Results 161 - 176 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Todays fashions | Eph 2:2 | Brent Douglass | 82298 | ||
Hmm... my perception of the 3 most deadly worldly tendencies of the present age? That's a question for reflection. I'll have to think about that and get back to you. The passage is clearly referring to tendencies these Christians were following before trusting in Christ and that they should have been released from, so I would want to consider the same parallel for our present time. It sounds like you have been thinking about this already, Dan. What do you think they may be? |
||||||
162 | 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. |
||||||
163 | 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. |
||||||
164 | 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. |
||||||
165 | Matt 28:19 what is name of each | Colossians | Brent Douglass | 3924 | ||
Dear Jim, Can you clarify and repose your question please? I see that it was answered, but I'm not clear whether that was what you were asking. If it is, I would want to offer a different answer. However, I'd like to see the question clarified and asked again, so that a broader group of participants can respond. It seems that you are asking, "What does it mean to baptize [people from all nations] in [or "into"] the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?" in Matthew 28:19 as part of "mak[ing] disciples of all nations." Is this your question? Jesus is definitely NOT the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the Son; the Son is fully God, but God is not fully the Son. The concept of the Trinity is not fully comprehensible, but it is fairly simply stated in Scripture. There are a number of clear statements about God in Scripture that must be reconciled, and this reconciliation leaves us with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is difficult (impossible, given our current bodily and fleshly limitations?) to visualize and-or to understand fully HOW God can be what He describes Himself to be, but the specific descriptions are not complicated in and of themselves. There is a lot that people on this list can contribute (and have contributed previously) to answer similar questions. Please don't give up with the one reply you received. Try to rephrase or clarify your question more deeply for us. Thanks! |
||||||
166 | How were high priests selected? | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26900 | ||
Heb 5:1,4 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God,... And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. This passage brought up several questions as to how the Levitical selection of the high priest may have (or not) illustrated God's plan in sending the Son to be the great High Priest. 1) How were the high priests selected from among the other priests (other than Aaron and Christ of course)? (This is my central question). I'm not aware of any guideline laid out in the Scriptures, yet they had to be specially recognized and designated in some way. Is there an oral tradition regarding how the high priest was chosen, how long the same high priest remained in office, etc.? Were they simply chosen by lot? Is there something clear in the Bible that I am missing in this regard, or was the method left open by God? Is the Roman Catholic leadership's selection of the Pope (and-or the early selection of other bishops throughout the church) purported to be patterned in some way after the Levitical priests' selection of the high priest at the time of Christ? Any clear insights on this would be much appreciated. |
||||||
167 | Selection of high priests (revisited)? | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26915 | ||
Thanks, Nolan, your answer was very helpful in clarifying that God (and not man) oversaw the selection of high priests. However, I also wondered specifically what methods (or criteria) were used. It may have been as simple as the first-born son (at least at first). Is this a consistent pattern throughout Scripture? (I have no idea.) However, the high priest (Caiaphas) at the time of Jesus' death was apparently the son-in-law of Annas, a previous high priest (Luke 3:2) -- who was still living (John 18:13-14). Maybe Annas had no sons, but the repeated reference that Caiaphas was priest "that year" (Jn 11:49;18:13; confuses that concept for me. But wait, you made we do a word search in my new E-sword software, and I see that there was a "high-priestly descent" at the time of Christ (Acts 4:6). Can someone elaborate further as to whether it was clearly and consistently a transition from father to son (or at times son in-law in the absence of a son)? How did they know when to pass the high priesthood on, or did the eligible descendants-generations rotate each "year" amongst themselves? |
||||||
168 | Aaronic high priest under Rome (new thrd | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26930 | ||
Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first I've heard of Rome assigning the Jewish high priest. Can you (or anyone) clarify where the information regarding payment to Rome by high priests came from? Is there any allusion to it in the New Testament? Was it in Josephus? Can anyone verify a reference? Was there some kind of suggestion of bribes indicated (and-or direct assignment by Rome), or did they simply have official responsibility for turning over taxes from the temple treasury or something like that (w- or w-o a suggestion that some abused this by stealing some of it or inflating the amount in exchange for favors, as this would still be a separate issue)? Can anyone clarify? Also, if possible, I'd prefer to keep this as a separate thread from the earlier question of how the high priest was expected to be chosen (Scripturally and-or traditionally). The potential that the priesthood had corrupted its method of choosing the high priest under Rome is also significant, but I'd like to focus on the Scriptural and traditional guidelines in order to gain light on how the selection of Aaronic high priests illustrates the selection of Christ in the Melchizedek order. With respect to the answer about descendency from Aaron, I fully agree with you. All priests (under the Aaronic order of course, not the Melchizedek order) were descendents of Aaron, and that would include the high priest. If they remained high priest until death, could there ever be more than one "high" priest at a time? Annas was still alive when Caiaphas was high priest. Can anyone recommend specific reading that would give insight into this? |
||||||
169 | Aaronic high priest under Rome (new thrd | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26938 | ||
Thank you, Searcher56, for the direct link to the Josephus references. This looks like an excellent site from which to get information on these people and events. I think I'll be able to find much of what I wanted about the role of Rome in selecting the high priests during their reign. | ||||||
170 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37340 | ||
Was there an experiential "change" in the relationships of the essentially unchangeable Godhead when the Son was conceived? Were "God the Father" and "God the Son" new roles taken by the eternal Majesty (Heb 1:3; 8:1) and the eternal Word (Jn 1), or did these roles exist experientially within the Godhead from eternity? God does not change in His essence. However, did the eternal Majesty in heaven "become" the Father of the eternal Word (and the eternal word "become" the Son of the Majesty) at that time but not before (experientially)? |
||||||
171 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37386 | ||
Thank you for your explanation of the eternal nature of the Word. I am in full agreement with you. However, my question was whether the relationship BETWEEN the eternal Word and the eternal MAJESTY changed experientially, NOT whether the essential nature of the eternally triune Godhead changed. Thanks for adding the necessary clarification. I apologize if the question came across muddled. There would be certain implications related to such a change in experiential relationship, as well as the resulting transformation in the way God experientially identifies with and deals with the faithful -- both those before and after Christ's incarnation. However, that's a different question. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to know how this particular idea has been considered, and I want to be careful not to hold this view if there are hidden stumbling blocks associated with it. This is why I brought the question to the forum. Once again, thank you, Segerstrale, for helping me to clarify that the question was NOT related to the eternality of Jesus Christ the eternal Word or the unchangeable nature of the essence of the triune God. The question assumes these eternal attributes as givens. |
||||||
172 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37446 | ||
Thank you, srbaegon, for MacArthur's article. I have great respect for John MacArthur and the way he handles the Scriptures, and his statement was helpful. It was conforting to see that MacArthur identifies the "Incarnational Sonship" view as not being a heretical view although he has changed to the majority "Eternal Sonship" view. Certainly my recent study of Hebrews has stimulated this thinking, although much of it comes from the interaction in heaven surrounding Christ's return after taking on the role of eternal High Priest, and not simply the Psalm 2:7 quotation. I'll probably keep this on the back burner for now, but I'm glad to know it's not considered heretical -- at least by MacArthur's standards. I'd appreciate any additional comments, as well. |
||||||
173 | Is 1 John 1:9 applicable to Christians? | 1 John 1:9 | Brent Douglass | 7556 | ||
I think Tim answered well in answering your other question. Christ died for our sins while we were yet sinners in order to bring us to God (Ro 5:8), and He petitioned the Father to forgive those who crucified him -- who knew not what they were doing (Luke 23:33-34). When we confess our sins to God, He not only affirms His forgivess; He goes further to sanctify us by purifying us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn 1:9). Repentant confession of sin releases purification and sanctification into our lives. The eternal consequences of sin are removed by grace through faith (John 1:12, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8f). The ongoing erosion and pollution of sin are removed through consistent and repentant confession. (See Psalm 32, Psalm 51 and James 5:13-16, among other passages.) There is even room for the consideration of the concept as to whether all sins could have been actually removed by the shedding of Jesus blood on the cross for all men as to their power to damn us SAVE A SINGLE UNFORGIVABLE SIN -- the final refusal to humble onself in the face of the persistent, faithful and eventually incontrovertible testimony of the Spirit as to the identity, truth, holiness and surpassing worthiness of God (Mark 3:28-30)-- and consequently my own need to worship Him and my utter unworthiness and inability to do so by any merit of my own (John 9:39-41). There is clearly a forgiveness already owned by the believer -- either received upon initial beleif or even prior to it, and there is a deeper cleansing from sin that is facilitated by confession. |
||||||
174 | Can fallen angels repent? | Jude 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 4862 | ||
What passages in the Scriptures give clear indication as to whether or not any fallen angels are capable of repentance? It seems fairly obvious to me that they can not repent, but I'm confident that the Bible speaks more clearly on this than my "confidence" does? What do the Scriptures say on this? | ||||||
175 | 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. |
||||||
176 | Point of No Return | Revelation | Brent Douglass | 1936 | ||
I don't know that there is any basis for a date or time of no return. So far as I know, the blasphemy against the Spirit is explicitly given as the only example in Scripture of a point of no return. Since this is given as the only unpardonable sin, the most logical connection would probably be a point at which a person's (or a people's) arrogant resistance to God's conviction (or absolute embrace of evil) had become so complete that they were no longer open to God's input in any way. This was apparently the condition of the people in Noah's time (Genesis 6:5-8), as well as that of the nations whom the Israelites expelled. God waited 120 years during the time of Noah (Gen 6:3) and 400 years for the Israelites (Gen 15:13-21) to physically destroy the people around them -- until they had apparently reached a level, en masse, of embracing evil and resistance to God's Spirit that moved them beyond the point that even God's grace was willing to reach. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] |