Results 101 - 120 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | God can use woman in the ministry? | Gal 3:28 | Brent Douglass | 2682 | ||
1 Timothy 2:9-15 is one of few passages in Paul's letters where he directly identifies the source of guidance as being himself: "I do not allow...." This is a portion of a letter written by a man with apostolic authority in his speech and writing. While Paul speaks and writes authoritatively as a vessel of God, he also exercises authority 1) as an elder responsible for making leadership decisions if and when a higher leader has been appealed to for resolution; and-or 2) as a counselor who offers his own practice in similar conditions to those currently acting as elders. It appears that Paul is acting in one of these capacities in this case, since he deliberately identifies himself as the source of the guidance. That said, the argument Paul uses for his decision (or perhaps his counsel) is NOT culturally or locally based. As you pointed out, he points back to the garden of Eden for his reasoning. In addition, the depth of Paul's wisdom and understanding of the mind of God is significant -- as a divine pen and mouthpiece whose entire life consistently exemplified God's authority and message. Even if this guidance is merely Paul's counsel to Timothy, it is far more significant and important than counsel from just any leader and needs to be more seriously considered. |
||||||
102 | what is "pass the place of repentance" | Gen 27:38 | Brent Douglass | 2623 | ||
I'm not sure if there are any references at all to a point of beyond "beyond repentance" -- unless that is the meaning of the blasphemy of the Spirit. This passage is not referring to this, however. This passage is not at all talking about Esau not being able to repent. It is talking about his father being unwilling to change the blessing he had proclaimed to Jacob. This passage is referring to Esau's selling of his birthright (as the elder son) to his younger brother. Jacob then stole his blessing, as well, and Esau tearfully asked for his father Isaac to give him the blessing. Isaac refused to take back (repent of) the blessing he had given to Jacob and give it to Esau. Jacob was thus blessed by his father with dominion over Esau. |
||||||
103 | Eternal nature of condemned souls? | Matt 10:28 | Brent Douglass | 2617 | ||
What are the foundational Scriptures for the eternal nature of the human soul (of a non-believer) after the fall? | ||||||
104 | Ok...I got you now. | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2614 | ||
The lake of fire IS the second death. Most scholars agree that the soul is eternal and that, therefore, everyone who is cast there suffers there eternally, just as the saints live eternally in heaven. Most of us have some discomfort with this, but discomfort is not good reason to disagree with what respected authorities are convinced that the Bible teaches. Revelations 14:11 clearly indicates that the smoke from the burning of those who worship the beast will go up forever; therefore, these people, at the very least, will be there forever. Satan will also be there, but he will also be suffering -- not ruling. There are some passages that seem to indicate the possibility of people's souls being "destroyed" in hell (Mt 10:28; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 Thes 1:9; Heb 10:39), but they are not clear or consistent enough to build a definite doctrine. (For example, note in Rev 17:8-11 that the beast is also "marked for destruction" -- while those who worship him will burn forever (Rev 14:11); it is not entirely clear that "destruction" means the end of existence (rather than simply removal from God). Luke 12:47-48 appears to indicate that there are potentially varying amounts of punishment meted out by God. See also John 19:11 and Matthew 23:14 (also in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47). While there MAY be varying lengths of time spent in suffering, with the devil and his angels (along with those who actually worship him and his) being the only ones who remain there eternally, there is very little upon which to build this theory (theory, not doctrine). It would be helpful to consider (and get further input from those who can discuss the topic much more knowledgeably than I can) the foundations for the doctrine of the eternal nature of the soul, and whether that could be affected by the fall. I will pose this as a question soon. |
||||||
105 | I need clarification please | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2490 | ||
No, that is not exactly what I was saying. I wouldn't say that God "knew those who were going to sin and that punishment was planned for those individuals," but I do believe that God knew that Adam was going to disobey. He had already created a means of salvation for Adam and his descendants -- any who would repent of their opposition to God and believe in Him. This applied to Abraham (Gen 15:6, with commentary in Gal 3:6; James 2:23 and Rom 4:3,20-22), and it applies to us today. I include myself among those who have brought God pain and suffering, but I know also that my salvation has brought (and brings) him great joy (Matthew 13:43-46 and 18:12-14). Hell (also known as the "lake of fire" or the "second death"), which is the punishment that will be received, was prepared "for the devil and his angels" -- not for man. However, hell will also be the punishment of unbelieving men as well (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:12-15). God, knowing that most people would reject him (which would result in their being merely "vessels prepared for destruction") did NOT choose to abandon his plan, but He endured such pain and rejection for the sake of showing forth his character of grace and mercy. He gave them the opportunity to live and prove themselves, and he endures their betrayal, rejection and arrogant defiance, knowing that he will eventually have to destroy them. This was done in order to show God's love toward those whom He knew would be converted (by the persistent conviction initiated and pursued consistently by His Spirit). (See Romans 9, particularly v.22) These would be brought to repentance, faith and love by God. The blood of God the Son, who willingly sacrificed Himself for us all, has removed all sin but the blasphemy against the Spirit, which reveals such defiant unbelief as to result in a final rejection of the persistent, faithful and loving conviction of the Spirit and the evidence He brings to our attention. The one who utterly rejects the clear testimony of the Spirit has no hope of conversion. |
||||||
106 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2469 | ||
Thanks for your reply. The Galatians 3:24 verse came from JHVH0212's earlier reply, not my original posting, which quoted only from Mark 12. As I understand this Scripture and others dealing with complete commitment (e.g. Luke 14:25-33; 1 Corinthians 10:13 and Matthew 6:24,33), the Lord does desire (and require) such "perfect" love. These passages indicate that the believer can -- through the purification of Christ's blood and resurrection, the transformation of the heart and mind through the Spirit and the Word, and the working of the Holy Spirit -- love God with all his (or her) heart, soul, mind and strength as God commanded throughout the Christian life as maturity continues to develop. In this way, the law is fulfilled "in" the believer (and not just "for" him) according to Scripture, as pointed out by JHVH0212 in his second reply on the parrallel thread under this question. As John Wesley pointed out in his discourse, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (see www.whatsaiththescripture.comFellowshipWesley.Christian.Perfectio.html if it prints out properly), this does not remove factors such as ignorance or any mental, physical, and emotional limitations of the believer. Nor does it remove the need for repentance when sin done in ignorance is revealed to the believer. It is, rather, an attitude of being entirely set apart (sanctified) to exercise love toward God. The condition can be temporary, if a believer willingly compromises this complete love, and it can then be restored through repentance and the Spirit's sovereign provision. While the believer can and should humbly seek such a condition, only the Spirit can so "fill" someone with this love. While this may seem impossible from our own judgment of the people around us, the teaching of the Scriptures always carries a higher authority than our own interpretation of our experience, and I believe the Scriptures call us confidently to such complete love -- not as an impossible requirement but as an offering we can present only by the grace and empowerment of the Spirit (see Romans 12:1 and 1 Peter 2:5). I'd like to get more input on this with a later question, but this is my current understanding. |
||||||
107 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2455 | ||
Thanks for your claification. I'm glad that I asked for (and received) clarification prior to responding to your previous posting, as your clarification was significantly different than how I had understood you. Once again, I find myself in basic agreement with you on this. It brings up additional questions about what I believe are parrallel passages, but those build on this foundation, which I agree is clear in the Scripture. |
||||||
108 | What does 1 Cor. 5:5 mean? | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2418 | ||
KBurgee's response was excellent on this. I'd like to add that Paul, in a later letter, encourages the Corinthians to receive one (who had repented) back into fellowship who had been previously spurned at Paul's request. (2 Cor 2:6-10). Many commentators believe this may well have been the same man. | ||||||
109 | Did God know Adam would sin? | 1 Corinthians | Brent Douglass | 2414 | ||
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. (Rev 13:8 NIV, EMPHASIS mine). God had already agreed within Himself from the foundation of the world that the Son would be sacrificed on our behalf The plan was already there. He already knew all about each of us sufficiently to know who would respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. (Many Christians would believe that God had even assigned them.) He had already predetermined that our experiences and environment would be guided in such a way as to conform us to His own image as revealed in the Son. (See Romans 8:28-29 and Ephesians 1:4-6) The revelation of God as the Creator of all men (and even adopted Father for many of us) in this case is significant. He did not choose to destroy, prior to existence, us who were not only born imperfect and unholy but who would cause Him great suffering and would temporarily mar his creation substantially with our evil practices. This is very different from the decisions made today by many parents who realize something is imperfect about a pre-born child and decide to end its life. What would I (or you) be prone to do if I knew, from the time of conception, that my unborn child was going to reject, violate, hurt and embarrass me as well as ruin a faithful reputation and honored lifestyle that I had built for myself? I know which decision God chose when he knew me (and everyone who has ever lived) millenia before I was even conceived. |
||||||
110 | 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 |
||||||
111 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2135 | ||
Well said, JHVH0212. I actually think that we are in fairly strong agreement on this topic (which probably seems amazing in and of itself to some), and I see that I (and others whom I got it from) may well have been using the term "baptize" erroneously. Being "baptized with" the Spirit does appear to belong together with "receive" rather than "be filled with" -- as you point out. You ask the question, 'Again why say "ye shall receive [future tense] power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," if the Holy Spirit had already come upon them in the past?' I also pointed out the same passage from Acts 1 to "prayon" in our parallel thread, and I agree that there was something missing prior to Pentecost. However, I would argue (contrary to MacArthur and to you) that the most natural reading is that the apostles received the Spirit in John 20:22 but still needed the pouring out of the Spirit (or "filling") at Pentecost (and again in Acts 4 and later) for empowerment to effectively proclaim the Gospel. For the record, I am also convinced that tongues are not "the sign" of the filling of the Spirit; this was a view (ab)used in Corinth, and it is still abused today. Most of the examples (of being filled with the Spirit) given in Scripture make no mention of tongues, and many make no mention of any gifts whatsoever. The initial pouring out (or filling) at Pentecost apparently released the expanded availability of the gifts (in a directly observable way), as happened again later when a similar event proved to Jewish Christians (through direct observation) that the same promises and full availability of the Spirit applied to Samaritans and Gentiles as to Jews. This is completely separate from the question of the gifts; there is no necessity of consistently linking them to the filling of the Spirit. Gifts can be exercised without such filling (See Mt 7:22-23, about people who didn't even know Christ at all yet exercised supernatural gifts); likewise such filling often takes place throughout Acts without resulting in the use of any specific gifts. Their concurrence is unusual rather than typical. |
||||||
112 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 2128 | ||
I didn't have time to answe you more fully before but got out a quick answer to your question at the end. I agree with you and your pastor's statements about "increased frequency" and the "normal" work of the Spirit. It is very important not to underestimate the significance and importance of the "normal" work of the Spirit. The term "baptism" that I used is probably better referred to as "filling" -- which I believe can happen repeatedly in a person's life. There is some question as to whether the word "baptism" belongs with "receiving" the Spirit or being "filled with" the Spirit. I believe the Spirit is received once -- as the downpayment given to the believer. However, there are many examples in Acts of the same apostles being repeatedly "filled" with the Holy Spirit. As for my reference to Wesley in my earlier posting, I think I agree with his concept of "entire sanctification" -- or being entirely set a apart to the will of God (with certain understood limitations of ignorance, fleshly limitations, etc.). What I'm unsure of is whether or not this is the same as being filled with the Spirit or simply parallel in some ways. |
||||||
113 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2125 | ||
I'm not sure exactly what your answer was to my question. It sounds like you're saying that you think this is an impossible command to humble us. Is this accurate? I believe I'm in agreement with your fine exposition about the purpose of the law. However, that's not the core of my question. Am I accurate in assuming your answer is that believers are incapable of loving God in this way? |
||||||
114 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2123 | ||
I agree that this can definitely be a controversial question, and I appreciate your willingness to chime in. I chose it not for the controversy but to challenge myself and others to re-examine our assumptions in light of the Scriptures. Let me make sure I understand your reply. First you quoted MacArthur (one of the current teachers whom I most respect, but whom I doubt on his reading of John 20:22). One of the things I most appreciate about MacArthur is his integrity and transparency. To paraphrase him, he basically states that his underlying assumptions (or earlier foundations within his systematic theology built on other passages) act as a filter requiring him (and you) to reject the most obvious and natural reading of John 20:22. MacArthur is convinced that the Holy Spirit was not actually given until Pentecost; therefore, Jesus didn't give the Spirit in Jn 20:22. If one tries to envision the scene of Jesus "breathing on" the apostles and saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit," it is difficult for me to accept an underlying understanding between Jesus and the apostles that he actually meant "some time in the future" and wasn't intending to do so for another 40 days. It seems that you define "baptism" and "receiving" (of the Spirit) as synonymous but consider "filling" to have a distinct meaning. This I find compelling, although I must admit I'm not fully convinced as to which terms are synonymous with which. As MacArthur points out, there is clearly a potentially repetitive nature to this filling. I'm not convinced that the term "filled" with the Spirit isn't used in two distinct ways -- one referring to a temporary condition of supernatural empowerment (as in Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9 etc.) and another one describing an ongoing condition (Acts 6:3,5; 11:24; 13:52; etc.). My main interest is in seeing what others have to say on this one, though. Thanks again for your input. |
||||||
115 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Acts 2:1 | Brent Douglass | 2116 | ||
Thanks, prayon, for a well-thought-out response. In light of these passages, this seems logical. However, in another passage, Acts 1:1-8, Jesus was speaking specifically to the apostles when he "commanded them not to leave Jerusalem" (v.4) but wait until "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (v.8) -- which would indicate that the apostles still needed the power that the Holy Spirit would give in order to be effective in spreading the Gospel: "and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (v.8). Clearly their empowerment was not yet complete. Either they hadn't yet received the Spirit, or there was additional empowerment needed for them specifically. |
||||||
116 | 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? |
||||||
117 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | Brent Douglass | 2112 | ||
'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? |
||||||
118 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | Acts 2:1 | Brent Douglass | 2109 | ||
'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? |
||||||
119 | 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? | ||||||
120 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | Brent Douglass | 2120 | ||
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? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |