Results 121 - 140 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | How can we assist our youth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2092 | ||
Any congregation (and any denomination) needs to assess its priorities. I was strongly impressed by a recent newsletter I received from a cross-cultural missionary whose team is looking into their recruitment strategies, since these will limit or extend the kinds of people they will attract and minister to. I believe it's important for the church as a whole not to target certain groups and leave others out. Although it's natural to build larger programs for groups with wider representation within the congregation (responding to present needs), this can neglect the importance of outreach, proclamation and disciptleship of those whom God brings to us. The natural progression of such mere reaction to present needs is an ingrown church that declines after the present generation. |
||||||
122 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 2090 | ||
Thanks for your response, brother. Sorry I didn't respond more quickly. I had decided to get off the list temporarily because I needed to consider my level of intensity and the offenses I might be causing. I decided not to wait a week, after all. I'll probably maintain a similar intensity in my postings (like the one I just posted on Jesus' brothers and sisters), but I'll try to be (somewhat) more careful with my humor. | ||||||
123 | It is a general argument among believers | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2088 | ||
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere. (I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.) Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view. 1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
||||||
124 | Whose bad hermeneutics? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1992 | ||
-- | ||||||
125 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1991 | ||
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB) Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time. Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy. It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV. 1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,... 2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,... 3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,... Thanks for your patience. |
||||||
126 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1977 | ||
Sorry for the further offense, guys. I capitalized your names because they're screen "names", and the question about capitalization was an allusion to the earlier threads where people were disputing when and when not to capitalize. I think I'll just stay off the list for a while, before I offend too many more people. Sorry again, brothers. |
||||||
127 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1976 | ||
Sorry, Charis. There was no rudeness intended. It was just meant as a joke in this case. We had both agreed that it was speculation, and I'd already used the term "fantasy" primarily to refer to my own idea about Adam and Eve having children before the fall who were then adopted by God, so I didn't mean anything demeaning by using that word. I was just jokingly saying that you'd have to let go of it. I'm sure you're aware that even a fantasy should be dropped completely if there is actual contradiction in the Scripture and was just joking with you. I apologize for any indication of belittling or condescension. This was never intended, but I probably should have been more clear. (I guess that's what happens when I try to get away with a short reply.) Sorry, again, brother. |
||||||
128 | Point of No Return | Revelation | Brent Douglass | 1936 | ||
I don't know that there is any basis for a date or time of no return. So far as I know, the blasphemy against the Spirit is explicitly given as the only example in Scripture of a point of no return. Since this is given as the only unpardonable sin, the most logical connection would probably be a point at which a person's (or a people's) arrogant resistance to God's conviction (or absolute embrace of evil) had become so complete that they were no longer open to God's input in any way. This was apparently the condition of the people in Noah's time (Genesis 6:5-8), as well as that of the nations whom the Israelites expelled. God waited 120 years during the time of Noah (Gen 6:3) and 400 years for the Israelites (Gen 15:13-21) to physically destroy the people around them -- until they had apparently reached a level, en masse, of embracing evil and resistance to God's Spirit that moved them beyond the point that even God's grace was willing to reach. |
||||||
129 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1933 | ||
p.s. I agree with your last paragraph. You'll have to get another fantasy, Charis; I think the one about other people being actually created by God is probably ruled out by this verse that InHzSvc quoted (Genesis 3:20). p.p.s. Is my CAPITALIZATION OK? ;-) |
||||||
130 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1929 | ||
Suffice to say I think it's fairly clear in both Biblical examples and in documented church history. Lloyd-Jones saw the baptism of the Holy Spirit as corresponding to a special empowerment for witnessing and not necessarily directly linked with any specific spiritual gifts (although it could be at times). I believe Wesley probably connected it to entry into a state of "entire sanctification" (being completely set apart for God, loving God with all of one's heart, mind, soul and strength) -- which he later recognized to be potentially temporary and needful of restoration. I agree with Lloyd-Jones, and I'm not sure if I agree with Wesley exactly on this right now. I can't say I'm set in stone on it, but I'm pretty confident of it. |
||||||
131 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1927 | ||
Again, it's more accurate to say that many conservative scholars postulate that they are angels. There's nothing particularly dangerous about this in the book of Job, and it's typically such a minor point as to cause no problems. I doubt it's a stand that virtually any conservative scholar would be willing to die for; they just agree on what appears to be the most logical meaning in an unclear reference within the context of Job. The problem comes when some charlatans start traveling around the nation or the world telling sensationalistic tales about holding down women who are being violently raped by invisible demons while they and their cronies are casting the demon out. |
||||||
132 | Nephilim Humans? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1925 | ||
The bad hermeneutic is to take a passage with an obscure meaning, choose a speculative interpretation and then build additional expanded theories upon it. This can hardly be called Biblical interpretation at all. It's more a matter of reverse deduction. Most of us, including myself, have probably done this at one time or another, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or meaningless. The idea for this kind of hermeneutical sequence might flow something along the lines of, "I think this (e.g. demons having sex with women) might be able to happen, and this is the closest thing in the Bible I can find to even vaguely and minimally support its existence; therefore, I'll use this as my verse for it." This is kind of like building a reverse pyramid, with a very narrow base and a wide top. The foundation is completely incapable of holding up anything, yet an expansive building rests upon it. |
||||||
133 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1890 | ||
Were the sons of God angels? This is one theory. However, to take such a vague reference as this and expand it with several layers of (potential, not definite) logic to arrive at a point of declaring that demons can procreate with humans is WAY BEYOND anything indicated in the Scriptures and is very poor hermeneutics. The idea that the "sons of God" here were angels is complete speculation -- as are other theories about the origin of the Nephilim. The most logical speculation, based on the evidence available to us, is that the "sons of God" is simply a reference to powerful lords of great strength and-or cunning who gave themselves that term in order to advance and raise themselves above the people; Nimrod could easily have become one of these later, as well, if it hadn't been for God's intervention at Babel. This would be a corrupting influence and would fit with the context. There are also MANY examples of leaders in more recent history that have declared themselves to have (or have been treated as having) divine ancestry. For example, the Japanese Emperor was considered divine until he officially declared himself otherwise in 1945 -- and only when his military was left with absolutely no other choice. The Antichrist will, likewise, claim divinity. This makes much more sense than starting a slide down a hill (with no real evidence of corresponding parrallels in other written history) leading to sensational (and completely speculative) stories of demons procreating with humans. Another purely speculative idea is that Adam and Eve had other children before the fall, who were then removed from them when their parents sinned. If there had been such children, who didn't fall into sin as their parents had, they could have been adopted by God -- thus "sons of God" -- and the males may have (unsuccessfully) tried to help limit the spread of evil by marrying with the women prior to the flood, then returned to the garden and left to be with God in heaven when the garden was destroyed. This is interesting fantasy but is also completely without any Biblical support and is thus purely speculative with no evidence of anything parrallel in other times. Once again, the most logical speculation, which fits best with other recorded historical experience, is that the "sons of God" were simply very powerful men who took (or were given) that term falsely as a claim or indication of their earthly greatness. |
||||||
134 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1858 | ||
I really like Lloyd-Jones on "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit" -- with a few minor exceptions. (I especially like his quotation of Spurgeon's description of the Baptism of the Spirit -- yes Spurgeon, along with Moody, Edwards and others, believed in this experience-- but that's a separate discussion. The descriptions in the journals of Whitfield and the Wesleys concur with the descriptions that Lloyd-Jones quotes from Edwards and others. The Holy Spirit is sovereign over actual revival, and it is merely a large-scale experience of the Baptism (or pouring out) of the Spirit, which can also happen on an individual basis (including more than once to the same person or group, as evidenced in Acts 4:23-31, when it happened to many of the same people who had experienced it on Pentecost in Acts 2). In this century, we have scheduled "revivals" -- meetings set up according to steps designed to cause such outpouring. However, there are no such designs or manipulations in the Scriptural accounts. Nor were there such machinations in the revivals under the Wesleys and Whitfield, or under Jonathan Edwards or Dwight Moody. The Gospel was simply preached, and the Spirit fell with power. I have no problem with deliberate humbling oneself, commitment to purifying oneself (or one's congregation), asking God for boldness, (etc.) but the experience can not and should never be manipulated, advertised or sought by itself. |
||||||
135 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1857 | ||
I assume that you're still on the list, Whyndell, but are simply tired of responding to this particular thread. I'd like to clarify some things from my previous posting. This can be a maddening topic, since there is so much abuse of this gift in many (if not a vast majority of) situations where it is practiced. (If I were to base this only on various and varied personal observations of worship services, I could even be tempted to say "all" situations, but I hesitate to thus "forbid" their practice, since I feel this would be against Scripture). Nevertheless, if one is convinced that such gifts have ceased, he or she must obviously take such an approach (with fear and trembling, I trust, for reasons that I restate below). I absolutely agree that Paul was not discouraging people from correcting error. He was, however, saying not to forbid speaking in tongues (in the manner in which God ordained that they be practiced, and in no other way). For the record, I agree with your definition of tongues as meaning earthly languages. Every direct reference and example of tongues in Scripture (including 1 Cor 12 and 14, Pentecost, and Peter's preaching to Cornelius and his friends) refers specifically to actual human languages; Paul's reference that there are many languages and none is without meaning (1 Cor 14:10) surely indicates a reference to earthly tongues. It seems unreasonable to assume the mention of "tongues of angels" anything but exaggeration in 1 Corinthians 13:1, unless we are also to consider some to "know all mysteries and all knowledge" and to "have all faith, so as to remove mountains" as well. Clearly Paul is not necessarily advocating these as real possibilities. I assume that your statement, "You do not have the simplest understanding of what tongues were for," refers to the fact that tongues were used as a sign. It is true that one purpose of tongues is as a sign, albeit not a sign leading to belief among unbelievers or the ungifted -- just as prophecy is a sign leading to new belief (1 Cor 14:22-25, full passage needed for context). However, just has prophecy has other purposes than simply acting as a sign (clear and accurate communication from God), so may tongues (perhaps purer worship of God without being filtered through a fleshly mind). If, on the basis of 1 Cor 14:22-25, one says tongues can only be used as a sign and nothing else, he must do the same with prophecy, for they are clearly compared and contrasted in parallel. This is a tiresome subject, and it would take a book to clarify it. I recommend the collection of Lloyd-Jones sermons on this topic, "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit." I'm not in full agreement (including something this posting), but I think he has the best explication I've seen. |
||||||
136 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1849 | ||
I wrote a long response (as usual) but forgot to mark it as a note. When I hit the back button, it was gone. This is the 2nd time today that an entry has disappeared before sending. I'll have to get back to you later. | ||||||
137 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1846 | ||
Either view taken to an extreme conclusion -- hyper-Calvinism or Repetitive-Loss-of-Salvation Holiness (for lack of a better name that I know) -- becomes dangerous. However, I use Calvin and Wesley because they are both orthodox doctrinally (along with denominations that follow their doctrine carefully). Otherwise, they and those denominations following their lead are heretical and dangerous. Even most extreme extensions beyond Calvin and Wesley's original teaching are dealing in the realms of secondary doctrines, and I would not think of calling these affiliated denominations non-Christian -- despite the difficulties and even harm that some of their teachings may produce for some people. Comparison of Calvin and Calvinism to Russell (founder of the Witnesses) and the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, is problematic and potentially antagonistic. I am confidetn that it would be offensive (with good reason) to those who lean toward Calvin's theology rather than Wesley's. The Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) is heretical in its basic understanding of the nature of God -- particularly Jesus Christ, whose worship they remove and whom they equate with Michael the Archangel rather than God the Son. This deals with a basic belief core to any orthodox Christianity and disqualifies them as a Christian Church. Members may or may not be believers that have been misled or confused, but those who developed and promulgated these doctrines were and are false teachers. Any believer within such a church will be greatly hindered (at the very least) by fellowship and receptivity toward such heretical teaching. |
||||||
138 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1845 | ||
I've never read a biography or any doctrinal statements by Finney. I think I may have seen 1 or 2 leaflets by him from Last Days Ministries, and I believe he had something to do with the odd modern definition of "revival" -- but that's about all I know about him. I figure he's in God's hands; I've never heard anyone refer to his teachings as a basis of denominational or congregational doctrine. Calvin and Wesley on the other hand.... | ||||||
139 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1789 | ||
I agree with Charis's choice of 1 Cor 14:39-40 to challenge this. This verse is an excellent admonition to Whyndell and-or anyone who would seek would seek to say authoritatively that tongues or prophecy CAN NOT exist today. This is basically equivalent to forbidding them, and directly violates Paul's command, unless there is a direct statement ending and condeming them in a later Scripture (which there isn't). It is probably safe to say that your (Whyndell's) experience with tongues was false and that MANY exercises of tongues are counterfeit -- coming either from the individual deluding himself, psychological manipulation on the part of others, and-or from false spirits. This needs to be taken into consideration whenever tongues or prophecy are practiced, and they need to be properly tested; this is often (usually?) neglected. There are good experiential reasons why many Christians have an initial distrust toward congregations where these gifts are practiced. This does not negate God's sovereign potential to use them if and whenever He so chooses. All of the following arguments come from 1 Cor 14, so I will simply offer the verse numbers (vv.nn) I'd also take issue with your suggestion that tongues are never for individual edification. I think 1 Corinthians 14 clearly states that the individual who speaks in a Holy-Spirit-given-tongue is spiritually edified (vv.2,4,14,17)in his pure worship or thanksgiving and that this is fruitful for his spirit (although not his mind, unless there is interpretation v.14). They are never for showing off, but they apparently edify the individual believer when practiced privately. I agree that they are real languages (vv.10-13), are NOT prophetical (vv.1-4) but rather for God-given prayer and-or worship (vv.13-17) -- with which others can then share and say, "Amen," if they are translated. For the record, I am a member of a church that does not practice these gifts in the assembly (to my knowledge). I believe I am somewhat objective. |
||||||
140 | Please explain the Trinity. | John 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 1781 | ||
Any illustration is obviously going to have its limitations, and the concept of the Trinity is beyond our ability to completely understand, and I think your illustration is a good attempt at getting at the idea of God appearing in different ways. However, that said, I think it misses the focal point of distinction between the members (or "persons" as is sometimes used) of the Trinity. It can give the indication that there are simply "Manifestations" of a single entity. This still loses the idea of relationship and interaction between Members of the One Godhead. The Son actually sits at "the right hand of... the Father," "received" the Holy Spirit from the Father according to promise, and "poured forth" the Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit is visible among God's people (Acts 2:33). These are not merely manifestations of a Single Member; there is interaction, absolute and complete agreement, and division of roles among the Members of the One Triune God. I believe this is one sense in which man (mankind -- including both male and female) is "created in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). We have mutiple components that exist concurrently but function as a whole. Specifically, we have at least body, soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12; 1 Cor 15:49-53). (As a sidenote of limited value, some may add the mind and-or the heart, but a hidden separation of soul and spirit is clear from Hebrews 4:12 and the need for the body to be changed is clear from 1 Cor 15:49-53; the mind and heart may be additional parts of this joint oneness or simply a "place" or "way" for them to join.) The Spirit can commune with God (Galatians 4:6). When God breathed into man (gave us our spirit, considering breath or wind to mean spirit), man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). We know that our fleshly bodies die; yet this is not permanent. As with the dead saints whose decomposed bodies were changed and restored at the time of Christ's resurrection (Mt 27:52), so will my (and-or your) body be changed at the time of Christ's return (1 Cor 15:49-53), and my new spiritual body will, once again, unite with my soul and spirit in my ongoing worship before the throne of God in my-our completed form. (Obviously this illustration is limited as well. For one, when I am finally complete before God, the Son will be seated at the right hand of the Father, and I will have only one physical prescence -- never being God. Nevertheless, I think it more accurately sets a tone for the interaction of separate members of one whole. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |