Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions 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 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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? | ||||||