Results 61 - 72 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | Brent Douglass | 1789 | ||
I agree with Charis's choice of 1 Cor 14:39-40 to challenge this. This verse is an excellent admonition to Whyndell and-or anyone who would seek would seek to say authoritatively that tongues or prophecy CAN NOT exist today. This is basically equivalent to forbidding them, and directly violates Paul's command, unless there is a direct statement ending and condeming them in a later Scripture (which there isn't). It is probably safe to say that your (Whyndell's) experience with tongues was false and that MANY exercises of tongues are counterfeit -- coming either from the individual deluding himself, psychological manipulation on the part of others, and-or from false spirits. This needs to be taken into consideration whenever tongues or prophecy are practiced, and they need to be properly tested; this is often (usually?) neglected. There are good experiential reasons why many Christians have an initial distrust toward congregations where these gifts are practiced. This does not negate God's sovereign potential to use them if and whenever He so chooses. All of the following arguments come from 1 Cor 14, so I will simply offer the verse numbers (vv.nn) I'd also take issue with your suggestion that tongues are never for individual edification. I think 1 Corinthians 14 clearly states that the individual who speaks in a Holy-Spirit-given-tongue is spiritually edified (vv.2,4,14,17)in his pure worship or thanksgiving and that this is fruitful for his spirit (although not his mind, unless there is interpretation v.14). They are never for showing off, but they apparently edify the individual believer when practiced privately. I agree that they are real languages (vv.10-13), are NOT prophetical (vv.1-4) but rather for God-given prayer and-or worship (vv.13-17) -- with which others can then share and say, "Amen," if they are translated. For the record, I am a member of a church that does not practice these gifts in the assembly (to my knowledge). I believe I am somewhat objective. |
||||||
62 | 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. |
||||||
63 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1463 | ||
I don't feel disrespected by your reply at all. I hope mine didn't seem disrespectful to you. Argumentation through writing without "knowledge" of each other can certainly come across as bickering or condescending, and I have no desire (or position of authority, for that matter, if the desire were there) to treat you in that way. It's simply that your expanded definition of "foreknowledge" seems cyclical w/ predestination. In other words, it sounds like your suggesting that God chose (elected, selected, predestined) to foreknow some (rather than others), then predestined them further. It seems that you've basically added a new "predestined" at the beginning of the sequence. As a side note (I hope), perhaps I'm misunderstanding your perception of predestination. Are you assuming that all are predestined to conformity to Christ and that all are, therefore, foreknown? This creates significant other problems, but resolves this particular concern. However, based on what I've seen of what you've written, I doubt this is your view. I think I understand your concept of God having a certain kind of pre-existing relationship with some that he did not have with others. However, we (like all others) were at enmity with God before (and even after) he predestined us -- right up until the time of belief. Ephesians 1-2 is one of the passages that clearly indicates how our condition before God was radically and completely changed at the time of conversion. We did not have this intimate relationship with Him until that time. I'm not sure where you would be going in indicating some kind of previous level of closeness (unshared by others) prior to conception that somehow changed once we took on flesh then returned at our conversion. Can you clarify? |
||||||
64 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1445 | ||
I don't have any problem with your explanation of the "Biblical" meaning of the word knowledge, but it doesn't change the idea that foreknowledge came BEFORE predestination; it seems merely to divert and avoid the question. There is no one whom God does not have intimate and complete knowledge about, yet there is something (for lack of a better word) that drew God to specific people that AFFECTED God's decision to predestine us. We know from other places in Scripture that there is nothing that makes us "worthy" of his choosing (or even somehow less "unworthy" than others). Yet there is something. The question is, "What is it that God foreknew?" My understanding is that Arminius thought it to be some kind of openness to faith. It seems to me that it is more a final openness (when pressed to the wall) to the Spirit's persistent conviction of sinfulness and a resulting inner hunger and desperation for salvation. I'm not sure that this is fully accurate; nevertheless, there appears to be something that God foreknew (rather than fore-ordained) in us that came prior to his predestining us. I appreciate your study on one of the meanings used for "knowledge" in the Bible. However, your additional comments make it sound like you're trying to treat "foreknowledge" and "predestination" as virtually synonymous; I can only assume this is being done in order to avoid the idea of anything coming prior to predestination. This seems to me the equivalent of saying that Paul really meant to say, "For those whom he predestined he also predestined...; and those whom he predestined he also...." I understand that Christ himself and Paul both sometimes repeated phrases for stress. It seems bizarre, however, that he would give a deliberate sequence like, "God A'ed, then A'ed, then B'ed, then C'ed, then...." ;-) I'm confident that this is not really what you meant to suggest, but could you elaborate? |
||||||
65 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 770 | ||
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative. I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account. There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
||||||
66 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 725 | ||
This is certainly not a doctrine to die for, as there is no direct statement that rain did not start at some time after man and cultivated plants appeared but prior to the flood. However, there are enough descriptions (like this one, as well as the statement that there was water on the earth and water above the earth separated by the air in Genesis 1:6-8, and the drastic drop in lifespan after the flood) that indicate some kind of major increase in aging after the flood that was probably caused by the changes surrounding the event. The theory of a protective thick vapor "firmanent" that was opened and emptied out during the flood is the most logical and conceivable explanation I have heard given the information available from the Scriptures. | ||||||
67 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 724 | ||
Oops! Found David's son Nathan in 2 Samuel 5:14 -- but just the mention of his being born in Jerusalem. Bad choice of examples, but I'm sure you get the point. | ||||||
68 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 664 | ||
On this same topic, I also noticed after finishing my message that you were quoting from John 17:17-20 "that they may be one" as the reasoning behind looking for the "Lowest Common Denominator". This passage also clearly sets God's word as the means by which we, as Christians, are set apart ("sanctified") to be separate from the world but united to each other in the same kind of agreement that the Father and the Son share. I assume that you meant to include the complete and final authority of Scripture within your view of this agreed-upon "lowest common denominator". If not, the unity of his people for which our Lord so yearned (and yearns) is simply mocked and twisted rather than pursued. With the Scriptures as our starting place, we have a basis upon which to pursue the commonly held faith that binds all mature Christians (and any truly "Christian" congregation or denomination)in unified faith. This agreement often proves elusive, but it is surely Biblical and desirable to pursue it. | ||||||
69 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 274 | ||
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). | ||||||
70 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 268 | ||
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. | ||||||
71 | Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 267 | ||
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. | ||||||
72 | 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. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |