Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: 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 | 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. |
||||||
3 | 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? |
||||||
4 | 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. |
||||||
5 | 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. |
||||||
6 | 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. |
||||||