Results 21 - 40 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | 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.). |
||||||
22 | 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. |
||||||
23 | 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. |
||||||
24 | 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) |
||||||
25 | 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. |
||||||
26 | 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. |
||||||
27 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 7554 | ||
An excellent source would be the compilation of Wesley's writing on the topic of "Christian Perfection" and "Entire Sanctification" that you can find at the following URL. http:\\www.whatsaiththescripture.com\Fellowship\Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html Within the the denominations and independent churches that seek to pursue Wesley's desire for "entire sanctification" -- there is a significant variance in understanding and explanation, but this article is from Wesley's own writings. He quotes the Scriptures extensively in this piece to guide his explanations. My understanding is that passages and verses such as Luke 14:25ff and Matthew 6:24-Luke 16:14, Romans 12:1f, etc. give the clearest indication of what Wesley meant by entire sanctification. It is not a condition of sinless perfection or an ability to set aside the flesh completely. Rather it is a state or condition of being fully set apart, not only positionally by God but in one's own heart and will -- a condition in which (by the Spirit's empowerment) nothing is allowed by the will to compete with God for allegiance. While there is great disagreement among those who have the pursuit of "holiness" as one of their central guiding principles -- I believe Wesley seems fairly clear in his own (later) writings that any state of "entire sanctification" can be lost and regained without at all affecting salvation itself. I believe Wesley would interpret 1 Corinthians 10:13 as a very real possibility for the true Christian at any given time and not simply a worthy but unattainable goal. This is an important part of the doctrine of many churches, as are other secondary doctrines for others. You do well to consider whether you could commit yourself to a long-term affiliation with such doctrine before you step into a new pastoral role. It is important that you follow your own conscience before God and not that of Wesley or any other great theologian -- since none of them are in full agreement about everything. (At least they weren't in agreement while in the flesh; Wesley and Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones and G. Campbell Morgan, Luther and Calvin, and others are surely in strong personal agreement now on many such matters that they disagreed upon before they entered God's presence without their fleshly limitations.) It's difficult to trace exactly what Wesley believed, as his "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" approach to doctrine resulted in his doctrine(s) being repeatedly revisited and retested by the Scriptures (maintaining the Scriptures as the supreme authority) makes it difficult to lock in on his final definitions of many concepts. Wesley was not a systematic theologian (most of whom also maintain the Scriptures as the supreme authority) who kept past conclusions on secondary doctrines as fixed and foundational -- immutable due to the height and width of subsequent doctrines built upon them. His views on secondary doctrines were somewhat more malleable -- for better or for worse. In brotherly encouragement, Brent |
||||||
28 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4579 | ||
Thanks for a thought-provoking question, Charis. God has sovereign power and enters into the affairs of man whenever He chooses to do so. (See Romans 8:23ff.) He may place a hedge of protection, as he did for all of Job's life. Even at the time when Satan was given freedom to attack Job, God set the limitations. And when it was time for the trial to end, God intervened. Satan goes as far as God permits in his (Satan's) hateful destruction but no farther. God shows, in Job's history, varying degrees of exercising the sovereign power that he has. He can control completely; He sometimes exercises this power and sometimes doesn't. God is active and engaged in the affairs of man. However, it is also noteworthy that neither Satan nor God indicate any perception or suggestion whatsoever that Job's responses are being controlled. Events are controlled and manipulated to reveal his responses (or for Satan to attempt to reveal the responses he erroneously expected); yet Job himself is not controlled. God knew how Job would respond, and Job proved not only his faithfulness but also his final receptivity to God's correction and rebuke. Job 1:10-12 ""Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ""But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.''Then the LORD said to Satan, ""Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.'' So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD. |
||||||
29 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4549 | ||
There have been a number of responses to this question that seem to me to be stating that anyone who does not recognize the 6 days of creation to be 24-hour periods is refusing to honor the Scripture. There is clearly room for a view that the 6 days were 24-hour periods. However, there is ample room (and significant Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, I believe) for an understanding of the creation days to be unspecified periods of time that took place in sequence, each one ending (evening) and the next beginning (morning) -- with us now living in the seventh day. This is simply another readily defensible view, not some radical abdication of Scriptural authority in order to pursue peace with the pagan world (as it seems to be sometimes painted). Dr. Hugh Ross is probably one of the more prolific, solidly reasoned and Scriptural modern authors who presents this point of view in his books and essays. I would recommend the writings of Ross and his "Old Earth Creationist" associates from "Reasons to Believe" -- alongside those of the "Young Earth Creastionists" at CRI supported elsewhere in these responses -- for a more balanced opportunity to examine both of these views. Reasons to Believe can be found at http:\\www.reasons.org\, which has links to their materials. Ross has appeared on "The Bible Answer Man," and in other well-respected forums on Biblical truth. |
||||||
30 | Demon possessed now? | Matt 8:16 | Brent Douglass | 4547 | ||
This seems an odd question, Hank, but I'm sure there must be something behind it. The reverse seems a more logical question. Is there anything in Scripture clearly indicating that demon possession was ended at some specific time in the past? If not, then such possession -- which was present from the time of Satan possessing the serpent and continued in the time of Christ and into the ministry of Paul -- would most naturally be assumed to continue until something happens to remove it fully. The onus for evidence lies on the opposite side of the question. Is there any Biblical evidence that demons were removed permanently at some prior time? This is separate from the question of doctrinal abuse in seeing, naming, or challenging demons in every unhappy situation or toward everyone who dares to disagree with any given teacher-exhorcist's strongly held views. Nevertheless, the need for evidence lies more squarely and logically on the shoulders of the one who would claim demon possession to have ceased than the one who claims it to continue as it did for millennia in recorded Biblical history. |
||||||
31 | 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! |
||||||
32 | Why are the Midianites called Ishmaelite | Gen 37:28 | Brent Douglass | 4368 | ||
Another possible explanation is that the term "Ishmaelites" referred only to descendants of Ishmael (who were apparently wandering traders); I don't believe there is a "land of Ishmael" mentioned anywhere in Scripture. In contrast, the term "Midianites" appears to have a broader meaning referring to people living in the land of the descendants of Midian -- just as the "Canaanites" lived in the land of Canaan. This seems supported by the fact that Moses father-in-law Jethro-Reuel was "Midianite" yet not offensive to God (Numbers 10:29). Moses married his daughter Zipporah (Exodus 2:21), and invited his son Hobab to come with the Israelites (Numbers 10:29). Yet an Israelite was later slain for having relations with a Midianite and the Midianites were considered enemies of Israel (Numbers 25:6-18). There were clearly 2 working definitions for "Midianite". Since there's no indication of sufficient relationship between Joseph's brothers and the traders to indicate actual knowledge of their ancestry, it appears that they were dressed and-or spoke like Ishmaelites and were coming from Midian and-or spoke like Midianites. The exact identity of the traders does not appear to be of particular importance. Rather it is their function-vocation as traders traveling to Egypt who would be willing to purchase and sell slaves. |
||||||
33 | 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. |
||||||
34 | why is masterbation a sin. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3558 | ||
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 This is simply a short(?) excerpt from a longer response to an earlier question from "searchingfortruth" on 4/3 (which may be the same question that "prayon" referred to earlier). I'd suggest looking over several of the many responses to that question, which were insightful and helpful. The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. It is difficult for me to conceive of deliberate contact (e.g. masturbation) resulting in orgasm as unaccompanied by some form of fantasizing or pursuit of temptation. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). (As a side note, I would consider this to be very different from "wet dreams" -- which are often a natural release not directly related to any deliberate pursuit of temptation on the part of the individual prior to going to sleep. They may be irritating and unpleasantly messy, and the lack of control of one's thought may feel disturbing and "dirty", but I believe this is often a false guilt.) |
||||||
35 | Wise Debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3083 | ||
I think this is a great question, and I'd like to leave some suggestions in case Longman is watching this question for input. First, it would be wise for Lockman to have some responsible, knowledgeable and respected people (either from their own staff or from among publicly recognized experts who would be willing to be counted upon to participate voluntarily) watching the list -- as well as someone to administrate by delegating questions to these watchers to see that all questions were covered. I don't believe it would be necessary to publicly identify these watchers as representatives of Lockman, and Lockman may already have some on the list. Perhaps they should have a "future" list to draw from as the numbers of questions and-or participants increase. These "watchers" could simply join in on the discussion whenever a question was left unanswered and-or answered incompletely or unbiblically. This would serve to help people get solid answers without shutting down participation. While I'm less concerned if there are some "bad" answers in the postings, it is definitely disconcerting when someone's careful question is left without an answer or when I dig for a question that I saw previously only to find that it disappeared without being completely answered or with only an answer that may be really way out there. This seems to happen very rarely, and there do seem to be people who try to watch the list to prevent this. It should probably be broadened and or (if not currently in practice) initiated more deliberately (behind the scenes) by the hosts themselves. I agree with others' suggestions that it would probably not be appropriate to filter postings before placing them on the forum. However, it would be helpful to have some official direction and intervention from Lockman (rather than simply members from among us who may at times appear to be self-appointed rule-makers whether they are truly self-appointed or not) regarding preferred methods of hermeneutics, netiquette, and such. It may also be helpful for certain gracious administrators to privately contact individuals for correction, as long as users are notified of this practice BEFORE it starts (and new users at the time of registration). In addition, I think it would be helpful for us to try and direct our replies to the person who asked the initial question and simply refer to previous postings. That way, the person who actually posted the question would be aware of the responses (assuming he or she had requested automatic notification of answers). Finally, it may be necessary or helpful to archive questions and their answers after a certain period of time (particularly as the list grows, and it becomes difficult to "watch" late additions to old questions to make sure that twisted theology isn't slipped in to the questioner with no corrective response after the guards are down. The official "watcher" (or watchers) for the question could briefly summarize or make final comments under a different officially-recognized Lockman name before archiving them. |
||||||
36 | Age between John the Baptist and Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3548 | ||
Luke 1:24-26,36 confirms that "Elizabeth was in her 6th month" when the angel appeared to Mary, so John was at least 5 months older than Jesus, since Jesus' conception was still in the future tense when the angel revealed this to Mary (Luke 1:31,35). We don't know at exactly what point the Holy Spirit came upon Mary to conceive Jesus, but it would appear from Elizabeth's greeting in Luke 1:42 that Jesus was already growing in Mary's womb when she arrived at Elizabeth's home. Six months, as DiVash already indicated, is probably a very close estimate. (For a little bit broader context related to the timing of these events, look at Luke 1:24-57.) | ||||||
37 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3419 | ||
Hank's concise earlier response pretty much answers this. I would simply add some of the logical observational basis for the common assumption that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry -- based on when the Scriptures do and don't say about Joseph. 5 observations are included below, which I believe indicate that Joseph died some time between Jesus' 12th birthday and the beginning of his public ministry. 1) Joseph appears in Matthew and Luke (particularly in Matthew, where Joseph's involvement is a primary focus) at the time of Jesus' birth. Matthew 1:19 specifically identifies Joseph as "being a righteous man." 2)Luke 3:23 and 4:22 identify Joseph as being the pulicly assumed and recognized father of Jesus (and 4:22 gives the indication that this reflected positively upon both of them, as they were all "speaking well of" Jesus at the time). 3) Luke 2:23 and following shows that Mary and Joseph regularly celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem and that both parents were with Jesus when he went up to Jerusalem at the age of 12. 4) The trip to Jerusalem at age 12 is the last mention of Joseph's active involvement with Jesus, and nothing at all from that time until the beginning of Jesus' public ministry is mentioned. The specific events of the (approximately 20 years of) interim are not apparently significant enough to the central message(s) of the Gospel to be included in the Scriptures (or available written history for that matter). 5) John 19:26,27 indicates that Jesus asked John to take responsibility for caring for Mary's welfare now that Jesus was gone and that John responded by taking her into his household from that day forth. (The logical implication of this is that Mary was a widow whose remaining children were not of sufficient age to care for her properly. This is an interpretation, but it's the only logical interpretation I've heard for this interchange on the cross. For further explanation of the guidelines and importance of caring for widows, see Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Tim 5:2-3,14-16). |
||||||
38 | "is" italicized or not italicized? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2927 | ||
Maybe it was a typo in the original edition. That would seem to me to be the most logical answer. I know there have been a number of typos in well-respected translations (including the several original revisions of the KJV). With all those extra words, the Amplified would be much more likely to have uncaught typos than most other translations. |
||||||
39 | 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. |
||||||
40 | what is "pass the place of repentance" | Gen 27:38 | Brent Douglass | 2623 | ||
I'm not sure if there are any references at all to a point of beyond "beyond repentance" -- unless that is the meaning of the blasphemy of the Spirit. This passage is not referring to this, however. This passage is not at all talking about Esau not being able to repent. It is talking about his father being unwilling to change the blessing he had proclaimed to Jacob. This passage is referring to Esau's selling of his birthright (as the elder son) to his younger brother. Jacob then stole his blessing, as well, and Esau tearfully asked for his father Isaac to give him the blessing. Isaac refused to take back (repent of) the blessing he had given to Jacob and give it to Esau. Jacob was thus blessed by his father with dominion over Esau. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |