I probably would have chosen some other questions to describe my doctrinal position but here's my best shot at it:
T = true F = false U = unsure
Adam and Eve are historical figures, who lived 5000 - 7000 years ago. T/F/U
I'll give this an equivocal T. I definitely believe they were historical. I believe they were created by God and I think the Bible indicates from the time spans in Genesis that this was at about the time you indicate.
Jesus of Nazareth uniquely represented the Creator as His Son. T/F/U
T
The risen Jesus Christ is my Lord. T/F/U
T
The Book of Job is allegorical. That is, it attempts to explain human suffering using fictional characters. T/F/U
F (It starts off, There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job...)
The disciple John, one of "the twelve", wrote 5 Books: John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelation. T/F/U
T
Paul wrote Hebrews. T/F/U
U ( Don't think anyone really knows who wrote Hebrews)
Moses wrote Genesis. T/F/U
T
David wrote the 23rd Psalm. T/F/U
T
Paul's doctrine of "by faith alone" contradicts James' doctrine, as recorded in the Book of James. T/F/U
F
Four were crucified with Jesus. T/F/U
U
I speak in tongues in my private prayer life. T/F/U
T
God loves homosexuals. T/F/U
T
Homosexuality is not a sin. T/F/U
F
God does not hate. T/F/U
F
Let's see, he hates:
A proud look
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil
A false witness who speaks lies
And one who sows discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:16)
The perverse mouth (Proverbs 8:13)
Thinking evil against a neighbor and a false oath (Zech 8:17)
The deeds and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6,15)
1 Cor. 12 says that all nine "manifestations" of the spirit are the privilege of everyone who has been "born again" by confessing Jesus as their lord, and believing God raised him from the dead. (When combined with Romans 10:9 and other scriptures.) T/F/U
T (The manifestation of the Spirit is given to each for the profit of all.)
The prayer of a believer can move God to do something He would not otherwise have done. T/F/U
F Is this a trick question? I believe prayer does change things,otherwise why pray? But of course God knows beforehand the end from the beginning.
Mormonism, Catholicism, and JW’s are perversions of Christianity. T/F/U
(Have to go with T for Mormonism and JW. On Catholicism, definitely has some doctrinal things I don't agree with, but I know some good Christians who are Catholic.
Some of Jesus’ teaching is impossible to carry out. T/F/U
F. (If by teaching you mean his commands, with God all things are possible.)
"Sin consciousness" is not in the believer’s self-interest. T/F/U
I don't think these words are in the Bible. Conscience is, that's the thing that by the grace of God and with the urging of the Holy Spirit makes you aware of sin so that you can repent, confess and be cleansed from it. Confessing and repenting are definitely in the believer's self-interest so when I sin I'd better be conscious of it.
The canon is closed. Another authentic letter of Paul will never surface. T/F/U
T
There are authentic apostles and prophets of God living and ministering today. T/F/U
T
Requiring narrative answers (short or long):
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he "must be born again," what did he mean?
He meant to be born "from above".
What are your thoughts on the Fourth commandment (not to work on the sabbath)?
I have a lot of thoughts about it, like why would it be the only one of the 10 commandments not still in effect? It's certainly true that man needs rest. Okay, How about I don't know? I try to make sure I have one day a week where I can rest.
Shifra, thank you for the vote of confidence. If I "get past Jesus" I will be satisfied.
Wrd, thanks for exWaying in. I agree that the set of questions is limited, and at first I regreted not having taken more time with them, but it has been a good springboard, and it does actually say a lot about those who answer them. The results have been delightful from the standpoint of honesty and courtesy, so much so that I must thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
I haven't checked, but I think you're the first who disagreed with the statement "God doesn't hate." As I read your list, I also thought of "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." A very good list I must say, which I'm sure you know could be expanded considerably. There is also the issue of whether a believer should hate evil. As the psalmist said, "I hate them with perfect hatred." Touchy question, particularly since Jesus said to love those who hate us, to love our enemies. But should we "hate" evil, and every wicked way? In one sense, I would say we should. What do you others think?
For one who chafed a little at the limits of the questions to reveal your theology, I was surprised at your short answer on the "born again" narrative question! But of course, your answer reflects the simplicity (I mean that in a good sense) of your thoughts on the matter. I really enjoyed reading your survey, and deeply respect your answers.
The prayer question I think is a good one. Not a trick question, but an important one. I'm definitely in the U category, and am still hoping for some sparkling replies to that one. Anyone want to take another run at it? (How 'bout you, Larry?)
The Job question can reflect our views in regard to "the integrity of the Word." I hate (!) to be lukewarm or anything, but I'd have to put myself in the U category here, too. I can see it more liberally than before (less "literally," which is really a strange term anyway if you think about it, but you know what I mean). If both the creation account and Job were allegorical, it wouldn't touch my faith or trust in God a bit. But I can also simply take it as it is, without worrying about it a bit. The multiple author theory that Abigail first pointed out is very insightful, and I have no doubt that this theory is held in high regard by wonderful scholar/believers. "The jury's still out."
The question "is doctrine important" has come up in varying ways already. "Four crucified," is not a major doctrinal position (and one of only two marked U by Wrds). "Is Jesus your lord" obviously a little more critical! But it's been pointed out on these boards many times that we in TWM were doctrine-worshipers, and I have some sympathy for that view, only I direct it inwardly, generally, since I prefer to point only ONE finger at myself! (he he) On a personal level, I think doctrine is VERY important, but compelling others to believe likewise, or being prideful of my "knowledge of the truth" can become a real pitfall... witness Paul's address to the Jews in Romans 2, and Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees all over the place! (Matthew 15:1ff).
On the other hand, in an authentically operating portion of the Church, it is quite necessary to contend for the faith that has been once delivered to us. Certainly, there are many people who are more sure of their theological positions than I am. But I do have powerful convictions in my heart that have come out of my study and practice (best I can) of the biblical writings, along with the spirit of God.
I haven't checked, but I think you're the first who disagreed with the statement "God doesn't hate." As I read your list, I also thought of "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." A very good list I must say, which I'm sure you know could be expanded considerably. There is also the issue of whether a believer should hate evil. As the psalmist said, "I hate them with perfect hatred." Touchy question, particularly since Jesus said to love those who hate us, to love our enemies. But should we "hate" evil, and every wicked way? In one sense, I would say we should. What do you others think?
INteresting, Dan. I hadn't thought of that verse regarding Esau. And yet, Isaac loved him best. It was Rebecca who so loved Jacob and saw the line of Israel through him. Hmmmm. Do you know what chapter and verse that is? I'd like to look at it some more.
But as to the bigger question, I am not sure a God who is love could be capable of hate a living creature. It seems like an impossibility to me. I could see God hating - or as close to it as one could get - certain behaviors, but not people. I guess, again I equate it to parenting. There are certain behaviors, certain things, the kids will do that really tick me off, but never ever ever could I hate one of my children.
I was doing some digging on Jacob and Esau and came across something I thought I would toss in here. Much of it is not documented in the bible, but probably comes from foklore that has been passed down.
If anyone is interested, the article can be found HERE
The "hate Esau" issue is related to context which in turn is an example of Paul's use of midrash to make a specific point. (Remember that this is in Rom. 9, which is part of the Rom. 9-11 unit. The context is inheritance.) Paul is referencing an ancient legal custom as a way to make a point about spiritual a matter.
If you do a careful study of the word, "hate", you will notice that is doesn't mean detest, it simply means not to love. In this case it's not love in a cherishing sense as we typically think. It is in the sense of choosing or selecting specifically for the position of "birthright" inheritance.
Esau was in line for the birthright but was not chosen (another study in itself). Part of the midrash involves understanding the "birthright" customs. By law ancient custom it was to go to the firstborn. The recipient of the birthright would receive double the portion of inheritance of all the others in line for inheritance. He would also become the "head" of the tribe, its representative to God, its chief warrior and protector.
MORE LATER - GOTTA TURN PUTER OFF - ELECTRICAL STORM!
The prayer question I think is a good one. Not a trick question, but an important one. I'm definitely in the U category, and am still hoping for some sparkling replies to that one. Anyone want to take another run at it? (How 'bout you, Larry?)
The prayer of a believer can move God to do something He would not otherwise have done. T/F/U
False. God will only answer those prayers that are in alignment and harmony with His will. Can you imagine God honoring your request to strike someone dead because he/she said or did something mean to you? I know, -- that was an extreme example. :)
Dan, I apologize for piping up in this thread without at least taking a "crack" at your questions first.
The "hate Esau" issue is related to context which in turn is an example of Paul's use of midrash to make a specific point. (Remember that this is in Rom. 9, which is part of the Rom. 9-11 unit. The context is inheritance.) Paul is referencing an ancient legal custom as a way to make a point about spiritual a matter.
If you do a careful study of the word, "hate", you will notice that is doesn't mean detest, it simply means not to love. In this case it's not love in a cherishing sense as we typically think. It is in the sense of choosing or selecting specifically for the position of "birthright" inheritance.
Esau was in line for the birthright but was not chosen (another study in itself). Part of the midrash involves understanding the "birthright" customs. By law ancient custom it was to go to the firstborn. The recipient of the birthright would receive double the portion of inheritance of all the others in line for inheritance. He would also become the "head" of the tribe, its representative to God, its chief warrior and protector.
MORE LATER - GOTTA TURN PUTER OFF - ELECTRICAL STORM!
Good point here Linda. God didn't hate Esau in the sense of even not loving him, it was in the sense of rejecting him from the inheritance of the birthright.
Rms 9:11 for the children not yet being born, not having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.
God knew in His foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright.
Hebs 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected...
Linda, Looking forward to the more later...
BTW Your dissertation sounds very interesting. I very interested in the Jewish festivals and their prophetic significance. Like to hear more about what you're learning.
Dan, I think this line of reasoning applies to the prayer question as well. Esau hadn't been born yet and he was rejected before birth. Did that mean he didn't have the freedom of will to choose to sell his birthright. No, it just means that God knew beforehand that he was going to do it and could pronounce his rejection and Jacob's election before the twins were born.
Similar to prayer, if as Calvinists believe, a person is predestined to be saved, no amount of prayer will change that destiny. Don't believe it works like that. Intercession changes hearts. God knows beforehand what's going to happen, doesn't mean that we shouldn't pray because our fate or those we love can't be changed.
Good point here Linda. God didn't hate Esau in the sense of even not loving him, it was in the sense of rejecting him from the inheritance of the birthright.
Rms 9:11 for the children not yet being born, not having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.
God knew in His foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright.
Hebs 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected...
<snip>
Dan, I think this line of reasoning applies to the prayer question as well. Esau hadn't been born yet and he was rejected before birth. Did that mean he didn't have the freedom of will to choose to sell his birthright. No, it just means that God knew beforehand that he was going to do it and could pronounce his rejection and Jacob's election before the twins were born.
Similar to prayer, if as Calvinists believe, a person is predestined to be saved, no amount of prayer will change that destiny. Don't believe it works like that. Intercession changes hearts. God knows beforehand what's going to happen, doesn't mean that we shouldn't pray because our fate or those we love can't be changed.
Wds, and Larry, thanks for your input. Larry, as far as I'm concerned, you're in perfect conformity to the thread topic! I didn't want to limit responses. "Take a crack" at some of the others when you're inspired (that's when the best posts are made anyway!)
Could someone explain to me what 1John 5:16 means? Johnny Jumpup? Anyone?
If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is]not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Of course, this relates to the prayer question. The "he" in "he shall give him life" would appear to be God, and the "him," the brother who is being prayed for.
Some comments:
The "sin unto death" and "not unto death" is another issue, but I'd surely like comments on that, too. I do remember what the "party line" was ("the unforgivable sin") and if that's your take, please say so (or not!)
This is a form of intercessory prayer. Correct?
Wrds, loved your blog! Have you cracked open Chesterton's Orthodoxy yet?
edit: Maybe Linda did get zapped! I would guess not... someone preparing a dissertation might have limited time to post to message boards! Don't leave us hanging, girl!
Right, Dan. Why spiritualize it? If a guy is sleeping with someone else's wife, and the husband comes home and shoots him.... don't bother praying for him! Is that it?
"I am a hundred and twenty-two years old, and I am not aware of having committed a sin unto death. I have not had intercourse with any woman other
than my wife, nor was I promiscuous by lustful look. I did not drink wine to the point of losing self-control. I was not passionately eager for any
desirable possession of my neighbor. There was no deceit in my heart, no lie passed though my lips. I joined in lamentation with every oppressed human being, and shared my bread with the poor..."
-Testament of Issachar 7:1-5, from Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (circ. 2nd Century B.C.).
"And there is no sin greater on earth than fornication, which they commit on earth, for Israel is a nation holy unto God..."
-Jubilees 33:18
"Guard thyself, do not go on their paths to step into their footprints and do not commit the error of death before the most high God, lest He hide His face from thee,
and return thee unto the hands of thy transgression and root thee out of the land, and thy seed from under heaven, and they name be destroyed and thy seed from
"I am a hundred and twenty-two years old, and I am not aware of having committed a sin unto death. <snip>
Well, if he had been dead, he certainly wouldn't be aware of it! He apparently considered that he could have commited such a sin, and it didn't result in his immediate death, anyway. Interesting quotations, thank you! (Nice to have somebody reading that stuff!)
The next verse in 1 John says there is a sin that is "not unto death."
Ultimately, my concern is with the prayer for a brother. God then gives him life. It's a great verse... Guess I'll have to break out the commentaries!
Here's a survey you can copy and paste into your reply with your own answers. Elaborate on your answers if you like. You can also come back and write a full explanation of your position for any particular item. (Heck, you can do whatever you like!)
T = true F = false U = unsure
Adam and Eve are historical figures, who lived 5000 - 7000 years ago. T/F/U
TRUE
Jesus of Nazareth uniquely represented the Creator as His Son. T/F/U
TRUE
The risen Jesus Christ is my Lord. T/F/U
TRUE
The Book of Job is allegorical. That is, it attempts to explain human suffering using fictional characters. T/F/U
FALSE
The disciple John, one of "the twelve", wrote 5 Books: John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelation. T/F/U
TRUE
Paul wrote Hebrews. T/F/U
TRUE
Moses wrote Genesis. T/F/U
TRUE
David wrote the 23rd Psalm. T/F/U
TRUE
Paul's doctrine of "by faith alone" contradicts James' doctrine, as recorded in the Book of James. T/F/U
TRUE. JAMES THE LEGALIST WAS WRONG. BOOK OF JAMES IS QUESTIONABLE.
Four were crucified with Jesus. T/F/U
TRUE
I speak in tongues in my private prayer life. T/F/U
TRUE
God loves homosexuals. T/F/U
TRUE
Homosexuality is not a sin. T/F/U
FALSE
God does not hate. T/F/U
TRUE
1 Cor. 12 says that all nine "manifestations" of the spirit are the privilege of everyone who has been "born again" by confessing Jesus as their lord, and believing God raised him from the dead. (When combined with Romans 10:9 and other scriptures.) T/F/U
TRUE
The prayer of a believer can move God to do something He would not otherwise have done. T/F/U
TRUE
Mormonism, Catholicism, and JW’s are perversions of Christianity. T/F/U
FALSE
Some of Jesus’ teaching is impossible to carry out. T/F/U
FALSE
"Sin consciousness" is not in the believer’s self-interest. T/F/U
TRUE
The canon is closed. Another authentic letter of Paul will never surface. T/F/U
TRUE
There are authentic apostles and prophets of God living and ministering today. T/F/U
TRUE
Requiring narrative answers (short or long):
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he "must be born again," what did he mean?
must be born of the spirit as opposed to the natural birth.
What are your thoughts on the Fourth commandment (not to work on the sabbath)?
Its a good idea, but we aren't under the law in this administration.
This post is going to seem disjointed. I hate to do this, but I'm going to try it anyway.
I located my class notes on a graduate-level lecture about Romans 9-11. Dr. Davis suggested that Paul was using a type of midrash known as binyan av when he spoke of Jacob and Esau (the "love"/"hate" issue in reference to inheritance). Before I continue what I was getting to earlier, here is a slightly edited definition of binyan av (from R. Ishmael's 13 midot) that I found on the internet:
"Binyan Av is interpretation by analogy. [it] analogizes from theme and generalization instead of specific verbal phrase. There are [two] types of Binyan Av. The first is simple analogy: If [in] case A law X applies, then [in] a similar case B law X also applies. Thus, when there are certain things noted in case A, then they are true too for case B.
The second occurs when there is an objection to the comparison of [case] A and [case] B. A new case or cases are introduced linking A and B by analogy. The analogy is determined by the use of a general case expanded from a specific case, and identifying characteristics in the specific case. This becomes A. Case B becomes analogous if it shares characteristics with A's specific, and therefore can be said to share A's generalized characteristics [as well]."
This is from a list compiled by Steve Lipton (don't know him). I have taken the liberty of clarifying his verbage which can be accessed at:
Okay, I'm going to post this and see what it leads to. (At the very least it will be a lesson in midrash. Perhaps we can unravel Paul's hermeneutic in Romans.)
By the way, I was not zapped in that electrical storm. But I am a little frazzled nonetheless. :blink: More later.
Wow, Oldies, welcome to the thread. Going to stick around for a bit?
Linda, what you said about hate, in regard to Jacob and Esau is pretty much what I have found in my research these past two days as well. I think someone else in this thread said it too, but I can't remember who. The idea being that God didn't literally hate Esau, but rejected him as the heir.
One of the articles I read on the subject, in fact I think it was in this weeks studies, was on what is called transmutation. Don't ask me to explain the word, because I can't. But the jist of the article was there are two ways to go. You can go God's way and receive the biggest blessings, or you can go your own way and you will still receive the blessing, but you will have some natural consequences to face before you get there.
Esau, by his own choices, went the hard way. Jacob didn't.
Wow, Oldies, welcome to the thread. Going to stick around for a bit?
Linda, what you said about hate, in regard to Jacob and Esau is pretty much what I have found in my research these past two days as well. I think someone else in this thread said it too, but I can't remember who. The idea being that God didn't literally hate Esau, but rejected him as the heir.
Yes - rejected him as the heir - specifically the birthright inheritance. He remained an heir, but not heir of the birthright, which would normally to go to the firstborn. The birthright inheritance is distinctive in that it is a double portion, and it is a leadership matter ("lordship", if you will - which is why Joseph's brothers were angry at him when Jacob chose him for the birthright).
In my opinion (interpretation - thus, could be wrong) the reason Scripture tells the story of several generations of firstborns losing their birthright (and then Paul brings it up again) is to point to the fact that Christ, the LAST ADAM, became the recipient of what should have belonged to the FIRST ADAM. If you connect this with what I Cor. says about the resurrection and the fact that flesh comes first, then spirit, you can see that it is in the spirit that the fullness of the birthright exists, and that it culminates post-resurrection.
A further connection in all of this (again IMO) is the promise God made to Abraham and confirmed again with Jacob (concerning birthright, by the way - and the underlying theme of Romans 9-11). There is a big argument amongst Christian theologians today about whether the Church displaces Israel as the recipient of this birthright. IN CHRIST both Israel and the Church share in it as "joint heirs" with Him. My view of this is that during the thousand years Israel is figuratively the Bride of the Lamb (who is also Christ, the Head of the Body).
If you carry this figure out, it's like saying members of the Body are parts of the Groom, whereas members of Israel are parts of the Bride. When the two come together in the millennial union, they receive what the Father always promised. And even beyond that, (IMO) this union becomes the focal point of the salvation of the world. (I base this upon the figurative language in Rev. about the nations being called to Jerusalem to celebrate Tabernacles, and if they refuse, will shrivel without "rain".)
There is so much about this that can't be made clear in a few short paragraphs. Bottom line, it's about examining the prophetic figures in Scripture - a real thorn in the side of those who emphasize the literal method of interpreting the Bible.
This is my field of study, and it has been EXTREMELY difficult. I don't fit in with either camp. The "liberals" think I'm a nut, though they accept the premise of examining figures as an aspect of literary criticism. The "conservatives" think I'm a heretic because I don't subscribe whole-heartedly to trinitarian, dispensationalist, supersessionist, "prophetic" theology.
LindaR, I loved the rant and would really like to read your dissertation some day! Personally, I continually waiver back and forth between literal and figurative. I think they are both in there, I think there is meaning in both - that in all things it is a balance. I just have a difficult time finding that balance - lol lol.
Whoa! Oldiesman, STEP AWAY from the microphone! :lol:
Care to elucidate?
You asked whether these other groups were perversions of Christianity and I believe that's false. I think they are part of what makes up the Body of Christ today. Just as twi is part of the Body with their own beliefs and doctrines, so are these.
If you carry this figure out, it's like saying members of the Body are parts of the Groom, whereas members of Israel are parts of the Bride. When the two come together in the millennial union, they receive what the Father always promised. And even beyond that, (IMO) this union becomes the focal point of the salvation of the world. (I base this upon the figurative language in Rev. about the nations being called to Jerusalem to celebrate Tabernacles, and if they refuse, will shrivel without "rain".)
I thought along those lines a number of years ago, but became reluctant to mix the two figures (bride/body). You put it very clearly, and I may reconsider!
Oldies, thanks for clarifying. There could be quite a number of reasons why a person might mark that one false.
I thought along those lines a number of years ago, but became reluctant to mix the two figures (bride/body). You put it very clearly, and I may reconsider!
Same here. Reconsider in light of Eph. 5. (Perhaps that section of Scripture is more than simply practical application for married Christians. Ever thought it might have a prophetic aspect?)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
8
53
11
Popular Days
Aug 2
27
Aug 1
16
Jul 30
13
Aug 19
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 20 posts
Eyesopen 8 posts
anotherDan 53 posts
LindaR 11 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2007
27 posts
Aug 1 2007
16 posts
Jul 30 2007
13 posts
Aug 19 2007
9 posts
Posted Images
wrdsandwrks
I probably would have chosen some other questions to describe my doctrinal position but here's my best shot at it:
T = true F = false U = unsure
Adam and Eve are historical figures, who lived 5000 - 7000 years ago. T/F/U
I'll give this an equivocal T. I definitely believe they were historical. I believe they were created by God and I think the Bible indicates from the time spans in Genesis that this was at about the time you indicate.
Jesus of Nazareth uniquely represented the Creator as His Son. T/F/U
T
The risen Jesus Christ is my Lord. T/F/U
T
The Book of Job is allegorical. That is, it attempts to explain human suffering using fictional characters. T/F/U
F (It starts off, There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job...)
The disciple John, one of "the twelve", wrote 5 Books: John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelation. T/F/U
T
Paul wrote Hebrews. T/F/U
U ( Don't think anyone really knows who wrote Hebrews)
Moses wrote Genesis. T/F/U
T
David wrote the 23rd Psalm. T/F/U
T
Paul's doctrine of "by faith alone" contradicts James' doctrine, as recorded in the Book of James. T/F/U
F
Four were crucified with Jesus. T/F/U
U
I speak in tongues in my private prayer life. T/F/U
T
God loves homosexuals. T/F/U
T
Homosexuality is not a sin. T/F/U
F
God does not hate. T/F/U
F
Let's see, he hates:
A proud look
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil
A false witness who speaks lies
And one who sows discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:16)
The perverse mouth (Proverbs 8:13)
Thinking evil against a neighbor and a false oath (Zech 8:17)
The deeds and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6,15)
1 Cor. 12 says that all nine "manifestations" of the spirit are the privilege of everyone who has been "born again" by confessing Jesus as their lord, and believing God raised him from the dead. (When combined with Romans 10:9 and other scriptures.) T/F/U
T (The manifestation of the Spirit is given to each for the profit of all.)
The prayer of a believer can move God to do something He would not otherwise have done. T/F/U
F Is this a trick question? I believe prayer does change things,otherwise why pray? But of course God knows beforehand the end from the beginning.
Mormonism, Catholicism, and JW’s are perversions of Christianity. T/F/U
(Have to go with T for Mormonism and JW. On Catholicism, definitely has some doctrinal things I don't agree with, but I know some good Christians who are Catholic.
Some of Jesus’ teaching is impossible to carry out. T/F/U
F. (If by teaching you mean his commands, with God all things are possible.)
"Sin consciousness" is not in the believer’s self-interest. T/F/U
I don't think these words are in the Bible. Conscience is, that's the thing that by the grace of God and with the urging of the Holy Spirit makes you aware of sin so that you can repent, confess and be cleansed from it. Confessing and repenting are definitely in the believer's self-interest so when I sin I'd better be conscious of it.
The canon is closed. Another authentic letter of Paul will never surface. T/F/U
T
There are authentic apostles and prophets of God living and ministering today. T/F/U
T
Requiring narrative answers (short or long):
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he "must be born again," what did he mean?
He meant to be born "from above".
What are your thoughts on the Fourth commandment (not to work on the sabbath)?
I have a lot of thoughts about it, like why would it be the only one of the 10 commandments not still in effect? It's certainly true that man needs rest. Okay, How about I don't know? I try to make sure I have one day a week where I can rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Shifra, thank you for the vote of confidence. If I "get past Jesus" I will be satisfied.
Wrd, thanks for exWaying in. I agree that the set of questions is limited, and at first I regreted not having taken more time with them, but it has been a good springboard, and it does actually say a lot about those who answer them. The results have been delightful from the standpoint of honesty and courtesy, so much so that I must thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
I haven't checked, but I think you're the first who disagreed with the statement "God doesn't hate." As I read your list, I also thought of "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." A very good list I must say, which I'm sure you know could be expanded considerably. There is also the issue of whether a believer should hate evil. As the psalmist said, "I hate them with perfect hatred." Touchy question, particularly since Jesus said to love those who hate us, to love our enemies. But should we "hate" evil, and every wicked way? In one sense, I would say we should. What do you others think?
For one who chafed a little at the limits of the questions to reveal your theology, I was surprised at your short answer on the "born again" narrative question! But of course, your answer reflects the simplicity (I mean that in a good sense) of your thoughts on the matter. I really enjoyed reading your survey, and deeply respect your answers.
The prayer question I think is a good one. Not a trick question, but an important one. I'm definitely in the U category, and am still hoping for some sparkling replies to that one. Anyone want to take another run at it? (How 'bout you, Larry?)
The Job question can reflect our views in regard to "the integrity of the Word." I hate (!) to be lukewarm or anything, but I'd have to put myself in the U category here, too. I can see it more liberally than before (less "literally," which is really a strange term anyway if you think about it, but you know what I mean). If both the creation account and Job were allegorical, it wouldn't touch my faith or trust in God a bit. But I can also simply take it as it is, without worrying about it a bit. The multiple author theory that Abigail first pointed out is very insightful, and I have no doubt that this theory is held in high regard by wonderful scholar/believers. "The jury's still out."
The question "is doctrine important" has come up in varying ways already. "Four crucified," is not a major doctrinal position (and one of only two marked U by Wrds). "Is Jesus your lord" obviously a little more critical! But it's been pointed out on these boards many times that we in TWM were doctrine-worshipers, and I have some sympathy for that view, only I direct it inwardly, generally, since I prefer to point only ONE finger at myself! (he he) On a personal level, I think doctrine is VERY important, but compelling others to believe likewise, or being prideful of my "knowledge of the truth" can become a real pitfall... witness Paul's address to the Jews in Romans 2, and Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees all over the place! (Matthew 15:1ff).
On the other hand, in an authentically operating portion of the Church, it is quite necessary to contend for the faith that has been once delivered to us. Certainly, there are many people who are more sure of their theological positions than I am. But I do have powerful convictions in my heart that have come out of my study and practice (best I can) of the biblical writings, along with the spirit of God.
Enough already! Who is next, I wonder?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
INteresting, Dan. I hadn't thought of that verse regarding Esau. And yet, Isaac loved him best. It was Rebecca who so loved Jacob and saw the line of Israel through him. Hmmmm. Do you know what chapter and verse that is? I'd like to look at it some more.
But as to the bigger question, I am not sure a God who is love could be capable of hate a living creature. It seems like an impossibility to me. I could see God hating - or as close to it as one could get - certain behaviors, but not people. I guess, again I equate it to parenting. There are certain behaviors, certain things, the kids will do that really tick me off, but never ever ever could I hate one of my children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
If anyone is interested, the article can be found HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LindaR
The "hate Esau" issue is related to context which in turn is an example of Paul's use of midrash to make a specific point. (Remember that this is in Rom. 9, which is part of the Rom. 9-11 unit. The context is inheritance.) Paul is referencing an ancient legal custom as a way to make a point about spiritual a matter.
If you do a careful study of the word, "hate", you will notice that is doesn't mean detest, it simply means not to love. In this case it's not love in a cherishing sense as we typically think. It is in the sense of choosing or selecting specifically for the position of "birthright" inheritance.
Esau was in line for the birthright but was not chosen (another study in itself). Part of the midrash involves understanding the "birthright" customs. By law ancient custom it was to go to the firstborn. The recipient of the birthright would receive double the portion of inheritance of all the others in line for inheritance. He would also become the "head" of the tribe, its representative to God, its chief warrior and protector.
MORE LATER - GOTTA TURN PUTER OFF - ELECTRICAL STORM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Linda is beginning to make a good point. Hope her computer doesn't get zapped! Praying for you, dear!
Abigail. Malachi 1:1ff is one place to start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
False. God will only answer those prayers that are in alignment and harmony with His will. Can you imagine God honoring your request to strike someone dead because he/she said or did something mean to you? I know, -- that was an extreme example. :)
Dan, I apologize for piping up in this thread without at least taking a "crack" at your questions first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Good point here Linda. God didn't hate Esau in the sense of even not loving him, it was in the sense of rejecting him from the inheritance of the birthright.
Rms 9:11 for the children not yet being born, not having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.
God knew in His foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright.
Hebs 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected...
Linda, Looking forward to the more later...
BTW Your dissertation sounds very interesting. I very interested in the Jewish festivals and their prophetic significance. Like to hear more about what you're learning.
Dan, I think this line of reasoning applies to the prayer question as well. Esau hadn't been born yet and he was rejected before birth. Did that mean he didn't have the freedom of will to choose to sell his birthright. No, it just means that God knew beforehand that he was going to do it and could pronounce his rejection and Jacob's election before the twins were born.
Similar to prayer, if as Calvinists believe, a person is predestined to be saved, no amount of prayer will change that destiny. Don't believe it works like that. Intercession changes hearts. God knows beforehand what's going to happen, doesn't mean that we shouldn't pray because our fate or those we love can't be changed.
Edited by wrdsandwrksLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Wds, and Larry, thanks for your input. Larry, as far as I'm concerned, you're in perfect conformity to the thread topic! I didn't want to limit responses. "Take a crack" at some of the others when you're inspired (that's when the best posts are made anyway!)
Could someone explain to me what 1John 5:16 means? Johnny Jumpup? Anyone?
Of course, this relates to the prayer question. The "he" in "he shall give him life" would appear to be God, and the "him," the brother who is being prayed for.
Some comments:
The "sin unto death" and "not unto death" is another issue, but I'd surely like comments on that, too. I do remember what the "party line" was ("the unforgivable sin") and if that's your take, please say so (or not!)
This is a form of intercessory prayer. Correct?
Wrds, loved your blog! Have you cracked open Chesterton's Orthodoxy yet?
edit: Maybe Linda did get zapped! I would guess not... someone preparing a dissertation might have limited time to post to message boards! Don't leave us hanging, girl!
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
My take on that, for what it's worth.
I don't think there's any particular mystical or mysterious meaning behind the phrase. I encountered it elsewhere
a few years ago in one the so-called "pseudepigraphical" writings ( Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, if I recall
correctly).
I think it may simply refer to any deed or practice or habit that can lead one to an early grave.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Right, Dan. Why spiritualize it? If a guy is sleeping with someone else's wife, and the husband comes home and shoots him.... don't bother praying for him! Is that it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Bingo, AnotherDan
"I am a hundred and twenty-two years old, and I am not aware of having committed a sin unto death. I have not had intercourse with any woman other
than my wife, nor was I promiscuous by lustful look. I did not drink wine to the point of losing self-control. I was not passionately eager for any
desirable possession of my neighbor. There was no deceit in my heart, no lie passed though my lips. I joined in lamentation with every oppressed human being, and shared my bread with the poor..."
-Testament of Issachar 7:1-5, from Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (circ. 2nd Century B.C.).
"And there is no sin greater on earth than fornication, which they commit on earth, for Israel is a nation holy unto God..."
-Jubilees 33:18
"Guard thyself, do not go on their paths to step into their footprints and do not commit the error of death before the most high God, lest He hide His face from thee,
and return thee unto the hands of thy transgression and root thee out of the land, and thy seed from under heaven, and they name be destroyed and thy seed from
all the earth"
-Jubilees 21:19
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Well, if he had been dead, he certainly wouldn't be aware of it! He apparently considered that he could have commited such a sin, and it didn't result in his immediate death, anyway. Interesting quotations, thank you! (Nice to have somebody reading that stuff!)
The next verse in 1 John says there is a sin that is "not unto death."
Ultimately, my concern is with the prayer for a brother. God then gives him life. It's a great verse... Guess I'll have to break out the commentaries!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Whoa! Oldiesman, STEP AWAY from the microphone! :lol:
Care to elucidate?
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
LindaR
This post is going to seem disjointed. I hate to do this, but I'm going to try it anyway.
I located my class notes on a graduate-level lecture about Romans 9-11. Dr. Davis suggested that Paul was using a type of midrash known as binyan av when he spoke of Jacob and Esau (the "love"/"hate" issue in reference to inheritance). Before I continue what I was getting to earlier, here is a slightly edited definition of binyan av (from R. Ishmael's 13 midot) that I found on the internet:
"Binyan Av is interpretation by analogy. [it] analogizes from theme and generalization instead of specific verbal phrase. There are [two] types of Binyan Av. The first is simple analogy: If [in] case A law X applies, then [in] a similar case B law X also applies. Thus, when there are certain things noted in case A, then they are true too for case B.
The second occurs when there is an objection to the comparison of [case] A and [case] B. A new case or cases are introduced linking A and B by analogy. The analogy is determined by the use of a general case expanded from a specific case, and identifying characteristics in the specific case. This becomes A. Case B becomes analogous if it shares characteristics with A's specific, and therefore can be said to share A's generalized characteristics [as well]."
This is from a list compiled by Steve Lipton (don't know him). I have taken the liberty of clarifying his verbage which can be accessed at:
http://www.shlomosdrash.com/middot.pdf
Okay, I'm going to post this and see what it leads to. (At the very least it will be a lesson in midrash. Perhaps we can unravel Paul's hermeneutic in Romans.)
By the way, I was not zapped in that electrical storm. But I am a little frazzled nonetheless. :blink: More later.
LR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Wow, Oldies, welcome to the thread. Going to stick around for a bit?
Linda, what you said about hate, in regard to Jacob and Esau is pretty much what I have found in my research these past two days as well. I think someone else in this thread said it too, but I can't remember who. The idea being that God didn't literally hate Esau, but rejected him as the heir.
One of the articles I read on the subject, in fact I think it was in this weeks studies, was on what is called transmutation. Don't ask me to explain the word, because I can't. But the jist of the article was there are two ways to go. You can go God's way and receive the biggest blessings, or you can go your own way and you will still receive the blessing, but you will have some natural consequences to face before you get there.
Esau, by his own choices, went the hard way. Jacob didn't.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies found out that he could use SUPER SIZED FONT and now he has a new toy to play with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LindaR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
LindaR, I loved the rant and would really like to read your dissertation some day! Personally, I continually waiver back and forth between literal and figurative. I think they are both in there, I think there is meaning in both - that in all things it is a balance. I just have a difficult time finding that balance - lol lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You asked whether these other groups were perversions of Christianity and I believe that's false. I think they are part of what makes up the Body of Christ today. Just as twi is part of the Body with their own beliefs and doctrines, so are these.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(Note to Oldies. ... Get some glasses dude.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Linda, nice rant! Thanks for sharing with us.
I thought along those lines a number of years ago, but became reluctant to mix the two figures (bride/body). You put it very clearly, and I may reconsider!
Oldies, thanks for clarifying. There could be quite a number of reasons why a person might mark that one false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LindaR
I thought along those lines a number of years ago, but became reluctant to mix the two figures (bride/body). You put it very clearly, and I may reconsider!
Same here. Reconsider in light of Eph. 5. (Perhaps that section of Scripture is more than simply practical application for married Christians. Ever thought it might have a prophetic aspect?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.