were two reasons: Christ's return (or at least the physical kingdom most expected) hadn't happened and the number of those who remembered Christ's earthly preaching rapidly descended (by natural forces) to zero. Moreover, as the new 'church' waited (somewhat impatiently) for its returning Lord, it had to contend to various historical and philosophical fads and trends of the time. Much as in our time, the effective question was "what would Jesus say about [thus and so]?" This necessarily involved some enlightened speculation. The basic question, (again, as in our time) was how much of the then-current intellectual climate should the 'church' stand against and how much should it attempt to harmonize and 'co-opt' for the Gospel. Almost all of the 'distinctions' which we carry forward have their basis in the history of ideas and the interplay of the Gospel for and against those ideas. For example, Augustine (and later Calvin) took substantial steps (for good or ill depending on your view) to harmonize the Gospel with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. This gave (and to those who follow this view still gives) the 're-formed' Gospel a great deal of solid intellectual appeal. It created an almost air-tight intellectual jugernaut with -- by the way -- some wondrous 'side-effects' (i.e. the Protestant work ethic) for which all of us should be appreciative. However, some immediately saw (and others over time) that some of the 'bad' side effects were a descent to 'legalism' and coldness of spirit. So, Mr. Wesley (and others) reacted back toward an experiential emphasis and an emphasis on the uiversal and impartial application of grace which set up the debate which this thread continues. As some have mentioned here, there are almost as many variations as there are people to hold them. But the basic dilemma is an important one in the history of ideas -- and, more importantly, in the history of the Gospel. It is not meaningless and it is not merely an historical anecdote. One way or another -- often unknowingly -- every Christian has to resolve those issues for himself. I am thankful every day for the Calvinist reformers AND for the Arminian 'enthusiasts'. They have enriched our understanding of the Gospel of Christ. |
||||||
6 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 81892 | ||
I have read a little on 'theonomy' and it seems to be that oxymoronic idea of an 'optimistic Calvinist'. They have kept the legalistic approach of Calvinism, but carried it to new degrees (think 17th century Geneva) and added kind of an optimistic 'Christianity will triumph in this world' form of post-millenialism. The 'latter rain' folks I am not familiar with, but they sound like another form of accretionists, i.e. their favored 'pope' or 'prophet' can add to the special revelation of the Bible. This always seems to have appeal to people. But Paul told us that should not surprise us: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires." |
||||||
7 | How do you answer the criticisms? | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 81888 | ||
Inmyheart, I have reviewed carefully your post and the website which Radioman suggests. I, frankly, had never paid any attention at all to Copeland. I had surfed past his many programs, but, as with most TV preachers, ignored them as (presumably) aiming mostly at more contributions to, in turn, remain on the air. So, I was intrigued to find someone who really subscribed to his views. Some of the criticisms of Radioman's suggested website seemed weak (i.e. appeals to 'tradition' and 'systematic theology'), but a couple of the criticisms seemed quite serious. I would be interested in your response to these: "Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. "Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even to be led by good sense" (emphasis in original).93 Copeland's statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the "ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was not led by logic. He was not led by the mind."94 Isaiah 1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us reason together." Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge (information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one communication with God). His neglect in this area is made embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words (e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they appear." Do you (as an apparent supporter of Copeland) agree or disagree with these points? By the way, your summary of Copeland's intentions are not dispositive. Many are well-intentioned. I think it would be better to focus on whether Copeland (i) rejects reason (ii) rejects contextual interpretation of Biblical passages and (iii) believes in 'revelation knowledge'. This latter point (if true) strikes me as rather Mormon-like or RCC-like, seeming to offer an accretionary view of special revelation as opposed to the completed special revelation of the Bible as constituted. How do you respond to that? |
||||||
8 | Important about Ezekiel 31 chapter | Ezek 31:6 | winstonchurchill | 81815 | ||
I definitely agree with Tim. There is a great danger in trying to read a clearly allegorical statement in a very literal fashion ("... it doesn't say 'like'..."). As opposed to a simile, an allegory never says "like", but it is clearly not intended to be literal. How do we know that Ezekiel is being allegorical here? First a nation (Assyria) is said to be a tree ("Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon"). Now, we know it was not physically a tree, therefore we know that the author intended to convey that it was "like" a tree. Similarly, when the author says that Assyria was "higher" than all the others ("... its height was loftier than all the trees of the field...")we know he is not referring to topography. He is carrying on his allegorical description (i.e. it is 'like' a tree which is loftier than all the others). So, when the author brings forth another allegorical comparison ("all the trees of Eden, which were in the garden of God, were jealous of it"), we have no evidentiary basis to abandon the allegory and immediately begin to take it as a didactic or declarative statement. How do we know that he intnded this particular statement allegorically? Because trees are never jealous of one another -- only humans or human institutions (i.e. states) are jealous. Much of the embarassing misinterpretation of the Bible which occurs today comes from failing to respect the context of the Word God has given us. |
||||||
9 | Who is the god of fortresses | Daniel | winstonchurchill | 81812 | ||
How you interpret Dan 11:38 probably depends on how you interpret all of Daniel and Revelation. The Reformers (really all Protestants -- both Calvinist and Arminian -- until the advent of dispensationalism in the late 1800's) routinely saw the worship of the "mauzzim" (or 'gods protectors') in 11:38 as referring to the adoption by the Roman church in the 4th to 8th centuries of the worship of saints and angels as guardians and protectors in lieu of the worship of the True God and only Mediator, Jesus Christ. Since I am not a dispensationalist, I have no idea how they would interpret 11:38, but I am sure that depends on the dispensationalist scheme to which one subscribes. |
||||||
10 | Who did Isaiah see in John 12:41 | John 12:41 | winstonchurchill | 81811 | ||
Yes, Tim is correct. This is one of the dangers of a 'dynamic equivalence' translation such as the NIV. In such a translation, the translator is seeking to write a thought which conveys the thought which the translator received from the text. He is NOT seeking to translate the words of the original text. However, as Tim suggests, the enthusiasm of the NIV translator is relatively harmless here. The verse is clearly the editorial comment of John upon the prophecy of Isaiah. When John says that Isaiah "said [these things] because he [Isaiah] saw His [Christ's] glory, and he [Isaiah] spoke of Him [Christ]." There is little doubt from the context of John's account that that is exactly what John meant. Now, it is clear that John was not present when Isaiah uttered his quoted prophecy and it is equally clear that John never interrogated Isaiah as to his [Isaiah's] intent. So, you can believe that John either (i) made this up or (ii) was writing what God had inspired him to say. For lots of reasons beyond the scope of your question, I think the latter is true. |
||||||
11 | Proof of Christ | Bible general Archive 1 | winstonchurchill | 81809 | ||
Yes, I agree with Hank and would add this. Josephus said this, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 ยง63 Moreover, the recent discovery of the ossuary of His brother James is exciting. The ossuary (i.e. bone box) is inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." While James, Joseph and Jesus were common names of the era, it is estimated statistically that there were only perhaps twenty families with this combination in Jerusalem in the first century. Moreover, while it was common to inscribe an ossuary "A, son of B", it was uncommon to mention any other family member unless he was very noteworthy. In this case, of course, He was. He was, indeed, the Son of God. |
||||||
12 | 2Cor6 | Eph 6:4 | winstonchurchill | 81703 | ||
While I am one who believes that we as Christians retain our free will to renounce our commitment to Christ (which I take to be the premise of the first phrase of your question), I do not think this passage is addressing that teaching. The word which the NASB translates as "in vain" here is "kenos". The NASB translates it in 10 of 18 occurrences as "in vain" but also as "empty", "empty-handed", "foolish" and "futile". I think the clear thrust is useless or ineffective. But is Paul speaking of rendering the grace of God useless or ineffective as to one's salvation or in the living of our lives? Context to the rescue -- again. While the Greek does not provide our sentence punctuation (and therefore different translations punctuate the sentences differently), the NASB wisely (in my view) treats 6:1-10 as a single sentence! Thus, we have to read all the way to verse 9 to see the subject and verb ("we live"). So, verse 1 is a lead-in to a lengthy adverbial (descriptive) clause describing the circumstances in which we should apply the grace of God and make it 'useful'. I think we could profitably make our own lists. For me, I might add, "in traffic jams, in lines at airports, etc". I think the context of verse 1 shows Paul to be cautioning us not to render the grace of God 'useless' or 'ineffective' in our daily lives as Christians. |
||||||
13 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | winstonchurchill | 81696 | ||
While there are many fine Christians who believe in the concept of 'once saved, always saved', 'eternal security' or 'perserverance of the saints' (as Calvin initially phrased it), whether one accepts that view has more to do with whether one accepts the deterministic world view that Augustine and Calvin brought to the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures themselves. From your passing comments, I suspect that you and I would disagree on whether the Scriptures really teach a deterministic world view, but I think that issue misses the very interesting question you raise on the use and interpretation of parables. Prior to the last century, there was a strong tendency among Christian writers and thinkers to 'spiritualize' parables and assign detailed 'meanings' to every detail of a parable. Wonderful sermons were given in this manner, with the preacher supplying detailed explanations of the 'deeper meaning' of each detail of a parable. However, I believe that most Bible teachers and expositors addressing hermeneutics (i.e. the study of the methodological principles of interpretation) now agree that parables were intended by Christ to have a single point or, at most, a single thrust for each participant in the parable (although this latter view has somewhat less support). So, the better question is not whether a parable can teach a 'doctrine', but whether the asserted teaching of the parable (however categorized) is the central thrust of the parable or some spiritualization of a detail of the parable. The latter is an unreliable use of Scripture whether directed at a 'doctrine' or some other category of teaching. I think yours was a wonderful question because so many people tend to 'digitize' Scripture and ignore both the literary and historical context. By asking the question you raise that issue. |
||||||
14 | Is this verse referring to Christians | Luke 12:47 | winstonchurchill | 81641 | ||
The context would indicate that it is. Note Peter's question that prompts the answer: "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?" |
||||||