Results 141 - 160 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3949 | ||
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. My job gets busy or slow at unexpected times, and of course that has to come first. While I definitely have certain things that I have strong views on, I'm not particularly interested in debate as much as trying to understand more clearly what the Scriptures say -- changing my views and questioning others' views if I'm uncertain about their accuracy. It's hard to gauge from written correspondence on this kind of forum, but it seems like you're seeking to debate. For example, you said of me, "You admit that a separate experience of being filled with the Spirit is possible, so I assume you cannot deny...." "Admit" would be an incorrect word suggesting debate. I BELIEVE that Christians can (and often do) have such experiences; therefore, when a group claims something to consistently be an example(or the example) of such an experience, it should be tested against the Scriptural accounts and guidelines. I was stating my beliefs, not conceding debated points. That said, I'd like to make some observations about these passages. Acts 2 doesn't mention the "baptism" of the Spirit, and the initial verse quoted (1 Cor 12:13 -- probably when the question was asked) appears to refer to ALL Christians. I would equate this reference with receiving the Spirit (immediately following belief). Being "filled with" the Spirit appears to be different from being "baptized by" the Spirit. In John 20 and Acts 2 (along with Acts 4, etc.) receiving the Spirit and a first experience of "filling" appear to have happened separately (although there are many solid teachers and theologians who would disagree). This does not mean that they never happen together, but they initially happened separately for the disciples; this filling was also repeated (e.g. Acts 4:31) among the same people (and without any indication of supernatural tongues in that particular case). The idea that these (the "tongues" or languages of Acts 2) were somehow angelic tongues and that the listeners also miraculously (magically?) heard them in their own languages seems very far-fetched to me; let me elaborate. In the text, Luke clearly indicates that the Spirit fell upon the disciples; he says nothing about the Spirit falling upon the hearers. In fact, the text indicates they had not even received the Spirit at all after this point, set aside being filled. Peter later tells the hearers to repent and seek forgiveness and THEN RECEIVE the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Luke makes a specific point of identifying the various native languages of the hearers, and stating NOT that they could "understand" them as if in their own languages; rather they "heard" them "in [their] own languages." There is a gift of "interpretation of tongues" -- but interpretation is different from hearing in one's own language. The miracle was in the disciples speaking the listeners' languages, NOT in the listeners somehow hearing some unknown language as if they were their own. Paul's explanation in 1 Cor 14:10-14 also describes the use of these gifts; I'm not an expert on languages, but I speak several. When I hear one of those foreing languages, I don't think I'm hearing English. If I'm explaining it to someone who doesn't understand, I "interpret" it; I don't repeat back the English that I heard. In addition, the word 'tongues' also means 'languages' -- which is plural, and the passage I noted from 1 Cor 14 also indicates the use of world languages. It makes logical sense to recognize that Pentecost was an example of the disciples speaking in real foreign languages, which were recognized by native speakers. It doesn't make logical sense for it to be referring to angelic languages. I can see where someone may possibly interpret other references as speaking of such angelic tongues (although I personally disagree with such interpretations), but this is the first I've heard such a suggestion specifically about Pentecost. I don't associate such a concept with any specific Christian group or groups, so my aim is not to challenge any particular group's beliefs that I know of. Have others heard such an interpretation taught? If so, how is it supported? |
||||||
142 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3993 | ||
Thanks for your response. The use of the term "baptism" with relation to the Holy Spirit appears to be a little confusing. Your reference to Acts 1:5 definitely indicates that Jesus said the disciples would be "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (whom you and I apparently both believe had already been received in John 20) -- which is what happened at Pentecost. Thank you for pointing this out, as it better focuses the concept for me. Pentecost was a baptizing of the disciples performed BY Jesus (see John 1:33) "with" or "in" the Spirit. This is a special event performed BY the Son, NOT by the Spirit Himself. The result is immediate empowerment for effective action and witnessing (see Acts 2:14,41,43; Acts 4:8,1331; etc. This is what I believe is typically referred to as the baptism "of" the Holy Spirit. Baptism BY the Holy Spirit, in contrast, is the initial reception of the believer into the body of Christ through the initial entry and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is performed by the Person(ality) of the Spirit Himself. This is what is described in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Without this, there is no transformation, sanctification, or glorification. The Spirit comes to all believers in this way upon conversion. My understanding is that this is the same event as being "born of the Spirit" or "born from above" referred to by Jesus in John 3; without this, no one can enter into the kingdom of God. I believe Dr. D.M. Lloyd-Jones did an excellent job of describing this distinction in his book of sermons, "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit." On the surface, this may seem a matter of "playing with words" -- but I'm convinced that such indications of the ways in which the different Members of the Godhead interact relationally with each other and us are significant, which is why they are described in the Scriptures. |
||||||
143 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 4348 | ||
Thank you for your encouragement in reference to the different sources of "baptism" as referred to in Scripture. Upon reviewing our earlier notes, I realized that I hadn't responded to your question about how someone might see 1 Cor 14 as referring to human tongues, and I wanted to clarify how it is possible (I would even say more accurate) to view it in this way. First please allow me to paraphrase some verses from 1 Corinthians 14 to provide a background. The point of 1 Corinthians 14:2 (actually vv.2-5 at a minimum) isn't that there is something mysterious in tongues that is impossible to understand naturally. The point is that tongues are not given for the purpose of revelation (as is prophecy) but rather for the purpose of pure Spiritual prayer and worship uncorrupted by human interpretation. The flow is from God the Spirit through the gifted believer and back to God; in this process, the speaker is edified in spirit only by this act of pure (unsullied by any fleshly interpretation) thanksgiving, prayer and-or worship. Prophecy, in contrast, flows from God the Spirit through the gifted believer and out to the congregation; by its very nature, spoken prophecy edifies the hearer(s) as well as the speaker. Let me also paraphrase verses 13-19. The only way that others (or even the mind of the speaker) can participate in the edifying worship of a tongue (language) is if they can understand it. If there is no one to interpret, the speaker is to simply remain silent, since his gift is useless in offering true edification to others (vv.27-28). [Paul is writing to a group of believers living in a given city, as opposed to many visitors from various languages converging for worship (as at Pentecost). It is natural to assume that they speak the same language(s), and there would be nothing to identify the prayers as coming directly from God if they were spoken in a language common to all there and known by the speaker. Likewise, there is nothing to identify the language as anything but barbarian mumbling with no meaning or purpose, unless someone understands.] Finally, in verses 10-11, Paul specifically and explicitly links this practice to "languages in the world" -- the speakers of which are unintelligible barbarians to those who can't understand them. This explanation is right in the midst of Paul's exhortation about correct use of tongues and, therefore, logically clarifies them as being human languages. While one may potentially disagree, this is a most direct reading of the context, not an invented interpretation. As a side note, I find that Pentecost (while a somewhat unique situation in which this gift was specifically accompanied by the first filling of the Spirit, physical tongues of fire, Peter's first reported sermon, and a great number of new converts) also meets the guidelines and descriptions laid out in 1 Corinthians 14. The tongues were used for worship, were real languagues, and were interpreted by someone present. However, the parallel is limited. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, there is no connection of tongues (or the other gifts mentioned) with the filling or baptism of the Spirit. They were linked at Pentecost, but this does not appear to be the norm. |
||||||
144 | Speaking in tongues? Use by women? | 1 Cor 13:1 | Brent Douglass | 37806 | ||
To get things started on this -- it seems to me that there are at least 2 reasons indicated for tongues in 1 Cor 14 (and supported elsewhere). 1) Personal edification through pure undefiled praise and prayer. (1Co 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.") Pure spiritual worship edifies the worshipper, and the flesh does not interact with this worship; since it comes through the Spirit to the tongue without any personal interpretation, any fleshly attitudes of the mind CAN not affect the message. If the speech is then interpreted, the mind of the speaker -- as well as other believers who now understand the praise or prayer -- can join in the edification through agreement ("say the 'amen'" to your prayer worship or thanksgiving (1 Cor 14:13-17). The tongues in Acts 1 and Acts 10 also fit this pattern of being supernatural prayers of worship. 2) A miraculous sign for those who already believe, so long as they can understand the language. (This is confusing to follow in most translations of 1 Corinthians 14:22-25, but I believe the actual meaning of v.22 is clarified pretty directly by vv.23-25. The point, as clarified in vv. 23-25, is that TONGUES DO NOT LEAD TO BELIEF for those who don't want to believe, whereas PROPHECY DOES LEAD TO BELIEF because it exposes the sinner's heart. Only those who believe and/or understand can see the miraculous nature of tongues, and there is no edification (except to the spirit of the speaker) for anyone who can't understand what is being said. |
||||||
145 | Speaking in tongues? Use by women? | 1 Cor 13:1 | Brent Douglass | 37854 | ||
I don't think that the carnality of the Corinthians is the issue here. The issue is proper use of the gifts and the precedence of true prophecy over true tongues. I'm confident that, as I mentioned earlier, in this case the meaning of verse 22 (not vs. 14 incidentally) is not as it seems at first glance. 1 Cor 14:22 does not signify that unbelievers may respond to the exercise of the gift of tongues; that is almost the direct opposite of what the context conveys. Taken in context, such an interpretation would be contradicted by the very next verse. Verse 25 very clearly states, by example, that tongues do not cause belief; they are not a sign unto belief. ("Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" 1 Cor 14:23) The response of the unbeliever is scoffing, NOT conviction. In actuality, tongues may convince believers of God's presence among other believers (as they convinced Jewish Christians of the presence of Christ in Gentiles in Acts 10, or as they demonstrated to the presence of the Spirit among Christians to believing Jews who didn't yet know of Christ in Acts 2). However, there is no example of tongues convincing anyone to turn from unbelief to belief. This is what it means that tongues are not a sign for believers but for unbelievers; they can not be a vehicle to draw an unbeliever to belief, and I know of no examples of them being used to do so. Prophecy, in contrast, is for believers -- that is, its can be used directly to move an unbeliever toward belief. The example laid out in the following verses provides the immediate clarification of this. ("But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you." 1 Cor 14:24-25) Prophecy can lead an unbeliever to the feet of God, bringing him to conviction, belief, and worship. |
||||||
146 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7557 | ||
1 John is a good point of reference, since it was written to give tests of genuine saving faith. "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 Jn 5:13) 1) 1 John 1:5-10 Walking in the light. On the surface, this phrase appears (and I believe is typically assumed) to be talking about simple obedience. However, the context appears to indicate more an ongoing willingness on the part of the believer to expose him-herself to the light of God (and His Word), which reveals one's sinfulness -- resulting in progressive confession and sanctification. A patter of growth in seeing God reveal sin in one's life, confession of the sin, and an ongoing process of transformation is a primary signs of saving faith. Hebrews 12:4-8 says much the same thing. There's much more there from 1 John. |
||||||
147 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7558 | ||
More from 1 John -- 1 John 2:3-7 says much the same thing that Jim succinctly quoted from James -- only John is more long-winded (which of course draws me personally to his writing ;-) By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him,'' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 Jn 2:3-7) |
||||||
148 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7560 | ||
Still more from 1 John -- Growing and active love for other Christians (1 Jn 2:9-11) The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. |
||||||
149 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7561 | ||
Yet more from 1 John -- A growing estrangement from the values, enticements, pursuits, and sensibilities of the world -- together with false accusations and unmerited reactiveness from the world. (The feeling of being a sojourner or alien as in 1 Pe 2:11f) 1 John 3:1,13 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.... Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. |
||||||
150 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7562 | ||
And more from 1 John -- The testimony of God's Spirit within us. "By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Perhaps this passage is referring to the fruit of the Spirit, which Charis already pointed out as a true indicator previously. Or perhaps the inner testimony of the Spirit or even the experiential filling that Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Dwight Moody, D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon and others spoke of as taking place in their own lives (and as referred to in Galatians 4:6, Acts 4:31, etc.). |
||||||
151 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7563 | ||
Further-more from 1 John -- recognition of the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead and acknowledgement of Jesus as Christ and Saviour, born of God. (1 Jn 4:14f; 5:1) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.... Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (See also John 7:17.) Much of the rest of 1 John repeats the same concepts in other (or even exactly the same) words. God was clearly driving the points home through the apostle. |
||||||
152 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7612 | ||
Thanks for your response Ray. I think I see your point, and I trust that we can indeed examine ourselves and "know of what Spirit we are." ;-) | ||||||
153 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 16902 | ||
To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned about the need to use capital letters in pronouns referring to God or in indirect references to the Spirit that are not using the name "Holy Spirit" within them, since this is largely a matter of current language usage rather than any reference whatsoever to either the original Greek and Hebrew texts or standard English requirements. However, if someone uses them at all, he or she should be consistent in their usage whenever possible. That said, I typically use such capitalization myself. I think either version (capitalized or not) is a potentially valid reading of 1 Jn 3:24 (for versions that use capitalization), depending on whether the usage of Spirit/spirit is referring to consideration 1) or 2) below. I lean toward the NAS's view of capitalizing it as a reference to the Holy Spirit. I also agree with your use of the small "s" in your question, since you were asking a question that left room for at least 2 answers, depending on the considerations below. 1) We can be either of the Holy Spirit of God or another spirit set against God. This was the chosen reference of my response. The question would be framed with a small "s" as you did, since there is uncertainty whether the spirit is from God or not until AFTER the examination. However, my response was written with the idea that I believe we are both "in Christ" and therefore "of the Spirit of God;" thus I reflected back your question with the word "Spirit" capitalized simply for encouragement and humor. 2)This could refer to spirits not directly related to God or demonic forces, but simply the kind of attitude in which we act in conversing on the forum (a spirit of pleasant brotherhood, a spirit of contention, etc.). Again, your use of the lowercase "s" would be the only appropriate usage in this case as well. Hope this answers your question as to my opinion of your usage. |
||||||
154 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2120 | ||
Is the command to "LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH" in Mark 12:29-34 and elsewhere something that we, as Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit can attain with God's enablement in this life, or is this merely an impossible command designed to humble us in our sinfulness? | ||||||
155 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2125 | ||
I'm not sure exactly what your answer was to my question. It sounds like you're saying that you think this is an impossible command to humble us. Is this accurate? I believe I'm in agreement with your fine exposition about the purpose of the law. However, that's not the core of my question. Am I accurate in assuming your answer is that believers are incapable of loving God in this way? |
||||||
156 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2455 | ||
Thanks for your claification. I'm glad that I asked for (and received) clarification prior to responding to your previous posting, as your clarification was significantly different than how I had understood you. Once again, I find myself in basic agreement with you on this. It brings up additional questions about what I believe are parrallel passages, but those build on this foundation, which I agree is clear in the Scripture. |
||||||
157 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2469 | ||
Thanks for your reply. The Galatians 3:24 verse came from JHVH0212's earlier reply, not my original posting, which quoted only from Mark 12. As I understand this Scripture and others dealing with complete commitment (e.g. Luke 14:25-33; 1 Corinthians 10:13 and Matthew 6:24,33), the Lord does desire (and require) such "perfect" love. These passages indicate that the believer can -- through the purification of Christ's blood and resurrection, the transformation of the heart and mind through the Spirit and the Word, and the working of the Holy Spirit -- love God with all his (or her) heart, soul, mind and strength as God commanded throughout the Christian life as maturity continues to develop. In this way, the law is fulfilled "in" the believer (and not just "for" him) according to Scripture, as pointed out by JHVH0212 in his second reply on the parrallel thread under this question. As John Wesley pointed out in his discourse, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (see www.whatsaiththescripture.comFellowshipWesley.Christian.Perfectio.html if it prints out properly), this does not remove factors such as ignorance or any mental, physical, and emotional limitations of the believer. Nor does it remove the need for repentance when sin done in ignorance is revealed to the believer. It is, rather, an attitude of being entirely set apart (sanctified) to exercise love toward God. The condition can be temporary, if a believer willingly compromises this complete love, and it can then be restored through repentance and the Spirit's sovereign provision. While the believer can and should humbly seek such a condition, only the Spirit can so "fill" someone with this love. While this may seem impossible from our own judgment of the people around us, the teaching of the Scriptures always carries a higher authority than our own interpretation of our experience, and I believe the Scriptures call us confidently to such complete love -- not as an impossible requirement but as an offering we can present only by the grace and empowerment of the Spirit (see Romans 12:1 and 1 Peter 2:5). I'd like to get more input on this with a later question, but this is my current understanding. |
||||||
158 | 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. |
||||||
159 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Brent Douglass | 2682 | ||
1 Timothy 2:9-15 is one of few passages in Paul's letters where he directly identifies the source of guidance as being himself: "I do not allow...." This is a portion of a letter written by a man with apostolic authority in his speech and writing. While Paul speaks and writes authoritatively as a vessel of God, he also exercises authority 1) as an elder responsible for making leadership decisions if and when a higher leader has been appealed to for resolution; and-or 2) as a counselor who offers his own practice in similar conditions to those currently acting as elders. It appears that Paul is acting in one of these capacities in this case, since he deliberately identifies himself as the source of the guidance. That said, the argument Paul uses for his decision (or perhaps his counsel) is NOT culturally or locally based. As you pointed out, he points back to the garden of Eden for his reasoning. In addition, the depth of Paul's wisdom and understanding of the mind of God is significant -- as a divine pen and mouthpiece whose entire life consistently exemplified God's authority and message. Even if this guidance is merely Paul's counsel to Timothy, it is far more significant and important than counsel from just any leader and needs to be more seriously considered. |
||||||
160 | Believing in the Bible and E.T.'s | Eph 2:2 | Brent Douglass | 2746 | ||
This is an interesting question, and I appreciate your posting it to the list. I hope my diversion to side topics doesn't offend you. I "believe" there is a significant distinction between two different meanings for "believe" that are being used. There is another thread (that started after this one and may relate to it) about the question, "What does it mean to believe?" which I'd encourage people to peruse carefully. This is a significant consideration with regard to this idea. Believing in Christ involves trust -- which results in action by its very nature. (See Ja 2:17-26; Matthew 7:15-29). This is very different from "believing in" ET's (or from believing in energy conservation, democracy, etc.) Christ is not merely a concept (e.g. energy conservation or democracy) that one supports and joins as a good thing; nor is He merely a theory that some think is probably true (e.g. extraterrestrials). There is a relational aspect where Christ rules in our hearts interactively. Likewise, the Bible, as the Word of God, carries an authority, for those who believe, that makes it the central guiding teaching of our lives (see 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:12; 2 Pe 1:20,21) and something to be studied carefully for understanding, insight and direction. It's probable that you're not considering these "beliefs" comparable (or suggesting that you've placed some significant faith in the existence of ET's) but that you're simply wondering whether the idea of ET's directly contradicts the teaching of the Scriptures. To be honest, I've never studied the Scriptures with this question in mind, and I can't help you with an answer to your actual question. There's nothing wrong with your question the way it was asked, but I wanted to clarify these things (above), since this is a public forum. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |