Results 441 - 460 of 559
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Wild Olive Shoot Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156326 | ||
Doc, I think you do well enough articulating your thoughts. I agree that this is probably a topic that cannot be discussed, in depth, as it would warrant. The thread was already lengthy to begin with. I thank you for your insight concerning where to look. It’s a start and one that I’ll follow up on. The look into “seed†and the significance of it will be interesting to explore to compare the use of it in Scripture to the theories you mentioned and how each apply to imputation. My question in regard to this was how imputed sin did not pass to Christ through Mary. I’m sure it didn’t because God’s word informs me so. Or since Christ died in His Humanity and only lives eternally in His divinity, could the imputed sin from Adam have been passed to Christ’s human nature? Did I phrase that right? I confuse myself sometimes. But I’m afraid that attempt separates His humanity from His divinity, which I struggle with. God accounted for this somehow, I’m sure. I just can’t buy into the theory that Mary was preserved and not affected by original sin, as I’ve heard argued, but I know God can have no contact with sin. If that were the case with Mary, it would be easy to understand concerning Christ. But that’s were I have difficulty. Thanks for the insight Doc. I’ll begin my efforts to answering this where you have suggested. Along the way, and when you have time, any further insight offered will be valued. WOS |
||||||
442 | Who is Luke? | Luke | Wild Olive Shoot | 156301 | ||
Luke was not with Jesus during His earthly ministry. Luke 1:1-4(NASB) 1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. He was definitely not with Him when Jairus’ daughter was raised from the dead. Mark 5:35-42 (NASB) 35While He was still speaking, they came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, "Your daughter has died; why trouble the Teacher anymore?" 36But Jesus, overhearing what was being spoken, said to the synagogue official, Do not be afraid any longer, only believe." 37And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James. 38They came to the house of the synagogue official; and He saw a commotion, and people loudly weeping and wailing. 39And entering in, He said to them, "Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep." 40They began laughing at Him. But putting them all out, He took along the child's father and mother and His own companions, and entered the room where the child was. 41Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!"). 42Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded. WOS |
||||||
443 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156290 | ||
"Does any one have any “historical records†stating that the Kings of old actually “provided†coverings or outer garments for their guest at wedding feast?" Is the Bible not historical enough for you? The fact that it was mentioned is evidence that it was practiced, otherwise, why mention it if the audience had no idea what it referred to. I’m sure there were some kind of garments provided by some. I apologize. I guess I just don't understand the concern outside of what Christ was trying indicate and get across to those whom He was speaking to. I’ll stay out of the conversation. WOS |
||||||
444 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156283 | ||
“Many a time the question has been asked: "What was the wedding garment?" It is a question which need not be curiously pried into. So many answers have been given that I conclude that if our Saviour had intended any one specific thing he would have expressed himself more plainly, so that we would have been able, without so much theological disputing, to have understood what he meant. It seems to me that our Lord intended much more than any one thing. The guests were bidden to come to the wedding to show their respect to the king and prince; some would not come at all, and so showed their sedition; this man came, and when he heard the regulation, that a certain garment should be put on, comely in appearance and suitable for the occasion, he determined that he would not wear it. In this act of rebellion, he went as far in opposition as they did who would not come at all, and he went a little further, for in the very presence of the guests and of the king he dared to declare his disloyalty and contempt. Alas, how many are willing enough to receive gospel blessings, but they are still at enmity with God and have no delight in the only Begotten Son. Such will dare to use the forms of godliness, and yet their hearts are full of rebellion against the Lord. The wedding garment represents anything which is indispensable to a Christian, but which the unrenewed heart is not willing to accept, anything which the Lord ordains to be a necessary attendant of salvation, against which selfishness rebels. Hence it may be said to be Christ's righteousness imputed to us, for alas, many nominal Christians kick against the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of the Saviour and set up their own self-righteousness in opposition to it. To be found in Christ, not having our own righteousness, which is of the law, but having the righteousness which is of God by faith, is a very prominent badge of a real servant of God, and to refuse it is to manifest opposition to the glory of God, and to the name, person, and work of his exalted Son. But we might with equal truth say that the wedding dress is a holy character, the imparted righteousness which the Holy Spirit works in us, and which is equally necessary as a proof of grace. If you question such a statement, I would remind you of the dress which adorns the saints in heaven. What is said of it? "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Their robes therefore were such as once needed washing; and this could not be said in any sense of the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ; that was always perfect and spotless. It is clear then that the figure is sometimes applied to saints in reference to their personal character. Holiness is always present in those who are loyal guests of the great King, for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Too many professors pacify themselves with the idea that they possess imputed righteousness, while they are indifferent to the sanctifying work of the Spirit. They refuse to put on the garment of obedience, they reject the white linen which is the righteousness of saints. They thus reveal their self-will, their enmity to God, and their nonsubmission to his Son. Such men may talk what they will about justification by faith, and salvation by grace, but they are rebels at heart, they have not on the wedding dress any more than the self-righteous, whom they so eagerly condemn. The fact is, if we wish for the blessings of grace, we must in our hearts submit to the rules of grace without picking and choosing. It is idle to dispute whether the wedding garment is faith or love, as some have done, for all the graces of the Spirit and blessings of the covenant go together. No one ever had the imputed righteousness of Christ without receiving at the same time a measure of the righteousness wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. Justification by faith is not contrary to the production of good works: God forbid. The faith by which we are justified is the faith which produces holiness, and no one is justified by faith which does not also sanctify him and deliver him from the love of sin. All the essentials of the Christian character may be understood as making up the great wedding garment. In one word, we put on Christ, and he is "made of God unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption."†– C.H. Spurgeon Spurgeon, Charles. "The Wedding Garment." Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. Blue Letter Bible. 18 Apr 2001. 21 Aug 2005. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/charles_spurgeon/sermons/0976.html WOS |
||||||
445 | The dress code of the day? | Matt 22:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156274 | ||
Your posting tonight leads me to believe you made it through the day unscathed. Must have found some “wedding clothes†:) WOS |
||||||
446 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156229 | ||
Doc, I know this thread seems to be going on and getting lengthy, but I would really appreciate some help on one thing. You stated in your post to Mark: “You see, brother Mark, this is why it was so crucial that Christ be born of a virgin. He was not of the seed of Adam. If He had been of the seed of Adam, even without committing any sin, He could only have died for Himself. Yet Christ was perfectly righteous, in deed, in heart, and in nature.†Does that imply then, that imputed sin is only a paternal characteristic and not maternal? How does Scripture account for the fact that sin is passed from mother to child? Wasn’t Mary a child of Adam? But yet we know Christ was not of sin. Would this indicate that Jesus was in fact the true “second Adam†a total creation of God therefore not genetically linked to Mary? But then in essence, doesn’t that deny His Humanity? Does Scripture reveal the answer to this? WOS |
||||||
447 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156225 | ||
Victor, What was that all about? As a brother in Christ, I believe you know better than that. If being referred to as “son†is that insulting to you, don’t you think it would have been better to simply ask Doc to refrain from using that when addressing you. Rather than taking off in what most would deem a tirade of juvenility, deserving of a title of immaturity, don’t you think it would have been more mature and appropriate to ask that title not be used to address you? Don’t you think it would have been more appropriately “Christ-like†to respond in a manner befitting a Christian? I’m sure in hindsight you realize that. So I won’t dwell on it much longer. Though still a youngster in “forum years†(since I’ve only been around 4 months) I’ve had the opportunity to discern, at least with the more avid users, those who indeed tend to help and those who attempt to be harmful. Doc has been one of those (one of many) I have had the opportunity to learn from. Have I always agreed with him? I don’t believe so. But that’s not to say he was wrong or right, simply take it for what it says. There are many on this forum that disagree in one aspect or another with a different forum member. There are some who take the low road and insult and try to make the other look a fool. But I see there are those who also take the high road and with love and kindness, display their differences with respect as to the other individual’s thoughts. I’ve also seen that there are cases in which harshness is used and at first I didn’t care for that. But I’ve come to find that sometimes, it is necessary. In any case, I hope you realize that there are some who would like for you to continue to participate in the forum. But you should want to for the purpose of self-edification as well as helping others. You can’t expect anyone to take what you say as being credible when you disrespect forum members as you have with Doc. And if you felt offended at first, you should have pointed that out and not attempted to offend in retaliation. That’s just not right and you know it. In case you overlooked it, please read Mark’s post to you # 156215. That is sound advice my friend. I hope you put it into practice. WOS |
||||||
448 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | 2 Tim 2:25 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156175 | ||
I found this. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, a modern apostle of peace and love, is the head of the world’s second largest and oldest Christian faith community. Based in a Moslem country on the fault-line between East and West, Christianity and Islam, the developed and developing worlds, His All Holiness is, by tradition, the 270th successor to an actual apostle of Jesus Christ, St Andrew, the first-called apostle and brother of St. Peter. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has existed in what was known as Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey, since the fourth century A.D. when Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople (now Istanbul), a city that he built. His All Holiness Bartholomew has led the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians for 13 years, quietly bringing together major religious leaders and intervening in wars and conflicts and the environmental crisis. http://www.archons.org/patriarchate/holiness.asp WOS |
||||||
449 | Is the Word of Faith movement Biblical? | Matt 24:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156054 | ||
Dalcent, You ask: Where in the Bible do we find Jesus or the Apostles praying for the sick. Matthew 21:22(NASB) 22"And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." James 5:14-15(NASB) 14Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Matthew 17:19-21(AMP) 19Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked privately, Why could we not drive it out? 20He said to them, Because of the littleness of your faith [that is, your lack of firmly relying trust]. For truly I say to you, if you have faith [that is living] like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, Move from here to yonder place, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. 21But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting. Some examples. WOS |
||||||
450 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156044 | ||
Well, Let’s get this all out in the open. Theotokos: Mother of God : Mary's son, Jesus, was fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single person of the Trinity. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Mary being mother of God the Son is therefore duly entitled Mother of God. Christotokos: Mother of Christ: The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not His Divine nature. Nestorianism: that Jesus had two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, instead of one unified person. (Christotokos) Monophysitism: Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There are two major doctrines that can undisputedly be called monophysite: Eutychianism: the human nature of Christ was essentially obliterated by the Divine, "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea". Apollinarianism: Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day. Scripture, time and time again makes reference to Mary as the mother of Jesus. This Jesus, is / was God incarnate. He was always God, but not always human until the incarnation. Holding both positions, after His incarnation, He never left either until his death. To say Mary is the mother of God in His humanity “only†is to separate Him from His divinity (which would indicate that while He was human He was not God, which did not happen). Jesus was always divine. He was fully Human while remaining divine. You cannot separate one from the other. Mary is rightfully the mother of God. Does that make her any better. Not necessarily. It simply shows that she was in God’s favor and the one chosen to give birth to the Savior. I think the doctrine emphasized that. The big words confuse me… Can’t we keep it simple. WOS Now for the backlash… |
||||||
451 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | 2 Tim 2:25 | Wild Olive Shoot | 156001 | ||
Dear Bows44, I'm afraid that in your frustration, you are quoting and using Scripture out of context. Although Paul made note of those preaching Christ with wrong motives, he in no way condones our partaking in those same insincere acts. 12Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. 13As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly. 15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, 19for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. 20I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. (15-18) Paul considers the motives of men in their preaching of the gospel Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife; their desire is to "surpass" Paul in ministry, and to promote their own name and place above Paul's. These people were glad Paul was imprisoned, because they felt this gave them a "competitive edge" over him in the "contest" of preaching the gospel; they were motivated by a competitive spirit (common among preachers!). Those preaching the gospel out of wrong motives are infected with selfish ambition, which makes them minister not sincerely. Ambition isn't necessarily bad; there is nothing wrong in wanting to be the best we can be for God. But selfish ambition is concerned most with being thought of by others as a success; pleasing man instead of God. Those who preach Christ from the wrong motives were supposing to add affliction to my [Paul's] chains; their competitive hearts didn't only want themselves to "win," they wanted Paul to "lose". They wanted Paul to endure the "humiliation" of having to admit that others were more effective to him (something Paul honestly didn't care about, not having a competitive spirit in ministry). Others, thankfully, were preaching the gospel out of good will, and out of love. So, people were preaching the gospel more energetically, motivated by Paul's imprisonment. Some were motivated in a good way, some were motivated in a bad way, but nonetheless they were motivated - and Paul could rejoice in that! Remember that Paul's concern here is not with the gospel that is being preached; only with the motives behind those who are preaching. Paul would object if he thought a false or distorted gospel was being preached, even if from the best of motives. (Galatians 1:6-9) If Paul's imprisonment could not hinder the gospel, neither could the wrong motives of some - God's work was still being done, and that was cause for rejoicing. Guzik, David. "Study Guide for Philippians Chapter 1." Blue Letter Bible. 1 Mar 1996. 16 Aug 2005. WOS |
||||||
452 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155984 | ||
It seems there was a competing view at that council in which it was sought to refer to Mary as Christotokos instead, meaning "Mother of Christ". The purpose of that was to confine her role as only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His divine nature. Comments? WOS |
||||||
453 | At what moment do we go to heaven? | Eccl 12:7 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155709 | ||
Bows44, I didn’t intend to slam what you wrote concerning your experience, but I can see why you would have taken it that way. If you did, I’m sorry and thank you for the kind response. If you didn’t, then I’m glad. I was genuinely asking what I did and you’re right (as well as others) this probably isn’t the place to discuss it, so I’ll leave it alone for now. Thank you for the invite to discuss outside of the forum. Maybe I’ll take you up on that someday. For now though, I’d like to look into it on my own and form a more solid opinion so I can discuss somewhat judiciously. WOS |
||||||
454 | At what moment do we go to heaven? | Eccl 12:7 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155641 | ||
Bows44, So you chose your son and husband over Christ? I guess my question is why, if anyone was given a glimpse of heaven, would they choose to return to earth? Is God not soveriegn? Doesn't he decide when our time is up? I've read accounts of near death experiences. Most are in line with yours but there are also those in which the person has seen horrifying visions of hell. Who would possibly give them the chance to return? There is medical and scientific evidence that near death experiences are simply hallucinations and some Christian doctors even believe they are false visions from satan himself attempting to deceive. For some reason though, I have a hard time buying into he fact that we have a choice and that if we do, one would choose to return to earth after experiencing being in the presence of our Lord. Can I ask why you think you needed to return or why you think we are even given a choice? WOS |
||||||
455 | LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY | Gen 18:8 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155520 | ||
Oh… I see. Pardon me for my assumption. When you claimed to have a revelation, I assumed it was from God and not Robert Cohen. Look, this is just my own opinion; people will believe most anything written when they read it. Why do we find it so easy to believe every cockamamie thing written and then fail to honestly compare it with God’s word? Now I said honestly compare. Robert Cohen may be an intellectual, but he seems to have some sort of vendetta against the dairy lovers out there. I honestly think he’s about a pint shy of a full gallon. I’m sure he’ll find some way to blame the apocalypse on milk as well. Here are the references to milk that I found in Scripture, with exception to those that reference milk and honey. You look into them and see for yourself. Compare them to your revelation. Genesis 18:8 Genesis 49:12 Exodus 23:19 Exodus 34:26 Deuteronomy 14:21 Deuteronomy 32:14 Judges 4:19 Judges 5:25 Job 10:10 Job 21:24 Proverbs 27:27 Proverbs 30:33 Song of Solomon 4:11 Song of Solomon 5:1 Song of Solomon 5:12 Isaiah 7:22 Isaiah 28:9 Isaiah 55:1 Isaiah 60:16 Isaiah 66:11 Lamentations 4:7 Ezekiel 25:4 Joel 3:18 1 Corinthians 3:2 1 Corinthians 9:7 Here’s the thing, you’ll come up with your own opinion about this matter and I hope it is in line with God’s will. I’ll also state this, if you continue with your ideas about milk, that is fine too and if we ever should meet and have dinner, I’ll abstain from milk to keep from offending you. But otherwise, I’ll continue to drink it and think nothing more about it. WOS |
||||||
456 | LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY | Gen 18:8 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155494 | ||
So you’re saying the angels or Gabriel who were delivering God’s message were in a way disobedient to God for eating something not approved? You’re right about let’s not assume anything. So why do you automatically assume that it was Gabriel and not the Lord who ate? And why do you assume that milk is forbidden when we clearly see it being consumed in Scripture? You’re also overlooking Genesis 9 when considering what god has given us to eat. Genesis 9: 1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. You’re overlooking Christ and what He said: Matthew 15: 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. You’re overlooking further; Acts 10: 9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. You mean to tell me, that after all of these thousands of years, God has not wanted us consuming milk but has now just recently made it clear to you that we shouldn’t? We even see cases in Scripture in which animal milk was consumed and no mention of it being forbidden and you still think we should abstain? Sorry, I just don’t see it. Not many will I suppose? Not unless you can show support using God’s word. I’m sorry, but I’ll take His word over anyone’s, any day. By the way, I agree that the references to the land flowing with milk and honey is speaking to abundance. Who has taken that and interpreted it to mean we should drink milk from animals? WOS |
||||||
457 | Why Esau not got his blessing back? | Gen 27:35 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155468 | ||
Jehonadab, You stated: "Jacob did not maliciously misrepresent himself in order to get something that did not rightfully belong to him. The Bible does not condemn what Rebekah and Jacob did." They took matters into their hands not relying on God to work it His way. You can’t force God’s hand and nowhere in Scripture would that be supported. I saw a television show a while back in which they were asking for donations for help in moving all of the Jews from around the world back to Israel for the purpose of speeding Christ’s return. Essentially believing they could force God to play His cards early. Whatever The Almighty declares will in fact happen. There’s nothing we can do to prevent it, there’s nothing we can do to quicken it. God will act when He is ready. Rebekah and Jacob acted inappropriately using deceit and taking advantage of Isaac’s apparent disability. Hebrews 12:16 surely warns us how we are not to be, but that doesn’t speak at all to what Rebekah and Jacob did. There are clearly more lessons to be learned than just the one. However, I do agree with you that the “outcome” was exactly what God purposed. It always is, no matter how terribly we get it wrong, what God wills, will be done. Scripture doesn't condemn it? I'd look again at what everyone involved had to endure because of that incident and then ask again if we shouldn't get from scripture that acts like that are not approved. WOS |
||||||
458 | Why Esau not got his blessing back? | Gen 27:35 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155459 | ||
I don't see where Isaac did any such thing. But the results of the act itself can be identified: Did Jacob and Rebekah ever see each other again after Jacob was sent to Laban? Genesis 35:27-29 states that Jacob returned into Isaac but doesn't mention Rebekah. That seems pretty intense in light of the evident love they had toward one another. Jacob also went without seeing his brother and father again for many years. Punishment for the act seems to have rightly come from God rather than Isaac. Just an observation. I stated that hopefully I would have called on God for direction in handling the situation if it were me, but I can probably honestly admit; had my wife and son deceived me in a similar manner, I’m sure I would have wanted to make their time with me miserable, at least for a while. Not that I condone such action, but in honesty, I’m sure I would have been upset. That’s just me. WOS |
||||||
459 | Why Esau not got his blessing back? | Gen 27:35 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155292 | ||
Hi iktoose, I’m probably not the best person to get real in depth on this one. There are many more knowledgeable than I on the forum that can address and probably explain in more clear terms, but I’ll give it a try. I’m always willing to give my point of view when asked. First of all, Isaac didn’t state that he had no more blessings. Genesis 27:39,40 records the blessing that Isaac did in fact place unto Esau. But just prior to that in v37, Isaac told Esau what he had blessed Jacob with and posed the question to Esau, “and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?” Jacob had the blessing and regardless whether or not Isaac wanted to revoke it, it was still his word, and that stands for something and Jacob was given authority to rule, so Esau would have no other choice but to serve. My study Bible points out that someone’s word, especially when it was with a formal oath was binding, much like a written contract is today, thus another reason Isaac’s blessing was irrevocable. This wasn’t necessarily a blessing from God, as I understand it. It was the ceremony of blessing that officially handed over the birthright to the rightful heir that would include spiritual blessings. Realize also that Jacob had been given the birthright years before by Esau when he sold it to him (which was apparently done at times), but that showed complete disregard for the spiritual blessings that would have come his way had he not relinquished it to satisfy his immediate desire without considering the consequences. Matthew Henry continued in the commentary I submitted previously with this: “That those who undervalue their spiritual birthright, and can afford to sell it for a morsel of meat, forfeit spiritual blessings, and it is just with God to deny them those favours they were careless of. Those that will part with their wisdom and grace, with their faith and a good conscience, for the honours, wealth, or pleasures, of this world, however they may pretend a zeal for the blessing, have already judged themselves unworthy of it, and so shall their doom be.” But Isaac did in fact bless Esau. He didn’t necessarily curse him. He would still have a competent livelihood. He’ll live by his sword shows that he would serve but he would not starve. He would serve but would break the yoke from off his neck, and he would eventually be free of bondage. Esau prospered for a time. The commentary I’ve referred to can be viewed at the following. It was very helpful to me in understanding what is being stated. http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-com/ My thoughts as a parent: Well we’re walking on dangerous ground now, asking for my own personal thoughts. Being a father of two with another on the way, I hope and pray that I am fair an equal with all of my children, that I don’t favor one over the other. The truth however, I’m probably not all of the time. Not that I love one more than another, but depending on the circumstances I tend to favor one over another to enjoy a particular activity based on their enjoyment as well. I don’t necessarily get everyone involved and sometimes, one child may feel left out. I try to ration my time and efforts equally so as not to discourage either of them, and this will be even more intense with the arrival of our third. Truth be told, I probably don’t spend enough time with them as time seems to be such a rare commodity these days. I’ll strive to better myself in that area. So I hope I’m not in the position Isaac was as a father in which he apparently displayed his favoritism so greatly. That should be avoided. But as a parent who loves his child and is witness to a tremendous disappointment such as Esau displayed, I simply hope I have the faith and love to comfort them in any way I can. What I give to one, I would hope to be able to give to the others equally and just as fulfilling. However, in some cases, just as with Isaac and Esau, we see that it just isn’t possible all of the time. I hope to teach my children to make the best of what they have and what they are given and to understand that not all their desires will be fulfilled for one reason or another and they will have to adjust accordingly. What would I have done in Isaac’s case? Hopefully I would have called on God for the answer and had faith that it was the right answer. WOS |
||||||
460 | Walk through 1 John | 1 John 4:10 | Wild Olive Shoot | 155248 | ||
Truths learned about the Godhead: John clearly lays out the truths concerning the Godhead. All three attributes of the Triune God are presented in this epistle. 1. God The Father. 2. God The Son. 3. God, The Holy Spirit. John emphasizes the Humanity of God the Son. He portrays Christ’s divinity proper, but places significance on the humanity of Christ to dispel apparent heresies that were developing within the church. Christ retained His deity while being fully man at the same time. They witnessed Christ as man. They touched Him, they heard Him, they looked upon Him and they handled Him. This was the Word of Life… come to life, in the flesh. J. Vernon McGee wrote about the Apostle; “John reclined upon the bosom of Jesus in the upper room. He heard the heartbeat of God”. God the Father is represented as light. The light is what is pure, true, holy and reliable. He is perfectly pure. The Father is also portrayed as the Judge to which Christ is our advocate. Christ is our means to the Father. To deny Him is to also deny the Father. To Abide in Him is to fellowship with Him and the Father. Obedience to Christ is of the essence to which the Holy Spirit will show us. The Holy Spirit is shown as teaching us all things. Preserving us. He is our assurance that we dwell in Him and Him in us. We testify with the Spirit that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Those who confess, that Jesus is the Son, God dwells in him and him in God. 1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Truths learned about the Gospel: John clearly proclaims the Gospel throughout this epistle similar in style to his own Gospel account. The emphasis is love and it is clearly love. Not love from us to God, rather love from God to us in Sending His Son so that through Him we may gain eternal life. From His Gospel: John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Life was manifested and seen and bore witness to and shown us that He who was with the father was manifested unto us. The light of God shown upon us, and when we walk in that light, we have fellowship with Christ. His blood was shed to cleanse us of all sin. We will be forgiven our sins if we confess them. Not only our sins, but for the sins of the world was he made to be our propitiation. Our sins our forgiven for His name’s sake. In that we are promised eternal life. This is the love of God to us that He sent His one and only Son to die for us that we may live through Him. He that has the Son has life, and in that, eternally. And the other truth of the Gospel is called out as well; “he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 4:9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. WOS |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ] Next > Last [28] >> |