Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: NazMan Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | NazMan | 23690 | ||
Then I may as well add mine, lol. Most Christians outside the holiness denominations see sanctification as a process; it "happens" as you "grow" in your faith. Many seem to think that this process is a given, that it is automatic subsequent to conversion/justification. The holiness folk, I believe in reaction to this, concentrate on the experience of entire sanctification, that in an instantaneous second work of grace, at which time the believer is entirely consecrated and cleansed, baptized by the Spirit. I believe both are right to an extent, and I think Wesley would agree. Sanctification is a process that begins in an instant. It does not just happen that you grow or become more holy, it takes intentional cooperation with the Spirit working in you and through you. (I am not talking about working for salvation, by the way, this is subsequent to justification). Therefore, the nature of this process is such that it begins in an instant, through an experience. I liken it to the step of faith one takes when first giving one's life to Christ. One accepts by faith God's gift of salvation and eternal life, just as one accepts by faith God's gift of sanctification, consecrating oneself and placing one's body on the altar as a living sacrifice. I believe this view is more accurate biblically, and also matches the experience of most believers, whatever their theological tradition. I have not read the book you mentioned above. One you might consider though is InterVarsity's "Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification" (Donald Alexander, ed.) |
||||||
2 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | NazMan | 23585 | ||
This is the truest statement you made: "The bad news was that I am not convinced that even the Nazarenes are entirely sure what they mean by "Entire Sanctification."" I am a seminary student, and a member of the church of the Nazarene. As I began delving into the issue, I also became a bit frustrated that every Naz pastor seemed to define it in a different way. Brent above really nails it though. The most common misunderstandings are that entire sanctification means sinless perfection, which it does not, and that the experience of entire sanctification negates sanctification as a process, which also it does not. I have come to term it more in my mind as entire consecration, and rely on Romans 8 and 12:1-2, not as proof texts per se, but as my encouragement. |
||||||
3 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 23557 | ||
"You have omitted the text and are trying to understand with only a portion of the Word, which is exactly what the serpent wants and how he beguiled Adam and Eve in the garden." Firstly, I do not appreciate being equated with the serpent/satan. In Gen. 3:1, why would the serpent be compared to the beasts of the field if it was not a beast of the field? I believe this verse equates the serpent to a beast of the field. It would be ludicrous to equate a angel/demon/satan to an animal. I understand your point of scripture interpreting scripture and I agree. But I believe we begin our interpretation of any passage in its immediate context, then move to other scripture. What I meant by outside text (which was probably a poor choice of words) is that the first readers of Genesis did not have the whole Bible as we do. I am asking the question, how did Moses and his readers/hearers understand this piece of scripture? As for the serpent's knowledge, I just do not see that knowledge as supernatural. The serpent distorted to God's words and added to what God had told Adam. I will concede that point as a matter of interpretation. You asked, "The Bible does say the serpent was the devil and I am not sure I understand the point you are making?" -- The point I am making is this: Yes the Bible says the Serpent is Satan, but it does not say it specifically in Genesis 3, not because it is trying to fool us, but so that we understand man's sin/our sin as our responsibility and guilt, and not try to shift blame as Adam did. I do not deny that the serpent is satan. I think it is significant that the serpent is not specifically named as satan in Gen. 3. |
||||||
4 | Should we redefine terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | NazMan | 22925 | ||
Redefine? How about define in the first place? Many folks just don't talk good english. When a conversation or debate seems to go sideways, define terms at the outset. Many just do not know the meaning of what they are saying, and many play semantic games to control the argument. |
||||||
5 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 22524 | ||
You asked: "Have we not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge(Eze 28:12), and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order?" - No, because it is deliberately described as a beast of the field You said: "possessing superior and supernatural knowledge" - what knowledge are you referring to? The serpent simply repeated and distorted what God had said. I don't disagree with your conclusions, but one word can not bear the weight of an entire theological construct. The fact remains that the serpent is described as a beast of the field. Allow the text in question, Gen 2-3 to speak for itself before using other scripture to add to its interpretation. We know from the N.T. that the serpent is satan, the deceiver. But in the context of Gen 2-3, the serpent is in the garden, even if its a shining one; only by using outside texts can you even associate the shining one with satan. Satan is not mentioned specifically in Genesis 2-3. |
||||||
6 | An Animal Spoke to Eve | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 22384 | ||
The fact that she was not surprised likely means this was not their first conversation. The word for "crafty" is interesting. It can also mean that it was the most intelligent. "Crafty" is such a sinister word in english; its translation here is definetly influenced by theology. We do not know what the serpent looked like before its radical transformation after the curse. It was the garden of Eden - why shouldn't it be able to speak? |
||||||
7 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 22382 | ||
Do you glean something? Absolutely! The N.T. describes the serpent as Satan, the devil. Most Christians thus read this as the devil appearing in the form of a serpent to mess with Adam and Eve. However, we must remember that when this was written, them folks didn't have the N.T. The serpent is quite deliberately described here as one of the beasts of the field, which brings to mind Genesis 2:19 - the beasts were formed by God and placed in the garden, and man was placed in authority over them (he named them). The serpent was just one of these creatures, under man's authority. Here's the point: Nowhere in this text is the serpent in any way associated to or equated with the devil. There is no invasion of evil into the garden. Thus, sin is solely the responsibility of man, both Adam and Eve. The devil did not make him do it. I am not saying that the N.T. is wrong in identifying the serpent as Satan. I am saying that there is a reason that the author of Genesis 2 and 3 went out of his way to describe this serpent as just another animal. The reason, sin and the subsequent curse resulted in man's conscious choice, and the responsibility for evil lies only with him/us. This flies in the face of much modern Christianity, where all sin is an attack of Satan and his demons, the solution to which is rebuking them Jeeezus naame. And if it wasn't for those rascally demons, we wouldn't sin at all. No mention of repentence. Not to belabor the issue, but we do not need any help to sin. What we need is Jesus. |
||||||
8 | The point of the Matthias story | Acts 1:26 | NazMan | 22381 | ||
I have seen, heard, and/or been involved in a number of conversations on this verse. Its the only place in the N.T. where lots are cast to make a decision, though the practice was common in the O.T. Many, if not most, of the discussions I have seen on this passage center on whether Matthias should be considered an actual apostle or not, because of the manner in which he was chosen and given that we never read any more of him. I was reading Acts 1 and 2 this morning, and I want to run by y'all what I came up with. The reason this event is placed here is to illustrate (rather dramatically) the difference between the Testaments. Acts 1: Jesus' followers are waiting obediently in prayer, and the chapter ends with Matthias chosen by O.T. methods. Acts 2: From the first two verses onward, the Holy Spirit descends on Peter and company. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit residing in the hearts of every believer that differentiates us from all all those who came before, from Genesis through Acts 1. I think it is between Acts 1 and 2 that is the true division between the O.T. and the New. Even the gospels could be attached to the O.T. Jesus came in the manner of an O.T. prophet. Being the God-in-flesh Messiah, he was like a prophet on steroids, but he shared much in that tradition. Also, Jesus did not come to "change" everything; he was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. The description of Jesus being filled with the Spirit mirrors that of David and other Judges and prophets as well. But it is the Holy Spirit that changes everything. I haven't completely thought this through yet. I am certainly not advocating reprinting Bibles to begin the N.T. here. Any thoughts on it out there? |
||||||
9 | What fruit did Eve eat from the tree? | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 20373 | ||
and thanks for the welcome!! I just discovered this forum yesterday, and I'm excited to participate. |
||||||
10 | What fruit did Eve eat from the tree? | Gen 3:1 | NazMan | 20372 | ||
I agree, to an extent. There were two trees in the midst of the Garden, the tree of Life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Only the fruit of the latter was forbidden. That it was so named, and its fruit forbidden, bears some theological significance, thus what the fruit was, was at least in some way important. But, Lionstrong, I agree with your bottom line. | ||||||