Results 41 - 60 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181516 | ||
Thanks, MJH. This was very helpful. You make a good point about eventual communication between relatives and about possibilities of the birthplace. Regarding the stable, another theory is that Joseph and Mary were indeed staying with Joseph's relatives, and the word we typically translate as "inn" should be "house" as it is when the Magi arrive. Joseph's family's residence was perhaps too packed to allow privacy for the birth, so they moved the couple temporarily to a family stable (below or nearby) for the birth. I'm not sure how exact dates of birth and (approximated) conception were followed and reported, but the upheaval of the census would likely have taken center stage in the minds of many. If Joseph and Mary left Nazareth before Mary was visibly pregnant and arrived in Bethlehem married, the delay in realization and calculation of conception vs. marriage (at least to those outside the immediate family) would be sufficient for other events to confirm to family members the supernatural nature of this event: news from (Mary's relatives) Elizabeth and Zechariah about John being the prophet and Jesus being the Lord, the shepherds' report, the prophecies shared at the temple, the coming of the Magi, and Herod's fear of the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem at that same time. I believe the John 8:41 reference you give is the one I heard someone use once to suggest the leaders were making a reference to Jesus' conception (and I understand that you are presenting it as a verse often used, not an argument from you of such a reference). I didn't have the reference, but it's the only situation I'm aware that has ever been cited. However, this seems to me to be reading into the text and is not directly supported by the context. In context, Jesus is questioning the legitimacy of the Pharisees' claim to be God's children and spiritual descendants of Abraham. Jesus has just accused them of having Satan as their father (confirmed again in Joh 8:44) because they refuse to believe and are seeking to kill Him, the Messiah from God. The most natural reading of John 8:41 is that the Pharisees are simply reacting to Jesus' accusation against them, not making one toward Him in return. Jesus' response deals with the Pharisees' condition. If there were other instances of the Pharisees challenging the legitimacy of Jesus' physical birth, this could be seen as an additional reference, but it carries no such suggestion if standing alone. If the Pharisees thought they could find fault with Jesus' conception, they would be expected to respond to Jesus' challenge, "Which one of you convicts me of sin?" in Joh 8:46 with the same judgmental tone they showed toward the (healed) blind man in John 9:34: "You were born entirely in sins..." No such suggestion was made about Jesus in response to His challenge. I appreciate your insight. This is really helping me to better process this secondary but persistent issue that keeps coming back gently every year. I'm glad for this forum to test perceptions to see that they fall within biblical limits or correct them. |
||||||
42 | Please explain the Trinity. | John 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 1781 | ||
Any illustration is obviously going to have its limitations, and the concept of the Trinity is beyond our ability to completely understand, and I think your illustration is a good attempt at getting at the idea of God appearing in different ways. However, that said, I think it misses the focal point of distinction between the members (or "persons" as is sometimes used) of the Trinity. It can give the indication that there are simply "Manifestations" of a single entity. This still loses the idea of relationship and interaction between Members of the One Godhead. The Son actually sits at "the right hand of... the Father," "received" the Holy Spirit from the Father according to promise, and "poured forth" the Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit is visible among God's people (Acts 2:33). These are not merely manifestations of a Single Member; there is interaction, absolute and complete agreement, and division of roles among the Members of the One Triune God. I believe this is one sense in which man (mankind -- including both male and female) is "created in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). We have mutiple components that exist concurrently but function as a whole. Specifically, we have at least body, soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12; 1 Cor 15:49-53). (As a sidenote of limited value, some may add the mind and-or the heart, but a hidden separation of soul and spirit is clear from Hebrews 4:12 and the need for the body to be changed is clear from 1 Cor 15:49-53; the mind and heart may be additional parts of this joint oneness or simply a "place" or "way" for them to join.) The Spirit can commune with God (Galatians 4:6). When God breathed into man (gave us our spirit, considering breath or wind to mean spirit), man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). We know that our fleshly bodies die; yet this is not permanent. As with the dead saints whose decomposed bodies were changed and restored at the time of Christ's resurrection (Mt 27:52), so will my (and-or your) body be changed at the time of Christ's return (1 Cor 15:49-53), and my new spiritual body will, once again, unite with my soul and spirit in my ongoing worship before the throne of God in my-our completed form. (Obviously this illustration is limited as well. For one, when I am finally complete before God, the Son will be seated at the right hand of the Father, and I will have only one physical prescence -- never being God. Nevertheless, I think it more accurately sets a tone for the interaction of separate members of one whole. |
||||||
43 | Who is the son of man which is in heaven | John 3:11 | Brent Douglass | 144642 | ||
Thanks for the input, Ray, but I wouldn't capitalize "one" in this case. Since I used "one" to replace the phrase "human being," it shouldn't be capitalized. Jesus is the only human being who was an eyewitness of heaven. (It's a fairly small point, but I think that is carrying capitalization a little too far.) Jesus' divinity -- as God the Son -- is eternal. While His humanity is not eternal, having begun at the incarnation, it is nevertheless everlasting from that time forward. I think I follow what you're saying in that "God is not a son of man," and that Jesus "was not a human being in heaven." No, "God the Son" was not a human being before He first came to the earth. However, He is certainly a "son of man" now. "Son of Man" was Jesus' favorite Old Testament Messianic term for Himself. Christ will be a human being forever -- in a resurrected body as the "first-born" human being from the dead. God the Son is now, and always will be going forward, a human being in heaven. He will always be fully God and fully man. In Christ's love, Brent |
||||||
44 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 63664 | ||
Sorry to bring this back after so long (rather than earlier), Lionstrong. I don't review the list much anymore (due to time limitations, not offense or anything like that), but I wanted to reply to your posting. I came across it after someone replied to my earlier reply on the same thread. I really like the points that you make, so I don't need to reply to the original thread, but there is one consideration that I'd like to suggest. I've quoted an excerpt from you below and responded afterward. 'But the verse under consideration in this thread (John 3:18) seems to say that since the coming and work of the Only Begotten, we are commanded to specifically believe the promises in this Chosen One, for it says that if we believe not (in Him), we have been judged already. The last verse of this chapter in John's Gospel makes the point even stronger: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.' - Lionstrong The last verse of the chapter, in the NAS, reads: John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Reading the different versions together, I think the clearest reading of both of these verses from John 3 are that they reference active disbelief on the part of those who have come into contact with Christ -- whether through encountering Jesus directly during His presence on the earth or through the written or spoken proclamation about Him -- not disbelief stemming from helpless ignorance. As the Amplified adds, "[He is condemned for refusing to let his trust rest in Christ's name.]" In context, it seems fairly clear that John is referring to those who have had the opportunity to encounter Christ and have either believed (resulting in life) or disbelieved through avoidance or rejection (resulting in condemnation). The reason for judgment is refusal of the revelation of God: "because he has not believed [has disbelieved] in the name of the only begotten Son of God." [Added note here is mine.] |
||||||
45 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 63716 | ||
Thanks for your quick reply, Lionstrong. We definitely have a difference of opinion on some underlying ideas, no doubt based upon differences in priority given to speicific passages and interpretations underlying those views. However, I don't think they're necessarily relevant to this passage, since I don't think it either defends or discourages either view. Please recognize that I offer the following as only my opinions, which continue to be tested over time. Disagreement is fine, no matter how firm I may seem to be in my statements. I appreciate your response and your concern about the tendency for people to gravitate toward such a reading (active disbelief) of this text simply from a desire to defend God (or their-our own views of God) from accusations of being unfair and-or to remove the consequences of sin. People may, at times, try to use just about anything that doesn't directly contradict their point of view, but it would be a very big reach in this case. I'm reasonably confident that (a focus on defending my previous view of God) is not part of my motivation. In these particular verses, the context itself refers to unbelief, not sin, as the reason for judgment: "because he has not believed..." From other passages, we can indeed conclude that condemnation is based on sinfulness and not on unbelief. However, in this particular passage, it is unbelief in the face of truth that leaves these specific people still in their ongoing state of condemnation for sin. I'm confident that there are very good reasons for your views regarding your understanding (and similar understandings of many others whom I deeply respect) regarding God's sovereign exercise of pre-selection of some for salvation and others for destruction. That view should certainly not be turned aside or modified lightly, and my previous response was not intended to challenge that view in any way. However, it sounds like your reasoning for rejecting the idea that this particular passage refers to active disbelief stems from a concern about the apparent availability of that interpretation to be used to falsely support a doctrine that you disagree with -- rather than based on the context itself. I respect your views regarding how God chooses to exercise His sovereignty (so far as I know them at least). I do believe this particular passage doesn't work as a proof text for application to those who have not heard because the context seems to apply specifically to active disbelievers. However, it certainly doesn't work as a proof text for anyone suggesting that ignorant unbelievers are not answerable to God either; as you point out, that is clearly dealt with elsewhere, and this passage says nothing of the sort. I believe this passage simply doesn't focus at all on those who haven't had the opportunity to hear. In John 3:18, Jesus is giving a message to Nicodemus for himself and other Pharisees who have come to Him for clarification; in John 3:31, John the Baptist is speaking to his own followers after a discussion with another Jew regarding their questions about Jesus, whose teaching they were familiar with. Both were addressed to those who had the opportunity, through exposure to Christ, to believe. Some believed, and some disbelieved. Members of these groups who didn't believe remained under God's judgment for their sins. Those who believed, in contrast, were saved through their belief. The question of what would have happened to them if they had not come into contact with Christ at all is not dealt with in this passage but elsewhere in the Scriptures. Peace, Brent |
||||||
46 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14062 | ||
Steve, Thank you for your input on this. Please see my response to Nicodemus, as I'd like your further input based on my question to him and my reference to your previous input in that posting. I wanted to send a response to you directly, as well, so that you would be aware of my follow-up posting. |
||||||
47 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14279 | ||
I'm not sure what happened with my last response, Ray. I sent it as a response to your last posting, but my response cam back as a response to my own original question. The interface seems to be doing odd things. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I had responded (in case you were looking for an automatic notification of a reply). | ||||||
48 | 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. |
||||||
49 | 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. |
||||||
50 | 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. |
||||||
51 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40374 | ||
Dear John, Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I'll wait and respond to my difficult with tulips a little later, but let me do my best to answer your question of whether or not the Gospel is the sole means of salvation. I tend to ramble profusely, so I'll take several replies to encapsulate each idea separately and provide separate targets for others. 1) The message of the Gospel is the sole means of salvation in the sense that only by the shed blood of Jesus can anyone enter the presence of God -- anyone from the fall on through the entire human race, since all have sinned. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, all the great cloud of witnesses from Hebrews 11 (and 12:1-3) are in heaven now only because of the sinless life, shed blood, and resurrection of Jesus. Believers today also receive salvation only because of this, and this is Good News. Any attempt to remove this stumbling block and place all religions on equal footing mocks Christ and proclaims God a heartless butcher who would needlessly sacrifice His Son simply to add yet another way amongst the others. What an absurd caracature of God that would be! There is no other way to the Father but through the person and work of Christ, and there never was. In this sense, the Gospel is the only means. |
||||||
52 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 40390 | ||
My first answer was unequivocal, and it's a hill I would die on. The second is a strong belief, but I find a strong current against it among many of my brothers and sisters. If expanded beyond its intent, it would be dangerous, but I believe it's accurate within its limited framework. 2) With regard to faith, I don't believe it is specifically faith in the Gospel that saves but rather active faith in the True God. Abraham was justified by faith, and both the angels themselves as well as all the prophets of the Old Testament longed to know more than was given them to know. (See 1 Peter 1:3-12) 1 Peter 1:20-21 "For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God." It is necessary that have faith in GOD to be saved, and Peter stresses the importance here in 1 Pe 1:21 that believers in Christ are also, by extension, believers in GOD. This is why faith in Christ saves us. Faith in GOD saved Abraham, and faith in GOD saves us. Faith in the true GOD saved Rahab, who knew very little when still a harlot in Jericho but demonstrated active faith in what she knew about Him. Those who haven't had the opportunity to hear Christ still have the witness of the universe, which testifies to the truth of the Creator; they are responsible for responding in faith. (Romans 1:18-25, which provide the context for vv. 16-17.) Only those who reject God by "suppressing the truth" and "exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God" without repentance will be damned, and this constitutes the vast majority of mankind. The one who worships a false God or some created thing or created being has rejected God -- just as surely as those who came face to face with Christ and rejected Him. I do not thus suggest that a devout Buddhist or a devout Hindu is saved through their devotion. Devotion to a false god is simply not faith in GOD. The one who believes God -- and resultantly trusts and obeys Him -- will recognize the truth of Christ when he or she encounters Christ, just as Christ guaranteed and challenged His listeners in Jn 7:16-17. "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." No one who believes God will knowingly reject Christ when given full opportunity to encounter Him. Jethro, a priest of God, exalted in God's dealing with Israel; and Melchizedek, the king and priest of Salem, likewise met Abraham in Canaan and led Abraham in worship to the true God. Still others who didn't believe in God prior to encountering Christ through our testimony will repent and believe, just as Rahab, Ruth, and the "mixed multitude" who left Egypt with the Israelites repented and believed when faced with the much more limited revelation of God to them in the Old Testament. Those who refuse Christ have once again rejected God and find themselves doubly condemned. (See Matthew 11:20-24.) The greater the revelation, the greater the judgment for those who refuse to repent and believe, and Christ's life and teaching clarifies and resolves so many unclear and difficult questions that were left unanswered without Him. (See Hebrews 10:26-31). |
||||||
53 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 41287 | ||
John, Thank you for your explanation. I'm finding our dialogue helpful in terms of getting to know you and in drawing out my understanding of the Scriptures, and I appreciate your patient input. There are a couple of places that I want to quote and explain where I think we may differ. I will quote you and offer my responses as clearly as possible before explaining further. Thank you again for bearing with me in my wordy responses. It looks like I'll need to break this into 2 responses. Clarification -- Part 1) I think you are correct that we are in agreement as to the beginning portion of your posting. I would use different wording from your quotation below, but I think it's simply a matter of word preference rather than disagreement. Let me know if I'm mistaken on this. "There is not a single person who does not believe that God exists. The problem lies in their suppression of that knowledge. That is the condition of mankind as a result of Adam's fall." I agree that every person has the opportunity to observe the revelation of God's existence; however, I wouldn't classify this as "belief" unless the observations and their obvious conclusion are not completely suppressed. Immediate and consistent suppression of evidence apparently results in a complete absence of even passive faith. (This refusal to face the obvious revealed truth from God -- when coupled with the determined and final rejection of the Spirit's conviction upon a person -- appears to be the one unforgiveable sin, but this is a side idea not immediately necessary to recognize our level of agreement here.) Again, I think this is simply a matter of word usage, and I apologize if I appear to be wrangling over words, but I want to make sure that our identified agreements are accurate. |
||||||
54 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 41288 | ||
Clarification -- Part 2) a) You say, "I would say that those believers in the OT placed their faith In the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." I am in full agreement with this. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the true (triune) God -- so far as He revealed Himself to Abraham. Old Testament believers worshipped the true God. b) You went on to say, "It was faith in what God provided at that time that secured their atonement." I think I would disagree. I believe it was faith in God -- which was naturally reflected through obedience and confident practice of the rituals He prescribed. However, '[I]t is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.' (Hebrews 10:4) Even at that time, the sacrifices were never a means of forgiveness; they were never more than an illustration of that which was coming. 'A broken and contrite heart' were what God truly required (Psalm 51:17) -- both during the time of the regular sacrifices and during the time when Daniel, his 3 friends, and other believers were saved by faith when there was neither temple nor tabernacle. The law and sacrificial system were a consistent reminder to the Jews to be humble before God in agreeing as to their sinfulness before a holy God, their inability to restore themselves, and their need for payment to come from elsewhere -- but with a veiled and vague image that was incomplete. The true nature of how God could forgive and the means that He would use were incomprehensible to them. Yet they believed God could and would forgive because He had told them so -- and His character and attributes had been revealed and demonstrated sufficiently elsewhere to attest to His faithfulness and ability; they trusted that God would provide the means, however inconceivable that means may have been to them. I believe this is also the condition of every believer in (the true) God who has not yet encountered the revelation of Christ. All those from Hebrews 11 can attest to both the saving power of active personal faith in God and to the faithfulness of the God who saves. When such a believer encounters Christ, he or she will continue in belief (which has saved them) and add knowledge based on that additional revelation. Thus they will, like Abraham, 'rejoice to see' the day of Christ (Jn 8:56 -- also Jn 7:16-17), and He will give them His Holy Spirit as a pledge. Still others, who were previously unbelievers, will come into contact with the eyewitness history of Christ and believe in Him. The sinfulness of their hearts will be revealed to them, they will be broken before Christ, and they will believe in Him. The mathematical logic appears complete on this; it seems to me to be simply a matter of timing. Jesus the Christ is the complete human revelation of God, and either way the faith is in God. He who rejects Jesus rejects God and needs to repent. The opposite is also true; he who believes in Jesus believes in God and is saved through faith in God and through the blood of Christ. We can reverse these, and they are still true. He who rejects God also rejects Jesus and needs to repent (John 8:42-47), and He who believes in God also believes in Jesus (John 7:16-17) and is thus saved through faith in God and through the blood of Christ. This is great news, and we need to be telling everyone -- both unbelievers and any possible believers still in the dark about Jesus -- HOW God has saved them and us. He has done this by grace -- by pouring out the blood of God the Son, Jesus the promised Messiah. His broken body and shed blood are the only means available; no one comes to the Father except through the Son. I think we understand each other. I don't believe these differences of opinion affect the image of the nature of God, the means of salvation of the vast majority of people whom most western Christians will meet (people who have the opportunity to hear about Christ), or the central truths of who Christ is and what He has accomplished. They need not bring division. However, I believe they may well affect our images of unreached people groups and the methods that we employ, encourage, and tolerate among them by others. For example, I believe any portion of Scripture that reveals God is evangelistic by nature and useful with unbelievers, whereas others may suggest that only the New Testament and certain portions of certain prophets are appropriate and essential to evangelism. Thank you again for your patience. God bless you, brother, Brent |
||||||
55 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 43659 | ||
Dear John, You are right that we are in disagreement upon some significant points of John Calvin's doctrines, as you noted in your recent post in response to my discussion with Kalos from a year ago. I am definitely not a 5-point Calvinist. While I have no expectation of changing your views, I hope that I can shed some light on how those of us who are not fully convinced that Calvin and his followers were accurate in everything can still claim full submission to the same Scriptures that our Reformed brothers do. I do not disagree with most of what you say here, although there are once again a few significant points that I would question and-or with which I would disagree. I'll probably need a couple of posts to respond. We definitely have a different reading of Jesus' meaning in John 3 regarding what it means to "see" the kingdom of God. This seems to me to refer to our future in heaven -- where the "pure in heart" will "see God." I believe the new birth (being born of the Spirit) takes place immediately AFTER faith, and I think that you believe the new birth comes first; please correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly believe that all initiation and conviction comes from the Spirit and not from unregenerate man. However, I believe this is not forced upon us irresistably -- by God's design not by any inability on God's part. I believe that conviction and even certain levels of enlightenment from the Spirit come prior to faith, but that Spiritual-spiritual regeneration comes upon belief. I can not agree with Arminius that new believers directly opt to believe, but the hidden working of belief and the joint involvement of the Spirit and human will is a mystery to me. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the involvement of the will of man comes into play prior to belief and is, therefore, a part of the process. The nearest I can come to a theory on this is that there is an ability to internally either admit or finally reject one's spiritual poverty in the face of the Spirit's persistent conviction and that this is God's requirement. This "humility" or "poverty of spirit" opens the door that the Spirit chooses otherwise not to open, and it is "the poor in spirit" who will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3). This is the trait with which Christ opens His sermon, and it is the trait that is foundational to all the others; the corresponding absence of this trait results in blasphemy against the Spirit -- the only unforgiveable sin. While use of the term "humility" as the means to grace (Ps 138:6, Isaiah 57:15, James 4:6, 1 Pe 5:5) seems a problematic trait to claim for oneself, the parallel and more specific term "poor in spirit" speaks specifically of recognizing one's "fallen condition" and "hopelessness" -- to use your terminology. This trait does not make anyone more worthy -- any more than personal recognition of incompetence would better qualify a job applicant for a desired position. Nevertheless, it appears to open a door of influence that the omnipowerful Spirit enters through after patiently knocking and deliberately awaiting admittance. God has set the limit Himself, and the all-powerful Spirit yields to the will of the Father and Son just as the Son always yielded to the will of the Father in His work on this earth. As a loving father of my own children who wants them to have a heart to do what is right -- I also set limits on the discipline I use to convince my children against their own wills to submit to my ways and God's ways (even in many areas where I'm certain that I'm right). |
||||||
56 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 43666 | ||
Part 2 -- My other question is regarding the following statements "Saving faith is a gift from God bestowed upon those He has chosen from before the foundation of the world... This view of God "Almighty" is the view held by the fathers of the Protestant faith, and was based on the Scripture alone. The modern popular view that places salvation in the hands of fallen mankind is dead wrong." What I perceive as a difference here may be simply my reading into your words based on identifying certain catch phrases directly with Calvin's teachings. I don't think that the Scriptures directly state anywhere that God "predestinated" to belief but rather to conformity to Christ. There is a certain mystery still present (until eternity) in revelation surrounding what actually takes place between the initiation of the Holy Spirit and the faith that is produced. The mystery (as yet unrevealed secret) results in various theories that can greatly influence one's theology but are not central to salvation. I believe we have a difference here in the definition of "almighty" and-or "sovereign" that significantly affects our theology but doesn't change the primary focus on the depravity of man, the holiness of God, the necessity of Christ's intervention, and the centrality of the Spirit's work; nor is there any question of the truth of the Trinity here. While we would both use the term, I don't believe God's power, authority, or sovereignty are compromised by His deliberate setting the limits to which His Spirit would go in terms of irresistability but still making salvation theoretically available to every person (while knowing in advance who would be rendered poor in spirit by His persistent conviction and proof through the Spirit and who would blaspheme His Spirit). I know this brings up the question of the meaning of the term "knowledge" -- as you brought out in your post on the other thread. However, it's late, and that will have to wait until there is more time. (Based on my schedule, it may be some time, but I will do my best to respond when I can sit down long enough to prayerfully and clearly synthesize study and consideration since my last posting to Kalos on that.) Finally, I need to clarify who you meant when you used the phrase, "the view held by the fathers of the Protestant faith, and was based on the Scripture alone" in your posting. I guess I'm assuming that "Calvin and those who associated themselves with him" would be an accurate rendering. Are you including Martin Luther? Do you include Jacobus Arminius (certainly not a 'modern' by any stretch but not quite an exact contemporary of Calvin, and certainly expunged from any list of Calvin's followers once he began to think that there may have been potential errors within Calvin's Institutes)? I was a little uncomfortable with the sub-phrase "based on the Scripture alone" and wanted clarification as well. Were you referring to certain statements of Calvin as being wholly unpolluted with the reasoning of man, or simply comparing them to heresies that brought in superstitions, false religions, and-or false revelations of some other kind? There's certainly a sense in which the purity of some statement is apparently being compared with the impurity and corruption of something else. |
||||||
57 | Clarification from John Reformed...? | Rom 1:16 | Brent Douglass | 44054 | ||
Thanks for the clarification, John. I'm glad to hear that it the reference is only to the word itself, and my concern about your statements is assuaged. You don't need to clarify further which specific doctrinal statements regarding definitions of sovereignty were "based on the Scripture alone." I think I understand your meaning that the intention was consistently to base the doctrines only on the Scriptures and not on previous counsels or papal decrees. I certainly respect that about the Reformed movement as a whole and specifically about the great leaders of the movement at its roots. Regarding the passage you referred to about predestination, I am in whole-hearted agreement that the adoption as sons (as well as the conformity to the image of Christ) was predestined before the foundation of the world. It is poverty of spirit in response to the Spirit's conviction -- leading to spiritual enlightenment and repentance (which then leads to the Spirit's development of faith and faithfulness) that I am not convinced was predestined but simply foreknown. I believe that our predestined adoption as sons takes place sequentially after faith -- NOT before. Therefore, the sequence leading up through faith appears to be foreknown, and the predestination begins from the results. While the overall process itself is a gift from God, undeserved, and consistently initiated by Him -- my current impression from the Scriptures is that the final penetration of the loving corrective conviction of the Spirit is deliberately left to the will of the individual soul. The will can either give in to the irrefutable evidence offered (resulting in recognition of spiritual poverty), or he (or she) can blaspheme the Spirit (leading to the impossibility of forgiveness). God knew all the scenarios and each individual's results prior to anyone's conception, but we can only be sure when the day of judgment comes. However, there is typically significant evidence of belief or unbelief in a person's life, and we can speak to them on the basis of that evidence. Only Christ Himself (or potentially a prophet) would have the ability to declare someone's heart impenetrable and beyond conviction according to the limitations laid down by God. Christ did so to some of the Pharisees who refused the irrefutable demonstration of His conduct and power and the accompanying conviction of the Spirit upon them. I'm still working through specifics of these ideas and testing them to make sure they are biblical, which is why I present them to you and to the list. |
||||||
58 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | Brent Douglass | 222 | ||
Thanks, Ric, for pointing out my unfortunate use of vocabulary, which I feel I need to correct. To be honest, I don't like the wording, "temporary repentance" -- even though it was my own choice of words at the time. I think it could tend to mean something I didn't intend. It's not completely off but needs to be understood more as a logical or pragmatic repentance rather than an actual deep change. The action is temporary; the deep motivation and attitude is simply unchanged. This may be parallel (but not identical to) an interpretation of the seed falling by the road in the parable of the sower, where the surface response to the good news was great but short-lived because the deeper ground of the true heart was not fertile to actually receive the conviction of the Spirit; this gave a temporary but false impression of saving faith. | ||||||
59 | 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. | ||||||
60 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3949 | ||
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. My job gets busy or slow at unexpected times, and of course that has to come first. While I definitely have certain things that I have strong views on, I'm not particularly interested in debate as much as trying to understand more clearly what the Scriptures say -- changing my views and questioning others' views if I'm uncertain about their accuracy. It's hard to gauge from written correspondence on this kind of forum, but it seems like you're seeking to debate. For example, you said of me, "You admit that a separate experience of being filled with the Spirit is possible, so I assume you cannot deny...." "Admit" would be an incorrect word suggesting debate. I BELIEVE that Christians can (and often do) have such experiences; therefore, when a group claims something to consistently be an example(or the example) of such an experience, it should be tested against the Scriptural accounts and guidelines. I was stating my beliefs, not conceding debated points. That said, I'd like to make some observations about these passages. Acts 2 doesn't mention the "baptism" of the Spirit, and the initial verse quoted (1 Cor 12:13 -- probably when the question was asked) appears to refer to ALL Christians. I would equate this reference with receiving the Spirit (immediately following belief). Being "filled with" the Spirit appears to be different from being "baptized by" the Spirit. In John 20 and Acts 2 (along with Acts 4, etc.) receiving the Spirit and a first experience of "filling" appear to have happened separately (although there are many solid teachers and theologians who would disagree). This does not mean that they never happen together, but they initially happened separately for the disciples; this filling was also repeated (e.g. Acts 4:31) among the same people (and without any indication of supernatural tongues in that particular case). The idea that these (the "tongues" or languages of Acts 2) were somehow angelic tongues and that the listeners also miraculously (magically?) heard them in their own languages seems very far-fetched to me; let me elaborate. In the text, Luke clearly indicates that the Spirit fell upon the disciples; he says nothing about the Spirit falling upon the hearers. In fact, the text indicates they had not even received the Spirit at all after this point, set aside being filled. Peter later tells the hearers to repent and seek forgiveness and THEN RECEIVE the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Luke makes a specific point of identifying the various native languages of the hearers, and stating NOT that they could "understand" them as if in their own languages; rather they "heard" them "in [their] own languages." There is a gift of "interpretation of tongues" -- but interpretation is different from hearing in one's own language. The miracle was in the disciples speaking the listeners' languages, NOT in the listeners somehow hearing some unknown language as if they were their own. Paul's explanation in 1 Cor 14:10-14 also describes the use of these gifts; I'm not an expert on languages, but I speak several. When I hear one of those foreing languages, I don't think I'm hearing English. If I'm explaining it to someone who doesn't understand, I "interpret" it; I don't repeat back the English that I heard. In addition, the word 'tongues' also means 'languages' -- which is plural, and the passage I noted from 1 Cor 14 also indicates the use of world languages. It makes logical sense to recognize that Pentecost was an example of the disciples speaking in real foreign languages, which were recognized by native speakers. It doesn't make logical sense for it to be referring to angelic languages. I can see where someone may possibly interpret other references as speaking of such angelic tongues (although I personally disagree with such interpretations), but this is the first I've heard such a suggestion specifically about Pentecost. I don't associate such a concept with any specific Christian group or groups, so my aim is not to challenge any particular group's beliefs that I know of. Have others heard such an interpretation taught? If so, how is it supported? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |