Results 221 - 240 of 801
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | What does it mean to "fall away"? | Luke 8:13 | jlhetrick | 197439 | ||
And you would have had cause to be. Thank you for the exchange Jeff |
||||||
222 | What does it mean to "fall away"? | Luke 8:13 | jlhetrick | 197427 | ||
NC- thanks for your response and clarification for my understanding. "...chew on the meat and spit out the bones." That's an excellent way of putting it and every time I hear it or read it I agree. As for your question to me the answer is a resounding No. With the exception of Scripture there is no inerrant writings and only those teachings that are 100 percent acurate with Scripture are 100 percent acurate and true. In the end, this includes those we agree with as well as those we might not. After all, unless one of us is perfect, neither of us have it all right. I believe our conflict of thinking, opinion, belief, may be in how we TREAT the "uninspired" writings and teachings of the Church fathers. I believe that when we teach that the proper approach to Bible study is to read it and completely rely on the Holy Ghost to give us interpretation, we teach something that is inconsistent with the clear plan of God for the Church. Can the Holy Ghost wholly give you or me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth simply by our spending time alone with Him and the word? Of course we know He can. And there are, I'm inclinded to believe, circustances that would be special and unusual to you and me where He has and will. The bible, however, clearly presents a much different plan for the Church as an institution with Christ the Head. To not acknowledge this would be to not acknowledge Acts 13:1, 1 Cor 12:28-29, Eph 4:11 and the wider context in which these verses are found. On the other hand, when we take A verse out of it's context and develope an idea that it somehow negates those above mentioned verses we're already lost in our search for the truth. We need the context or we're lost. A case in point would be the oft quoted verse 1 John 2:27. If we're not understanding it in context we might be missing the truth teaching both warning against false teachers as well as the distinction made between mature believers verses immature ones. In fact, we might misinterpret the verse to mean that we are to trust our own, fallible hearts and minds as we believe we are being carried along by the Spirit in our reading and study of the Bible. We might also miss the fact that Scripture teaches overall that our hearts are "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9) A light shedding contrast would be 1 Cor 3:2 or Hebrews 5:12-13. We might miss the fact that God intends to have some as teachers and some as students while all are working together to "attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13). So God has appointed some as teachers. Can't figure it any other way than to have the obvious fact that others are students. Hope this clears up where my thoughts were during my original post to you. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
223 | What does it mean to "fall away"? | Luke 8:13 | jlhetrick | 197426 | ||
....Duplicate | ||||||
224 | What does it mean to "fall away"? | Luke 8:13 | jlhetrick | 197302 | ||
New Creature- may I ask for clarification on what you believe blasphemy of the Holy Ghost really is. It stood out as interesting to me that you seemed to have taken such a staunch position against the established doctrines/teachings of others (in your response to Doc earlier- though I may have misunderstood you) and then only 11 minutes later offered a response to a most important question offering only definitions from others. While an apparent contradiction I was not so alarmed until I finished reading you and realized that not only did you not offer scriptural argument of your own, but failed to include optional considerations for the definition/explanation to include even those that were offered by the very sources you quoted; such as "Others regard the expression as designating the sin of attributing to the power of Satan those miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Spirit's agency." (Easton's Bible Dictionary-on blasphemy of the Holy Ghost). I'm not suggesting that you intended to misrepresent any source you quoted but I do believe it a good idea to include enough from the source that you don't end up having them appear to take one position over the other if they do not. This varying from context might cause other "less discerning" to be left to conclude what YOU believe to be true and not necessarily what the Scriptures teach. I can't speak for Doc but I believe you ended up making his point, if not understanding it. We greatly benefit from the exhaustive efforts of those who have gone before us. If one believes he or she is being moved along spiritually to understand any part of God's word to mean something different than what He has given to those he has called for centuries before then one truly must believe himself/herself to be someone spectacularly special. Not trying to pick a fight- just calling for caution. By the way- I like your username. Wish I would have thought of it first :) God bless, Jeff |
||||||
225 | Can a Christian reject God's grace | NT general Archive 1 | jlhetrick | 192490 | ||
Hello JohnD- I believe what is taught here is much different than many might understand it. I believe that some often interpret this to mean that God saves us and then we have the responsibility of remaining saved and that we do that by "bearing fruit". Is this what you are believing? Jeff |
||||||
226 | Hypocrite and refused to be saved same? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 192414 | ||
Cheri- I just posted to tron and that might be sufficient as a response to this post of yours as well. I believe you and I are understanding this in the same way. Jeff |
||||||
227 | Hypocrite and refused to be saved same? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 192413 | ||
tron- welcome to the Forum! I understand this to mean that we are to not attempt to do what only God can do. We hold to our responsibilities in discipline only to the degree established by Scripture. The church isn’t ours, it is Gods. How do you, I, or anyone else “excommunicate” someone from it? We can’t. If one is not saved, he/she is not a true part of Christ’s church. If he/she is saved, that person is forever a part of Christ’s church. So where does that leave us? We carry out the discipline as prescribed by Scripture. If a person is unwilling to respond appropriately it is a spiritual matter that is beyond our control. In other words, it’s in God’s hands alone. 2 Th 3:6 (NASB) Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. We may be dealing with semantics here regarding the word “excommunicate”. In the more traditional use of the word I understand it in terms of divorcing the member from the family if you will. In a more literal sense of withholding some degree of membership rights I would be more in agreement with jesusfreak. I understand the gist of what Paul was saying in the following manner. We should first agree that Paul is referring to Christians as he referred to them as “brothers”. Next we agree, I believe, that these brothers have received corrective redirection but have not responded in accordance with the principles of Paul’s teaching and other Scripture. Certainly, in this case, I agree that there would be a degree of “withholding” regarding, perhaps, assistance, roles and responsibilities that these “unruly” Christians might otherwise have access to (as 2Th 3:10 plainly stipulates). I have that same rule in my home. My adult children have been granted the privilege of calling my house their home under the condition they are either working and contributing, or full-time students. Without one of these being true, they are not welcomed to live here long-term (of course other things such as sickness, etc. would be exceptions). They might lose certain privileges but would not cease to be part of the family and in every other point included, loved, and cared for. Idleness is a significant theme here as is in Paul’s writing. So, in my understanding it is more than a simple ignoring them, it is as much an effort to not become like them. Not condoning and not approving of the inappropriate behaviors, nor passively allowing them to continue. I believe most of us would agree that there would be a conceivable situation where the local church would be appropriate in insisting a member not participate in functions and/or even attend. I believe that this would be what Paul speaks too when talking about “turning one over to Satan”. Again, is this discussion a matter of semantics? If so I’m partly to blame. My experience with the term “excommunication” has to do more with a certain legalistic “denomination” who literally, officially divorces members from the church by virtue of a self-imposed authority not attributed by God and Scripture. My attempt here is to not allow that to be considered scriptural on the forum. I hope I have been more specific in explaining my understanding on this matter. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
228 | Hypocrite and refused to be saved same? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 192390 | ||
jesusfreak- Just a thought and response to your post here. I'm not sure why you and others might interpret this passage as teaching "excommunicating"? There is nowhere in Scripture that I am aware where Christians are given the authority to "excommunicate" another Christian. I am well aware that certain groups have somewhere along the continuum taken upon themselves such authority and or assigned it to the church- but I don't find it in Scripture and certainly not in this passage. If the Lord has saved one and included him/her into the family, there's no hope (even if some would desire it) that any man might expel them. Please refer to Romans 8:31-39. I believe the lesson here is one of Paul's teaching the spiritual truth of these issues. That is, a christian is certainly capable of sinning and even for a time allowing sin to prevail. The church has a scripturally supported responsibility to apply discipline to these situations (see Matthew 18:15-17ff). See also 2 Thess. 3:6-7. My understanding is that we are to love our brothers/sisters in Christ to include exposing sin and following a responsible method of helping him/her to correct it. What Paul seems to warn against is a temptation to try and change another. We have to keep in mind that it is only the Father who calls and the Spirit who draws and creates the change within us. The biblically supported discipline carried out by the church is strictly limited to the holding up of the standards of truth in Scripture alone. If the sinning Christian is unwilling to respond to that, a man certainly has no power over him. Beyond the scriptural approach, the matter should be left to God. We can not pull a man from his sin, but perhaps the resulting destruction caused by that sin might turn his heart back toward the Lord. Furthmore, I can say with some certainty that there is no time frame (be it 'a few months or in some cases a year') in which the process should be held in consideration. Rather, there is a clear sequence of events (again refer to Matt chapter 18). We can't be in the business of setting periods of time in which we will tolerate the sin and then finally divorce the person from the family. Hope this is somehow helpful, Jeff |
||||||
229 | Praise in worship: emotion that counts? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 192247 | ||
Doc- I didn't read where Azure's post included anything about their focusing on how things are done in the West; but your response was absolutely wonderful. The quote from Calvin and your own thoughts on the matter deeply addressed thoughts and questions I have always had fluttering around in my mind. Though those thoughts have never been a hindrance, I am glad to have your insight (and that of John Calvin) to help sort through them. Very well explained! Thanks and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
230 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | jlhetrick | 192225 | ||
Praise God for that Cheri! No offense intended. Meant to encourage you. God Bless, Jeff |
||||||
231 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | jlhetrick | 192224 | ||
Praise God for that Cheri! No offense intended. Meant to encourage you. God Bless, Jeff |
||||||
232 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | jlhetrick | 192206 | ||
Cheri- Doc does not yell at others. He is a spirit filled, blessed teacher with an exceptional depth of Scriptural knowledge. It's difficult sometimes to assess another's motives with nothing more than words on the screen. How much I have learned from Doc. I pray you'll be open to his direction and when necessary his correction. You will find, as I have, that your growth will benefit greatly. Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
233 | Does Matt 28: 18 infer to do what Europe | Matt 28:18 | jlhetrick | 192196 | ||
Thank you sir. I had hoped that it would rest on the AUTHORITY of Scripture :-) | ||||||
234 | Does Matt 28: 18 infer to do what Europe | Matt 28:18 | jlhetrick | 192187 | ||
Jesusman- You make some excellent points friend; but I'm afraid you draw conclusions far from the biblical context. Certainly a person (to include a military soldier) can behave in a way that is outside the scope of his/her authority (to include legal authority). That's not at all a problem when discussing authority. If we act in any way contrary to or in addition/beyond the authority given us, like I said before, it becomes our own authority that we act on. In that case, we only have our own power by which to carry out our action. No offense is intended, but your argument is not logical. Perhapse another illustration. I was once a police officer. When I arrested a citizen and took him/her into custody (sometimes by force) I did not do that on my own authority. I did that by the authority of the established law as that authority was imparted to me through the governor of the land. If I were to act on my own authority, in anway outside of the system of law and parameters of my given authority I would be wrong. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I was given authority by the states governor, city mayor, police chief. Make sense now? So certainly, I had authority- yes indeed. In the context of this thread, the question has not been posed as to whether some might act outside of the authority given them. History shows us that some do, even in the name of God. Not at all the theme or question of this thread. I might suggest to you also that logic and common sense be applied to the whole issue of "going...teaching.. baptizing... etc. etc." Without the AUTHORITY to do so, the power has no substance. The milkman might go... he might teach... and he might even baptize... But if he's not a man of God acting within the AUTHORITY that Christ has given, none of his activities will produce fruit. Power without authority is nothing more than a dangerous reality. Like a young teen who drives a large truck. He has the power, but has not been granted the authority. I hope I'm not on the same roadway. Perhapse this will be helpful. "Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them AUTHORITY over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness" Matthew 10:1 NASB(emphasis added). "And He called the twelve together, and gave them POWER and AUTHORITY over all demons and to heal diseases. Luke 9:1 NASB (emphasis added). "And He appointed twelve , so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have AUTHORITY to cast out demons." Mark 3:14-15 NASB(emphasis added) My hope is that this emphasizes the importance of always considering the text within both immediate and wider context of other Scripture. We should never rest our conclusion on a generic and brief lookup of a word or two in the original language. This happens all too often on the forum. With today's point and click technology I'm afraid it's often tempting to attempt the short road to the answer. So when we look up one or two words in a passage, we do well; but we do better to consider all else that is written on the topic. I trust that this has been helpful, God bless, Jeff |
||||||
235 | Does Matt 28: 18 infer to do what Europe | Matt 28:18 | jlhetrick | 192181 | ||
Jesusman, Can I get clarification from something you wrote? In your previous post you wrote: "Now .. notice he didn't give them any "authority" .. just "power". He told them what to do. Go and teach, and he gave them the ability to do so." My understanding is that when Christ commissioned the disciples it was in fact with "authority" that He did so. It's not possible to separate out the authority by which He gave from the authority by which they proceded. Otherwise, it would be by their (and our) own authority that the good news was/is preached. Your reference to Acts was a good one. It shows in fact that it is the Holy Spirit from whom the "power" is received. The Scripture is clear that the "authority" was and is given and from Christ who had received in Heaven and on earth from the Father. It's the reason why Christ clearly established that the "authority" was the foundation for going out. "Go therefore..." vs. 19. Therefore referring back to "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" vs 18. As I understand it, the disciples were absolutely given the authority to go out and as we see from the appropriately referenced passage in Acts, it is the "power" given by the Holy Spirit that enabled them (and us) to do so. So the disciples were sent out with the authority given by Christ and accomplished their work through the power given by the Holy Spirit. You wrote that He gave them the "...ability to accomplish what He wants them to." My point is that the ability was a result of having been given both the authority and the power. Illustration: When I was a soldier I was sent on countless missions. In each case, as with the disciples, I was given clear orders. In each case I went out (by virtue of my orders) with the authority of my government and my commanders. I was able to accomplish those missions as a result of the training and equipment (power if you will) I had also been provided with. Mine was simply to be obedient in fulfilling my mission. The authority and power had been given. Was this helpful? Jeff |
||||||
236 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191870 | ||
Rabban- Following my pattern of behavior is what I had hoped to have persuaded you to do; that is, insisting that you support your statements with scripture and that you not qualify as true what is not biblically qualified as true. In any event, you have refused to do so and there is really nothing more I can do to help you in that area. I would like to suggest though, that since we are both easily recognized as falling far short of scholarly, we both make it a point always to allow Scripture to speak for itself. And please do not speak of another’s responsibility to courtesy when it was of you yourself that had been originally and fairly requested to support your argument and you yourself who refused to do that. I should expect absolutely that you refrain from misrepresenting my words. Nowhere did I "admit" that I was "seeking to find fault". But that statement further supports that your not really interested in what I was attempting to do. It is the standard on the forum that when one reads an unqualified statement to ask for biblical reference (even when one knows there is none) in order to point the other writer to their error. Usually these efforts lead to responsible interaction that either corrects the questioner or redirects the original error. And don't think it so easy to avoid responsible participation by asking others not to question your OPINIONS. With that said I will make one more statement in hopes it will help and then promise not to respond to you again on this topic. That way, you are welcomed to have the last word; I promise to read any further response you make. My last point is this. Never be mistaken to believe that “statistics” are in any way sufficient in and of themselves to establish the meaning of a word or phrase. If you are able to apply that to any part of your response to me, you are well on your way. If you are to continue on the forum, I look forward to more productive communication with you. Please remember that it is Scripture that has and is the authority here. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
237 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191842 | ||
Hello Rabban, Please bear with me in my continued efforts. When you wrote that “it is a waste of time to argue over something that has been disputed for 2000 years…” you sort of hit the nail on the head. As my original post was not transparent enough let me say clearly that this was part of my concern. All public forums that I am aware of have their own written and unwritten rules, so to speak. The standard on SBF is to avoid controversial issues that have long-standing points of disagreement, especially where no definitive biblical text can rule one side in or out. When I say “avoid” I particularly mean the avoiding of posting such opinions as definite or factual. It is customary, and I believe more scholarly, to at least offer that there is a differing opinion on the issue so that others less learned have the opportunity to consider. With that said, it is obvious to me from reading your posts that you are, and apparently have for some time been, a serious student of the Bible. I respect that and see that to the advantage of the forum as well as myself personally. My point in asking you to support your argument biblically was really to illustrate that you could not. Not in order to embarrass you or create an argument, but rather to show that we have a responsibility to not declare what Scripture does not. To your points on Scripture and the “Fall” of angels I have this in short response. This, as I understand it, does not fall into that category of ‘disputed’ texts or doctrines. The long-held, orthodox view of the Fall is established from a common sense, logical, and contextual approach to Scripture. Satan is described in Scripture as the “Father of Lies” for example. The serpent in the Garden, with Adam and Eve accomplished its goal through deception. If the serpent was not Satan actually, it was the result of Satan’s work specifically; a fallen Lucifer that is. A common sense, logical approach to Scripture requires that conclusion and amounts to more than “the briefest hint”. For sake of time and space I will not attempt to correct the obvious errors such as, for example, stating “the New Testament writers never give any hint of believing in ‘a fall of angels’ outside of Revelation” while at the same time (in the same post) you very clearly give NT reference to where they have done just that very thing (2Peter 2:4 as one obvious example) In short- the rhetoric does nothing to support your position but plenty to avoid offering the biblical support requested. With that, I do agree to disengage from the discussion. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
238 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191767 | ||
Rabban- thanks for the response brother. I agree with your points to include believing that the original languages are the only inspired writings we have. I'm afraid though that you may not be reading my posts closely as the focus continues to drift. I'm sorry you feel I "failed to take note of the fact" that your statement was about ;disputed texts' only. My post clearly referred to disputed text specifically; but no matter- it has become an unproductive dialogue I would agree. Thanks for the interaction. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
239 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191749 | ||
Rabban- I have responded to your other post to me. I will respond to this one briefly but fear the interaction may become argumentative or appear that way to others so I proceed with caution. I might fairly state that when approaching a disputed passage the first important thing is to examine the English and not the Greek text as you assert. Unless, that is, your first language is Greek. We might be well reminded that the English text we read has been translated by scholars more worthy than ourselves (though my own assertion would depend on what translation your using perhaps). You see, when the established doctrines and immediate and wider contexts are considered a lot of the guess work is easily ruled out. At once I was amazed by those who seemed to take the position that one need be a scholar of the original languages in order to truly read and comprehend the Scriptures. It’s familiar to others who posit that one must hold a certain, assigned title before the Holy Spirit will reveal the hidden truths of Scripture to him. Now I’m simply saddened by the notions. My faith is that my God has sufficiently (if not conveniently) kept the promise He made in Isa 55:11. I suppose that He has chosen to do that through allowing men to translate His word into the various earthly languages. My reason for such a position is that His church has for centuries been about the business of doing just that. Otherwise, He would have us about the business of all learning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and reading, learning, and teaching only from the original languages. I surmise that it was He who chose not to make a scholar of every man. Your points are well considered and your right to them appreciated and respected. Sincerely and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
240 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | jlhetrick | 191747 | ||
Rabban- perhaps I offended you, not my intention. It may have been a simpler thing for you to have just provided scriptural support for your position, if that were possible. The question was not what you were answering in your response, but simply a request for you to provide biblical support for your declaration concerning verse 19. It's the way we go about bible study on the forum. But to avoid being distracted from the point again I will copy and paste your statement that left me with concern. You wrote: "These ‘spirits in prison’ were the angels who sinned in the time of Noah (Genesis 6.1-2). Human beings are never spoken of in this way (as 'spirits' without qualification), while 2 Peter 2.4 confirms Peter’s interest in the angels who sinned in the time of Noah." So that I don’t take up forum space and my time (or yours) repeating my earlier post you may choose to reread it and address it as you determine appropriate. Something else I would ask is that you help me in understanding what you mean by 2Peter 2:4 “confirming Peter’s interest in the angels who sinned in the time of Noah. 2 Peter 2:4 (ASV) For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; This seems to clearly relate to the “Fall” and not to any angel sinning that might have been going on in Noah’s day. Do I have it wrong? Let’s widen it out a bit: 2 Pe 2:4-6 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;” When we evaluate this it becomes clear that the writer is describing separate events. First, what we commonly refer to as “the Fall”, then the “Flood”, and then the events of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. Without context we might be tempted to make the individual verses say whatever conveniences our premise. Might I say that it matters little how qualified our Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or even English scholarship might be measured if this is to be our approach. Your explanation might be a satisfactory one if we could first establish that it is in fact angels that are referred too. However, I would still have a hard time finding in scripture where angels have “fallen” more than one time. That one fall that I am aware of was, as I understand it, significantly before Noah’s time. I’m unaware of another. If your unwilling (or unable) to provide support for such statements I can accept that but please allow me to point out that requests to have statements clarified and biblically supported is within the forum guidelines as is the expectation that members will honor those requests. Sincerely and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [41] >> |