Results 21 - 40 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40390 | ||
My first answer was unequivocal, and it's a hill I would die on. The second is a strong belief, but I find a strong current against it among many of my brothers and sisters. If expanded beyond its intent, it would be dangerous, but I believe it's accurate within its limited framework. 2) With regard to faith, I don't believe it is specifically faith in the Gospel that saves but rather active faith in the True God. Abraham was justified by faith, and both the angels themselves as well as all the prophets of the Old Testament longed to know more than was given them to know. (See 1 Peter 1:3-12) 1 Peter 1:20-21 "For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God." It is necessary that have faith in GOD to be saved, and Peter stresses the importance here in 1 Pe 1:21 that believers in Christ are also, by extension, believers in GOD. This is why faith in Christ saves us. Faith in GOD saved Abraham, and faith in GOD saves us. Faith in the true GOD saved Rahab, who knew very little when still a harlot in Jericho but demonstrated active faith in what she knew about Him. Those who haven't had the opportunity to hear Christ still have the witness of the universe, which testifies to the truth of the Creator; they are responsible for responding in faith. (Romans 1:18-25, which provide the context for vv. 16-17.) Only those who reject God by "suppressing the truth" and "exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God" without repentance will be damned, and this constitutes the vast majority of mankind. The one who worships a false God or some created thing or created being has rejected God -- just as surely as those who came face to face with Christ and rejected Him. I do not thus suggest that a devout Buddhist or a devout Hindu is saved through their devotion. Devotion to a false god is simply not faith in GOD. The one who believes God -- and resultantly trusts and obeys Him -- will recognize the truth of Christ when he or she encounters Christ, just as Christ guaranteed and challenged His listeners in Jn 7:16-17. "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." No one who believes God will knowingly reject Christ when given full opportunity to encounter Him. Jethro, a priest of God, exalted in God's dealing with Israel; and Melchizedek, the king and priest of Salem, likewise met Abraham in Canaan and led Abraham in worship to the true God. Still others who didn't believe in God prior to encountering Christ through our testimony will repent and believe, just as Rahab, Ruth, and the "mixed multitude" who left Egypt with the Israelites repented and believed when faced with the much more limited revelation of God to them in the Old Testament. Those who refuse Christ have once again rejected God and find themselves doubly condemned. (See Matthew 11:20-24.) The greater the revelation, the greater the judgment for those who refuse to repent and believe, and Christ's life and teaching clarifies and resolves so many unclear and difficult questions that were left unanswered without Him. (See Hebrews 10:26-31). |
||||||
22 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40374 | ||
Dear John, Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I'll wait and respond to my difficult with tulips a little later, but let me do my best to answer your question of whether or not the Gospel is the sole means of salvation. I tend to ramble profusely, so I'll take several replies to encapsulate each idea separately and provide separate targets for others. 1) The message of the Gospel is the sole means of salvation in the sense that only by the shed blood of Jesus can anyone enter the presence of God -- anyone from the fall on through the entire human race, since all have sinned. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, all the great cloud of witnesses from Hebrews 11 (and 12:1-3) are in heaven now only because of the sinless life, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus. Believers today also receive salvation only because of this, and this is Good News. Any attempt to remove this stumbling block and place all religions on equal footing mocks Christ and proclaims God a heartless butcher who would needlessly sacrifice His Son simply to add yet another way amongst the others. What an absurd caracature of God that would be! There is no other way to the Father but through the person and work of Christ, and there never was. In this sense, the Gospel is the only means. |
||||||
23 | Soul destroyed? or Eternal suffering? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 39312 | ||
Thank you, Rainbow Maker, for your solid observation. As you point out, the text definitely does refer to ability and does not directly say that God will do this, and I will keep that in mind. This is an example of the kind of feedback I am looking for. I'd love to have more of such feedback from you and others. Please don't let my reply below hinder this. That said, I also feel the need to say that I don't believe your observation leads to any change in the apparent meaning of the verse in question. I think the context (particularly Matthew 10:16-11:1) gives a very strong impression of reference to what evil men both are capable of and will do as opposed to what our righteous God both is capable of and will do -- thus encouraging the disciples as to the value of faithfully and trustingly carrying the message of God rather than fearing and yielding to obstinate and violent men. This contrast of losing one's fleshly life at the hands of men vs. losing the life of one's soul at the hands of God is reversed and restated for deeper emphasis in v.39 of this same passage. (Matthew 10:39 "He who has found his 'life' [soul -- psuche 5590, same as "soul" in 10:28] will lose it, and he who has lost his 'life' [soul -psuche again] for My sake will find it.") It seems to me that the choice presented (in Matthew 10:28,39 and the surrounding passage) is whether a) to focus on protecting one's soul with the comfort and ongoing well-being of this fleshly body at the expense of its eternity or b) to focus on actively receiving and enjoying an eternal linking of one's soul with one's spirit from God and with the Spirit of God, resulting in eternal life in His presence. The true believer will choose b) in the end, whereas the rocky soil heart of Luke 8:13-14 experiences only an apparent but passive receipt (rendered "dechomai" - Strong's 1209 - by Luke) of the seed planted within it and remains content with option a) if and when finally tested. As a side note, I also thank you for your excellent point in your reference to Matthew 7:23. I'm in full agreement that one's self-confidence of having a relationship with Christ and-or even supernatural gifting and power on God's behalf are simply not a guarantee of either saving faith or its benefits: including a true ongoing relationship with God and salvation from the eternal fires of Hell. As pointed out in Matthew 7, saving faith is active, not passive -- also illustrated clearly in Hebrews 11 and in James 2. (The testing of our faithful obedience in harsh or difficult circumstances is thus of great benefit and encouragement, since it helps to increase our assurance upon passing through a struggle and-or to jar us awake to the need for continued growth in our faith whenever we encounter short-term failures.) |
||||||
24 | 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. |
||||||
25 | 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. |
||||||
26 | 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. |
||||||
27 | 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. | ||||||
28 | 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. |
||||||
29 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14279 | ||
I'm not sure what happened with my last response, Ray. I sent it as a response to your last posting, but my response cam back as a response to my own original question. The interface seems to be doing odd things. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I had responded (in case you were looking for an automatic notification of a reply). | ||||||
30 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14062 | ||
Steve, Thank you for your input on this. Please see my response to Nicodemus, as I'd like your further input based on my question to him and my reference to your previous input in that posting. I wanted to send a response to you directly, as well, so that you would be aware of my follow-up posting. |
||||||
31 | 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." ;-) | ||||||
32 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4856 | ||
Thanks for the clarifications. I think I'm in full agreement to what you have said. Satan must have decision-making ability and can NOT be simply a negative extension of God's will and plan, since God can not tempt, and since God is light with no darkness or evil intent at all. Any implication that Satan does not have a free and independent will would naturally lead to very dangerous and unbiblical doctrines as to the nature of God. My following statement is not in any way meant as disagreement, but simply as additional clarification. There is some difference in Satan's "will" and ours, since the Scriptures seem to indicate that fallen angels are incapable of repentance, whereas fallen people (everyone, as descendants of Adam and Eve after the fall) can respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, confess our sins, repent, believe and be restored to everlasting fellowship with God. There is disagreement among orthodox Christians as to how "free" (or "irresistable") this interaction is, but we all agree that people can do this under the prompting and working of the Holy Spirit. I'll post a question to the list as to what passages advocate this eternal and irrevocable quality of the fallenness of evil angels, but I'm confident that it is Biblical. |
||||||
33 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4577 | ||
I think I understand what you're saying. Thanks for responding. There's nothing in the text that would indicate the first day (of the creation sequence) beginning after the formation of the heavens (with the 6 days referring to only the creation of the earth and what is on it), but this is a possible interpretation, and it may allow for reconciliation between observational data and the text; this is the first I've heard of this view, but there may well be others with a similar view. There is disagreement amongst those scholars and researchers who are investigating these events. There is obvious room for disagreement and discussion among those who are recognized as orthodox in their other beliefs and their general life and witness as Christians, as to whether the "SIX days" you refer to from Gen 1:3 onward (and-or the 6 days from the beginning of the first creation to its conclusion) are 24-hour days or sequenced blocks of time. |
||||||
34 | Flood in the air? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4551 | ||
It also solidified (or perhaps re-solidified) into huge masses of ice at the north and south extremes, and dissipated into the earth in most other places. The current existence of large amounts of such frozen and underground waters is a recognized observable fact by all -- whether the Scriptures directly state the obvious in this case or not. | ||||||
35 | 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. |
||||||
36 | 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. |
||||||
37 | 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? |
||||||
38 | History of eternal suffering doctrine? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 3428 | ||
Thank you for the reference. I used the book title you suggested as the basis for a search to find the book you recommended and was happy to find one of George Whitefield's sermons on this topic, which gave several passages. He quoted Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:46 and Mark 9:47-48 (actually Mark 9:43-48). These verses give a strong argument to the idea that the soul of the unbeliever suffers eternally, so I feel they have corrected my initial understanding prior to posing this question. I'll quote them below with notes. Daniel 12:2 -- Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. [This could be read as partially inclusive, as could the original verse I mentioned from Revelation.] Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [The context of this verse definitely seems all-inclusive to me, and the same Greek word is used for both instances of "eternal"; if "eternal life" means continuing forever, "eternal punishment" should mean this as well.] Mark 9:47-48 "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED." [The large type is in the NASB, indicating quotation. This also appears to be all-inclusive.] |
||||||
39 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2718 | ||
Thank you, Dacajunwolf, for a very informative and helpful explanation. I haven't studied Greek (yet, but hope to) and hadn't heard of Westcott and Hort. I'm sure this (and the other replies, as well) will help prevent misinformation. Thanks to RevC for the question -- for the same reason. | ||||||
40 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |