QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 77
This true righteousness that we seek from God through Jesus, do we
obtain this in life here? It seems the more I read the Bible and seek the Lord,
the more unrighteous I feel. This righteousness is from God, but shouldn't that
give us an assurance in our hearts?
I
hope you don't think this is just semantics because I have always viewed "faith"
as a noun is something we receive when we truly "believe," which is a verb.
Faith is a gift from God, and comes to us with love through His grace (Eph
6:23). While this is philosophical language, you might say that faith is the
ability, or capacity, to perceive otherwise incomprehensible things -- like God
who is "invisible" (Col 1:15; Heb 11:27). Believing takes place when we employ
that gift of faith, without which it is impossible to please God. The same
principle is seen in love. It also is given to us by God through His grace (Eph
6:23), and is the result of the Spirit's own work (Gal 5:22) -- yet we ourselves
are required to use it by engaging in loving God, Christ, the truth, the
brethren, etc.
I do not know that we can distinguish, so far as time is concerned, between
faith and believing. At least this approach is not expounded in Scripture. You
are correct in saying the truth of the Word, particularly the Gospel of Christ,
is given to us to believe or reject. However, faith "comes" to us by means of
that message. That is, the message itself is accompanied by faith which enables
us to take hold of it without doubting, and in all confidence of God receiving
us. Those who do that have "believed the record God has given of His Son" (1
John 5:10-11). They have believed because they "obtained like precious faith."
Thus it is said that men "believe through grace" (Acts 18:27).
Technically, initial faith does not come because we believe, but we believe
because of faith. However, believing does cause faith to increase, as the Lord
gives us larger measures of this marvelous capacity. That increase of faith is
pictured in the phrase "from faith to faith" (Rom 1:17). It is in this sense
that you are right in saying "faith in Christ would come as a result."
There
is an emphasis on deliverance in some churches. I believe in deliverance but
they are in some cases saying that generational curses need
to be cast out of Christians. I find no scripture to support that and
many to dispute the contention. Do you know of anything in church history of the
last 1900+ years that would support a contention? If not I do not see how it
could be valid. I am only talking about generational curses supposedly being
brought into the New Testament. We are delivered from the curse of the law.
First, much of the talk today about deliverance
"from the curse of the Law" is completely erroneous. I refer particularly to the
dogma that says poverty, illness, and the likes, are the "curse of the Law."
This is not true. The "curse of the Law" is spelled out by the Holy Spirit just
prior to speaking of Jesus delivering us from it. "For as many as are of the
works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do
them" (Gal 3:10). That is, those who do not perfectly keep the Law are cursed by
it -- not to be sick or poor, but to separation from God and spiritual death.
This is why Jesus was "made a curse for us," suffering the judgment of God (Gal
3:13). In His effective death, He freed us from the condemnation of the Law -- a
curse iterated in Deuteronomy 27:26; "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the
words of this law to do them" (Deu 27:26). In other words, men cannot be saved
by works, and those who insist on trying to be saved in that manner will be
condemned.
Having said that, the Scriptures never did speak of "generational curses" in the
sense many do today. Believers are being told curses linger upon them because of
their predecessors -- and that they should find the sin that brought the curse,
confess it, and be freed from it. This teaching is from Satan, not God.
Concerning the visitation of transgressions upon succeeding generations, God
said, " . . . the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me" (Exo 20:5). There are two particular things to note here. First, the
visitation was limited to the "third and fourth generation." Second, it was ONLY
toward the generations, God declared, "of them that hate Me." God has never said
He visits the transgressions of sinful generations upon their godly progeny.
Such a thought is a reproach to God and a hindrance to His people.
God has further spoken to this subject in relation to the New Covenant, which is
presently being mediated by Jesus, and in which we have been made accepted (Heb
8:8-13). That covenant, in the precise words of Hebrews 8:8-13, was prophesied
by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34). Speaking of those days of unparalleled blessing, in
which we now live, God promised: "In those days they shall say NO MORE, The
fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But
every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape,
his teeth shall be set on edge" (Jer 31:29-30). Ezekiel referred to this same
New Covenant benefit. "What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the
land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's
teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion
any more to use this proverb in Israel" (Ezek 18:3).
Even under the Old Covenant, God corrected the people for saying He punished
people who were just, or righteous, because of something their progenitors did.
Ezekiel refers to this in Ezekiel 18:4-9).
As to such teachings being found in the last 1900 years -- yes. They have been
found in the church -- along with other heresies like the resurrection already
being past, or that Jesus is not who said He was, or that the Bible has errors
in it. Those who have taught such things in the past were just as wrong as those
that do so today. They were deceivers, just like those who spew such heresies
upon believers today.
Those who say generational curses have to be "cast out of Christians" have lied.
They have either done so because they are operating in their own wisdom, because
they are spouting what men have said, or because they have been deceived by
Satan. All of those conditions are inexcusable. God has spoken too much on this
matter for such foolish teachings to be taught among the saints.
There
are numerous Bible verses of Jesus words and how we are called, as believers, to
maintain peace and turn the other cheek. At the same time, I feel strongly that
we are also supposed to stand up for truth and what is right, even if that means
war, against evil.
As you have found, there are a lot of people who wear
the name of Christ who are wholly lacking in spiritual perception. It is true
that Jesus taught those who followed him to resist not evil, turn the other
cheek, love your enemies, bless those who curse, and do good to those who
despitefully use them (Matt 5:39,44). However, this was on a personal level --
person to person. He was not speaking of the general treatment of evil doers.
When it comes to government and those who do harm to others, God has also
spoken. Thus Paul affirms that government has been established for the subduing
and punishment of evil doers (thank God this ministry has not been given to the
church). God's word on this matter is very precise, and is found in the
thirteenth chapter of Romans. There government officials are referred to as
"higher powers" -- that is powers that have been placed over the people. These
powers, or authorities, are said to be "from God," being "ordained" by Him
(13:1). Furthermore, those who resist, or defy, that power -- whether a USA
criminal, terrorist, or despotic government -- "resists the ordinance of God."
Further, such people "bring judgment upon themselves" (13:2).
It is then stated that "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil" --
that is, that is why God ordained them (13:3). Their purpose is to put down
violence and other social evils -- to see to it that they are not thrust upon
the people. Believers are told they are not to cringe before this ordained
power, for it is intended by God to be directed toward evil people, not good
people (13:3).
In the capacity of punishing evil doers -- even to the taking of their lives --
the Spirit says, "For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil,
be afraid; for he does not bear THE SWORD in vain; for he is God's minister, an
AVENGER to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (13:4). God has said that
vengeance belongs to Him (Heb 10:30). In Romans 13, He informs us He has
dispensed authority to the "rulers" to execute that vengeance on evil doers.
As you can see, that ends the discussion of the matter. The Lord has spoken, and
ministers who speak contrary to Him simply do not know what they are talking
about. It is in order to take their words and throw them in the theological
garbage can. What is more, if they are so wrong on this rather elementary
matter, I do not know that they ought to be trusted in other more critical
issues.
Does
baptism today represent what circumcision did under the old law? If
so Romans 4:9-10 says that faith was credited to
Abraham as righteousness before he was circumcised so
is our faith credited to us before we are baptized? If so are we saved before
baptism?
The Scriptures affirm that "the circumcision of Christ" occurs IN baptism, not
that baptism replaces circumcision. "In Him you were also circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you
also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
from the dead" (Col 2:11-12).
"The circumcision of Christ" and "being saved" are not synonymous. Salvation is
larger than "the circumcision of Christ," as well as our baptism. But salvation
does not exclude either Christ's circumcision or baptism. In fact, both are ONLY
associated with both Jesus and salvation.
I do not know that asking if we are saved before or after baptism is even a
proper question. The Scripture contain no doctrinal treatise on baptism that
approaches it in this manner. Jesus did say, "He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). No
mortal should stumble over those words. Further, there is no teaching of
Scripture that teaches us to identify a particular point in time with being
"saved." There are references to when we "believed" (Eph 1:13), when we "were
baptized into Christ" (Rom 6:3-4), when we were "illuminated" (Heb 10:32), etc.
But the Spirit never uses language like "when you were saved."
In my judgment, men should cease their haggling about baptism. Rather, they
should be sure they have been baptized, for eventually they will stand before
Christ, who Himself was baptized. I think it will be exceedingly difficult to
explain to the Judge why we were not baptized when we had a record of Him being
baptized.
I see no reason for men to even discuss the validity of baptism unless an
attempt is being made to justify ignoring it, or not submitting to it. Since
baptism came from God, and not from men, let all who profess the name of Christ
submit to it. As to the sequence of Divine activities, and the timing of the
experience of His promises, times and seasons are in His hand, not ours (Acts
1:7).
As to the reference to Abraham being justified when he believed God, the whole
point of the text is that we are justified on the precisely same basis. "And
therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for
his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be
imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead" (Rom
4:22-24). Abraham would be the first to tell us it would be foolish to even
discuss whether he should have been circumcised or not. The fact that he
believed is precisely why he was circumcised. Further, his circumcision was "a
token of the covenant" between God and him. Wherever that "token" was not found
in his progeny, they were excluded from the covenant. "And the uncircumcised man
child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off
from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen 17:14). The people of God
should take baptism as seriously as Abraham took circumcision.
Does it do any good to pray for anyone who is dead that never confessed Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior? Or became a Christian?
It does no good to pray for anyone who is dead,
whether they were a Christian or not. When people die, the next scheduled event
for them is the judgment. As it is written, "And as it is appointed for men to
die once, but after this the judgment" (Heb 9:27).
The time to pray for people is when they are alive in the earth. There is nor
record in the Scripture of anyone ever praying for someone who had died.
We do, however, have an example of someone who died, and made a request for
someone who remained alive. Jesus mentioned it in the sixteenth chapter of Luke.
The prayer was not directed to God, but to Abraham, who himself had died and was
in another place. A rich man who had failed to trust God, had died and gone to
hell. He feared for his five brothers who had not yet died, and made this
request. "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father [Abraham], that you would
send him [Lazarus] to my father's house, for I have five brothers, that he may
testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment" (Luke 16:28). His
request was denied by Abraham: "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the
prophets; let them hear them" (Luke 16:29).
There are no examples of the living praying for the dead. There are no
instructions from Moses, the Prophets, John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, or the
Apostles to pray for the dead. There are no suggestions that such prayers are in
order or effective. The time to pray for men is while they are alive. That is
the time they can believe, repent, and receive the good promises of God.
How
do we know that the kingdom of heaven is the same thing as the Christian church?
I am doing a study on Acts, and a person in the class does not think that the
kingdom of heaven/God is the same thing as the church.
The kingdom of heaven and "the Christian church" are not the same thing. That
would have God without a kingdom for the first 4,000 years of earth's history.
Who would presume to defend such an absurdity? The church is PART of the
kingdom, but is not itself the kingdom. When Jesus said, "Seek ye first the
kingdom of God," He did not mean we were to seek the church first (Matt 6:33).
When He said "the Kingdom of God IS come to you," He did not mean the church is
come to men, for it did not begin until later, on the day of Pentecost (Matt
12:26). When Paul said the unrighteous would not "inherit the kingdom of God,"
he was not saying ungodly men would not inherit the church (1 Cor 6:9). When
believers are told they are suffering for "the kingdom of God," it does not mean
they are suffering for the church (2 Thess 1:5).
The kingdom of God is everlasting (Psa 145:13; Dan 4:13; 7:27; 2 Pet 1:11).
There has never been a time when it was not in place, nor will there ever be a
time when it will never be. Jesus said the angels would come and gather the
wicked and all offending things "out of His kingdom" (Matt 13:41). He did not
mean such things were in His church, which is His body (Col 1:24), and to which
men are "added" (Acts 2:47).
God's kingdom "rules over all" (Psa 103:19), but this is not presently true of
the church. God designs that the majesty of His kingdom be made known to the
sons of men, but the church is never said to be majestic -- not at this time (Psa
143:12).
Angels are in God's prevailing Kingdom, but they are not part of the church (Rev
12:7). No, my good brother, the kingdom of God and the church are not the same
thing. Those in the church have been transferred into the Kingdom (Col 1:13),
but they themselves are not the kingdom.
Of the kingdom of God, Jesus is
the king; therefore the time at which he became a king is the time at which the
“kingdom of Christ and of God” began. (The phrase “kingdom of Christ and of God
comes from Ephesians 5:5.)
The Kingdom did not begin with Christ's
exaltation, but was revealed at that time -- and there is a vast difference.
Jesus likened Himself to one who went into a far country to RECEIVE a kingdom
(Luke 19:12). Isaiah prophesied that the government would be placed upon
Christ's shoulders, equating that government with His "kingdom" (Isa 9:6-7).
That government or kingdom did not begin when it was put on Christ's shoulders,
and nothing in God's Word suggests it did.
God revealed the kingdom of Christ to Nebuchadnezzar, and Daniel interpreted the
dream. He spoke of God "setting up a kingdom" (Dan 2:44). It was not set up in
heaven (and it IS called "the kingdom of heaven" as well as "the kingdom of
God"), but in the earth. The kingdom did begin on earth -- but it "came." Jesus
told His generation "the kingdom of God is COME unto you" (Matt 12:28).
No, you cannot be in Christ and not be in the kingdom of God. I do not know what
led you to believe I suggested such a thing. Simply put, you have confused the
EXISTENCE of the Kingdom with the REVELATION of it. The revelation had a
beginning, the kingdom did not. Neither "the kingdom of God," or the kingdom of
Christ and of God," (which are the same kingdom), are ever said to have a
"beginning." Scripture speaks of "the beginning of the kingdom of Babel" (Gen
10:10), but NEVER of the beginning of God's kingdom.
Further, Jesus received the kingdom from God, and will deliver it back to Him.
As it is written, "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the
Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must
reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be
destroyed is death. For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says
"all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under
Him is excepted" (1 Cor 15:24-27). I hope you will not suggest that means
Christ's kingdom will end.
If you insist on reasoning that the Kingdom of God had a beginning when Jesus
was exalted, you might as well reason that the Person of Christ began when He
was born. Just as surely as Christ's Person existed before He was revealed as a
man, so the Kingdom existed before it was revealed through Christ on the day of
Pentecost. You should not have difficulty seeing this. The Lord has simply said
too much about His Kingdom for their to be confusion on the matter.
When a person first TRULY
believes, he is sealed, not until he believeth not, but until the day of
redemption. Even if he stops believing, God can not deny Himself (the Spirit is
sealed inside of him when he FIRST believes).
Your statement is a very foolish one, for God has
revealed how He reacts to both unbelief and unbelievers -- regardless of what
occurred in them previously. Israel came across the Red Sea by faith (Heb
11:29), yet could not enter the promised land "because of unbelief" (Heb 3:19).
They too were identified with God in a unique way. They too "first believed."
That is why they were brought safely out of Egypt and crossed the Red Sea on dry
ground. Yet at least 600,000 thousand of them would contest your remark.
Part of God NOT denying Himself is fulfilling what He has revealed He will do to
those who fail to trust Him -- particularly after He has delivered them. God has
NEVER pledged He will save those who renounce Him, depart from the faith, make
shipwreck of the faith, or are entangled again by sin and overcome. You do well
not to ascribe such commitments to Him, for He WILL be justified in all of His
sayings. You do not want that to be at your expense.
Adam and Eve would argue with you. They would tell you that the same God who
gave them dominion over the works of His hands took it away, expelling them from
the garden. I suggest you adjust your theology so you will not be embarrassed
when you confront them in the day of the Lord.
The words "evangelize" and "evangelism" are not in the Scriptures, only the word "evangelist". Just what is involved in evangelism anyway? This word is used so loosely.
Why can't we find the word "evangelism" in Scripture, around which so much
teaching has been formulated, and upon which so much emphasis has been placed?
And who is it that said the most important work was bringing people to the Lord.
Where precisely is that stated in God's Word? What Apostle ever said this? What
church in Scripture was ever taught this? The Word of God informs us that
spiritual gifts (including "evangelists") are "for the equipping of the saints
for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12). It
is inconceivable that a body of edified believers will not do exactly what the
early church did when they were scattered: "they went everywhere preaching the
Word" (Acts 8:4).
Why is there not a single word addressed to any church on the subject of
"evangelism" -- or any other word or phrase you want to ascribe to that
activity? Why was no church commended for doing it, or no church rebuked for not
doing it?
It seems to me that we must come to grips with the condition of a church that
must have so much said to it on this subject. I further suggest that a
moratorium should be called on all evangelism and missions where there is not a
dominating love for God, Christ, and the truth. Those who do not have these
traits have other things they need to be doing.
MY
HUSBAND HAD A SHORT MARRIAGE IN HIS YOUTH. SHE DIVORCED HIM AS HE WAS WILLING TO
CONTINUE THE MARRIAGE. SHE DENIED HIM THE RIGHTS OF A HUSBAND THE LAST YEAR OF
THE MARRIAGE AND HE DIDN'T CONTEST THE DIVORCE. WE MET AND MARRIED SEVERAL YEARS
LATER AND NOW HIS SISTER SAYS WE ARE LIVING IN ADULTERY. I HAVE ONLY BEEN MARRIED
TO HIM AND AM CONFUSED ABOUT THE WHOLE MATTER. WAS HE WRONG TO REMARRY OR SHOULD
HE HAVE REMAINED UNMARRIED.
Your husband's sister is not right on this matter. I do understand she is basing
her remarks on our Lord's statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. It does, indeed,
appear as though Christ's words justify her conclusion -- and it is a
conclusion, not a word from God. "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Jesus is citing the ordinary rule for marriage, and even then gives an exception
to the rule -- "fornication." You will note that He speaks of the husband
putting away his wife, and not vice versa. This was given against the backdrop
of men divorcing their wives for foolish reasons, putting the wife at a great
handicap. Jesus said it because of the "hardness" of such husbands "heart" (Matt
19:8). However, this is not the circumstance in which your husband found
himself.
Secondly, his situation is more closely related to the one described in First
Corinthians 7:10-15. There Paul says the wife is not to depart from her husband
for unjustifiable reasons -- that is, for other than fornication. If she does
leave her husband, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband
(v 11). At this point Paul gives his personal advice about a marriage where one
is a believer and one is not. Of this advice he says, "But to the rest speak I,
not the Lord" (v 12). That is, he is not telling them something Jesus commanded
him to say. This does not mean, however, that what he says is a mere opinion,
for Paul would not do such a thing. Rather, he is saying that Jesus did not
spell out every detail of marriage and divorce. He will, therefore, reason upon
the basis of what Jesus did say, and draw some conclusions. We take these
conclusions as inspired from God, even though Jesus had not previously said
them. This circumstance is true of a number of things the Apostle said.
Elsewhere Paul refers to this kind of communication as speaking "by permission,
and not commandment" (1 Cor 7:6). Again he said in the 25th verse, "Now
concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment . .
. " In these cases, Paul is saying Jesus had not ordered him to speak this way.
However, because he had the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16), he was able to
correctly apply what Jesus had commanded. Elsewhere this is called "handling the
Word of God aright," or correctly (2 Tim 2:15).
I have given this brief explanation because of the varying opinions that exist
on this passage. Having said that, your faith will confirm to you that it is
wiser to take the inspired applications of Paul than the uninspired opinions of
others, including the sister of your husband.
Here is what Paul said of a believer and an unbeliever separating -- and I am
assuming your husband's first wife was, in fact, an unbeliever, else she would
not have conducted herself in direct contradiction of the Word of the Lord (1
Cor 7:3-5). "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a
sister is NOT UNDER BONDAGE in such cases: but God hath called us to peace" (1
Cor 7:15). The "bondage" is the marriage bond itself. This is, admittedly, a
special circumstance -- but the Spirit has been gracious enough to give it to
us, and it is not to be neglected.
Jesus Himself dealt with a woman who had multiple husbands, and was living with
a man who was not her husband (John 4:16-18). He did not tell her she was
"living in adultery," although I do not doubt your husband's sister would have
said that was the case. Instead, He offered the woman "living water" (4:14). I
understand that the woman did have to address her situation, for it was not an
acceptable one. However, that was something between her and the Lord.
So it is with your own case. God has not condemned you, and neither can anyone
else. He has declared there are unusual circumstances where the married are
released from their bond. Divorce is not an unpardonable sin, even though it is
to be avoided wherever possible. After all, even God Himself has been divorced
(Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea 2:2-4). Who is the person who would say God's
acceptance of the Gentiles has caused Him to be living in adultery? Yet, if what
your sister-in-law has said is true, that is precisely what He is doing.
You have no need to be confused on the matter. Your marriage is honorable, and
your husband has not done wrong in remarrying. Go on your way rejoicing, knowing
the Lord has received both you and your husband just as surely as He did that
woman at the well. This is another case where "mercy triumphs over judgment"
(James 2:13).
I would like to know more about
what it means to be set free. It's a question that's
been in my mind for years and I never asked.
Every person who is born again starts out free --
every single one. They are liberated from any obligation to the flesh, or sinful
nature (Rom 8:12). They are free from the tyranny of the devil, who will flee
from them if only they resist him, or say "NO!" (James 4:7). They have been
freed from the guilt of sin, or "justified from all things" (Acts 13:39), so
that their conscience need not condemn them. They are free to come to the Lord
whenever they want, stay as long as they want, and get as much as they want (Rom
5:2; Eph 2:18; 3:12). They are free to be taught by the grace of God (Tit
2:11-12) and to possess "all things," which have been given to them (1 Cor
3:21-23; 2 Pet 1:3).
This freedom, while it is experienced by us, was wrought outside of ourselves --
that is, we were "made free" (Rom 6:18,22; 8:2; Gal 5:1). That is why Jesus
preached, or announced, "deliverance" and "liberty" (Luke 4:18). The passage
from which Jesus quoted said "the opening of the prison to them that are bound"
(Isa 61:1). The meaning is simply that Jesus removed the doors from the prison.
For those who believe, there are no moral or spiritual jail cells with doors on
them.
Having been made free, that freedom must be maintained. Thus we are admonished,
"It was FOR FREEDOM that Christ SET US FREE; therefore KEEP STANDING FIRM and do
not be subject again to a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1, NASB).
Where seeming bondage exists in a believer, a certain deception has set in -- a
view that sees the doors back on the prison. But Jesus has removed the doors
that formerly confined us, just as surely as Samson carried off the doors of the
gate of Gaza, bars and all (Judges 16:3). When bondage appears to come again,
precisely the same message that first announced our liberty must again be
embraced in faith. It liberated us the first time, and it will liberate us
again.
It is important to note that we have not been liberated from struggle (Gal
5:17), but from the obligation to yield to the flesh. Thus we live our lives "as
free," and not as in bondage (1 Pet 2:18).
God has also graciously informed us that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty" (2 Cor 3:18) -- liberty from sin, the dominion of the flesh, and the
tyranny of the devil. Liberty to draw near to God, appropriate the grace of God,
walk in the light, enjoy the promises of God, and countless other benefits.
Freedom, in a nutshell, is the undoing of all that sin caused, including what it
brought in as well as what it sent out.
Eventually that freedom will include liberation from these mortal bodies, praise
the Lord. Until then, our bodies constitute a sort of bondage. Thus Paul
lamented, "who shall deliver me from the body of this death" (Rom 7:24). Until
that time, we are free to keep our bodies in subjection, not allowing them to
dominate us (1 Cor 9:27).
How can I say the word "Love"
to a holy God? Perhaps I feel like Peter did in a sense. I long to be closer to
God and I hate this sin that plagues me. I wish so much to be open and free to
pray to God and praise Him like I did when I first became a Christian. I do love
God, but it is another matter to tell Him.
You are experiencing the inward warfare
that every believer experiences. There are two men in your body, not one -- the
"old man" and the "new man." One is to be "put on," or given the dominance, and
the other is to be "put off," or crucified (Eph 4:22-24; Col 3:9-10; Rom 6:6).
The discontent you are experiencing is not the discontent of unbelief, but one
that comes from a struggle with the law, or principle, of sin that remains in
your body.
This struggle is depicted in a number of ways in Scripture. Galatians 5:17
states it this way. "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the
Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in
conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want" (Gal 5:17, NIV).
The classic text dealing with this warfare is Romans 7:15-25. This passage is
dealing with a struggle in the mind, not with lapses into immorality. The
statements were provoked by the rise of unwanted "lusts" that were not invited
or desired, yet erupted in the mind.
1. These unwanted thoughts are the things Paul did not want to occur, yet they
did (7:15-16).
2. They were not the expressions of the real Paul, but were temptations -- fiery
darts from the wicked one, working through the remnants of the "old man" (7:17;
Eph 6:16).
3. Nothing good can be found in "the flesh," or the part of us that is not born
again (7:18).
4. The absence of good in that "natural" part of is confirmed by the eruption of
unwanted desires (7:19).
5. The fact that they are not wanted confirms that are not the expressions of
our real, or redeemed, person (7:20).
6. There is a principle at work in the believer. When good is intended, evil
raises its head. This is the old nature striving to compete against the new man
(7:21).
7. The real you delights in the Law of God, as you yourself have said (7:22).
8. However, another contrary, unwanted, and alien principle is at work in us,
thrusting itself into our thoughts, even though unwanted and detested (7:23).
9. This struggle is disconcerting, yet will continue as long as we are in the
body. Deliverance from the body, which will take place at our death or the
coming of the Lord, will free us from it (7:24).
10. In the meantime, there is a part of us that serves the law of sin, and a
part that delights in and serves the Law of God. Our solemn commission is to
crucify the former, keeping it upon the cross, and give expression to the latter
(7:25).
The good new about this whole matter is found in the conclusion cited in the
first verse of the eighth chapter. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for
those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). The "Therefore" refers to the struggle
so vividly described in the precious chapter. Rather than that struggle casting
suspicion on our salvation, it becomes the proof that we are saved -- for no
unbeliever has such struggles.
That is freedom! Freedom from condemnation, and from an obligation to give in to
the "flesh," or sinful nature.
I might add that, when I have
tried to share a treasure God has given me, it is not always well received or
received at all, because someone may not have their eyes or ears open to the
things of the Lord, even if they say they are believers.
Welcome to fellowship in Christ's
sufferings (Phil 3:10). I can remember when I first became aware of the sharp
conflict between the thoughts of God and the way many of my former friends
thought. The truth of God was exhilarating to my spirit, and I was sure everyone
would be as glad to hear it as I was. But, alas, that did not prove to be true,
and it was most disappointing to me. However, over the years, I have found that
everyone is not that way, praise the Lord. You yourself are confirmation of
that. Keep speaking of your hope to others. Even if they do not hear it now,
they will have to wrestle with what you say. Maybe it will become hard for them
to "kick against the goads," as it was with Saul of Tarsus (Acts 7:5).
Paul,
on rare written occasion, shared his personal preferences and opinions
with a congregation {1Cor 7:1,7,12}.
What Paul said in the above texts was not a mere personal preference or opinion.
Rather, he spoke in view of his grasp of the mind of the Lord, and with Divine
permission, as opposed to receiving a commandment to bind such things upon men.
Of such words he said, "I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment
as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. (1 Cor 7:25). Receiving
mercy to be trustworthy is a far cry from sharing "his personal preferences and
opinions." God put Paul into service because he was "counted faithful" (1 Tim
1:12). That faithfulness was revealed in his perspectives, which made his
counsel wise, though not compulsory.
He knew that God had not called all to that life
style and said so. He believed it wise and preferable given the state of
things, but it was not a teaching from the Lord, as he himself pointed out, "I,
not the Lord..."
That is quite true, but Paul was not the only one called to that state. It is
one of those gifts from God Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:7. Others, also
called to that condition were surely not encouraged to view Paul's remarks as a
private opinion or preference.
There are matters God imposes upon all men. There are others which He does not.
Concerning such things, Jesus said, "He who is able to accept it, let him accept
it" (Matt 19:12).
The matters which Paul said were from him, "not the Lord" included a
considerable amount of instruction (1 Cor 7:12-40). I find it most difficult to
say those words are Paul's "opinion." The following phrases do not sound like
the expression of mere opinion. "Let her not leave him . . . the unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband . . . A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases . . . so
ordain I in all the churches . . . Let every man abide in the same calling
wherein he was called . . . if you can be made free, use it rather . . . be not
the servants of men . . . therein abide with God . . . seek not to be loosed . .
. he hath not sinned . . . I speak for your profit . . . He does not sin; let
them marry . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives . . .
I think also that I have the Spirit of God."
It is not the instructions themselves that did not come from the Lord, but the
imposition of them upon all men. Those for whom they were adapted did well to
take them to heart. I trust you are not suggesting Paul did NOT have the Spirit
when He spoke these words.
The distinction is where the readers stood, and what gifts had been apportioned
to them.
"Does
cancer come from God?"
What are the possible answers? From God? From Satan? From nature? From men? From
food? From environment? From neglect? From foolishness? Or do they have no cause
at all? Are they random? Do they occur by mere happenstance? Are they in some
human gene? Well, there is little satisfaction in such speculations. They are a
display of vanity.
As ordinarily perceived, everything from God is not a "gift." Further,
everything that comes from God is not "good," as ordinarily perceived. The Lord
"sent fiery serpents" among the Israelites (Num 21:6). God sent "an evil spirit"
to Saul (1 Sam 16:14), and "an evil spirit between Abimilech and the men of
Shechem" (Judges 9:23). These, and other such circumstances, are related to this
discussion, because those involved were a covenanted people.
Paul said his "thorn" was GIVEN to him (2 Cor 12:7). Its intent, he confessed,
was to keep him from being "exalted above measure." That situation was created
by the "abundance of the revelations" that he received -- a circumstance few
today could justly claim.
When Job was grievously afflicted with boils, he reasoned, "Shall we indeed
accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10). At that
time, he did not know everything about his situation that we know. Yet, it is
said of his remark, "In all THIS Job did not sin with his lips."
The point of Scripture is not whether or not diseases come from God, but whether
or not they can come without being filtered through Him. And, if the latter is
true, there is a certain Divine consideration related with them, as well as
grace to endure them. They fall into the category of God not allowing us to be
tempted above our ability (1 Cor 10:13). In addition, the God who allows them
can easily dismiss them if He pleases.
God told Israel He had brought diseases upon Egypt, would NOT put them upon
Israel if they did what was right in His sight, and was the God who heals them
(Exodus 15:26). He also told them He would bring diseases upon them if they
refused to keep His laws (Deut 28:60). Through Paul, He also informed the
Corinthians some of them were "sick" because of their conduct around the Lord's
table (1 Cor 11:30). Additionally, the Lord brought disease upon Gehazi (2 Kings
5:27), Uzziah (2 Chron 26:17-20), and Jehoram (2 Chron 21:18). I must confess I
sometimes wish such people could respond to inquiries like the one we are
considering. What do you imagine THEY would say?
When Jesus heard that Lazarus was "sick," He affirmed the condition was not
"unto death." That is, death would not be the final result of it. He said the
sickness was "for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified
through it" (John 11:4). It certainly would not have been good for Martha and
Mary to speculate why Lazarus, the friend of Jesus, got sick in the first place.
When Christ's disciples saw a certain man blind from birth, they assumed the
condition was caused by sin, and asked is the sin of the man himself had brought
the condition, or the sin of his parents. Jesus rejected both possibilities,
affirming the circumstance was in order "that the works of God should be
revealed in Him" (John 9:2-4).
Thus disease, or infirmity, is represented as:
1. A protecting gift to Paul.
2. A means of confirming the faith and stability of Job.
3. A judgment from God.
4. An occasion through which the Son of God can be glorified.
5. An occasion through which the works of God can be made known.
All of this confirms the analysis of sickness is not simplistic. There are no
candid answers that quickly explain why people are sick. It may be a thorn to
humble them. It may be a test to show heavenly intelligences the power of God's
grace. It may be a circumstance through which God will show others how a person
can be sustained by faith. It may be a judgment from God. It may be a
circumstance through which God will gain special glory, and Jesus as well.
A person who is sick (and I do not speak as a dry-land sailor), must address his
situation BEGINNING with God -- like Job did. Asa died of a disease in his feet
because he "did not seek the Lord, but physicians" (2 Chron 16:12). Those who
are sick must conclude their sickness did not occur independently of some kind
of Divine involvement or permission. They should use the occasion to search
their own hearts. They should lay their cause before the Lord first, and then
proceed with whatever measures they conceive to be necessary.
But they are not in order to philosophize about WHY disease occurs. That is a
door that will lead to no good. Unless they receive some special revelation from
God, they simply cannot produce a satisfactory explanation for sickness or
disease. Whatever the cause, sickness cannot alienate a person from God. It
cannot push the person beyond the reach of His grace. It does not close the door
into His presence. They can make known their request concerning that very
illness to God -- in fact, God invites them to do so (Phil 4:6-7).
Then,
if there is no such thing as a carnal Christians, what shall we call those who
have confessed Jesus as Lord and have claimed to have been born again, but still
are yielding to their fleshly lusts and desires? There are those in our churches
who are that way. Are they then not Christians, but are wolves in sheep's
clothing?
First, the term "carnal Christian" is purely of human origin. It is nowhere used
or suggested in Scripture. If God had used the expression, there would be no
question about its validity, but He did not.
Second, when dealing with those within the body of Christ who were gravitating
to the flesh, the Spirit spoke plainly. "For YOU ARE STILL CARNAL. For where
there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving
like mere men? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of
Apollos," ARE YOU NOT CARNAL?" (1 Cor 3:3-4). When confronted unfaithful people
within the church, He addressed them in this manner. "ADULTERERS AND
ADULTERESSES! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?
Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself AN ENEMY OF
GOD" (James 4:4). To the church in Rome, the Spirit spoke expressly about those
who chose to walk after the flesh, yet keep the name of Jesus. "So then, those
who are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD" (Rom 8:8). And again, "For if ye live
after the flesh, YE SHALL DIE: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds
of the body, ye shall live" (Rom 8:13).
As you can see, there is no ambiguity about how we are to refer to such people.
Third, it is not our place to pass eternal judgment on people. Those within the
church who are "carnal" can "recover themselves from the snare of the devil" (2
Tim2:24-26). But until they do, they are "carnal," and there is no way they can
please God in that state. Men may choose to speculate about their condition, but
it is all a waste of time. God has spoken to this subject, and has done so
strongly in order to induce repentance. He is "not willing that any perish, but
that all come to repentance." That is why He is longsuffering toward such
deluded souls (2 Pet 3:9). But until they do repent, they are "carnal," NOT
"spiritual" (which is the appropriate comparison with "carnal").
Fourth, the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" refers to teachers, or
"false prophets" (Matt 7:15). Any and all preachers and teachers who are unable
to bridle their lusts are the "wolves" to which Jesus referred. All such leaders
destroy God's people rather than building them up.
Our role is simply to refer to people and things in precisely the way God did.
If that causes trouble for some people, they must come to grips with why the
Word of God is not in harmony with their own way of thinking. If there is a soul
in all of the world who says God promises eternal life to a carnal person, or is
pleased with a carnal person, or is committed to save a carnal person, let them
produce a word from God -- any word -- that says such a thing. That will forever
end all controversy on the matter.
It is good to hear from you again. I have often thanked the Lord for your faith
and tenderness of heart. By the way, how is the family, your last child, etc.? I
will be answering your question concerning tongues shortly. I have been on
answering my Internet correspondence.
If
someone smokes marijuana but talks about God more when they are high, is this
acceptable behavior for a Christian? . . . Is there a verse's) that says that
smoking weed is a Sin?
The word of God admonishes us to refrain from seeking "highs" by artificial
means. It speaks of the "high" of being "drunk," which also refers to all other
forms of artificial stimulus or intoxication. Here is what the Word of God says.
"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but BE FILLED with the
Spirit" (Eph 5:18). In this case, marijuana is a substitute for the Holy Spirit,
with which we are to be "filled." Judge for yourself if such conduct is
acceptable to God.
It is inconceivable that liquor, "smoking weed," or any other drug usage could
move one to "talk about God" more, or more accurately, than being filled with
His Holy Spirit. God simply has not made allowance for proper assessments of
Himself or His will by such means.
Further, the issue is not whether a person talks about God, but whether that
talk is God-honoring. Is it correct? Does it reflect personal submission to Him?
Does it exalt the Son of God, declare war on sin, and promote godliness, or
holiness? Is God Himself pleased with such talk? Does it assist others to
understand Him more? Does draw people to the God of heaven?
The use of drugs in any form is related to what the Bible calls "drunkenness."
It is the opposite of being "sober." We are commanded to "be sober," or under
strict self-control (1 Peter 1:13; 5:8). Our thinking is always to be clear and
without artificial stimuli or depressants.
The Bible does not
mention the word "marijuana" or "smoking weed." It does, however speak about
states of mind such as the ones marijuana induces. "Smoking weed" is not
acceptable behavior for a Christian because it is something that does not result
from faith in God and dependency upon Him. If such a person "talks about God,"
as you suggest, he does so under the influence of the "weed," not the Holy
Spirit of God.
The Holy Spirit will never lead a person to act foolishly -- "weed" will. The
Holy Spirit will never lead a person to do what is wrong -- "weed" will. The
Holy Spirit will bring a greater understanding of God and Christ to the
individual -- "weed" will not. God urges us to be filled with His Holy Spirit --
not the effects of "weed."
If you are smoking "weed," I urge you to stop. You are not the better for doing
it, nor is anyone else. It is nothing but a miserable substitute for God
Himself.
There
was a time when religious conservatives now known as evangelicals virtually
hated the RSV. Is the RSV as bad as some have said? Also, I like
the way the NRSV reads, but it uses gender-inclusive language. Is it more
accurate than the RSV? Does the gender inclusive language present a
scriptural problem? Does adelphoi actually mean brothers and sisters? Is the
RSV or the NRSV more accurate in today's world?
The objective of the more modern translations is not accuracy, or precision, but
plainness or clarity -- and there is a big difference. In some cases, the NRSV
is perceived as improving on the expressions -- but that improvement is in view
of modern speech and idioms.
In my judgment, however, there has been a decided deterioration in language
itself, so that it tends to be more parochial and reflective of societies of
people who are not noted for thought, precision of expression. This is
particularly true of the Western world. If this assessment is true, reducing
Scripture to the common language can be a most dangerous thing. If the speech of
the people of the street, so to speak. it rooted firmly in soil of earthiness,
reflecting carnal appetites and values, it is highly unlikely that such a
vocabulary can even contain Divine concepts. I personally prefer etymological
expressions that reflect an age of thought. The words tend to be more precise
and pregnant with meaning, even though some may choose to refer to them as "old
English," archaic, or the likes.
As to the meaning of the word "adelphoi," or "adelphos." it is not to be
determined by a lexicon, but by Divine usage. The Spirit uses this term to refer
to "brothers" in the ordinary sense of males: "Judah and his brothers" (Matt
1:12), "Peter and his brother Andrew" (Matt 4:18), "Your mother and Your
brothers" (Matt 12:47), etc. But that is not the only way it is used.
This word is also used to denote all those who are in Christ Jesus -- and in Him
"there is neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28). Some examples of such usage are,
"Salute the brothers" (Col 4:15), "the brothers who are in Macedonia" (1 Thess
4:10), "He is not ashamed to call them brothers" (Heb 2:11), "we love the
brothers" (1 John 3:14), and "unfeigned love of the brothers" (1 Pet 3:22). It
is obvious these texts do not refer to only males.
I remember well the opposition to the RSV when it first came out. One of the
chief objections centered on Isaiah 7:14, where the Hebrew word "almah" was
translated "young woman," instead of "virgin." The irony of the case is that the
RSV itself translated Matthew's quotation of that very verse as "virgin" (Matt
1:23). Of course, in Scripture, it was assumed that a "maiden," or "young
woman," was single and a virgin.
The RSV, or any other version, that leans primarily toward lexical definitions
of words will invariably employ some expressions that will not reflect the mind
of the Spirit. That does not mean these versions are totally deficient. It does
mean they must be read with a discerning mind.
In Scripture, keys words are consistently explained or expounded doctrinally,
not lexically. That is, the Holy Spirit would precisely define what was intended
by such words. Thus the church, or "ekklesia," is said to be "the body of
Christ," even though there is nothing in the word itself that suggests such a
thing (Eph 1:22-23). That circumstance, of course, requires spiritual
understanding on the part of the translators, as well as academic expertise.
What
is "the power of his resurrection"? "To know" means to experience. How does one
experience the resurrection of Christ?"
This is the power that is devoted to all who are in Christ Jesus. Paul prayed
the church would have the eyes of their understanding opened to know, or
realize, "what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe."
In delineating that power, he described it was "according to the working of His
mighty power, which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and
seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:19--20).
In a nutshell, this is coming back, or recovering power. It is experienced
initially when we are raised from death in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-4). On
an ongoing basis, it is experienced when we are renewed day by day (2 Cor 4:18).
It is realized when we are "struck down, but not destroyed" (2 Cor 4:9), or
fall, yet rise again (Prov 24:16). It will ultimately be realized when we
ourselves rise from, and death is swallowed up in victory. Resurrection power is
having the heel bruised, yet crushing the head of the serpent anyway. It is
going down in seeming defeat, yet coming back triumphantly.
Go to next page
