QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 76
The Following is a dialog brother Blakely had with a young man from Pakistan
Pakistanian Man: Hello sir. How are you ??
Given O. Blakely: I am fine. Who am I speaking with?
Pakistanian Man: Well my name is _____________________. I am a 27 year old gay. I like mature gay men of your age.
Given O. Blakely: Well, I am not gay, and have no interest in being so.
Pakistanian Man: Sorry sir. You have misunderstood me. I have not said that you are gay. I said that I am gay, not you. I just mean that I like mature men like you.
Given O. Blakely: Well, I have no interest in gay men as such. I am interested in helping all men. I am a Christian, and desire to help people see what Christ has to offer.
Pakistanian Man: That is great to hear. Indeed, humans are born to help one another for ever and to make love with one another.
Given O. Blakely: God did not make men to make love with one another. The fact that no offspring can result from that should provoke sober thought.
Pakistanian Man: OK. Well if some one wants to convert to Christianity from other religions ..then what sort of help you will offer??
Given O. Blakely: Is that your desire?
Pakistanian Man: Yeah. That is for sure, I promise you in this regard if you were sincere what you have said earlier.
Given O. Blakely: And why is this so? Also, what do you desire to convert from?
Pakistanian Man: Well, I have suffered a lot from my own religion. I want liberalism, which I can not follow in my own country and religion.
Given O. Blakely: What is your religion and country, and what do you mean by liberalism?
Pakistanian Man: I am Muslim. I am from Pakistan. I want gayism in my own country... because there are many young gay men like me who are suffering at the hands of fundamentalists. Actually gayism is a felonious crime in our country. I want basic human rights for the gay people.
Given O. Blakely: Christ Jesus offers no such freedom, nor does true Christianity. What Christianity offers is freedom from gayism.
Pakistanian Man: OK. Sorry I have no such information about that, but still believe that Christianity would be far more flexible as compared to Islam in this regard.
Given O. Blakely: Are you interested in that kind of freedom – freedom from being gay, or do you have a compelling desire to remain gay? Christ liberates the individual from things that offend God. He also gives strength to the individual to be superior to his circumstances. Additionally, He prepares Him to at last stand before God with joy and confidence.
Pakistanian Man: Yeah .. I do agree with you, because all the religions stands on those principles ..which you have aforementioned.
Given O. Blakely: Not to the extent brought to men by Jesus Christ. Other religions often allow things neither God nor Christ allow. How does this relate to your desire for freedom for gays? Would you not rather prefer freedom from being gay? Have you had any thoughts about this?
Pakistanian Man: No.. I do not want freedom from being gay, because I am born gay.
Given O. Blakely: I must tell you, you were not born gay. It is a learned behavior. You are a creation of God, and He has condemned intimacy and love between men, It is not God's manner to condemn something He created.
Pakistanian Man: OK.. can you tell me one thing. Do you like women ?? Do you like women for sexual purpose ??
Given O. Blakely: I am a married man with one wife and ten children. I love my wife, not women in general. God created one man and one woman for him. That is His intention. He did not make two men, two women, or one man and three women. One man, one woman.
Pakistanian Man: Yeah, I agree with you in what you say.
Given O. Blakely: How can you agree with what I say, yet prefer to be gay? I do not understand such reasoning.
Pakistanian Man: No sir.. I am sorry sir. I am not reasoning with you. You are my elder. I do respect you. But can you tell me / answer me why are you bent towards women sex ????? why not men sex? But I just want to know that why you like women sex, not men sex? I am sorry if my question perturbs you.
Given O. Blakely: The fact that men cannot procreate with men confirms what God has said about it being wrong. In Christianity, the human nature is changed to be compatible with God Himself. That is why I cannot like or condone what God does not allow. Intimacy, or "sex," is an aspect of marriage. It is not an end of itself. Outside of the confines of marriage, such intimacy is wrong. God did not create people to be dominated by sexual appetites.
Pakistanian Man: OK. If some one asked you to change your sexual desire from women to men.. would you do that ??
Given O. Blakely: I would not __ I could not. It is not in my heart to do so. I know I would forfeit my relation with God by doing so __ and that relationship is the primary one __ man with God. All others are subordinate to that.
Pakistanian Man: OK. If you cannot change your sexual desire then how would you convince me to change my gayism?? Can you tell me about that.
Given O. Blakely: Yes I can. Because, just like myself, you are a creation of God. Your primary concern must be, and can be, to please God, not your own bodily appetites. Since you will some day stand before God just as myself, I urge you to begin now to be dominated by a desire to please Him, and to prepare to meet Him and be judged by Him. At this point, there is a big difference between us. I cannot change because of my acquaintance with God, and because of my love for Him. You are having difficulty with change because of your own preference.
Pakistanian Man: No. I am not agreeing with you. I do try to please My GOD almighty. But I have my own desires which I want to follow.
Given O. Blakely: And does your god promote gayism __ anywhere? Are you saying your desires are primary, and God's secondary?
Pakistanian Man: No. But sex is part of life. One cannot live with out that.
Given O. Blakely: Does your god allow for your will to be more prominent than His.
Pakistanian Man: Nooo never ever – can you please GOD with out having any sex in your life ??
Given O. Blakely: Most certainly! There are multitudes of people who have lived without that. It is not normal, but it is possible. Jesus said some men had chosen a celibate life in order to serve God more fully. He did not say that was necessary, but it was something those men did. Jesus Christ Himself, John the Baptist, and the Apostle Paul are examples of such men.
Pakistanian Man: No, I am not talking about those great personalities. I am just asking you ? Can you please GOD with out sex in life ??? As you know that it is part of life.
Given O. Blakely: I understand that. That is why I am married. Christianity says to avoid sexual sins, the man should have his own wife.
Pakistanian Man: But how can a man with same-sex desire live with a women... when he has no aptitude for women. Can he live like that? What should he do ??
Given O. Blakely: If a man has no aptitude for women, yet wants to enjoy intimacy, he must ask God to give him such an aptitude, because God made the woman for the man. Can your god give you such an aptitude?
Pakistanian Man: No. I am not in a position to blame My GOD. But I am helpless in this regard. I want sex with just man, not women. So tell me what should I do ??
Given O. Blakely: Blame God? It is a matter of accepting His will and asking Him to help you do it. You are not helpless if you have a powerful God __ you are only helpless if your God is as weak as you. The time must come when you no longer want sex with men. You must not reconcile yourself to that being your only alternative. It is not.
Pakistanian Man: OK sir. I do believe in what you say.. still I would try to change myself. Believe me I do enjoy your chatting, and the way you talk.
Given O. Blakely: It has been good chatting with you also. I am praying you will receive a new heart and mind about this matter. That is something real Christianity offers. Do you have access to websites?
Pakistanian Man: What websites ??? which one?
Given O. Blakely: My website is http://www.wotruth.com
Pakistanian Man: OK. That is really interesting. Yeah. Thanks.
Given O. Blakely: It will introduce you to my own writing and ministry. There are over 7,000 pages of my material on my website. I must go now. I am writing a article. Do not hesitate to chat again if you have opportunity. You can also sent me an email message at GivenB@aol.com
Pakistanian Man: OK sir. Thanks for a nice chat. Sorry if my questions disturbed you. I am sorry for that. I do respect you as my elder. So I will try to follow you.
Given O. Blakely: No disturbance. I have your welfare in mind __ your eternal welfare.
Pakistanian Man: Thanks for caring about me. I will respect you for ever for guiding me. Bye bye for now. I hope to chat with you later on.
Have all or partial
spiritual gifts ceased in the Church today?
The supposition that any or all spiritual gifts have ceased is based upon First
Corinthians 13:8-10. However, in my judgment, it requires a great deal of
imagination, as well as the traditions of men, to read that position into this
text. The Spirit is not speaking about times, but in comparative terms. The
comparison is made with love, which never fails, and always yields benefits.
Love will project out into eternity, never failing, while in the world to come,
there will be no requirement for prophecies, tongues, or the obtaining of
knowledge from secondhand sources. In this world, everything we have from God is
partial -- even salvation itself, which is referred to as "the firstfruits of
the Spirit" (Rom 8:23). A significant part of our persons is not yet saved,
namely our bodies. But they will be, praise the Lord, in the resurrection --
which is the very point of Romans 8:23. It should be apparent that the "perfect"
has not yet come, for we still have God's treasure in an earthen vessel.
Spiritual gifts are given by Divine discretion, and they have never been the
same in every congregation. The "gifts" mentioned in Romans 12:6-8 are not
identical with those of First Corinthians. Nor, indeed, are the ones mentioned
in Ephesians 4:8-11 the same as those in Romans. Peter speaks of gifts in yet
another way (1 Pet 4:10-11). The stereotyped approach to gifts that is taken
both by those who insist on them all, and those who reject them all, is
completely unwarranted, with no Scriptural support at all. Men who make such
judgments are out of order intruding upon Divine prerogatives, and making
judgments on what He alone gives.
How
can conservative Churches today pick and choose which spiritual
gifts are still acceptable today and which gifts have ceased? (If gifts
have not ceased -question number 1)
I do not know that churches who "pick and choose" are "conservative." I would
prefer to call them carnal. We are specifically told that every member is placed
in the body where God is pleased to place them (1 Cor 12:18). There is not the
slightest indication that any of these members are ungifted, or without
spiritual abilities that profit the rest of the body. We are also told there are
different kinds of gifts, yet they are given by one Spirit (1 Cor 12:4). There
are also different kinds of service, but the same Lord administers them all (1
Cor 12:5). There are even different kinds of workings, but the same God works
them all (1 Cor 12:6). We are also told that "each one" receives a manifestation
of the Spirit for the common good of the body (1 Cor 12:7). It is the Spirit who
works all of these things, at His own discretion (1 Cor 12:11).
For men to take such texts as First Corinthians 12-15 and define valid and
invalid gifts, and which ones are in place now and which ones are not, is an
exercise of human pride. How foolish it must be in the eyes the holy angels to
see men bantering about like fools concerning things completely out of their
power. The person who imagines the church of any age can operate independently
of spiritual abilities, the gracious dispensements of the Holy Spirit, and the
immediate involvement of Christ and God, has betrayed abysmal and intolerable
ignorance.
Our business is to receive what God gives, putting it to use for His glory. We
are also to "covet the best gifts" (1 Cor 12:31), which are defined by God, not
men. And yet, over and above that, we are shown the "better way" of love, which
will consistently employ God's gifts for the common good.
Men have no right to "pick and choose," and are sinning when they do so. Those
are Divine prerogatives, not human ones.
I WOULD LIKE INFORMATION ON
CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES. HOW WE SHOULD REACT TO
DISAPPOINTMENTS RELATING TO HAPPENINGS IN THE CHURCH;
SUCH AS NOT GETTING OUR WAY...A PROPOSAL NOT BEING ACCEPTED.
First, our own attitudes must not be molded by the
response of others to our will and proposals. The frame of our spirits,
including responses, attitudes, etc., must be shaped by the good and acceptable
and perfect will of God. When our preferences are not received by others, we
should respond in love toward them, seeking, if at all possible, to avoid
causing offense. If what we have suggested reflects the mind of the Lord, and is
in keeping with His revealed will and priorities, then we must pray that God
enter into the matter. He can turn the hearts of men, convict them of sin, and
open their eyes.
If we are earnest in our quest to please God, and yet are consistently faced
with discouraging and carnal responses from those with whom we fellowship, it is
time to seek fellowship elsewhere. Those with a dominating love for the Lord and
desire to do His will are not capable of dwelling peaceably with those who lack
those things.
In working these things out, care must be taken not to become bitter in ones own
spirit. Nothing must be allowed to upstage our primary interest in pleasing the
Lord. Neither, indeed, can we permit ourselves to degenerate into carnality,
responding in hatred and disrespect toward others. When we are dealing with
genuine believers -- those whom God has received -- regardless of their level of
attainment in the Kingdom, we are to be "kind one to another, tenderhearted,
forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Eph
4:32), "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one
another in love; Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace" (Eph 4:2-3). Let nothing rob you of those attitudes.
In John 17:12, Part of the
verse refers to (son of perdition) In NIV it says, the one doomed to
destruction. Can you explain more about the son of perdition. Thank you.
In this text, the "son of perdition" refers to
Judas, who betrayed our blessed Lord. It means he was a child of hell -- an
offspring of the wicked one. Elsewhere Jesus said of him, "Have I not chosen
you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (He meant Judas, the son of Simon
Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him)" (John
6:70-71, NIV). Peter, inspired by the Lord, said Judas betrayed the Lord, and
"by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place" (Acts 1:25). It is
also said of him that he was a thief, pilfering from the treasury he carried for
Jesus and His disciples (John 12:6).
Judas was chosen to be an Apostle, and did partake in that ministry. From the
higher view, however, it was in order that he might fulfill the scripture that
Jesus would be betrayed by one of His own (Psa 41:9; John 13:18). Having done
that, his position was vacated, to be filled by another. I have often thought
how grateful the eleven must have been that they did not betray the Savior into
the hands of wicked men. Peter denied Jesus three times, but never betrayed Him.
That diabolical deed was left to be accomplished by one of the devil's own.
The term "son of perdition" is also used in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where it refers
to religious despot who, coming in the name of the Lord, will seek his own will.
That individual is not specifically defined, but is of the same order as Judas.
He is an offspring of hell, and will promote hellish ways in the name of the
Lord.
There
seems to be a rash of people going around in the church calling themselves
doctors. Is doctor a title that should be used at all in the church? Isn't this
puffing oneself up or by conferring a Doctorate on someone leading to their
being puffed up? Should not we only lift up Jesus? Is there any Biblical
justification for using this title?
The flaunting of titles is something practiced and
promoted by the Pharisees, who loved being called "Rabbi, Rabbi" (Matt 23:7).
Gamaliel is referred to as a "doctor of the law" (Acts 5:34). That, however, was
not a title, but denoted that he was a "teacher of the law," as indicated in
other versions of scripture (NKJV, NASB, NIV). That is, he was an expert in the
text of the Law, and its real meaning.
There is no justification for religious titles. In fact, they are evidence of
gross carnality. Terms that are often taken for titles (Apostle, Prophet,
Evangelist, elder, deacon, etc.) were functions, not titles. They reflected a
ministry, not a fleshly attainment.
Jesus said to avoid religious titles. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is
your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren" (Matt 23:8). He was speaking
of the religious realm. It is true that certain titles have validity in the
world order; i.e., physician, engineer, chemist, etc. But they cannot transport
into the spiritual realm, for they have no place there. The thing that qualifies
a person to minister in the behalf of the Lord is not academic attainments, but
spiritual knowledge and endowments from the Lord.
The current craze for academic titles in the church confirms such people have
been wed to the world. Such titles are out of order. God does not honor them,
and neither should we.
Please permit me a
question...what is your interpretation of Paul's advise to the Corinthians and
Ephesians Eph. to
not permit a woman to teach or speak in the churches? In our area it presents
many problems between the NBC and the class churches.
First, the advice in question is found in 1
Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14. In both case, the women were
learning. In both cases, they were associated with their husbands, not men in
general. The Corinthian text dealt with asking questions, apparently ones that
interrupted what was being said (14:29-33). The Timothy text speaks of upstaging
the husband, and usurping authority.
It is interesting that the very first thing Peter said of the era of the New
Covenant involved women speaking. "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your
DAUGHTERS shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall
dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My MAIDSERVANTS I will pour out My
Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17-18). If this was not
proper, that would have been an excellent time to prohibit women from speaking
-- but Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit, made no such prohibition.
When Jesus rose from the dead, the very first person He appeared to was Mary
Magdelene (Mark 16:9). What is more, she was sent to the Apostles themselves to
declare the Lord was risen (John 20:17). That is certainly not something those
opposed to women speaking in the assembly would have done -- but that IS what
Jesus did. In fact, when He appeared to the disciples later, He upbraided them
because they did not believe the women (Mark 16:14).
We do have record of Jesus speaking to a woman teacher in the church in
Thyatira. She was wicked, and had taught His servants to commit fornication and
eat things sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:20). Jesus gave her a time to repent --
not of teaching, but "of her fornication" (2:21). That would have been an
excellent time for Jesus to point out the woman should not have been teaching in
the first place. But He did not. Instead of rebuking her for teaching, He
rebuked her for what she taught.
To make a long story short, there is not a syllable in Scripture that says all
Christian woman are subject to all Christian men -- and the issue in both the
Corinthian and Timothy text involved submission. A woman is only subject to her
own husband. That is what was taught under the law, to which Paul appealed in 1
Corinthians 14:34). Paul's reasoning in First Timothy does not concern all women
and all men, but the husband and the wife, as with Adam and Eve. The texts in
question are to be seen from this perspective. We know this is true, for Paul
does allow for women to speak in the assembly if they do so as subordinate to
their believing husband (1 Cor 11:5).
One final word on this. On the matter of women speaking with an appropriate
covering (which he said was her hair, 11:15), he added, "But if any man seem to
be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Cor
11:16). I do not know that Paul, or any one else, ever spoke in this manner
about critical matters -- things that involved Divine judgment, heaven or hell,
Divine approval or condemnation.
Any speaking among God's people that edifies or builds them up in the faith
cannot be wrong. Any speaking that does not do this cannot be right. It is
really just that simple. Those who are slaves to procedure would not let Deborah
be a judge -- but God did, choosing her over her husband (Judges 4:4). They
would not allow kings and holy men to be taught by a woman prophetess named
Huldah -- but God did (2 Kgs 22:14-20). They would not commission women to be
the first proclaimers of the Gospel, and that to the Apostles -- but God did (Lk
24:24. They would not permit an aged woman to go throughout Jerusalem,
announcing to all who were looking for redemption that the Savior had been born
-- but God did (Lk 2:38). They would not permit a woman to join her husband in
teaching an outstanding evangelist the way of the Lord more perfectly -- but God
did (Acts 18:26). They certainly would not promote four virgin daughters of an
eminent evangelist to be prophetesses -- but God did (Acts 21:9). They surely
would not allow women to labor with Paul "in the Gospel" -- but God did (Phil
4:3).
The bottom line is that God simply does not think like these prohibitory
experts, and neither should we.
Corban is a Jewish tradition.
Please explain more in detail? Why would any
preacher use this for a lesson on giving?
In the tradition of the elders of the Jews,
"Corban" meant "It is a gift." There was no thought in the word of indebtedness,
thanksgiving, or gratitude. The proper question is not why any preacher would
use this as a lesson in giving, but why the Lord Jesus Himself would employ it
in His teaching -- and He did. It is written, "And he said unto them, Full well
ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses
said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let
him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is
Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his
mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye
have delivered: and many such like things do ye" (Mark 7:9-13).
Our Lord's intention was to show that human tradition was used to offset and
actually nullify the command of God to honor one's father and mother. Yet, using
the word and concept of "Corban," the Jews thought they had actually kept the
commandment of God, even though they gave no more consideration to honoring
their parents. They only treated them as subjects of general charity.
The application to our giving should be obvious. We are not to think we are
simply giving God a gift, as though He needed something from us. Rather, we are
to honor Him in our giving with appropriate amounts, thankful hearts, and a
generous spirit.
I understand what you
are saying. I think lots of 'our' preachers are leaning toward 'Faith alone'.
Would it have been better to say: "But without faith" we can't
appropriate---instead of 'faith alone'?. Enoch and Noah had faith that caused
them to do what God told them to do.
The statement concerning the appropriation of God's righteousness reflects the
fact only faith can obtain that righteousness. Paul stated this in a very
precise manner in Romans 4:5. "But to him who DOES NOT WORK but believes on Him
who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Rom 4:5).
As I have pointed out in this series, this does not mean the godly do not work,
or that there is no activity on their part. But when it comes to appropriating
the righteousness of God, faith is the only thing that can obtain it. There are
things faith can do that nothing else can do. That is what I meant by "faith
alone can appropriate the righteousness of God."
I know too well of those who lean toward a "faith only" view. When James used
that term, he was saying there was really no such thing as "faith alone" -- or a
faith that did not work. Such a faith is a figment of the imagination, and there
is not truth to it. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a faith that
does not work. Those who say they have faith, yet do not do the works of God,
have not told the truth. That is why James spoke so harshly to such people,
declaring they were adulterers and adulteresses, friends of the world, and
enemies of God (4:4).
But that is not the issue in obtaining the righteousness of God. Even James
affirmed, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God,
and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of
God' (James 2:23). His point was that his works proved that was the case, not
that his works made him righteous.
My mom, who has Alzheimer's Disease. Lately, I have even been wondering if it is
safe for her to cross a street by herself. These reasons are why we have tried
to "hedge her in" with ourselves and others so much. I am coming to the
conclusion that I am going to have to place her in an Alzheimer's care facility.
Finally, here comes the question: How does one know when it is right to do this?
When would it not be right to do this?
If you are living by faith, here is where your faith
brings great dividends to you. In a way, you are like the President. You can
listen to the advice of those whose judgment you trust. But in the last
analysis, you must make the decision. Candidly, as one who has passed through
these waters, there are no flawless procedures or regimens that will settle your
heart on this issue. You must resort to your privilege as a "daughter" of the
"Lord Almighty" (2 Cor 6:18).
In Christ there is a gracious provision to make your request known unto God.
This is done, we are told, "by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving." Such
requests are earnest, fervent, and with a grateful heart for the benefits you
have already experienced. This is to be done "in everything" -- and how
appropriate it is in your circumstance. Tell the Lord what you want to do --
i.e., the right thing, the best thing, what gives honor to Him, what will bring
the most benefit to your mother, what will best prepare her for disembarking
from this world, what you will be able to live with . . . etc. He places no
limitations on the kind of request you make, so take Him at His word.
There is a promise connected with this exhortation that offers precisely what
you are seeking. "And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will
guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Phil 4:7). That settled peace
will enable you to properly evaluate the advice you receive. It will help you
see further than an Alzheimer's specialist. And it will help you to make a
proper decision, and know you have done the right thing.
You have a promise from God that if you trust in Him, do not lean to your own
understanding, and acknowledge Him in all of your ways, He WILL direct your
paths, or make them strait and obvious to you (Prov 3:5-6) -- and God cannot
lie.
I urge you to do your best to put your trust in the Lord on this matter. If, at
times, that is difficult, then ask the Lord to help your unbelief -- that is, to
help you be confident in Him, His care, and His direction. He will not turn you
aside. We know from Scripture that He is kindly disposed to such requests (Mark
9:24).
Then, when you have cast your care upon the Lord, listen to all the advice you
can profitably take in. View none of it as infallible, but only as possible
solutions. With a peaceful heart, and a mind stayed on the Lord, He will help
you make the right decision, and know that you have done so. That may appear
simplistic to the intellect, but your heart will confirm its truth to you.
My 21 yr. old daughter, (not
living w/us for the past yr. because the boundaries/rules of our home "repress"
her), knows I seek my answers from God's Word, so she is trying to get me to
change about facial piercing by telling me in Genesis, Rebekah had her nose
pierced.
Sister Karen,
It is true that Rebekah had a "nose ring." She was also a Syrian (Gen 25:20),
with little understanding of God. In fact, she lived before the Law was given.
She was a sister to Laban, who had false gods in his house (Gen 31:30-32).
However, God had not spoken to Laban, and he had no Law from God. Those times,
we must remember, were very primitive spiritually -- hardly any revelation from
God, few prophets, and no written law. Rebekah is hardly an example for those in
Christ Jesus, unless it be her readiness to believe God.
In Christ Jesus, the view of the human body has been greatly exalted. We read
such things as, "the body is . . . for the Lord, and the Lord for the body" (1
Cor 6:13). "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" (1 Cor
6:15). "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1
Cor 6:20). I find it difficult to believe the current trend in body piercing is
an effort to glorify God in the body. In fact, were someone to make such a
claim, I would be forced to conclude they were lying.
What you are dealing with in your daughter is rebellion and pride. You must be
careful not to take the blame for this upon yourself. She is making her own
choices, and is totally responsible for them. Her conduct is simply an effort to
be accepted by a certain group of people -- and they are not God-fearing people.
Godly women are told NOT to allow their adornment to merely be external (1 Pet
3:3). This does not give us a license to create all manner of laws for others.
It does, however, place the obligation on the individual, whether young or old,
to seek God's approval and commendation, not man's.
Instead of focusing on what your daughter does, I suggest you seek wisdom to
help her think about WHY she is doing it, and whose approval she is seeking in
doing so. Is it being done for self? Jesus says to deny self (Matt 16:24). If it
being done to please her peers, the Spirit says pleasing men causes us to cease
to please God (Gal 1:10). If it is surmised that body piercing does, in fact,
please God, then precisely how does it do so. Shift the focus from you giving
the answers to your daughter giving the answers. Those answers will help you
know better how to help her.
Do
you believe the word "church" is a good and proper translation of the original,
didn't Christ die to build a family of believers and not an institution?
There is no single English word that perfectly parallels the Greek word
"ekklesia." I am familiar with the position that "church" is an improper
translation. However, the argument has no sound etymological basis. The Holy
Spirit often took common words and attached unique meanings to them. "Ekklesia"
is one of them. The word is expounded doctrinally, not etymologically. As long
as teachers affirm what they mean by the word "church," it is a proper word.
Even in the English, one of the primary meanings of the word is, "a body or
organization of religious believers as (a) the whole body of Christians, (b)
denomination, (c) congregation." (Mirriam-Webster). I understand that some of
those meanings are inappropriate -- but the same can be said of the words
"assembly," "family," etc.
Thayer gives the root meaning as "properly, a gathering of citizens called out
from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used." But it is NOT
always used in this manner in the Scriptures. That is the common usage, and is
not always the way God uses it.
The Scriptures define "the church" in these words, "which is His body, the
fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:22). Colossians 1:18 and 24 uses
"church" in the same way. In this case, a family is not the point at all,
nor is an assembly or gathering. Instead, the likeness is to a "body" that is
connected to, and controlled and moved by, the "head." Such a definition can in
no way be derived from "the original." That is not how the word was commonly
used, but it is how the Spirit used it.
Again, in First Timothy 3:15, "the church" is said to be "the pillar and ground
of the truth." In no way can this meaning be derived from "the original." Here
the point is not who the church is, but what it does -- and gathering, or an
assembly, is not the point. Rather, it is the appointed custodian of the truth
of God.
Other Scriptural references to the church include "the bride, the Lamb's wife"
Rev 21:9), "flock of God" (1 Pet 5:2), "the temple of God" (1 Cor 3:16-17),
"God's building" and "God's husbandry" (1 Cor 3:9), and a "spiritual house" and
"a holy priesthood" (1 Pet 2:5). None of these meanings are inherent in the word
"ekklesia." If they were not opened to us doctrinally, there is no way we could
have derived they were at all involved in the term "church" as used by the
Spirit. But they ARE involved, as the Scriptures make clear. If we were to
confine ourselves to a Greek lexicon to derive the meaning of "ekklesia," we
would remain abysmally ignorant of the meaning God has given to the word.
It is certainly true that "the church" is not a lifeless institution, organized
by and for men. Nothing could be further from the truth. If, however, by
"institution" we mean something that has been instituted and established (which
is a meaning of the word), then there is some semblance of truth to it.
In my judgment, it is a waste of time to haggle about the meaning of the word
"ekklesia." Rather, it is in order to expound to the people how God has employed
that word. Such expositions will throw down the lifeless views that have been
embraced by many. They will also establish to the heart how the Lord thinks
about the body of the redeemed.
No one of Scriptural record began establishing the truth by denigrating the
Scriptures held by the people -- no one. They rather expounded the truth as it
is in Christ Jesus, calling upon the people to embrace that truth, and praying
the Lord would give them understanding (Eph 1:15-20; Cool 1:9-11).
Is the new testament a legal
code where we have to go through and dot every I and cross every t in a certain
manner so we are following a strict pattern?
The New Testament is precisely defined in Hebrews 8:10-13. It is NOT a code,
legal or otherwise. Further, there are no "patterns" contained in it. The Old
Covenant was one patterns, because it foreshadowed the "better covenant" that
would be realized in Christ Jesus. The New Covenant is one of blessing, where
the preeminent worker is Jesus Christ, and the people are those who receive the
benefits He gives.
Where the Lord has required things of us, we do well to take Him seriously. If
He says "Be ye holy" (1 Pet 1:15-16), or "touch not the unclean thing" (2 Cor
6:17), or "set your affection on things above" (Col 3:1-2), or "love not the
world" (1 John 2:15), every effort is to be made to do precisely what He says.
If He says "love one another" (John 13:34), "walk circumspectly" (Eph 5:15),
"redeem the time" (Col 4:15), and "run with patience the race set before you"
(Heb 12:1-2, He means for that to be done.
I understand this is not exactly what you were referring to. I say this,
however, to emphasize that those who think in terms of "patterns" are off
center. They are neither speaking nor acting as the Lord has declared.
When it comes to precision, there is an area where it is applicable -- but it
does not have to do with fleshly procedures. One poignant statement of spiritual
procedure is found in Hebrews 10:22. "Let us draw near with a true heart in full
assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
bodies washed with pure water." Those who come to the Lord do well to do exactly
what He says. They had better not attempt to approach Him with a false and
corrupted heart, or without faith, or with a contaminated conscience. However,
as you can see, that is not at all how the Scribes and Pharisees would think.
Neither, indeed, is it the way the modern legalist thinks. Such people, like the
Scribes and Pharisees, are completely wrong, and that is how should view them.
I was in rooms on aol and heard a debate on Jesus words to the people who were
in the first covenant age about washing their hands before they ate, and Jesus
said "Are you still without understanding , nothing that enters the mouth
defiles , but what comes from the heart"
If you have time and would please send me your thoughts on this verse whether
Jesus meant really nothing as He said or is there a deeper meaning to His words?
Sister Anna,
My apologies for this late reply to your question. I unintentionally overlooked
it.
Uncleanness under the Law was ceremonial in nature. This is so because the Law
was not a spiritual covenant. None of its promises or curses were spiritual in
nature, but all had to with life in this world. The various dietary restrictions
under the Law were designed to acquaint people with great principles that would
be realized in Christ Jesus, or under the New Covenant.
In the text to which you refer (Mark 7:14-16, 18-23), Jesus was combating the
ceremonial exactness of the Scribes and Pharisees. First, these men had charged
His disciples with sinning because they ate with "unwashen hands" (7:5). This
was their own tradition, and was not a part of the Law. Under the Old Covenant,
the person who had become ceremonially unclean by touching something unclean
could not eat until he had "washed his flesh," or "bathed his body," with
water." The legalists of Jesus' day had fabricated a rather elaborate law from
that proscription, commanding that the people eat nothing unless they had first
washed their hands. This was not an act of bodily cleanliness, but of religious
ceremony.
Jesus told the people true defilement cannot result from eating something. In
saying this, the Spirit says Jesus was "purging all meats," or "purifying all
foods" (7:19). That is, Jesus lifted the restrictions concerning foods that were
imposed by the Law. This He did because He was moving the people toward God's
great salvation that would include the cleansing of the soul, the heart, and the
inner man.
Some might imagine this means you can imbibe strong drink, or partake of drugs.
But Jesus is speaking about normal foods and eating, not fleshly indulgences
that lead to drunkenness and enslavement to other substances. Elsewhere the Lord
forbids drunkenness (Gal 5:21), and declares whatever we do is to be unto the
Lord, and not for mere self-gratification (Col 3:17). We are to glorify God in
our bodies (1 Cor 6:20).
There are even some to say it is still wrong to eat pork, basing their tradition
upon the restrictions of the Law. But they are wrong, for Jesus has cleansed all
foods, including pork. This is also confirmed in a vision given to Peter, in
which he was told to rise, kill, and eat meats that were declared "unclean"
under the Law (Acts 10:13-16).
What are the wilderness Jews
symbolic of as far as the present age?
The Holy Spirit deals rather extensively with this
subject. The difficulty, from one point of view, is that it does not fit handily
into packaged theologies. First, there are some general principles we need to
bring to bear on this subject.
1. The people of prior ages, including the Jews who fell in the wilderness,
cannot be judged as though they had all of the light afforded in the Gospel of
Christ. They were not born again, did not have their stony hearts removed, and
had not received malleable hearts of flesh. Their hearts were not circumcised,
and they were fundamentally wayward or recalcitrant. Through the Prophets, God
declared the Jews would receive new hearts, and would love the Lord with all of
their hearts (Deut 30:1; Ezek 36:26; Jer 32:39). In fact, He promised a New
Covenant would be made with them in which His Law would be written upon their
hearts, and they would all know Him from the lest to he greatest (Jer 31:31-34).
However, none of that occurred during the wilderness trek. This was a benefit to
be realized only in Christ Jesus, and in "the fullness of the time" (Gal 4:4).
2. Therefore, those Israelites are not to be viewed as either in heaven or hell,
damned or saved. It is certainly not that they are not in either category, but
that their status in that regard has not been revealed to us. Just as the
tabernacle service was a type of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, so the
Jews in the wilderness were a type or shadow of the manner of the New Covenant.
As a type, this representation is not intended to be thorough in all respects,
but introductory. Their situation does not exactly parallel that of those in
Christ in detail. It does, however perfectly accord in principle.
3. The manner of reasoning with types and shadows involves taking the principles
revealed in the type and viewing the substance with those in mind. It is never
viewing the type with the substance in mind. By that I mean the issues of life
in Christ Jesus cannot be superimposed upon the Jews in the wilderness. Rather,
those issues are foreshadowed by the things they experienced in the flesh. Our
efforts must not be directed toward determining their eternal status, but of
ensuring that ours is acceptable.
Second, there may, indeed, be those who are saved, yet never enter into the
fullness of the life of the Spirit. However, the firmness of hope is never held
out to such people. They are consistently warned of falling (Heb 6:4-7), being
cut off (Rom 11:22), being purged from the Vine Christ (John 15:1-7), coming
short of God's rest (Heb 4:1), and of coming into a state that is worse than
never knowing the Lord at all (2 Pet 2:20-21). Men have concocted many
theologies that provide comfort for the indolent, and hope for those who refuse
to obtain what Christ has provided for them. However, the Holy Spirit never
holds out such consolation. Nor, indeed, is Jesus ever represented as devoting
Himself to the salvation of those who have no fundamental and compelling
interest in it -- profession notwithstanding.
Third, when Moses pled for Israel, their pardon involved a stay of execution,
not the elimination of it. They were not allowed to enter the promised land,
even though that was the sole reason for their deliverance from Egypt. It is
vain to bring the "second judgment'" and going to Hell into the subject, for
those are matters that relate to faith in the Messiah. God has not made known
the standing of those Jews in that regard, and it is not wise to speculate about
it. The reason for their inclusion in the inspired record is to teach us about
how God regards a failure believe HIM -- and that way is never good. They will
be judged in strict accord with the amount of light they received -- and so will
we.
Fourth, what we presently have of salvation is very real and effective. However,
it is introductory, and not the whole of our salvation. The Scriptures therefore
refer to "the firstfruits of the Spirit" (Rom 8:23). The Spirit Himself, who is
given to those in Christ Jesus, is called an "earnest," or pledge (2 Cor 1:22;
5;5; Eph 1:13-14). That means the bulk of our inheritance is yet to come. No
person should conduct themselves as though they had all of it now. They do not.
The immediate evidence of that reality is our present bodies. They are certainly
not saved -- but they will be in the resurrection. In fact, the "redemption of
the body" is itself equated with "the adoption" (Rom 8:23). Until that takes
place, our salvation is in process, just as Second Corinthians 3:18 affirms. We
are being "changed from glory unto glory, even as by the Spirit of our God" (2
Cor 3:18).
In First Corinthians 10:1-12, Israel's wilderness experience is likened to our
pilgrimage to glory. In the third and fourth chapters of Hebrews, the same
comparison is made. The point of both is that salvation consists of two things
-- not one. They are deliverance and entrance; leaving and obtaining, coming out
and going in. Faith is required for both matters. It is not effective if only
applied to one. "By faith," we are told, Israel "passed through the Red Sea"
(Heb 11:29). However, many (in fact the majority) could not enter into His rest
"because of unbelief'" (Heb 3:17-18). That is precisely how it is with those in
Christ. They are in a race, they have not yet completed it. They have the
beginnings of the promise, not the whole of it. It is possible to escape the
pollutions of the world, then fall into a state that is "worse with them than
the beginning" (2 Pet 20-21). Our situation is a lot like having the grapes of
Eschol. That fruit is very real, but the whole vine is not here, but in the
glory. The person who conducts himself as though he possessed the whole of
eternal life now is dominated by unbelief -- and I know of no place where God
promises good to those who do not believe.
Fifth, the term "losing salvation" is a philosophical one. It assumes all manner
of postulates that are not found in Scripture, but are rooted in human
assumption. Everything we presently have is held by faith. It is possible to
"believe for a while" (Lk 8:13). It is possible to make shipwreck of the faith
(1 Tim 1:19). Thus, the question is not whether we can lose salvation, but
whether can cease to believe. Emphatically we are told an "evil heart of
unbelief" can still enter in, causing those who were delivered to "depart from
the living God" (Heb 3:12). What is more, that is the Spirit's application of
the Jews in the wilderness. We do well to take His words just as they stand, for
He meant precisely what He said.
Do the passages you mention
indicate that all will see Him simultaneously? It seems to me these passages
aren't bound to a single event in time.
Yes, they are a single point in time -- "the day" that
has been appointed. It is "the day" the saints will be glorified and those who
know not God and obey not the Gospel will be punished (2 Thess 1:7-10). Do you
believe Jesus is going to come with His "mighty angels" multiple times (2 Thess
1:7)? Will He come in all of His glory with "all the holy angels" multiple times
(Matt 25:31)? Will He come in the glory of His Father multiple times (Matt
16:27)? Will He come to judge the world multiple times (Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 4:5).
Will He come "the second time" multiple times (Heb 9:28). Is "His coming"
multiple times (1 Cor 15:23), Is "the brightness of is coming" multiple times (2
Thess 2:8)? Will God unveil Him, showing the fullness of His Person multiple
times (1 Tim 6:15)? Will the heavens and the earth pass away multiple times at
"His coming" (2 Pet 3:4-12)? Will "the Lord come" multiple times to "bring to
light the hidden things of darkness" and "praise" the faithful (1 Cor 4:5)? Will
we "appear" with Christ multiples times, one by one, in glory (Col 3:4)?
Following His enthronement in glory, the Word of God nowhere refers to Christ's
"comings." It is always "coming," and that without a solitary exception. We read
of "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:7; 1 Thess 3:13' 4:15; 5:23;
2:1), "the coming of the Lord" (James 5:7-8), "His coming" (1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess
2:19; 2 Thess 2:8; 1 John 2:28), "the day of Christ" (Phil 1:10; 2:16; 2 Thess
2:2), "the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10),
etc.
The book of Hebrews affirms three essential appearings of Christ, all of which
are requisite for salvation. They are in a single context -- Hebrews 9:24-28. He
is currently appearing in the presence of God for us (9:26). That is an
uninterrupted appearing, as "He always lives to intercede for them" (Heb 7:25).
Referring to His entrance into the world, it is affirmed that He "ONCE" appeared
at the end of the ages to "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (9:26). He
will yet "appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation" (9:28). Christ's
first appearance was singular. He present appearance is a single continuous one.
What would lead a person to believe His second appearance was multiple?
If His second coming is singular, and it is everywhere so represented, then any
and all occurrences, or events, associated with that coming must also be
singular.