SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : It Is NOT Normal To Sin, But...............?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 )
PosterThread









 Re: It Is NOT Normal To Sin, But...............?


A few days ago, I promised to offer a spiritual explanation for my statement in support of Hans's description of how he had remembered - long after he had become a Christian who spoke in tongues (even) - an event which had happened early in his childhood. The challenge was made to me 'who says so?' when I claimed this 'is how we are made' - meaning, with regard to the restoration of the soul (although we were not calling it 'restoration of the soul' - I am now).

The word psychological means to me, 'of the study of the soul' - nothing more. Inasmuchas God formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his [i]body[/i] (spirit into the dust) so that he (Adam) became a 'living soul', a consideration of the effect of 'spirit' on flesh and how it cannot but affect 'soul' is a necessary starting point.

In other threads earlier this year, I have shared some of the reasons I have needed to receive healing from the Lord. This was not a matter of individual events which I could have remembered like one remembers birthdays. There were years and years of profound and repeated injuries received by my soul from very early in my life, complicated by my reactions to them.

Much of significance was hidden behind slightly later trauma, and immediately began to come to mind, when the latter obstacles were eventually removed - [u]by healing from the Lord[/u]. (I should state here that although I always [i]believed in[/i] healing, He took the initiative in the first big 'healing' event. And after that, I was spoiled for more. Little did I realise how long a journey lay ahead but, I was in such a state, for that to be less of a worry than no healing at all.)

What I found when I searched scripture was a clear separation between the remedy for sin and the remedy for physical sickness/wounded spirit. But, because we [i]do[/i] sometimes harm [i]ourselves[/i] (at all levels of being) by the sins we commit, it is easy to blur the harms sustained by a single body, soul and mind and make the assumption that faith in Christ [b]for salvation[/b] should automatically cure them all at once (or at least as an eventual consequence of regeneration).

My first base from which to think through these issues, is that man is made in God's image. Therefore, a study of God's nature was immeasurably helpful.... because, in order to [i]not feel[/i] some of the internal distress, people (like me) use various different tactics on their body and mind, to numb out the 'pain' (as it is universally called, even though some of it is manifestly 'numbness' rather than 'pain') in order to continue with some semblance of normal life to the external world. In reality, this is a serious messing around with the image of God, who longs to be fully, wholly and healthily represented in each of us. The commonest and main defence against the trauma is always denial.

Therefore, in terms of how individuals [i]recover[/i] from chronic traumatic experience, there is an abundance of evidence that it is the easiest, most superficial things which come back to mind first because they are also the easiest to cease denying. Then, as these are processed, the person is strengthened to face the deeper hurts which are more distressing to consider.

My whole approach to recovering has been under the Lord's care from the start, even though I have spoken to professionals of necessity, because there was little or no help in the church.

To be fair to the church, I was so traumatised I couldn't begin to 'tell' even the things I knew. But this is exactly why it's important for me here, to explain that the Lord was well able to 'hear' my cries and respond to them (and did, when I was free to hear from Him). What I needed and could not find in church, was a doctrinal explanation for either my need, or the solution to it, within which to [u]frame my approach (to Him)[/u]. Thus, when I set out to search scripture for guidance, I fully expected to find it, because I knew how much healing Jesus had done when He walked the earth. What I could not understand, was how I seemed not to be able to access it.

I hope 'denial' is easily recognisable as a scriptural concept. If not easily recognisable, it is very easy to find once looking for it actively there.

My thesis is no way complete at this stage, but, the post is long enough for comments, if any.

 2005/10/23 1:39
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear Philologos,

After all this discussion on the authority of the bible, I decided to do some research. As a result I read two helpful articles from Bakers Evangelical Dictionary, one on the "word" of God, and the other, "Authority of the Bible." Interestingly enough, the articles state proposals from both our arguments. Although, it does end with the "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" which I reject in part (not entirely). Obviously, we are not the first or the last to debate this issue.

Nonetheless, all this has lead me into deep prayer and seeking. As a result, I have established a statement of faith on the authority of the bible in agreement with both the bible and what Christ has revealed to me.

Although, I am nothing, and this statement is of no use to anyone other than myself, unless directed otherwise by Christ.

Thank you for sharing all you have with me. I have learned a great deal.

Blake

PS....I must say, after this research, your pen name has been given new meaning.

Definition
Philologus = "lover of the Word"
1. a Christian Paul greets in his epistle to Romans
(Ro 16:15)

Although, you spell "logus" as "logos" which is "a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea."

This point most interested me:

"A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1."

-------from (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/)
Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/10/23 22:05Profile









 Re: It Is NOT Normal To Sin, But...............?


Dear Ron,

I've been thinking about this which you said:

Quote:
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13, KJVS)

This is part of a unique promise given to the apostles. It is this promise which lies behind Christ's prayer:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;” (John 17:20, KJVS)

Their words would be inspired by the fulfillment of the earlier promise. This is the foundation of a conservative evangelical's understanding of 'verbal inspiration' of scripture. It is because of this promise to the apostles that the New Testament has final authority for the Bible believing Christian. The verse you quote is not a promise that the church, down the centuries, will have continuing revelation which is to be added to the biblical revelation, and it is not a personal promise of infallibility for every believer. It is a promise of infallibility for the apostles' doctrinal statements.

So, why do you accept Mark's and Luke's word, who were not disciples with the twelve?

And what do you do about the apostles who were not disciples with the twelve, who do not appear to have written anything for us?

Romans 16:7
[b]Salute Andronicus and Junia[/b], my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, [b]who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me[/b].

And then there is Paul, who wasn't there with the twelve either...? :-o

Remember, I have no dispute with the Bible. I am trying to make sense of the exclusivity you apply to John 16:13, especially since there is not a rush by Christians seeking for for their writings to be included in the Bible - is there?

 2005/10/24 0:29
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
This point most interested me:

"A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1."

Hi Blake
It has been a matter of scholarly discussion for centuries as to just how 'well suited' the Greek concept of the 'logos' is to John's use of the term. The question is was John using 'logos' in the Greek philosophical sense or was he using it the way the Greek translation of the OT had used it. Was John thinking of the Targum of Jonathan or the philosophies of John's day? No doubt the discussion will continue. :-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/24 6:36Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
So, why do you accept Mark's and Luke's word, who were not disciples with the twelve?

It is pretty well established that Mark was the 'penman' for Peter. As you say, there is no rush for others writing to be 'included in the Bible' but there has always been a pressure for people under 'inspiration' to have their view 'added to the Bible'; the obvious modern equivalent of this would be the Mormons, but in more subtle ways the 'charismatics' are constantly tempted in this direction.

Luke's writings (page for page, he wrote more of the NT than anyone else) would be a the exception, but orthodox Christians have never questioned the authenticity of his contribution. His association with Paul would be part of his authenticating credentials.

Some of these issues are well covered by [url=http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm]F F Bruce.[/url] and in particular [url=http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc03.htm]the Canon of the New Testament.[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/24 6:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Although, you spell "logus" as "logos" which is "a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea."

You are the first one to pick up the difference in spelling! I opt for my spelling simply because it makes the connection with 'logos' more obvious. It could also be translated 'Friend of the Word'. I do enjoy 'words'. For some years during the Y2K 'bug' issue I was employed by an international bank to explain Y2K issues and resolutions to their customers and country regulators. I described myself as an 'entomological etymologist' - the 'bug-hunters word finder'! :-D


Quote:
Although, you spell "logus" as "logos" which is "a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea."

I would express it as 'the concept expressed'. You have to watch Thayer at times, he was a unitarian and consequently did not believe in the divinity of Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/24 6:59Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear philologos,

Quote:
It has been a matter of scholarly discussion for centuries as to just how 'well suited' the Greek concept of the 'logos' is to John's use of the term. The question is was John using 'logos' in the Greek philosophical sense or was he using it the way the Greek translation of the OT had used it. Was John thinking of the Targum of Jonathan or the philosophies of John's day? No doubt the discussion will continue.



I didn't know that, but I could definitely see why and how that would come about. The word "logos" seems to encapsulate a broad range of meaning, in denotation and connotation.

All this debate and discussion over the bible shows that even in the bible we must have faith. I do believe that our faith in Christ will lead us to the bible. I have never know a believer to accept Jesus, reject the bible, and flourish in faith.

Thanks again,
Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/10/24 8:30Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The word "logos" seems to encapsulate a broad range of meaning, in denotation and connotation.

People who hear me preach must tire of hearing me say 'Bible words don't have definitions, they have histories'! :-) This is why we must allow the scripture to be its own interpreter. Otherwise we end with the result once described by Spurgeon when he commented that "the Bible throws a lot of light on the commentaries!" :-D


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/25 6:08Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy