Poster | Thread | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
I suspect that much of our evangelical methodology is resulting in a harvest of unripe plums. God will never turn away those who come to Him
What about those who have been raised in Christianity and continually go on rejecting the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Is there a limit to their hardness of heart? Their queching of the Spirit? Their resisting the Holy Ghost? How great is the gulf between quenching and blasphemy?
God Bless,
-Robert _________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2004/11/15 8:21 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Quote:
What about those who have been raised in Christianity and continually go on rejecting the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Is there a limit to their hardness of heart? Their queching of the Spirit? Their resisting the Holy Ghost? How great is the gulf between quenching and blasphemy?
I am unusually pragmatic here. My sense is that as long as someone is saying 'yes' to God they are on safe ground. (notice how carefully I expressed that!) But when someone sets they face in a 'no' to what they know God is saying they are automatically narrowing the window of opportunity for God's word to have access. If they persist the window will close.
Will it ever open again? Of this I am sure, that anyone who is asking this question may be assured that in their case the window is still open. Their conscience is still touchable. Those who never even think of asking the question may be those for whom the window has closed until further notice. _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/11/15 10:49 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
My sense is that as long as someone is saying 'yes' to God they are on safe ground.
Do you have a 'doctrinal position' or a rule of thumb for describing the state of a person who has 'fallen from grace.' In other words, at what point, in your understanding is a person's name blotted out of the Book of Life?
God Bless,
-Robert _________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2004/11/15 11:23 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | [b]Logos and rhema: an excursus.[/b] In a sense I think the emphasis is that in logos it is the content of the word that is paramount; while in rhema it is the fact of the utterance. Vine says: "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e.g., Luke_7:7; 1_Cor_14:9,19; (b) a saying or statement,
1. by God, e.g., John_15:25; Rom_9:9; Rom_9:28, RV, "word" (AV, "work"); Gal_5:14; Heb_4:12; 2. by Christ, e.g., Matt_24:35 (plur.); John_2:22; John_4:41; John_14:23 (plur.); John_15:20. In connection with 1(1) and 1(2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i.e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ, 1_Thess_4:15; of the gospel, Acts_8:25; Acts_13:49; Acts_15:35,36; Acts_16:32; Acts_19:10; 1_Thess_1:8; 2_Thess_3:1; in this respect it is the message from the Lord, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power (cp. Acts_10:36); for other instances relating to the gospel see Acts_13:26; Acts_14:3; Acts_15:7; 1_Cor_1:18, RV; 2_Cor_2:17; 2_Cor_4:2; 2_Cor_5:19; 2_Cor_6:7; Gal_6:6; Eph_1:13; Php_2:16; Col_1:5; Heb_5:13; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, e.g., Mark_7:13; John_10:35; Rev_1:2,9; (c) discourse, speech, of instruction, etc., e.g., Acts_2:40; 1_Cor_2:13; 1_Cor_12:8; 2_Cor_1:18; 1_Thess_1:5; 2_Thess_2:15; Heb_6:1, RV, marg.; doctrine, e.g., Matt_13:20; Col_3:16; 1_Tim_4:6; 2_Tim_1:13; Titus_1:9; 1_John_2:7;
While for rhema he has: rhema denotes "that which is spoken, what is uttered in speech or writing;" in the singular, "a word," e.g., Matt_12:36; Matt_27:14; 2_Cor_12:4; 2_Cor_13:1; Heb_12:19; in the plural, speech, discourse, e.g., John_3:34; John_8:20; Acts_2:14; Acts_6:11,13; Acts_11:14; Acts_13:42; Acts_26:25; Rom_10:18; 2_Pet_3:2; Jude_1:17; it is used of the Gospel in Rom_10:8 (twice), Rom_10:17, RV, "the word of Christ" (i.e., the "word" which preaches Christ); Rom_10:18; 1_Pet_1:25 (twice); of a statement, command, instruction, e.g., Matt_26:75; Luke_1:37, RV, "(no) word (from God shall be void of power);" Luke_1:38; Acts_11:16; Heb_11:3. The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos) is exemplified in the injunction to take "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God," Eph_6:17; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture.
My hesitation to be more precise is partly due to the angle that word of faith preachers have taken on this with the creation of Rhema Churches. The danger here is that some claim that the plain counsels of the logos of God are not necessary commands (rhema) until God has spoken them afresh into a mans heart. This does not match [b] Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. [/b] (Jam 4:17 KJV)
Logos is that by which the inward thought is expressed, and the emphasis is upon the content. Whereas rhema is the utterance itself. I think logos is emphasising the fact that God has revealed His mind, whereas rhema is emphasising the fact that God has said it. Im not convinced that the words can sustain the distinguishing features used by Paul Chong and Kenneth Hagin.
Now was that merciful? :-P _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/11/15 11:52 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Quote:
Do you have a 'doctrinal position' or a rule of thumb for describing the state of a person who has 'fallen from grace.' In other words, at what point, in your understanding is a person's name blotted out of the Book of Life?
The Lord knoweth them that are His and I can't imagine why He would ever want to tell anyone else, especially me! ;-)
So the simple answer to the questions is 'no'. I do note that names are always removed from that book and never written into it. I have often pondered whether all names are in it at the start of human history but by its end they are definite omissions. _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/11/15 11:56 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
Im not convinced that the words can sustain the distinguishing features used by Paul Chong and Kenneth Hagin
I seem to recall in one of our first discourses comparing something you had said to Hagin. I suppose I have reaped this one. :-)
I certainly hope I'm not numbered with the transgressors. :-( I should stick with Paul's request for the Saints to Pray that utterance would be given him and just leave the whole rhema and logos thing alone. Like so many other things, any truth that might be there has been so blasphemed that you can't even use it.
God Bless,
-Robert
P.S. That was merciful enough. :-) _________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2004/11/15 12:10 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
I have often pondered whether all names are in it at the start of human history but by its end they are definite omissions.
So are names ommitted based upon the absense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It would seem that this one factor, in this dispensation at least ( oh did I have to say that :-( ), is of supreme importance.
And if we might wrap this thread up, I wonder if you might share with us your experience in shifting from believing that 'tongues' is the initial physical evidence of the second blessing to your current view and if you pray for people to be filled with this Spirit these days.
God Bless,
-Robert _________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2004/11/15 13:23 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Quote:
I seem to recall in one of our first discourses comparing something you had said to Hagin. I suppose I have reaped this one.
Can't even recall it! It must have been a very long time ago when we were both younger. 8-) _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/11/15 13:37 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Quote:
So are names ommitted based upon the absense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It would seem that this one factor, in this dispensation at least ( oh did I have to say that ), is of supreme importance.
I suppose I dont concentrate on this aspect of things very much. I long ago saw that no-one could say come to the front and get your name in the book of life and since then have just regarded the phrase as a way of speaking of Gods abiding faithfulness. What I mean is am I saved because my name is written there, or is it written there because I am saved?
[b]1. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.[/b] (Phi 4:3 KJV) What is the significance of this phrase? Just, I think, that God will not forget their labours. Their labours will follow them and nothing be forgotten. The idea of writing something down was to give it lasting consequence.
[2] He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. [/b] (Rev 3:5 KJV) This is more ominous but then all the blessings are for the overcomers in these verses. The implication is that those who do not overcome stand in danger of their name being removed from the names of Gods people.
[b]3. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [/b] (Rev 13:8 KJV) This is more difficult. Is this a Hebraic parallelism? (which would be very much at home in the Hebraic patterns of the Revelation) In other words, is it another way of saying the same thing but with a different emphasis? Again, are their names not there because they are worshippers of the beast which arises from the sea? Or are they worshippers of that beast because their names are not in the book? Im not trying to confuse, its just that the phrase seems to me to indicate permanency rather than any pre-destiny.
[b]4. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. [/b] (Rev 17:8 KJV) When time intersects with history we get things which our instinct wants to put into chronological order but may not be intended to give us a before and after pattern. History is already written, in the past tense, by the God who was and is and is to come.
I think all rewards will be dependent not upon the experiences that we had but upon our faithfulness to what God entrusted to us. In this sense I think those of the New Covenant will be held the more accountable than those of a previous era who did not have such privileges. There is a verse in the Proverbs which is often in my mind; [b] A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren. [/b] (Pro 17:2 KJV) I do not believe that sonship as described in the New Testament was available before Pentecost, but I see that there is a principle at work in this verse which makes it clear that we shall be held accountable for what we were given and how we acted in stewardship of that privilege. _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/11/15 14:29 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Quote:
So are names ommitted based upon the absense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It would seem that this one factor, in this dispensation at least ( oh did I have to say that ), is of supreme importance.
I suppose I dont concentrate on this aspect of things very much. I long ago saw that no-one could say come to the front and get your name in the book of life and since then have just regarded the phrase as a way of speaking of Gods abiding faithfulness. What I mean is am I saved because my name is written there, or is it written there because I am saved?
[b]1. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.[/b] (Phi 4:3 KJV) What is the significance of this phrase? Just, I think, that God will not forget their labours. Their labours will follow them and nothing be forgotten. The idea of writing something down was to give it lasting consequence.
[2] He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. [/b] (Rev 3:5 KJV) This is more ominous but then all the blessings are for the overcomers in these verses. The implication is that those who do not overcome stand in danger of their name being removed from the names of Gods people.
[b]3. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [/b] (Rev 13:8 KJV) This is more difficult. Is this a Hebraic parallelism? (which would be very much at home in the Hebraic patterns of the Revelation) In other words, is it another way of saying the same thing but with a different emphasis? Again, are their names not there because they are worshippers of the beast which arises from the sea? Or are they worshippers of that beast because their names are not in the book? Im not trying to confuse, its just that the phrase seems to me to indicate permanency rather than any pre-destiny.
[b]4. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. [/b] (Rev 17:8 KJV) When time intersects with history we get things which our instinct wants to put into chronological order but may not be intended to give us a before and after pattern. History is already written, in the past tense, by the God who was and is and is to come.
I think all rewards will be dependent not upon the experiences that we had but upon our faithfulness to what God entrusted to us. In this sense I think those of the New Covenant will be held the more accountable than those of a previous era who did not have such privileges. There is a verse in the Proverbs which is often in my mind; [b] A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren. [/b] (Pro 17:2 KJV) I do not believe that sonship as described in the New Testament was available before Pentecost, but I see that there is a principle at work in this verse which makes it clear that we shall be held accountable for what we were given and how we acted in stewardship of that privilege. _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2004/11/15 14:29 | Profile |
|