Results 61 - 80 of 176
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | why is Barak cited in Hebrews 11:32? | Judg 5:12 | Brent Douglass | 38497 | ||
Those listed in Hebrews 11:32 are those who performed the actions in Heb 11:33-34. Barak put armies to flight by faith. Deborah may have had greater faith than Barak, but she did not put armies to flight or conquer enemies. Those mentioned are those who performed the acts listed. Faith, whether that of the people mentioned or that of others associated with them, was the power behind the acts committed in Hebrews 11. Another example of this is Hebrews 11:23; it was not the baby Moses' faith that caused him to be protected from Pharaoh and hidden along the Nile. We have come to associate this passage with "heroes" of the faith, but it is more accurately a chronicling of the power of faith. Those who exercise faith are heroes, but faith itself is the point, not the heroes themselves. They are simply witnesses of the effective power of faith. |
||||||
62 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4579 | ||
Thanks for a thought-provoking question, Charis. God has sovereign power and enters into the affairs of man whenever He chooses to do so. (See Romans 8:23ff.) He may place a hedge of protection, as he did for all of Job's life. Even at the time when Satan was given freedom to attack Job, God set the limitations. And when it was time for the trial to end, God intervened. Satan goes as far as God permits in his (Satan's) hateful destruction but no farther. God shows, in Job's history, varying degrees of exercising the sovereign power that he has. He can control completely; He sometimes exercises this power and sometimes doesn't. God is active and engaged in the affairs of man. However, it is also noteworthy that neither Satan nor God indicate any perception or suggestion whatsoever that Job's responses are being controlled. Events are controlled and manipulated to reveal his responses (or for Satan to attempt to reveal the responses he erroneously expected); yet Job himself is not controlled. God knew how Job would respond, and Job proved not only his faithfulness but also his final receptivity to God's correction and rebuke. Job 1:10-12 ""Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ""But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.''Then the LORD said to Satan, ""Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.'' So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD. |
||||||
63 | 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. |
||||||
64 | 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. |
||||||
65 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1845 | ||
I've never read a biography or any doctrinal statements by Finney. I think I may have seen 1 or 2 leaflets by him from Last Days Ministries, and I believe he had something to do with the odd modern definition of "revival" -- but that's about all I know about him. I figure he's in God's hands; I've never heard anyone refer to his teachings as a basis of denominational or congregational doctrine. Calvin and Wesley on the other hand.... | ||||||
66 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1846 | ||
Either view taken to an extreme conclusion -- hyper-Calvinism or Repetitive-Loss-of-Salvation Holiness (for lack of a better name that I know) -- becomes dangerous. However, I use Calvin and Wesley because they are both orthodox doctrinally (along with denominations that follow their doctrine carefully). Otherwise, they and those denominations following their lead are heretical and dangerous. Even most extreme extensions beyond Calvin and Wesley's original teaching are dealing in the realms of secondary doctrines, and I would not think of calling these affiliated denominations non-Christian -- despite the difficulties and even harm that some of their teachings may produce for some people. Comparison of Calvin and Calvinism to Russell (founder of the Witnesses) and the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, is problematic and potentially antagonistic. I am confidetn that it would be offensive (with good reason) to those who lean toward Calvin's theology rather than Wesley's. The Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) is heretical in its basic understanding of the nature of God -- particularly Jesus Christ, whose worship they remove and whom they equate with Michael the Archangel rather than God the Son. This deals with a basic belief core to any orthodox Christianity and disqualifies them as a Christian Church. Members may or may not be believers that have been misled or confused, but those who developed and promulgated these doctrines were and are false teachers. Any believer within such a church will be greatly hindered (at the very least) by fellowship and receptivity toward such heretical teaching. |
||||||
67 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1849 | ||
I wrote a long response (as usual) but forgot to mark it as a note. When I hit the back button, it was gone. This is the 2nd time today that an entry has disappeared before sending. I'll have to get back to you later. | ||||||
68 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1858 | ||
I really like Lloyd-Jones on "The Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit" -- with a few minor exceptions. (I especially like his quotation of Spurgeon's description of the Baptism of the Spirit -- yes Spurgeon, along with Moody, Edwards and others, believed in this experience-- but that's a separate discussion. The descriptions in the journals of Whitfield and the Wesleys concur with the descriptions that Lloyd-Jones quotes from Edwards and others. The Holy Spirit is sovereign over actual revival, and it is merely a large-scale experience of the Baptism (or pouring out) of the Spirit, which can also happen on an individual basis (including more than once to the same person or group, as evidenced in Acts 4:23-31, when it happened to many of the same people who had experienced it on Pentecost in Acts 2). In this century, we have scheduled "revivals" -- meetings set up according to steps designed to cause such outpouring. However, there are no such designs or manipulations in the Scriptural accounts. Nor were there such machinations in the revivals under the Wesleys and Whitfield, or under Jonathan Edwards or Dwight Moody. The Gospel was simply preached, and the Spirit fell with power. I have no problem with deliberate humbling oneself, commitment to purifying oneself (or one's congregation), asking God for boldness, (etc.) but the experience can not and should never be manipulated, advertised or sought by itself. |
||||||
69 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1929 | ||
Suffice to say I think it's fairly clear in both Biblical examples and in documented church history. Lloyd-Jones saw the baptism of the Holy Spirit as corresponding to a special empowerment for witnessing and not necessarily directly linked with any specific spiritual gifts (although it could be at times). I believe Wesley probably connected it to entry into a state of "entire sanctification" (being completely set apart for God, loving God with all of one's heart, mind, soul and strength) -- which he later recognized to be potentially temporary and needful of restoration. I agree with Lloyd-Jones, and I'm not sure if I agree with Wesley exactly on this right now. I can't say I'm set in stone on it, but I'm pretty confident of it. |
||||||
70 | 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. |
||||||
71 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243009 | ||
Is there any way that Jesus could be considered a descendant of Uriah, with David occupying the place of the responsible brother with Uriah's widow (based on Uriah being apart from his family as a Hittite given to David's service and brought to his death at David's hand for David's sin)? This would make Solomon Uriah's legal son before God. Is this impossible, or would this be a reason for the mention of Uriah here as a foreigner? | ||||||
72 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243011 | ||
Actually, this is an easy oversight to make, but David did not father Solomon through an adulterous affair, and Uriah was not alive when Solomon was conceived. Solomon was the first child conceived by David and Bathsheba after Uriah had died. I am afraid this leaves the question unanswered. That first baby (conceived through adultery) died as a punishment from God. Remember Nathan's pronouncement about the lamb taken from the poor man, "You are the man..." See 2 Samuel 12:1-24 Note: It also seems to me that every other reference to a woman in Matthew's patrilineal lineage of Christ - except for Mary of course - references a foreigner being brought into Christ's lineage. (Some may argue that Tamar could have been a descendant of Israel but was likely a foreigner from Timnah, but Rahab and Ruth certainly were God-fearing foreigners joined into Christ's lineage through marriage.) It is also notable that Bathsheba's name is not mentioned in the lineage but instead that of her faithful foreign first husband ("the wife of Uriah". That set of observations is part of what brought on the original question, but the question of (the wording of) Uriah's inclusion is what I am focusing on here. He seems deliberately included as a foreigner into the lineage of Christ, as are the other (2 or) 3 foreigners. While Jesus was unquestionably a blood descendant of David and not Uriah, does God treat Him legally as a descendant of Uriah the Hittite as well. |
||||||
73 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243013 | ||
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the input, and I am honestly not trying to be argumentative. I am not a Greek scholar, but more literal English versions and a parallel text confirm to me that Bathsheba's name was not really mentioned directly in any of the Greek texts. I was not looking at the on-line version of the NASB but rather an off-line version. I guess I was looking at the 1977 NASB version (in my e-sword software) before the interpretive phrase "Bathsheba who had been the" was added into v.6 of the NASB translation. The older version has simply "her who had been the wife of Uriah" (with "who had been the wife" in italics to show it was added to flow more smoothly) per a more literal translation of the Greek ("her of Uriah"). I do not at all question the truth of your statement that God was supremely gracious to David in including him in Jesus' line despite his adultery. However, I don't at all see this particular passage as speaking to that. It seems to me that the inclusion of Uriah as a foreigner by obliquely referencing his wife in the lineage instead fits much more accurately into the pattern of all other insertions of women into this passage of a purely patrilineal legal inheritance through Jesus' adopted father Joseph, not His mother - so not through blood.) Once again I am back to observations of the original wording of Matthew 1:1-16, a completely patrilineal genealogy that deliberately references only 4 women other than Jesus' mother Mary. (I don't count Mary in the observation because she really needs to be mentioned from a genealogy standpoint as the only human parent of Jesus). Three of these women mentioned are foreigners (if one can allow that Tamar was almost definitely a foreigner) and the other is only mentioned as the unnamed wife of a named foreigner. The addition of these 4 women seems to have a fairly clear and consistent purpose of identifying foreigners with the genealogy of Jesus. That seems the only obvious explanation for their inclusion. I tend to doubt your view that this oblique mention of a woman's previous husband (who then just randomly happens to be a foreigner like every other woman added) breaks with the purpose of the other three women in order to insert a non-stated and completely separate interpretation that the Writer wanted to quietly introduce an idea of grace granted to David as a man who was previously an adulterer into the midst of the genealogy. (Solomon was not conceived under adultery after all, but only after God had forgiven David.) Therefore, I believe Uriah is mentioned in the list specifically because he is a foreigner (or perhaps the three foreign women are even mentioned partly to draw attention to Uriah as a foreigner, but that's a stretch). If so, what then is Uriah the Hittite's significance as a foreigner being included in the genealogy of Jesus? (The answer seems to be that Uriah may indeed be a legal ancestor in God's eyes, and I want to know if this is completely unrealistic or a viable understanding of the passage. I need a more careful investigation of the implications and validity, not a polite and cordial dismissal.) |
||||||
74 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243014 | ||
Ed, after posting my reply, I now see I was short-sighted in not noting the aspect of adultery that also applies to all 4 women: Tamar who resorted to deceit and posing as a prostitute to be included in Judah's family; Rahab the former harlot; Ruth whose in-laws had intermarried with an idolatrous people although Ruth herself was apparently already a believer when she met Boaz; and a woman who had been brought into David's house through adultery, deceit, and murder. This could be singly associated with the aspect of grace offered to adulterers, but it also seems odd that the names given all appear to be those of foreigners, so it doesn't remove the possibility of both. It does put your interpretation in a very different perspective though, so I understand better where it came from. |
||||||
75 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243016 | ||
The one who raises up an heir for the dead does not need to be a brother. The principle is that someone should raise up an heir for the man who tragically dies early having no heir, and the first child is then treated as his child. For example, David's grandfather Obed was legally the son and heir of Naomi and Elimelech through Ruth and her first husband (who is not clarified, probably Chilion but maybe Mahlon per Ruth 1:2-5), even though he was Boaz and Ruth's first child by blood. (See Ruth 4:5-22.) This responsibility was typically fulfilled by the closest available male relative (as indicated in Ruth 3:11-13). However, the idea of a patron fulfilling this duty is also understandable, particularly in a case where the patron was responsible for the death of the childless man. This would be David's role as king, adulterer, and killer over the foreigner Uriah, who might otherwise have no inheritance at all in Judah or Israel. 2 Samuel 12:22-24 seems to make it absolutely clear that Solomon was the first son born to David and Bathsheba after the death of Uriah. Yet 2 Samuel 5:13-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-8 both list Solomon last among the sons born to David and Bathsheba in Jerusalem. This seems to contradict precedence of listing according to birth order -- unless of course in God's eyes they were all born to David and Bathsheba but Solomon is legally another man's son. |
||||||
76 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243023 | ||
I will let you cool off, Ed, and perhaps repost my question another time. You are obviously offended in some way by me, my question, or something. I do not have time for this. As you have moved from what I thought was trying to answer my question to treating the question as ignorant and inappropriate because it doesn't meet your superior standard, I see the reason for the sloppiness in your original reply was probably more out of being too quick to get rid of what you deemed an inappropriate question than a desire to help. I will wait and repost the question in the future, perhaps in a less offensive manner. When I do, please do not answer it. I would rather get input than have someone answer just to get a question out of circulation quickly because they deem it unworthy of discussion. |
||||||
77 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243031 | ||
Ed, your answer was definitely offensive to me at the time due to the obvious assumptions and condescending and hypocritical tone I found within it. I feel that I had deliberately extended grace in my clarifications to you after you twice misquoted Scripture in this thread (first saying that Solomon was the result of an adulterous affair and later that Bathsheba's name was used directly in the Matthew genealogy, neither of which are accurate from the original Biblical text itself). Then shortly after in the same thread you accuse me of ignoring the Scriptures and asking what certainly appears to be a rhetorical question as to what difference the answer to my question makes anyway. I am not sure how to interpret these observations in a non-offensive way. Nevertheless, I will leave it behind because I do not wish to abandon the forum at this point or turn this into a further distraction from the question itself -- with people adding misguided suggestions about possible Muslim assumptions, not believing the Scriptures, or a liberal trying to undermine the genealogy of Christ. I accept none of those labels, and do not wish to enter into some kind of self-defense demonstrating the genuineness of my faith or my confidence in God's Word. I don't care to spend time "working through" the basis of whatever assumptions you carry about me or my motives in posting the question, but I wanted to be clear in this separate note before returning to the question at hand. For my part, you are forgiven whether you feel forgiveness is needed or not. |
||||||
78 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243032 | ||
I believe Uriah was most likely a proselyte of Hittite ancestry, as that would be the most straightforward reading of the various texts including his name. He seems to clearly be a believer in YHWH based on David's inclusion of him in living in such proximity to the palace, his repeated inclusion among David's mighty men, and the way that his wife seems to be treated as a woman of honor despite David's obvious abuse of Uriah and David's rebuke by God through Nathan. I also doubt that David would have trusted a foreigner without first verifying his sincerity to YHWH and to Israel (having deceived the Philistines himself several times). However, David also came from a heritage of accepting foreign believers in YHWH into Israel and into the tribe of Judah: being only a few generations descended from both Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab. As to the potential perception that inclusion of Uriah into the (legal but non-blood) lineage of the Messiah would somehow remove David, that is clearly not the case based on the remaining lineage. For example, Boaz is included in the lineage, and Judah is included with no mention of Judah's son Er (Tamar's first husband). If the dead husband automatically replaced the actual father in the lineage, Boaz should have been replaced by Elimelech or Mahlon as indicated in application of the principle in Ruth 4:5-17 - but shown not to impact Boaz's place in the recognized genealogy for David in Ruth 4:18-22 or in Matthew 1. There is no suggestion whatsoever here to discredit Jesus as the Messiah descended from David, Judah, and Abraham. Also, as you noted earlier, this is not a blood lineage to Jesus. That is recorded in Luke 3:23, which I would interpret, "Jesus Himself.. being the son (supposedly of Joseph but really) of Eli [Mary's father]..." I was actually surprised to find that this was also through David and Bathsheba (and not another wife) through their son Nathan (Luke 3:31-32; 1 Chron 3:5). It is true that this lineage establishes Jesus' legal inheritance to the throne of Israel and Judah (by adoption through Jesus' earthly father Joseph) all the way from David and Solomon through all the descended kings of Judah to Jeconiah/Jehoiachin at the deportation to Babylon and beyond. However, this is not a parable, so this does not mean that God has nothing else to communicate through the text but that one point. This is a completely paternalistic genealogy except for the inclusion of 4 women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah's wife (whose own name is not even directly mentioned in the original text of Matthew). What do these named people have in common through the unique mention of women in this patrilineal line? They are all foreign believers in the true God YHWH who were grafted into God's people -- and they are all noted deliberately in the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah who reigns on David's throne. (Someone may argue about Tamar, but there are strong potential indicators that she was a foreigner, and Judah certainly did not seem averse to having a foreign wife for himself or having sexual relations with someone he considered to be a foreign prostitute.) So we see that God always included all true believers (in His true Self as revealed in His words of the Bible and in the world and heavens that declare His glory) among His children and His people. Grafting in Gentiles may seem a new concept to the Judaizers of New Testament times, but God had always grafted them in -- even into the line of the Messiah. This seems to me evident from the text. My question is whether God went beyond this and here (at least metaphorically) honors a believing Gentile by applying the rights of kinsman redeemer. Yes, this would be beyond what the Jews would normally do. It would include a Gentile who had bonded himself to David and God's people as a believer in God and one of David's trusted mighty men by mentioning him specifically in the lineage of Christ. If the kinsman redeemer principle is applied, this explains Solomon's description as the son of David by Uriah's wife and the parallel with the other women mentioned. It would also potentially resolve the reason as to why Solomon was listed last among David and Bathsheba's sons in 1 Chron 3:5, 1 Chron 14:4, and 2 Samuel 5:14. This explanation does not make this true. I believe it to be a possible interpretation, but not something I would hold strongly. However, I also do not see it as of yet to be negated or disproven by anything given so far. My purpose in asking the question was to see whether this was way off base or plausible. So far, it still seems plausible to me. |
||||||
79 | Married apostles | Matt 8:14 | Brent Douglass | 39062 | ||
Peter, Jesus' brothers (presumably the epistle writers James and Jude), as well as "the other apostles" had wives. Paul (and probably Barnabas) did not. It is not clear exactly which apostles were or were not married, but Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 9 appears to indicate that marriage was the norm among most of the apostles. (1Co 9:3-6 "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right ... to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right..?" We don't know with exact certainty by name which apostles were married or which were single -- with 2 exceptions: Peter(Cephas) was married, and Paul was not. I think that's about the only reference we have one way or the other as to the marital status of any of the specific apostles. I would be very careful of any assumptions that only Peter was married simply because there is no direct statement about any other specific apostles. Such an argument would be based on LACK of specific evidence rather than being based on any real evidence. The letters and histories of the New Testament were written at a time when the marital status of the apostles was probably well known, so there was no reason to deliberately describe it. It would also be contrary to Paul's indication in the passage above. Paul is simply making a general statement here, not declaring all the other apostles to be married, so we can't draw that conclusion either. (Paul's point was that Barnabas and he had given up a number of normal "rights" and practices for the sake of their special calling; he was not setting out to differentiate which apostles were and were not married.) |
||||||
80 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |