Comments for Blogging the Bible http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog Pastors Candie Blankman and Alfredo Delgado lead our one-year journey through the Bible. Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:47:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Day 317: Hebrews 1-4 by PAStor Candie http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/08/12/day-317-hebrews-1-4/comment-page-1/#comment-34 PAStor Candie Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:47:14 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/?p=282#comment-34 Paul says it si for "edification" of the individual. Edify is from the Greek word oikodome. Oiko is "house." Oikodome is interpreted "to build." The idea is that some thing we do as believers builds our own faith. Other things build the house of the faith--believers as a group. In 1 Cor. 14 Paul urges that we seek to excercise gifts that buildup the whole church. But he does not condemn or prohibit the other. Verse four clearly says that the purpose of uninterpreted tongues is self edifyig. Then in vs 17 and 18 Paul says he does it more than anyone! But that it does nothing for the building up of the church. He also says in 17 and 18 that a person speaking in tongues privately can be "giving thanks." The primary argument among biblical scholars is whether or not this phenomena of speaking in tongues (and the other miraculous gifts) was peculiar to the early church as a validation of the Holy Spirit being newly poured out on God's people, or is still a gift given to believers today. Paul says it si for “edification” of the individual. Edify is from the Greek word oikodome. Oiko is “house.” Oikodome is interpreted “to build.” The idea is that some thing we do as believers builds our own faith. Other things build the house of the faith–believers as a group. In 1 Cor. 14 Paul urges that we seek to excercise gifts that buildup the whole church. But he does not condemn or prohibit the other. Verse four clearly says that the purpose of uninterpreted tongues is self edifyig. Then in vs 17 and 18 Paul says he does it more than anyone! But that it does nothing for the building up of the church. He also says in 17 and 18 that a person speaking in tongues privately can be “giving thanks.” The primary argument among biblical scholars is whether or not this phenomena of speaking in tongues (and the other miraculous gifts) was peculiar to the early church as a validation of the Holy Spirit being newly poured out on God’s people, or is still a gift given to believers today.

]]> Comment on Day 317: Hebrews 1-4 by PAStor Candie http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/08/12/day-317-hebrews-1-4/comment-page-1/#comment-33 PAStor Candie Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:31:37 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/?p=282#comment-33 1Corinthians 14:1-33 gives a fairly extensive description of the difference between spiritual gifts that edify the church (public) and ones that only edify the individual (private). Paul makes it pretty clear that we are to seek to exercise gifts that edify the body--love especially and prophecy (forth telling, not foretelling). But Paul does make reference in this chapter to tongues that builds up the individual (vs. 4). This is the biblical reference that those who advocate for current day personal exercise of these spiritual gifts. 1Corinthians 14:1-33 gives a fairly extensive description of the difference between spiritual gifts that edify the church (public) and ones that only edify the individual (private). Paul makes it pretty clear that we are to seek to exercise gifts that edify the body–love especially and prophecy (forth telling, not foretelling). But Paul does make reference in this chapter to tongues that builds up the individual (vs. 4). This is the biblical reference that those who advocate for current day personal exercise of these spiritual gifts.

]]> Comment on Day 317: Hebrews 1-4 by Dwing26 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/08/12/day-317-hebrews-1-4/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Dwing26 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:43:21 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/?p=282#comment-32 Question from an entry way back when. Entry: Day 286 1 Corinthians 13-16. Quote, "This means that they they do not believe any one spiritual gift is necessary for faithful living but that the Spirit of God does still give these gifts at different times for personal edification and for building up the body. The majority practice these gifts quietly and privately for personal edification and they can be found in almost every church and denomination." What examples are there of personal edification via spiritual gifts in the Bible? I can not recall every example but most of the time a spiritual gift seems to be present in the Bible it is in public and the credit for the gift is given to God. What would exercising a spiritual gift in private accomplish? David Yusten Question from an entry way back when.

Entry: Day 286 1 Corinthians 13-16.

Quote,

“This means that they they do not believe any one spiritual gift is necessary for faithful living but that the Spirit of God does still give these gifts at different times for personal edification and for building up the body. The majority practice these gifts quietly and privately for personal edification and they can be found in almost every church and denomination.”

What examples are there of personal edification via spiritual gifts in the Bible?

I can not recall every example but most of the time a spiritual gift seems to be present in the Bible it is in public and the credit for the gift is given to God. What would exercising a spiritual gift in private accomplish?

David Yusten

]]> Comment on Day 223: Jeremiah 49-52 by PAStor Candie http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/12/day-223-jeremiah-49-52/comment-page-1/#comment-26 PAStor Candie Wed, 14 May 2008 22:49:46 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/12/day-223-jeremiah-49-52/#comment-26 1. Jesus is the "divider" in the sense that his claims require each person to make a decision. There is no "neutral" with Jesus. You cannot respond to him as simply a "good teacher." He claimed to be God! A person either believes this and follows him. Or, a person is unable to believe and so does not follow Christ. This means two people--friends, co-workers, couples, parent-child--can make different decisions and end up "divided" over Christ. The bible also calls Jesus the "stumbling stone" and "rock of offense" because he forces a person to make a decision about his claims and this can lead to messing up the other relationships in a persons life. 2. The "must hate" in this context appears to be the opposite of John's teaching in 1 John 4:20 that says you "must love" your brother if you love God. Context is what is at issue and use of different types of speech. In the gospels Jesus is using hyperbole (exaggeration) and a form of comparative speech. The meaning is clearly, that unless a person is so devoted to Christ that IN COMPARISON it is as if they hate their mother, father, sister and brother, they will not be able to follow Christ. Those relationships will get in the way. The use of love and hate are comparative not declarative. If Christ is not the center of our devotion we will constantly be drawn off track in following him. This is an issue of what the anchor is of our life--Christ or others? In 1 John the issue is not comparative devotion but living out the love of God (who we cannot see) with the people in our lives (who we can see). It is an application of faith issue and love of God is tested by love of people. 3. So comparatively, when we love Christ more than any other person (he is our anchor and orders all the other parts of our lives) then we will live out his teaching (follow him) which will result in loving those around us with the same kind of love that Christ has loved us which seeks the welfare of the other even above our own welfare (Phil 2). 1. Jesus is the “divider” in the sense that his claims require each person to make a decision. There is no “neutral” with Jesus. You cannot respond to him as simply a “good teacher.” He claimed to be God! A person either believes this and follows him. Or, a person is unable to believe and so does not follow Christ. This means two people–friends, co-workers, couples, parent-child–can make different decisions and end up “divided” over Christ. The bible also calls Jesus the “stumbling stone” and “rock of offense” because he forces a person to make a decision about his claims and this can lead to messing up the other relationships in a persons life.
2. The “must hate” in this context appears to be the opposite of John’s teaching in 1 John 4:20 that says you “must love” your brother if you love God. Context is what is at issue and use of different types of speech. In the gospels Jesus is using hyperbole (exaggeration) and a form of comparative speech. The meaning is clearly, that unless a person is so devoted to Christ that IN COMPARISON it is as if they hate their mother, father, sister and brother, they will not be able to follow Christ. Those relationships will get in the way. The use of love and hate are comparative not declarative. If Christ is not the center of our devotion we will constantly be drawn off track in following him. This is an issue of what the anchor is of our life–Christ or others? In 1 John the issue is not comparative devotion but living out the love of God (who we cannot see) with the people in our lives (who we can see). It is an application of faith issue and love of God is tested by love of people.
3. So comparatively, when we love Christ more than any other person (he is our anchor and orders all the other parts of our lives) then we will live out his teaching (follow him) which will result in loving those around us with the same kind of love that Christ has loved us which seeks the welfare of the other even above our own welfare (Phil 2).

]]> Comment on Day 223: Jeremiah 49-52 by PAStor Candie http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/12/day-223-jeremiah-49-52/comment-page-1/#comment-27 PAStor Candie Wed, 14 May 2008 22:49:45 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/12/day-223-jeremiah-49-52/#comment-27 1. Jesus is the "divider" in the sense that his claims require each person to make a decision. There is no "neutral" with Jesus. You cannot respond to him as simply a "good teacher." He claimed to be God! A person either believes this and follows him. Or, a person is unable to believe and so does not follow Christ. This means two people--friends, co-workers, couples, parent-child--can make different decisions and end up "divided" over Christ. The bible also calls Jesus the "stumbling stone" and "rock of offense" because he forces a person to make a decision about his claims and this can lead to messing up the other relationships in a persons life. 2. The "must hate" in this context appears to be the opposite of John's teaching in 1 John 4:20 that says you "must love" your brother if you love God. Context is what is at issue and use of different types of speech. In the gospels Jesus is using hyperbole (exaggeration) and a form of comparative speech. The meaning is clearly, that unless a person is so devoted to Christ that IN COMPARISON it is as if they hate their mother, father, sister and brother, they will not be able to follow Christ. Those relationships will get in the way. The use of love and hate are comparative not declarative. If Christ is not the center of our devotion we will constantly be drawn off track in following him. This is an issue of what the anchor is of our life--Christ or others? In 1 John the issue is not comparative devotion but living out the love of God (who we cannot see) with the people in our lives (who we can see). It is an application of faith issue and love of God is tested by love of people. 3. So comparatively, when we love Christ more than any other person (he is our anchor and orders all the other parts of our lives) then we will live out his teaching (follow him) which will result in loving those around us with the same kind of love that Christ has loved us which seeks the welfare of the other even above our own welfare (Phil 2). 1. Jesus is the “divider” in the sense that his claims require each person to make a decision. There is no “neutral” with Jesus. You cannot respond to him as simply a “good teacher.” He claimed to be God! A person either believes this and follows him. Or, a person is unable to believe and so does not follow Christ. This means two people–friends, co-workers, couples, parent-child–can make different decisions and end up “divided” over Christ. The bible also calls Jesus the “stumbling stone” and “rock of offense” because he forces a person to make a decision about his claims and this can lead to messing up the other relationships in a persons life.
2. The “must hate” in this context appears to be the opposite of John’s teaching in 1 John 4:20 that says you “must love” your brother if you love God. Context is what is at issue and use of different types of speech. In the gospels Jesus is using hyperbole (exaggeration) and a form of comparative speech. The meaning is clearly, that unless a person is so devoted to Christ that IN COMPARISON it is as if they hate their mother, father, sister and brother, they will not be able to follow Christ. Those relationships will get in the way. The use of love and hate are comparative not declarative. If Christ is not the center of our devotion we will constantly be drawn off track in following him. This is an issue of what the anchor is of our life–Christ or others? In 1 John the issue is not comparative devotion but living out the love of God (who we cannot see) with the people in our lives (who we can see). It is an application of faith issue and love of God is tested by love of people.
3. So comparatively, when we love Christ more than any other person (he is our anchor and orders all the other parts of our lives) then we will live out his teaching (follow him) which will result in loving those around us with the same kind of love that Christ has loved us which seeks the welfare of the other even above our own welfare (Phil 2).

]]> Comment on Day 223: Jeremiah 49-52 by Dwing26 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/12/day-223-jeremiah-49-52/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Dwing26 Wed, 14 May 2008 21:40:51 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/12/day-223-jeremiah-49-52/#comment-25 Hello, This is in regards to the book of Luke. There I some statements made that I would like further information on. 1. Jesus states on some point in this book that he is the divider. 2. What does Jesus mean when he says that a person must (I think I have the right word here in my translation) hate his family, even his own life, and follow him? (Last part of that quote may not be exact.) 3. Considering statements #1 and #2, why then does Jesus tell a person he was talking to that he should love his neighbors? Thank you. Dave Hello,

This is in regards to the book of Luke. There I some statements made that I would like further information on.

1. Jesus states on some point in this book that he is the divider.

2. What does Jesus mean when he says that a person must (I think I have the right word here in my translation) hate his family, even his own life, and follow him? (Last part of that quote may not be exact.)

3. Considering statements #1 and #2, why then does Jesus tell a person he was talking to that he should love his neighbors?

Thank you.

Dave

]]> Comment on Day 217: Jeremiah 31-33 by DMCM Alfredo http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/05/day-217-jeremiah-31-33/comment-page-1/#comment-22 DMCM Alfredo Tue, 06 May 2008 21:43:49 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/05/day-217-jeremiah-31-33/#comment-22 Thank you for your good question! First of all when Jeremiah got his call from God, he was appointed not to say what he wanted to say, but what God actually tell him to say (Jeremiah 1:4-10) also almost all the Prophets were accused of betraying his people when they were denouncing their country sins and predicting punishment from God. Take for instance the confrontation between King Ahab and the prophet Elijah, when Ahab met Elijah he says:" It is you, you troubler of Israel?"(1 Kings 18:17) The other thing that you might have to consider is that according to human standards the powerful nations seems to do whatever they please, but according to divine purposes they are only "tools" in God's hands (Isaiah 36:11-21; 37:21-35) Yes the Babylonians treated Jeremiah fairly well, and in their own view he was their ally, but according to God purposes they just were fulfilling God's promise of protection for him (Jeremiah 1:19;15:21 etc) Jeremiah definitely told the Judeans not to go to Egypt by direct command of God, but we have to remember that Jeremiah and Baruch were taken to Egypt, not that they decided to go by their own will.(Jeremiah 43:4-7)Therefore I do not think that he disobeyed God, but instead he was forced to go to Egypt and actually the first thing that he does when he arrived there is prophesied against their disobedient decision to go to Egypt(43:8-12) Thank you for your good question! First of all when Jeremiah got his call from God, he was appointed not to say what he wanted to say, but what God actually tell him to say (Jeremiah 1:4-10) also almost all the Prophets were accused of betraying his people when they were denouncing their country sins and predicting punishment from God. Take for instance the confrontation between King Ahab and the prophet Elijah, when Ahab met Elijah he says:” It is you, you troubler of Israel?”(1 Kings 18:17) The other thing that you might have to consider is that according to human standards the powerful nations seems to do whatever they please, but according to divine purposes they are only “tools” in God’s hands (Isaiah 36:11-21; 37:21-35)

Yes the Babylonians treated Jeremiah fairly well, and in their own view he was their ally, but according to God purposes they just were fulfilling God’s promise of protection for him (Jeremiah 1:19;15:21 etc) Jeremiah definitely told the Judeans not to go to Egypt by direct command of God, but we have to remember that Jeremiah and Baruch were taken to Egypt, not that they decided to go by their own will.(Jeremiah 43:4-7)Therefore I do not think that he disobeyed God, but instead he was forced to go to Egypt and actually the first thing that he does when he arrived there is prophesied against their disobedient decision to go to Egypt(43:8-12)

]]> Comment on Day 217: Jeremiah 31-33 by Dwing26 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/05/day-217-jeremiah-31-33/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Dwing26 Tue, 06 May 2008 15:24:19 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/05/05/day-217-jeremiah-31-33/#comment-20 Hello, This might be getting ahead of the “Blog” a little bit but I have a question regarding Jeremiah. How do we know that Jeremiah was not simply a Babylonian sympathizer? It would be easy to predict that Babylon, one of the stronger rising military powers, would turn it’s eyes on a fairly well off country like Judah. Also, it seems that Jeremiah was treated fairly well and was well known by the officers and officials of the Babylonian forces. Also, after the fall of Jerusalem and the assassination of the puppet king set up by the Babylonians in Jerusalem, the people went to Jeremiah and asked him what God said they should do. Jeremiah told them that the Lord said not go into Egypt. They did not listen to Jeremiah and went to settle in Egypt as refugees. It seems that Jeremiah went along with them as well (indicated when he buried the clay pot) even though he knew what God said about that situation and the judgment on those people who did go to Egypt. Why would Jeremiah go into Egypt knowing God’s word against that very action? Jeremiah’s actions seem to go against his (God’s) words? David Yusten Hello,

This might be getting ahead of the “Blog” a little bit but I have a question regarding Jeremiah. How do we know that Jeremiah was not simply a Babylonian sympathizer? It would be easy to predict that Babylon, one of the stronger rising military powers, would turn it’s eyes on a fairly well off country like Judah. Also, it seems that Jeremiah was treated fairly well and was well known by the officers and officials of the Babylonian forces.

Also, after the fall of Jerusalem and the assassination of the puppet king set up by the Babylonians in Jerusalem, the people went to Jeremiah and asked him what God said they should do. Jeremiah told them that the Lord said not go into Egypt. They did not listen to Jeremiah and went to settle in Egypt as refugees. It seems that Jeremiah went along with them as well (indicated when he buried the clay pot) even though he knew what God said about that situation and the judgment on those people who did go to Egypt. Why would Jeremiah go into Egypt knowing God’s word against that very action? Jeremiah’s actions seem to go against his (God’s) words?

David Yusten

]]> Comment on Day 205: Mark 9-11 and Psalms 15-16 by Dwing26 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/04/22/day-205-mark-9-11-and-psalms-15-16/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Dwing26 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:47:11 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/04/22/day-205-mark-9-11-and-psalms-15-16/#comment-18 Here is my question. Of the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who are the authors, or who has the best case for being the author. I also read someplace that one of the four books was written based upon the other books so that it is not an independent work. Thanks again. David Yusten Here is my question.

Of the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who are the authors, or who has the best case for being the author. I also read someplace that one of the four books was written based upon the other books so that it is not an independent work.

Thanks again.

David Yusten

]]> Comment on Day 101 – 2 Kings 1-3 by Dwing26 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/01/09/day-101-2-kings-1-3/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Dwing26 Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:30:12 +0000 http://fpcdowney.com/pastorsblog/2008/01/09/day-101-2-kings-1-3/#comment-16 I think this question is a little late in coming but here it is anyway. I am confused about the "splitting" of the kingdom of Isreal following the reign of King David. There seem to be two separate kingdoms for which are provided lines of rulership, Isreal and Judah. Did Judah split from Isreal? Weren't they all part of the original kingdom of Isreal? Aren't the rulers in both kingdoms from the house of David? Thanks again for your help.. David Yusten I think this question is a little late in coming but here it is anyway.

I am confused about the “splitting” of the kingdom of Isreal following the reign of King David. There seem to be two separate kingdoms for which are provided lines of rulership, Isreal and Judah. Did Judah split from Isreal? Weren’t they all part of the original kingdom of Isreal? Aren’t the rulers in both kingdoms from the house of David?

Thanks again for your help..

David Yusten

]]>