Results 1 - 20 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Not Specified | Brent Douglass | 2106 | ||
Is the command to "LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH" in Mark 12:29-34 and elsewhere something that we, as Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit can attain with God's enablement in this life, or is this merely an impossible command designed to humble us in our sinfulness? | ||||||
2 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Not Specified | Brent Douglass | 2107 | ||
'So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ""Receive the Holy Spirit.' John 20:21-22 Did Jesus first give the Holy Spirit here in John 20:22, or over a month later at Pentecost? If not until Pentecost, what exactly did Jesus do when he breathed on his followers after his resurrection and told them to receive his Spirit? If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost? |
||||||
3 | Can fallen angels repent? | Not Specified | Brent Douglass | 4858 | ||
What passages in the Scriptures give clear indication as to whether or not any fallen angels are capable of repentance? It seems fairly obvious to me that they can not repent, but I'm confident that the Bible speaks more clearly on this than my "confidence" does? What do the Scriptures say on this? | ||||||
4 | Father and Son's relationship to E.O.? | Not Specified | Brent Douglass | 7555 | ||
How do the Father and the Son relate to each other? I don't wish to open up a discussion on whether the Trinity is accurate. My question begins with the assumption that it is true that God has one essence but 3 persons in relationship. Nor is this question related to the relationships between the Father and the Spirit or the Spirit and the Son (or even how the 3 relate together synergistically); I'd like to ask those questions separately later (as part of a further study along the same lines) and focus on the Father and Son now. My questions are, 1) "What are some of the many passages that describe the ways that the Father and the Son relate to one another?" and 2) "What can we learn about God from these passages?" Please give verses and observations. |
||||||
5 | Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 267 | ||
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. | ||||||
6 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 268 | ||
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. | ||||||
7 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 274 | ||
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). | ||||||
8 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 663 | ||
This is a difficult question to answer because it's hard to determine exactly what you're suggesting and what prompted the suggestion. Is this a reaction or response to something that was said on the list, or simply a general suggestion that we should not take the Bible too literally or too seriously in judging the merit of theological "truths"? If this is a reaction to someone dismissing a biblically orthodox view based on their interpretations, I would agree that we should practice humility in recognizing our fallibility (as well as that of Calvin, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, etc.). However, if you're suggesting that (in the name of tolerance and good will) we ignore contrary arguments or retreat from using Biblical texts to test someone's theological claims, I think you're way off base. When (you or) I find that my (or my most respected theologian's) understanding disagrees with God, I need to have the humility to acknowledge that He is infallible (and therefore correct) and that we are fallible (and therefore wrong). Likewise, if you and I agree to usurp the authority of Scripture and place our own sensibilities over those of the Scriptures, we have rejected the only authoritative source by which to test doctrine. We become "like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind" and simply go after the doctrines that "tickle our ears" most. This is anathema to the discovery of Truth; this would be futile and foolish. | ||||||
9 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 664 | ||
On this same topic, I also noticed after finishing my message that you were quoting from John 17:17-20 "that they may be one" as the reasoning behind looking for the "Lowest Common Denominator". This passage also clearly sets God's word as the means by which we, as Christians, are set apart ("sanctified") to be separate from the world but united to each other in the same kind of agreement that the Father and the Son share. I assume that you meant to include the complete and final authority of Scripture within your view of this agreed-upon "lowest common denominator". If not, the unity of his people for which our Lord so yearned (and yearns) is simply mocked and twisted rather than pursued. With the Scriptures as our starting place, we have a basis upon which to pursue the commonly held faith that binds all mature Christians (and any truly "Christian" congregation or denomination)in unified faith. This agreement often proves elusive, but it is surely Biblical and desirable to pursue it. | ||||||
10 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 673 | ||
There is room for a wide range of interpretation on what is meant by the "sovereignty" of God -- particularly in the realm of the degree in which he chooses to exercise his power and authority; many great theologians more learned than I am have traced doctrines throughout the Scriptures on this, but I would like to make a few observations from Romans 8 and 9 that do much to resolve this without delving too deeply into the fray. First of all, Romans 8:28-30 declares that we can be confident of God overseeing all (as an entire synergistic whole) that enters the life of each one who loves him to his or her good. He specifically confirms that this is "because" he first foreknew those who would love him then predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son. It is this predestination (to conformity to Christ) of those whom he foreknew that he uses to sovereignly direct the overall entirety of what comes into our lives. In addition, those whom God thus predestines, he then calls, then justifies, then finally glorifies. Another sense in which we see God exercising his sovereignty is in his endurance of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" as in Romans 9:22. One solid interpretation (among others) is that God knows that their end is destruction prior to their (or any of their ancestors') creation but(contrary to the human wisdom of many parents who exercise their power to terminate the life of an unwanted or imperfect pregnancy, or who might if they knew in advance that the child would be a criminal) God does not choose to exercise his sovereignty by refusing their existence. He allows them to be made, live, rebel, blaspheme any and all loving conviction of his Spirit, and finally go on to the "destruction" that they will and do thus bring upon themselves. These examples of God's exercise of his divine sovereignty give partial indication of both his attitude toward evil (something to be temporarily endured and then destroyed) and his deliberate limitation of its ability to prevent the spiritual growth of his children. There is much more to say, but this is already a long posting. |
||||||
11 | AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 681 | ||
To my knowledge, there is no command that a certain age be considered the age at which someone is held accountable for his or her sin. The only place I know of where God divided by age and punished by age was in Numbers (14:28-30 and 32:10-12), after the spies brought back an evil report and the people violently rejected the faithful report of Joshua and Caleb. All men 20 years old and older, except for Joshua and Caleb who had been faithful, were condemned to perish in the wilderness and forbidden from entering God's rest. I know of no precedent after this, however, for setting this up as some kind of legal age of accountability before or after the time of Israel's rebellion in the desert. | ||||||
12 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1021 | ||
So far as I know, there is no explicit age given at which all children have developed the ability (and, therefore, must be held fully responsible) to choose between right and wrong. However, Isaiah's prophecy about the virgin birth contains a reference to a time "before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good" -- which indicates there is some point at which the person reaches this "knowledge". The age of 20 years old chosen by God is surely higher than this for most if not all people, and (as pointed out by JVH0212) there is Jewish tradition that treats the age of 13 as a special kind of ascent into responsibility under the law. Neither of these has the authority of a Scriptural command or universal precedent at setting that age. However, God has placed us under ruling authorities, such as governments (see Romans 13:1f and 1 Peter 2:12ff). Governments typically have standard ages of permission and responsibility, which are applied to their subjects; we are under their jurisdiction here. Finally, while parents are responsible for training up children, God does not judge them for the iniquity of their children. The clearest explanation of this is in Ezekiel 18, and I suggest reading the entire chapter. If being a good parent guaranteed faithful children, then God's children would never have rebelled, rjected him and fallen in the first place. God is our perfect example as a parent; yet he has many wayward children. Furthermore, the majority part of humanity has has gone so far as to reject his fatherhood altogether. |
||||||
13 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1342 | ||
Romans 8:29ff gives a clear sequence of conditions and actions on God's behalf toward those who love him (see Romans 8:28). This sequence begins clearly with some kind of foreknowledge and then progresses through predestination (that we be conformed to Christ), calling, justification and finally glorification. I have never known of anyone to question the sequence here of all the others (predestination then calling then justification then glorification). However, some force foreknowledge to somehow be assigned a secondary sequence to predestination (something like "He simply knew that he had predestined us.") This seems a very forced reading of the text, as opposed to the clear natural reading of sequence from start to finish. Nevertheless, this passage does NOT indicate exactly what he foreknew about us (just as the passages on predestination do NOT mention faith), and Ephesians 1 (along with various other passages) clearly indicates that predestination (to various things, but not necessarily to belief itself) happened "before the foundation of the world". Therefore, all of this (along with the decision for the Son to sacrifice himself for us) took place in the mind of the Father prior to Adam's existence. One view, attributed to Jacob Arminius (whether this is fully accurate or not) in his questioning of the full accuracy of Calvin's (and moreso Beza's) statements that "there was nothing foreknown prior to predestinating us" is that God foreknew OUR RESPONSE OF FAITH. This is a possible explanation, but seems at odds with the most obvious reading of Ephesians 2:8-9 -- that faith itself is a gift of God (one way of interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9). I lean somewhat toward this view, but I'm not clear whether the gift of the salvation process (of Ephesians 2:8-9) INCLUDES the gift of faith or simply uses faith as the avenue "through" which salvation is given. On the basis of the unforgiveable sin being "blasphemy against the Spirit" -- I would question whether the Spirit chooses to act in an irrestible manner, as the Council of Dort (perhaps more accurately rendered the "Inquisition" of Dort?) suggested. I would argue that there is a point at which a person's heart must be broken by the persistent conviction of the Holy Spirit, and that God works faith in the heart of the one who is thus broken. God knows whether a person's heart is so deeply arrogant (I can't say rebellious, as all of us were at one time completely rebellious against God until after he broke our hearts through his loving conviction) that he or she will finally reject him from any further conviction and completely by his persisten initiation -- veritably slamming the door in the Spirit's face once and for all. I would welcome any input on this, as any understanding must be tested against the Scripture and God's Word (rather than current understanding) be given precedence. This is already long, but I feel the need for a little more elaboration, so that responders and reactors can understand me as fully as possible before offering questions or challenges. I believe the primary sacrifice that we can offer to God at any time is a kind of imperfect "humility" or "poverty of Spirit" (for lack of other Scriptural phrases that immediately come to mind) -- without which no one will ever see the kingdom of heaven. Even grace, it seems, can be affected by humility versus pride. "For God is opposed to the proud but gives GRACE to the humble [emphasis mine]." |
||||||
14 | where do blacks come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1343 | ||
We are all descended from Noah and his sons, at least on the male side. We don't know the skin color of Noah, his wife, his sons or his sons' wives. The Bible is loudly silent with regard to any importance whatsoever being placed upon general skin color. (The only references that I'm aware of deal with leprosy or other skin conditions, not the skin's natural melanin content.) The only divisions (so far as I know) that God touches on (other than gender, which is related to completion, fellowship and procreation) in the Scriptures are related to language, genealogy, and beliefs -- with no general distinctions made based on skin color. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity requires a loving transcendence even of these distinctions -- EXCEPT BELIEF. Faith alone determines our salvation and joint (not individual) adoption into Christ's family as his brothers, sisters and heirs. There are brothers and sisters "from every tongue and tribe and nation" worshipping eternally at the throne of God. |
||||||
15 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1445 | ||
I don't have any problem with your explanation of the "Biblical" meaning of the word knowledge, but it doesn't change the idea that foreknowledge came BEFORE predestination; it seems merely to divert and avoid the question. There is no one whom God does not have intimate and complete knowledge about, yet there is something (for lack of a better word) that drew God to specific people that AFFECTED God's decision to predestine us. We know from other places in Scripture that there is nothing that makes us "worthy" of his choosing (or even somehow less "unworthy" than others). Yet there is something. The question is, "What is it that God foreknew?" My understanding is that Arminius thought it to be some kind of openness to faith. It seems to me that it is more a final openness (when pressed to the wall) to the Spirit's persistent conviction of sinfulness and a resulting inner hunger and desperation for salvation. I'm not sure that this is fully accurate; nevertheless, there appears to be something that God foreknew (rather than fore-ordained) in us that came prior to his predestining us. I appreciate your study on one of the meanings used for "knowledge" in the Bible. However, your additional comments make it sound like you're trying to treat "foreknowledge" and "predestination" as virtually synonymous; I can only assume this is being done in order to avoid the idea of anything coming prior to predestination. This seems to me the equivalent of saying that Paul really meant to say, "For those whom he predestined he also predestined...; and those whom he predestined he also...." I understand that Christ himself and Paul both sometimes repeated phrases for stress. It seems bizarre, however, that he would give a deliberate sequence like, "God A'ed, then A'ed, then B'ed, then C'ed, then...." ;-) I'm confident that this is not really what you meant to suggest, but could you elaborate? |
||||||
16 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1463 | ||
I don't feel disrespected by your reply at all. I hope mine didn't seem disrespectful to you. Argumentation through writing without "knowledge" of each other can certainly come across as bickering or condescending, and I have no desire (or position of authority, for that matter, if the desire were there) to treat you in that way. It's simply that your expanded definition of "foreknowledge" seems cyclical w/ predestination. In other words, it sounds like your suggesting that God chose (elected, selected, predestined) to foreknow some (rather than others), then predestined them further. It seems that you've basically added a new "predestined" at the beginning of the sequence. As a side note (I hope), perhaps I'm misunderstanding your perception of predestination. Are you assuming that all are predestined to conformity to Christ and that all are, therefore, foreknown? This creates significant other problems, but resolves this particular concern. However, based on what I've seen of what you've written, I doubt this is your view. I think I understand your concept of God having a certain kind of pre-existing relationship with some that he did not have with others. However, we (like all others) were at enmity with God before (and even after) he predestined us -- right up until the time of belief. Ephesians 1-2 is one of the passages that clearly indicates how our condition before God was radically and completely changed at the time of conversion. We did not have this intimate relationship with Him until that time. I'm not sure where you would be going in indicating some kind of previous level of closeness (unshared by others) prior to conception that somehow changed once we took on flesh then returned at our conversion. Can you clarify? |
||||||
17 | what were the 7 Messianic signs | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1465 | ||
Do the Scriptures clearly indicate somewhere that there were precisely 7 Messianic signs or miracles that only the Messiah could fulfill? This is the first I've heard of such a Biblical prophecy of 7 signs, but I'm interested in hearing what Bible passage you may be referring to. The only reference to 7 signs I'm aware of was a movie called, "The Seventh Sign," which I was unfortunate enough to see a few years ago. That movie had virtually nothing to do with the Scriptures. Please tell me this isn't what you're referring to. |
||||||
18 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1991 | ||
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB) Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time. Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy. It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV. 1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,... 2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,... 3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,... Thanks for your patience. |
||||||
19 | How can we assist our youth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2092 | ||
Any congregation (and any denomination) needs to assess its priorities. I was strongly impressed by a recent newsletter I received from a cross-cultural missionary whose team is looking into their recruitment strategies, since these will limit or extend the kinds of people they will attract and minister to. I believe it's important for the church as a whole not to target certain groups and leave others out. Although it's natural to build larger programs for groups with wider representation within the congregation (responding to present needs), this can neglect the importance of outreach, proclamation and disciptleship of those whom God brings to us. The natural progression of such mere reaction to present needs is an ingrown church that declines after the present generation. |
||||||
20 | What unmarried sexual acts are sinful? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2377 | ||
"... but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). Of course there is forgiveness for the person who has already foolishly done this and repentantly comes to God seeking transformation (1 Jn 1:9); You (like myself or any other repentant sinner who comes humbly to Christ in confession and repentance) are currently purified from past sins. However, this is never an excuse for deliberately moving away from God by going down the road of chosen disobedience and pursuit of temptation (Gal 5:13). God gives grace to deliver us from naturally occurring temptations, but this includes waiting expectantly for the way of escape and taking it as soon as it becomes available (1 Cor 10:13). The best route is always to avoid temptation. There is no simple set of rules of conduct as to what is safe and what is not. The effect on the conscience and the pusuit of the excitement of temptation is not identical for everyone, and it's easy to rationalize away the sins that others can't see. Based on reports of my own and others' personal experience, I'm convinced that it is specifically the stimulation of this "sexual enticement and excitement" (either in oneself or in one's partner) that makes most (physical or fantasized) out-of-wedlock sexual contact attractive. As an additional note, seeking to stimulate urges in another is no less sinful than doing it in oneself. "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." (Luke 17:1-3). This passage also assumes close enough relationships with brothers as to allow accountability; this is a big help in such situations. Be careful to seek counsel from people with holy and repentant lives and not to look for counsel that merely affirms the decisions you are considering; this is not a natural thing to do when facing appealing temptations. Take heart. Holiness is a blessing, not a curse, and God has provided access to all you need for long-term and lasting victory. " No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |