Results 121 - 140 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2135 | ||
Well said, JHVH0212. I actually think that we are in fairly strong agreement on this topic (which probably seems amazing in and of itself to some), and I see that I (and others whom I got it from) may well have been using the term "baptize" erroneously. Being "baptized with" the Spirit does appear to belong together with "receive" rather than "be filled with" -- as you point out. You ask the question, 'Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past?' I also pointed out the same passage from Acts 1 to "prayon" in our parallel thread, and I agree that there was something missing prior to Pentecost. However, I would argue (contrary to MacArthur and to you) that the most natural reading is that the apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 but still needed the pouring out of the Spirit (or "filling") at Pentecost (and again in Acts 4 and later) for empowerment to effectively proclaim the Gospel. For the record, I am also convinced that tongues are not "the sign" of the filling of the Spirit; this was a view (ab)used in Corinth, and it is still abused today. Most of the examples (of being filled with the Spirit) given in Scripture make no mention of tongues, and many make no mention of any gifts whatsoever. The initial pouring out (or filling) at Pentecost apparently released the expanded availability of the gifts (in a directly observable way), as happened again later when a similar event proved to Jewish Christians (through direct observation) that the same promises and full availability of the Spirit applied to Samaritans and Gentiles as to Jews. This is completely separate from the question of the gifts; there is no necessity of consistently linking them to the filling of the Spirit. Gifts can be exercised without such filling (See Mt 7:22-23, about people who didn't even know Christ at all yet exercised supernatural gifts); likewise such filling often takes place throughout Acts without resulting in the use of any specific gifts. Their concurrence is unusual rather than typical. |
||||||
122 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Acts 2:1 | Brent Douglass | 2109 | ||
'So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ""Receive the Holy Spirit.' John 20:21-22 Did Jesus first give the Holy Spirit here in John 20:22, or over a month later at Pentecost? If not until Pentecost, what exactly did Jesus do when he breathed on his followers after his resurrection and told them to receive his Spirit? If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost? |
||||||
123 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Acts 2:1 | Brent Douglass | 2116 | ||
Thanks, prayon, for a well-thought-out response. In light of these passages, this seems logical. However, in another passage, Acts 1:1-8, Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles when he "commanded them not to leave Jerusalem" (v.4) but wait until "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (v.8) -- which would indicate that the apostles still needed the power that the Holy Spirit would give in order to be effective in spreading the Gospel: "and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (v.8). Clearly their empowerment was not yet complete. Either they hadn't yet received the Spirit, or there was additional empowerment needed for them specifically. |
||||||
124 | Ananias and Sapphira Had No Chance? | Acts 5:9 | Brent Douglass | 10991 | ||
Steve, There are some good questions here. Please don't be put off by the length yet incompletenes of my answer. The 3rd answer is probably the easiest to answer. I'd have to say, "No, it wasn't too severe," because it was God's judgment. His ways are absolutely perfect, with no error. My understanding is flawed, but not His ways. Isaiah 55:8f '"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts."' 1 John 1:5 "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." God knew their hearts. There is no indication in Acts 5 that Peter spoke the death sentence against Ananias at all. He simply stated that which Ananias had conceived and that Ananias had "lied to the Holy Spirit." With Sapphira, it is true that Peter declared what would happen. However, it was not spoken as a command but simply as a statement of what he knew to be true. The other questions are probably more to the point of the questions that I believe Luke (and God as the inspirer) was trying to convey through this, "Why was this sin so heinous, and what does that mean for me?" God clearly despises false deceptions in which we deliberately parade ourselves to be loving, spiritual or Christlike in a way that we are not. Barnabas was set forward as a true example worthy of emulation, and Ananias and Sapphira were set forth as a false example for all of us to fear. There was no obligation to give all of the proceeds, but the couple had clearly struck a bargain (based on Sapphira's interchange with Peter) to present themselves in a false way before the leadership of God's church. It is a reasonable assumption that they were not truly believers at all, but only God knows if they are now in heaven, and physical death is far less horrifying than spiritual death. False believers are in greater eternal danger than admitted unbelievers, for their judgment is greater, being constantly exposed to the truth and convincing others (and sometimes even themselves) of their faith while their souls have really never been reborn. See Matthew 7:13-23 (particularly 21-23) to get a glimpse of how we can deceive even ourselves but not God. God knew the hearts of this couple (including any willingness to repent if they had been given the chance) in a way that we do not, and Peter knew and spoke only what the Holy Spirit had revealed to him in this situation. We can postulate (and even assume with a fair degree of confidence) some of what it was that affected God's sudden punishment of them; while we may not know for sure, it is good for the same kind of fear that fell upon the people of that time to sometimes fall upon us as well.... Acts 5:14ff "And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord.... But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number." |
||||||
125 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40242 | ||
Brother John Reformed, I'd like to respond to your question, but I need to clarify something first. In the posting that I'm responding to, you made the statement, "I ask this question to bring into focus the erroneous doctine of Arminius and his followers." Were you referring to your frequent asking of the question, "What happens to people who never have heard the Gospel (does God have an alternative plan for their salvation)?" to "Bible-believing Christians" in general? OR Were you referring more specifically to your posting of the original question to the forum? -- "Dear Forum, I would like to propose a discussion concerning the Gospel. Is it God's sole means of salvation?" FYI -- I would not place myself as either a follower of Arminius (and all of the "points" of his followers at Dort) or as a full 5-point Calvinist. Based on my reading of the Scriptures, I can not fully agree with either group. |
||||||
126 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40374 | ||
Dear John, Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I'll wait and respond to my difficult with tulips a little later, but let me do my best to answer your question of whether or not the Gospel is the sole means of salvation. I tend to ramble profusely, so I'll take several replies to encapsulate each idea separately and provide separate targets for others. 1) The message of the Gospel is the sole means of salvation in the sense that only by the shed blood of Jesus can anyone enter the presence of God -- anyone from the fall on through the entire human race, since all have sinned. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, all the great cloud of witnesses from Hebrews 11 (and 12:1-3) are in heaven now only because of the sinless life, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus. Believers today also receive salvation only because of this, and this is Good News. Any attempt to remove this stumbling block and place all religions on equal footing mocks Christ and proclaims God a heartless butcher who would needlessly sacrifice His Son simply to add yet another way amongst the others. What an absurd caracature of God that would be! There is no other way to the Father but through the person and work of Christ, and there never was. In this sense, the Gospel is the only means. |
||||||
127 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40390 | ||
My first answer was unequivocal, and it's a hill I would die on. The second is a strong belief, but I find a strong current against it among many of my brothers and sisters. If expanded beyond its intent, it would be dangerous, but I believe it's accurate within its limited framework. 2) With regard to faith, I don't believe it is specifically faith in the Gospel that saves but rather active faith in the True God. Abraham was justified by faith, and both the angels themselves as well as all the prophets of the Old Testament longed to know more than was given them to know. (See 1 Peter 1:3-12) 1 Peter 1:20-21 "For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God." It is necessary that have faith in GOD to be saved, and Peter stresses the importance here in 1 Pe 1:21 that believers in Christ are also, by extension, believers in GOD. This is why faith in Christ saves us. Faith in GOD saved Abraham, and faith in GOD saves us. Faith in the true GOD saved Rahab, who knew very little when still a harlot in Jericho but demonstrated active faith in what she knew about Him. Those who haven't had the opportunity to hear Christ still have the witness of the universe, which testifies to the truth of the Creator; they are responsible for responding in faith. (Romans 1:18-25, which provide the context for vv. 16-17.) Only those who reject God by "suppressing the truth" and "exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God" without repentance will be damned, and this constitutes the vast majority of mankind. The one who worships a false God or some created thing or created being has rejected God -- just as surely as those who came face to face with Christ and rejected Him. I do not thus suggest that a devout Buddhist or a devout Hindu is saved through their devotion. Devotion to a false god is simply not faith in GOD. The one who believes God -- and resultantly trusts and obeys Him -- will recognize the truth of Christ when he or she encounters Christ, just as Christ guaranteed and challenged His listeners in Jn 7:16-17. "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." No one who believes God will knowingly reject Christ when given full opportunity to encounter Him. Jethro, a priest of God, exalted in God's dealing with Israel; and Melchizedek, the king and priest of Salem, likewise met Abraham in Canaan and led Abraham in worship to the true God. Still others who didn't believe in God prior to encountering Christ through our testimony will repent and believe, just as Rahab, Ruth, and the "mixed multitude" who left Egypt with the Israelites repented and believed when faced with the much more limited revelation of God to them in the Old Testament. Those who refuse Christ have once again rejected God and find themselves doubly condemned. (See Matthew 11:20-24.) The greater the revelation, the greater the judgment for those who refuse to repent and believe, and Christ's life and teaching clarifies and resolves so many unclear and difficult questions that were left unanswered without Him. (See Hebrews 10:26-31). |
||||||
128 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 41287 | ||
John, Thank you for your explanation. I'm finding our dialogue helpful in terms of getting to know you and in drawing out my understanding of the Scriptures, and I appreciate your patient input. There are a couple of places that I want to quote and explain where I think we may differ. I will quote you and offer my responses as clearly as possible before explaining further. Thank you again for bearing with me in my wordy responses. It looks like I'll need to break this into 2 responses. Clarification -- Part 1) I think you are correct that we are in agreement as to the beginning portion of your posting. I would use different wording from your quotation below, but I think it's simply a matter of word preference rather than disagreement. Let me know if I'm mistaken on this. "There is not a single person who does not believe that God exists. The problem lies in their suppression of that knowledge. That is the condition of mankind as a result of Adam's fall." I agree that every person has the opportunity to observe the revelation of God's existence; however, I wouldn't classify this as "belief" unless the observations and their obvious conclusion are not completely suppressed. Immediate and consistent suppression of evidence apparently results in a complete absence of even passive faith. (This refusal to face the obvious revealed truth from God -- when coupled with the determined and final rejection of the Spirit's conviction upon a person -- appears to be the one unforgiveable sin, but this is a side idea not immediately necessary to recognize our level of agreement here.) Again, I think this is simply a matter of word usage, and I apologize if I appear to be wrangling over words, but I want to make sure that our identified agreements are accurate. |
||||||
129 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 41288 | ||
Clarification -- Part 2) a) You say, "I would say that those believers in the OT placed their faith In the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." I am in full agreement with this. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the true (triune) God -- so far as He revealed Himself to Abraham. Old Testament believers worshipped the true God. b) You went on to say, "It was faith in what God provided at that time that secured their atonement." I think I would disagree. I believe it was faith in God -- which was naturally reflected through obedience and confident practice of the rituals He prescribed. However, '[I]t is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.' (Hebrews 10:4) Even at that time, the sacrifices were never a means of forgiveness; they were never more than an illustration of that which was coming. 'A broken and contrite heart' were what God truly required (Psalm 51:17) -- both during the time of the regular sacrifices and during the time when Daniel, his 3 friends, and other believers were saved by faith when there was neither temple nor tabernacle. The law and sacrificial system were a consistent reminder to the Jews to be humble before God in agreeing as to their sinfulness before a holy God, their inability to restore themselves, and their need for payment to come from elsewhere -- but with a veiled and vague image that was incomplete. The true nature of how God could forgive and the means that He would use were incomprehensible to them. Yet they believed God could and would forgive because He had told them so -- and His character and attributes had been revealed and demonstrated sufficiently elsewhere to attest to His faithfulness and ability; they trusted that God would provide the means, however inconceivable that means may have been to them. I believe this is also the condition of every believer in (the true) God who has not yet encountered the revelation of Christ. All those from Hebrews 11 can attest to both the saving power of active personal faith in God and to the faithfulness of the God who saves. When such a believer encounters Christ, he or she will continue in belief (which has saved them) and add knowledge based on that additional revelation. Thus they will, like Abraham, 'rejoice to see' the day of Christ (Jn 8:56 -- also Jn 7:16-17), and He will give them His Holy Spirit as a pledge. Still others, who were previously unbelievers, will come into contact with the eyewitness history of Christ and believe in Him. The sinfulness of their hearts will be revealed to them, they will be broken before Christ, and they will believe in Him. The mathematical logic appears complete on this; it seems to me to be simply a matter of timing. Jesus the Christ is the complete human revelation of God, and either way the faith is in God. He who rejects Jesus rejects God and needs to repent. The opposite is also true; he who believes in Jesus believes in God and is saved through faith in God and through the blood of Christ. We can reverse these, and they are still true. He who rejects God also rejects Jesus and needs to repent (John 8:42-47), and He who believes in God also believes in Jesus (John 7:16-17) and is thus saved through faith in God and through the blood of Christ. This is great news, and we need to be telling everyone -- both unbelievers and any possible believers still in the dark about Jesus -- HOW God has saved them and us. He has done this by grace -- by pouring out the blood of God the Son, Jesus the promised Messiah. His broken body and shed blood are the only means available; no one comes to the Father except through the Son. I think we understand each other. I don't believe these differences of opinion affect the image of the nature of God, the means of salvation of the vast majority of people whom most western Christians will meet (people who have the opportunity to hear about Christ), or the central truths of who Christ is and what He has accomplished. They need not bring division. However, I believe they may well affect our images of unreached people groups and the methods that we employ, encourage, and tolerate among them by others. For example, I believe any portion of Scripture that reveals God is evangelistic by nature and useful with unbelievers, whereas others may suggest that only the New Testament and certain portions of certain prophets are appropriate and essential to evangelism. Thank you again for your patience. God bless you, brother, Brent |
||||||
130 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 43659 | ||
Dear John, You are right that we are in disagreement upon some significant points of John Calvin's doctrines, as you noted in your recent post in response to my discussion with Kalos from a year ago. I am definitely not a 5-point Calvinist. While I have no expectation of changing your views, I hope that I can shed some light on how those of us who are not fully convinced that Calvin and his followers were accurate in everything can still claim full submission to the same Scriptures that our Reformed brothers do. I do not disagree with most of what you say here, although there are once again a few significant points that I would question and-or with which I would disagree. I'll probably need a couple of posts to respond. We definitely have a different reading of Jesus' meaning in John 3 regarding what it means to "see" the kingdom of God. This seems to me to refer to our future in heaven -- where the "pure in heart" will "see God." I believe the new birth (being born of the Spirit) takes place immediately AFTER faith, and I think that you believe the new birth comes first; please correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly believe that all initiation and conviction comes from the Spirit and not from unregenerate man. However, I believe this is not forced upon us irresistably -- by God's design not by any inability on God's part. I believe that conviction and even certain levels of enlightenment from the Spirit come prior to faith, but that Spiritual-spiritual regeneration comes upon belief. I can not agree with Arminius that new believers directly opt to believe, but the hidden working of belief and the joint involvement of the Spirit and human will is a mystery to me. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the involvement of the will of man comes into play prior to belief and is, therefore, a part of the process. The nearest I can come to a theory on this is that there is an ability to internally either admit or finally reject one's spiritual poverty in the face of the Spirit's persistent conviction and that this is God's requirement. This "humility" or "poverty of spirit" opens the door that the Spirit chooses otherwise not to open, and it is "the poor in spirit" who will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). This is the trait with which Christ opens His sermon, and it is the trait that is foundational to all the others; the corresponding absence of this trait results in blasphemy against the Spirit -- the only unforgiveable sin. While use of the term "humility" as the means to grace (Ps 138:6, Isaiah 57:15, James 4:6, 1 Pe 5:5) seems a problematic trait to claim for oneself, the parallel and more specific term "poor in spirit" speaks specifically of recognizing one's "fallen condition" and "hopelessness" -- to use your terminology. This trait does not make anyone more worthy -- any more than personal recognition of incompetence would better qualify a job applicant for a desired position. Nevertheless, it appears to open a door of influence that the omnipowerful Spirit enters through after patiently knocking and deliberately awaiting admittance. God has set the limit Himself, and the all-powerful Spirit yields to the will of the Father and Son just as the Son always yielded to the will of the Father in His work on this earth. As a loving father of my own children who wants them to have a heart to do what is right -- I also set limits on the discipline I use to convince my children against their own wills to submit to my ways and God's ways (even in many areas where I'm certain that I'm right). |
||||||
131 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 43666 | ||
Part 2 -- My other question is regarding the following statements "Saving faith is a gift from God bestowed upon those He has chosen from before the foundation of the world... This view of God "Almighty" is the view held by the fathers of the Protestant faith, and was based on the Scripture alone. The modern popular view that places salvation in the hands of fallen mankind is dead wrong." What I perceive as a difference here may be simply my reading into your words based on identifying certain catch phrases directly with Calvin's teachings. I don't think that the Scriptures directly state anywhere that God "predestinated" to belief but rather to conformity to Christ. There is a certain mystery still present (until eternity) in revelation surrounding what actually takes place between the initiation of the Holy Spirit and the faith that is produced. The mystery (as yet unrevealed secret) results in various theories that can greatly influence one's theology but are not central to salvation. I believe we have a difference here in the definition of "almighty" and-or "sovereign" that significantly affects our theology but doesn't change the primary focus on the depravity of man, the holiness of God, the necessity of Christ's intervention, and the centrality of the Spirit's work; nor is there any question of the truth of the Trinity here. While we would both use the term, I don't believe God's power, authority, or sovereignty are compromised by His deliberate setting the limits to which His Spirit would go in terms of irresistability but still making salvation theoretically available to every person (while knowing in advance who would be rendered poor in spirit by His persistent conviction and proof through the Spirit and who would blaspheme His Spirit). I know this brings up the question of the meaning of the term "knowledge" -- as you brought out in your post on the other thread. However, it's late, and that will have to wait until there is more time. (Based on my schedule, it may be some time, but I will do my best to respond when I can sit down long enough to prayerfully and clearly synthesize study and consideration since my last posting to Kalos on that.) Finally, I need to clarify who you meant when you used the phrase, "the view held by the fathers of the Protestant faith, and was based on the Scripture alone" in your posting. I guess I'm assuming that "Calvin and those who associated themselves with him" would be an accurate rendering. Are you including Martin Luther? Do you include Jacobus Arminius (certainly not a 'modern' by any stretch but not quite an exact contemporary of Calvin, and certainly expunged from any list of Calvin's followers once he began to think that there may have been potential errors within Calvin's Institutes)? I was a little uncomfortable with the sub-phrase "based on the Scripture alone" and wanted clarification as well. Were you referring to certain statements of Calvin as being wholly unpolluted with the reasoning of man, or simply comparing them to heresies that brought in superstitions, false religions, and-or false revelations of some other kind? There's certainly a sense in which the purity of some statement is apparently being compared with the impurity and corruption of something else. |
||||||
132 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 44054 | ||
Thanks for the clarification, John. I'm glad to hear that it the reference is only to the word itself, and my concern about your statements is assuaged. You don't need to clarify further which specific doctrinal statements regarding definitions of sovereignty were "based on the Scripture alone." I think I understand your meaning that the intention was consistently to base the doctrines only on the Scriptures and not on previous counsels or papal decrees. I certainly respect that about the Reformed movement as a whole and specifically about the great leaders of the movement at its roots. Regarding the passage you referred to about predestination, I am in whole-hearted agreement that the adoption as sons (as well as the conformity to the image of Christ) was predestined before the foundation of the world. It is poverty of spirit in response to the Spirit's conviction -- leading to spiritual enlightenment and repentance (which then leads to the Spirit's development of faith and faithfulness) that I am not convinced was predestined but simply foreknown. I believe that our predestined adoption as sons takes place sequentially after faith -- NOT before. Therefore, the sequence leading up through faith appears to be foreknown, and the predestination begins from the results. While the overall process itself is a gift from God, undeserved, and consistently initiated by Him -- my current impression from the Scriptures is that the final penetration of the loving corrective conviction of the Spirit is deliberately left to the will of the individual soul. The will can either give in to the irrefutable evidence offered (resulting in recognition of spiritual poverty), or he (or she) can blaspheme the Spirit (leading to the impossibility of forgiveness). God knew all the scenarios and each individual's results prior to anyone's conception, but we can only be sure when the day of judgment comes. However, there is typically significant evidence of belief or unbelief in a person's life, and we can speak to them on the basis of that evidence. Only Christ Himself (or potentially a prophet) would have the ability to declare someone's heart impenetrable and beyond conviction according to the limitations laid down by God. Christ did so to some of the Pharisees who refused the irrefutable demonstration of His conduct and power and the accompanying conviction of the Spirit upon them. I'm still working through specifics of these ideas and testing them to make sure they are biblical, which is why I present them to you and to the list. |
||||||
133 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | Brent Douglass | 154 | ||
There is certainly room for disagreement on how much control God exercised over Pharaoh's heart and decisions at this time, but I think Romans 9:19-23 laves no question that Pharaoh was held guilty for the attitude that he had toward the Lord and his people. -- -- I am not of a Beza-Calvinist position that would suggest deliberate control over a person's final responsiveness to the Holy Spirit's conviction. Immediately before this exposition of God's control is the sequence of Romans 8:28-30, where God's foreknowledge of his people is followed by predestination to conform us to his image, then calling, justification and glorification in respective sequence. -- -- I assert that Pharaoh's heart was against God and his people. However, even a king who refused to worship God and love his people would be expected to exercise wisdom through temporary repentance. It is this temporary repentance that God prevented. His objective was not to have his people go into the desert, worship him, and return to slavery under a pagan king; his objective was to lead his people into a new life free from slavery and under willing submission to Himself as Lord and Savior. God controlled circumstances and even intervened in Pharaoh's heart and plans to accomplish this purpose and to bring himself glory. -- -- God does not choose to crush the wicked (whom he foreknows) before they are born but endures them despite his knowledge that their creation will result only in rebellion and destruction. However, he intervenes as he wishes in order to reveal Himself and to keep his plans for the righteous on course. -- -- I don't know whether the totality of what Pharaoh saw finally convicted him -- bringing him to repentance -- or whether he went the route of (most of) the Pharisees in blaspheming the Spirit in the face of unquestionable demonstration of God's power and authority in the world. His part in the Bible story ends at the Red Sea, but there is no indication in the history that I know that either Pharaoh or the Egypt of Pharaoh's time turned from their idols to God. Instead, those who turned to God apparently left with the Israelites as part of the "mixed multitude" (Ex.12:38). | ||||||
134 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | Brent Douglass | 222 | ||
Thanks, Ric, for pointing out my unfortunate use of vocabulary, which I feel I need to correct. To be honest, I don't like the wording, "temporary repentance" -- even though it was my own choice of words at the time. I think it could tend to mean something I didn't intend. It's not completely off but needs to be understood more as a logical or pragmatic repentance rather than an actual deep change. The action is temporary; the deep motivation and attitude is simply unchanged. This may be parallel (but not identical to) an interpretation of the seed falling by the road in the parable of the sower, where the surface response to the good news was great but short-lived because the deeper ground of the true heart was not fertile to actually receive the conviction of the Spirit; this gave a temporary but false impression of saving faith. | ||||||
135 | Did God know Adam would sin? | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2414 | ||
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. (Rev 13:8 NIV, EMPHASIS mine). God had already agreed within Himself from the foundation of the world that the Son would be sacrificed on our behalf The plan was already there. He already knew all about each of us sufficiently to know who would respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. (Many Christians would believe that God had even assigned them.) He had already predetermined that our experiences and environment would be guided in such a way as to conform us to His own image as revealed in the Son. (See Romans 8:28-29 and Ephesians 1:4-6) The revelation of God as the Creator of all men (and even adopted Father for many of us) in this case is significant. He did not choose to destroy, prior to existence, us who were not only born imperfect and unholy but who would cause Him great suffering and would temporarily mar his creation substantially with our evil practices. This is very different from the decisions made today by many parents who realize something is imperfect about a pre-born child and decide to end its life. What would I (or you) be prone to do if I knew, from the time of conception, that my unborn child was going to reject, violate, hurt and embarrass me as well as ruin a faithful reputation and honored lifestyle that I had built for myself? I know which decision God chose when he knew me (and everyone who has ever lived) millenia before I was even conceived. |
||||||
136 | What does 1 Cor. 5:5 mean? | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2418 | ||
KBurgee's response was excellent on this. I'd like to add that Paul, in a later letter, encourages the Corinthians to receive one (who had repented) back into fellowship who had been previously spurned at Paul's request. (2 Cor 2:6-10). Many commentators believe this may well have been the same man. | ||||||
137 | I need clarification please | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2490 | ||
No, that is not exactly what I was saying. I wouldn't say that God "knew those who were going to sin and that punishment was planned for those individuals," but I do believe that God knew that Adam was going to disobey. He had already created a means of salvation for Adam and his descendants -- any who would repent of their opposition to God and believe in Him. This applied to Abraham (Gen 15:6, with commentary in Gal 3:6; James 2:23 and Rom 4:3,20-22), and it applies to us today. I include myself among those who have brought God pain and suffering, but I know also that my salvation has brought (and brings) him great joy (Matthew 13:43-46 and 18:12-14). Hell (also known as the "lake of fire" or the "second death"), which is the punishment that will be received, was prepared "for the devil and his angels" -- not for man. However, hell will also be the punishment of unbelieving men as well (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:12-15). God, knowing that most people would reject him (which would result in their being merely "vessels prepared for destruction") did NOT choose to abandon his plan, but He endured such pain and rejection for the sake of showing forth his character of grace and mercy. He gave them the opportunity to live and prove themselves, and he endures their betrayal, rejection and arrogant defiance, knowing that he will eventually have to destroy them. This was done in order to show God's love toward those whom He knew would be converted (by the persistent conviction initiated and pursued consistently by His Spirit). (See Romans 9, particularly v.22) These would be brought to repentance, faith and love by God. The blood of God the Son, who willingly sacrificed Himself for us all, has removed all sin but the blasphemy against the Spirit, which reveals such defiant unbelief as to result in a final rejection of the persistent, faithful and loving conviction of the Spirit and the evidence He brings to our attention. The one who utterly rejects the clear testimony of the Spirit has no hope of conversion. |
||||||
138 | Ok...I got you now. | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2614 | ||
The lake of fire IS the second death. Most scholars agree that the soul is eternal and that, therefore, everyone who is cast there suffers there eternally, just as the saints live eternally in heaven. Most of us have some discomfort with this, but discomfort is not good reason to disagree with what respected authorities are convinced that the Bible teaches. Revelations 14:11 clearly indicates that the smoke from the burning of those who worship the beast will go up forever; therefore, these people, at the very least, will be there forever. Satan will also be there, but he will also be suffering -- not ruling. There are some passages that seem to indicate the possibility of people's souls being "destroyed" in hell (Mt 10:28; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 Thes 1:9; Heb 10:39), but they are not clear or consistent enough to build a definite doctrine. (For example, note in Rev 17:8-11 that the beast is also "marked for destruction" -- while those who worship him will burn forever (Rev 14:11); it is not entirely clear that "destruction" means the end of existence (rather than simply removal from God). Luke 12:47-48 appears to indicate that there are potentially varying amounts of punishment meted out by God. See also John 19:11 and Matthew 23:14 (also in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47). While there MAY be varying lengths of time spent in suffering, with the devil and his angels (along with those who actually worship him and his) being the only ones who remain there eternally, there is very little upon which to build this theory (theory, not doctrine). It would be helpful to consider (and get further input from those who can discuss the topic much more knowledgeably than I can) the foundations for the doctrine of the eternal nature of the soul, and whether that could be affected by the fall. I will pose this as a question soon. |
||||||
139 | Is vegetarianism okay with God? | 1 Cor 8:13 | Brent Douglass | 1503 | ||
There's no basis in Scripture for requiring Christians to eat meat, and I don't know of any orthodox Christian groups that would even suggest such a requirement. The only Scriptures I'm aware of on the topic are those removing previous limitations (i.e. allowing meat after the flood and allowing "unclean" foods under the New Testament). If you're confident that a vegetarian diet would be more healthy for you, there's no reason I know of not to pursue one. However, you may run into cultish groups that try to draw you in by affirming your stance and suggesting that there is something more spiritual about being vegetarian. You should be wary of this, since Satan often seeks to encourage our natural elitist tendencies to feed our pride (in an evil sense) and use it to draw us away from God. In this sense, vegetarianism is probably no more "dangerous" than scholastic Arminianism or Calvinism. ;-) |
||||||
140 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3614 | ||
The most natural reading of John 20:21-22 indicates that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles at that time and that the "filling" of Pentecost was something different, which empowered them to be effective in proclaiming the Gospel more powerfully. However, it is a mistake to equate this with any specific gift. It is also a mistake to equate this with current practices involving certain procedures. Please consider the following as merely an attempt at exposition and NOT intended to bash anyone or to question anyone's intentions; while some may be offended by the directness, this is not meant as an attack. The utterances of praise that were given at Pentecost were real languages (Acts 2:4-11), and there is no mention whatsoever (here or elsewhere) of anyone speaking in some kind of "heavenly" language being connected with the Holy Spirit. In contrast, I have never seen nor heard of modern-day scheduled or choreographed "Holy Spirit baptisms" being accompanied by an actual foreign language (unknown to the speaker) that a bonafide foreign language speaker testified to -- never; yet this is precisely what happened spontaneously at Pentecost. Nor have I ever heard of modern conditions where physical tongues of fire actually came down upon "recipients". It's simply not the same as the event that they claim it to be equal to. Correctly spoken praise in real languages (by non-speakers) can be easily tested by actual speakers -- as at Pentecost and likewise again in Acts 10:44-47;11:15-16 when the Gospel and the Spirit first went out to the Gentiles. Claims of unknown languages are neither verifiable nor (therefore) authoritative, since (by their very nature) they can prove nothing. This is not to say that there is no such separate experience of being "filled" with the Spirit, but Pentecost and claims of modern parallels are completely different. Can this happen? Perhaps (and most likely in a place where the Gospel is first appearing), but it should be expected to happen as a unique and spontaneous event initiated by the Spirit -- not led, encouraged or brought on by any action of man. Doubtless someone somewhere may think of 1 Corinthians 13:1 indicating at least a possibility for angelic tongues -- but this is clearly hyperbole in its immediate context, which includes parallel references to people who literally "move mountains" with their faith and-or "know all mysteries and all knowledge" -- which they don't. Paul is using hyperbole to make a point about the priority of love far beyond even greatly exaggerated versions of real gifts. Please look at the context carefully. I'd like to expand more on the idea of the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, but I can feel myself ready to ramble too quickly and loosely. Besides, I'm sure others can add some of the same ideas with Scripture references. Another time. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |