Results 41 - 60 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2469 | ||
Thanks for your reply. The Galatians 3:24 verse came from JHVH0212's earlier reply, not my original posting, which quoted only from Mark 12. As I understand this Scripture and others dealing with complete commitment (e.g. Luke 14:25-33; 1 Corinthians 10:13 and Matthew 6:24,33), the Lord does desire (and require) such "perfect" love. These passages indicate that the believer can -- through the purification of Christ's blood and resurrection, the transformation of the heart and mind through the Spirit and the Word, and the working of the Holy Spirit -- love God with all his (or her) heart, soul, mind and strength as God commanded throughout the Christian life as maturity continues to develop. In this way, the law is fulfilled "in" the believer (and not just "for" him) according to Scripture, as pointed out by JHVH0212 in his second reply on the parrallel thread under this question. As John Wesley pointed out in his discourse, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (see www.whatsaiththescripture.comFellowshipWesley.Christian.Perfectio.html if it prints out properly), this does not remove factors such as ignorance or any mental, physical, and emotional limitations of the believer. Nor does it remove the need for repentance when sin done in ignorance is revealed to the believer. It is, rather, an attitude of being entirely set apart (sanctified) to exercise love toward God. The condition can be temporary, if a believer willingly compromises this complete love, and it can then be restored through repentance and the Spirit's sovereign provision. While the believer can and should humbly seek such a condition, only the Spirit can so "fill" someone with this love. While this may seem impossible from our own judgment of the people around us, the teaching of the Scriptures always carries a higher authority than our own interpretation of our experience, and I believe the Scriptures call us confidently to such complete love -- not as an impossible requirement but as an offering we can present only by the grace and empowerment of the Spirit (see Romans 12:1 and 1 Peter 2:5). I'd like to get more input on this with a later question, but this is my current understanding. |
||||||
42 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2455 | ||
Thanks for your claification. I'm glad that I asked for (and received) clarification prior to responding to your previous posting, as your clarification was significantly different than how I had understood you. Once again, I find myself in basic agreement with you on this. It brings up additional questions about what I believe are parrallel passages, but those build on this foundation, which I agree is clear in the Scripture. |
||||||
43 | What does 1 Cor. 5:5 mean? | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2418 | ||
KBurgee's response was excellent on this. I'd like to add that Paul, in a later letter, encourages the Corinthians to receive one (who had repented) back into fellowship who had been previously spurned at Paul's request. (2 Cor 2:6-10). Many commentators believe this may well have been the same man. | ||||||
44 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2135 | ||
Well said, JHVH0212. I actually think that we are in fairly strong agreement on this topic (which probably seems amazing in and of itself to some), and I see that I (and others whom I got it from) may well have been using the term "baptize" erroneously. Being "baptized with" the Spirit does appear to belong together with "receive" rather than "be filled with" -- as you point out. You ask the question, 'Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past?' I also pointed out the same passage from Acts 1 to "prayon" in our parallel thread, and I agree that there was something missing prior to Pentecost. However, I would argue (contrary to MacArthur and to you) that the most natural reading is that the apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 but still needed the pouring out of the Spirit (or "filling") at Pentecost (and again in Acts 4 and later) for empowerment to effectively proclaim the Gospel. For the record, I am also convinced that tongues are not "the sign" of the filling of the Spirit; this was a view (ab)used in Corinth, and it is still abused today. Most of the examples (of being filled with the Spirit) given in Scripture make no mention of tongues, and many make no mention of any gifts whatsoever. The initial pouring out (or filling) at Pentecost apparently released the expanded availability of the gifts (in a directly observable way), as happened again later when a similar event proved to Jewish Christians (through direct observation) that the same promises and full availability of the Spirit applied to Samaritans and Gentiles as to Jews. This is completely separate from the question of the gifts; there is no necessity of consistently linking them to the filling of the Spirit. Gifts can be exercised without such filling (See Mt 7:22-23, about people who didn't even know Christ at all yet exercised supernatural gifts); likewise such filling often takes place throughout Acts without resulting in the use of any specific gifts. Their concurrence is unusual rather than typical. |
||||||
45 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 2128 | ||
I didn't have time to answe you more fully before but got out a quick answer to your question at the end. I agree with you and your pastor's statements about "increased frequency" and the "normal" work of the Spirit. It is very important not to underestimate the significance and importance of the "normal" work of the Spirit. The term "baptism" that I used is probably better referred to as "filling" -- which I believe can happen repeatedly in a person's life. There is some question as to whether the word "baptism" belongs with "receiving" the Spirit or being "filled with" the Spirit. I believe the Spirit is received once -- as the downpayment given to the believer. However, there are many examples in Acts of the same apostles being repeatedly "filled" with the Holy Spirit. As for my reference to Wesley in my earlier posting, I think I agree with his concept of "entire sanctification" -- or being entirely set a apart to the will of God (with certain understood limitations of ignorance, fleshly limitations, etc.). What I'm unsure of is whether or not this is the same as being filled with the Spirit or simply parallel in some ways. |
||||||
46 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2125 | ||
I'm not sure exactly what your answer was to my question. It sounds like you're saying that you think this is an impossible command to humble us. Is this accurate? I believe I'm in agreement with your fine exposition about the purpose of the law. However, that's not the core of my question. Am I accurate in assuming your answer is that believers are incapable of loving God in this way? |
||||||
47 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2123 | ||
I agree that this can definitely be a controversial question, and I appreciate your willingness to chime in. I chose it not for the controversy but to challenge myself and others to re-examine our assumptions in light of the Scriptures. Let me make sure I understand your reply. First you quoted MacArthur (one of the current teachers whom I most respect, but whom I doubt on his reading of John 20:22). One of the things I most appreciate about MacArthur is his integrity and transparency. To paraphrase him, he basically states that his underlying assumptions (or earlier foundations within his systematic theology built on other passages) act as a filter requiring him (and you) to reject the most obvious and natural reading of John 20:22. MacArthur is convinced that the Holy Spirit was not actually given until Pentecost; therefore, Jesus didn't give the Spirit in Jn 20:22. If one tries to envision the scene of Jesus "breathing on" the apostles and saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit," it is difficult for me to accept an underlying understanding between Jesus and the apostles that he actually meant "some time in the future" and wasn't intending to do so for another 40 days. It seems that you define "baptism" and "receiving" (of the Spirit) as synonymous but consider "filling" to have a distinct meaning. This I find compelling, although I must admit I'm not fully convinced as to which terms are synonymous with which. As MacArthur points out, there is clearly a potentially repetitive nature to this filling. I'm not convinced that the term "filled" with the Spirit isn't used in two distinct ways -- one referring to a temporary condition of supernatural empowerment (as in Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9 etc.) and another one describing an ongoing condition (Acts 6:3,5; 11:24; 13:52; etc.). My main interest is in seeing what others have to say on this one, though. Thanks again for your input. |
||||||
48 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Acts 2:1 | Brent Douglass | 2116 | ||
Thanks, prayon, for a well-thought-out response. In light of these passages, this seems logical. However, in another passage, Acts 1:1-8, Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles when he "commanded them not to leave Jerusalem" (v.4) but wait until "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (v.8) -- which would indicate that the apostles still needed the power that the Holy Spirit would give in order to be effective in spreading the Gospel: "and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (v.8). Clearly their empowerment was not yet complete. Either they hadn't yet received the Spirit, or there was additional empowerment needed for them specifically. |
||||||
49 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 2090 | ||
Thanks for your response, brother. Sorry I didn't respond more quickly. I had decided to get off the list temporarily because I needed to consider my level of intensity and the offenses I might be causing. I decided not to wait a week, after all. I'll probably maintain a similar intensity in my postings (like the one I just posted on Jesus' brothers and sisters), but I'll try to be (somewhat) more careful with my humor. | ||||||
50 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1991 | ||
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB) Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time. Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy. It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV. 1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,... 2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,... 3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,... Thanks for your patience. |
||||||
51 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1977 | ||
Sorry for the further offense, guys. I capitalized your names because they're screen "names", and the question about capitalization was an allusion to the earlier threads where people were disputing when and when not to capitalize. I think I'll just stay off the list for a while, before I offend too many more people. Sorry again, brothers. |
||||||
52 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1976 | ||
Sorry, Charis. There was no rudeness intended. It was just meant as a joke in this case. We had both agreed that it was speculation, and I'd already used the term "fantasy" primarily to refer to my own idea about Adam and Eve having children before the fall who were then adopted by God, so I didn't mean anything demeaning by using that word. I was just jokingly saying that you'd have to let go of it. I'm sure you're aware that even a fantasy should be dropped completely if there is actual contradiction in the Scripture and was just joking with you. I apologize for any indication of belittling or condescension. This was never intended, but I probably should have been more clear. (I guess that's what happens when I try to get away with a short reply.) Sorry, again, brother. |
||||||
53 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1933 | ||
p.s. I agree with your last paragraph. You'll have to get another fantasy, Charis; I think the one about other people being actually created by God is probably ruled out by this verse that InHzSvc quoted (Genesis 3:20). p.p.s. Is my CAPITALIZATION OK? ;-) |
||||||
54 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1929 | ||
Suffice to say I think it's fairly clear in both Biblical examples and in documented church history. Lloyd-Jones saw the baptism of the Holy Spirit as corresponding to a special empowerment for witnessing and not necessarily directly linked with any specific spiritual gifts (although it could be at times). I believe Wesley probably connected it to entry into a state of "entire sanctification" (being completely set apart for God, loving God with all of one's heart, mind, soul and strength) -- which he later recognized to be potentially temporary and needful of restoration. I agree with Lloyd-Jones, and I'm not sure if I agree with Wesley exactly on this right now. I can't say I'm set in stone on it, but I'm pretty confident of it. |
||||||
55 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1927 | ||
Again, it's more accurate to say that many conservative scholars postulate that they are angels. There's nothing particularly dangerous about this in the book of Job, and it's typically such a minor point as to cause no problems. I doubt it's a stand that virtually any conservative scholar would be willing to die for; they just agree on what appears to be the most logical meaning in an unclear reference within the context of Job. The problem comes when some charlatans start traveling around the nation or the world telling sensationalistic tales about holding down women who are being violently raped by invisible demons while they and their cronies are casting the demon out. |
||||||
56 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1858 | ||
I really like Lloyd-Jones on "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit" -- with a few minor exceptions. (I especially like his quotation of Spurgeon's description of the Baptism of the Spirit -- yes Spurgeon, along with Moody, Edwards and others, believed in this experience-- but that's a separate discussion. The descriptions in the journals of Whitfield and the Wesleys concur with the descriptions that Lloyd-Jones quotes from Edwards and others. The Holy Spirit is sovereign over actual revival, and it is merely a large-scale experience of the Baptism (or pouring out) of the Spirit, which can also happen on an individual basis (including more than once to the same person or group, as evidenced in Acts 4:23-31, when it happened to many of the same people who had experienced it on Pentecost in Acts 2). In this century, we have scheduled "revivals" -- meetings set up according to steps designed to cause such outpouring. However, there are no such designs or manipulations in the Scriptural accounts. Nor were there such machinations in the revivals under the Wesleys and Whitfield, or under Jonathan Edwards or Dwight Moody. The Gospel was simply preached, and the Spirit fell with power. I have no problem with deliberate humbling oneself, commitment to purifying oneself (or one's congregation), asking God for boldness, (etc.) but the experience can not and should never be manipulated, advertised or sought by itself. |
||||||
57 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1857 | ||
I assume that you're still on the list, Whyndell, but are simply tired of responding to this particular thread. I'd like to clarify some things from my previous posting. This can be a maddening topic, since there is so much abuse of this gift in many (if not a vast majority of) situations where it is practiced. (If I were to base this only on various and varied personal observations of worship services, I could even be tempted to say "all" situations, but I hesitate to thus "forbid" their practice, since I feel this would be against Scripture). Nevertheless, if one is convinced that such gifts have ceased, he or she must obviously take such an approach (with fear and trembling, I trust, for reasons that I restate below). I absolutely agree that Paul was not discouraging people from correcting error. He was, however, saying not to forbid speaking in tongues (in the manner in which God ordained that they be practiced, and in no other way). For the record, I agree with your definition of tongues as meaning earthly languages. Every direct reference and example of tongues in Scripture (including 1 Cor 12 and 14, Pentecost, and Peter's preaching to Cornelius and his friends) refers specifically to actual human languages; Paul's reference that there are many languages and none is without meaning (1 Cor 14:10) surely indicates a reference to earthly tongues. It seems unreasonable to assume the mention of "tongues of angels" anything but exaggeration in 1 Corinthians 13:1, unless we are also to consider some to "know all mysteries and all knowledge" and to "have all faith, so as to remove mountains" as well. Clearly Paul is not necessarily advocating these as real possibilities. I assume that your statement, "You do not have the simplest understanding of what tongues were for," refers to the fact that tongues were used as a sign. It is true that one purpose of tongues is as a sign, albeit not a sign leading to belief among unbelievers or the ungifted -- just as prophecy is a sign leading to new belief (1 Cor 14:22-25, full passage needed for context). However, just has prophecy has other purposes than simply acting as a sign (clear and accurate communication from God), so may tongues (perhaps purer worship of God without being filtered through a fleshly mind). If, on the basis of 1 Cor 14:22-25, one says tongues can only be used as a sign and nothing else, he must do the same with prophecy, for they are clearly compared and contrasted in parallel. This is a tiresome subject, and it would take a book to clarify it. I recommend the collection of Lloyd-Jones sermons on this topic, "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit." I'm not in full agreement (including something this posting), but I think he has the best explication I've seen. |
||||||
58 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1849 | ||
I wrote a long response (as usual) but forgot to mark it as a note. When I hit the back button, it was gone. This is the 2nd time today that an entry has disappeared before sending. I'll have to get back to you later. | ||||||
59 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1846 | ||
Either view taken to an extreme conclusion -- hyper-Calvinism or Repetitive-Loss-of-Salvation Holiness (for lack of a better name that I know) -- becomes dangerous. However, I use Calvin and Wesley because they are both orthodox doctrinally (along with denominations that follow their doctrine carefully). Otherwise, they and those denominations following their lead are heretical and dangerous. Even most extreme extensions beyond Calvin and Wesley's original teaching are dealing in the realms of secondary doctrines, and I would not think of calling these affiliated denominations non-Christian -- despite the difficulties and even harm that some of their teachings may produce for some people. Comparison of Calvin and Calvinism to Russell (founder of the Witnesses) and the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, is problematic and potentially antagonistic. I am confidetn that it would be offensive (with good reason) to those who lean toward Calvin's theology rather than Wesley's. The Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) is heretical in its basic understanding of the nature of God -- particularly Jesus Christ, whose worship they remove and whom they equate with Michael the Archangel rather than God the Son. This deals with a basic belief core to any orthodox Christianity and disqualifies them as a Christian Church. Members may or may not be believers that have been misled or confused, but those who developed and promulgated these doctrines were and are false teachers. Any believer within such a church will be greatly hindered (at the very least) by fellowship and receptivity toward such heretical teaching. |
||||||
60 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1845 | ||
I've never read a biography or any doctrinal statements by Finney. I think I may have seen 1 or 2 leaflets by him from Last Days Ministries, and I believe he had something to do with the odd modern definition of "revival" -- but that's about all I know about him. I figure he's in God's hands; I've never heard anyone refer to his teachings as a basis of denominational or congregational doctrine. Calvin and Wesley on the other hand.... | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |