Results 61 - 75 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7558 | ||
More from 1 John -- 1 John 2:3-7 says much the same thing that Jim succinctly quoted from James -- only John is more long-winded (which of course draws me personally to his writing ;-) By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him,'' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 Jn 2:3-7) |
||||||
62 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7560 | ||
Still more from 1 John -- Growing and active love for other Christians (1 Jn 2:9-11) The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. |
||||||
63 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7561 | ||
Yet more from 1 John -- A growing estrangement from the values, enticements, pursuits, and sensibilities of the world -- together with false accusations and unmerited reactiveness from the world. (The feeling of being a sojourner or alien as in 1 Pe 2:11f) 1 John 3:1,13 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.... Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. |
||||||
64 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7562 | ||
And more from 1 John -- The testimony of God's Spirit within us. "By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Perhaps this passage is referring to the fruit of the Spirit, which Charis already pointed out as a true indicator previously. Or perhaps the inner testimony of the Spirit or even the experiential filling that Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Dwight Moody, D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon and others spoke of as taking place in their own lives (and as referred to in Galatians 4:6, Acts 4:31, etc.). |
||||||
65 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7563 | ||
Further-more from 1 John -- recognition of the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead and acknowledgement of Jesus as Christ and Saviour, born of God. (1 Jn 4:14f; 5:1) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.... Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (See also John 7:17.) Much of the rest of 1 John repeats the same concepts in other (or even exactly the same) words. God was clearly driving the points home through the apostle. |
||||||
66 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Brent Douglass | 1542 | ||
I'm not sure in what sense "most male" Ministers and Pastors "pass over" this Scripture, so it's hard to answer your quesion. I believe I'm in agreement with you in that I believe God can and does call women into pastoral ministry, but I'm confident that many of those who believe otherwise do so because of other fairly direct statements in Scripture. Your question seems more a generalized judgment (simply worded as a question) than a request for genuine dialogue. Either side has to deal with the passages that appear to have a surface reading that is contrary to their understanding of the Scriptures in general. However, in dialogue, either side (of most debatable issues, particularly those with passionate adherence) also tends to focus attention on the passages upon which they have based their views, NOT on the passages that are difficult to reconcile completely to their current understanding without deeper interpretation based on other passages. The passage you mentioned, as well as the passages dealing with Deborah in the book of Judges (and other passages indicating women prophesying, teaching and correcting the teaching of public leaders) require much deeper explanation from those who advocate that God does not allow for women in pastoral (or other) leadership; this does not indicate they seek to reject or ignore those Scriptures. As another example, I noticed you didn't mention 1 Timothy 2:10-17 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. That doesn't mean that you tried to skirt them, but that the point you were making is based upon Galatians 3:28, whereas the 1 Tim and 1 Cor passages would require more careful (and potentially controversial) explanations that might be challenged or argued against more confidently by those who would dissent. It's one thing to RESPOND to a question about passages that seem to draw certain doctrines into question; it's another to deliberately throw out weaponry to those who you believe may be looking for excuses to undermine your position before seriously considering it. It takes time to develop the trust that leads to honest dialogue. This is particularly difficult in email, where a reaction can be posted and reacted to (and the cycle repeated several times) before either party has a chance to detach and consider the meat of what is being said. |
||||||
67 | Believing in the Bible and E.T.'s | Eph 2:2 | Brent Douglass | 2746 | ||
This is an interesting question, and I appreciate your posting it to the list. I hope my diversion to side topics doesn't offend you. I "believe" there is a significant distinction between two different meanings for "believe" that are being used. There is another thread (that started after this one and may relate to it) about the question, "What does it mean to believe?" which I'd encourage people to peruse carefully. This is a significant consideration with regard to this idea. Believing in Christ involves trust -- which results in action by its very nature. (See Ja 2:17-26; Matthew 7:15-29). This is very different from "believing in" ET's (or from believing in energy conservation, democracy, etc.) Christ is not merely a concept (e.g. energy conservation or democracy) that one supports and joins as a good thing; nor is He merely a theory that some think is probably true (e.g. extraterrestrials). There is a relational aspect where Christ rules in our hearts interactively. Likewise, the Bible, as the Word of God, carries an authority, for those who believe, that makes it the central guiding teaching of our lives (see 2 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:12; 2 Pe 1:20,21) and something to be studied carefully for understanding, insight and direction. It's probable that you're not considering these "beliefs" comparable (or suggesting that you've placed some significant faith in the existence of ET's) but that you're simply wondering whether the idea of ET's directly contradicts the teaching of the Scriptures. To be honest, I've never studied the Scriptures with this question in mind, and I can't help you with an answer to your actual question. There's nothing wrong with your question the way it was asked, but I wanted to clarify these things (above), since this is a public forum. |
||||||
68 | Todays fashions | Eph 2:2 | Brent Douglass | 82298 | ||
Hmm... my perception of the 3 most deadly worldly tendencies of the present age? That's a question for reflection. I'll have to think about that and get back to you. The passage is clearly referring to tendencies these Christians were following before trusting in Christ and that they should have been released from, so I would want to consider the same parallel for our present time. It sounds like you have been thinking about this already, Dan. What do you think they may be? |
||||||
69 | 3 gifts, or less? | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1699 | ||
This is in reference to one of your side notations, that the apostles healed on the basis of the faith "of the recipients" -- which threw up red flags for me. Jesus often said, "You're faith has made you well." However, this seems to be more a matter of them coming to him because they believed. The inability to heal or cast a demon from someone seeking healing was ALWAYS attributed to the lack of faith of the HEALER, NOT the person seeking healing (see Matthew 17:14-20). There is no mention of any individual being unable to receive healing from Christ or any apostle based on a lack of faith from that individual, and Jesus healed everyone whom he attempted to heal. This idea of a lack of faith on the part of the intended recipient is simply a hurtful displacement of blame (either intentionally or by ignorance) by any healers claiming (again intentionally or ignorantly) to have gifting or faith beyond what they actually have. If we assume that the supernatural gifts can and do still exist today (and include the gift of apostleship in this, as you apparently do), the guidelines and examples of Scripture need to honored by them. For example, Jesus deliberately followed the limitation of only proclaiming healing to those whom the Father told him to heal (Jn 5:18-20; 8:27-29). This would also carry into the apostles (and other healers, exorcists, etc.), who were apparently given insight into what God was choosing to do and thus enabled to be his vehicles. For example, Paul waited several days before casting out the demon from a annoying false prophetess that had been following him around for many days shouting (Acts 16:16-18). The woman didn't ask for healing, and Paul waited many days (whether because of lack of permission or whatever) before casting out the spirit. Whether Paul received revelation that it was OK at that point or whether the effectiveness was simply a mark of apostleship is debatable. The point is that Paul declared it and it happened; the woman's faith or lack thereof was irrelevant. This is Biblical aposteship in action and is confirmed in other examples. Paul (as simply one example among the apostles) did NOT receive everything he asked for in prayer (2 Cor 12:8-10), but everything he (and the others) declared happened regardless of the attitude of the recipient. Asking for something in prayer (and trusting God to do his will) is always acceptable (except in the obviously extreme situation where God has clarified his refusal, as in Paul's condition). However, claiming and commanding a healing that does not take place means that the healer is either a charlatan, is deceived, is lacking in faith or is completely ungifted. Just as a prophet whose single prophecy is clearly untrue is thus proven false altogether, so is anyone (proven false) who claims himself to have supernatural powers that fail in their attempted exercise. |
||||||
70 | Valid 'gifts?' | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1709 | ||
I believe that the most commonly used direct Scripture for the past termination of certain gifts (tongues, prophecy etc.) is 1 Cor 13:8-10 by injecting an interpretation of the "perfect" being the completion of the canon. Am I right in this? I completely disagree with the interpretation, but that's my understanding of where it comes from. (I think I remember this from MacArthur's first book on, "The Charismatics," which is well-written and advisable reading, but with which I disagree.) I know this doesn' focus on apostleship directly, but, since I'm long-winded (long-penned?) I'll put that in a separate message. |
||||||
71 | Valid 'gifts?' | Eph 4:11 | Brent Douglass | 1710 | ||
My previous response dealt primarily with other gifts but not really apostleship. To do this, we would need to define the Biblical use of "apostle" to determine this. Although "apostle basically means, "Sent one," I think most (if not all) of us could agree that not everyone "sent" (or called out for special ministry) by God is necessarily an apostle. I think a paraphrase of the definition of "apostle" used by many who consider it no longer in effect is basically "one who was taught authoritatively by Christ in person and then recognized by the other apostles". The original 11 chose Matthias by lot because he had been with them the whole time (Acts 1:15-26) and (apparently) continued to replace those who died during the foundation period of the Church in the same way. Some suggest that this was an error and that Paul was meant to be the 12th, but this is speculation. I don't know much about lots, but I assume there was potential of receiving a "No" answer rather than a selection; I think there are examples of this result in the O.T. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. The 12 also recognized the apostleship of Paul. Does Paul fit the definition? Yes. He received special individual instruction from the risen Christ -- Gal 1:11-16, 2 Cor 12:1-7 and elsewhere. This is a logical definition, and it would end with the death of the generation who witnessed Jesus's earthly ministry; under this definition a Biblical "aposte" today would have to be trained as Paul was, and such a one would presumably have similar authority. I can think of some false cults with such leaders, but I'm afraid I don't know very much about the potentially orthodox groups in "Apostolic" churches. Clearly they would reject such a definition. |
||||||
72 | Matt 28:19 what is name of each | Colossians | Brent Douglass | 3924 | ||
Dear Jim, Can you clarify and repose your question please? I see that it was answered, but I'm not clear whether that was what you were asking. If it is, I would want to offer a different answer. However, I'd like to see the question clarified and asked again, so that a broader group of participants can respond. It seems that you are asking, "What does it mean to baptize [people from all nations] in [or "into"] the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?" in Matthew 28:19 as part of "mak[ing] disciples of all nations." Is this your question? Jesus is definitely NOT the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the Son; the Son is fully God, but God is not fully the Son. The concept of the Trinity is not fully comprehensible, but it is fairly simply stated in Scripture. There are a number of clear statements about God in Scripture that must be reconciled, and this reconciliation leaves us with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is difficult (impossible, given our current bodily and fleshly limitations?) to visualize and-or to understand fully HOW God can be what He describes Himself to be, but the specific descriptions are not complicated in and of themselves. There is a lot that people on this list can contribute (and have contributed previously) to answer similar questions. Please don't give up with the one reply you received. Try to rephrase or clarify your question more deeply for us. Thanks! |
||||||
73 | Is 1 John 1:9 applicable to Christians? | 1 John 1:9 | Brent Douglass | 7556 | ||
I think Tim answered well in answering your other question. Christ died for our sins while we were yet sinners in order to bring us to God (Ro 5:8), and He petitioned the Father to forgive those who crucified him -- who knew not what they were doing (Luke 23:33-34). When we confess our sins to God, He not only affirms His forgivess; He goes further to sanctify us by purifying us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn 1:9). Repentant confession of sin releases purification and sanctification into our lives. The eternal consequences of sin are removed by grace through faith (John 1:12, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8f). The ongoing erosion and pollution of sin are removed through consistent and repentant confession. (See Psalm 32, Psalm 51 and James 5:13-16, among other passages.) There is even room for the consideration of the concept as to whether all sins could have been actually removed by the shedding of Jesus blood on the cross for all men as to their power to damn us SAVE A SINGLE UNFORGIVABLE SIN -- the final refusal to humble onself in the face of the persistent, faithful and eventually incontrovertible testimony of the Spirit as to the identity, truth, holiness and surpassing worthiness of God (Mark 3:28-30)-- and consequently my own need to worship Him and my utter unworthiness and inability to do so by any merit of my own (John 9:39-41). There is clearly a forgiveness already owned by the believer -- either received upon initial beleif or even prior to it, and there is a deeper cleansing from sin that is facilitated by confession. |
||||||
74 | Enoch's prophesy in OT? | Jude 1:14 | Brent Douglass | 1238 | ||
I'm pretty confident that there is no such quotation directed to Enoch in the OT. This is most likely from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. I believe there are several quotations from apocryphal books in the New Testament. If Enoch is among those books added to the extended Roman Catholic canon (and I must plead ignorance as to exactly which books are included in this extended canon), this is probably part of the reason. However, one or two quotations do not necessarily create credibility for the entire book of Enoch. Paul also quoted a Greek philosopher in reaffirming the general stereotype of the people of Crete as "liars, evil brutes and lazy gluttons," but this doesn't validate the philosopher's writings as inspired by God. Jude seems to identify this as an actual prophecy, but that doesn't mean the entire book is inspired by God or even factual in its accounts of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was probably circulated widely among the Israelites, but they never accepted it (in entirety) as authoritative to the degree of canon. Neither did the councils that set forth our present canon, as they followed the nation of Israel regarding Old Testament canon. |
||||||
75 | Point of No Return | Revelation | Brent Douglass | 1936 | ||
I don't know that there is any basis for a date or time of no return. So far as I know, the blasphemy against the Spirit is explicitly given as the only example in Scripture of a point of no return. Since this is given as the only unpardonable sin, the most logical connection would probably be a point at which a person's (or a people's) arrogant resistance to God's conviction (or absolute embrace of evil) had become so complete that they were no longer open to God's input in any way. This was apparently the condition of the people in Noah's time (Genesis 6:5-8), as well as that of the nations whom the Israelites expelled. God waited 120 years during the time of Noah (Gen 6:3) and 400 years for the Israelites (Gen 15:13-21) to physically destroy the people around them -- until they had apparently reached a level, en masse, of embracing evil and resistance to God's Spirit that moved them beyond the point that even God's grace was willing to reach. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |