When the Holy Spirit authored the letter to Titus, the instructions to Titus were to set things in order in the church on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In this letter Titus was given the qualifications for elders to be "ordained in every city" (1:5). Also instructions were given for dealing with false teachers, and the importance of "Sound Doctrine" was stressed. He gave timeless instruction concerning the proper conduct of "aged men," "aged women," "young women," and "young men" (2:2-10). Then he declares; "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (2:11). We ask the question, what is this, and what does it mean?
In Acts 20:24, Paul through inspiration tells us WHAT it is. "But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God." This gospel of the grace of God contains, commandments, words, and laws.
How does this "grace of God" bring salvation? The answer; through preaching. Paul said; "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom.1:16). The Holy Spirit also reveals to us that it is the responsibility of the church to proclaim this message. "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God" (Eph.3:10). This will include all religious instruction man needs for proper service to the Lord.
To whom has this "grace of God" appeared? The scripture says to "all men." It is no longer only for the Jews, but for all men. God does not want for anyone to be lost (2 Peter 3:9), but for everyone to come to repentance. This however does not negate man’s responsibility to be obedient to the Lord’s commands.
We are told that this "Grace of God that brings salvation" teaches things (Titus 2:12). "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;" This will involve more than just "Grace only." The grace of God teaches us both negatively and positively.
Negatively, that we must deny: ungodliness, and worldly lusts. Meaning that even though we live in this world we cannot act like this world, for we, as obedient Christians, have been redeemed from all iniquity, and purified unto Christ, a peculiar people (Titus 2:14).
This grace of God that brings salvation teaches us positively that we must live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (2:13). We are then to be "Christlike" in our thinking and behavior as we influence others in this walk of life.
No doubt, we are saved by GRACE (Rom.8:24), but we are also saved by FAITH (Acts 16:30-31), and by MERCY (Titus 3:5), and by OBEDIENCE (Heb.5:8-9), as well as the WORD (James 1:21). Fact of the matter is that the "Grace of God that brings salvation" includes all of the above.
David Harris
Friday, December 14, 2007
The Grace of God That Brings Salvation
171 comments:
I am going to differ with David, a good friend, on this one. I believe the reference to "the grace of God" in Titus 2:11 is actually a reference to Jesus. While some may say, "But Jesus hasn't appeared to all men," I would suggest that everyone check the Greek wording. It should read: "The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men."
This is a minor, and mostly insignificant difference of interpretation, but I thought I would state my take on it anyway without any intent to be contrary to the points David made.
WRONG !!!
Brother Kevin is incorrect. the Greek does not back his position,
M.F
OKC, OK
Kevin at least made an arguement in his discussion maybe M.F. can do the same?
The mere appearance of Christ in and of itself would not teach. Words , vehichles of precise meaning, conveyed by the Holy Spirit becoming the gospel would fulfill the verb teach.
Jesus has never appeared unto all men. Only His second return will accomplish that.
"that bringeth" is the precise tense in the original
see Robertson and Thayer
Also, verse 13 instructs us further that we are to look for the "glorious appearance" of Christ. Why look for it if they all had already seen it?
David is correct.
Kevin is wrong.
Not a fellowship issue though.
M.F.
OKC, OK
Rick, I try not to get to deep with you guys.
M.F. said:
Rick, I try not to get to deep with you guys.
? What does that mean ?
The question you asked validates my point. Thus, no need to answer.
Same one
By the way, I hear through the grapevine that a large scale campaign is coming in Fort Worth by Brant and Rick. Who pays for all of these campaigns and Reflections? If people quit sending their money what would happen?
Just a thought.
?
Hasn't anyone told MARION (MF) not to listen to the grapevine ????
"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe" 1 Cor 1:11
I think I just chopped down the grapevine with the apostle Paul.
M.F.
OKC, OK
Don't assume my name is MArion you might be wrong.
Speculation without evidence violates John 7:24
M.F. "bringeth salvation" is an adjective in the Greek and therefore does not have tense. It is modifying "grace." The phrase "to all men" follows and describes "bringeth salvation." If you are going to argue against my assessment on the basis of the Greek, you need to look at the Greek.
Jesus is the source of our instruction and teaching (Acts 1:1-3) as well as the center of it (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The point is that when He first came He made salvation possible through His life, sacrifice, and instruction, and now we look to His second coming.
M.F. writes... "Rick, I try not to get to deep with you guys."
I appreciate this for David said, "Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me" (Psa. 131:1).
M.F. writes... "Who pays for all of these campaigns and Reflections?"
good brethren & churches
M.F. writes... "If people quit sending their money what would happen?"
Maybe I am getting better at the deeper stuff because this must be a retoric question, right?
epiphaino (vi 2Aor Pas 3 Sg)= appeared
gar (Conj) = for
ho (t_ Nom Sg f) = the
charis (n_ Nom Sg f) = grace
ho (t_ Gen Sg m) = of the
theos (n_ Gen Sg m) = God
soterios (a_ Nom Sg m) = saving
pas (a_ Dat Pl m) = to all
anthropos (n_ Dat Pl m) = humans
ASV - "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,..."
ESV - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,..."
this is a great article. it brings alot of things to the front for me to study for myself.
can someone answer for me
is the grace of God only given to those that obey Him?
God's grace is sufficient and available for all mankind. But is to be accessed by faith. Biblical faith is an obedient faith.
Those who do not believe or who do not obey the gospel will not receive the blessings, benefits, or privileges of grace.
Natasha,
I would say "the grace of God Hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men"
But not all men take advantage of the gift of grace, by obedience...
So the grace of God is given to all but not all partake...
Brothers,
It has been talked about before on this blog, but I still hear preachers, preaching that basically God cannot do anything today, that everything we pray for if answered is because of providence: which is explained by these preachers as a chain of events that was started long ago, but that God doesn't do anything today. They imply that it is totally up to us as far as our actions to determine the outcomes of situations, and that prayer is for our benefit only.
Please comment with scriptures about how prayer works today and if God works today.
What say you, Rick, M.F, Brant, others???
Concerned,
Samson
Samson,
I don't know what preachers you are listening to, but I have never heard this. It comes mighty close to a deistic position.
To say that God does nothing is to misunderstand providence. Just because God no longer uses men to perform miracles does not mean that God does nothing.
Are we really to think that Jesus taught the disciples to pray for nothing? In the model prayer Jesus taught them to ask for their daily necessities (bread), but we are also commanded to work or not to eat.
When challenged about things he did on the sabbath, Jesus said His Father was always working. But their is no evidence that His work was always in some miraculous way.
For several reasons, I would be interested in a quote from someone who beleives that God does not work today.
If God works today(I believe he does) how does he work?
If you say providence then please back it up w/scripture.
Why is it that when in the churches of Christ you will hear many prayers for the sick that involve helping the doctors solve the problem, but seems taboo to ask for healing...
I'm not at all saying that God doesn't use the doctors and other means of natural processes, but would you say that he can't do the other???
I have heard preachers say not to pray that they would be guided in what to preach or say do they not think God can do that today?
The miraculous age has passed because its purpose has been completed (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Therefore, anything that would fall under the category of the miraculous does not occur today (so long as we recognize the biblical concept of the miraculous).
Special guidance that is "bestowed" but not learned would fall into this category. Healing that goes against nature would as well.
We must recognize that sometimes, however, God's providence can accomplish things naturally that we (and doctors) still do not understand.
While the word "providence" does not occur, the concept, that is, God working through nature, surely does, as the examples of Joseph, Esther, and Onesimus illustrate.
Kevin,
You use a great example in the story of Joseph as what I would say is the providence of God.
IF I said that God led me to a certain place for a certain purpose (as in Joseph's case) some of these people would jump all over you and say God doesn't work like that today.
Am I right?
Outside of creation, the flood, the resurrection, and maybe a few other items that escape me, you will notice that God most often worked miracles through the agency of a human. Moses, Elijah, the Apostles, etc.
All else that God does to aid humankind He does behind the scenes using the circumstances, the laws of nature, etc. This is what we call providence.
To expect the miraculous is to expect something He did not promise. If/when He choses to heal a person it is a healing. The problem is the language is most often used by those who claim to be able to heal or some beyond nature event. Folks may be a bit gun shy of sounding like the Pentecostals.
Changing rain water through soil, seed, sun, and time into wine is nature by design. Changing water to wine instantaneously is a miracle.
Sperm and egg = zygote... add time, and nutrition through birth we get a human child ... add more time and nutrition you get a man. Take some dirt, mold it, breath into the breath of life and you get a living being (Adam) that is a miracle.
There is no evidence for the idea that God does or needs to work miracles through men today.
Those who claim miracles today teach many other false doctrines as well.
The Question:
Can God do something to affect the natural law so that it works in your favor today? or is it just happen chance?
Ecclesiastes 9:11
"I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all."
The Question:
Can God do something to affect the natural law so that it works in your favor today? or is it just happen chance?
Rick's answer:
God is not obligated to tell His creation all things (cf. Deu. 29:29).
Providence (active non-miraculous or passive) can best be explained by Paul's words to Philemon about Onesimus.
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever" (Phe. 1:15).
To my knowledge, the exact answer as to how, when and where God acts in a non-miraculous manner is simply not given.
Brother Gil Yoder has excellent information concerning this on his website letusreason.com
The most important word to remember in providence is "if." That is, you can never know for sure that God affected the situation naturally, though that is a possibility. Therefore, it would be wrong to make a definite statement such as "God led me here," when you cannot possibly know that to be the case.
There are different times in my life where the situations, looking back (and that is also the nature of providence for us), seem providential to me, but that does not mean it definitely was. This is the main difference in God working naturally versus working supernaturally. With His supernatural work, there was no question that God was at work specifically, because that was part of the purpose of miracles (Mk. 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3-4). However, the nature of providence is God's working through nature, which means that it is not detectable and distinguished from natural law.
It is obvious that the question is being avoided. Either God does something when we pray to ALTER the natural course of events to answer our prayers or he doesn't.
What say you???
Rick
M.F.
Brant
Kevin
others
We are not avoiding anything, though we may not be answering in the manner in which you wish.
Does God alter something to alter the natural course of events? Yes. How does He do so? Providentially, that is by affecting nature in ways undetectable by man.
There is also a question about what constitutes the natural course of events. Since we experience only one course of events, and that coincides with nature, we can only speculate on the course of events that would have taken place.
Take the James Stewart picture "It's a Wonderful Life." Is childbirth a miracle? No, it is natural, and so is conception. Might it make a difference if a certain child is born or not? Certainly. How? We will never know, because there is only one course of events that we can know for certain, and this, only after the fact.
If we cannot believe that God helped is in a certain situation then would it be wrong to thank him for helping us?
If you watch The History or discover channel they will try to explain EVERY "miracle" in scripture away by using NATURAL EVENTS...
Kinda Dangerous!!!
I'm not at all saying that I believe in these "Fake Healers" or "Name it and Claim it", but
I think we are Guilty of NOT GIVING GOD THE CREDIT he deserves.
I still want to Hear from all of these other avoiders...
Kevin,
If it is wrong to say God led me here then why did the Bible record the providence of God like God opened the door unto the Gentiles?
Mark
ECCL 9:1 taken out of context. There are hundreds of verses that indicate the side that Samson is on.
Samson is right.
God moves in many ways the "conservative" preachers are afraid to say. Samson like me realizes that the miracles of the Bible times have ceased. But if you notice everytime providence is brought up these preachers bring up "miracles and false teachers". Lets discuss p not miracles. Yes there is a link(only in association and definition of terms) but I think we are passed that.
Can God work thru the natural? YES
Can God work to directly affect or change nature to accomplish His will? YES
Can God work outside of nature in any way, or halt nature in some minimal way to accomplish His will?
YES
PS. Miracles have not completely ceased--The Second Coming I believe would be classified as a miracle.
Some of our brotherhood preaching schools are so afraid of Pentecostalism they don't even believe in the power of our God.
By the way, the "old paths" and the original restoration movement do not endorse this new movemwnt of antism. Prayer was a great part of the older generation of churches of Christ. Most all had prayer meetings, many men kneeled in prayer, etc.
But why kneel, or have a prayer meeting when some of the schools have "tied" the hands of God with their "God is limited to an inderct, only thru nature, not changing anything philosophy".
Sorry guys the brethren will never go that direction (because the Bible doesn't).
An honest question:
Rick, Kevin, Brant, etc....
HOW MANY HOURS (OR MINUTES) per day do you spend in private prayer to God?
Might be something to think about.
Remember, you cant pray for God to assist you in defeating me because their is no way (according to your doctrine ) he could do that with you becoming a HOLY ROLLER.
I want Rick and Brant to specificaly respond to this. Do they believe in prayer or not?
Dont be cowards on this.
Anonymous
The most exhaustive work on the providence of God by brethren of which I am aware is...
The Providence of God
Edited by: Thomas B. Warren & Garlin Elkins
Power Lectures
by the Southaven Church of Christ
Southaven, MS 38671
Printed by Sain Pub. 1989 (?)
There are 36 messages related to the topic in this 492 pg. volume.
With prayer God may choose to answer in one of several ways:
1. yes
2. no
3. maybe
4. not right now
If He chooses to grant a request (petition or intercession); how He answers it is entire up to Him.
Doctors are brilliant but they are not God. They do not know what He knows concerning the full function of human anatomy or physiology. So for God to "heal" a person without violating what we know of natural law may still be inexplicable and amazing.
We are told to acknowledge Him in all things. We are told to be thankful in all things. So yes it is appropriate to ask and thank God for everything that happens. Whether directly or indirectly everything is under His control anyway.
One thing that must be considered is that God is not inclined to violate the free moral agency He has given to us. We are free to choose or to choose otherwise. Our choices often affect the course of events for both ourselves and others.
I know Brant Stubblefield very well and have heard him preach in numerous meetings. He certainly believes in the power of prayer and the fact that God works today. Have you ever heard him preach?
Witness
Newcastle, OK
If you did as much as he does you wouldn't have time to be on this blog 24/7 either.
BUSY BEE = Brant
Witness (again)
Newcastle, OK
"don't be cowards on this"
signed,
Anonymous
Put your name on your posts before you accuse others of being cowards. If you would read the posts more carefully, your question has been answered. Nobody has said God doesn't work - in fact they have specifically stated that he does - but you guys continue to assert that we believe such. I am curious how you can know when God is working or not - is everything good that happens to you a miracle?
"If we cannot believe that God helped is in a certain situation then would it be wrong to thank him for helping us?"
Don't be ridiculous. God created the world and everything in it, as well as the natural laws that govern the universe. I am thankful to God for everything good in my life, whether he brought about such directly or through the natural course of events. Have you ever thanked God for the sound of birds or the beauty of the mountains? Are these miracles?
Jeff
It is really difficult to swallow being called a coward by a person who writes anonymously and then demands that I give answer! Nevertheless, your answer... God works through providence (Gen. 8:20-22; Mat. 5:45). The age of miracles have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10; cf. Jas. 1:25). Do I believe in prayer? YES! What God decides to do or not do is entirely up to God and I believe that God is a God of integrity... if He said He will not do some things I am humble enough to believe Him and work in accordance to what He has said. Sorry anonymous, I don’t just through hoops.
It is also difficult to swallow being labeled avoiders when you are attempting to give an answer to a question. Samson wants all of his questions answered yet offers no answer himself. I am still waiting on that quote? I do not know anyone who teaches what you claim therefore I seek verification as mentioned above for several reasons, one of which would be that I need to know specifically what I am suppose to be addressing, another is that I want to make sure that I am not addressing a straw man, etc..
The original restoration movement had people in it that believed in premillennialism as well, that proves nothing.
Please tell me how often the Bible says that a man should pray? Is prayer really about the amount of time one puts into it?
Rick asked for a specific quote, one of many I have heard recently was during a discussion about prayer, and they said
"God only works today by the natural processes that were set in place during creation, the miraculous age is over."
Conservative Preacher
Oklahoma
What they never mention is that: God does/can alter or supercede the natural law, to answer through nature, prayer offered by the Christian (if not then why pray, because nature will just take it's course anyway).
1 Cor 13:8-10 NEVER MENTIONS miracles done by God ceasing. What it does mention are the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Prophecy, Tongues, and Knowledge)ceasing.
When that which is perfect (Gods Word) came we no longer needed these works through men...
While we are at it lets call Bible things by Bible Names with scripture to back the thought "Providence Only Doctrine".
Does this bind where God has not bound?
Rick said:
"if He said He will not do some things I am humble enough to believe Him and work in accordance to what He has said."
Just curios, What are you refering to that he say he would not do?
There is an underlying element that keeps showing in this discussion. It appears that prayer is about God doing something for me.
There are many facets to prayer.
1. Worship
2. Praise
3. Thanksgiving
4. Confession
And of course we have requests: petitions, supplications, and intercessions.
As the creator of all things visible and invisible God exists outside of and beyond all things in nature. He has the capacity to do as He wills....provided it does not violate His STATED will or His character.
How He chooses to accomplish answers to prayer is beyond our ability to explain. That is why we have such terms in the Bible as "perhaps". But just because something is inexplicable does not make it miraculous.
We do not know HOW everything works in nature, so how would we know in providence how God has work things together within that realm.
Since God provides through nature generally as well as specifically, I can thank God when I receive a blessing from Him regardless of whether it was provided generically or specifically and without needing to know what it took for it to happen (1 Th. 5:17-18).
I think maybe people ought to check how many times God worked something miraculous without using a human being. There is a reason why Peter and those with him were shocked by the household of Cornelius speaking in tongues and referred immediately to the Day of Pentecost. It didn't happen normally, and it does not happen unless something within God's will was not going to happen naturally. Therefore, the last record of God acting in this way is with the household of Cornelius and the only thing that is promised outside of working through nature will be the end of the world. Therefore, to say that the miraculous age has ended is correct and understood with this context in mind.
God works through nature. That is undetectable. God does NOT work contrary to nature today. That would be miraculous and obvious, plus the purpose for such action has passed (Mk. 16:17-20).
The only other way that God could work would be by affecting men directly, something that I realize is a great controversy today. Since any affect on men that would affect an action and therefore a decision of a man would infringe on free will, and since free moral agency for man is God's will, then we can know that God does not do this either. If we maintain that it is undetectable, then it would have to occur through providential means, which puts it into the realm of God affecting man through nature, requiring an independent response from man to nature rather than a God directed action over which man has no control.
Rick Said: Providence (active non-miraculous or passive) can best be explained by Paul's words to Philemon about Onesimus.
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever" (Phe. 1:15).
Rick,
It scares me when you make statements like this. Is God really gone for a season? As was the case here for Onesimus.
James Chapter 1
5 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord;
8 a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways.
All the doctrine of "Providence only" does is produce weak Christians.
Alot of the issue here is the phobia of saying that, when God changes the course of or alters nature, it could be called a miracle. No not a "big miracle" as in the 1st century but it is still God changing the course of events to produce his will.
Samson Said:
What they never mention is that: God does/can alter or supercede the natural law, to answer through nature, prayer offered by the Christian (if not then why pray, because nature will just take it's course anyway).
1 Cor 13:8-10 NEVER MENTIONS miracles done by God ceasing. What it does mention are the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Prophecy, Tongues, and Knowledge)ceasing.
When that which is perfect (Gods Word) came we no longer needed these works through men...
While we are at it lets call Bible things by Bible Names with scripture to back the thought "Providence Only Doctrine".
Does this bind where God has not bound?
I agree with Samson on this issue, and would like to hear something on this.
Thanks,
B.C.
Rick Said: Providence (active non-miraculous or passive) can best be explained by Paul's words to Philemon about Onesimus.
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever" (Phe. 1:15).
"Rick,
It scares me when you make statements like this. Is God really gone for a season? As was the case here for Onesimus."
Rick is not saying that God is gone for a season - he is explaining providence by using an example. Please read posts more carefully. Notice that Paul says "perhaps" - in other words he is not sure whether what has occurred is providence or not. This is the same outlook that we have, why are we criticized for it?
Jeff
"All the doctrine of "Providence only" does is produce weak Christians."
The issue of how God answers prayer is different from the issue of whether God answers every prayer. I don't see how believing that God answers through providence can have any bearing on whether we believe that God will or will not answer.
Samson Said:
What they never mention is that: God does/can alter or supercede the natural law, to answer through nature, prayer offered by the Christian
This is double talk - how can God *supersede* nature to work *through* nature? Please clarify you position. As others have pointed out, we don't really even understand how nature works, so how can you be so adamant that God works outside of these events?
Jeff
1. My Question has never been "Does God answer all prayer?"
The Question has been "Does God answer any prayers by any other means than Nature that is allready set in motion, or does he supercede/change the natural course of events that are allready set in motion."
How is this double talk?
Jeff Martin said...
"All the doctrine of "Providence only" does is produce weak Christians."
I appreciate your opinion that God doesn't work by Providence Only.
Jeff said:
"in other words he is not sure whether what has occurred is providence or not. This is the same outlook that we have, why are we criticized for it?"
If your not sure about providence then quit preaching it...
Instead preach that "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much"
and just accept that. Quit adding stipulations that the bible doesn't...
What say you?
God can answer any prayer that is according to His will using indirect means through nature.
Therefore, the desire to require Him to do something more than this is where the lack of faith lies.
Providence is a convenient term used to encapsulate what the Bible says about the work of God when it is not of a miraculous nature.
The very use of the term agrees that God is still at work in the world and on behalf of His children.
The very nature of this work denies the possiblity of "knowing" when, where, and how God is doing His work. Therefore, in humility, we like other Bible characters continue to say "perhaps".
Nothing happens without God's knowledge, permission, or involvement; so in all things we should give Him thanks. "For in Him we live and move and have our very being"
It is becoming increasingly obvious that some do not understand that many of the texts being quoted were to people living in the age of miracles.
We must rightly divide the word before we make leaps of application that no longer apply.
Be careful or you might end up building an Ark!
Kevin sais:"God can answer any prayer that is according to His will using indirect means through nature.
Therefore, the desire to require Him to do something more than this is where the lack of faith lies."
Kevin the Question is not can he answer according to his will that is obvious...
The Question has been stated several times it is not that hard to answer.
"Does God ever answer any prayers by any other means than Nature that is allready set in motion, or does he supercede/change the natural course of events that are allready set in motion?"
listen Brother disciple:
You show me where God told "me", in scripture, to build an ark and I'll get busy...
LOL
Seriously, if you think I have taken a verse out of context please let me know...
Still waiting on answers from:
"People who don't want to be called question avoiders, so I won't..."
Sampson quotes me as saying:
"All the doctrine of "Providence only" does is produce weak Christians."
I'm tired of people not reading the posts... That is your own quote, not mine.
Jeff
Your right Jeff "MY BAD"
But you still haven't answered the questions...
Since I have already addressed the question I have been asked yet again, I am not sure why I should bother answering.
Does God affect nature so as to answer prayer? Yes. That is the ONLY way He does so in matters that are physically oriented (in other words, not regarding forgiving sin, etc.).
Now, this means that I do not hold a deist position of the Watchmaker God. But it also means that God's work that works through nature (and affecting nature) is still undetectable, which is why "if" is always the closest a person can come today to saying that something was providential. You simply cannot KNOW that God affected the circumstances specifically for a particular outcome.
However, you can be sure that He NEVER does something that would be contrary to His nature or will, which is often what people want Him to do when this subject comes up.
Samson,
How many ways and people have to tell that NO ONE can say a definite Yes, or No to your question.
We do not fully understand How nature works, let alone how or if God can/does work within it, around it, through it, or whatever.
That, again, is why we say "Perhaps".
"The secret things belong to God, the things revealed belong to us and our children after us." (Dt. 29:29)
If you don't know one way or another thean how do you KNOW it falls into the "secret things" category. It could be that the reason you dont know is a lack of understanding on the Biblical subject or the fact that you look the other way from God doing anything on our behalf.
You mention providence and a coc preacher mentions our works. Providence is really about what God does not us. Works are what we do.
God can and does answer prayers directly that are not miracles as recorded in the Bible (or anytype of miracle for the matter) to assist the child of God and destroy the works of Satan. He guides the affairs and events of men to bring about His will. See the book of James.
Sometimes he uses wicked men to assist His goal. A deep subject? Yes. Do I know everything about it? No.
Do I shy away from his direct help through providence in the answer to my strong and bold petition? No
Still pressing the issue and hoping for some actual answers instead of wishy washy statements.
Donna H.
Kevin said:
"""Now, this means that I do not hold a deist position of the Watchmaker God. But it also means that God's work that works through nature (and affecting nature) is still undetectable, which is why "if" is always the closest a person can come today to saying that something was providential."""
Thank You Kevin for your comment
That is What I have been trying to say all along.
My point is this:
Brothers when you preach about the providence of God, don't be so afraid of being labeled "liberal" that you preach as if God is a watchmaker and leave out that God "may affect nature" to accomplish his will...
He still works today!
Donna H. wrote:
"If you don't know one way or another thean how do you KNOW it falls into the "secret things" category. It could be that the reason you dont know is a lack of understanding on the Biblical subject or the fact that you look the other way from God doing anything on our behalf."
Donna,
The reason we don't know is for lack of information. You impugn us when you say that it may be for lack of understanding. You further surmise ill motive to say that we look the other way.
Paul commanded not to think beyond what is written. What I think or what you think maybe true, but for lack of clear information it is not necessarily implied so I cannot call it an inference. It is therefore only an opinion.
I believe it is a safer and more humble position to say "Perhaps" than to be bold in one's ignorance.
If I am disobedient to the wisdom of scripture in the use of money, is God obligated to "providentially" get me out of debt?
If I am disobedient to the wisdom of scripture about human relationship esp. with my spouse and my marriage is falling apart, is God obligated to "providentially" fix my marriage?
If I have been disobedient to the wisdom of scripture on how to raise my children, and in their free moral agency stay unbelievers, is God obligated to "providentially" force my kids to become Christians?
To all three, the answer is NO!
If a person is an unbeleiver and is dying of cancer, why should God heal that person just because a believer asks Him to?
Donna, your reference to James does not support your contention. How God accomplishes this is the subject we are discussing. The quick jump to direct intervention is non-biblical and not justified by the text itself.
Bro Disciple is correct to point out that providence does not and cannot cancel out our free will nor the consequences thereof. Why? Because this itself would violate God's will.
If a person was truly a Calvinist and everything were predetermined, then why would he pray?
Realize that pure Calvinists are rare today. So, while it may be inconsistent, we should recognize that few accept Calvinism in an absolute state. Also, maybe they view the prayer itself as predestined.
Not that one should ever view prayer as being good for us in some sense of psycho babble self-talk.
But prayer is an expression of worship or praise to God. This should be our first priority, not merely getting our desires met.
There are more calvinists out there than one would think, especially among college aged kids. There are big groups on major college campuses, known as the "Reformed University Fellowship. (RUF)" They are mainly sponsored by churches affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of America, not to be confused with PC-USA which is very liberal. D. James Kennedy is the most popular among the group with a television program "The Coral Ridge Hour." The University of Oklahoma has a pretty strong group, I often debated with some of them during my undergrad there. They even have a campus minister, Doug Servin, who called a friend of mine a "cynic" because he said all denominational doctrines are man-made (that friend was later added to the church of Christ :) ). They are very strong in the deep south. I have many cousins here in Alabama involved with them and I now live near Auburn University which has a large group as well. I cannot figure out why this movement is gaining momentum among college students. Chris Stinnett (gospel preacher in Seminole, OK) has told me he that thinks it is because if you adhere to it you have to do absolutely nothing to be right with God, and that idea is more appealing to this(my) generation. That makes sense.
Jack
Merry Christmas Rick and everybody.
I am glad Jack didnt take Christ out of Christmas !!! Merry Christmas and Happy Birthday Jesus !!!
I know we dont know the exact date but we celebrate his birth b/c without His birth we could not be saved !!!
Happy 2033 rd B-day Jesus !
Jack,
Calvinism is their parents mysticism.
With Calinism, these students (who are always looking for something out of the ordinary anyway) can still remain close to their roots in Christianity yet get that same feeling that their parents got when they were in college with mysticism.
We have no authority biblically to celebrate the birth of Christ on any day.
Where is the Biblical authority to celebrate the Death , Burial, and Ressurection?
Give Book Chapter and Verse for each please.
If by celebrate, you mean...
1. To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing.
2. To perform (a religious ceremony).
3. To extol or praise.
4. To make widely known.
... then I would suggest 1 Corinthians 11:26. My preference is to use the word "memorial" because the word celebrate is used to refer to a party mentality nowadays.
Re: Biblical authority to celebrate Christ's birth:
Romans 14:5-6a (ESV)
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.
The broader context of this passage seems to affirm the freedom of Christians to celebrate special days (such as Christmas) while prohibiting the church from imposing such days on everyone.
Galatians 4:10-11
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Jeff
When it comes to the question of "celebrating" the birth of Christ we must remember several things.
1. Jesus birth, etc. was a matter of prophecy.
2. It was the work of God.
3. The virgin birth is a central doctrine to the person of Christ.
4. The incarnation is an essential element of basic Christianity.
5. The scriptures not only foretold his coming, but it then records several details about the event.
6. Two of four gospels (Mt, Lk) record the birth; a third (Jn) speaks of his pre-existence and becoming flesh.
There would be no Gospel (death, burial, and resurrection) without an incarnation.
The shepherds were excited, the angels were excited, the wise men were excited and brought gifts.
Time itself is split with the coming of Christ.
Let's be careful about pitting scripture against scripture.
We must make sure that we understand their contexts. Only then can we reconcile them and make proper application.
Galatians is clearly in the context of the Judaizers trying to get people back under the OT law. That is not the same context as Romans 14.
The issue of Christmas or even Easter is not about the OT law.
What I don’t understand is how you can say we are not authorized to celebrate the birth of Christ but we are authorized to worship by your manmade rules. The word “worship” is not even mentioned in the praying, the singing, the giving, the preaching or the taking of the Lord’s Supper verses. Yet, these 5 acts of worship must be followed like clockwork every Sunday. The first people to worship Jesus as a babe and later in his ministry did not have a rule book by which to follow on how to worship God’s son. It came from a passion and love in their heart. The magi, the disciples in the boat, the 2 Mary’s at the tomb after his resurrection, the disciples at His ascension, the blind man. I wander if their worship was in vain and unauthorized? Scripture definitely shows these folks as heathens who’s worship was totally unacceptable to God. Attempting to put rules on men who’s hearts are purely for God but don’t interpret scripture according to your narrow interpretation is judging and binding and totally forbidden in scripture. Your manmade rules are not clear teachings in scripture but the way you bind and judge like the Pharisees is very clear and forbidden in the God’s word. I leave you with 2 verses below.
John 9:39
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
Mark 7:7
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men
What am I to surmise from anonymous 12:49?
Maybe, that Jesus really did not mean that worship must be in "spirit" and in "truth"?
Maybe, that as long as the heart is correct that any kind of worship is acceptable to God?
Maybe, that God did not really mean what He said?
Upon what basis then, does a man determine whether he is acceptable to God or not?
where is authority for an individual to celebrate bdays, x-,mas. etc?
jw (religion not a name)
I am a minister for the Lord's church. We do not celebrate xmas!
The authority question as generally discussed pertains to the work, worship, and organization of the church.
Obviously there are things pertaining to the individual's personal life that the Bible directly addresses, but the NT differs greatly from the OT as to how much is dictated regarding such.
The Israelites were told specifically what to eat or not eat; details about clothing; details about much more.
Under Christianity God gives humans much more freedom to make decisions based on principal rather than legislation.
He also refuses to allow us to judge one another in matters He has not addressed.
Anonymous said:
The NT differs greatly from the OT as to how much is dictated regarding such.
The Israelites were told specifically what to eat or not eat; details about clothing; details about much more.
Under Christianity God gives humans much more freedom to make decisions based on principal rather than legislation.
Your assessment makes total sense in that it follows what scripture has to say on the subject. I agree that the Old Covenant was very specific and binding. The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. There is more freedom but there is also more responsibility with the freedom. It deals more with what’s in the heart of man than with just his outward actions. However, his actions will show forth what is truly in his heart. God wants pure hearts not perfect actions. None of us is perfect. We all sin. However, if we truly love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind, and our heart is pure, we will do what we can to make the sin right with our brothers and sisters and our God through asking forgiveness etc… No amount of rule following will make our heart and motives pure. We can follow manmade rules all the days of our lives and our heart still be full of bitterness and darkness. Man looks at the outer appearance but God looks at the heart. I know people like this in the church. They do the 5 acts of worship, they attend every service but I wander if they truly know Christ because they are so bitter and full of strife in their heart. They think their rule following is knowing Christ. My heart aches for them because if they could just open up and talk to Jesus and let Him bear their burdens, and know how much He truly loves them, they would be free.
Hebrews 7:18-28
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
"The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
'You are a priest forever.' "[a] 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[b] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
Hebrews 8:7-13
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[a]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[b]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:13
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love.
Paul exhorted Timothy to...
"Watch your life and doctrine closely, so that you will save both yourself and those who hear you."
It is not life vs. doctrine.
It is not doctrine vs. life.
It is both life and doctrine.
It doesn't matter whether or not an individual celebrates Christmas. The issue is that it shouldn't be a part of church worship, because there is no authority. In my individual life, if I want to celebrate the fact that Christ was born or his death, it's really of no consequence.
i agree ! I celebrate Jesus's b-day on a private basis in my home.
thats ok!
"It doesn't matter whether or not an individual celebrates Christmas. The issue is that it shouldn't be a part of church worship, because there is no authority."
Using that reasoning, is it okay for an individual to worship God with mechanical instruments at home? Do we need Biblical authority to govern our actions when we are inside a church building, but are free to do as we please as soon as we leave? Are we to take the NI view that the difference between an individual and the church as a whole is so profound, and what one can do, the other cannot, and vice versa?
Anytime worship is offered, it must be acceptable worship, whether in the home or not. Cain's sacrifice was as an individual, but it was not of faith (Heb 11:4), and whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). God has specified the kind of worship that pleases him - why would we not offer the same God the same kind of worship when we return home?
Jeff
Worship: Private vs. Public
A woman...can pray on her own but not lead the church.
A woman...can sing on her own but not lead the church.
A woman...can study on her own but not preach to the church.
___________________________________
NOTE: The issue of Cain's offering may have nothing to do with WHAT he offered or the process. It may have entirely been that his heart was not in it..ie, no faith.
Where in the scripture does it talk about church worship? I only know of a few verses that talk about the saints coming together. However, the word word worship is not mentioned in any of those versus. Please advise.
"A woman...can pray on her own but not lead the church."
"sing on her own.. not lead"
"study on her own... not preach"
How is this an example of how we don't need scriptural authority for private worship? All I see here is that a woman is not to be over a man, and that is the same at home as it is in church. The types of worship in the examples you give are exactly the same - the only difference is whether there are men present.
Jeff
"the word word worship is not mentioned in any of those versus."
There are numerous examples of the saints worshiping together - just because the word your looking for isn't there, doesn't mean that's not what's going on. For example, Acts 20:7 speaks of coming together to partake of the Lord's supper (and preaching is mentioned as well). This is certainly worship, but it is not called such. The same is true for "coming together" - when the Bible says to speak to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19), it's obvious that you do this when the saints are together - if they are apart, how can they speak to each other? Reading between the lines is part of rightly dividing the word.
Jeff
"NOTE: The issue of Cain's offering may have nothing to do with WHAT he offered or the process. It may have entirely been that his heart was not in it..ie, no faith."
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
That may be, but what does that change? Faith and attitude are two different things, and a bad attitude is a lack of faith only as far as it is not what God has told us to have. The lesson of Cain is to give God what he wants and not what we want to give - whether Cain didn't have the sacrifice God wanted or the heart God wanted (or both) is irrelevant. It is the difference between what God wanted and what occurred that is the lack of faith, and by worshiping God without the heart he has specified (in spirit) or without the actions he has specified (in truth), we are doing the same thing.
Jeff
Well, one thing is obvious. Many people have never studied how the Bible authorizes.
Kevin,
How true your words. I know that you have done extensive study in that area and have authored a book entitled "How to Study the Bible" A practical guide to biblical exposition.
Now to the question: Would you be interested in posting a few articles on Bible authority with commentary to follow?