Results 41 - 60 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Demon possessed now? | Matt 8:16 | Brent Douglass | 4547 | ||
This seems an odd question, Hank, but I'm sure there must be something behind it. The reverse seems a more logical question. Is there anything in Scripture clearly indicating that demon possession was ended at some specific time in the past? If not, then such possession -- which was present from the time of Satan possessing the serpent and continued in the time of Christ and into the ministry of Paul -- would most naturally be assumed to continue until something happens to remove it fully. The onus for evidence lies on the opposite side of the question. Is there any Biblical evidence that demons were removed permanently at some prior time? This is separate from the question of doctrinal abuse in seeing, naming, or challenging demons in every unhappy situation or toward everyone who dares to disagree with any given teacher-exhorcist's strongly held views. Nevertheless, the need for evidence lies more squarely and logically on the shoulders of the one who would claim demon possession to have ceased than the one who claims it to continue as it did for millennia in recorded Biblical history. |
||||||
42 | Forgive or confront - which to choose? | Matt 18:1 | Brent Douglass | 740 | ||
First of all, choose to forgive. Christ chose to die for us while we were yet his enemies. You and I both have a much deeper debt of sin before God than anyone has toward either of us. If we don't begin with forgiveness, we should pray in terror every time we ask God to "forgive us our debts (or trespasses) as we forgive our debtors". If we refuse to forgive "those who trespass against us" then we are asking God to hold our sins to our account and condemn us to hell. Is this extreme? How does it compare with Jesus's teaching in Mat 18:23-35? The guidelines for confronting a brother who sins (Mat 18:15-18) must be read in the context of Mat 18:23-25, as well. When Paul (in Eph 6:27-28) tells us to "be angry and sin not" by not letting "the sun set" on our anger, there is no mention of confrontation with the other person. This is a call to a forgiveness in order to "not give the devil an opportunity"; it serves our spiritual interest by preventing bitterness from clouding our ability to love. Once we have forgiven, we are ready to consider whether confrontation is beneficial. Confrontation is for the benefit of our brother (or sister) who has done something wrong, not for the purpose of "letting off steam" or verbal retaliation. As in Mat 18:15, where the purpose is to "[win] your brother" back to obedience and growth in his relationship with God. It's possible that Paul had this in mind in Gal 5:19-21 when he listed specific sins that are practiced by those who "will not inherit" the kingdom of heaven. The increasingly strong convictions and confrontations presented in Matthew 18 are meant to draw the offender to confession, repentance and restoration. Is this not how the Spirit convicts and confronts us, as well? He confronts us to the degree necessary and the degree we are willing to receive. He is to be our model. I suspect that the final and unequivocable rejection of this persistent and faithful conviction ("slamming the door in the Spirit's face" if you will) is what is meant by the blasphemy against the Spirit, but that's another question. |
||||||
43 | HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER | Matt 22:37 | Brent Douglass | 589 | ||
Jesus said that "No one can serve two masters" and that any attempt to serve 2 masters would result in choosing 1 over the other at some point. The example he then gives is God vs. mammon (material wealth). However, material wealth is not the only competitor he is concerned with. He also says that unless one "hates" his or her mother, father, sister, brother, wife, children and even one's own life, that person can not be His disciple. The Lord must be our first love, thus the choice being made (by his grace) to love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This is comparable to Wesley's doctrine of "Christian perfection" as a "perfect" love for God as exercised by a "complete" disciple; this is what the Christian should desire. | ||||||
44 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26910 | ||
(Part 1 of 2) Dear Richbee, I think rocwalker1's answer is a very good explanation of this. This was simply a comment as to how familiar (and "normal") Jesus was to them. The people of Nazareth knew Mary and her other children, and most Christians assume that Joseph was dead by this time since he is not mentioned again after Jesus' visit to the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41ff). I don't think there is any suggestion that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary here or elsewhere in the gospels by anyone in His life, although I'm confident that there was in the time of the early church -- once the reality of His virgin birth began to be openly taught after His resurrection. Modern myths and images surrounding Christ's birth make it hard to imagine that no one knew, but Matthew and Luke paint a different picture when read carefully. The complete lack of any such suggestion of illigitemacy by Jesus' opposition in the gospels suggests to me that no one (but Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, and perhaps a very few close and trusted friends) knew the timing of Jesus' conception and birth as compared to Joseph and Mary's wedding. If they had, they could have been expected to assume illegitimacy and use it as a further excuse to denounce Jesus and His message. Even a righteous and loving man like Joseph (see Matthew 1:19), despite obvious reason to desire otherwise, could not believe any other conclusion than fornication -- at least not without divine intervention (Matthew 1:20). Jesus' miraculous virgin conception was no doubt one of those things that "Mary treasured .., pondering them in her heart," until she witnessed them to Luke and others after Christ's resurrection. God carefully, deliberately and exactly ordained the sequence surrounding Jesus' conception and birth and the marriage of His parents in such a way as to keep His miraculous conception a secret until the proper time and in order to safeguard their reputation as righteous and faithful servants of God. This is an exciting part of the Christmas story that we tend to miss. Bear with me, and I'll offer some observations (and minor interpretations that seem obvious once some modern myths are debunked). The angel Gabriel's words encouraged Mary to visit her cousin Elizabeth in rural Judeah (Luke 1:36-40), "[a]nd Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home." (Luke 1:56) Do you have kids? Then you, like me, may think, "Conception plus 3 months equals 1st trimester." Mary spent her "morning sickness" time away from Nazareth, with someone whose immediate greeting was Luke 1:42-43 -- "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" Mary received from Elizabeth encouragement and protection, and Zechariah kept his mouth shut too. By the time Mary returned to her home in Nazareth 3 months later (coincidence that Luke mentions 3 months?), she had stopped vomiting (assuming a "typical" pregnancy) but probably wasn't showing yet (again assuming a "typical 1st pregnancy for a young girl). Joseph then publicly married her (Matthew 1:24). The people of Nazareth had no idea that Mary was pregnant yet, but they would have soon if she had stayed there much longer. Then ("In those days") came the providential census that allowed Joseph and Mary to leave for Bethlehem abruptly with no need for explanation (Luke 2:1-5). The most logical assumption is that Joseph and Mary would have been prudent enough to leave for Bethlehem BEFORE Mary was visibly pregnant, since no one in Nazareth would have believed that the Holy Spirit had impregnated her; Joseph knew that from personal experience. The image of their arrival in Bethlehem with Mary ready to pop is a modern myth with no biblical basis; to the contrary, the wording "while they were there" (Luke 2:6) indicates that they had already been there (presumably sleeping in the stable) for some time when Jesus was born. Since we know Joseph was a righteous man, his family in Bethlehem naturally assumed that they had already been married when Mary conceived and that the child was Joseph's. However, in reality Joseph and Mary were careful to wait until after Jesus' birth before they actually had sexual union -- a point which Matthew makes sure we are aware of (Matthew 1:25). |
||||||
45 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26911 | ||
(Part 2 of 2) We don't know exactly how long Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem after Jesus' birth. However, we do know that it was long enough for the star to appear (presumably appearing at His birth rather than prior to it), for the magi to recognize it and make their plans, go to Jerusalem, wait for further direction from a gathering of all the priests and scribes, and then go on to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-6). We also know that Herod used the time of the star's appearance in deciding to slaughter all children 2 years old and under (Matthew 2:7,16), and we know that they were no longer in the stable but in a house (or an inn) when the magi came to visit (Matthew 2:11). After their approximately 2 years in Bethlehem, they ran away to Egypt (Matthew 2:12-15). Someone more knowledgeable than I can probably tell you when Herod the great died and they returned to settle into a "normal" life in Nazareth again (Matthew 2:19-23). However, sufficient time and activity had passed for the people of Nazareth to assume that Joseph was the father of Jesus and that He had been conceived after Mary and Joseph were married. People simply knew that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem but that Nazareth was the hometown of Him and His family. |
||||||
46 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181477 | ||
I see in the Amplified the description of Mary's condition as "about to become a mother." What level of connotation does this word carry that is translated simply "with child" in the NAS but "about to become a mother" in the Amplified? Does it definitely mean something beyond "pregnant" -- requiring a translation of "about to deliver her child" or something like that? Or is it possible that this can refer to a woman in her 2nd trimester? | ||||||
47 | What makes John the Baptist greater ? | Luke 7:27 | Brent Douglass | 1515 | ||
1 Peter 1:10-12, 17-21 and Col 1:26-2:3 This is probably one of those "hard sayings of Jesus" in the book by the same name. I don't have it in front of me (and don't remember exactly what that author(s) wrote about this, but I would strongly recommend the book as a reference (particularly for questions of this type) I believe F.F. Bruce is the writer, but there is a series of "Hard Sayings" books by several solid authors. Anyway, one sense in which I believe John the Baptist would be considered "greater" than all previous prophets and saints was that he was able to look into the fulfilment of his prophecies and understand the identity of the Messiah that he was proclaiming (at least to a certain degree). John recognized Jesus when the Holy Spirit descended on him (although he had some uncertainty later), but the prophets of the Old Testament longed to look into the secrets they were foretelling about the Messiah and the salvation of Israel and the nations; those secrets were hidden until their revelation in Jesus the Christ. All believers who came after him have access to these (but not all) mysteries and can thus more fully rejoice (in this life) in the hope and salvation that God has given us. (See 1 Peter 1 and Colossians 1.) |
||||||
48 | Why Jesus live Lazarus die after raised | John | Brent Douglass | 37302 | ||
I read the other answer that you received, and I think it was very helpful. However, there is a clarification that I want to add. In the resurrection, we will have our own (same) physical bodies, but they will be spiritual rather than fleshly, as Christ's body was spiritual (and could walk through walls, appear and disappear from sight, yet consume food) at the time of His resurrection. I believe that no one's body was physically resurrected prior to Christ, including that of Lazarus (although Elijah and Enoch are puzzling); Jesus our Lord was the first. However, when Christ was raised, other dead saints (holy ones) were raised with Him. (Matt 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.") Those of us who have died since Christ's resurrection will not be raised again bodily (only the soul) until the time of Christ's return, when our impure and perishable fleshly bodies (whether they have rotted in the earth or been burned to nothingness or not), will be raised and transformed into pure and imperishable spiritual bodies. Those who are still alive at His return will not die, but they will still need to be changed physically. (1 Cor 15:51-54 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. "But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, 'DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.'") This is the very point that Jesus was making to Lazarus' sister Martha before raising him from the dead. (John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?") |
||||||
49 | Who is the son of man which is in heaven | John 3:11 | Brent Douglass | 37296 | ||
John 3:13 reads as follows in the NASB: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." The same verse in the Amplified reads as follows: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven, but there is One Who has come down from heaven--the Son of Man [Himself], Who is (dwells, has His home) in heaven." The context makes it clear that these translations have the most obvious natural reading of the puzzling part of this passage. Heaven is the home of Jesus -- the Son of Man. No man had yet ascended bodily to the third heaven, but Jesus had descended from there, and thus had the only eyewitness account available from any human being. Only Jesus, the Son of Man, whose eternal home had been and would always be heaven, could speak of heaven as one who truly knows it. |
||||||
50 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 37403 | ||
This is a very hard question that can generate some strong reactions and accusations within the believing community. There are those who would question the credentials (or even the salvation) of even such solid and faithful teachers as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis based on their answers to this question. The statement, as it stands, without additional assumptions about underlying beliefs, is not hereticaly in and of itself. There is room for question as to whether it is belief in God or belief in Christ alone that saves. Active disbelief in Christ is active disbelief in God (Jn 3:18). However, we are judged based on that which we have seen and heard (see Romans 1:20), NOT that which we have not yet been exposed to. There is no disagreement among solid evangelical preachers or scholars that only because of the blood of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. However, this applies to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. They did not believe in Jesus Christ in the sense that we do today, because Christ's work and person were something that even the prophets and angels could not grasp until they observed them(1 Pe 1:10-12). The same is true of anyone who has not heard today. Anyone who is willing to follow God will believe in Christ if-when they have the opportunity (Jn 7:16-17). Thus the gospel was, at the time of Paul, for the (believing) Jew first (Ro 1:16); I would apply this, in a lesser sense, to any God fearer. However, the gospel, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can also take one who has never believed before -- even in that which s-he has seen or heard -- and transform that one into a believer as well. Thus the Gospel is the power of salvation for the heathen as well (Ro 1:16). This is greatly simplified, but the basic idea is that the God-fearer MAY have life but lacks the sure hope available through the deeper revelation of the gospel of Christ. The heathen, in contrast, had no faith and no salvation at all, until he comes to the truth and the Spirit's conviction upon him. If he (or she) then believes, he is saved even if there were no previous knowledge, faith, or interest in God. |
||||||
51 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14272 | ||
Thanks for the added commentary, Ray. My question was actually much more narrow. I was referring specifically to the situation in John 4. Jesus was in Samaria, speaking to a specific group of people whom He soon sent out among the Jews and Samaritans. I don't know that the statement in this passage had any reference whatsoever to his later command sending them to the nations. At this point, I think I'm agreed with the view that John 4 is referring to the patriarchs and prophets, leading up through John and including Himself. Your reference to this passage as a parable (in your earlier response) confuses me somewhat. This is historical interaction without stories or parables being told. There may be some double reference to the disciples being sent to get bread that someone else had prepared and the upcoming evangelism among the Jews and Samaritans, but this is not a parable. You kind of lost me when you referred to this exchange as a parable, and I'm not sure we're on the same page right now. Can we backtrack to the current passage again, or were you introducing a new topic? |
||||||
52 | Was Jesus actually in the tomb 3 days? | John 19:31 | Brent Douglass | 1294 | ||
Tradition has it that Jesus rose from death on the third day, being crucified on Friday and rising on Sunday. However, it's very possible (and even probable) that Jesus was actually crucified on a Wednesday, which was then followed by the 7th day of the Passover, which was a special Holy Day (see Exodus 12:16-18). He would then have remained in the tomb 3 complete days (sunset Wednesday to sunset Saturday, then on into early Sunday morning) before rising on the "first day of the week" -- the timing of which is clearly stated in the gospels and recognized by all. Although this is contrary to the image that we often have of the events, John's gospel appears to indicate fairly clearly (in John 19:30-32) that the Sabbath after Christ's crucifixion was actually a special holy day (presumably one of those associated with the Passover) rather than simply the 7th-day-of-the-week weekly Sabbath. This is not some wild new idea of my own imagination. There have been respected theologians who have advocated this, and I have heard at least one current and respected teacher (Charles Swindoll) advocate such a timing of events, as well. Just as in the legend that has grown up around Jesus's birth (arriving in Bethlehem the very night of his birth, magi at the manger rather than a house or inn, etc.), there are traditions that have become treated as actual in the crucifixion story as well. They don't seem to me to be harmful enough misunderstandings to be fought against, but it's worth bringing out their limitations from time to time. |
||||||
53 | Ananias and Sapphira Had No Chance? | Acts 5:9 | Brent Douglass | 10991 | ||
Steve, There are some good questions here. Please don't be put off by the length yet incompletenes of my answer. The 3rd answer is probably the easiest to answer. I'd have to say, "No, it wasn't too severe," because it was God's judgment. His ways are absolutely perfect, with no error. My understanding is flawed, but not His ways. Isaiah 55:8f '"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts."' 1 John 1:5 "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." God knew their hearts. There is no indication in Acts 5 that Peter spoke the death sentence against Ananias at all. He simply stated that which Ananias had conceived and that Ananias had "lied to the Holy Spirit." With Sapphira, it is true that Peter declared what would happen. However, it was not spoken as a command but simply as a statement of what he knew to be true. The other questions are probably more to the point of the questions that I believe Luke (and God as the inspirer) was trying to convey through this, "Why was this sin so heinous, and what does that mean for me?" God clearly despises false deceptions in which we deliberately parade ourselves to be loving, spiritual or Christlike in a way that we are not. Barnabas was set forward as a true example worthy of emulation, and Ananias and Sapphira were set forth as a false example for all of us to fear. There was no obligation to give all of the proceeds, but the couple had clearly struck a bargain (based on Sapphira's interchange with Peter) to present themselves in a false way before the leadership of God's church. It is a reasonable assumption that they were not truly believers at all, but only God knows if they are now in heaven, and physical death is far less horrifying than spiritual death. False believers are in greater eternal danger than admitted unbelievers, for their judgment is greater, being constantly exposed to the truth and convincing others (and sometimes even themselves) of their faith while their souls have really never been reborn. See Matthew 7:13-23 (particularly 21-23) to get a glimpse of how we can deceive even ourselves but not God. God knew the hearts of this couple (including any willingness to repent if they had been given the chance) in a way that we do not, and Peter knew and spoke only what the Holy Spirit had revealed to him in this situation. We can postulate (and even assume with a fair degree of confidence) some of what it was that affected God's sudden punishment of them; while we may not know for sure, it is good for the same kind of fear that fell upon the people of that time to sometimes fall upon us as well.... Acts 5:14ff "And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord.... But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number." |
||||||
54 | Was Pharaoh responsible? | Rom 9:17 | Brent Douglass | 154 | ||
There is certainly room for disagreement on how much control God exercised over Pharaoh's heart and decisions at this time, but I think Romans 9:19-23 laves no question that Pharaoh was held guilty for the attitude that he had toward the Lord and his people. -- -- I am not of a Beza-Calvinist position that would suggest deliberate control over a person's final responsiveness to the Holy Spirit's conviction. Immediately before this exposition of God's control is the sequence of Romans 8:28-30, where God's foreknowledge of his people is followed by predestination to conform us to his image, then calling, justification and glorification in respective sequence. -- -- I assert that Pharaoh's heart was against God and his people. However, even a king who refused to worship God and love his people would be expected to exercise wisdom through temporary repentance. It is this temporary repentance that God prevented. His objective was not to have his people go into the desert, worship him, and return to slavery under a pagan king; his objective was to lead his people into a new life free from slavery and under willing submission to Himself as Lord and Savior. God controlled circumstances and even intervened in Pharaoh's heart and plans to accomplish this purpose and to bring himself glory. -- -- God does not choose to crush the wicked (whom he foreknows) before they are born but endures them despite his knowledge that their creation will result only in rebellion and destruction. However, he intervenes as he wishes in order to reveal Himself and to keep his plans for the righteous on course. -- -- I don't know whether the totality of what Pharaoh saw finally convicted him -- bringing him to repentance -- or whether he went the route of (most of) the Pharisees in blaspheming the Spirit in the face of unquestionable demonstration of God's power and authority in the world. His part in the Bible story ends at the Red Sea, but there is no indication in the history that I know that either Pharaoh or the Egypt of Pharaoh's time turned from their idols to God. Instead, those who turned to God apparently left with the Israelites as part of the "mixed multitude" (Ex.12:38). | ||||||
55 | 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. |
||||||
56 | 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. |
||||||
57 | 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. |
||||||
58 | Is vegetarianism okay with God? | 1 Cor 8:13 | Brent Douglass | 1503 | ||
There's no basis in Scripture for requiring Christians to eat meat, and I don't know of any orthodox Christian groups that would even suggest such a requirement. The only Scriptures I'm aware of on the topic are those removing previous limitations (i.e. allowing meat after the flood and allowing "unclean" foods under the New Testament). If you're confident that a vegetarian diet would be more healthy for you, there's no reason I know of not to pursue one. However, you may run into cultish groups that try to draw you in by affirming your stance and suggesting that there is something more spiritual about being vegetarian. You should be wary of this, since Satan often seeks to encourage our natural elitist tendencies to feed our pride (in an evil sense) and use it to draw us away from God. In this sense, vegetarianism is probably no more "dangerous" than scholastic Arminianism or Calvinism. ;-) |
||||||
59 | Baptism of the Holy Spirit after reborn? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Brent Douglass | 3614 | ||
The most natural reading of John 20:21-22 indicates that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles at that time and that the "filling" of Pentecost was something different, which empowered them to be effective in proclaiming the Gospel more powerfully. However, it is a mistake to equate this with any specific gift. It is also a mistake to equate this with current practices involving certain procedures. Please consider the following as merely an attempt at exposition and NOT intended to bash anyone or to question anyone's intentions; while some may be offended by the directness, this is not meant as an attack. The utterances of praise that were given at Pentecost were real languages (Acts 2:4-11), and there is no mention whatsoever (here or elsewhere) of anyone speaking in some kind of "heavenly" language being connected with the Holy Spirit. In contrast, I have never seen nor heard of modern-day scheduled or choreographed "Holy Spirit baptisms" being accompanied by an actual foreign language (unknown to the speaker) that a bonafide foreign language speaker testified to -- never; yet this is precisely what happened spontaneously at Pentecost. Nor have I ever heard of modern conditions where physical tongues of fire actually came down upon "recipients". It's simply not the same as the event that they claim it to be equal to. Correctly spoken praise in real languages (by non-speakers) can be easily tested by actual speakers -- as at Pentecost and likewise again in Acts 10:44-47;11:15-16 when the Gospel and the Spirit first went out to the Gentiles. Claims of unknown languages are neither verifiable nor (therefore) authoritative, since (by their very nature) they can prove nothing. This is not to say that there is no such separate experience of being "filled" with the Spirit, but Pentecost and claims of modern parallels are completely different. Can this happen? Perhaps (and most likely in a place where the Gospel is first appearing), but it should be expected to happen as a unique and spontaneous event initiated by the Spirit -- not led, encouraged or brought on by any action of man. Doubtless someone somewhere may think of 1 Corinthians 13:1 indicating at least a possibility for angelic tongues -- but this is clearly hyperbole in its immediate context, which includes parallel references to people who literally "move mountains" with their faith and-or "know all mysteries and all knowledge" -- which they don't. Paul is using hyperbole to make a point about the priority of love far beyond even greatly exaggerated versions of real gifts. Please look at the context carefully. I'd like to expand more on the idea of the filling of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit, but I can feel myself ready to ramble too quickly and loosely. Besides, I'm sure others can add some of the same ideas with Scripture references. Another time. |
||||||
60 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7557 | ||
1 John is a good point of reference, since it was written to give tests of genuine saving faith. "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 Jn 5:13) 1) 1 John 1:5-10 Walking in the light. On the surface, this phrase appears (and I believe is typically assumed) to be talking about simple obedience. However, the context appears to indicate more an ongoing willingness on the part of the believer to expose him-herself to the light of God (and His Word), which reveals one's sinfulness -- resulting in progressive confession and sanctification. A patter of growth in seeing God reveal sin in one's life, confession of the sin, and an ongoing process of transformation is a primary signs of saving faith. Hebrews 12:4-8 says much the same thing. There's much more there from 1 John. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |