Results 141 - 160 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Please explain the Trinity. | John 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 1732 | ||
Brothersalas, Was your question dealt with beyond the one reply attached to it? The reply I saw seemed to be along unorthodox lines with no further reply. Maybe it was handled elsewhere, but I don't want to let it pass without comment, for this is a central issue. There is only one God, but He exists in 3 persons who are in relationship with one another. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have relationship; they are not merely separate manifestations of one person. In Genesis 1:26-27, God talks to himself relationally in the plural, and yet One God creates. John 1 goes in depth about the concurrent permanent nature of the Word as God (Jesus) and God (the Father). Throughout his earthly ministry, the Son prays interactively with the Father and is confirmed through the physical descent of the Spirit ( ex. Jn 1:33) in every Gospel account of Jesus's baptism. God is One in essence, yet there is relationship WITHIN the Godhead. Members of the 3 persons consistently appear concurrently and interactively. Regardless of the terminology used, this is the essence of the Trinity concept; I suggest a study of the Gospels specifically asking the question throughout, "How does the Son interact with the Father and the Spirit?" This will bring out the concept of the Trinity. Although this inner relationship in the One God works is not fully understandable, it is clearly portrayed over and over in the Gospels. God was NOT first the Father, THEN the Son on earth, THEN the Spirit in believers after his resurrection. This is heretical. Every Gospel shows concurrent appearance, interaction and relationship among the Members of the One Godhead. |
||||||
142 | Valid 'gifts?' | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1710 | ||
My previous response dealt primarily with other gifts but not really apostleship. To do this, we would need to define the Biblical use of "apostle" to determine this. Although "apostle basically means, "Sent one," I think most (if not all) of us could agree that not everyone "sent" (or called out for special ministry) by God is necessarily an apostle. I think a paraphrase of the definition of "apostle" used by many who consider it no longer in effect is basically "one who was taught authoritatively by Christ in person and then recognized by the other apostles". The original 11 chose Matthias by lot because he had been with them the whole time (Acts 1:15-26) and (apparently) continued to replace those who died during the foundation period of the Church in the same way. Some suggest that this was an error and that Paul was meant to be the 12th, but this is speculation. I don't know much about lots, but I assume there was potential of receiving a "No" answer rather than a selection; I think there are examples of this result in the O.T. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. The 12 also recognized the apostleship of Paul. Does Paul fit the definition? Yes. He received special individual instruction from the risen Christ -- Gal 1:11-16, 2 Cor 12:1-7 and elsewhere. This is a logical definition, and it would end with the death of the generation who witnessed Jesus's earthly ministry; under this definition a Biblical "aposte" today would have to be trained as Paul was, and such a one would presumably have similar authority. I can think of some false cults with such leaders, but I'm afraid I don't know very much about the potentially orthodox groups in "Apostolic" churches. Clearly they would reject such a definition. |
||||||
143 | Valid 'gifts?' | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1709 | ||
I believe that the most commonly used direct Scripture for the past termination of certain gifts (tongues, prophecy etc.) is 1 Cor 13:8-10 by injecting an interpretation of the "perfect" being the completion of the canon. Am I right in this? I completely disagree with the interpretation, but that's my understanding of where it comes from. (I think I remember this from MacArthur's first book on, "The Charismatics," which is well-written and advisable reading, but with which I disagree.) I know this doesn' focus on apostleship directly, but, since I'm long-winded (long-penned?) I'll put that in a separate message. |
||||||
144 | 3 gifts, or less? | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1699 | ||
This is in reference to one of your side notations, that the apostles healed on the basis of the faith "of the recipients" -- which threw up red flags for me. Jesus often said, "You're faith has made you well." However, this seems to be more a matter of them coming to him because they believed. The inability to heal or cast a demon from someone seeking healing was ALWAYS attributed to the lack of faith of the HEALER, NOT the person seeking healing (see Matthew 17:14-20). There is no mention of any individual being unable to receive healing from Christ or any apostle based on a lack of faith from that individual, and Jesus healed everyone whom he attempted to heal. This idea of a lack of faith on the part of the intended recipient is simply a hurtful displacement of blame (either intentionally or by ignorance) by any healers claiming (again intentionally or ignorantly) to have gifting or faith beyond what they actually have. If we assume that the supernatural gifts can and do still exist today (and include the gift of apostleship in this, as you apparently do), the guidelines and examples of Scripture need to honored by them. For example, Jesus deliberately followed the limitation of only proclaiming healing to those whom the Father told him to heal (Jn 5:18-20; 8:27-29). This would also carry into the apostles (and other healers, exorcists, etc.), who were apparently given insight into what God was choosing to do and thus enabled to be his vehicles. For example, Paul waited several days before casting out the demon from a annoying false prophetess that had been following him around for many days shouting (Acts 16:16-18). The woman didn't ask for healing, and Paul waited many days (whether because of lack of permission or whatever) before casting out the spirit. Whether Paul received revelation that it was OK at that point or whether the effectiveness was simply a mark of apostleship is debatable. The point is that Paul declared it and it happened; the woman's faith or lack thereof was irrelevant. This is Biblical aposteship in action and is confirmed in other examples. Paul (as simply one example among the apostles) did NOT receive everything he asked for in prayer (2 Cor 12:8-10), but everything he (and the others) declared happened regardless of the attitude of the recipient. Asking for something in prayer (and trusting God to do his will) is always acceptable (except in the obviously extreme situation where God has clarified his refusal, as in Paul's condition). However, claiming and commanding a healing that does not take place means that the healer is either a charlatan, is deceived, is lacking in faith or is completely ungifted. Just as a prophet whose single prophecy is clearly untrue is thus proven false altogether, so is anyone (proven false) who claims himself to have supernatural powers that fail in their attempted exercise. |
||||||
145 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Brent Douglass | 1542 | ||
I'm not sure in what sense "most male" Ministers and Pastors "pass over" this Scripture, so it's hard to answer your quesion. I believe I'm in agreement with you in that I believe God can and does call women into pastoral ministry, but I'm confident that many of those who believe otherwise do so because of other fairly direct statements in Scripture. Your question seems more a generalized judgment (simply worded as a question) than a request for genuine dialogue. Either side has to deal with the passages that appear to have a surface reading that is contrary to their understanding of the Scriptures in general. However, in dialogue, either side (of most debatable issues, particularly those with passionate adherence) also tends to focus attention on the passages upon which they have based their views, NOT on the passages that are difficult to reconcile completely to their current understanding without deeper interpretation based on other passages. The passage you mentioned, as well as the passages dealing with Deborah in the book of Judges (and other passages indicating women prophesying, teaching and correcting the teaching of public leaders) require much deeper explanation from those who advocate that God does not allow for women in pastoral (or other) leadership; this does not indicate they seek to reject or ignore those Scriptures. As another example, I noticed you didn't mention 1 Timothy 2:10-17 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. That doesn't mean that you tried to skirt them, but that the point you were making is based upon Galatians 3:28, whereas the 1 Tim and 1 Cor passages would require more careful (and potentially controversial) explanations that might be challenged or argued against more confidently by those who would dissent. It's one thing to RESPOND to a question about passages that seem to draw certain doctrines into question; it's another to deliberately throw out weaponry to those who you believe may be looking for excuses to undermine your position before seriously considering it. It takes time to develop the trust that leads to honest dialogue. This is particularly difficult in email, where a reaction can be posted and reacted to (and the cycle repeated several times) before either party has a chance to detach and consider the meat of what is being said. |
||||||
146 | What makes John the Baptist greater ? | Luke 7:27 | Brent Douglass | 1515 | ||
1 Peter 1:10-12, 17-21 and Col 1:26-2:3 This is probably one of those "hard sayings of Jesus" in the book by the same name. I don't have it in front of me (and don't remember exactly what that author(s) wrote about this, but I would strongly recommend the book as a reference (particularly for questions of this type) I believe F.F. Bruce is the writer, but there is a series of "Hard Sayings" books by several solid authors. Anyway, one sense in which I believe John the Baptist would be considered "greater" than all previous prophets and saints was that he was able to look into the fulfilment of his prophecies and understand the identity of the Messiah that he was proclaiming (at least to a certain degree). John recognized Jesus when the Holy Spirit descended on him (although he had some uncertainty later), but the prophets of the Old Testament longed to look into the secrets they were foretelling about the Messiah and the salvation of Israel and the nations; those secrets were hidden until their revelation in Jesus the Christ. All believers who came after him have access to these (but not all) mysteries and can thus more fully rejoice (in this life) in the hope and salvation that God has given us. (See 1 Peter 1 and Colossians 1.) |
||||||
147 | Beginning of Bondage | Gen 47:20 | Brent Douglass | 1513 | ||
Joseph's brothers did not have to sell themselves for their food. They brought payment each time, and it was returned to them. They were given land apart from the Egyptians in which to live and raise their livestock. All the land of Egypt had reverted to Pharaoh, and all Egypt was taxed at a 20 percent flat tax (Gen 47:26), but this was not slavery and was not specific to the Hebrews; it's even arguable that they didn't have to pay this tax (at least at first), since their land was apparently given TO them (rather than being sold BY them TO Pharaoh). Joseph brought great honor upon his family from the Egyptian leaders of his time, as demonstrated by their representation at Jacob's funeral (Gen 50:7). The slavery of the Hebrews didn't start until a Pharaoh arose who was not acquainted with Joseph and the great service he had rendered to the power of Egypt and to the line of the Pharaohs (See Exodus 1:6-14). They became increasingly harsh until Pharaoh finally issued progressive edicts requiring the killing of the Hebrews' newborn boys (Exodus 1:15-22). This is the setting into which Moses was born. |
||||||
148 | 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. ;-) |
||||||
149 | what were the 7 Messianic signs | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1465 | ||
Do the Scriptures clearly indicate somewhere that there were precisely 7 Messianic signs or miracles that only the Messiah could fulfill? This is the first I've heard of such a Biblical prophecy of 7 signs, but I'm interested in hearing what Bible passage you may be referring to. The only reference to 7 signs I'm aware of was a movie called, "The Seventh Sign," which I was unfortunate enough to see a few years ago. That movie had virtually nothing to do with the Scriptures. Please tell me this isn't what you're referring to. |
||||||
150 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1463 | ||
I don't feel disrespected by your reply at all. I hope mine didn't seem disrespectful to you. Argumentation through writing without "knowledge" of each other can certainly come across as bickering or condescending, and I have no desire (or position of authority, for that matter, if the desire were there) to treat you in that way. It's simply that your expanded definition of "foreknowledge" seems cyclical w/ predestination. In other words, it sounds like your suggesting that God chose (elected, selected, predestined) to foreknow some (rather than others), then predestined them further. It seems that you've basically added a new "predestined" at the beginning of the sequence. As a side note (I hope), perhaps I'm misunderstanding your perception of predestination. Are you assuming that all are predestined to conformity to Christ and that all are, therefore, foreknown? This creates significant other problems, but resolves this particular concern. However, based on what I've seen of what you've written, I doubt this is your view. I think I understand your concept of God having a certain kind of pre-existing relationship with some that he did not have with others. However, we (like all others) were at enmity with God before (and even after) he predestined us -- right up until the time of belief. Ephesians 1-2 is one of the passages that clearly indicates how our condition before God was radically and completely changed at the time of conversion. We did not have this intimate relationship with Him until that time. I'm not sure where you would be going in indicating some kind of previous level of closeness (unshared by others) prior to conception that somehow changed once we took on flesh then returned at our conversion. Can you clarify? |
||||||
151 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1445 | ||
I don't have any problem with your explanation of the "Biblical" meaning of the word knowledge, but it doesn't change the idea that foreknowledge came BEFORE predestination; it seems merely to divert and avoid the question. There is no one whom God does not have intimate and complete knowledge about, yet there is something (for lack of a better word) that drew God to specific people that AFFECTED God's decision to predestine us. We know from other places in Scripture that there is nothing that makes us "worthy" of his choosing (or even somehow less "unworthy" than others). Yet there is something. The question is, "What is it that God foreknew?" My understanding is that Arminius thought it to be some kind of openness to faith. It seems to me that it is more a final openness (when pressed to the wall) to the Spirit's persistent conviction of sinfulness and a resulting inner hunger and desperation for salvation. I'm not sure that this is fully accurate; nevertheless, there appears to be something that God foreknew (rather than fore-ordained) in us that came prior to his predestining us. I appreciate your study on one of the meanings used for "knowledge" in the Bible. However, your additional comments make it sound like you're trying to treat "foreknowledge" and "predestination" as virtually synonymous; I can only assume this is being done in order to avoid the idea of anything coming prior to predestination. This seems to me the equivalent of saying that Paul really meant to say, "For those whom he predestined he also predestined...; and those whom he predestined he also...." I understand that Christ himself and Paul both sometimes repeated phrases for stress. It seems bizarre, however, that he would give a deliberate sequence like, "God A'ed, then A'ed, then B'ed, then C'ed, then...." ;-) I'm confident that this is not really what you meant to suggest, but could you elaborate? |
||||||
152 | where do blacks come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1343 | ||
We are all descended from Noah and his sons, at least on the male side. We don't know the skin color of Noah, his wife, his sons or his sons' wives. The Bible is loudly silent with regard to any importance whatsoever being placed upon general skin color. (The only references that I'm aware of deal with leprosy or other skin conditions, not the skin's natural melanin content.) The only divisions (so far as I know) that God touches on (other than gender, which is related to completion, fellowship and procreation) in the Scriptures are related to language, genealogy, and beliefs -- with no general distinctions made based on skin color. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity requires a loving transcendence even of these distinctions -- EXCEPT BELIEF. Faith alone determines our salvation and joint (not individual) adoption into Christ's family as his brothers, sisters and heirs. There are brothers and sisters "from every tongue and tribe and nation" worshipping eternally at the throne of God. |
||||||
153 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1342 | ||
Romans 8:29ff gives a clear sequence of conditions and actions on God's behalf toward those who love him (see Romans 8:28). This sequence begins clearly with some kind of foreknowledge and then progresses through predestination (that we be conformed to Christ), calling, justification and finally glorification. I have never known of anyone to question the sequence here of all the others (predestination then calling then justification then glorification). However, some force foreknowledge to somehow be assigned a secondary sequence to predestination (something like "He simply knew that he had predestined us.") This seems a very forced reading of the text, as opposed to the clear natural reading of sequence from start to finish. Nevertheless, this passage does NOT indicate exactly what he foreknew about us (just as the passages on predestination do NOT mention faith), and Ephesians 1 (along with various other passages) clearly indicates that predestination (to various things, but not necessarily to belief itself) happened "before the foundation of the world". Therefore, all of this (along with the decision for the Son to sacrifice himself for us) took place in the mind of the Father prior to Adam's existence. One view, attributed to Jacob Arminius (whether this is fully accurate or not) in his questioning of the full accuracy of Calvin's (and moreso Beza's) statements that "there was nothing foreknown prior to predestinating us" is that God foreknew OUR RESPONSE OF FAITH. This is a possible explanation, but seems at odds with the most obvious reading of Ephesians 2:8-9 -- that faith itself is a gift of God (one way of interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9). I lean somewhat toward this view, but I'm not clear whether the gift of the salvation process (of Ephesians 2:8-9) INCLUDES the gift of faith or simply uses faith as the avenue "through" which salvation is given. On the basis of the unforgiveable sin being "blasphemy against the Spirit" -- I would question whether the Spirit chooses to act in an irrestible manner, as the Council of Dort (perhaps more accurately rendered the "Inquisition" of Dort?) suggested. I would argue that there is a point at which a person's heart must be broken by the persistent conviction of the Holy Spirit, and that God works faith in the heart of the one who is thus broken. God knows whether a person's heart is so deeply arrogant (I can't say rebellious, as all of us were at one time completely rebellious against God until after he broke our hearts through his loving conviction) that he or she will finally reject him from any further conviction and completely by his persisten initiation -- veritably slamming the door in the Spirit's face once and for all. I would welcome any input on this, as any understanding must be tested against the Scripture and God's Word (rather than current understanding) be given precedence. This is already long, but I feel the need for a little more elaboration, so that responders and reactors can understand me as fully as possible before offering questions or challenges. I believe the primary sacrifice that we can offer to God at any time is a kind of imperfect "humility" or "poverty of Spirit" (for lack of other Scriptural phrases that immediately come to mind) -- without which no one will ever see the kingdom of heaven. Even grace, it seems, can be affected by humility versus pride. "For God is opposed to the proud but gives GRACE to the humble [emphasis mine]." |
||||||
154 | Was Jesus actually in the tomb 3 days? | John 19:31 | Brent Douglass | 1294 | ||
Tradition has it that Jesus rose from death on the third day, being crucified on Friday and rising on Sunday. However, it's very possible (and even probable) that Jesus was actually crucified on a Wednesday, which was then followed by the 7th day of the Passover, which was a special Holy Day (see Exodus 12:16-18). He would then have remained in the tomb 3 complete days (sunset Wednesday to sunset Saturday, then on into early Sunday morning) before rising on the "first day of the week" -- the timing of which is clearly stated in the gospels and recognized by all. Although this is contrary to the image that we often have of the events, John's gospel appears to indicate fairly clearly (in John 19:30-32) that the Sabbath after Christ's crucifixion was actually a special holy day (presumably one of those associated with the Passover) rather than simply the 7th-day-of-the-week weekly Sabbath. This is not some wild new idea of my own imagination. There have been respected theologians who have advocated this, and I have heard at least one current and respected teacher (Charles Swindoll) advocate such a timing of events, as well. Just as in the legend that has grown up around Jesus's birth (arriving in Bethlehem the very night of his birth, magi at the manger rather than a house or inn, etc.), there are traditions that have become treated as actual in the crucifixion story as well. They don't seem to me to be harmful enough misunderstandings to be fought against, but it's worth bringing out their limitations from time to time. |
||||||
155 | Enoch's prophesy in OT? | Jude 1:14 | Brent Douglass | 1238 | ||
I'm pretty confident that there is no such quotation directed to Enoch in the OT. This is most likely from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. I believe there are several quotations from apocryphal books in the New Testament. If Enoch is among those books added to the extended Roman Catholic canon (and I must plead ignorance as to exactly which books are included in this extended canon), this is probably part of the reason. However, one or two quotations do not necessarily create credibility for the entire book of Enoch. Paul also quoted a Greek philosopher in reaffirming the general stereotype of the people of Crete as "liars, evil brutes and lazy gluttons," but this doesn't validate the philosopher's writings as inspired by God. Jude seems to identify this as an actual prophecy, but that doesn't mean the entire book is inspired by God or even factual in its accounts of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was probably circulated widely among the Israelites, but they never accepted it (in entirety) as authoritative to the degree of canon. Neither did the councils that set forth our present canon, as they followed the nation of Israel regarding Old Testament canon. |
||||||
156 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1026 | ||
There is significant disagreement about this secondary issue between fully orthodox branches of Christianity. If, after examining the creed and explanations of your church, you can not be reconciled to their beliefs on this issue, it may or may not be cause for concern. Most congregations do not require and/or pressure for individualized adherence to every secondary doctrine. If you have come to respect and trust your leadership, there is probably no reason to leave over such a disagreement. However, if you are (or plan to be) teaching, I would expect most evangelical congregations to desire teaching that did not contradict their doctrine. You need to take this into consideration -- in your responsibility to honor and represent your leadership, as well as in any decisions about what leadership to put yourself under. In certain cases, secondary doctrines may well be important for your choice of denomination or congregation with which you choose to affiliate (and thus place yourself under their authority). However, I believe they should not be used to judge the salvation of a believer or the orthodoxy of a denomination or congregation; the Scriptures leave room for disagreement. Is there someone on the list who assumes/expects that either John Calvin or John Wesley will not be in heaven when you get there because of his views on this doctrine? These are probably the most well-known proponents of the 2 most common opposing views. |
||||||
157 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1021 | ||
So far as I know, there is no explicit age given at which all children have developed the ability (and, therefore, must be held fully responsible) to choose between right and wrong. However, Isaiah's prophecy about the virgin birth contains a reference to a time "before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good" -- which indicates there is some point at which the person reaches this "knowledge". The age of 20 years old chosen by God is surely higher than this for most if not all people, and (as pointed out by JVH0212) there is Jewish tradition that treats the age of 13 as a special kind of ascent into responsibility under the law. Neither of these has the authority of a Scriptural command or universal precedent at setting that age. However, God has placed us under ruling authorities, such as governments (see Romans 13:1f and 1 Peter 2:12ff). Governments typically have standard ages of permission and responsibility, which are applied to their subjects; we are under their jurisdiction here. Finally, while parents are responsible for training up children, God does not judge them for the iniquity of their children. The clearest explanation of this is in Ezekiel 18, and I suggest reading the entire chapter. If being a good parent guaranteed faithful children, then God's children would never have rebelled, rjected him and fallen in the first place. God is our perfect example as a parent; yet he has many wayward children. Furthermore, the majority part of humanity has has gone so far as to reject his fatherhood altogether. |
||||||
158 | TV Show "Crossing Over" - Dead Speaks? | Deut 18:11 | Brent Douglass | 773 | ||
It's interesting that you picked out Deuteronomy 18:11 in asking this question. The surrounding passage is clear that we are not to pursue or dabble in these things. The reason is given in verse 12: "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." While we are now under a "testament" of grace, God's attitudes have not changed, for he does NOT change. If something was detestable to him then, it is detestable to him now, no matter how appealingly presented. The effect is to replace the need for God with something else. While we want to encourage people and bring relief to those weighed down, evil means ("detestable" before God) can not be justified by temporary ends or apparent harmlessness. |
||||||
159 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 770 | ||
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative. I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account. There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
||||||
160 | Forgive or confront - which to choose? | Matt 18:1 | Brent Douglass | 740 | ||
First of all, choose to forgive. Christ chose to die for us while we were yet his enemies. You and I both have a much deeper debt of sin before God than anyone has toward either of us. If we don't begin with forgiveness, we should pray in terror every time we ask God to "forgive us our debts (or trespasses) as we forgive our debtors". If we refuse to forgive "those who trespass against us" then we are asking God to hold our sins to our account and condemn us to hell. Is this extreme? How does it compare with Jesus's teaching in Mat 18:23-35? The guidelines for confronting a brother who sins (Mat 18:15-18) must be read in the context of Mat 18:23-25, as well. When Paul (in Eph 6:27-28) tells us to "be angry and sin not" by not letting "the sun set" on our anger, there is no mention of confrontation with the other person. This is a call to a forgiveness in order to "not give the devil an opportunity"; it serves our spiritual interest by preventing bitterness from clouding our ability to love. Once we have forgiven, we are ready to consider whether confrontation is beneficial. Confrontation is for the benefit of our brother (or sister) who has done something wrong, not for the purpose of "letting off steam" or verbal retaliation. As in Mat 18:15, where the purpose is to "[win] your brother" back to obedience and growth in his relationship with God. It's possible that Paul had this in mind in Gal 5:19-21 when he listed specific sins that are practiced by those who "will not inherit" the kingdom of heaven. The increasingly strong convictions and confrontations presented in Matthew 18 are meant to draw the offender to confession, repentance and restoration. Is this not how the Spirit convicts and confronts us, as well? He confronts us to the degree necessary and the degree we are willing to receive. He is to be our model. I suspect that the final and unequivocable rejection of this persistent and faithful conviction ("slamming the door in the Spirit's face" if you will) is what is meant by the blasphemy against the Spirit, but that's another question. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |