Results 61 - 80 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Who are the sowers? - II | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14061 | ||
Thank you, Nicodemus and Steve, for your thoughtful and thought-provoking answers to my question. I think I'm in basic agreement with a lot of what both of you say, but there are some observations I'd like to point out, as well as uncertainty as to which of several options Jesus is referring to. Please understand that my intention is to get at the truth with your help. (For me, this includes testing the specific ideas that you offer or quote on this question; I am certainly not testing or questioning your intelligence, knowledge or spirituality in any way.) 1) Nicodemus' quotation from the Nelson NKJV Study Bible seems a little out of context. The study Bible says that John the Baptist and his followers had been in Judea, but this scene did not take place in Judea; it took place in Samaria -- beside a well where Jesus was talking with the Samaritan woman whom He had met there. If there was further explanation (in the longer Nelson account) indicating Jesus may have been referring to Jesus' future sending out of His disciples into Judea, it may be plausible, but the immediate context makes it odd for the study Bible to refer specifically to Judea. 2) Nicodemus quote from the Zondervan NASB Study Bible seems more logical in context. Perhaps John's disciples had by this time gone to the Samaritans as well; is there any indication that John's disciples may have reached them yet? Paul later (quite a bit later) ran into "disciples" as far away as Ephesus who had been thus prepared by a follower of John's teaching and baptism (apparently Apollos prior to his correction by Priscilla) - see Acts 19:1ff. Another logical possibility that appears to fit the context well is the availability and distribution of the teachings of all prophets in general concluding with John and his witnesses. 3) Steve Butler also suggests Jesus (alone) as the "others" referred to. This appears unreasonable given the use of the plural form "others" by Jesus. Jesus and the woman together MIGHT possibly be the "others" -- but this is a sequential message, not a message being proclaimed to them by multiple speakers, so it still seems questionable. Of course, Jesus and-or the Samaritan woman may be a PART of the "others" referred to by Jesus, but it would seem to me that there should be "others" as well. Can Nicodems, Steve, or others offer further input or direction to this. I really don't have a final answer for myself, but it is part of something I've been considering. |
||||||
62 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 13982 | ||
Who are the others who have labored before in John 4:38, so that the fields are now (at the time Jesus spoke) "white for harvest" (John 4:35)? 35 ""Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. 36 ""Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. 37 ""For in this case the saying is true, " One sows and another reaps.' 38 ""I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.'' |
||||||
63 | where did God come from? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 13821 | ||
It sounds like your son's basic question is, "Who or what is God, and how can we know?" First of all, I agree that we have to be careful not to create a definition for God. However, the Christian Scriptures make no claims to be the philosophizing of man in trying to define God; rather they are the revelation of God and truth FROM GOD HIMSELF. Therefore, what is stated there carries the full weight of truth. One aspect of God's revelation of Himself is that He uses personal language and expression, repeatedly identifying Himself as a personal being, NOT as an impersonal force. The Scriptures repeatedly represent God as relating to His creatures in a personally active way. He also consistently portrays Himself as relating and reasoning personally within Himself (both before and after creation). The Scriptures clearly do not present God as an impersonal force but as an infinite and personal being Who desires to know and communicate with His creatures. Others can probably provide better Scriptural support for this. I'd be glad to give it, but I have to go back and review my previous study and research first, since I don't have those resources immediately at my disposal. Hopefully others will jump in and give you this more quickly than I can. This leads to a further question of how to test the authority of the Scriptures. There are many excellent books written that present the tests available to prove that the Scriptures of the Bible are truly supernatural revelations from God that are without error in their original content. There is absolutely no comparing any other so-called "Scriptures" with the tests that prove the authority of the Bible; it stands alone. |
||||||
64 | 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." |
||||||
65 | Plural Sabbaths? Passover Clarification? | John 19:31 | Brent Douglass | 7783 | ||
The question of what day of the week the crucifixion took place is clearly a secondary issue being considered among brothers as to what the Bible actually says, NOT a question of fringe doctrines that divide. Nevertheless, the text needs to be carefully considered in the midst of what appears to be a simple dismissal of varying views (from the recently assumed view) without Biblical support. From the evidence shown in the earlier posts, it seems clear the term "3 days and 3 nights" doesn't in any way directly undermine a Friday (nor can we necessarily calculate the day based on a "wooden" application of this usage). Nevertheless, there still remains a question as to why it's been assumed in recent history to be a Friday; where is the Biblical evidence for Friday? We can say with certainty that the discovery of the empty tomb took place on Sunday -- the first day of the week (John 20:1); the day of the crucifixion is less clear. So far as I know, the only reference that could possibly be interpreted as referring to the day of the week of the crucifixion is the reference to the Sabbath. However, the very wording of the self-same reference ("because it was the day of preparation... for that Sabbath was a high day" -- Jn 19:31) deliberately adds the clarification that this was a special Passover Sabbath, NOT a weekly Sabbath (at the very minimum, NOT MERELY a weekly Sabbath); therefore, any preference for Friday based on the Sabbath is removed by the text itself. John makes a point of stating this at least twice in the passage. Notice also John 19:14, which confirms that the day of Christ's crucifixion was the day before a Passover-related holy day: "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover." Every time the terms "day of preparation" or "preparation" are used in this passage, the context above requires them to be understood as "preparation for the Passover" NOT "preparation for the Friday evening Sabbath". Can someone with better Greek references at hand verify whether any of the Sabbath references to the crucifixion and resurrection (in John or in the other Gospels) are plural? I recall vaguely (whether correctly or incorrectly I can't verify) that at least one reference did refer to plural "Sabbaths" between the crucifixion and the resurrection, which would further indicate that Friday was not the day of the crucifixion. This should be fairly simple to verify for someone with the right materials or knowledge of Greek; I'm afraid I have neither at my disposal right now. A clearer understanding of the celebration of Passover Sabbaths would also be helpful. (I remember something about there being 2 actual Passover Sabbath days that are separate from the weekly Sabbath, but I know little else about them.) I apologize for my vagueness, but elaboration could really help clarify. |
||||||
66 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7612 | ||
Thanks for your response Ray. I think I see your point, and I trust that we can indeed examine ourselves and "know of what Spirit we are." ;-) | ||||||
67 | Father and Son's interactive relations? | John 14:28 | Brent Douglass | 7605 | ||
Thanks for the response, Nolan. I appreciate the effort and thought you put into your response, and I believe I'm in full agreement with your points. However, I think my question must have been unclear. What I mean to ask is, "What does the Bible say (verses and observations) about the Father and the Son's RELATIONSHIP?" -- NOT only (or even primarily) their identities or a comparison of them but primarily their INTERACTION through RELATIONSHIP. How do the Father and the Son relate TO One Another? | ||||||
68 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7563 | ||
Further-more from 1 John -- recognition of the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead and acknowledgement of Jesus as Christ and Saviour, born of God. (1 Jn 4:14f; 5:1) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.... Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (See also John 7:17.) Much of the rest of 1 John repeats the same concepts in other (or even exactly the same) words. God was clearly driving the points home through the apostle. |
||||||
69 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7562 | ||
And more from 1 John -- The testimony of God's Spirit within us. "By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Perhaps this passage is referring to the fruit of the Spirit, which Charis already pointed out as a true indicator previously. Or perhaps the inner testimony of the Spirit or even the experiential filling that Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Dwight Moody, D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon and others spoke of as taking place in their own lives (and as referred to in Galatians 4:6, Acts 4:31, etc.). |
||||||
70 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7561 | ||
Yet more from 1 John -- A growing estrangement from the values, enticements, pursuits, and sensibilities of the world -- together with false accusations and unmerited reactiveness from the world. (The feeling of being a sojourner or alien as in 1 Pe 2:11f) 1 John 3:1,13 See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.... Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. |
||||||
71 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7560 | ||
Still more from 1 John -- Growing and active love for other Christians (1 Jn 2:9-11) The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. |
||||||
72 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7558 | ||
More from 1 John -- 1 John 2:3-7 says much the same thing that Jim succinctly quoted from James -- only John is more long-winded (which of course draws me personally to his writing ;-) By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him,'' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 Jn 2:3-7) |
||||||
73 | 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. |
||||||
74 | Is 1 John 1:9 applicable to Christians? | 1 John 1:9 | Brent Douglass | 7556 | ||
I think Tim answered well in answering your other question. Christ died for our sins while we were yet sinners in order to bring us to God (Ro 5:8), and He petitioned the Father to forgive those who crucified him -- who knew not what they were doing (Luke 23:33-34). When we confess our sins to God, He not only affirms His forgivess; He goes further to sanctify us by purifying us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn 1:9). Repentant confession of sin releases purification and sanctification into our lives. The eternal consequences of sin are removed by grace through faith (John 1:12, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8f). The ongoing erosion and pollution of sin are removed through consistent and repentant confession. (See Psalm 32, Psalm 51 and James 5:13-16, among other passages.) There is even room for the consideration of the concept as to whether all sins could have been actually removed by the shedding of Jesus blood on the cross for all men as to their power to damn us SAVE A SINGLE UNFORGIVABLE SIN -- the final refusal to humble onself in the face of the persistent, faithful and eventually incontrovertible testimony of the Spirit as to the identity, truth, holiness and surpassing worthiness of God (Mark 3:28-30)-- and consequently my own need to worship Him and my utter unworthiness and inability to do so by any merit of my own (John 9:39-41). There is clearly a forgiveness already owned by the believer -- either received upon initial beleif or even prior to it, and there is a deeper cleansing from sin that is facilitated by confession. |
||||||
75 | Father and Son's relationship to E.O.? | Not Specified | Brent Douglass | 7555 | ||
How do the Father and the Son relate to each other? I don't wish to open up a discussion on whether the Trinity is accurate. My question begins with the assumption that it is true that God has one essence but 3 persons in relationship. Nor is this question related to the relationships between the Father and the Spirit or the Spirit and the Son (or even how the 3 relate together synergistically); I'd like to ask those questions separately later (as part of a further study along the same lines) and focus on the Father and Son now. My questions are, 1) "What are some of the many passages that describe the ways that the Father and the Son relate to one another?" and 2) "What can we learn about God from these passages?" Please give verses and observations. |
||||||
76 | Father and Son's relationship to E.O.? | John 14:28 | Brent Douglass | 7599 | ||
How do the Father and the Son relate to each other? I don't wish to open up a discussion on whether the Trinity is accurate. My question begins with the assumption that it is true that God has one essence but 3 persons in relationship. Nor is this question related to the relationships between the Father and the Spirit or the Spirit and the Son (or even how the 3 relate together synergistically); I'd like to ask those questions separately later (as part of a further study along the same lines) and focus on the Father and Son now. My questions are, 1) "What are some of the many passages that describe the ways that the Father and the Son relate to one another?" and 2) "What can we learn about God from these passages?" Please give verses and observations. |
||||||
77 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 7554 | ||
An excellent source would be the compilation of Wesley's writing on the topic of "Christian Perfection" and "Entire Sanctification" that you can find at the following URL. http:\\www.whatsaiththescripture.com\Fellowship\Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html Within the the denominations and independent churches that seek to pursue Wesley's desire for "entire sanctification" -- there is a significant variance in understanding and explanation, but this article is from Wesley's own writings. He quotes the Scriptures extensively in this piece to guide his explanations. My understanding is that passages and verses such as Luke 14:25ff and Matthew 6:24-Luke 16:14, Romans 12:1f, etc. give the clearest indication of what Wesley meant by entire sanctification. It is not a condition of sinless perfection or an ability to set aside the flesh completely. Rather it is a state or condition of being fully set apart, not only positionally by God but in one's own heart and will -- a condition in which (by the Spirit's empowerment) nothing is allowed by the will to compete with God for allegiance. While there is great disagreement among those who have the pursuit of "holiness" as one of their central guiding principles -- I believe Wesley seems fairly clear in his own (later) writings that any state of "entire sanctification" can be lost and regained without at all affecting salvation itself. I believe Wesley would interpret 1 Corinthians 10:13 as a very real possibility for the true Christian at any given time and not simply a worthy but unattainable goal. This is an important part of the doctrine of many churches, as are other secondary doctrines for others. You do well to consider whether you could commit yourself to a long-term affiliation with such doctrine before you step into a new pastoral role. It is important that you follow your own conscience before God and not that of Wesley or any other great theologian -- since none of them are in full agreement about everything. (At least they weren't in agreement while in the flesh; Wesley and Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones and G. Campbell Morgan, Luther and Calvin, and others are surely in strong personal agreement now on many such matters that they disagreed upon before they entered God's presence without their fleshly limitations.) It's difficult to trace exactly what Wesley believed, as his "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" approach to doctrine resulted in his doctrine(s) being repeatedly revisited and retested by the Scriptures (maintaining the Scriptures as the supreme authority) makes it difficult to lock in on his final definitions of many concepts. Wesley was not a systematic theologian (most of whom also maintain the Scriptures as the supreme authority) who kept past conclusions on secondary doctrines as fixed and foundational -- immutable due to the height and width of subsequent doctrines built upon them. His views on secondary doctrines were somewhat more malleable -- for better or for worse. In brotherly encouragement, Brent |
||||||
78 | Can fallen angels repent? | Not Specified | Brent Douglass | 4858 | ||
What passages in the Scriptures give clear indication as to whether or not any fallen angels are capable of repentance? It seems fairly obvious to me that they can not repent, but I'm confident that the Bible speaks more clearly on this than my "confidence" does? What do the Scriptures say on this? | ||||||
79 | Can fallen angels repent? | Jude 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 4862 | ||
What passages in the Scriptures give clear indication as to whether or not any fallen angels are capable of repentance? It seems fairly obvious to me that they can not repent, but I'm confident that the Bible speaks more clearly on this than my "confidence" does? What do the Scriptures say on this? | ||||||
80 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4856 | ||
Thanks for the clarifications. I think I'm in full agreement to what you have said. Satan must have decision-making ability and can NOT be simply a negative extension of God's will and plan, since God can not tempt, and since God is light with no darkness or evil intent at all. Any implication that Satan does not have a free and independent will would naturally lead to very dangerous and unbiblical doctrines as to the nature of God. My following statement is not in any way meant as disagreement, but simply as additional clarification. There is some difference in Satan's "will" and ours, since the Scriptures seem to indicate that fallen angels are incapable of repentance, whereas fallen people (everyone, as descendants of Adam and Eve after the fall) can respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, confess our sins, repent, believe and be restored to everlasting fellowship with God. There is disagreement among orthodox Christians as to how "free" (or "irresistable") this interaction is, but we all agree that people can do this under the prompting and working of the Holy Spirit. I'll post a question to the list as to what passages advocate this eternal and irrevocable quality of the fallenness of evil angels, but I'm confident that it is Biblical. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |