QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 86
Are the sign gifts for today?
The expression "sign gifts" is not in the Scriptures. I assume you are referring
to "the signs of an Apostle." Signs come from God, and He strictly controls
them. They are where He puts them, and are given at His discretion. This is not
a question for men to answer.
Is
speaking in tongues required for everyone baptized in the Holy Spirit?
Tongues are nowhere said to be in any sense "required." They are certainly never
said to be required by those baptized with the Holy Spirit. Again the Scriptures
do not say "baptized in the Holy Spirit," but "baptized WITH the Holy Spirit
(Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16).
I have a question. We have a friend who accepted Christ four years ago. In the
last year he had turned his back on the gospel and went his own way. But,
Praise God, he has recommitted his life to Jesus. The question - should he be
water baptized again? Thanks for your answer even before it comes.
The brother does not need to be baptized in water again. There is "one
baptism." Your friend is covered by the promise in 1 John 1:9: "If WE confess
OUR sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness." That is a provision for the family of God.
The only case of rebaptism that is recorded in Scripture is that of the Ephesian
disciples in Acts 19. Their case is unique, because they only knew about the
baptism of John, which was in anticipation of the coming Christ, upon whom they
should believe. They did not know Jesus had come, and consequently had not
believed on Him, and knew nothing about the Holy Spirit either.
Even Simon the sorcerer, who sought to purchase the ability to confer the Holy
Spirit upon others, was not told by Peter to be rebaptized -- and his sin was
far greater than that of your friend. He had believed and been baptized, and
continued following Philip (Acts 8:13). Yet, when confronted by Peter because of
his despicable sin, Peter said, "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and
pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts
8:22). That is the pattern for brothers and sisters who stumble in the dark and
fall. They are to return, acknowledge their offense, and enjoy the forgiveness
of the Lord. Of course, they should also heed the word of the Master: "sin no
more" (John 5:14; 8:11).
I
am concerned that I may be missing something. I have often said, the only power
Satan has is to lie to us. The problems we experience are the result of our
believing his lies and as a result making bad choices as to how we relate to God
and live our lives. Do you agree with this or need we be concerned of some other
power that he has over us as believer?
Just as the Holy Spirit works through the truth, so Satan works through the lie.
His influence does not end with the lie, but he also "takes captive" those who
fail to hold to the truth, and are diverted to his delusions. When Satan
"entered" into Judas, he betrayed Jesus (Luke 22:3-4). We are also told that
Satan stood up against Israel and "provoked David to number Israel" (1 Chron
21:1).
Job provides the example of a man who did not sin, and did not yield to Satan.
Yet, when the hedge was lowered, and God allowed him to be tested, Satan moved
enemies against Job, caused fire to fall from heaven, brought a devastating wind
that destroyed the house in which his children were, killing them all. He also
caused Job to be covered with boils from the crown of his head to the soles of
his feet (Job 1:12-19; 2:Job 2:7). In all of this, Job was not subjected to a
single known lie.
.
Those who are ensnared by Satan must be "given" repentance from God and
"acknowledge the truth," that they may "recover themselves out of the snare of
the devil, who are taken captive by him" (2 Tim 2:25). That means their escape
involves much more than just changing their mind. When we yield to Satan, he
gains the advantage over us. If married people do not guard themselves, Satan
can tempt them through their incontinence, moving them to commit adultery (1 Cor
7:5).
The devil's hierarchy of evil include "principalities," "powers," "the rulers of
the darkness of this world," and "spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph
6:12). He is called "the prince of the power of the air," and not only lies, but
"works" in the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2). Part of his arsenal is the
"power of darkness" that once moved people and military powers against Christ"
(Luke 22:53). In fact, we had to be "delivered" from the power of darkness" (Col
1:13).
As "the prince of this world" (John 16:11), and the "god of this world" (2 Cor
4:4), he can do infinitely more than tell a lie. He has also "blinded the minds
of them which believe not" (2 Cor 4:4). One of his principalities, which has
less power than himself, detained a mighty angel from bringing an answer to
prayer to Daniel for twenty-one days (Dan 10:13) -- something no number of men
could possibly do. He not only is a "liar" (John 8:44), but a "murderer" (John
8:44) and a "destroyer" as well (Abaddon and Apollyon, Rev 9:11).
Satan is depicted as a "great red dragon" with dominion, influence, and
shrewdness (Rev 12:3,9), bringing down a third part of the angels and now
wreaking havoc upon the earth. He is the "prince of demons," and demons do not
only lie. They have bound children, moving them to throw themselves into fire
and water (Luke 8:29), vexed children (Mark 15:22), caused a man to become like
a wild man breaking chains and cutting himself (Mark 5:4-5), caused dumbness
(Matt 9:32), caused blindness (Matt 12:22), and even moved a herd of swine to
cast themselves into the sea (Matt 8:30-32). Some of them moved a man to leap on
seven sons of Sceva and leave them naked and grievously wounded (Acts 19:13-15).
There is more to Satan than lying. It all starts there, but for those who do not
flee to Jesus, and abide in Him, it does not end there.
I
just read your though for the day~ I see where Moses was told to smite the Rock~
"that Rock was Christ." Moses lips caused him the promised land. Smiting that
Rock twice was OK. Jesus was smitten more than once.
Thank you for writing. I always appreciate your interest in the things of God.
My reference to Moses forgetting did not infer he did not speak, or that he did
not believe. Rather, he was so provoked by the people that the command given to
him was no longer prominent in his thinking. This incident is mentioned several
times in Scripture, and it is frequently traced back to the provocation of the
people. The people "provoked his spirit," so that he spake "unadvisedly with his
lips," and without due regard for the word of God (Psa 106:33). The 32nd verse
of that chapter reminds us that "it went ill with Moses for their sakes," and
that it was the people who "angered" the Lord. The waters that flowed from that
rock were called "Meribah" because "the children of Israel strove with the Lord"
-- not Moses (Num 20:13). Moses himself was charged with being caught up in that
rebellion (Num 20:24), being provoked by that rebellious people. This was out of
character for Moses, and reveals the extent of the obstinance of the people. The
sin of Moses was not excused, but it was not committed in a deliberate act of
rebellion against God, as was the sin of the people. It was provoked by the
people's obstinance, whereas the people reacted against God Himself.
As to Jesus being stricken more than once, this is emphatically not the case.
The smiting of Jesus that is related to our justification was God's smiting, not
that of men. God is the one who smote the Shepherd (Zech 13:7). He was, in fact,
"smitten of God" (Isa 53:4). God is the One who "put him to grief" (Isa 53:10),
delivered Him up (Rom 8:32), and even forsook Him (Mark 15:34). It was God who
wounded Him for our transgressions, bruised Him for our iniquities (Isa 53:5).
It was God Himself who "condemned sin in the flesh" of His Son (Rom 8:3). God
did this once, and only once.
Why
does Hebrews 5:8 read, "Although He was a Son..." rather than "although He was
THE Son?
What
religious group are associated with?
I am joyfully associated with all who are in Christ Jesus. I have chosen not
have exclusive affiliation with any particular denomination, as Jesus has not
done so. Since I must drop all sectarian names at the grave, and since none of
them will be honored in the glory, I have chosen to drop them here. I have no
reservations about receiving any person or group of persons who is truly in
Christ Jesus, and living in the hope of glory. I choose to have no more, or
less, requirements for receiving a person, or group of persons, than the Lord
Jesus has.
Do
animals have souls? A friend insists that the definition of soul is the mind,
will and emotions and therefore, animals have souls. Jesus came to save lost
souls.....but animals? I disagree with that theory.
What do you think Brother Given?
The theory is foolish. If Jesus came to save animals He would have said so. In
the first place, animals have not sinned, and Jesus "came into the world to save
sinners" (1 Tim 1:15). The whole creation, both animate and inanimate, die
because of man's sin, not their own. The Word of God states the case this way:
"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him
who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God"
(Rom 8:21). Creation will be freed from mortality, or death, when the children
of God are set free from mortality at the coming of the Lord.
The word "soul" literally means "breath," not "mind, will, and emotion." The
latter is a theological definition that particularly identifies mankind. God
created man in His own image. That is why man has a mind, will, and emotions.
Animals were not created in God's image, and thus do not have those Divine
qualities. God did not breathe into them the breath of life as He did into Adam
(Gan 2:7).
The word "soul" is used around 458 times in Scripture, and "souls" is used 78
times. Both always refer to mankind, never to animals, or any other impersonal
creation. The word "soul" is never applied to angels either, and they also have
a mind, will, and emotion -- yet, they are not in image of God as man is, which
is the point the Spirit develops in Hebrews 2:5.
The creation did obey the Lord Jesus, but there is no record of it having
fellowship with the Father and the Son, as men can have (1 Cor 1:30; 1 John
1:3). Jesus never taught creation. He never healed creation. He sent no
messengers to animals, which He surely would have done if they have a mind,
will, and emotion.
God's Word does not support the notion that animals have souls.
Why
did Jesus call it the House of God when it was not?
I would tend to ask the question, "Why do you say it is not the house of God
when Jesus said it was?" He called it that because of its dedication to God, not
because of who built it. He also called "My Father's house" (John 2:16). He also
called it "My house," and "the house of prayer" (Matt 21:13). Jesus also said
the Temple is what sanctified the gold upon and within it, by which the
religious leaders swore (Matt 23:17).
In the day of Zerubbabel and Haggai, the Lord raised up Cyrus to sponsor the
building of the Temple (2 Chron 36:23). During the time just prior to Christ's
entrance into the world, He raised up Herod to build it. That was the Temple
into which God's Messenger, Jesus, was to come (Mal 3:1). It is said of our
Lord, "in the day time He was teaching in the Temple" (Matt 21:37). Even when He
was twelve years old, the time He spent in the Temple was spent doing His
"Father's business" (Luke 2:49).
The Jews venerated the Temple because of their love for God, not Herod. They
venerated the one Solomon built because they loved God, not Solomon. They
venerated the one built by Zerubbabel because they venerated God, not Zerubbabel.
I
know the bible says honor your father and mother but I looked up the definition
of honor and it meant "respect". I was wondering if you had a parent who beat
you or treated you poorly do you still have to honor/respect them.
God does not condone violence and abuse, and He nowhere asks anyone else to do
so. To honor or respect your father and mother does not mean you approve of the
wrong they do. It does mean you will not treat them in such a way. It means you
will not speak against them, or do wrong to them. It means you will not
retaliate, even though you sometimes have to stay out of their way to avoid
being hurt. It means you will pray for them, knowing their abuse is wrong.
God commands fathers "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but
bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). Abusing and
heartlessly beating children is breaking that commandment. It is not right, and
God does not ask children to act as though it is all right.
If your parents stand between you and Jesus, you must choose Jesus. That is what
Jesus meant when He said, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). That means no parents are to be
respected more than Jesus.
A child can still honor their parents and do all of what the Lord says. The
secret is to find what good they have done, or how they have provided for you,
and honor them for that.
Sir, You fired off a quick reply to my question the
other day but I wonder if you considered all the facts. For example, I think
something must be very different for Herod's temple because David wasn't allowed
to build the first temple just because he had blood on his hands. I think we can
be assured it was righteous blood, at least at that time. Herod's hands were as
extreme in the opposite direction as they could be having beheaded one of God's
prophets. Can you account for any differences to explain this conflict?
The Herod that ordered the building of the Temple was not the Herod that killed
John the Baptist. The original building of this third Temple commenced around
B.C. 21. History tells us the Temple itself was completed in approximately 1-1/2
years by the Priests and Levites. The outbuildings and courts required about
eight more years. However, there were other extensive building operations that
spanned a significant number of years, for it was an extremely elaborate project
with several courts, porches, and buildings. Herod's successors, from the
Herodian family, continued to sponsor the project. At the time of Jesus, you may
recall, in reference to these protracted operations, the Jews spoke to Jesus
about the temple being 46 years in the building (John 2:20).
It is true that David was not allowed to build the Temple, although God gave him
the pattern of it, because he had "shed blood abundantly," and "made great wars"
(1 Chron 22:8). There is no suggestion, however, that he shed "righteous blood."
Solomon built the Temple because he was associated with peace -- peace that God
Himself had caused to take place in his days (1 Chron 22:9). The wars that David
initiated were actually directed by God. There is no record of him setting out
on his own to slaughter people, especially righteous people..
In our reasoning concerning the Temple, we must defer to the words of Christ
Jesus. He said the Temple was His "Father's house" (John 2:16), the Lord's
house, which was called "by all nations the house of prayer" (Matt 21:13). The
Gospels refer to it as "the Temple of God" (Matt 21:12). One of the great signs
of the effectiveness of Christ's death was the tearing of the Temple veil in two
from the top to the bottom (Matt 27:51). The babe Jesus was dedicated in the
Temple, to which Simon came "by the Spirit" (Lk 2:27). Anna the prophetess
served God night and day in the Temple (Lk 2:37). Young Jesus told Mary His
activities in the Temple were "the Father's business" (Lk 2:46). Following
Jesus' resurrection, the disciples were "continually in the Temple, praising and
blessing God" (Lk 24:53). After the day of Pentecost they continued to meet in
the Temple (Acts 2:46). The Lord even ordered the to "speak in the Temple to the
people all the words of this life" (Acts 5:20). They certainly did not associate
the Temple with Herod, but with God.
There is not so much as one syllable in Scripture that suggests the Temple of
Jesus' day was not sacred, or that God Himself was not associated with it. The
Temple was superseded only by the Lord Jesus Himself who affirmed, "in this
place is one greater than the Temple."
There is no conflict in the various buildings of the Temple. David received the
plan and Divine sanction for the Temple to be built. Solomon was commissioned to
build it. Although considerable construction was related to the second and third
temples, with even the dimensions changing, they were considered but
restorations of a place sanctioned by God, and not a totally new structure.
My original response to you was in strict accord with your question. You asked
why Jesus called the Temple God's house when it was not. I found that to be a
wholly inappropriate question. If I misunderstood you in any way, I apologize.
What
religious group are associated with?
I am joyfully associated with all who are in Christ Jesus. I have chosen not
have exclusive affiliation with any particular denomination, as Jesus has not
done so. Since I must drop all sectarian names at the grave, and since none of
them will be honored in the glory, I have chosen to drop them here. I have no
reservations about receiving any person or group of persons who is truly in
Christ Jesus, and living in the hope of glory. I choose to have no more, or
less, requirements for receiving a person, or group of persons, than the Lord
Jesus has.
I
have just spoken with someone who said Sunday morning services were to be
totally evangelistic. Gatherings to edify the saints, he said, should be in home
groups. Am I on the right track? I am not one to usually argue with someone but
he got a little under my skin on this issue and so I have decided to do some
study and pursue it. If there is any scripture you would like to share with me
to enlighten me on this subject I am an open book. I am very annoyed with this
"seeker friendly" philosophy and feel like . . . needs to wake up to the truth.
This brother could not possibly be more wrong. Of course he just affirming what
he has been taught -- but he has been taught incorrectly.
God has spoken on why saints assemble -- whether it is Lord's day morning or any
other time. 1 Corinthians 14:26 gives the over-all perspective. "How is it then,
brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine,
hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done
unto edifying" (1 Cor 14:26). It is further "the church" that receives edifying,
as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 14:5 and 12.
In commenting on the indispensable ministry of prophesying, Paul mentioned a
stranger, unacquainted with the things of God, coming into their assembly. If he
heard them all prophesying, he would fall on his face, worship God, and report
that God was in them of a truth (1 Cor 14:25). That does not comport with
seek-friendly services at all. The whole environment appeared to be so
unfriendly to the flesh that the individual fell down before the Lord. He did
not confess to a message that was tailored for seekers, but to prophecy, which
is "unto edification, exhortation, and comfort" -- ministries belonging to the
saints (1 Cor 14:25 and 3). There appeared to be such a conflict between what
the saints were being fed and where he was at that the contrast convicted him.
Paul rebuked the Corinthians because they did not come together to eat the
Lord's Supper. He upbraided them for their friendly atmosphere that excluded the
Lord and moved them to even neglect fellow believers. God even struck some of
sick, and took the lives of others because of their reproachful conduct (1 Cor
11:20-34).
Even evangelists were gifts to the church for the edifying of the saints --
which is the whole purpose for all of the gifts (Eph 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12:7).
The admonition to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together is in order
to exhorting one another, not appealing to sinners (Heb 10:25).
When the brethren in Troaz met on the first day of the week, Paul spoke to the
saints, not sinners. Further, the disciples came together to break bread, not
evangelize the lost (Acts 20:7).
I do not believe there is a solitary instance in Scripture where saints came
together to seek sinners or evangelize the lost. If Pentecost is sited, the
brethren had not gathered together to reach the lost. Rather, the lost came to
them when they heard they were speaking of the wonderful works of God -- and
even they were "devout Jews," not heathen Gentiles (Acts 2:1-11).
The Thessalonians were told "Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify
one another, even as also ye do" (1 Thess 5:11). I suppose one might take the
position Paul was speaking about home groups, but it would surely be difficult
to support such a thing.
The whole concept of the "body" of believes presupposes they have come together
to edify one another. The gifts, or various ministries of the body, are to
profit "withal," not partially. They are for the common good of the body (1 Cor
12:7-31).
When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he told them to read their epistle to the
church at Laodicea, and to read the one he had written to Laodicea to their
brethren. Was that to be done in a home group. Or, could those Epistles be
tailored to be "seeker-friend," whatever that means? The whole matter presumed
the saints gathered together for mutual edification.
When Paul deternined to come to Rome, he said he wanted to be with them, and be
comforted by their mutual faith, and also to assist in establishing them (Rom
1:11-12).
No church in Scripture was ever commended for having gatherings designed to
reach the lost. Further, no church was ever rebuked for failing to do so. There
are rebukes, however, for not having gatherings that edified (1 Cor 11:7), and
commendations for having ones that did edify (1 Thess 5:11).
The Holy Spirit is very pointed on this matter. The gifts God has given to the
church are expressly said to be "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work
of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph 4:12).
Having said all of that, the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of brother
making the statement concerning reaching the lost being the primary reason for
assembling. He needs to come up with a word from Jesus or the Apostles that said
to assemble to reach the lost. He should show some example where this was
actually done, or where a church was commended for doing so -- or rebuked for
not doing so.
Are
we born with a sinful nature.
Yes. That is the meaning of David's statement, "Behold, I was shapen in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). David did not mean
he was conceived through a sinful act, as some suppose. The NIV correctly reads,
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
This is also the meaning of Paul's words through the Spirit, "Among whom also we
all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were BY NATURE the children of wrath,
even as others" (Eph 2:3). It is why we "must be born again," for what is
"flesh" can only be "flesh," as Jesus affirmed in John 3:6).
An extensive explanation of the impact of Adam's sin upon the human race is
given in Romans 5:12-19. The teaching is unmistakable, and unusually strong.
1. Death and sin entered the world through Adam (5:12a).
2. Death passed upon all men because of Adam (5:12b).
3. Death reigned over everyone from Adam to Moses, even though they did not
commit the same kind of sin as Adam, that is, breaking a Divine commandment
(5:13).
4. Through the offense of Adam, many are dead (5:15). The word "many" speaks of
the entire race, and is a contrast with "one." The universality of death
confirms this to be true.
5. Judgment and condemnation came to everyone from the one who first sinned
(Rom 5:16).
6. Death reigned over everyone through the sin of Adam (5:17).
7. Judgment unto condemnation came to all men through Adam (5:18).
8. By the disobedience of Adam, many were made sinners (5:19).
Apart from the salvation of God, our nature cannot rise above that of Adam, our
natural progenitor. Those who remain connected only to Adam, and gain no
relation to Christ, cannot be saved. As for infants, they are covered by the
blood of Jesus -- not because they do not have a sinful nature, but because it
has not expressed itself. However, and make no mistake about this, if Jesus had
not died, they could not have been saved -- because of their association with
Adam.
Is
prophecy and declaration one in the same or interchangable -- chapter and verse
please.
This is true some of the time, but not all of the time. Examples of prophecy
being a declaration, and not necessarily an announcement of the future, are
provided below.
1. Prophecy is expressly said to be related to edification (building up),
exhortation (entreaty), and comfort (encouragement) -- 1 Cor 14:3.
2. The "prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite" was said to contain the historical
acts of Solomon (2 Chron 9:29).
3. The "words of the prophecy of Agur the son of Jekeh" were words of practical
wisdom, and did not deal with the future (Prov 30).
4. The "prophecy" that was taught to king Lemuel by his mother were all words
of practical wisdom, including the description of a virtuous woman (Prov 31).
5. The ministry of the Law is said to be that of prophecy "until John" the
Baptist (Matt 11:13).
6. Isaiah is said to have prophesied, "This people honoreth me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me" (Isa 29:16; Mark 7:6). Isaiah gave that as a
description of his generation. Jesus applied it to the generation during His
time as well.
7. When the tongue of Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, was loosed, he
"prophesied." His words were an announcement of what began to happen at that
time (Luke 1:67-79).
It is to be understood that all of these were inspired by God, even though they
did not deal with the future. Prophecy, whether opening the significance of the
past, shedding light on the present, or declaring the future, is a word from
God. It is spoken with the wisdom that God alone gives.
Can
you please tell me if a baptism is valid if the only people that are present
during the confession and baptism are the person being baptized and the person
doing the baptizing, or does there need to be other witnesses present?
If no other individuals are available and present, that does not nullify the
baptism. Baptism is into Christ, during which we "put on Christ" (Gal 3:27), is
for "the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and is an appeal to God for a "good
conscience" (1 Pet 3:21). None of those things require multiple witnesses, so I
hardly see ho the baptism itself would do so.
While most instances of baptism included other witnesses, there is no indication
that this was the case with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-38). The fact that
no record is given of Philip declaring Christ to an entourage that was
supposedly with the eunuch indicates he was probably by himself. Also, when the
Philippian jailor was baptized, there is no record of anyone except those being
baptized (he and his household) being present (Acts 16:33).
Wherever possible, it is, in my judgment, good to have witnesses. However, that
is only my studied opinion.
Where
in the word is tattoo's discussed? I am interested in getting ones (nothing bad)
but I want to know what God says.
The word "tattoo" is not "discussed" in Scripture. God did express to the
Jews something pertaining to this practice. I understand this to be the
revelation of His mind on the matter. "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your
flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:28).
The NIV reads, "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on
yourselves. I am the LORD."
The Apostles declared that our bodies are for the Lord, and not for mere
self-gratification. The body is said to be "for the Lord, and the Lord for the
body" (1 Cor 6:13). It is even said that "your bodies are the members of Christ"
(1 Cor 6:15). In both of these texts, the emphasis is placed on not committing
fornication. However, the truth of these statements extends to other areas as
well.
It is the business of every Christian to decide whether or not God is honored by
tattoos, and if that is the appropriate use of something that belongs to Jesus
and is the temple of the Holy Spirit--our bodies (1 Cor 6:19). Also, the heart
must honor what the Lord has said about putting marks on the body. The reason
God said not to put marks on the body is, "I am the Lord."
When
you become a Christian and you sin (knowing it is wrong) will you still be
forgiven?
Yes. This is the teaching on the subject -- and it is addressed to those who are
in Christ Jesus. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Again it is
written, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous" (1 John 2:1).
Nothing about salvation encourages sin, or promotes a casual attitude about it.
Sin is always viewed as serious, about which something must be done. When a
Christian sins, even though it is humiliating, the guilty soul must run quickly
to the Lord and confess, or admit, their sin. The promise is that God is
faithful and just" to forgive us. We must not, therefore, let our sin keep us
from God, for the longer we wait to go to Him and confess that sin, the harder
and more calloused we will become.
I'm trying to find a reasonable explanation for the terms "we" and "our" in this
chapter, since he doesn't speak like that in the previous two chapters. "Be not
many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation," "in many
things we offend all," "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith
curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." But for argument's
sake, can you help me out with explaining the "we" and "our?" Sorry, I am not
explaining myself very well here. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
The text that says "in many things we offend all" (James 3:2), is not speaking
of deliberate sin. In my judgment, it is not speaking of speech related to
malice, guile, blasphemy, reproach, cursing, and the likes. Also, the "greater
condemnation" of James 3:1 is not the condemnation by God, but by men. It is
true that it also includes the idea of a more strict judgment by God, like
judgment beginning with the house of God (1 Pet 4:17) -- but that is not its
thrust. The specific point James is making is that those who are "masters," or
"teachers" are subject to more strict scrutiny by those they are teaching. This
is designedly so, for teachers are in the role of leaders. They are to fulfill
their role in the awareness of this, and not set their minds on having everyone
respond favorably to them.
In order to make his words more palatable to those to whom he wrote (who were in
a state of spiritual decline), he uses the word "we" in two ways. First, he
speaks for all who are teachers ("we shall receive the greater condemnation,"
and "we offend all" -- that is, in our teaching we sometimes "offend all" -- not
always by saying something wrong, but also in declaring things that chaff
against the flesh). Second, he speaks for the whole of the body of Christ
("bless we God," and "curse we men"). He is not speaking of particular sayings,
but of the capacity to speak in such a manner. With the spirit "bless we God,"
and with the flesh "curse we man" -- and both come out of the same mouth. That
is, the tongue does have this capacity. That is why it must be tamed. When James
says, "these things ought not to be so," he is suggesting there is grace to
avoid such a practice -- otherwise there would be no point to making such a
statement. This is why he adds in the fourth chapter, "Do ye think that the
scripture saith in vain, The Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James
4:5). The idea is that the Holy Spirit desires earnestly desires to use us --
especially our tongue.
James uses "we" in the sense those in Christ. He also uses it in the sense of
being men. The text will make it evident which is which.
Mr
Blakely, we must face the fact that "Sun's Day" came "too late" for; the
"precious blood of Jesus Christ" - sealed forever His new-covenant with His
faithful followers ! "The Seventh Day is The Sabbath of The Lord Thy God"
This is not something about which I will enter into lengthy arguments. Jesus nor
the Apostles provided extensive arguments promoting keeping the seventh day in
the sense commanded under the Old Covenant. I also take quite seriously the word
not to allow others to judge me in respect to "a Sabbath day" (Col 2:16).
The Holy Spirit, in Hebrews 4:1-11 speaks extensively about the seventh day
Sabbath, but does not make the application you have shared with me. In fact, He
categorically states that Israel never did enter into the rest (Heb 4:6), even
though many of them did keep the Sabbath day. The Spirit says "There remaineth a
rest to the people of God" (Heb 4:9). It is a different kind of rest, for we
"labor" to enter into it, while men ceased from labor to enter into the seventh
day Sabbath (Heb 4:10-11).
I certainly do not oppose those who choose to honor the seventh day Sabbath.
However, I do not accept the notion that this is the "day" that has been
officially sanctioned for those in Christ Jesus. I choose to honor the first day
of the week on which Jesus rose, appeared to His disciples, on which the day of
Pentecost fell, and when early believers met. If what occurred by Divine
workings on this day gives it no significance, I do not see the reason for the
Spirit providing such records. Having the Spirit of Christ as you do, I know you
will not condemn me for such a view.
So
- my old world passed away - my old way of thinking - my way of relating to God
- passed away. So is this the city I sought to come? Is he talking about the New
Jerusalem, which is walking being led by the Holy Spirit? Is this teaching that
our relationship comes in degrees - it is not an overnight awakening, but over a
period of time - our realizing the power and glory of the city created by God
for our enjoyment - though those who trust in the vanity of man may not
understand us, those filled with the Spirit appreciate being filled with God's
holy love that is mighty in leading us on the paths of His righteousness?
I have a difficult time believing that this message is teaching, be happy today
because tomorrow you will live with Christ. I have come to understand we live
with Him today, through the infilling of the Holy Spirit. That it is not
according to my righteousness, but His, that I am able to be impacted by the
love of God. But I also am not quite sure if they are saying that the city to
come is when the world (darkness) totally loses power over our hearts and minds.
If it is true that old things passing away and all things becoming new (2 Cor 5
:17) constitutes the city for which we are to seek, then when that is
experienced, the seeking will cease. But no one with understanding will embrace
such a notion. The obligation to "seek first the kingdom of God and His
righteousness" has not ceased (Matt 6:33). The promise, "Seek and ye shall
find," has not been withdrawn (Matt 7:7). The exhortation to "seek the things
which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God," has not been
obviated (Col 3:1). It is still true, "For here have WE no continuing city,
but WE seek one to come" (Heb 13:14). There is no sense in which this word of
the Spirit is not true.
It is true that extensive work is still be done within us. We are being
"changed" by the Spirit of God (2 Cor 3:18). God is still working in us "both to
will and to do of His own good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). The Spirit is still
producing fruit within us (Gal 5:22-25). It is also true that we presently live
with Jesus, or as the Scripture puts it, "I am crucified with Christ:
nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I
now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). However, this is not the entirety of what God
has prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor 2:9-10). There is still a salvation
"ready to be revealed" (1 Pet 1:5), and grace that will yet be brought to us "at
the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 1:13).
It is true that we are now walking in the Spirit (Gal 5:16,25), have fellowship
with Christ (1 Cor 1:9), and have come to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22-24)
-- but all of that is by faith. We have not come to, or experienced, the
ultimate of our salvation. There is a salvation that is "ready to be revealed in
the last time" (1 Pet 1:5). It is not a different salvation, but the fulness of
what we are now experiencing in Christ Jesus.
The salvation of God includes the "redemption of the body," which has not
presently been experienced. That is why it is written, "For we know that the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only
they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we
ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body" (Rom 8:22-23). Creation has not been liberated from the
bondage of corruption, and will not be until the sons of God are "manifested"
(Rom 8:19). Presently, with all of their benefits, the sons of God are
incognito.
Now, in the body, we experience the "flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh" (Gal 5:17). But this is not the ultimate experience
with Christ. There is a time when the devil, his angels, his entourage of
principalities, and those who follow him, will be "cast into the lake of fire"
(Rev 19:20; 20:10; 20:15). Flesh and blood, which cannot enter God's kingdom (1
Cor 15:50), will also be ended. Death itself will be overthrown and cast into
the lake of fire (Rev 20:14; 1 Cor 15:26). Until that happens, there is a
condition yet to come that has not yet been experienced.
The fact that we still have to contend with the devil (1 Pet 5:8-9), throw down
imaginations (2 Cor 10:4-5), put off the old man (Eph 4:22), perfect holiness in
the fear of the Lord (2 Cor 7:1), confess out sins (1 John 1:9), face the
appointment death (Heb 9:27), live by faith (Heb 10:39), and a host similar
experiences, testify that there is more to come than what is being experienced
in this world. There remains a sense in which we are "absent from the Lord" (2
Cor 5:6), There is such a things as desiring "to depart" to a condition which is
"far better" (Phil 1:23). We have not yet seen the Lord as He is, for we are not
yet fully "like Him" (1 John 3:1-3). We are still working out our salvation with
fear and trembling (Phil 2:12).
We are still being "saved by hope" (Rom 8:24-25) -- a living hope to which we
were begotten again (1 Pet 1:3). I know of no person willing to even suggest we
are fully conformed to the image of God's Son -- something God has determined
will be accomplished (Rom 8:29). Right now, we are being changed from one stage
of glory to another (2 Cor 3:18) -- which means the work is not yet completed.
However, by the grace of God, it will be completed when we are gathered to be
forever with the Lord (1 Thess 4:16-18).
The fact that we have to pray (Jude 1:20), draw nigh to God (James 4:8), and
enter into the holiest of all (Heb 10:22), confirms we do not yet have the
fulness of salvation.
What we have is glorious. It promotes a "joy unspeakable and full of glory" (1
Pet 1:8), together with assurance and confidence. But what we have now is not
the whole of the matter. It seems to me that an honest spirit will readily see
this is the case. In this world we cannot ever stop seeking, looking, and
hoping.
How do I ABIDE in Christ so I can be able to produce fruits? I'm a point in my life where I really need God's blessings, but I don't feel worthy enough. How do I change my life, do I have to watch less of television???
You abide in Christ the same you received Him -- by faith. It is written, "As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him" (Col 2:6). That is, you take what He has declared in His Word, believer it, rely upon it, and shape your life by it. You depend upon Christ, not relying upon your own wisdom. In this matter, the Gospel of Christ, or the good news concerning who He is and what He has done, becomes primary.
You are not the one who produces the fruit, the Holy Spirit does that. That is why it is called "the fruit of the Spirit."
Peter provided one of the secrets to spiritual advancement. It has to do with maintaining a focus upon Christ Jesus Himself, as He is declared in the Gospel. Here is how he said it. "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts" (2 Pet 1:19). The "prophetic word confirmed" refers to the promises of the coming Savior that were given through the Prophets. The Lord Jesus fulfills them all, as declared in the Gospel. What Peter means is that as we occupy our minds with the various proclamations of who Christ is and what He has accomplished, it will all come together in our thinking -- including an understanding of what it means to abide in Christ. He calls it the dawning of the day, and the morning star (who is Jesus) rising in our hearts. It is then that our faith is lifted out of the area of mystery, bringing assurance, confidence, understanding, and joy.
There is no routine or procedure that spells out how to abide in Christ. This is something that is done with the heart, not a discipline of life. It is done by maintaining a focus upon Christ, not upon ourselves. He is "able to keep you from falling" (Jude 24), and will do so as you continue to make knowing Him your primary objective (Phil 3:8-10). As long as you worry about how to abide in Him, you will probably not do so. However, as you make your quest to know the Lord more fully, He will see to it that you do, in fact, remain in Him.
Another view of this is given by John. He attributes the abiding to the work of the Spirit within. The assumption of the text is that we are paying attention to Him, and not grieving or quenching Him. "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him" (1 John 2:27). The words "anyone teach you" refers to the "how-to-do-it" part of living by faith.
If you remain sensitive to the Lord, He will direct you, help you, and work within you. Your part is to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is really God who is doing the work (Phil 2:12-13). In other words, whatever is in your life that detracts from the Lord, or competes with Him for your time, must be forced into a subordinate position. Whatever keeps you sensitive to the Lord, allowing you to think more of Him, read the Word of God more, and seek more to please Him, must be put in the primary place.
Concerning watching less television, you must decide whether witching television helps you in your quest to abide in Christ or hinders you. Think of it this way. The secret is not found in what you so less of, but what you do MORE of. Blessing does not come from what you do NOT do, but what you DO.
Would you send me your commentary on the Proverb 31
subject we talk of yesterday I did ask the Lord for confirmation on Bible truth
as many do.
The first thing to remember is that Proverbs in its entirety is the kindergarten
of Scripture. It is altogether true, but it is at the lower end of spiritual
understanding. It speaks of things that are really obvious, more than of things
we should seek to know. This by no means reduces the significance of this book.
It rather helps us to put it in the proper place.
The 31st Proverb is the word of king Lemuel's mother to him. We do not know who
this man was, or who is mother was. It is obviously wise counsel given to a
young man, and is included in Scripture because it represents the mind of the
Lord on earthly matters and relationships. Here are some observations concerning
the "virtuous woman," who is a woman of noble character, an excellent wife, and
a good woman.
1. Such a woman is hard to find. They simply are not plentiful, and we should
not expect them to be (1:10a).
2. Such a woman is very valuable, and will bring advantages to her
husband (1:10b).
3. The husband of such a woman has full confidence in her -- no doubts about
her. In no way will he be disadvantaged by her, of suffer loss because of
her (1:11).
4. Such a woman brings only good things to her husband, and never bad things
(1:12).
5. She has wisdom, and can appropriately select wool for clothing, and flax for
thread. That is, she knows how to provide, and do so wisely and frugally
(1:13a).
6. She is not afraid of work, but is productive, working willingly with her
hands (1:13b).
7. In a sense, she is like a ship, traveling from afar, and bringing a boatload
of good things with her. What she lacks she is willing to go and get, even if
she does it at personal expense, and with a great deal of inconvenience (1:14).
8. She is not lazy, nor is she a sloth. She gets up early, and prepares food
for her household, and for those who serve her as well (1:15).
9. She is wise, and can buy a field after considering everything connected with
the purchase of it. She even takes the money earned from working that field, and
plants vineyards with it. That is, she is not wasteful, but productive. Things
to which she puts her hand turn out better (1:16).
10. Whatever she does is done vigorously, and not halfheartedly. She keeps
herself strong, and able to do whatever she does with strength and consistency
(1:17).
11. She has the wisdom to know when she has conducted her business well, and
thus knows how to avoid being taken to the cleaners, so to speak (1:18a).
12. She does not quit working too soon, leaving tasks half-done. She is willing
to stay up, if necessary, to complete her work (1:18b).
13. She is productive, using the tools or utensils she has to produce good and
beneficial things (1:19).
14. She is considerate of those with less advantages, providing for the needy,
being hospitable, and unselfish (1:20).
15. The inconveniences brought on by winter and other circumstances do not
trouble her because she prepares for such times. She can see afar off (1:21).
16. She is not prideful, yet does not take delight in gaudy and unkempt
appearance. She provides the best that she can for herself, so she is not a
source of disgrace to her husband, and does not appear to be slothful (1:22).
17. Her own influence contributes to her husband being well known among those
with understanding. In other words, she is not a source of shame and reproach to
him (1:23).
18. She can handle herself among other people, delivering the goods she has made
without having to be ashamed of them (1:24).
19. She is a strong woman, who can hold up under pressure, yet she is dignified
and honorable. The future does not trouble her (1:25).
20. When she speaks, wisdom is revealed in her words. She is not basically
ignorant, and she is noted for being kind, not a critical or gossipy person
(1:26).
21. She is a good manager of the household, not allowing any part of it to
suffer loss or be at a disadvantgage. She is not idle, nor does she give herself
to inordinate entertainment and the likes (1:27).
22. Because of her faith and industry, both her husband and children think well,
and speak well, of her. They canot find fault with the way she lives. It is to
be understood that her children and husband are themselves wise (1:28).
After reviewing the list, you can scratch out the ones you are willing to
have absent oprt do without. However, we are to understood that this is the kind
of woman that God honors and recommends. There will, of course, be measures of
each of the traits that are mentioned, and the virtuous, or good, woman, will
grow in them all. But a measure of all them ought to be found in some way.
Go to next page
