Results 1 - 18 of 18
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | should not enter into his rest | Heb 3:18 | RWC | 233542 | ||
see Nu. 14:23,28-30; De. 1:34-35; Psalm 95:7-11. These are the ones being used as the example - the foreshadowing - to avoid. The Promised Land of Israel is not the greater reality. The new Heaven and new Earth is the greater reality. We all need to make sure that we are not forbidden from entering *that* resting place because of disobedience *to the Gospel,* not because of our disobedience to the Law. Live ready! |
||||||
2 | Believing but Falling Away? | Heb 3:12 | RWC | 233540 | ||
How is it possible to ever 'fall away from the Living God"? That is a difficult question because it gets complicated by all kinds of assumptions and complications. Let's begin at the beginning: did Adam and Eve 'fall away' from God? Yes, I think that is a fair description. They had a direct and personal relationship with God that none of us can understand. And they knowingly broke that relationship through direct and willful disobedience. Yes, they fell away from God and were literally kicked out of the Garden and later died physically as a result of that falling away. But had they fallen away from an 'eternal life' relationship with God? That's a different thing. Fast forward to the Exodus: the Hebrews did not really know too much about God at this point. But by the time they left Egypt, they had more than enough knowledge about Him to know that *He* was in charge and that He was taking charge over them to make them His people, His Nation, His testimony among the nations (people groups) of the world. They were not entirely happy with everything that this would mean, and they rebelled... repeatedly! Did they 'fall away' from God? Yes, again that seems like fair description. But, again, had they (even Moses and Aaron) fallen away from an 'eternal life' relationship with God? That seems like something very different. And now we fast forward to the world of the early church when Christ has come, has died, has been buried, resurrected, and ascended to the place where He is now sitting at the right hand of God the Father (He. 1:3), and where the Gospel (the good news) of God's incredible grace and mercy (He. 4:16) is being preached to people, beginning with the Jews (Hebrews) first. Are there those who are falling away from God? Well, first of all, there are those who are Hebrews that are rejecting the gospel. Are they falling away from God? That would seem to be an apt description comparable in many ways to the 'falling away' of both the first humans and the million or more people that fell dead in the wilderness over the 40 years of wandering. They have considerable knowledge of God but still reject the gospel. But are they falling from an 'eternal life' relationship? That is a different thing, I think. It is, I think, possible for people to fall away from particular kinds of relationships with God; the kinds of relationships that are of an earthly and non-eternal nature. And there are consequences for doing so, sometimes very serious consequences. But those consequences are not necessarily eternal. The rebelliousness of even Aaron and Moses eventually cost them their life and the privilege of entering the Promised Land. But that does not mean that it cost them their 'eternal life' relationship with God. In much the same way, it is also true that those who *seem* to have an 'eternal life' relationship with God through faith in Jesus may not, in fact, *actually* have such a relationship. Sometimes the reality of the lack of an 'eternal life' relationship becomes apparent in this life (He. 3:14). Sometimes, the reality of the lack of such a relationship does not become apparent until the judgement (Mt. 7:21-23 - one of the most terrifying passages in the whole of scripture!). |
||||||
3 | Hebrews 3:1-6 | Heb 3:1 | RWC | 233531 | ||
We consider (NASB, ESV) or fix our thoughts on (NIV) Jesus by: 1) the mental/intellectual exercises of asking *and then answering* questions that have to do with a) who Jesus is, and b) what Jesus has done, and then; 2) the mental/intellectual and ultimately *behavioral* exercises of asking and then answering *behaviorally* questions that have to do with how you should then live. Live ready! |
||||||
4 | plz help. need answers to quest | James 1:5 | RWC | 233530 | ||
So Jenny, it has been nearly three months since you posted your several questions. Just wanted you to know that people are praying for you and your son and we hope that the Summer has been a good time for you and son to discuss some of these issues. They are important. They are issues of truth. It is not wrong for your son to be asking these questions. But it would be a dangerous thing for your son to assume that by just asking these questions, he has answered them. If you have new questions from him or follow up questions to what you have already asked, please feel free to post them. This forum may not be the quickest way to get answers, but it does eventually get there. Maybe you could, if you haven't already, even encourage your son to log on and post his own questions here. | ||||||
5 | what does "Must be put to death" mean? | Ex 31:15 | RWC | 233528 | ||
Hi Jenny, Yes, God meant what He said and He said what He meant. Breaking this law was a capital offense meaning it was punishable by death, usually an execution by being stoned, a form of execution that was most unpleasant for *everyone* involved. The reality is that all sin is, spiritually at least, a capital crime: *all* sin is punishable by death. There are *no* exceptions to that. In large part, God is teaching humanity through the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant just how serious sin is - and that includes *all* sin, not just some of it. That is the whole point of the sacrificial system. That is the whole point of capital crimes. That is at least part of the point of the limited retribution (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) laws. Today we (believers) do not live under that Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant. We are to live under the Law of the Spirit, the Covenant of Grace and Mercy that has been brought about and put in place by the work that Jesus did when He willingly took upon Himself the sin (all of it!) of every human being that has ever lived or ever will live and paid the penalty for it by dying *in their place.* There is no human being who will ever be sentenced to eternal spiritual death (hell) because they are a sinner, since Jesus paid for that already. They will receive that sentence for no other reason than that they did not trust the One and Only Living God. God takes sin *very* seriously; so seriously that the One and Only Son of God (Jesus) gave (sacrificed!) His life because of it. |
||||||
6 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | RWC | 232777 | ||
Hi Jenny, My apologies, I have not been as quick to getting back to your questions as I had hoped. The simple answer to your son's question is, as is suggested by 00123's answer above, probably that God does not so much 'approve' of slavery, but rather 'condones' it, and His condoning is conditional upon some significant rules and restrictions. The New Atheists would then immediately want to say - or at *imply* - that "If God approves of slavery, then God must also approve of all of the mistreatment of humans that have occurred in the name of slavery as well, and what kind of horrible God must that be!" Of course, that is neither logical nor true. One verse often referred to in this discussion by these New Atheists is Ex. 21:20-21 [NASB] "20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." In large part, slaves were supposed to be treated much like anyone else in the community. That same kind of corporal punishment spoken of in the verse above could executed upon *anyone* in the community for serious wrong-doing. It wasn't just slaves that could be treated that way. Nor was a master given the freedom to treat slaves (punish them) that way for no good reason. And it should be noted that some of the restrictions that God placed on slavery under the Mosaic Law were significant improvements upon some of the practices of the Ancient Near East (ANE) at that time. If you like, I found an interesting article that might be worth reading, or at least skimming through: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html I hope this helps a little. Have an awesome day. Live ready! Bob |
||||||
7 | plz help. need answers to quest | James 1:5 | RWC | 232557 | ||
Hi Jenny, I have started to pick away at your questions. Others may be doing the same. I have a son who is doing the same (asking these questions, I mean), not from college, but from 'new atheist' websites (and there are lots of them). I will keep trying work through some of these with you. Pray for him, and pray for the wisdom that can only come from God (Jms. 1:5; Col. 1:9). |
||||||
8 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232555 | ||
Hi Jenny, The verses your question should be attached to are Deut. 21:18-21. The short answer to your question is "yes." That is exactly what God is saying. Of course we, in our culture, see ourselves as being somehow above such things and much too 'advanced' for that. But the reality is that *every* sin is in fact a capitol crime; a crime worthy of and punishable by death - not just physical death, but spiritual death meaning eternal separation from God and everything that is holy. The sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was, by our modern standards I think, even less of a crime (sin) than rebellion, but even it was punishable by death. Something else died physically in their place that day, but they died spiritually that day and then later on physically as well. From God's point of view, the sin of rebellion is comparable to the sin witchcraft or divination (1Sa. 15:23), also punishable by death. I don't think the problem is that God takes sin too seriously. I think the problem is that we do not take sin nearly seriously enough. Having said that, we do not take our rebellious children to the edge of our towns and stone them to death any more (not that the people of Israel probably obeyed this law very often in the first place), nor are we required to do so. But that does *not* mean that it is any less of a sin. |
||||||
9 | Adam and Eve ashamed of their nakedness? | Gen 3:7 | RWC | 154081 | ||
I know that this question and discussion is now a few years old, but I would like to offer an answer and any responses would be much appreciated. (I am working on Genesis 3 currently.) The only thing that we really know for sure about this situation is that something changed, and that the change was substantial. Sin entered into the picture and the picture was suddenly different! The point of view for Adam and Eve was changed. We cannot say with any certainty that anything about their appearance changed (although someone has suggested that they had been clothed in light and that this was removed when they sinned). But there was certainly something different about how they viewed themselves and each other (and about how they viewed God!). I guess the answer that I would offer (and I think it is the answer that the Bible offers) to this question is, "Because sin separates (divides)!" There are at least 2 and probably 3 immediate separations or divisions that occured when they sinned. 1. They are separated from each other. 2. They are separated from their Creator. 3. They are separated from themselves. (This not intended to be chronological list. I think they all happened simultaneously. It is the order in which the become expressed within Scripture.) SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER Their immediate reaction is to cover themselves. They were trying to hide themself from the other. No, not totally. But they were now instantly and keenly aware that there was a relational separation or division between them that had not been there before. SEPARATED FROM GOD In the next verse (Ge. 3.8), the separation between them and God becomes immediately apparent. As soon as they sensed God's presence, they tried to hid from Him. They were now instantly and keenly aware that there was a relational separation or division between them and God that had not been there before. SEPARATED FROM THEMSELF This one is less obvious, but I think it is just as true. The first separation is between human and human. The second separation is between human and God. This third separation is _within_ the human: we are separated from ourself. FULFILLMENT OF GOD'S WARNING It seems to me that this separation is the fulfillment of God's warning that in the very day in which you eat of it, you shall surely _die_. Death, as I have come understand it, is separation. Physical death is the separation of the immaterial (soul-spirit) from the material (our physical body). Spiritual death is the separation of soul-spirit from God. Your thoughts and constructive criticisms of my understanding on this are welcome. Looking forward to your repsonses. Bob |
||||||
10 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154077 | ||
Correcting myself! I wrote: "The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge." I meant: "...but that they did *not* _act_ (choose) correctly..." Such a small word... such a big change in meaning. Sorry everybody. Bob |
||||||
11 | One Language | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132804 | ||
Hi there, That is an excellent question, or at least I think so since I have wondered the same thing myself many times. The best answer that I have come up with (and I don't pretent to be any kind of authority!) is that 10:5 is not saying that people were already dividing into language groups prior to 11:1, but rather that this particular group (the sons of Japheth as per 10:2) were the ones who became the coastland peoples (NKJV) and after the events of Gen. 11:1-9 they were divided further into their own language groups. Note that 10:5 begins with "From these...." I hope that is helpful. If someone has a better answer, I would be grateful to hear it. |
||||||
12 | Does God lead us into temtation? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131886 | ||
I suppose that there are times and occassions when God will, for one reason or another, put us in difficult situations; what we might call "trying" circumstances. There are even times when God will put us in places (circumstances) where we will be tempted to sin. But this verse (Jas. 1:13) is pretty clear that it will never be God Himself that would tempt or try to entice anyone to sin. In Gen. 22:1, it is recorded that the whole situation regarding the sacrifice of Isaac was God testing or tempting of Abraham. I believe that the word in the original language of the Old Testament can be translated as either "test" or "tempt" just like the word in the original language of New Testament. In Mt. 4:1, Jesus is taken out into the wildernes *by the Holy Spirit* in order to be tested or tempted *by Satan*. A very similar situation happened with Job. God permitted Satan to wreak tremendous destruction in this man's life, and in the lives of those close to him, all for the apparent purpose of testing or tempting or proving Job's character and faith. When I read the Lord's prayer (a.k.a. "the disciple's prayer), I am reminded to ask God for the grace to be spared from any such testing and tempting. When I read Jas. 1:13, I am reminded that if (or when!) testing, trials, and temptations come into my life, it is not God Himself that would ever entice me to sin. And when I read 1Co. 10:13, I am reminded, as Pastor Glenn said in a post above, that all of us face these temptations and that God is always willing and able to provide the strength to endure or the wisdom to see the route of escape (or both). |
||||||
13 | Can God really be tempted? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131874 | ||
Note to all: I just discovered that I asked this same question (minus the portion regarding the translation issue on this verse) and connected it to Heb. 4:15 a couple of years ago. I am not sure why I would have connected the question to that verse instead of this one, but I guess I did. Perhaps I entered it as a general question and the first respondant connected it to that verse; I don't know. Anyway, a very healthy discussion ensued. So, if this question catches your eye here, it might be worth your while to read through the discussion under Heb. 4:15. |
||||||
14 | where did God come from? | OT general | RWC | 13780 | ||
If I may so, your 15 year old sounds rather like me at that age! That seems so long ago now... The simple answer to the question "where did God come from? is, of course, that He has always existed. But what does that really mean? How can that be? If eternity means an un-ending linear sequence of events, and if everything else that exists (or has existed, or will exist) somewhere in that sequence of events had to have at least a beginning (if not not an ending as well), then surely God must *also* have had a beginning at some point in that sequence of events. But God did not have a beginning because He is the only thing that exists completely outside of that sequence of events. That sequence of events is what we call "time" and it is itself a created thing. We exist in (and are presently confined to) "time." We - and the whole universe! - are living out the sequence of events in a dimension called "time." God is the Creator of that. He is not confined to it. When God "looks" at His creation (the whole universe), He looks at it from eternity, that is from outside of the dimension of time. What that means is that He can see the beginning of time and the end of time and every milli-second in between all in the same moment. And the best part of that whole thing is that He doesn't just look in on us from outside, He actually entered into the realm or dimension of time and, more than that even, He actually became one of us. He did that ultimately so that we would have the ability and opportunity to enter into *His* realm of eternity. The plain and simple truth is that we cannot really wrap our minds around the concept of eternity. We try to think of it in terms of "un-ending time," and we do that because we are really confined to time (at least that is true for those of us in *this* world). But eternity is not "un-ending time." Rather it is being outside of the created dimension of time. I hope that this may be of some help, even if it is only "food for thought." I wrestled with this question (and several others!) for many years before I became a believer. I pray that your 15 year old will diligently seek and find some of those answers in much less time than it took me. Make sure that he or she knows that there *are* some answers to be found, but that there are also always going to be unanswered questions. And thank God for that! Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
15 | Popular opinion? or Scripture? | 1 Tim 2:12 | RWC | 13428 | ||
You asked: "Do you have any scripture to defend a woman having authority over a man?", but in the context you were talking specifically about women in the office of deacon. You then quoted four verses from 1Tim. ch.3 (8, 10, 12, and 13). But you neglected to quote v.11. 1 Tim 3:11 Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. This verse is surrounded on both sides by Paul's discussion of the character qualifications for the office of deacon. You are correct in pointing out that Paul uses the maculine repeatedly in this discussion, which would be quite normal for him to do even when speaking of both genders. The maculine was used to include both men and women. The thing that I find most interesting here (and which you left out!) is that Paul very specifically included women in his discussion of deacons. (By the way, Paul did not, to the best of my knowledge, do this in any of his discussions of elders!) |
||||||
16 | Apostles4-2day | Bible general Archive 1 | RWC | 12884 | ||
May I suggest that yes there are both apostles and prophets in the church today, and that there have been since the "birth" of the church at Pentecost. That does not mean, however, that any of them of them have the same degree of authority as did the 12 (or 13) apostles appointed by Christ. I haven't time at the moment, but if you like, I can did dig out a study that I did on this a while ago and give some scriptural support for my view. In a nutshell, I have come to understand an apostle (other than when speaking of one of the 12 or Paul) to generally refer to a missionary, and more specifically a church-planting missionary. A prophet in the New Testament (again, except when referring to one of the 12 or Paul) seems to have a greatly reduced authority from an Old Testament prophet. A New Testament prophet (other than the 12 or Paul) seems to be one who would interpret a message rather than dictate it, and sometimes even interpret it wrong (as in Agabus on at least one occassion). I would appreciate any hearing other thoughts. |
||||||
17 | Define the word "cult". | Bible general Archive 1 | RWC | 12883 | ||
I realise that this question was asked quite some time ago now, but I would like to add a thought. I think that this word is one that must be used with great care because it does not have a very precise meaning that is commonly accepted. Different people will have significantly different understandings of what it means. When we use this word, we should also explain clearly what we are intending it to mean. For example, in an evangelical theological context, the word cult can be - and often is! - used to mean any identifiable religious group that does not agree with the basic or central beliefs of the individual who is using that word. In this context, evangelical Christians will regularly refer to Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) and Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) as cults. In an academic or liberal theological context, the word cult is often used to refer to any religious practises which involve sacrifice. In this context, almost all pagan religions (past and present) would have certain practises that would be called a cult. The rites and practises of the ancient Jewish Temple would be called a cult. In this context, note that it is usually the specific practises of sacrifice that are called a cult, and not the group of people. In psychological context, the word "cult" is often (though certainly not always!) used to refer to any group that would seem to practise techniques used for "brainwashing" or mind control. In this context, the particular religious or spiritual beliefs of the group have no relevance, but rather the definition seems to center on the social dynamics of the group in question. I hope that this is helpful to someone, and I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback that any of you might have. |
||||||
18 | Could Jesus like Adam have sinned? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 5043 | ||
Well, now you have hit on the question that I asked regarding Heb. 4.15. If you have not already done so, you should read through the discussion on that verse. You may find that whole discussion quite intersting. (I have!) I hesitate to say that Jesus could actually have disobeyed, and yet, to be honest, I suppose that this is exactly what I tend to think. His temptations were, I am convinced, real temptations, of the same nature that Adam experienced. But His character (being God) was such that disobedience seems totally inconcieveable. Read through that discussion, and let know your comments. |
||||||