Results 41 - 60 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Ok...I got you now. | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2614 | ||
The lake of fire IS the second death. Most scholars agree that the soul is eternal and that, therefore, everyone who is cast there suffers there eternally, just as the saints live eternally in heaven. Most of us have some discomfort with this, but discomfort is not good reason to disagree with what respected authorities are convinced that the Bible teaches. Revelations 14:11 clearly indicates that the smoke from the burning of those who worship the beast will go up forever; therefore, these people, at the very least, will be there forever. Satan will also be there, but he will also be suffering -- not ruling. There are some passages that seem to indicate the possibility of people's souls being "destroyed" in hell (Mt 10:28; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 Thes 1:9; Heb 10:39), but they are not clear or consistent enough to build a definite doctrine. (For example, note in Rev 17:8-11 that the beast is also "marked for destruction" -- while those who worship him will burn forever (Rev 14:11); it is not entirely clear that "destruction" means the end of existence (rather than simply removal from God). Luke 12:47-48 appears to indicate that there are potentially varying amounts of punishment meted out by God. See also John 19:11 and Matthew 23:14 (also in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47). While there MAY be varying lengths of time spent in suffering, with the devil and his angels (along with those who actually worship him and his) being the only ones who remain there eternally, there is very little upon which to build this theory (theory, not doctrine). It would be helpful to consider (and get further input from those who can discuss the topic much more knowledgeably than I can) the foundations for the doctrine of the eternal nature of the soul, and whether that could be affected by the fall. I will pose this as a question soon. |
||||||
42 | I need clarification please | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2490 | ||
No, that is not exactly what I was saying. I wouldn't say that God "knew those who were going to sin and that punishment was planned for those individuals," but I do believe that God knew that Adam was going to disobey. He had already created a means of salvation for Adam and his descendants -- any who would repent of their opposition to God and believe in Him. This applied to Abraham (Gen 15:6, with commentary in Gal 3:6; James 2:23 and Rom 4:3,20-22), and it applies to us today. I include myself among those who have brought God pain and suffering, but I know also that my salvation has brought (and brings) him great joy (Matthew 13:43-46 and 18:12-14). Hell (also known as the "lake of fire" or the "second death"), which is the punishment that will be received, was prepared "for the devil and his angels" -- not for man. However, hell will also be the punishment of unbelieving men as well (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:12-15). God, knowing that most people would reject him (which would result in their being merely "vessels prepared for destruction") did NOT choose to abandon his plan, but He endured such pain and rejection for the sake of showing forth his character of grace and mercy. He gave them the opportunity to live and prove themselves, and he endures their betrayal, rejection and arrogant defiance, knowing that he will eventually have to destroy them. This was done in order to show God's love toward those whom He knew would be converted (by the persistent conviction initiated and pursued consistently by His Spirit). (See Romans 9, particularly v.22) These would be brought to repentance, faith and love by God. The blood of God the Son, who willingly sacrificed Himself for us all, has removed all sin but the blasphemy against the Spirit, which reveals such defiant unbelief as to result in a final rejection of the persistent, faithful and loving conviction of the Spirit and the evidence He brings to our attention. The one who utterly rejects the clear testimony of the Spirit has no hope of conversion. |
||||||
43 | Did God know Adam would sin? | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2414 | ||
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. (Rev 13:8 NIV, EMPHASIS mine). God had already agreed within Himself from the foundation of the world that the Son would be sacrificed on our behalf The plan was already there. He already knew all about each of us sufficiently to know who would respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. (Many Christians would believe that God had even assigned them.) He had already predetermined that our experiences and environment would be guided in such a way as to conform us to His own image as revealed in the Son. (See Romans 8:28-29 and Ephesians 1:4-6) The revelation of God as the Creator of all men (and even adopted Father for many of us) in this case is significant. He did not choose to destroy, prior to existence, us who were not only born imperfect and unholy but who would cause Him great suffering and would temporarily mar his creation substantially with our evil practices. This is very different from the decisions made today by many parents who realize something is imperfect about a pre-born child and decide to end its life. What would I (or you) be prone to do if I knew, from the time of conception, that my unborn child was going to reject, violate, hurt and embarrass me as well as ruin a faithful reputation and honored lifestyle that I had built for myself? I know which decision God chose when he knew me (and everyone who has ever lived) millenia before I was even conceived. |
||||||
44 | What unmarried sexual acts are sinful? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2377 | ||
"... but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). Of course there is forgiveness for the person who has already foolishly done this and repentantly comes to God seeking transformation (1 Jn 1:9); You (like myself or any other repentant sinner who comes humbly to Christ in confession and repentance) are currently purified from past sins. However, this is never an excuse for deliberately moving away from God by going down the road of chosen disobedience and pursuit of temptation (Gal 5:13). God gives grace to deliver us from naturally occurring temptations, but this includes waiting expectantly for the way of escape and taking it as soon as it becomes available (1 Cor 10:13). The best route is always to avoid temptation. There is no simple set of rules of conduct as to what is safe and what is not. The effect on the conscience and the pusuit of the excitement of temptation is not identical for everyone, and it's easy to rationalize away the sins that others can't see. Based on reports of my own and others' personal experience, I'm convinced that it is specifically the stimulation of this "sexual enticement and excitement" (either in oneself or in one's partner) that makes most (physical or fantasized) out-of-wedlock sexual contact attractive. As an additional note, seeking to stimulate urges in another is no less sinful than doing it in oneself. "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." (Luke 17:1-3). This passage also assumes close enough relationships with brothers as to allow accountability; this is a big help in such situations. Be careful to seek counsel from people with holy and repentant lives and not to look for counsel that merely affirms the decisions you are considering; this is not a natural thing to do when facing appealing temptations. Take heart. Holiness is a blessing, not a curse, and God has provided access to all you need for long-term and lasting victory. " No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 |
||||||
45 | How can we assist our youth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2092 | ||
Any congregation (and any denomination) needs to assess its priorities. I was strongly impressed by a recent newsletter I received from a cross-cultural missionary whose team is looking into their recruitment strategies, since these will limit or extend the kinds of people they will attract and minister to. I believe it's important for the church as a whole not to target certain groups and leave others out. Although it's natural to build larger programs for groups with wider representation within the congregation (responding to present needs), this can neglect the importance of outreach, proclamation and disciptleship of those whom God brings to us. The natural progression of such mere reaction to present needs is an ingrown church that declines after the present generation. |
||||||
46 | It is a general argument among believers | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2088 | ||
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere. (I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.) Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view. 1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
||||||
47 | Whose bad hermeneutics? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1992 | ||
-- | ||||||
48 | Point of No Return | Revelation | Brent Douglass | 1936 | ||
I don't know that there is any basis for a date or time of no return. So far as I know, the blasphemy against the Spirit is explicitly given as the only example in Scripture of a point of no return. Since this is given as the only unpardonable sin, the most logical connection would probably be a point at which a person's (or a people's) arrogant resistance to God's conviction (or absolute embrace of evil) had become so complete that they were no longer open to God's input in any way. This was apparently the condition of the people in Noah's time (Genesis 6:5-8), as well as that of the nations whom the Israelites expelled. God waited 120 years during the time of Noah (Gen 6:3) and 400 years for the Israelites (Gen 15:13-21) to physically destroy the people around them -- until they had apparently reached a level, en masse, of embracing evil and resistance to God's Spirit that moved them beyond the point that even God's grace was willing to reach. |
||||||
49 | Nephilim Humans? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1925 | ||
The bad hermeneutic is to take a passage with an obscure meaning, choose a speculative interpretation and then build additional expanded theories upon it. This can hardly be called Biblical interpretation at all. It's more a matter of reverse deduction. Most of us, including myself, have probably done this at one time or another, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or meaningless. The idea for this kind of hermeneutical sequence might flow something along the lines of, "I think this (e.g. demons having sex with women) might be able to happen, and this is the closest thing in the Bible I can find to even vaguely and minimally support its existence; therefore, I'll use this as my verse for it." This is kind of like building a reverse pyramid, with a very narrow base and a wide top. The foundation is completely incapable of holding up anything, yet an expansive building rests upon it. |
||||||
50 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1890 | ||
Were the sons of God angels? This is one theory. However, to take such a vague reference as this and expand it with several layers of (potential, not definite) logic to arrive at a point of declaring that demons can procreate with humans is WAY BEYOND anything indicated in the Scriptures and is very poor hermeneutics. The idea that the "sons of God" here were angels is complete speculation -- as are other theories about the origin of the Nephilim. The most logical speculation, based on the evidence available to us, is that the "sons of God" is simply a reference to powerful lords of great strength and-or cunning who gave themselves that term in order to advance and raise themselves above the people; Nimrod could easily have become one of these later, as well, if it hadn't been for God's intervention at Babel. This would be a corrupting influence and would fit with the context. There are also MANY examples of leaders in more recent history that have declared themselves to have (or have been treated as having) divine ancestry. For example, the Japanese Emperor was considered divine until he officially declared himself otherwise in 1945 -- and only when his military was left with absolutely no other choice. The Antichrist will, likewise, claim divinity. This makes much more sense than starting a slide down a hill (with no real evidence of corresponding parrallels in other written history) leading to sensational (and completely speculative) stories of demons procreating with humans. Another purely speculative idea is that Adam and Eve had other children before the fall, who were then removed from them when their parents sinned. If there had been such children, who didn't fall into sin as their parents had, they could have been adopted by God -- thus "sons of God" -- and the males may have (unsuccessfully) tried to help limit the spread of evil by marrying with the women prior to the flood, then returned to the garden and left to be with God in heaven when the garden was destroyed. This is interesting fantasy but is also completely without any Biblical support and is thus purely speculative with no evidence of anything parrallel in other times. Once again, the most logical speculation, which fits best with other recorded historical experience, is that the "sons of God" were simply very powerful men who took (or were given) that term falsely as a claim or indication of their earthly greatness. |
||||||
51 | Valid 'gifts?' | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1710 | ||
My previous response dealt primarily with other gifts but not really apostleship. To do this, we would need to define the Biblical use of "apostle" to determine this. Although "apostle basically means, "Sent one," I think most (if not all) of us could agree that not everyone "sent" (or called out for special ministry) by God is necessarily an apostle. I think a paraphrase of the definition of "apostle" used by many who consider it no longer in effect is basically "one who was taught authoritatively by Christ in person and then recognized by the other apostles". The original 11 chose Matthias by lot because he had been with them the whole time (Acts 1:15-26) and (apparently) continued to replace those who died during the foundation period of the Church in the same way. Some suggest that this was an error and that Paul was meant to be the 12th, but this is speculation. I don't know much about lots, but I assume there was potential of receiving a "No" answer rather than a selection; I think there are examples of this result in the O.T. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. The 12 also recognized the apostleship of Paul. Does Paul fit the definition? Yes. He received special individual instruction from the risen Christ -- Gal 1:11-16, 2 Cor 12:1-7 and elsewhere. This is a logical definition, and it would end with the death of the generation who witnessed Jesus's earthly ministry; under this definition a Biblical "aposte" today would have to be trained as Paul was, and such a one would presumably have similar authority. I can think of some false cults with such leaders, but I'm afraid I don't know very much about the potentially orthodox groups in "Apostolic" churches. Clearly they would reject such a definition. |
||||||
52 | Valid 'gifts?' | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1709 | ||
I believe that the most commonly used direct Scripture for the past termination of certain gifts (tongues, prophecy etc.) is 1 Cor 13:8-10 by injecting an interpretation of the "perfect" being the completion of the canon. Am I right in this? I completely disagree with the interpretation, but that's my understanding of where it comes from. (I think I remember this from MacArthur's first book on, "The Charismatics," which is well-written and advisable reading, but with which I disagree.) I know this doesn' focus on apostleship directly, but, since I'm long-winded (long-penned?) I'll put that in a separate message. |
||||||
53 | 3 gifts, or less? | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1699 | ||
This is in reference to one of your side notations, that the apostles healed on the basis of the faith "of the recipients" -- which threw up red flags for me. Jesus often said, "You're faith has made you well." However, this seems to be more a matter of them coming to him because they believed. The inability to heal or cast a demon from someone seeking healing was ALWAYS attributed to the lack of faith of the HEALER, NOT the person seeking healing (see Matthew 17:14-20). There is no mention of any individual being unable to receive healing from Christ or any apostle based on a lack of faith from that individual, and Jesus healed everyone whom he attempted to heal. This idea of a lack of faith on the part of the intended recipient is simply a hurtful displacement of blame (either intentionally or by ignorance) by any healers claiming (again intentionally or ignorantly) to have gifting or faith beyond what they actually have. If we assume that the supernatural gifts can and do still exist today (and include the gift of apostleship in this, as you apparently do), the guidelines and examples of Scripture need to honored by them. For example, Jesus deliberately followed the limitation of only proclaiming healing to those whom the Father told him to heal (Jn 5:18-20; 8:27-29). This would also carry into the apostles (and other healers, exorcists, etc.), who were apparently given insight into what God was choosing to do and thus enabled to be his vehicles. For example, Paul waited several days before casting out the demon from a annoying false prophetess that had been following him around for many days shouting (Acts 16:16-18). The woman didn't ask for healing, and Paul waited many days (whether because of lack of permission or whatever) before casting out the spirit. Whether Paul received revelation that it was OK at that point or whether the effectiveness was simply a mark of apostleship is debatable. The point is that Paul declared it and it happened; the woman's faith or lack thereof was irrelevant. This is Biblical aposteship in action and is confirmed in other examples. Paul (as simply one example among the apostles) did NOT receive everything he asked for in prayer (2 Cor 12:8-10), but everything he (and the others) declared happened regardless of the attitude of the recipient. Asking for something in prayer (and trusting God to do his will) is always acceptable (except in the obviously extreme situation where God has clarified his refusal, as in Paul's condition). However, claiming and commanding a healing that does not take place means that the healer is either a charlatan, is deceived, is lacking in faith or is completely ungifted. Just as a prophet whose single prophecy is clearly untrue is thus proven false altogether, so is anyone (proven false) who claims himself to have supernatural powers that fail in their attempted exercise. |
||||||
54 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Brent Douglass | 1542 | ||
I'm not sure in what sense "most male" Ministers and Pastors "pass over" this Scripture, so it's hard to answer your quesion. I believe I'm in agreement with you in that I believe God can and does call women into pastoral ministry, but I'm confident that many of those who believe otherwise do so because of other fairly direct statements in Scripture. Your question seems more a generalized judgment (simply worded as a question) than a request for genuine dialogue. Either side has to deal with the passages that appear to have a surface reading that is contrary to their understanding of the Scriptures in general. However, in dialogue, either side (of most debatable issues, particularly those with passionate adherence) also tends to focus attention on the passages upon which they have based their views, NOT on the passages that are difficult to reconcile completely to their current understanding without deeper interpretation based on other passages. The passage you mentioned, as well as the passages dealing with Deborah in the book of Judges (and other passages indicating women prophesying, teaching and correcting the teaching of public leaders) require much deeper explanation from those who advocate that God does not allow for women in pastoral (or other) leadership; this does not indicate they seek to reject or ignore those Scriptures. As another example, I noticed you didn't mention 1 Timothy 2:10-17 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. That doesn't mean that you tried to skirt them, but that the point you were making is based upon Galatians 3:28, whereas the 1 Tim and 1 Cor passages would require more careful (and potentially controversial) explanations that might be challenged or argued against more confidently by those who would dissent. It's one thing to RESPOND to a question about passages that seem to draw certain doctrines into question; it's another to deliberately throw out weaponry to those who you believe may be looking for excuses to undermine your position before seriously considering it. It takes time to develop the trust that leads to honest dialogue. This is particularly difficult in email, where a reaction can be posted and reacted to (and the cycle repeated several times) before either party has a chance to detach and consider the meat of what is being said. |
||||||
55 | What makes John the Baptist greater ? | Luke 7:27 | Brent Douglass | 1515 | ||
1 Peter 1:10-12, 17-21 and Col 1:26-2:3 This is probably one of those "hard sayings of Jesus" in the book by the same name. I don't have it in front of me (and don't remember exactly what that author(s) wrote about this, but I would strongly recommend the book as a reference (particularly for questions of this type) I believe F.F. Bruce is the writer, but there is a series of "Hard Sayings" books by several solid authors. Anyway, one sense in which I believe John the Baptist would be considered "greater" than all previous prophets and saints was that he was able to look into the fulfilment of his prophecies and understand the identity of the Messiah that he was proclaiming (at least to a certain degree). John recognized Jesus when the Holy Spirit descended on him (although he had some uncertainty later), but the prophets of the Old Testament longed to look into the secrets they were foretelling about the Messiah and the salvation of Israel and the nations; those secrets were hidden until their revelation in Jesus the Christ. All believers who came after him have access to these (but not all) mysteries and can thus more fully rejoice (in this life) in the hope and salvation that God has given us. (See 1 Peter 1 and Colossians 1.) |
||||||
56 | Beginning of Bondage | Gen 47:20 | Brent Douglass | 1513 | ||
Joseph's brothers did not have to sell themselves for their food. They brought payment each time, and it was returned to them. They were given land apart from the Egyptians in which to live and raise their livestock. All the land of Egypt had reverted to Pharaoh, and all Egypt was taxed at a 20 percent flat tax (Gen 47:26), but this was not slavery and was not specific to the Hebrews; it's even arguable that they didn't have to pay this tax (at least at first), since their land was apparently given TO them (rather than being sold BY them TO Pharaoh). Joseph brought great honor upon his family from the Egyptian leaders of his time, as demonstrated by their representation at Jacob's funeral (Gen 50:7). The slavery of the Hebrews didn't start until a Pharaoh arose who was not acquainted with Joseph and the great service he had rendered to the power of Egypt and to the line of the Pharaohs (See Exodus 1:6-14). They became increasingly harsh until Pharaoh finally issued progressive edicts requiring the killing of the Hebrews' newborn boys (Exodus 1:15-22). This is the setting into which Moses was born. |
||||||
57 | Is vegetarianism okay with God? | 1 Cor 8:13 | Brent Douglass | 1503 | ||
There's no basis in Scripture for requiring Christians to eat meat, and I don't know of any orthodox Christian groups that would even suggest such a requirement. The only Scriptures I'm aware of on the topic are those removing previous limitations (i.e. allowing meat after the flood and allowing "unclean" foods under the New Testament). If you're confident that a vegetarian diet would be more healthy for you, there's no reason I know of not to pursue one. However, you may run into cultish groups that try to draw you in by affirming your stance and suggesting that there is something more spiritual about being vegetarian. You should be wary of this, since Satan often seeks to encourage our natural elitist tendencies to feed our pride (in an evil sense) and use it to draw us away from God. In this sense, vegetarianism is probably no more "dangerous" than scholastic Arminianism or Calvinism. ;-) |
||||||
58 | what were the 7 Messianic signs | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1465 | ||
Do the Scriptures clearly indicate somewhere that there were precisely 7 Messianic signs or miracles that only the Messiah could fulfill? This is the first I've heard of such a Biblical prophecy of 7 signs, but I'm interested in hearing what Bible passage you may be referring to. The only reference to 7 signs I'm aware of was a movie called, "The Seventh Sign," which I was unfortunate enough to see a few years ago. That movie had virtually nothing to do with the Scriptures. Please tell me this isn't what you're referring to. |
||||||
59 | where do blacks come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1343 | ||
We are all descended from Noah and his sons, at least on the male side. We don't know the skin color of Noah, his wife, his sons or his sons' wives. The Bible is loudly silent with regard to any importance whatsoever being placed upon general skin color. (The only references that I'm aware of deal with leprosy or other skin conditions, not the skin's natural melanin content.) The only divisions (so far as I know) that God touches on (other than gender, which is related to completion, fellowship and procreation) in the Scriptures are related to language, genealogy, and beliefs -- with no general distinctions made based on skin color. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity requires a loving transcendence even of these distinctions -- EXCEPT BELIEF. Faith alone determines our salvation and joint (not individual) adoption into Christ's family as his brothers, sisters and heirs. There are brothers and sisters "from every tongue and tribe and nation" worshipping eternally at the throne of God. |
||||||
60 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1342 | ||
Romans 8:29ff gives a clear sequence of conditions and actions on God's behalf toward those who love him (see Romans 8:28). This sequence begins clearly with some kind of foreknowledge and then progresses through predestination (that we be conformed to Christ), calling, justification and finally glorification. I have never known of anyone to question the sequence here of all the others (predestination then calling then justification then glorification). However, some force foreknowledge to somehow be assigned a secondary sequence to predestination (something like "He simply knew that he had predestined us.") This seems a very forced reading of the text, as opposed to the clear natural reading of sequence from start to finish. Nevertheless, this passage does NOT indicate exactly what he foreknew about us (just as the passages on predestination do NOT mention faith), and Ephesians 1 (along with various other passages) clearly indicates that predestination (to various things, but not necessarily to belief itself) happened "before the foundation of the world". Therefore, all of this (along with the decision for the Son to sacrifice himself for us) took place in the mind of the Father prior to Adam's existence. One view, attributed to Jacob Arminius (whether this is fully accurate or not) in his questioning of the full accuracy of Calvin's (and moreso Beza's) statements that "there was nothing foreknown prior to predestinating us" is that God foreknew OUR RESPONSE OF FAITH. This is a possible explanation, but seems at odds with the most obvious reading of Ephesians 2:8-9 -- that faith itself is a gift of God (one way of interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9). I lean somewhat toward this view, but I'm not clear whether the gift of the salvation process (of Ephesians 2:8-9) INCLUDES the gift of faith or simply uses faith as the avenue "through" which salvation is given. On the basis of the unforgiveable sin being "blasphemy against the Spirit" -- I would question whether the Spirit chooses to act in an irrestible manner, as the Council of Dort (perhaps more accurately rendered the "Inquisition" of Dort?) suggested. I would argue that there is a point at which a person's heart must be broken by the persistent conviction of the Holy Spirit, and that God works faith in the heart of the one who is thus broken. God knows whether a person's heart is so deeply arrogant (I can't say rebellious, as all of us were at one time completely rebellious against God until after he broke our hearts through his loving conviction) that he or she will finally reject him from any further conviction and completely by his persisten initiation -- veritably slamming the door in the Spirit's face once and for all. I would welcome any input on this, as any understanding must be tested against the Scripture and God's Word (rather than current understanding) be given precedence. This is already long, but I feel the need for a little more elaboration, so that responders and reactors can understand me as fully as possible before offering questions or challenges. I believe the primary sacrifice that we can offer to God at any time is a kind of imperfect "humility" or "poverty of Spirit" (for lack of other Scriptural phrases that immediately come to mind) -- without which no one will ever see the kingdom of heaven. Even grace, it seems, can be affected by humility versus pride. "For God is opposed to the proud but gives GRACE to the humble [emphasis mine]." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |