Results 21 - 40 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1845 | ||
I've never read a biography or any doctrinal statements by Finney. I think I may have seen 1 or 2 leaflets by him from Last Days Ministries, and I believe he had something to do with the odd modern definition of "revival" -- but that's about all I know about him. I figure he's in God's hands; I've never heard anyone refer to his teachings as a basis of denominational or congregational doctrine. Calvin and Wesley on the other hand.... | ||||||
22 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1846 | ||
Either view taken to an extreme conclusion -- hyper-Calvinism or Repetitive-Loss-of-Salvation Holiness (for lack of a better name that I know) -- becomes dangerous. However, I use Calvin and Wesley because they are both orthodox doctrinally (along with denominations that follow their doctrine carefully). Otherwise, they and those denominations following their lead are heretical and dangerous. Even most extreme extensions beyond Calvin and Wesley's original teaching are dealing in the realms of secondary doctrines, and I would not think of calling these affiliated denominations non-Christian -- despite the difficulties and even harm that some of their teachings may produce for some people. Comparison of Calvin and Calvinism to Russell (founder of the Witnesses) and the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, is problematic and potentially antagonistic. I am confidetn that it would be offensive (with good reason) to those who lean toward Calvin's theology rather than Wesley's. The Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) is heretical in its basic understanding of the nature of God -- particularly Jesus Christ, whose worship they remove and whom they equate with Michael the Archangel rather than God the Son. This deals with a basic belief core to any orthodox Christianity and disqualifies them as a Christian Church. Members may or may not be believers that have been misled or confused, but those who developed and promulgated these doctrines were and are false teachers. Any believer within such a church will be greatly hindered (at the very least) by fellowship and receptivity toward such heretical teaching. |
||||||
23 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1849 | ||
I wrote a long response (as usual) but forgot to mark it as a note. When I hit the back button, it was gone. This is the 2nd time today that an entry has disappeared before sending. I'll have to get back to you later. | ||||||
24 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1858 | ||
I really like Lloyd-Jones on "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit" -- with a few minor exceptions. (I especially like his quotation of Spurgeon's description of the Baptism of the Spirit -- yes Spurgeon, along with Moody, Edwards and others, believed in this experience-- but that's a separate discussion. The descriptions in the journals of Whitfield and the Wesleys concur with the descriptions that Lloyd-Jones quotes from Edwards and others. The Holy Spirit is sovereign over actual revival, and it is merely a large-scale experience of the Baptism (or pouring out) of the Spirit, which can also happen on an individual basis (including more than once to the same person or group, as evidenced in Acts 4:23-31, when it happened to many of the same people who had experienced it on Pentecost in Acts 2). In this century, we have scheduled "revivals" -- meetings set up according to steps designed to cause such outpouring. However, there are no such designs or manipulations in the Scriptural accounts. Nor were there such machinations in the revivals under the Wesleys and Whitfield, or under Jonathan Edwards or Dwight Moody. The Gospel was simply preached, and the Spirit fell with power. I have no problem with deliberate humbling oneself, commitment to purifying oneself (or one's congregation), asking God for boldness, (etc.) but the experience can not and should never be manipulated, advertised or sought by itself. |
||||||
25 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1929 | ||
Suffice to say I think it's fairly clear in both Biblical examples and in documented church history. Lloyd-Jones saw the baptism of the Holy Spirit as corresponding to a special empowerment for witnessing and not necessarily directly linked with any specific spiritual gifts (although it could be at times). I believe Wesley probably connected it to entry into a state of "entire sanctification" (being completely set apart for God, loving God with all of one's heart, mind, soul and strength) -- which he later recognized to be potentially temporary and needful of restoration. I agree with Lloyd-Jones, and I'm not sure if I agree with Wesley exactly on this right now. I can't say I'm set in stone on it, but I'm pretty confident of it. |
||||||
26 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 2128 | ||
I didn't have time to answe you more fully before but got out a quick answer to your question at the end. I agree with you and your pastor's statements about "increased frequency" and the "normal" work of the Spirit. It is very important not to underestimate the significance and importance of the "normal" work of the Spirit. The term "baptism" that I used is probably better referred to as "filling" -- which I believe can happen repeatedly in a person's life. There is some question as to whether the word "baptism" belongs with "receiving" the Spirit or being "filled with" the Spirit. I believe the Spirit is received once -- as the downpayment given to the believer. However, there are many examples in Acts of the same apostles being repeatedly "filled" with the Holy Spirit. As for my reference to Wesley in my earlier posting, I think I agree with his concept of "entire sanctification" -- or being entirely set a apart to the will of God (with certain understood limitations of ignorance, fleshly limitations, etc.). What I'm unsure of is whether or not this is the same as being filled with the Spirit or simply parallel in some ways. |
||||||
27 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243011 | ||
Actually, this is an easy oversight to make, but David did not father Solomon through an adulterous affair, and Uriah was not alive when Solomon was conceived. Solomon was the first child conceived by David and Bathsheba after Uriah had died. I am afraid this leaves the question unanswered. That first baby (conceived through adultery) died as a punishment from God. Remember Nathan's pronouncement about the lamb taken from the poor man, "You are the man..." See 2 Samuel 12:1-24 Note: It also seems to me that every other reference to a woman in Matthew's patrilineal lineage of Christ - except for Mary of course - references a foreigner being brought into Christ's lineage. (Some may argue that Tamar could have been a descendant of Israel but was likely a foreigner from Timnah, but Rahab and Ruth certainly were God-fearing foreigners joined into Christ's lineage through marriage.) It is also notable that Bathsheba's name is not mentioned in the lineage but instead that of her faithful foreign first husband ("the wife of Uriah". That set of observations is part of what brought on the original question, but the question of (the wording of) Uriah's inclusion is what I am focusing on here. He seems deliberately included as a foreigner into the lineage of Christ, as are the other (2 or) 3 foreigners. While Jesus was unquestionably a blood descendant of David and not Uriah, does God treat Him legally as a descendant of Uriah the Hittite as well. |
||||||
28 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243013 | ||
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the input, and I am honestly not trying to be argumentative. I am not a Greek scholar, but more literal English versions and a parallel text confirm to me that Bathsheba's name was not really mentioned directly in any of the Greek texts. I was not looking at the on-line version of the NASB but rather an off-line version. I guess I was looking at the 1977 NASB version (in my e-sword software) before the interpretive phrase "Bathsheba who had been the" was added into v.6 of the NASB translation. The older version has simply "her who had been the wife of Uriah" (with "who had been the wife" in italics to show it was added to flow more smoothly) per a more literal translation of the Greek ("her of Uriah"). I do not at all question the truth of your statement that God was supremely gracious to David in including him in Jesus' line despite his adultery. However, I don't at all see this particular passage as speaking to that. It seems to me that the inclusion of Uriah as a foreigner by obliquely referencing his wife in the lineage instead fits much more accurately into the pattern of all other insertions of women into this passage of a purely patrilineal legal inheritance through Jesus' adopted father Joseph, not His mother - so not through blood.) Once again I am back to observations of the original wording of Matthew 1:1-16, a completely patrilineal genealogy that deliberately references only 4 women other than Jesus' mother Mary. (I don't count Mary in the observation because she really needs to be mentioned from a genealogy standpoint as the only human parent of Jesus). Three of these women mentioned are foreigners (if one can allow that Tamar was almost definitely a foreigner) and the other is only mentioned as the unnamed wife of a named foreigner. The addition of these 4 women seems to have a fairly clear and consistent purpose of identifying foreigners with the genealogy of Jesus. That seems the only obvious explanation for their inclusion. I tend to doubt your view that this oblique mention of a woman's previous husband (who then just randomly happens to be a foreigner like every other woman added) breaks with the purpose of the other three women in order to insert a non-stated and completely separate interpretation that the Writer wanted to quietly introduce an idea of grace granted to David as a man who was previously an adulterer into the midst of the genealogy. (Solomon was not conceived under adultery after all, but only after God had forgiven David.) Therefore, I believe Uriah is mentioned in the list specifically because he is a foreigner (or perhaps the three foreign women are even mentioned partly to draw attention to Uriah as a foreigner, but that's a stretch). If so, what then is Uriah the Hittite's significance as a foreigner being included in the genealogy of Jesus? (The answer seems to be that Uriah may indeed be a legal ancestor in God's eyes, and I want to know if this is completely unrealistic or a viable understanding of the passage. I need a more careful investigation of the implications and validity, not a polite and cordial dismissal.) |
||||||
29 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243014 | ||
Ed, after posting my reply, I now see I was short-sighted in not noting the aspect of adultery that also applies to all 4 women: Tamar who resorted to deceit and posing as a prostitute to be included in Judah's family; Rahab the former harlot; Ruth whose in-laws had intermarried with an idolatrous people although Ruth herself was apparently already a believer when she met Boaz; and a woman who had been brought into David's house through adultery, deceit, and murder. This could be singly associated with the aspect of grace offered to adulterers, but it also seems odd that the names given all appear to be those of foreigners, so it doesn't remove the possibility of both. It does put your interpretation in a very different perspective though, so I understand better where it came from. |
||||||
30 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243016 | ||
The one who raises up an heir for the dead does not need to be a brother. The principle is that someone should raise up an heir for the man who tragically dies early having no heir, and the first child is then treated as his child. For example, David's grandfather Obed was legally the son and heir of Naomi and Elimelech through Ruth and her first husband (who is not clarified, probably Chilion but maybe Mahlon per Ruth 1:2-5), even though he was Boaz and Ruth's first child by blood. (See Ruth 4:5-22.) This responsibility was typically fulfilled by the closest available male relative (as indicated in Ruth 3:11-13). However, the idea of a patron fulfilling this duty is also understandable, particularly in a case where the patron was responsible for the death of the childless man. This would be David's role as king, adulterer, and killer over the foreigner Uriah, who might otherwise have no inheritance at all in Judah or Israel. 2 Samuel 12:22-24 seems to make it absolutely clear that Solomon was the first son born to David and Bathsheba after the death of Uriah. Yet 2 Samuel 5:13-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-8 both list Solomon last among the sons born to David and Bathsheba in Jerusalem. This seems to contradict precedence of listing according to birth order -- unless of course in God's eyes they were all born to David and Bathsheba but Solomon is legally another man's son. |
||||||
31 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243023 | ||
I will let you cool off, Ed, and perhaps repost my question another time. You are obviously offended in some way by me, my question, or something. I do not have time for this. As you have moved from what I thought was trying to answer my question to treating the question as ignorant and inappropriate because it doesn't meet your superior standard, I see the reason for the sloppiness in your original reply was probably more out of being too quick to get rid of what you deemed an inappropriate question than a desire to help. I will wait and repost the question in the future, perhaps in a less offensive manner. When I do, please do not answer it. I would rather get input than have someone answer just to get a question out of circulation quickly because they deem it unworthy of discussion. |
||||||
32 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243031 | ||
Ed, your answer was definitely offensive to me at the time due to the obvious assumptions and condescending and hypocritical tone I found within it. I feel that I had deliberately extended grace in my clarifications to you after you twice misquoted Scripture in this thread (first saying that Solomon was the result of an adulterous affair and later that Bathsheba's name was used directly in the Matthew genealogy, neither of which are accurate from the original Biblical text itself). Then shortly after in the same thread you accuse me of ignoring the Scriptures and asking what certainly appears to be a rhetorical question as to what difference the answer to my question makes anyway. I am not sure how to interpret these observations in a non-offensive way. Nevertheless, I will leave it behind because I do not wish to abandon the forum at this point or turn this into a further distraction from the question itself -- with people adding misguided suggestions about possible Muslim assumptions, not believing the Scriptures, or a liberal trying to undermine the genealogy of Christ. I accept none of those labels, and do not wish to enter into some kind of self-defense demonstrating the genuineness of my faith or my confidence in God's Word. I don't care to spend time "working through" the basis of whatever assumptions you carry about me or my motives in posting the question, but I wanted to be clear in this separate note before returning to the question at hand. For my part, you are forgiven whether you feel forgiveness is needed or not. |
||||||
33 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243032 | ||
I believe Uriah was most likely a proselyte of Hittite ancestry, as that would be the most straightforward reading of the various texts including his name. He seems to clearly be a believer in YHWH based on David's inclusion of him in living in such proximity to the palace, his repeated inclusion among David's mighty men, and the way that his wife seems to be treated as a woman of honor despite David's obvious abuse of Uriah and David's rebuke by God through Nathan. I also doubt that David would have trusted a foreigner without first verifying his sincerity to YHWH and to Israel (having deceived the Philistines himself several times). However, David also came from a heritage of accepting foreign believers in YHWH into Israel and into the tribe of Judah: being only a few generations descended from both Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab. As to the potential perception that inclusion of Uriah into the (legal but non-blood) lineage of the Messiah would somehow remove David, that is clearly not the case based on the remaining lineage. For example, Boaz is included in the lineage, and Judah is included with no mention of Judah's son Er (Tamar's first husband). If the dead husband automatically replaced the actual father in the lineage, Boaz should have been replaced by Elimelech or Mahlon as indicated in application of the principle in Ruth 4:5-17 - but shown not to impact Boaz's place in the recognized genealogy for David in Ruth 4:18-22 or in Matthew 1. There is no suggestion whatsoever here to discredit Jesus as the Messiah descended from David, Judah, and Abraham. Also, as you noted earlier, this is not a blood lineage to Jesus. That is recorded in Luke 3:23, which I would interpret, "Jesus Himself.. being the son (supposedly of Joseph but really) of Eli [Mary's father]..." I was actually surprised to find that this was also through David and Bathsheba (and not another wife) through their son Nathan (Luke 3:31-32; 1 Chron 3:5). It is true that this lineage establishes Jesus' legal inheritance to the throne of Israel and Judah (by adoption through Jesus' earthly father Joseph) all the way from David and Solomon through all the descended kings of Judah to Jeconiah/Jehoiachin at the deportation to Babylon and beyond. However, this is not a parable, so this does not mean that God has nothing else to communicate through the text but that one point. This is a completely paternalistic genealogy except for the inclusion of 4 women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah's wife (whose own name is not even directly mentioned in the original text of Matthew). What do these named people have in common through the unique mention of women in this patrilineal line? They are all foreign believers in the true God YHWH who were grafted into God's people -- and they are all noted deliberately in the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah who reigns on David's throne. (Someone may argue about Tamar, but there are strong potential indicators that she was a foreigner, and Judah certainly did not seem averse to having a foreign wife for himself or having sexual relations with someone he considered to be a foreign prostitute.) So we see that God always included all true believers (in His true Self as revealed in His words of the Bible and in the world and heavens that declare His glory) among His children and His people. Grafting in Gentiles may seem a new concept to the Judaizers of New Testament times, but God had always grafted them in -- even into the line of the Messiah. This seems to me evident from the text. My question is whether God went beyond this and here (at least metaphorically) honors a believing Gentile by applying the rights of kinsman redeemer. Yes, this would be beyond what the Jews would normally do. It would include a Gentile who had bonded himself to David and God's people as a believer in God and one of David's trusted mighty men by mentioning him specifically in the lineage of Christ. If the kinsman redeemer principle is applied, this explains Solomon's description as the son of David by Uriah's wife and the parallel with the other women mentioned. It would also potentially resolve the reason as to why Solomon was listed last among David and Bathsheba's sons in 1 Chron 3:5, 1 Chron 14:4, and 2 Samuel 5:14. This explanation does not make this true. I believe it to be a possible interpretation, but not something I would hold strongly. However, I also do not see it as of yet to be negated or disproven by anything given so far. My purpose in asking the question was to see whether this was way off base or plausible. So far, it still seems plausible to me. |
||||||
34 | 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.] |
||||||
35 | 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.) |
||||||
36 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1789 | ||
I agree with Charis's choice of 1 Cor 14:39-40 to challenge this. This verse is an excellent admonition to Whyndell and-or anyone who would seek would seek to say authoritatively that tongues or prophecy CAN NOT exist today. This is basically equivalent to forbidding them, and directly violates Paul's command, unless there is a direct statement ending and condeming them in a later Scripture (which there isn't). It is probably safe to say that your (Whyndell's) experience with tongues was false and that MANY exercises of tongues are counterfeit -- coming either from the individual deluding himself, psychological manipulation on the part of others, and-or from false spirits. This needs to be taken into consideration whenever tongues or prophecy are practiced, and they need to be properly tested; this is often (usually?) neglected. There are good experiential reasons why many Christians have an initial distrust toward congregations where these gifts are practiced. This does not negate God's sovereign potential to use them if and whenever He so chooses. All of the following arguments come from 1 Cor 14, so I will simply offer the verse numbers (vv.nn) I'd also take issue with your suggestion that tongues are never for individual edification. I think 1 Corinthians 14 clearly states that the individual who speaks in a Holy-Spirit-given-tongue is spiritually edified (vv.2,4,14,17)in his pure worship or thanksgiving and that this is fruitful for his spirit (although not his mind, unless there is interpretation v.14). They are never for showing off, but they apparently edify the individual believer when practiced privately. I agree that they are real languages (vv.10-13), are NOT prophetical (vv.1-4) but rather for God-given prayer and-or worship (vv.13-17) -- with which others can then share and say, "Amen," if they are translated. For the record, I am a member of a church that does not practice these gifts in the assembly (to my knowledge). I believe I am somewhat objective. |
||||||
37 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1857 | ||
I assume that you're still on the list, Whyndell, but are simply tired of responding to this particular thread. I'd like to clarify some things from my previous posting. This can be a maddening topic, since there is so much abuse of this gift in many (if not a vast majority of) situations where it is practiced. (If I were to base this only on various and varied personal observations of worship services, I could even be tempted to say "all" situations, but I hesitate to thus "forbid" their practice, since I feel this would be against Scripture). Nevertheless, if one is convinced that such gifts have ceased, he or she must obviously take such an approach (with fear and trembling, I trust, for reasons that I restate below). I absolutely agree that Paul was not discouraging people from correcting error. He was, however, saying not to forbid speaking in tongues (in the manner in which God ordained that they be practiced, and in no other way). For the record, I agree with your definition of tongues as meaning earthly languages. Every direct reference and example of tongues in Scripture (including 1 Cor 12 and 14, Pentecost, and Peter's preaching to Cornelius and his friends) refers specifically to actual human languages; Paul's reference that there are many languages and none is without meaning (1 Cor 14:10) surely indicates a reference to earthly tongues. It seems unreasonable to assume the mention of "tongues of angels" anything but exaggeration in 1 Corinthians 13:1, unless we are also to consider some to "know all mysteries and all knowledge" and to "have all faith, so as to remove mountains" as well. Clearly Paul is not necessarily advocating these as real possibilities. I assume that your statement, "You do not have the simplest understanding of what tongues were for," refers to the fact that tongues were used as a sign. It is true that one purpose of tongues is as a sign, albeit not a sign leading to belief among unbelievers or the ungifted -- just as prophecy is a sign leading to new belief (1 Cor 14:22-25, full passage needed for context). However, just has prophecy has other purposes than simply acting as a sign (clear and accurate communication from God), so may tongues (perhaps purer worship of God without being filtered through a fleshly mind). If, on the basis of 1 Cor 14:22-25, one says tongues can only be used as a sign and nothing else, he must do the same with prophecy, for they are clearly compared and contrasted in parallel. This is a tiresome subject, and it would take a book to clarify it. I recommend the collection of Lloyd-Jones sermons on this topic, "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit." I'm not in full agreement (including something this posting), but I think he has the best explication I've seen. |
||||||
38 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 142287 | ||
Dear footwasher, Please do not be put off by my directness in the answer below. There is no offense intended toward you, but I believe the facts of the Scriptures are clear on this. Also, for the record, I frequently pray in tongues. However, I believe they are real human languages even though I don't understand them. The definition you give is an interesting idea, but ideas must be tested by Scripture. The Scriptures are very clear in Acts 2:4-11 that the disciples were empowered by the Holy Spirit to "speak in other tongues" and that Jews from various other countries heard them "in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." The power of the Spirit was upon the speakers, not the hearers. The worship of God in various languages given by the Spirit at Pentecost clearly consisted of real human languages that could be recognized and understood by those around them. In 1 Cor 14, Paul says that there are "a great many kinds of languages in the world" (1 Cor 14:10). These are also earthly tongues. He goes on to say that tongues are used for praise, blessing, and thanksgiving (1 Cor 14:16). He also stresses the importance of the ungifted or unbeliever understanding the language being spoken in order for edification to take place (1 Cor 14:16-17,23). The idea that the gift of tongues includes giving of a specific "heavenly language" is not a biblical concept and has no clear example in the Scriptures. The most detailed examples of both practice and teaching regarding tongues clearly connect Spirit-enabled tongues with human languages. There may be a question in both your and my minds regarding how those from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation will communicate and worship together before the throne -- whether in a common language, through ability to understand tongues, or some other method. However, God has not chosen for the Scriptures to deal with this question, so we must finally leave it unanswered for now. The Scriptures have higher authority than whatever teacher told you that the gift of tongues equates with praying in a heavenly language, no matter how convincing s/he was. I would suggest asking for clear biblical observations to back up such suggestions. I don't believe any will be forthcoming. The Bible must ALWAYS be the authority in such questions. |
||||||
39 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181483 | ||
Merry Christmas CD, I'm definitely fascinated with God's plan and how He worked it out so far as He has revealed. I believe it's the glory of God to conceal certain things in such a way that we can delight in discovering them later (Proverbs 25:2). This is one of those little aspects that bubbles to the surface for me every year at Christmas as I try to imagine in my mind's eye what happened. This has been the case for many years, as these questions have lain dormant but unanswered. It seems that this forum is a good place to seek insight on such a topic. The sending of Mary to Elizabeth's home for the first 3 months of her pregnancy (when there are usually certain physical results associated with pregnancy) and the apparent lack of the expected stigma of a baby conceived prior to wedlock seem to me to reveal a providential concealing of the timing except to those of Mary's, Joseph's, and Elizabeth's family to whom God or Mary and Joseph chose to reveal the miracle. Without this concealment, it seems to me that the scandal would have been a constant cloud over the family. Joseph, as a "righteous man," assumed the normal natural cause of Mary's pregnancy (unfaithfulness) rather than an unprecedented supernatural (but true) cause. I would expect others to do the same but to go further by following their natural fleshly inclinations and ruin the family's reputation through gossip. Yet no such gossip seems to be present in the gospels. This seems to me providential, but there is little room to examine such providence in the current image that is in most of our minds from media (in this case, well-intentioned media that are valuable in helping us imagine the event). This doesn't remove the wonder of "God with us" and the perfect providential plan to bring light and salvation to our hopeless race. It is clearly a secondary but interesting (and I believe valuable) consideration nevertheless. |
||||||
40 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181513 | ||
Hi Doc, Thanks for the insight regarding the view people would have had regarding the "legitimacy" of Jesus' origins if they believed He had been conceived by Mary and Joseph during the betrothal. This is a helpful consideration. It doesn't remove the question of whether Joseph and Mary were actually left with this longstanding disgrace or whether God providentially arranged the timing of events in such a way that only very few would know. However, it does help to keep a more balanced impression of what probably resulted if God did not protect Joseph, Mary, and Jesus from a public impression of conception during betrothal but prior to marriage. If the opportunity were there, I would surmise that Joseph would have looked to publicly marry Mary as early as possible in the pregnancy and then to leave for Bethlehem before most in Nazareth knew she was expecting. The 2nd trimester would also have been a much better time for travel, and a teenager may well have been not yet showing early in the 2nd trimester with a first baby. Family in Bethlehem would then simply know that Joseph had brought along his wife and that she was with child -- not necessarily knowing the timing of the engagement and marriage. The chronology of events that are specifically outlined does, to me, hint of a potential protective hiding of the pregnancy: 3 months spent away at the beginning (the first trimester, when morning sickness could draw attention), the fact that there was a period of deliberate abstention from sexual relations after marriage but prior to birth (rather than simply abstention due to Mary being too large and uncomfortable for sex), etc. I know this is not a fully answerable question -- to say, "Yes, it must have happened that way..." This is not stated, and so must be left uncertain until Heaven. My concern is more that the image I hold of God's working in these events is not in any way contrary to what He reveals in Scripture, and I wish to test that in this forum. (If so, I want to correct it where possible once I'm aware of my error.) I can also appreciate your statement that you "don't ever recall thinking that Jesus was born the night of Mary and Joseph's arrival in Bethlehem." I don't specifically remember thinking that either personally. I also don't know that I've ever heard it directly taught by a pastor. But I do know of multiple portrayals in film, rhyming children's books, etc. attempting to help us imagine the events. Most (if not all) portray Mary as arriving in Bethlehem very large and ready to pop with Joseph frantically looking about for a room where they can have the imminent birth inside and away from the elements. I have increasingly questioned this image in my own mind, but it is clearly there in almost every visual depiction that I have seen. Thank you again for your helpful insight. In His grace, Brent |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |