Results 41 - 60 of 695
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: flinkywood Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216625 | ||
Doc Thanks for posting these Trentian "anathemas". I was struck by how much sense they make against Calvin's theology, which I find harsh (dungpiles and filthy rags) and at variance with our Father's character as revealed in both testaments. (Did Calvin ever read 2Ki 20:1-6)? I say Father because a Judge--though He is also a Judge--loves His prodigal son far more than any judge can. And like the prodigal, when we turn back we come to our Father's house, to our Holy Family, not simply to a courtroom. To have "anathematized the gospels", if I understand your formulation, means that the RCC essentially disagreed with Calvin's--and your--NT perspective. Whoa. Now I don't know whether the RCC condemned Calvin or any other Reformer to hell for having instructed others in the "lost doctrines"(?) of the universal church, but I do think the RCC were within their rights to condemn his theology as they saw fit and to fling whatever arrows they had in his direction. The Reformers had equal right to shoot back. And shoot back they did. |
||||||
42 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216576 | ||
Doc, I thought JPII's paragraph pretty well done. As for the RCC anathematizing the Gospel, that is a pretty sweeping statement. Anyway, that one will stay corked. | ||||||
43 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216566 | ||
St John, here also is a commentary by Iraneus on this verse: “Why also did it not prefer to make its attack upon the man instead of the woman? And if you say that it attacked her as being the weaker of the two,--I reply that--, on the contrary, she was the stronger, since she appears to have been the helper of the man in the transgression of the commandment. For she did by herself alone resist the serpent, and it was after holding out for a while and making opposition that she ate of the tree, being circumvented by craft; whereas Adam, making no fight whatever, nor refusal, partook of the fruit handed to him by the woman, which is an indication of the utmost imbecility and effeminacy of mind. And the woman indeed, having been vanquished in the contest by a demon, is deserving of pardon; but Adam shall deserve none, for he was worsted by a woman—he who, in his own person, had received the command from God.” Was Adam a coward for failing to defend his wife; for failing, perhaps, to sacrifice his life for her against the serpent? |
||||||
44 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216565 | ||
St John, I found this in answer to your piece on pride. "Cutting off What Keeps Us from God" I was led back to the opening pages of the Book of Genesis, to the event known as "original sin." Saint Augustine, with extraordinary perceptiveness, described the nature of this sin as follows:.amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei-.self-love to the point of contempt for God. It was amor sui (self love) which drove our first parents toward that initial rebellion and then gave rise to the spread of sin throughout human history. The Book of Genesis speaks of this: "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gn 3:5), in other words, you yourselves will decide what is good and what is evil. The only way to overcome this dimension of original sin is through a corresponding amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui- love for God to the point of contempt of self. This brings us face to face with the mystery of man's redemption, and here the Holy Spirit is our guide. It is he who allows us to penetrate deeply into the mysterium Crucis and at the same time to plumb the depths of the evil perpetrated by man and suffered by man from the very beginning of his history. That is what the expression "convince the world about sin" means, and the purpose of this "convincing" is not to condemn the world. If the Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, can call evil by its name, it does so only in order to demonstrate that evil can be overcome if we open ourselves to amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui. This is the fruit of Divine Mercy. In Jesus Christ, God bends down over man to hold out a hand to him, to raise him up, and to help him continue his journey with renewed strength. Man cannot get back onto his feet unaided: he needs the help of the Holy Spirit. Pope John Paul II |
||||||
45 | We were about to take communion and the | 1 Cor 11:27 | flinkywood | 216458 | ||
If, on the other hand, you friend has acted immorally with or towards this fellow parishioner, then the pastor's admonition is biblical, irrespective of Christian denomination or form of communion. | ||||||
46 | Why do I want to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 13:1 | flinkywood | 212374 | ||
Tough news for Helen Keller. | ||||||
47 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | flinkywood | 205668 | ||
Dear Tamara, Vincent’s Word Studies translates the phrase literally as “what is there to me and to thee?” and also notes that “Woman” implies “…no severity or disrespect,” which surely is the case since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the infinite exponent of the 4th commandment to “honor thy father and mother”. We have 2 options: Option 1: A term expressing disagreement or a mild rebuke: But the king said, "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the LORD has said to him, 'Curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?'" (2Sa 16:10) And Elisha said to the king of Israel, "What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother." But the king of Israel said to him, "No; it is the LORD who has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab." (2Ki 3:13) Option 2: The free acceptance of the will of another whether reluctantly or not: "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." (Mar 1:24) And crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." (Mar 5:7) Option 2 fits the context since Jesus immediately accedes to His mother’s wish and she recognizes instantly His intention to do no otherwise (v2.5). The expression, therefore, is idiomatic to be used either positively or negatively. In Mary's comprehension of her Son's mission and Jesus' obedient deference to His mother's will we have a portrait of the most profound love, respect and understanding. This isn't a story of separation but of unity. |
||||||
48 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | flinkywood | 205552 | ||
Dear Tamara, Vincent’s Word Studies translates the phrase literally as “what is there to me and to thee?” and also notes that “Woman” implies “…no severity or disrespect,” which surely is the case since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the infinite exponent of the 4th commandment to “honor thy father and mother”. Option 1: A term expressing disagreement or a mild rebuke: But the king said, "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the LORD has said to him, 'Curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?'" (2Sa 16:10) And Elisha said to the king of Israel, "What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother." But the king of Israel said to him, "No; it is the LORD who has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab." (2Ki 3:13) Option 2: The free acceptance of the will of another whether reluctantly or not: "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." (Mar 1:24) And crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." (Mar 5:7) Option 2 fits this context since Jesus immediately accedes to His mother’s wish and she recognizes instantly His intention to do no otherwise (v2.5). The expression, therefore, is idiomatic to be used either positively or negatively. In Mary's comprehension of her Son's mission and Jesus' obedient deference to His mother's will we have a portrait of the most profound love, respect and understanding. This isn't a story of separation but of unity. |
||||||
49 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | flinkywood | 205510 | ||
Tamara, how do you conclude that Jesus is distancing Himself from from His mother? | ||||||
50 | An interesting discussion/question | Romans | flinkywood | 204961 | ||
CoG, Have you considered this passage? Then He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Mat 26:39) Colin |
||||||
51 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204894 | ||
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. (1Co 10:12 NASB) |
||||||
52 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204891 | ||
John, your reply was agreeable until the 2nd paragraph. Judge yourself. | ||||||
53 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204886 | ||
John, I admire Matthew Henry. J. Vernon McGee is also marvelous. I also consult JFB in my bible study. These are giants; but from reading scripture it is increasingly apparent to me that although forgiveness does happen initially in a categorical and declarative sense (succinctly expressed by McGee and GSB), sin remains within us (Rom 6:12; 7:15-18); therefore, one must examine his conscience daily for those offenses he commits out of pride, anger, lust, greed, fear; confront them (1 Cor 11:28) and confess them (1 John 1:9). To the point: If we don’t obey this faith to which we’re called (Rom 1:5; 16:26), we may forfeit our salvation (Heb 6:4-6; John 5:16-17). There are too many “if’s” in scripture to convince me our salvation is categorically guaranteed. My overall sense, and why I responded to Tamara in this thread, is that Jesus appears to have instituted a structure (John 20:23) to help the faithful obey the faith to which they’re called. Colin |
||||||
54 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204870 | ||
John, I agree with Gill's statement from, "...to such as repent of their sins..." through to the end; that's the basis of our conversion, isn't it? What precedes that portion doesn't square with John 20:23, if not for the literalness of the verse (along with the others I cited), then because Christ, as God, can authorize whom He pleases. Colin |
||||||
55 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204869 | ||
Doc, Of course "church triggered" forgiveness yields zilch; ditto Christ "plus", as you say. The verses in question don't imply either case, so I'll rest mine. Colin |
||||||
56 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204857 | ||
Doc, Setting aside the Reformation and apostle-zotting, James 5:14-15 isn't bearing but sharing the weight of Matthew 9:6-8 (authority to "men"); John 20:23 (forgiving and retaining), Matthew 18:18 (binding and loosing). These verses resist the formulation, if I understand your thesis correctly, 'Only God forgives sin, ergo Jesus gave no man such authority." Read together and literally, these passages (John 20:23 especially) indicate the contrary. Where our interpretations coincide is that in either case the Spirit of Christ is the active agent (e.g. John 4:2), be it through His apostles or otherwise. Colin |
||||||
57 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204790 | ||
Hi, Val, Nevertheless, James tells us that the healing is accompanied by forgiveness for any sins committed. | ||||||
58 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204785 | ||
Doc, I'd agree with you if scripture did: And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. (Jas 5:15) This verse seems to echo both in form and practice Jesus' healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9:2-8, which indicates that Jerusalem elders, called to imitate Christ, were doing so in a manner already well established by the time of James' writing. These verses lend credence to an interpretation of John 20:23 as indicating that our Lord did indeed authorize the apostles to forgive sin - and most certainly in His name. I do appreciate your view of John 20:23 as a commission to declare what God has already done; but Jesus hadn't yet ascended to the Father and was still about the business of founding and teaching His fledgling church on earth. For sure we're called to proclaim the Gospel and to "be holy" as our Father is Holy, but in this verse forgiving and retaining, like binding and loosing, are more about institution than proclamation. And of course none of it, not one jot or tittle, would be possible without the atoning work of Christ. I also take issue with you about Jesus not partnering with the apostles. How else to take the meaning of, "As the Father sent me, so I send you"? These are his brothers, his family, what better partners? And though I respect J.C. Ryle's opinion, it does sound like saying, 'the fact that cars kill so many people proves they were never meant for driving.' In other words, a conclusion doesn't change a fact. Thanks for your careful reply. Colin |
||||||
59 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204778 | ||
Doc, Why would you have to chuck the solas? | ||||||
60 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | flinkywood | 204775 | ||
Tamara, in John 20:23 Jesus expressly gives the apostles authority to forgive or retain sins. Matthew corroborates this by citing the plural form "to men", where he could have said, "to a man." John 20:23 is pretty literal. And you're right to be shaken up; this particular verse got to me as well. Colin |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [35] >> |