Results 1 - 20 of 44
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191841 | ||
Hi Speaking as a neutral may I say that I do not agree that Doc has assailed your character or used invective. I think if you look back and see how many times you have mentioned Boyle in your postings you might be surprised. I think that what Doc is trying to say is that the purpose of the forum is not in order to promote Boyle's theology but in order to expound the Scriptures. I have no doubt that that was not your intention but that is how it has turned out. May I lovingly suggest that if you have a point to make from Scripture please do so. But we are really not interested in Boyle's Law. :-))) In Him . |
||||||
2 | What does "saw" mean? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191756 | ||
I am not convinced that ayth before a noun means that it refers to a corporeal being. There is no hint of it in any of my ancient Hebrew lexicons or ancient Hebrew grammars. In ancient Hebrew ayth simply points to a definite object, whether corporeal or not. Perhaps you could cite your authority for the statement that it always refers to a corporeal Being from a RECENT authoritative and recognised scholarly source. I would be very interested to know of it. (I am not talking about modern Hebrew usage which is irrelevant for ancient Hebrew) 'Seeing God' can cover a number of situations Abraham saw, ate and chatted with God in Genesis 18. Jacob actually wrestled with God in person (Gen 32). In both cases God had taken to Himself a human body. In neither case is there any reason for suggesting that it was with the Son of God. There is no reason to think that before He became man the Son was in any way more viewable or approachable than the Father. It is purely supposition on our part. Moses saw God in a burning bush. The Israelites saw God in the pillar of fire at nights. The whole people saw God when 'the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyse of the children of Israel' (Exodus 24.17). But note references to the cloud. Some saw God as the Angel of the LORD (Gen 16; 21; etc). The Angel of the LORD is a manifesation of the LORD. We are not told anything else. Why should He necessarily be the Son? (It is not strictly correct to speak of 'Jesus - Joshua' before the incarnation. 'Jesus' was 'God made man'). Thus 'seeing' the God of Israel was not something new. And in my Bible there is no mention of a corporeal form, any more than there was in the vision of Isaiah 6. The reference to 'under His feet as it were --' may simply indicate 'below whatever they did see of Him'. There are no grounds for necessarily taking literally references to God's arms, hands or feet. They are regularly metaphors. He may have taken on a human form but it does not say so. They may simply have seen 'the appearance of fire' But what none of them had apparently seen was 'His glory' (Exodus 33.18). That was always veiled, either by a human form or by a cloud and smoke, or by some other means (God reveals as much of Himself as He wishes). Clearly we are intended to see that this manifestation to Moses in chapter 33 was like no other. Of course seeing God is never a sin. It is God who chooses whether we see Him or not. It is just that seeing God is so everwhelming that in the fullnes of His glory no human flesh could stand the sight. Dwelling in light which no man can approach to, Whom no man has seen, nor can see' (1 Timothy 6.16). And this applies to both Father and Son in the fullness of their glory. |
||||||
3 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191774 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. |
||||||
4 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191775 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. |
||||||
5 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191776 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with. 2). In order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His incarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban |
||||||
6 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191777 | ||
Sorry about the triplication. I do not know how it happened. I only clicked once :-(( | ||||||
7 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191797 | ||
Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him |
||||||
8 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191798 | ||
Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him |
||||||
9 | Colors - Tabernacle/High Priest | Ex 25:3 | rabban | 191673 | ||
Hi Doc, I understand that you have to keep a careful watch but may I gently suggest that you are exaggerating the situation slightly? :-))) I hardly 'interpreted the majority of symbol'. That white linen represents the imputed righteousness (purity) of the saints we know from Revelation 7.14. In 19.8 it represents the righteousnesses of the saints. We can also compare how the pure angels appeared in white. So I think that that is justification enough to see the white as indicating purity and righteousness. All were fit to enter Heaven. Clearly the white linen therefore 'represented' the priests as 'fitted' to enter the Holy Place. That gold in one way or another represents the divine kingship we know from the fact of the deterioration from gold, through silver to bronze in The Tabernacle. It can hardly be seen as indicating anything else unless we ignore all significance of the symbols. The nearer things came to God the more they contained gold. Especially as the mercy seat, the divine throne as many consider it to be, is of gold. Thus the gold told them that they were approaching God These two interpretations I consider to be cast iron (if gold can be cast iron :-)))) ) I certainly do not see them as speculation. With regard to the two colours I put a question mark after them to indicate that the possible interpretations were speculative. That hardly 'implies authority'. But they were clearly intended to indicate something, even if only glory and beauty. Of course had I gone into greater detail your criticism might have been valid, and as a general warning is justified. But I do not consider that I went outside the bounds of sola Scriptura at all. However thank you for your thought In Him. |
||||||
10 | body piercings and why not | Lev 19:28 | rabban | 191370 | ||
Hi You will note that I was replying to your question as to what Scripture your mother had in mind, and I only referred to the one that applied, 'you shall not make a marking on your body'. There would certainly have been no thought of infections in Moses' mind. It was the marking itself that was wrong because it demonstrated that the person was dedicated to other than God. If we just dismiss something because it only applied 'then' we could use the same argument to disregard the Scriptures as a whole. None of it was written in the 21st century. But the point is that it has a permanent and enduring application because it is based on eternal principles and is the word of God. However the principle argument that we should consider is that of the New Testament Paul said that women should 'adorn themselves in modest clothing, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly raiment, but, which is becoming to women who profess godliness, with good works' (2 Timothy 2.9-10). (He did not say 'but they can adorn themselves with less costly adornments'.) We can compare Isaiah 3.18-23. There we find a long list of things which God criticised. The hearts of these women were in the wrong place. What they wanted to glorify was themselves. The point is what is at the heart of what women (and men) wear. Is it in order to genuinely glorify God?. Or is it to glorify and advertise themselves?. (The same, I would hastily repeat, applies to men). Paul emphasises that we should concentrate on the positive of letting our light so shine before men that they see our good works and glorify our Father who is in Heaven (Matthew 5.16). Peter puts it this way. 'Beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear (the fear of God). Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on striking clothing, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible clothing of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God as of great price' (1 Peter 3.2-4). May I suggest that 'almost every (American) woman has that done' is hardly good grounds for anything. Every woman has also sinned. That is not a good ground for sinning. we must ask, 'what would God have me to do?' However it is not for me to say what women can or can't do (or men either). They may even not take any notice of me (perish the thought) :-))))) What we are seeking to do is study the Scriptures and learn from them. If we inculcate Scriptural attitudes the rest will follow. But what we have to do is ask,'what are they trying to tell me'?. Not, 'now how can I find my way round them?' (I am not in favour of being dowdy. I am not sure that that is glorifying to God, any more than a man is if he is untidy. I have deliberately avoided specific application (or answering your question about pierced ears which might be at peril of my life :-))). For that is a decision that you have to make. I will not be wearing earrings :-))) |
||||||
11 | Why does the child sneeze 7 times? | 2 Kin 4:1 | rabban | 192048 | ||
Certain numbers were often seen by ancient peoples as having a special significance. This was because numeracy in numbers above ten was limited to the more educated. People on the whole had no need for counting in large numbers. The number seven was seen in many civilizations as a number related to the divine. This especially comes out in early Sumerian literature, which is especially interesting as they were the most advanced mathematicians in the ancient world. Even in recent times there have been numerous tribes in the world that could not count beyond three in, for example, South America, Indonesia and Australia. Numbers therefore gained a special significance. Thus three could indicate completeness, five could indicate covenant and seven could indicate divine activity and perfection. Ten could indicate a full set ('you have changed my wages ten times.') It is possible that the writer saw in the 'seven' sneezes an indication that God was at work, but we must not read more into it than that. (Compare the series of seven activities in Revelation). In Him |
||||||
12 | Bible lesson for nosy neighbor | Prov 15:1 | rabban | 191577 | ||
Hi The point behind the story is that if we put up signs declaring that we belong to Christ, if we fail then to live up to them we bring Him into open disrepute. For example should you put in your window, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' you are setting a standard for yourself which you may well be unable to maintain. You are declaring 'this is how I live, and by this I wish to be judged'. I certainly believe that we should all be living in that way. But I would hesitate to display myself continually under such a banner because I am too much aware how often I fall short. By making it the measure by which people judge me I would constantly be bringing myself under its judgment in the eyes of all. And I would at the same time by any failure be bringing Christ into disrepute. From the moment I put up the notice much better things would be expected of me. Your neighbour will indeed then be in the unusually strong position of being able to point out that you are not loving him/her as you love yourself, and are therefore a hypocrite. The likelihood that he will think that it is he who is at fault is minimal. That could then remove any shame that he/she feels about his/her own actions. Indeed he/she might become even more extreme on the grounds that you have declared that you will put up with anything. Of course if you are sure that you can totally live up to that standard then by all means do so. But from that moment on all your neighbours will rightly expect you to be an exemplary neighbour, more than the norm. Thinking back to the illustration I have never known a car driver who drove in such a way that they never caused offence to anyone. I have often driven behind a car driver who had 'Trust in the Lord' in his window, and have realised that with his driving I will certainly need to. Best wishes. |
||||||
13 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191545 | ||
Hi RC You say, " Well here is another thought on this topic. In the Garden animals existed before man being created on the 5th Day. Sin has given us all a termination of life ( Death), then we must re think for just a moment.Now just as Paradise was lost that Day so long ago in the Garden, we also know that paradise will be regained (restored)as well. Now since there is no regeneration in Heaven because there is no male or Female wouldnt it be possible that the animals would indeed be there as well(like the Garden). Joni Erickson Tada said once that , wouldn't it be just like our Heavenly Father to give back those animals that we loved so much in this place. " I have looked for the Book of Tada in my Bible but am unable to find it :-))) I have waited patiently for further replies but as none have come I feel that I must respond, because I do feel it is important because of the impression that it gives.. The only logic in your argument that I can see is that a lady preacher suggested that it would be 'just like God'. But I search the Scriptures to find any such suggestion that it would be and discover that animals are nowhere given such a place. Indeed apart from as sacrifices and offerings or as wild beasts they are largely ignored apart from a very occasional reference. Jesus never even hinted that they entered into the eternal plan. It is true of course that the Scriptures tell us that they must be properly treated. But that is as far as it goes. As has been pointed out we do have the hint in Ecclesiastes 3.21 that the spirit of a man goes to a different place than the spirit of a beast which returns to the dust. It is confirmed more certainly in Ecclesiastes 12.7. We also have the reference concerning the exclusion of dogs from the eternal city (Revelation 22.15). Now I know that it is sentimentally nice in the West to see our animals as having souls and being 'friends', but they actually respond to us by instinct, seeing us as the leader of the pack. That is why the harmless family dog can suddenly kill a baby because it has usurped his place. The view that animals go to Heaven might seem at first to be a harmless belief. But it is in fact a dangerous one. It makes entry into Heaven appear sentimental. It gives people an idea of hope who have no hope. We who believe will live again because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no such promise for our pets, nor for unbelievers. The danger of sentimentality is that it gives quite the wrong impression. Once we have all animals going to Heaven why not all humans? And where do we draw the line. Pet frogs? Pet snakes? Pet beetles? Pet flies? Non-pet flies? (there would be trillions and trillions of them)? They are of the earth, earthy. And of course it leads on to funerals for pets. Now it is one thing for little children to do such a thing because they are copying what they have seen with regard to humans. But for us to suggest it to them and teach it to them is to sow seeds which are misleading. Not everyone who dies goes to Heaven. I know dealing with children and death is ticklish but we must beware of sowing seed which may reap a bitter harvest If the righteous scarcely be saved where and why will all the animals appear? And why are they never described in pictures of Heaven? I do not know what God intends us to enjoy on the new earth. But I see no grounds in Scripture for thinking that it will be our pets from this earth. Are you really going to have the ones alive at His coming raptured? Or are we to leave them to judgment? That is the kind of absurdity that we find ourselves involved in. |
||||||
14 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191553 | ||
Hi RC Thank you for your more detailed explanation. I cannot see how when the animals were made comes into the reckoning. Sin affected the whole creation. That is why it groans. I am pleased that you think dogs means Samaritans. At least you will not take the over-literalist line. (Although I would have thought Gentiles more likely than Samaritans) But I do not believe that Samaritans will all be excluded. It might be intended to be an expression covering all the sinners that are then described. But I actually do think that it is referring to dogs. The packs of dogs that roamed the streets of cities could be a nuisance and a curse (except when they licked your sores). Thus the point is that all that is a nuisance and a curse will be outside the city. I had an idea that the horses might come up. Do you really think that Jesus will come on a horse? Has it not struck you that John is writing in terms of the transport of that day. I do not think he would have spoken of a warhorse today. I must admit that I am not expecting Jesus to come on a horse. Elijah saw horses and chariots. I can't help feeling that if he had been alive today he would have seen tanks and armoured cars manned by angels. However it is not relevant. Heavenly horses would not come from earth. I do not agree with your interpretation of the 100 year old child, but we will leave that at present as it is not relevant. I also agree that the 'heavenly' (new heaven and new earth) state is in mind. But if there are animals there, and it is not just a picture of serenity and security, then there is no reason why they should include our pets. That was hardly in Isaiah's mind. So you want literal animals because it suits your case, but not literal dogs because it suits mine? Hmmmm.:-))) Well that is fine. But as you have heavenly horses, why not heavenly animals? Yes it is God's word. So we have to find out what He is saying and not what we would like Him to say. I would like to be able to prove that pets go to Heaven. It would sometimes be very useful pastorally. The trouble is that I cannot find it in Scripture. I intend to drop this subject now as I hope my position is clear. I do not want this to become a dispute. After all, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. In the end each of us must decide what the Scripure says for ourselves. (That is a good reformation principle :-))) ) In Him |
||||||
15 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191561 | ||
'We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God' (1 Corinthians 2.12). 'He who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged of no man' (2 Corinthians 2.15). 'We have the mind of Christ' (2 Corinthians 2.16). These are but three Scriptures which make clear that through the Holy Spirit we receive God's direct illumination. Who are you going to make the arbiter of truth? A failing church which has distorted God's truth through the centuries? And which part of the church? Are we to look to Apollos? or Paul? or Peter? (1 Corinthians 1.12). Whose interpretation are we to follow? It was because we must look to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our own minds that 1 Corinthians 2 was written. Of course we seek the help of those who understand the Scriptures, (who all to some extent disagree), and learn from them, but each of us is in the end responsible for our own souls, and through the Holy Spirit, are responsible for our own understanding of Scripture. 2 Peter 1.20-21 is talking about the fact that what the prophets spoke was not 'privately interpreted' by them but was given to them by the Holy Spirit with the consequence that we can know it is the truth. We also then receive it through the illumination of the Holy Spirit Who interprets it to our hearts. 2 Timothy 2.15 says precisely that we are to rightly handle the word of truth, not leave someone else to handle it for us. We are in other words with the help of the Holy Spirit to ensure that we take it in context and not give it a meaning other than it has. And then pass it on in the same form. 'Your word (not the church) is a light to my way, and a lamp to my path' (Psalm 119.105). And in the end even the most ardent believer in the authority of the church interprets what he/she is taught in his own mind. It is the way in which we receive understanding. There is no other way. In Him |
||||||
16 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191567 | ||
You have given two references, but you clearly explain them differently from me. So how can they be self explanatory? Thus in your interpretation you are deciding what God's word says :-)))) You really cannot avoid the fact. If you do so you are not being realistic, in which case there is no point in discussing further. 'Study to show yourself approved to God, rightly dividing the word of truth.' If you are righly dividing the word of truth you are making decisions about what the word of God means :-))) Of course we compare Scripture with Scripture. That is the main method we use in deciding what the word of God is saying. But it is in fact WE who compare Scripture with Scripture, and decide which Scriptures to compare. That is the method which, hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit we use, but we still have to decide what God's word is saying. Or do you have a divine commentary which tells you exactly what it means without your having to think or research anything, and which bleeps when you fail to understand it correctly? In Him |
||||||
17 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191575 | ||
I think that the problem lies in what we mean by decide. We are each using a different definition. You are using the term 'to decide' as meaning 'to determine (although even that has two meanings), to fix in stone'. I am using it to mean 'to discern, work out what it means, and come to a decision about.' If it does not matter how we explain God's word, why do we do it? I think it matters very much how we explain God's word. Of course we do not decide what is there, or what words God (and the translators if we use a translation) caused to be written, but we certainly decide what in our view it means. You are very good at citing a text and saying 'its meaning is clear', but I notice that you do not give its meaning. You simply say, 'it's obvious'. In other words you are saying, 'I have interpreted it this way and I am completely right'. If that isn't 'deciding' what is? But if we want to help people we do have to explain the meaning of texts. Robertson in his Word Pictures (and many others) says of 1 Peter 1.20-21, 'It is the prophet’s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.' In other words it is not talking about how WE interpret Scripture at all, but on how the prophets themselves understood it in ordsr to pass it on. Is that what you understand by the verse? If we study, and research and do our best to get it right, we then have to come to a final decision on what it means. So we are deciding what it means. The truth I suspect is that we are simply discussing at cross purposes because we are using words with different meanings. I wish I could be sure that I always decided what God has decided about the meaning of Scripture, but sadly I cannot. While my central doctrine has not changed over fifty years, my understanding of it certainly has. Thus decisions I now make about the meaning of Scripture are very different from those I made fifty years ago. I used to be a premillennialist until I recognised how often I had to twist the meaning of words and passages in order to make them fit in. I became uneasy and then began to see things from a different view. That is why I am an amillennialist. So actually in my youth I was deciding what the Scriptures said in the wrong way, because I was unconsciously manipulating it to fit in with the theories of Dr Scofield. Now I think I am deciding them in the right way, because my decisions are based on taking them to mean what they say. If we are responsible before God for what we teach and what we tell people then we have to come to a decision first as to what we do tell them. You see our argument arises because we are using the idea of making a decision in a different way, It is all an argument over nothing. And I never waste my time arguing over nothing. So I will close the discussion here. We will agree to disagree, although the funny thing is that I do not think that we disagree at all (except about the meaning of 1 Peter 1.20). Best wishes. |
||||||
18 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191592 | ||
Steve. I have actually done nothing of the sort. I suggest you read my answer again and think about it more carefully. If you then have any more questions I suggest you email me. Your question raises issues that I feel would be better dealt with in private. In Him |
||||||
19 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191622 | ||
People must be wondering what all this has to do with where animals go when they expire :-)))). To Steve Humbled By His Grace. You say. Note again your statement/question "Who are you going to make the arbiter of truth? A failing church which has distorted God's truth through the centuries? And which part of the church? Are we to look to Apollos? or Paul? or Peter? (1 Corinthians 1.12)." The latter part of the sentence was following Paul's pattern As he points out in 1 Corinthians 4.6, 'I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written'. I could have said Tom, Dick and Harry. However I preferred a Scriptural pattern. And Paul said, do not look to Peter, Apollos and myself. Look to the Scriptures. My concern is that we also should not go beyond what is written. Paul was, of course, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, and possibly The Testimony of Jesus. I include the New. There is only one arbiter of truth and that is the Scriptures, which of course includes Peter and Paul (but not Apollos) when they were speaking under inspiration. But they did not always speak under inspiration as Galatians 2.11 ff makes clear. In fact the church was a failing church from the beginning. We only have to read Paul's, Peter's, James',and John's letters to recognise this, as well as Revelation 1-3, and indeed the whole of Revelation. Once the Apostles died the church sank into even greater spiritual formalism. We only have to read Clement and Ignatius to recognise this (we tend to read them in terms of Scriptural ideas and can therefore see them as saying more than they actually did). The spiritual power and message of Paul is mainly absent. Where is justification by faith alone in Clement and Ignatius? The only thing (apart from God's power) that enabled the church to survive with any element of truth was because they so rigidly insisted on looking back to Apostolic authority and to the Scriptures. These kept the church alive. In fact to anyone who has studied church history in the first 500 years the miracle is that the church did not collapse under a weight of extravagant teaching. It was only due to the adherence to the Scriptures in spite of it that the church did survive. You mentioned looking to the Spirit guided teachers of the church. But that was precisely the problem that the Corinthians had. They thought that they were looking to the Spirit guided teachers of the church. It was by the word of God that Paul called them back to the truth, and emphasised looking for individual spiritual illumination. |
||||||
20 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191629 | ||
To Hank. (This will be my last post on this subject. I feel it is taking us away from more important things. I am not really an important enough bull to take up so much space). You ask 'Are you saying essentially that each generation of individual Christians are to throw out the corpus of centuries-old teachings, confessions, and creeds (what we call orthodoxy, for want of a better name) and each in his own way proceed to re-invent the theological wheel? If not, what are you driving at? ...... No we need not throw out the wheels but we have contantly to check the tyres. Every church in ever generation would be very wise to examine its teaching and creeds against the Scriptures and throw out what is unscriptural. All churches are unscriptural in some ways. We need constantly to review our teaching in the light of Scripture. That indeed was the basis of the great Protestant confessions. But even they have to be tested by each person in so far as they can in order to ensure that they are Scriptural. After all which one are we to follow? In other words we have to make our decision as to which one we should take to heart as demonstrating the truth. Obviously it helps if we know that great Bible teachers have declared one to be Scriptural. But even they can go wrong. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |