QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 94
From the quick look, I couldn't tell whether you
camp with preterists, futurists, idealists, historicists, or somewhere between.
Can your views be categorized in one of their camps, or have you simply camped
among Biblicists? That's a serious question, not a jab.
There is one thing all of these views -- Premillenialists, Postmillenialists,
Amillenialists, and Preterists -- together with their subdivisions -- have in
common. The coming of the Lord is not the real point in any of them. The some,
the tribulation is fundamental. For others, the rapture is primary. For others,
the millennium is the main thing. Still others see the here and now as primary.
But in the teaching of Scripture, the coming of the Lord itself is primary. That
is what we are to look and prepare for. That is where I am. If, in the end, I am
not forever with the Lord, it makes little difference which of these camps I may
or may not have embraced. And, they are "camps" -- temporary settlements of
theological nomads.
I
was baptized a year ago; I’ve been a mason since 1981. My minister said that I
need too detach myself from being a mason. I asked him were you a mason he said
no. so I said, well if you no nothing about masonry you shouldn’t judge me. He
said it’s a cult, I said it’s just a fraternity of a band of brothers. From his
reading and understanding he said you worship the worshipful master, I said it’s
just a title, we do not worship him. Could you advise me? Of what too do.
The Masonic order is a religion, offering salvation upon the basis of being a
mason, and even having their own funerals. Their key person is Solomon, not
Jesus.
The use of the kind of titles you mention is not an innocent thing. God
considers the ascription of traits belonging to Him to someone else as idolatry.
In fact, that is what idolatry is -- giving the glory due to God to someone or
something else.
I suggest that you review your own Masonic resources, laying them beside the
Lord Jesus Christ. You will find they often use texts of Scripture as though
they were references to Masons -- such as "ye are the salt of the earth" (Matt
5:13). They will also never exalt of recognize Jesus as the sole means of coming
to God -- and they say they are coming to God.
In the end, you must make up your own mind on this. You must be confident that
you can or cannot be a mason for the glory of God and the honor of Jesus.
Please
l will like to know your opinion on Feelings/Emotions especially as regards the
Singles in Christendom.
Feelings
and emotions are among the weakest and most vulnerable part of human nature.
They are areas in which we can more easily be led astray and fall. They are also
areas that can be sanctified by faith, so that a person has strong feelings for
the Living God, and is emotionally touched by His tender love and care as they
are revealed in Christ Jesus. As for the application of these things to
"singles," that is a distinction that does not even exist in Christ Jesus. In
Him there is "male nor female": (Gal 3;28). We must think of God's people as
brothers and sisters in Christ.
The things for which you should have concern are the abiding realities of faith,
hope, and love. All of these come from God, and are included in the fruit of the
Spirit. If you are strong in these things -- faith, hope, and love -- you will
be able to properly manage your feelings and emotions. If you are not strong in
them, your feelings and emotions will manage you, which is not good.
Also,
l know it is not but in your own opinion is it demonic for a brother or sister
to have sexual hug?
What, pray tell, is a "sexual hug?" I do not like the sound of the expression at
all. As to
whether such a thing is demonic or not, I suppose that would be a convenient way
to explain such misconduct. I would refer to it as living after the flesh, and
knowing people according to the flesh, rather than in Christ Jesus. This is not
a mere opinion, for the people of God are told, "And he died for all, that those
who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and
was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view"
(2 Cor 5:16).
Why
is the birth of Jesus important to the Jews and the Christians? What was the
year of his birth?
The birth of Jesus is important to the Jews because it is the fulfillment of
certain promises that were given to them. For example:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isa 7:14).
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his
government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon
his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice
from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(Isa 9:6-7).
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2).
The Savior's birth is important to both Jews and Christians because it was a
confirmation of God's love, and the beginning of the Savior's identity with
humanity, whom He came to save. His birth was the means whereby He entered into
a realm where He would experience the handicaps of living in this world. That
would serve to make Him a merciful and faithful High Priest and Intercessor for
them. This is taught in the second chapter of Hebrews, and Hebrews 4:15-16.
The birth of our Lord is estimated to have been around 2-4 B.C.
What
Hebrew scripture show the sameness and differences between the Jews and the
Christians?
The Hebrews Scriptures do not spend time making such distinctions. They rather declare what redeemed people would be like, leaving it to the people to make the comparisons. For example, those who would be delivered by the Messiah would have God's laws written on their hearts and minds. They would actually know God -- every one of them. They would all be God's people, and He would be their God. Their sins would be remembered no more (Jer 31:31-34). They would be joyful in the Lord (Isa 12:3), have an understanding of the things of God (Isa 32:3-4), and serve God with one consent (Zech 3:9).
And
what idea do you have as to what a person can do to help Jews and the Christians
read and understand the scripture (in question 2) so they can understand each
other better?
The point is for all men -- both Jews and Gentiles -- to understand and know God
-- not one another (Jer 24:7). Those who know and understand God (Jer 9:24),
will be able understand each other properly. The point of Scripture is not to
acquaint us with one another, but to acquaint us with God and His Son, Jesus
Christ the Lord.
A
friend of mine
believes that in order to understand the Bible, human reason and logic is a key
factor. In fact, he told me to point out where in Scripture "that human thought
and reasoning are not something to be taken into consideration." I simply
stated that the fact that the Bible was written and inspired and explained by
God and not by humans is a very important reason.
About the matter of human reasoning and logic. Your friend has made the mistake
of equating "HUMAN reason and logic" with "reason and logic," and they are not
at all the same. Faith has a reason and logic of its own, and it is very
powerful, even though it contradicts the way "humans" reason and think. For
starters, your friend needs to use "HUMAN reason and logic" to account for the
flood, the birth of Isaac, the parting of the Red Sea, water coming out of a
rock, manna falling and sustaining several million people, for forty years, and
the walls of Jericho falling down flat while men were shouting. And that is only
a start. In all of these things, faith has no trouble accepting those facts,
reasoning upon them, and seeing good reason to trust God because of them.
There are at least two examples in Abraham's life that reveal how he reasoned
and thought. In both of these instances, his way of thinking contracted the
HUMAN way of thinking.
The first has to do with the birth of Isaac. When the promise of a son was
confirmed to Abraham, he was ninety-nine years old, and his body, so far as
reproduction was concerned, was “dead.” In addition to this, Sarah was ninety,
and her womb had been “barren” and incapable of bearing children from the time
she married Abraham. If the possibility of this couple having a son had been
presented to the most eminent physicians in the world, they would have declared
it an impossibility. In fact, if the same scenario was set before any specialist
in child birth in our time, they would draw the same conclusion. There is no law
of science that could support the possibility of such a birth – a woman
incapable of bearing children having a son through an impotent man! No
biological fact or rule could do it either. Yet, the Scriptures tell us HOW
Abraham reasoned on the matter. It says of him, “who, contrary to hope, in hope
believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was
spoken, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ And not being weak in faith, he did not
consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old),
and the deadness of Sarah's womb” (Rom 4:18-19). That was reasoning and logic
that is contrary to “HUMAN reason and logic.” Even though Abraham was “human,”
he was brought to reason and think like God rather than men. That is what faith
does.
The second occasion has to do with Abraham being commanded to offer Isaac as a
burnt offering to God. At the time, Isaac was a young man, possibly even in his
thirties. His birth was miraculous, and the promise of a Savior was to come
through his lineage. Now God tells Abraham, “Take now your son, your only son
Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a
burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Gen 22:2).
How will Abraham reason about this? It seems to contradict God’s promise of
blessing the world through Abraham’s offspring. Again, we are told HOW Abraham
thought on the matter. “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac,
and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom
it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able
to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a
figurative sense” (Heb 11:17-19). Technically, Abraham’s conclusion was wrong.
God did not literally raise Isaac from the dead, although what He did do was
figuratively the same – Isaac was spared by the miraculous provision of a
substitute sacrifice. Yet, Abraham reasoned in a godly manner – not with “HUMAN
reason and logic,” but with the reasoning of faith. Faith causes men to think
differently – in a manner that no schools of higher learning teach.
Your friend has asked for an example in Scripture where "human thought and
reasoning are not something to be taken into consideration." The classic example
that is provided concerns the death of Jesus Christ. It was “human thought and
reason” that moved men to crucify Him. The most astute thinkers in the Jewish
community reasoned, "If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in
Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation." (John
11:48). Some who heard Jesus speak, reasoned about it and said, “He has a demon”
(John 10:20). Others “thought” that He “broke the Sabbath” and blasphemed by
saying He was the Son of God. They therefore sought to kill Him (John 5:18).
Paul addresses this whole matter with very pungent words. Rather than affirming
the need for “human reason and logic,” He affirmed that God does not recognize
such a thing even exists. “For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’ Where is the wise?
Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish
the wisdom of this world?” (1 Cor 1:20). He challenges the world to produce a
valid thinker, wise man, or debater. The point is that the heavenly way of
reasoning and thinking contradicts the human way of doing so. That is why God
said, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways, says
the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher
than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isa 55:8-9).
The sharp contrast between “human reason and logic” is seen in Paul’s reasoning
to the Corinthians, who thought much like your friend. “However, we speak wisdom
among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of THIS AGE, nor of the rulers of
THIS AGE, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
which none of the rulers of THIS AGE knew; for had they known, they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:6-8).
In presenting your case, point out that you are not opposed to reasoning and
logic. The Scriptures do require us to think and reason. However, faith must be
the driving force behind them both.
Our Saturday morning Bible study group is studying
Isaiah and we were reading chapter 23 last Saturday. Verse 11 says "The Lord has
given a commandment against Canaan to destroy it's strongholds". We began
discussing the word "strongholds" and I asked the question "what are strongholds
?" I explained that whenever I have seen the word strongholds in scripture, it
was always referring to something bad that had too much power over a person's
life that was holding them away from God. One man in the group said "strongholds
could be something good couldn't they ?" An 80 year old pastor who has just
joined our group and is familiar with your ministry suggested that I ask you
what you thought about "strongholds". Any comments concerning your feelings
about "strongholds" would be appreciated.
It is always good to hear from you, and to know of the excellent group of men
with which you regularly gather. All of you remind me of something that was said
of faithful men living during the time of Malachi, when a massive departure of
the Lord was taking place. "Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to
another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was
written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his
name" (Mal 3:16). I commend all of you for your diligence, assuring you that
your gatherings are duly noted in heaven.
A "stronghold," or "strong hold" (KJV) is a fortress built for defense and
protection. The only place "strongholds" are referred to in the New Covenant
Scriptures is Second Corinthians 10:4: "For the weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds." These
bastions, or citadels, and are then defined as "every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought
to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). In this case they are erroneous and
damaging thoughts, concepts, views, and delusions.
Technically speaking, a "stronghold" is something on which a person depends -- a
form of security. The brother who suggested there could be good strong holds is
absolutely correct. It is written, "The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day
of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him" (Nahum 1:7). Zechariah
admonished the people, "Turn [i.e., return] you to the strong hold, ye prisoners
of hope" (Zech 9:12).
The "sweet Psalmist of Israel" was referring to a "stronghold" when he wrote,
"The Lord is . . . my Fortess" (2 Sam 22:2; Psa 18:2; 31:3; 71:3; 91:2; 144:2).
Jeremiah said the same (Jer 16:19). The same is true of the word "Refuge," which
is applied to both God (Psa 62:7) and Jesus Christ (Heb 6:18). The latter
reference was prefigured by the cities of refuge, which foreshadowed the Lord
Jesus (Num 35:11; 14; Josh 20:2; 1 Chron 6:67). They were cities in which safety
was realized for one who was charged with murder, yet was possibly innocent.
In the case of the strongholds of the Canaanites, and the bastions of thought
that are to be thrown down by those in Christ Jesus, "strongholds" are places of
protection for things God actually hates -- things He is against. The ancient
heathen would built such places around their idols, making them a sort of
fortress. Israel was to thrown them down. Sometimes they are referred to as "the
high places" (Num 33:52; Ezek 6:3). For believers in our day, casting down
imaginations is involved in stopping the mouths of those who bring damaging
doctrines that actually move people away from Christ (Tit 1:11).
I
understand how important it is that we are baptized as soon as we
understand what God has done for us through the death, burial and resurrection
of Jesus Christ but this denomination believes that a person absolutely cannot
be saved without being baptized and they believe it is wrong to have
instrumental music in the church. Your comments as always are very much
appreciated.
First, God HAS spoken to the church about baptism. He has NOT delivered teaching
to the body of Christ concerning instrumental music. Our thoughts about any
subject must be molded by what God has SAID, not what He has NOT said, or what
men THINK He meant. That is rather rudimentary, but it does need to be
established in any serious discussion of things pertaining to life and
godliness.
BAPTISM. The brother's statement concerning baptism, namely that one cannot be
saved without being baptized, is driven by an awareness of teachings (concerning
salvation) that eliminate baptism, or treat it as some sort of option, left up
to the discretion of men. Such an approach does not mesh with Scripture.
In the last analysis, we must speak of baptism as Jesus and the Apostles spoke.
Our teachings must not be surrounded with the language of men, but ought to be
very precisely stated. Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be
saved" (Mark 16:16). He did NOT say, "He who believes and is saved should be
baptized," or "He who is baptized shall be saved." He said it the proper way,
with the entire panorama of truth before Him. Referring to "water," Peter also
said, "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Pet 3:21). Further, when addressing the
saved, the Scriptures assume they have all been baptized, and reasons upon that
fact (Rom 6:1-12; 1 Cor 1:13-17; Col 2:11-12; Gal 3:27-28).
Baptism is associated with our identity with Christ's death, burial, and
resurrection (Rom 6:3-5). It is tied to "the circumcision of Christ," which
relates to the cutting away of the whole body of the sins of the flesh (Col
2:11-12).
Men may debate about what these things mean, but there ought to be no debate
about what they say -- about the words themselves. We are to be free to use them
without thinking they impinge upon our own beliefs. If, in fact, the bald Word
of God appears to contradict what we believe, there can be no doubt that we
believe the wrong thing. When everyone agrees to speak about things in "words
which the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor 12:13), it will reduce the amount of
controversy. When they choose to use other language -- language that reflects
human conclusion rather than Divine affirmation -- it will result on
controversy. This is because we cannot be sure any man is saying what God really
means if he is not using the words God really used.
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. From the beginning of His dealings with men, the only issue
God has ever had with instrumental music, is when it was employed for self
gratification rather praise to Himself (Amos 5:23; 6:5). It cannot be countered
that God said this because the instruments themselves were offensive to Him, for
He said the same thing about the songs of decadent Israel (Amos 8:3). No person
in any age was ever rebuked by God for using a musical instrument in heartfelt
praise to God.
We do know that an "evil spirit" DEPARTED from Saul when David played skillfully
upon the harp (1 Sam 16:23). We also know the "hand of the Lord" CAME upon the
prophet Elisha as a minstrel played, moving him to prophesy (2 Kgs 3:15). We DO
know that the glory of the Lord came down when the trumpeters and singers made
"one sound" at the dedication of the Temple (2 Chron 5:13). Some will object
that these are not relevant because they occurred prior to the inauguration of
the New Covenant. However, that argument is flawed, because we are dealing with
God and evil spirits -- neither of which are capable of changing. We know from
Scripture that God is NOT offended when instruments are played before Him by
holy people. In fact, He identified Himself with instruments: "musical
instruments OF GOD" (1 Chron 16:42), and "harps OF GOD" (Rev 15:2).
It will be argued that this refers to a prior period, and thus has no relevance
for our time. However, they do not refer to a prior God, and God is unchanging.
It may be countered that God was once pleased with bloody sacrifices. However,
the Scriptures never really say this. Those ancient sacrifices were said to be
"a sweet savor" made by fire to God (Ex 29:18,25; Lev 1:9, etc). However, it is
categorically stated that He did "NOT" have pleasure in them -- i.e., He NEVER
did (Psa 51:16; Heb 10:6,8). The reason for his displeasure in those sacrifices
is also provided: they could not take away sin. It was for this reason that a
body was prepared for Jesus, in which He entered into the world for the purpose
of dying (Heb 10:4-8).
No such argument is ever presented in Scripture concerning instrumental music --
that is, that it was never pleasing to God, could not please Him, and was only a
figure of Jesus, or something else. If people want to say that is what the
Scriptures mean, they must bear the responsibility for their own doctrine. But
that is NOT what God said, and no person is obligated to accept the postulate
that this is what God meant, even though He did not say it.
Is
it wrong to ask my husband to quit his job, venture in a new business, for
reasons of my fear that he might be emotionally attached with someone from his
workplace? I am miserable because he strongly disagree resigning/quitting from
his job. What are some things that I need to do to convince him to quit his job?
I cannot answer that question with any kind of finality. If the "fear that he
might be emotionally attached with someone from his workplace" is unfounded,
then it is an imagination that must be cast down (2 Cor 10:4-5), and a fear from
which you must be delivered (Psa 34:4). If the that "fear" is justified, then
there must be an acknowledgment of it by your husband. He must fulfill the word
of the Lord, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the
flesh, to fulfill its lusts" (Rom 13:14), "and do not give the devil an
opportunity" (Eph 4:27).
I suggest that you and your husband pray together about this matter. It is
important that you do not tell him what you think the problem is. Your prayers
should be for God to give you both wisdom, and for him to search your hearts, as
in Psalm 139:23. If he is unwilling to pray with you about this, then I suggest
the following. You must see the sense of doing this, and not enter into it
simply because I suggested it.
1. First, you need to have your own heart settled. An agitated spirit and
troubled heart will only cause more difficulty for you. AT this point, that is
more important that settling the issue you feel exists with your husband. God
speaks about a settled heart in this way: "Be anxious for nothing, but in
everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be
made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will
guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:6-7). When you have
realized the fulfillment of that promise, do the following.
2. Ask God to resolve the problem using your faith. The promise that deals with
this is found in First John. "If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which
does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who
commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say
that he should pray about that" (1 John 5:16). A "sin leading to death" is one
like Ananias and Sapphira. They died BECAUSE they sinned (Acts 5:1-10). Your
husband is still alive, so you can assume he has not committed this sin. The
promise is that God will give him life because you have prayed.
Are
the Ten Commandments valid in our time? When is the Sabbath of the Lord? Is it
Saturday or Sunday? Is it important to keep the Sabbath?
The ten commandments, or "the Law," are for the lawless and disobedient, and
thus are certainly valid for our time (1 Tim 1:9). They are NOT the criterion
for righteousness, for they demanded perfect, unwavering obedience, and nowhere
required faith (Gal 3:12). They define sin (Rom 3:20), and, as a covenant (for
they were "the words of the covenant" given to Israel -- Ex 34:28) were the
standard for righteousness. In Christ Jesus, God writes His laws upon the hearts
of the people, bringing them into accord with Himself -- a condition Israel
never did enjoy (Heb 8:10; 10:16; Rom 10:21). Righteousness is now received from
God through faith (Rom 3:22; 4:5; 10:6; Phil 3:9), not developed by men keeping
the Law.
The words "ten commandments" were never attributed to John the Baptist,
Jesus, or the Apostles. Not one single time are they said to have uttered them.
The Ten Commandments were not their focus, for the Law was "weak through the
flesh," demanding more of fallen humanity was possible (Rom 8:3). This by no
means suggests they were unimportant or despised. It was rather because they
were not capable of lifting men out of sin. Scripture affirms they were, in
regard to salvation, unprofitable, making "nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19).
"The Sabbath of the Lord" was declared to Israel to be "the seventh day," as
any student of Scripture knows (Ex 20:10; Lev 23:3; Deut 5:14). Not one single
Prophet after Moses ever referred to "the seventh day" in the sense of Exodus
10:10 -- not a single one. The one and ONLY time the expression "seventh day" is
used in Matthew through Revelation is in the fourth chapter of Hebrews. That is
the exposition of the real sabbath, or "rest," to which we are brought in Christ
Jesus, and into which Israel never did enter (Heb 3:3-9). That "rest" is entered
through faith, as is declared in Hebrews 4:3.
Jesus nor the Apostles ever commanded a single person to "keep the Sabbath"
-- and Jesus is the Head of the church, and the Apostles are the ones who laid
its foundation (Eph 2:20). There is not so much as a syllable in the Apostolic
writings that binds the Sabbath upon those who are in Christ Jesus. In Scripture
no Christian is ever admonished to keep the seventh day, or rebuked for not
doing so. In fact, those in Christ Jesus are admonished not to allow any one to
bind the Sabbath upon them (Col 2:16). Those are just the facts in the case. How
a person chooses to view them is their own business.
There is certainly nothing wrong with anyone keeping the Sabbath day as
commanded under the Law, but it is not something Christ has required of those
who believe on Him. They have been brought into a higher order of the Sabbath
day which has enabled them to cease from their own works as God did from His
(Heb 4:10) -- something Israel was never able to do under the First Covenant.
I do not know if you are simply unlearned in these things, or if you are
making an effort to affirm the Sabbath day has been bound upon all men
throughout all time. I speak of the Sabbath like Jesus did, and like the
Apostles did. That is something you are also obliged to do. As to your own
personal preferences, that is a matter between you and the Lord, and it must
remain there, just as Romans 14:5-10 teaches.
Go to next page
