Results 61 - 75 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | 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. |
||||||
62 | Enoch's prophesy in OT? | Jude 1:14 | Brent Douglass | 1238 | ||
I'm pretty confident that there is no such quotation directed to Enoch in the OT. This is most likely from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. I believe there are several quotations from apocryphal books in the New Testament. If Enoch is among those books added to the extended Roman Catholic canon (and I must plead ignorance as to exactly which books are included in this extended canon), this is probably part of the reason. However, one or two quotations do not necessarily create credibility for the entire book of Enoch. Paul also quoted a Greek philosopher in reaffirming the general stereotype of the people of Crete as "liars, evil brutes and lazy gluttons," but this doesn't validate the philosopher's writings as inspired by God. Jude seems to identify this as an actual prophecy, but that doesn't mean the entire book is inspired by God or even factual in its accounts of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was probably circulated widely among the Israelites, but they never accepted it (in entirety) as authoritative to the degree of canon. Neither did the councils that set forth our present canon, as they followed the nation of Israel regarding Old Testament canon. |
||||||
63 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1026 | ||
There is significant disagreement about this secondary issue between fully orthodox branches of Christianity. If, after examining the creed and explanations of your church, you can not be reconciled to their beliefs on this issue, it may or may not be cause for concern. Most congregations do not require and/or pressure for individualized adherence to every secondary doctrine. If you have come to respect and trust your leadership, there is probably no reason to leave over such a disagreement. However, if you are (or plan to be) teaching, I would expect most evangelical congregations to desire teaching that did not contradict their doctrine. You need to take this into consideration -- in your responsibility to honor and represent your leadership, as well as in any decisions about what leadership to put yourself under. In certain cases, secondary doctrines may well be important for your choice of denomination or congregation with which you choose to affiliate (and thus place yourself under their authority). However, I believe they should not be used to judge the salvation of a believer or the orthodoxy of a denomination or congregation; the Scriptures leave room for disagreement. Is there someone on the list who assumes/expects that either John Calvin or John Wesley will not be in heaven when you get there because of his views on this doctrine? These are probably the most well-known proponents of the 2 most common opposing views. |
||||||
64 | 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. |
||||||
65 | TV Show "Crossing Over" - Dead Speaks? | Deut 18:11 | Brent Douglass | 773 | ||
It's interesting that you picked out Deuteronomy 18:11 in asking this question. The surrounding passage is clear that we are not to pursue or dabble in these things. The reason is given in verse 12: "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." While we are now under a "testament" of grace, God's attitudes have not changed, for he does NOT change. If something was detestable to him then, it is detestable to him now, no matter how appealingly presented. The effect is to replace the need for God with something else. While we want to encourage people and bring relief to those weighed down, evil means ("detestable" before God) can not be justified by temporary ends or apparent harmlessness. |
||||||
66 | 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. |
||||||
67 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 734 | ||
This is a fascinating question for fantasy, but there is really nothing clear about it in Scripture. Since any other story one may find is simply a story, we have no way of knowing. If Adam and Eve were there a long time, however, it brings up all sorts of difficulties that the Scriptures do not address. For example, the command to be fruitful and multiply was given from the beginning, so what became of the children born before the fall. They would not have inherited original sin (so would presumably remain sinless unless they foolishly ate of the fruit as well). What would have become of them? Are the males the "Sons of God" (adopted by God since they couldn't be under Adam's authority)? You see how this leads to complete abiblical fantasy. If left without recognition of its lack of root in any direct truth, this kind of speculation could open the way to all sorts of gruesome heresy (Christ merely a "Son of God" rather than the one who "was with God in the beginning" and "through whom all things were made". I do not suggest it is forbidden to fantasize on the possibilities of this or other such questions (as I obviously have), but such fantasy should never be mistaken as theology, doctrine, or an actual answer to such a question. The real answer is, "We don't know how long they were there." It was either a very short time, or God decided that it was not important for us to know in this earthly life about the interim. |
||||||
68 | WAS THE ANGEL JESUS | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 731 | ||
This is the most commonly held view of the Angel of the Lord -- that he was the Preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus. There are several reasons for this. One is that there is no mention of the appearance of the Son prior to his incarnation, and so the assumption that he was the Angel of the Lord answers the question, "Then what was his involvement prior to the incarnation?" Secondly, there are numerous references identifying "The Angel of the Lord" as being "The Lord" himself. It is hard to come away from an honest reading of the following verses wtih any other conclusion -- Gen. 16:1-13; 22:11f; Ex. 3:1-4:17; Judges 13:17-22; Zechariah 3:3. He is repeatedly referred to as, "The Lord, and seeing him is repeatedly equated with seeing God -- yet those who see him do not immediately die. The Angel of the Lord appears only in the Old Testament, and the Son appears only in the new (although he is mentioned in the Old). If they are separate, it is odd that they are never mentioned together; this would also add a fourth person to what we call the Trinity, and it would seem odd that the fourth person be left out in Matthew 28:19 while the other Three are all mentioned. For these and other reasons, the most logical and widely accepted conclusion is that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the preincarnate Christ. |
||||||
69 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 714 | ||
It is pure speculation to consider how many other people may have been around, but there are a number of indications that there were others. There are many people whose existence is indicated in Scripture but whom we know little or nothing about. For example, King David had a son named Nathan, who was identified as an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy, but I don't think there is any mention of him in the Old Testament. Likewise, it is apparent that Adam and Even (as well as their descendents) probably had many children who are not mentioned by name. Those whose lineage has significance for other Biblically related events are listed. God was selective in what he included in the Scriptures. | ||||||
70 | 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. | ||||||
71 | 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. |
||||||
72 | 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. | ||||||
73 | 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. | ||||||
74 | 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). | ||||||
75 | How long were years of Noah's life? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 150 | ||
There's no reason to assume the length of a year was any different, although this forces the question of how Noah (and virtually everyone who is mentioned as living before him) could have lived such (incredibly?) long lives. The most common (and reasonable) explanation I know of is that the earth's climate was completely changed by the flood. - Gen. 1:6-9 indicates that there were 2 "waters" associated with the earth, which were separated by air. Gen. 7:11-12 indicates that BOTH the springs from under the earth and the "gates of heaven" were poured out onto the earth. If these "waters above the earth" (or the "firmament" as they are often referred to) were a thick water-like protection of vapor (perhaps similar to a thick ozone with some kind of gaseous barrier holding it in place over the earth), it would function as a sort of terrarium, keeping out the harmful solar rays that significantly increase aging. - Increasing disease no doubt affected lifespans, as well, but there is an extreme drop in age immediately after the flood, which is most reasonably attributable to a major change in climate caused by the flood. - There is no mention of rain falling prior to the flood, and it's very possible that the method of watering described in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:5-6, 10 (water flowing out from underground and dew covering the surface) remained until the time of the flood. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |