|
|
Results 1 - 20 of 65
|
|
Results from: Notes
On or After: Thu 12/31/70
Author: Brent Douglass ordered by Date
|
| Results |
Type |
Verse |
Author |
Date |
ID# |
| 1 |
The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical |
Note |
Luke 2:5 |
Brent Douglass |
Tue 12/26/06, 2:24pm |
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. |
| 2 |
The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical |
Note |
Luke 2:5 |
Brent Douglass |
Tue 12/26/06, 6:05am |
181513 |
| |
Hi Doc,
Thanks for the insight regarding the view people would have had regarding the "legitimacy" of Jesus' origins if they believed He had been conceived by Mary and Joseph during the betrothal. This is a helpful consideration. It doesn't remove the question of whether Joseph and Mary were actually left with this longstanding disgrace or whether God providentially arranged the timing of events in such a way that only very few would know. However, it does help to keep a more balanced impression of what probably resulted if God did not protect Joseph, Mary, and Jesus from a public impression of conception during betrothal but prior to marriage.
If the opportunity were there, I would surmise that Joseph would have looked to publicly marry Mary as early as possible in the pregnancy and then to leave for Bethlehem before most in Nazareth knew she was expecting. The 2nd trimester would also have been a much better time for travel, and a teenager may well have been not yet showing early in the 2nd trimester with a first baby. Family in Bethlehem would then simply know that Joseph had brought along his wife and that she was with child -- not necessarily knowing the timing of the engagement and marriage.
The chronology of events that are specifically outlined does, to me, hint of a potential protective hiding of the pregnancy: 3 months spent away at the beginning (the first trimester, when morning sickness could draw attention), the fact that there was a period of deliberate abstention from sexual relations after marriage but prior to birth (rather than simply abstention due to Mary being too large and uncomfortable for sex), etc.
I know this is not a fully answerable question -- to say, "Yes, it must have happened that way..." This is not stated, and so must be left uncertain until Heaven. My concern is more that the image I hold of God's working in these events is not in any way contrary to what He reveals in Scripture, and I wish to test that in this forum. (If so, I want to correct it where possible once I'm aware of my error.)
I can also appreciate your statement that you "don't ever recall thinking that Jesus was born the night of Mary and Joseph's arrival in Bethlehem." I don't specifically remember thinking that either personally. I also don't know that I've ever heard it directly taught by a pastor. But I do know of multiple portrayals in film, rhyming children's books, etc. attempting to help us imagine the events. Most (if not all) portray Mary as arriving in Bethlehem very large and ready to pop with Joseph frantically looking about for a room where they can have the imminent birth inside and away from the elements. I have increasingly questioned this image in my own mind, but it is clearly there in almost every visual depiction that I have seen.
Thank you again for your helpful insight.
In His grace,
Brent |
| 3 |
The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical |
Note |
Luke 2:5 |
Brent Douglass |
Mon 12/25/06, 7:17am |
181483 |
| |
Merry Christmas CD,
I'm definitely fascinated with God's plan and how He worked it out so far as He has revealed. I believe it's the glory of God to conceal certain things in such a way that we can delight in discovering them later (Proverbs 25:2). This is one of those little aspects that bubbles to the surface for me every year at Christmas as I try to imagine in my mind's eye what happened. This has been the case for many years, as these questions have lain dormant but unanswered. It seems that this forum is a good place to seek insight on such a topic.
The sending of Mary to Elizabeth's home for the first 3 months of her pregnancy (when there are usually certain physical results associated with pregnancy) and the apparent lack of the expected stigma of a baby conceived prior to wedlock seem to me to reveal a providential concealing of the timing except to those of Mary's, Joseph's, and Elizabeth's family to whom God or Mary and Joseph chose to reveal the miracle.
Without this concealment, it seems to me that the scandal would have been a constant cloud over the family. Joseph, as a "righteous man," assumed the normal natural cause of Mary's pregnancy (unfaithfulness) rather than an unprecedented supernatural (but true) cause. I would expect others to do the same but to go further by following their natural fleshly inclinations and ruin the family's reputation through gossip. Yet no such gossip seems to be present in the gospels.
This seems to me providential, but there is little room to examine such providence in the current image that is in most of our minds from media (in this case, well-intentioned media that are valuable in helping us imagine the event). This doesn't remove the wonder of "God with us" and the perfect providential plan to bring light and salvation to our hopeless race. It is clearly a secondary but interesting (and I believe valuable) consideration nevertheless. |
| 4 |
Who is the son of man which is in heaven |
Note |
John 3:11 |
Brent Douglass |
Thu 02/17/05, 3:55pm |
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 |
| 5 |
Is prophecy dead? |
Note |
Matt 11:13 |
Brent Douglass |
Mon 01/17/05, 3:12pm |
142287 |
| |
Dear footwasher,
Please do not be put off by my directness in the answer below. There is no offense intended toward you, but I believe the facts of the Scriptures are clear on this.
Also, for the record, I frequently pray in tongues. However, I believe they are real human languages even though I don't understand them. The definition you give is an interesting idea, but ideas must be tested by Scripture.
The Scriptures are very clear in Acts 2:4-11 that the disciples were empowered by the Holy Spirit to "speak in other tongues" and that Jews from various other countries heard them "in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." The power of the Spirit was upon the speakers, not the hearers.
The worship of God in various languages given by the Spirit at Pentecost clearly consisted of real human languages that could be recognized and understood by those around them.
In 1 Cor 14, Paul says that there are "a great many kinds of languages in the world" (1 Cor 14:10). These are also earthly tongues. He goes on to say that tongues are used for praise, blessing, and thanksgiving (1 Cor 14:16). He also stresses the importance of the ungifted or unbeliever understanding the language being spoken in order for edification to take place (1 Cor 14:16-17,23).
The idea that the gift of tongues includes giving of a specific "heavenly language" is not a biblical concept and has no clear example in the Scriptures. The most detailed examples of both practice and teaching regarding tongues clearly connect Spirit-enabled tongues with human languages.
There may be a question in both your and my minds regarding how those from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation will communicate and worship together before the throne -- whether in a common language, through ability to understand tongues, or some other method. However, God has not chosen for the Scriptures to deal with this question, so we must finally leave it unanswered for now.
The Scriptures have higher authority than whatever teacher told you that the gift of tongues equates with praying in a heavenly language, no matter how convincing s/he was. I would suggest asking for clear biblical observations to back up such suggestions. I don't believe any will be forthcoming. The Bible must ALWAYS be the authority in such questions. |
| 6 |
AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY |
Note |
Bible general Archive 1 |
Brent Douglass |
Mon 03/24/03, 5:34pm |
79355 |
| |
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There are 2 separate questions.
One question is whether there is a POINT before which people may be given special grace due to a lack of the faculties necessary to exercise faith. It sounds like this is the issue you are considering, and there are varying opinions within orthodox Christianity. This is separate from trying to consider a standardized AGE of accountability.
Anyone seriously considering a specific AGE of accountability has already assumed that there is some kind of prerequisite level of cognitive (or other) functionality for accountability to be present (or that God would not be willing to somehow act in advance based on His perfect foreknowledge of what would have happened in the person's life had such faculties been present). The question at that point is then whether we can assign a specific AGE that everyone before that age is considered safe and everyone after that age is considered liable -- similar to a voting age, driving age, age to buy tobacco or alcohol, etc.
It's not surprising that the Scriptures are basically silent on such an age. I believe that attempting to set such an age is a dangerous and slippery slope theologically. The most natural fleshly result would be a contrived attempt to identify specific unbelievers as guilty before God while identifying other specific unbelievers as not guilty based on some abiblical calculation. God has not given us a neat formula nor the freedom to make such judgments. |
| 7 |
Heresy or true? |
Note |
John 3:18 |
Brent Douglass |
Fri 10/11/02, 4:58pm |
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 |
| 8 |
Heresy or true? |
Note |
John 3:18 |
Brent Douglass |
Thu 10/10/02, 3:16pm |
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.] |
| 9 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Tue 04/16/02, 10:36am |
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. |
| 10 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Sat 04/13/02, 11:20pm |
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. |
| 11 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Sat 04/13/02, 10:29pm |
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). |
| 12 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Sun 03/31/02, 11:22pm |
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 |
| 13 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Sun 03/31/02, 11:19pm |
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. |
| 14 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Mon 03/25/02, 7:45pm |
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). |
| 15 |
Clarification from John Reformed...? |
Note |
Rom 1:16 |
Brent Douglass |
Mon 03/25/02, 6:41pm |
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. |
| 16 |
Soul destroyed? or Eternal suffering? |
Note |
Matt 10:28 |
Brent Douglass |
Sun 03/17/02, 3:25pm |
39312 |
| |
Thank you, Rainbow Maker, for your solid observation. As you point out, the text definitely does refer to ability and does not directly say that God will do this, and I will keep that in mind. This is an example of the kind of feedback I am looking for. I'd love to have more of such feedback from you and others. Please don't let my reply below hinder this.
That said, I also feel the need to say that I don't believe your observation leads to any change in the apparent meaning of the verse in question. I think the context (particularly Matthew 10:16-11:1) gives a very strong impression of reference to what evil men both are capable of and will do as opposed to what our righteous God both is capable of and will do -- thus encouraging the disciples as to the value of faithfully and trustingly carrying the message of God rather than fearing and yielding to obstinate and violent men. This contrast of losing one's fleshly life at the hands of men vs. losing the life of one's soul at the hands of God is reversed and restated for deeper emphasis in v.39 of this same passage. (Matthew 10:39 "He who has found his 'life' [soul -- psuche 5590, same as "soul" in 10:28] will lose it, and he who has lost his 'life' [soul -psuche again] for My sake will find it.")
It seems to me that the choice presented (in Matthew 10:28,39 and the surrounding passage) is whether a) to focus on protecting one's soul with the comfort and ongoing well-being of this fleshly body at the expense of its eternity or b) to focus on actively receiving and enjoying an eternal linking of one's soul with one's spirit from God and with the Spirit of God, resulting in eternal life in His presence. The true believer will choose b) in the end, whereas the rocky soil heart of Luke 8:13-14 experiences only an apparent but passive receipt (rendered "dechomai" - Strong's 1209 - by Luke) of the seed planted within it and remains content with option a) if and when finally tested.
As a side note, I also thank you for your excellent point in your reference to Matthew 7:23. I'm in full agreement that one's self-confidence of having a relationship with Christ and-or even supernatural gifting and power on God's behalf are simply not a guarantee of either saving faith or its benefits: including a true ongoing relationship with God and salvation from the eternal fires of Hell. As pointed out in Matthew 7, saving faith is active, not passive -- also illustrated clearly in Hebrews 11 and in James 2. (The testing of our faithful obedience in harsh or difficult circumstances is thus of great benefit and encouragement, since it helps to increase our assurance upon passing through a struggle and-or to jar us awake to the need for continued growth in our faith whenever we encounter short-term failures.) |
| 17 |
Speaking in tongues? Use by women? |
Note |
1 Cor 13:1 |
Brent Douglass |
Thu 03/7/02, 6:43pm |
37854 |
| |
I don't think that the carnality of the Corinthians is the issue here. The issue is proper use of the gifts and the precedence of true prophecy over true tongues.
I'm confident that, as I mentioned earlier, in this case the meaning of verse 22 (not vs. 14 incidentally) is not as it seems at first glance. 1 Cor 14:22 does not signify that unbelievers may respond to the exercise of the gift of tongues; that is almost the direct opposite of what the context conveys. Taken in context, such an interpretation would be contradicted by the very next verse. Verse 25 very clearly states, by example, that tongues do not cause belief; they are not a sign unto belief. ("Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" 1 Cor 14:23) The response of the unbeliever is scoffing, NOT conviction. In actuality, tongues may convince believers of God's presence among other believers (as they convinced Jewish Christians of the presence of Christ in Gentiles in Acts 10, or as they demonstrated to the presence of the Spirit among Christians to believing Jews who didn't yet know of Christ in Acts 2). However, there is no example of tongues convincing anyone to turn from unbelief to belief. This is what it means that tongues are not a sign for believers but for unbelievers; they can not be a vehicle to draw an unbeliever to belief, and I know of no examples of them being used to do so.
Prophecy, in contrast, is for believers -- that is, its can be used directly to move an unbeliever toward belief. The example laid out in the following verses provides the immediate clarification of this. ("But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;
the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you." 1 Cor 14:24-25) Prophecy can lead an unbeliever to the feet of God, bringing him to conviction, belief, and worship. |
| 18 |
Speaking in tongues? Use by women? |
Note |
1 Cor 13:1 |
Brent Douglass |
Thu 03/7/02, 3:17pm |
37806 |
| |
To get things started on this -- it seems to me that there are at least 2 reasons indicated for tongues in 1 Cor 14 (and supported elsewhere).
1) Personal edification through pure undefiled praise and prayer. (1Co 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.") Pure spiritual worship edifies the worshipper, and the flesh does not interact with this worship; since it comes through the Spirit to the tongue without any personal interpretation, any fleshly attitudes of the mind CAN not affect the message. If the speech is then interpreted, the mind of the speaker -- as well as other believers who now understand the praise or prayer -- can join in the edification through agreement ("say the 'amen'" to your prayer worship or thanksgiving (1 Cor 14:13-17). The tongues in Acts 1 and Acts 10 also fit this pattern of being supernatural prayers of worship.
2) A miraculous sign for those who already believe, so long as they can understand the language. (This is confusing to follow in most translations of 1 Corinthians 14:22-25, but I believe the actual meaning of v.22 is clarified pretty directly by vv.23-25. The point, as clarified in vv. 23-25, is that TONGUES DO NOT LEAD TO BELIEF for those who don't want to believe, whereas PROPHECY DOES LEAD TO BELIEF because it exposes the sinner's heart. Only those who believe and/or understand can see the miraculous nature of tongues, and there is no edification (except to the spirit of the speaker) for anyone who can't understand what is being said. |
| 19 |
When did the Word become the Son? |
Note |
Heb 5:5 |
Brent Douglass |
Tue 03/5/02, 4:02pm |
37446 |
| |
Thank you, srbaegon, for MacArthur's article. I have great respect for John MacArthur and the way he handles the Scriptures, and his statement was helpful. It was conforting to see that MacArthur identifies the "Incarnational Sonship" view as not being a heretical view although he has changed to the majority "Eternal Sonship" view. Certainly my recent study of Hebrews has stimulated this thinking, although much of it comes from the interaction in heaven surrounding Christ's return after taking on the role of eternal High Priest, and not simply the Psalm 2:7 quotation.
I'll probably keep this on the back burner for now, but I'm glad to know it's not considered heretical -- at least by MacArthur's standards. I'd appreciate any additional comments, as well. |
| 20 |
Aaronic high priest under Rome (new thrd |
Note |
Heb 5:4 |
Brent Douglass |
Fri 12/14/01, 11:40am |
26938 |
| |
Thank you, Searcher56, for the direct link to the Josephus references. This looks like an excellent site from which to get information on these people and events. I think I'll be able to find much of what I wanted about the role of Rome in selecting the high priests during their reign. |
|
| Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |
|
|
