Results 21 - 40 of 44
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191737 | ||
Hi Jeff, If you had said to me that you believed that salvation was by works I would go to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate from the Scriptures that you were wrong. Such a view could have possibly harmed your hope of salvation (I say possibly because you might have just been citing James). But when you say that you do not agree with my interpretation of who the spirits in prison are it really matters little to me one way or the other who you think they are. If you are convinced of your position, which I suspect you are, I have no desire whatsoever to try to change your view on a matter of such little relevance. And it would take up far too much space. If anyone is genuinely in doubt on the passage and would like to know contact me by email. But if you are confident of your own position then please do not waste my time. You are probably in no state to be convinced, and I certainly am not. I have studied all positions carefully. Changes of doctrine in such obscure matters do not in fact usually happen overnight. They arise when doubts begin to creep in. And you will be pleased to know that that is not one of the questions you will be asked at the pearly gates (please don't take that literally). In spite of the heading I was not answering a question about the spirits in prison. I was answering one about the meaning of verse 20. The previous verse was only dealt with in order to provide a context. However I do intend to add some explanation in response to your posting, and I will tell you why. It is because it is my inner gut feeling that you believe that it teaches a second chance. That I do consider to be important, because nowhere in Scripture is a second chance ever offered after death. As Abraham said to the rich man, 'Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may pass from there to us' (Luke 16.26). As i have gone over my allotted words I will do so in another post. God bless you too Rabban. |
||||||
22 | Colors - Tabernacle/High Priest | Ex 25:3 | rabban | 191673 | ||
Hi Doc, I understand that you have to keep a careful watch but may I gently suggest that you are exaggerating the situation slightly? :-))) I hardly 'interpreted the majority of symbol'. That white linen represents the imputed righteousness (purity) of the saints we know from Revelation 7.14. In 19.8 it represents the righteousnesses of the saints. We can also compare how the pure angels appeared in white. So I think that that is justification enough to see the white as indicating purity and righteousness. All were fit to enter Heaven. Clearly the white linen therefore 'represented' the priests as 'fitted' to enter the Holy Place. That gold in one way or another represents the divine kingship we know from the fact of the deterioration from gold, through silver to bronze in The Tabernacle. It can hardly be seen as indicating anything else unless we ignore all significance of the symbols. The nearer things came to God the more they contained gold. Especially as the mercy seat, the divine throne as many consider it to be, is of gold. Thus the gold told them that they were approaching God These two interpretations I consider to be cast iron (if gold can be cast iron :-)))) ) I certainly do not see them as speculation. With regard to the two colours I put a question mark after them to indicate that the possible interpretations were speculative. That hardly 'implies authority'. But they were clearly intended to indicate something, even if only glory and beauty. Of course had I gone into greater detail your criticism might have been valid, and as a general warning is justified. But I do not consider that I went outside the bounds of sola Scriptura at all. However thank you for your thought In Him. |
||||||
23 | is masterbation a sin | Rom 12:1 | rabban | 191663 | ||
Thank you Azure, You will now see why I 'excluded' women and lowly sexed men. Neither can have the slightest knowledge of the extremly powerful urges that highly sexed men have. They can have a driving force which is virtually irresistible, and they go on and on and on relentlessly often destroying a man's usefulness, and very often resulting in actual pain and extreme discomfort. Now if we were talking about something specifically forbidden it would be one thing. My point is precisely that a wise God did not do so because He recognised the situation and need of special cases. Let me add another one. Here is a person with leukemia. As a result he has been infected with AIDS. As a result he cannot make love to his beloved wife. Can you perhaps tell me what the difference is between foreplay (which presumably you would not condemn) and masturbation with his wife in mind? There is little difference between the two. When we consider the emotions that foreplay arouse (and that is also never approved in Scripture, Song of Solomon notwithstanding) perhaps we should forbid that as well? Your article fits adequately the case of the young man considering the situation when he is unmarried. It overlooks totally the problems that I have described, and in fact hardly has them in mind, if at all. I would point out that the writer makes certain assumptions. How does he know what God designed sex for? Has he a direct line to God? And what I have described is in fact a bonding experience between man and wife. Is that not one reason why God 'designed' sex? That is why God gave us the Scriptures. It was that we may follow his will not men's ideas. especially in difficult questions like this. I have no intention of prolonging the subject. But until each one can give a satisfactory answer in their own hearts (not on the forum) to my questions I rest my case. In Him |
||||||
24 | is masterbation a sin | Rom 12:1 | rabban | 191660 | ||
I have read right through the past postings on this matter very carefully and note that one aspect of the question has never really been dealt with, one that I would feel is very important. Parable's analysis of the question is very useful, and it does raise the question as to how far we can speak when Scripture is silent. After all we must ask ourselves, why was Scripture silent on a question which must certainly have concerned many men? God must have known the torment that could arise in sexually potent men when their sexual feelings were aroused through no fault of their own, and they were unable to be satisfied, say when they were travelling or when they were awaiting battle. And He must have known how they found release. Why then if He disapproved is nothing said? Moses must often have been approached privately by men who wanted an answer to the same question. And the same must apply to the prophets. Why then do we get no guidance if it was considered wrong? We are not talking here about a young man or a boy experimenting with sexual matters, where it is unquestionably wrong.But of a genuine problem facing grown men. I think Parables's summary at the end especially important. "While the Bible does not expressly address masturbation, it honors sexual purity and speaks to the content of our hearts and the life we give to our thoughts. Accordingly, masturbation should not be dismissed as trivial or irrelevant, but rather understood as a powerful experience that each person must consider in light of scripture, prayer, counsel and conscience." I think that is true. But let me suggest three scenarios. 1). Here is a man who dearly loves his wife. He married because he knew that the sciptures said. 'It is better to marry than to burn.' But sadly his wife is in hospital long term. Perhaps she is mentally ill and he knows that she might never come out. Or perhaps she is slowly dying of some lingering disease. And because he is highly sexed he is burning, and even in pain. There is nothing that he can do about it. It is his nature, the nature of which Paul spoke. And that burning as he works in an office with a woman at work is becoming uncontrollable (and only highly sexed males can even understand this). Yet he knows that if he finds relief in bed while thinking of his poor, beloved wife, those burnings will be controlled. He fears that if they are not he will soon do something that he knows to be wrong. And he knows that he will never forgive himself because he is loyal to his wife and to his God. What should he do? Here is another man. His wife has become very 'holy'. She refuses any more to have sex (I know of such a case). Again he married because he knew that he could not remain pure without doing so. Now he does not know what to do. His feelings are becoming more and more aroused and there is no way of being satisfied. He knows that his one hope of remaining true is to make love to his wife by proxy alone in bed. What should he do? Here is a Roman Catholic priest. He has made a vow of celibacy. He does not want to break his vow. Yet scantily clad women come to him for advice, and he feels his sexuality getting out of control. It has become not just a desire but a literal pain. He is afraid that if he finds no release he will commit some great sin. But he wants to be faithful to his vow (however ill-conceived). What should he do? I want to suggest that when we can answer these questions satisfactorily (women and lowly sexed men excluded) we have found the Scriptural answer to the question. |
||||||
25 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191636 | ||
Hi Cheri, While full details of the Passover are not included mention is made of the feast of the Passover (Ezekiel 45.21). They are to 'have the Passover'. It is the only Feast he actually mentions by name. He would not need to spell out the details. As you are aware Ezekiel gives little detail of the feasts. There was no need. Israel were fully familiar with them. I presume you are suggesting that the Passover sacrifice and the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement being omitted are connected with Christ having died as our Passover and Atonement? But if that were so we would expect no mention of a sin offering either. But the sin offering is prominent, as is the need to make atonement (43.21, 26; 44.29; 45.17, 19, 22, 23, 25). Thus we may see this latter as confirming the opposite to your suggestion, that it does not have in view the death of Christ except as something yet to come :-)))). But I do see as very significant that there is no suggestion anywhere that the Temple should be built. It did not need to be built. It came down on a mountain specifically outside Jerusalem as his full explanations make clear. God was again present among His people, not in Jerusalem, but in the land of Israel. Only the altar was required to be built. Before the new Temple was built this would be extremely important to the returning exiles. They could build an altar. They had no wherewithal to build a Temple. In Him. |
||||||
26 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191631 | ||
No problem :-)) | ||||||
27 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191629 | ||
To Hank. (This will be my last post on this subject. I feel it is taking us away from more important things. I am not really an important enough bull to take up so much space). You ask 'Are you saying essentially that each generation of individual Christians are to throw out the corpus of centuries-old teachings, confessions, and creeds (what we call orthodoxy, for want of a better name) and each in his own way proceed to re-invent the theological wheel? If not, what are you driving at? ...... No we need not throw out the wheels but we have contantly to check the tyres. Every church in ever generation would be very wise to examine its teaching and creeds against the Scriptures and throw out what is unscriptural. All churches are unscriptural in some ways. We need constantly to review our teaching in the light of Scripture. That indeed was the basis of the great Protestant confessions. But even they have to be tested by each person in so far as they can in order to ensure that they are Scriptural. After all which one are we to follow? In other words we have to make our decision as to which one we should take to heart as demonstrating the truth. Obviously it helps if we know that great Bible teachers have declared one to be Scriptural. But even they can go wrong. |
||||||
28 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191622 | ||
People must be wondering what all this has to do with where animals go when they expire :-)))). To Steve Humbled By His Grace. You say. Note again your statement/question "Who are you going to make the arbiter of truth? A failing church which has distorted God's truth through the centuries? And which part of the church? Are we to look to Apollos? or Paul? or Peter? (1 Corinthians 1.12)." The latter part of the sentence was following Paul's pattern As he points out in 1 Corinthians 4.6, 'I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written'. I could have said Tom, Dick and Harry. However I preferred a Scriptural pattern. And Paul said, do not look to Peter, Apollos and myself. Look to the Scriptures. My concern is that we also should not go beyond what is written. Paul was, of course, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, and possibly The Testimony of Jesus. I include the New. There is only one arbiter of truth and that is the Scriptures, which of course includes Peter and Paul (but not Apollos) when they were speaking under inspiration. But they did not always speak under inspiration as Galatians 2.11 ff makes clear. In fact the church was a failing church from the beginning. We only have to read Paul's, Peter's, James',and John's letters to recognise this, as well as Revelation 1-3, and indeed the whole of Revelation. Once the Apostles died the church sank into even greater spiritual formalism. We only have to read Clement and Ignatius to recognise this (we tend to read them in terms of Scriptural ideas and can therefore see them as saying more than they actually did). The spiritual power and message of Paul is mainly absent. Where is justification by faith alone in Clement and Ignatius? The only thing (apart from God's power) that enabled the church to survive with any element of truth was because they so rigidly insisted on looking back to Apostolic authority and to the Scriptures. These kept the church alive. In fact to anyone who has studied church history in the first 500 years the miracle is that the church did not collapse under a weight of extravagant teaching. It was only due to the adherence to the Scriptures in spite of it that the church did survive. You mentioned looking to the Spirit guided teachers of the church. But that was precisely the problem that the Corinthians had. They thought that they were looking to the Spirit guided teachers of the church. It was by the word of God that Paul called them back to the truth, and emphasised looking for individual spiritual illumination. |
||||||
29 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191592 | ||
Steve. I have actually done nothing of the sort. I suggest you read my answer again and think about it more carefully. If you then have any more questions I suggest you email me. Your question raises issues that I feel would be better dealt with in private. In Him |
||||||
30 | Bible lesson for nosy neighbor | Prov 15:1 | rabban | 191577 | ||
Hi The point behind the story is that if we put up signs declaring that we belong to Christ, if we fail then to live up to them we bring Him into open disrepute. For example should you put in your window, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' you are setting a standard for yourself which you may well be unable to maintain. You are declaring 'this is how I live, and by this I wish to be judged'. I certainly believe that we should all be living in that way. But I would hesitate to display myself continually under such a banner because I am too much aware how often I fall short. By making it the measure by which people judge me I would constantly be bringing myself under its judgment in the eyes of all. And I would at the same time by any failure be bringing Christ into disrepute. From the moment I put up the notice much better things would be expected of me. Your neighbour will indeed then be in the unusually strong position of being able to point out that you are not loving him/her as you love yourself, and are therefore a hypocrite. The likelihood that he will think that it is he who is at fault is minimal. That could then remove any shame that he/she feels about his/her own actions. Indeed he/she might become even more extreme on the grounds that you have declared that you will put up with anything. Of course if you are sure that you can totally live up to that standard then by all means do so. But from that moment on all your neighbours will rightly expect you to be an exemplary neighbour, more than the norm. Thinking back to the illustration I have never known a car driver who drove in such a way that they never caused offence to anyone. I have often driven behind a car driver who had 'Trust in the Lord' in his window, and have realised that with his driving I will certainly need to. Best wishes. |
||||||
31 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191575 | ||
I think that the problem lies in what we mean by decide. We are each using a different definition. You are using the term 'to decide' as meaning 'to determine (although even that has two meanings), to fix in stone'. I am using it to mean 'to discern, work out what it means, and come to a decision about.' If it does not matter how we explain God's word, why do we do it? I think it matters very much how we explain God's word. Of course we do not decide what is there, or what words God (and the translators if we use a translation) caused to be written, but we certainly decide what in our view it means. You are very good at citing a text and saying 'its meaning is clear', but I notice that you do not give its meaning. You simply say, 'it's obvious'. In other words you are saying, 'I have interpreted it this way and I am completely right'. If that isn't 'deciding' what is? But if we want to help people we do have to explain the meaning of texts. Robertson in his Word Pictures (and many others) says of 1 Peter 1.20-21, 'It is the prophet’s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.' In other words it is not talking about how WE interpret Scripture at all, but on how the prophets themselves understood it in ordsr to pass it on. Is that what you understand by the verse? If we study, and research and do our best to get it right, we then have to come to a final decision on what it means. So we are deciding what it means. The truth I suspect is that we are simply discussing at cross purposes because we are using words with different meanings. I wish I could be sure that I always decided what God has decided about the meaning of Scripture, but sadly I cannot. While my central doctrine has not changed over fifty years, my understanding of it certainly has. Thus decisions I now make about the meaning of Scripture are very different from those I made fifty years ago. I used to be a premillennialist until I recognised how often I had to twist the meaning of words and passages in order to make them fit in. I became uneasy and then began to see things from a different view. That is why I am an amillennialist. So actually in my youth I was deciding what the Scriptures said in the wrong way, because I was unconsciously manipulating it to fit in with the theories of Dr Scofield. Now I think I am deciding them in the right way, because my decisions are based on taking them to mean what they say. If we are responsible before God for what we teach and what we tell people then we have to come to a decision first as to what we do tell them. You see our argument arises because we are using the idea of making a decision in a different way, It is all an argument over nothing. And I never waste my time arguing over nothing. So I will close the discussion here. We will agree to disagree, although the funny thing is that I do not think that we disagree at all (except about the meaning of 1 Peter 1.20). Best wishes. |
||||||
32 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191567 | ||
You have given two references, but you clearly explain them differently from me. So how can they be self explanatory? Thus in your interpretation you are deciding what God's word says :-)))) You really cannot avoid the fact. If you do so you are not being realistic, in which case there is no point in discussing further. 'Study to show yourself approved to God, rightly dividing the word of truth.' If you are righly dividing the word of truth you are making decisions about what the word of God means :-))) Of course we compare Scripture with Scripture. That is the main method we use in deciding what the word of God is saying. But it is in fact WE who compare Scripture with Scripture, and decide which Scriptures to compare. That is the method which, hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit we use, but we still have to decide what God's word is saying. Or do you have a divine commentary which tells you exactly what it means without your having to think or research anything, and which bleeps when you fail to understand it correctly? In Him |
||||||
33 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191561 | ||
'We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God' (1 Corinthians 2.12). 'He who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged of no man' (2 Corinthians 2.15). 'We have the mind of Christ' (2 Corinthians 2.16). These are but three Scriptures which make clear that through the Holy Spirit we receive God's direct illumination. Who are you going to make the arbiter of truth? A failing church which has distorted God's truth through the centuries? And which part of the church? Are we to look to Apollos? or Paul? or Peter? (1 Corinthians 1.12). Whose interpretation are we to follow? It was because we must look to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our own minds that 1 Corinthians 2 was written. Of course we seek the help of those who understand the Scriptures, (who all to some extent disagree), and learn from them, but each of us is in the end responsible for our own souls, and through the Holy Spirit, are responsible for our own understanding of Scripture. 2 Peter 1.20-21 is talking about the fact that what the prophets spoke was not 'privately interpreted' by them but was given to them by the Holy Spirit with the consequence that we can know it is the truth. We also then receive it through the illumination of the Holy Spirit Who interprets it to our hearts. 2 Timothy 2.15 says precisely that we are to rightly handle the word of truth, not leave someone else to handle it for us. We are in other words with the help of the Holy Spirit to ensure that we take it in context and not give it a meaning other than it has. And then pass it on in the same form. 'Your word (not the church) is a light to my way, and a lamp to my path' (Psalm 119.105). And in the end even the most ardent believer in the authority of the church interprets what he/she is taught in his own mind. It is the way in which we receive understanding. There is no other way. In Him |
||||||
34 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191553 | ||
Hi RC Thank you for your more detailed explanation. I cannot see how when the animals were made comes into the reckoning. Sin affected the whole creation. That is why it groans. I am pleased that you think dogs means Samaritans. At least you will not take the over-literalist line. (Although I would have thought Gentiles more likely than Samaritans) But I do not believe that Samaritans will all be excluded. It might be intended to be an expression covering all the sinners that are then described. But I actually do think that it is referring to dogs. The packs of dogs that roamed the streets of cities could be a nuisance and a curse (except when they licked your sores). Thus the point is that all that is a nuisance and a curse will be outside the city. I had an idea that the horses might come up. Do you really think that Jesus will come on a horse? Has it not struck you that John is writing in terms of the transport of that day. I do not think he would have spoken of a warhorse today. I must admit that I am not expecting Jesus to come on a horse. Elijah saw horses and chariots. I can't help feeling that if he had been alive today he would have seen tanks and armoured cars manned by angels. However it is not relevant. Heavenly horses would not come from earth. I do not agree with your interpretation of the 100 year old child, but we will leave that at present as it is not relevant. I also agree that the 'heavenly' (new heaven and new earth) state is in mind. But if there are animals there, and it is not just a picture of serenity and security, then there is no reason why they should include our pets. That was hardly in Isaiah's mind. So you want literal animals because it suits your case, but not literal dogs because it suits mine? Hmmmm.:-))) Well that is fine. But as you have heavenly horses, why not heavenly animals? Yes it is God's word. So we have to find out what He is saying and not what we would like Him to say. I would like to be able to prove that pets go to Heaven. It would sometimes be very useful pastorally. The trouble is that I cannot find it in Scripture. I intend to drop this subject now as I hope my position is clear. I do not want this to become a dispute. After all, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. In the end each of us must decide what the Scripure says for ourselves. (That is a good reformation principle :-))) ) In Him |
||||||
35 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191545 | ||
Hi RC You say, " Well here is another thought on this topic. In the Garden animals existed before man being created on the 5th Day. Sin has given us all a termination of life ( Death), then we must re think for just a moment.Now just as Paradise was lost that Day so long ago in the Garden, we also know that paradise will be regained (restored)as well. Now since there is no regeneration in Heaven because there is no male or Female wouldnt it be possible that the animals would indeed be there as well(like the Garden). Joni Erickson Tada said once that , wouldn't it be just like our Heavenly Father to give back those animals that we loved so much in this place. " I have looked for the Book of Tada in my Bible but am unable to find it :-))) I have waited patiently for further replies but as none have come I feel that I must respond, because I do feel it is important because of the impression that it gives.. The only logic in your argument that I can see is that a lady preacher suggested that it would be 'just like God'. But I search the Scriptures to find any such suggestion that it would be and discover that animals are nowhere given such a place. Indeed apart from as sacrifices and offerings or as wild beasts they are largely ignored apart from a very occasional reference. Jesus never even hinted that they entered into the eternal plan. It is true of course that the Scriptures tell us that they must be properly treated. But that is as far as it goes. As has been pointed out we do have the hint in Ecclesiastes 3.21 that the spirit of a man goes to a different place than the spirit of a beast which returns to the dust. It is confirmed more certainly in Ecclesiastes 12.7. We also have the reference concerning the exclusion of dogs from the eternal city (Revelation 22.15). Now I know that it is sentimentally nice in the West to see our animals as having souls and being 'friends', but they actually respond to us by instinct, seeing us as the leader of the pack. That is why the harmless family dog can suddenly kill a baby because it has usurped his place. The view that animals go to Heaven might seem at first to be a harmless belief. But it is in fact a dangerous one. It makes entry into Heaven appear sentimental. It gives people an idea of hope who have no hope. We who believe will live again because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no such promise for our pets, nor for unbelievers. The danger of sentimentality is that it gives quite the wrong impression. Once we have all animals going to Heaven why not all humans? And where do we draw the line. Pet frogs? Pet snakes? Pet beetles? Pet flies? Non-pet flies? (there would be trillions and trillions of them)? They are of the earth, earthy. And of course it leads on to funerals for pets. Now it is one thing for little children to do such a thing because they are copying what they have seen with regard to humans. But for us to suggest it to them and teach it to them is to sow seeds which are misleading. Not everyone who dies goes to Heaven. I know dealing with children and death is ticklish but we must beware of sowing seed which may reap a bitter harvest If the righteous scarcely be saved where and why will all the animals appear? And why are they never described in pictures of Heaven? I do not know what God intends us to enjoy on the new earth. But I see no grounds in Scripture for thinking that it will be our pets from this earth. Are you really going to have the ones alive at His coming raptured? Or are we to leave them to judgment? That is the kind of absurdity that we find ourselves involved in. |
||||||
36 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191424 | ||
Dear Doc. Thank you for your response. I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree.:-))) I do not consider that I am at all confused as to the imperative portion of Hebrew 10.22. If we are to 'be drawing near with a true heart and full assurance of faith' I cannot see 1) how that can posibly be said to be true of all Christians regardless 2) That that can mean any other than our checking the state of our hearts to ensure that we are approaching with a true heart and with our faith attuned. That is my view of the text. Furthermore the cultic reference to the sprinkling (rhantizo) connects it with the water of purification which was intended to be continual in its application to deal with day by day uncleanness. In my view that is precisely what 1 John 1.7-10 also teaches and what is meant here. Christ's perfect work has provided not only our being 'perfected in Him for ever' (Hebrews 10.14) but also a daily means of cleansing. We can compare the exhortation here with 2 Corinthians 7.1 which also speaks of a similar cleansing although there of spirit and body, which parallels heart and body here. You would not I presume make the confession of our faith a once for all event or the stirring up to love and good works. Then why the drawing near? My knowledge of Greek and my experience and awareness tells me that very often the tenses of the verbs say exactly what an expositor wants them to mean. While not as fluid as Hebrew (which as you know has no past tense) Greek tenses vary widely in their use and meaning. One moment, for example, the commentator is stressing that the aorist means a once for all event, and two verses later it is a 'timeless aorist' or a second aorist. The aorist is thus a fluid tense. And similar fluidity applies to other tenses. Of course Christ's blood allows us permanent entrance with confidence into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and nothing further is required. But are you really suggesting that we should therefore come into His presence unprepared? 'If I am regarding iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me.' Jesus Himself said that if we approach the altar and remember that someone has something against us, we must leave our gift at the altar and go and be reconciled to that someone, and then come and offer the gift (Matthew 5.23-24). If that is not timeless, what is? I am not adding to or detracting from the completed work of Christ, nor am I confusing justification with sanctification. Indeed in Hebrews sanctification is often the equivalent of justification (e.g. Hebrews 13.12). There is no doctrine of justification as such in Hebrews. He speaks rather of a once for all perfecting (Hebrews 10.14) or sanctification (Hebrews 13.12) and a continuing sanctification. Compare also 'you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus' (1 Corinthians 1.2; 6.11) which demonstrates that Paul also speaks of a once for all sanctification. That is why we are 'saints'. I agree wholeheartedly with the words of your last paragraph and I would add also 'positional sanctification'. But I fail to see how it affects our interpretaion of verse 22. Verses 19-20 yes, but not verse 22. Surely pressing forward in our sanctification (Hebrews 10.14) does require that we constantly test whether our hearts are true and our faith is 'full'? Because the door is always open it does not mean that I can go in without wiping my feet (Psalm 15). 'He who is bathed need not but to wash his feet'. In Christ |
||||||
37 | THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Have U read it? | Rom 11:17 | rabban | 191412 | ||
Having read the review by Norman Geisler I am afraid that my view is that he is equally as guilty of misrepresentation and glossing over other peoples's views as Hank Hanegraff. Norman Geisler is clearly unaware (I will assume that it was accidental) of the views of many amillennialists and totally misrepresents their position. I am an amillennialist and I would be ashamed to hold the beliefs and interpretations that according to Norman Geisler I am supposed to hold. Unlike him I believe that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the way in which the New Testament interprets it. Nor would I agree that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 demands a millennium. No millennium ON EARTH is mentioned there. These are gross misrepresentations although I am sure they are due to his lack of knowledge of what other people hold. However to be fair to Norman Geisler he does make clear that he does not fall out with amillennialists over their views as he considers such matters secondary as indeed they are. So it does not seem to me as if there is a divide between the two. If we cannot amicably disagree over a series of doctrines that will affect none of us (hopefully) then there is something very wrong with Christianity. I do not intend to say any more on the topic on this forum, but as my previous posting made clear I believe that the church IS Israel (not just a spiritual Israel). I will not fall out with anyone about it. But I certainly do not believe that God has made any promises that do not apply to the church as Israel. Most of you have your own settled positions on the subject, and that is fine. Stick to them. But please let us not demonise Hank Hanegraff or any who hold amillennial or postmillennial views. If anyone does have quetions raised by what I have said and would like to discuss them please contact me on jonrobb1@lycos.com. I will be happy to discuss them amicably. It is foolish to fall out about a future that none of us can possibly know about. It is equally foolish to say that the people who do not believe our particular angle are not faithful to the word of God. They can (wrongly) say the same about us. That is all I intend to say on the matter. but I did feel it necessary to make this position clear. |
||||||
38 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191387 | ||
Hi Doc, Hebrews 10.22 says, 'Let us draw near with a true heart, in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our body washed with pure water.' Thus we need to ensure that our heart is 'true' (compare John 4.24 and see Psalm 66.18) and we need to attune our faith, especially having in mind as we approach the precious means by which we approach 'through the blood of Jesus'. We need to apply the spiritual water of purification ('clean water', i.e. water sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer (Hebrews 9.13-14; compare 1 John 1.7 and see Numbers 8.7; 19.1 ff) ensuring that we approach Him as those who have been 'cleansed' from impurity through His sacrifice for us, and we should wash our bodies with pure water. This last is a little puzzling due to the reference to 'pure' water. It may have in mind Isaiah 1.16-18 where washing with water signifies living a continually reformed life. We can compare also the 'washing of water with the word' in Ephesians 5.26. See also the need for us to continually 'wash our feet' in John 13.10. But the idea of 'pure water'would seem to link up with the water of purification, water that has been purified, again linking with Hebrews 9.13-14 (compare Ezekiel 36.25-27), although in the Old Testament rituals that is used for sprinkling not washing. Possibly he has in mind the outward sins of the body that have to be purified. Or it may have in mind the way that the priests had to regularly wash their hands and feet prior to entering the Holy Place (Exodus 30.19-21). No doubt the water that was put in the laver was seen as 'pure water'. It would be sanctified by being in the holy laver. Thus we must continually be cleansed in the blood of Jesus (1 John 1.7) An alternative is to see it a having in mind Psalm 51.7, 'Purge me with hyssop (with the water of purification which contains the ashes of the heifer) and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.' Compare also 'wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin' (Psalm 51.2). The idea, again in line with 1 John 1.7-10 being a thorough self-examination and admitting to God of our sin so that we might be cleansed. Contrary to many I do not see it as referring to baptism as baptism is not usually seen as washing in the New Testament. Baptism (a rather large subject to deal with here) rather refers to being made alive through the 'rain' of the Holy Spirit. The apparent exception in Acts 22.16 is probably not an exception at all but I will not go into that here. A similar idea is found in Psalm 66.18, 'If I regard iniquity in my heart the LORD will not hear me', and Matthew 5.23-24, where before we approach God we are to ensure that all is right between us and our brothers and sisters in Christ. |
||||||
39 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191376 | ||
Hi If I may say a word with regard to Jeremiah 31.34b.? The Hebrews had a way of deliberately stating the same thing in two different ways. It is a feature of their poetry and their prose. (If you watch out for it you will see it again and again, especially in the Psalms). Thus we have here: I will forgive their wickedness I will remember their sin no more. It is saying the same thing in two different ways. In Hebrew 'and' actually has little force. It is simply a conjoining letter. But God does not say that He will forget their sins. He says that He will deliberately 'not remember them'. He will erase them from His mind. That is forgiveness. The Greek word for 'forgive' actually means 'to send away, disregard'. He will treat them as if they had never sinned. 'Forgiveness' (aphesis) means 1) release from bondage or imprisonment 2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty. (See Strong). So the concepts are all similar :-))) Best wishes |
||||||
40 | body piercings and why not | Lev 19:28 | rabban | 191370 | ||
Hi You will note that I was replying to your question as to what Scripture your mother had in mind, and I only referred to the one that applied, 'you shall not make a marking on your body'. There would certainly have been no thought of infections in Moses' mind. It was the marking itself that was wrong because it demonstrated that the person was dedicated to other than God. If we just dismiss something because it only applied 'then' we could use the same argument to disregard the Scriptures as a whole. None of it was written in the 21st century. But the point is that it has a permanent and enduring application because it is based on eternal principles and is the word of God. However the principle argument that we should consider is that of the New Testament Paul said that women should 'adorn themselves in modest clothing, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly raiment, but, which is becoming to women who profess godliness, with good works' (2 Timothy 2.9-10). (He did not say 'but they can adorn themselves with less costly adornments'.) We can compare Isaiah 3.18-23. There we find a long list of things which God criticised. The hearts of these women were in the wrong place. What they wanted to glorify was themselves. The point is what is at the heart of what women (and men) wear. Is it in order to genuinely glorify God?. Or is it to glorify and advertise themselves?. (The same, I would hastily repeat, applies to men). Paul emphasises that we should concentrate on the positive of letting our light so shine before men that they see our good works and glorify our Father who is in Heaven (Matthew 5.16). Peter puts it this way. 'Beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear (the fear of God). Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on striking clothing, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible clothing of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God as of great price' (1 Peter 3.2-4). May I suggest that 'almost every (American) woman has that done' is hardly good grounds for anything. Every woman has also sinned. That is not a good ground for sinning. we must ask, 'what would God have me to do?' However it is not for me to say what women can or can't do (or men either). They may even not take any notice of me (perish the thought) :-))))) What we are seeking to do is study the Scriptures and learn from them. If we inculcate Scriptural attitudes the rest will follow. But what we have to do is ask,'what are they trying to tell me'?. Not, 'now how can I find my way round them?' (I am not in favour of being dowdy. I am not sure that that is glorifying to God, any more than a man is if he is untidy. I have deliberately avoided specific application (or answering your question about pierced ears which might be at peril of my life :-))). For that is a decision that you have to make. I will not be wearing earrings :-))) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |