Most people in our country today would say that the moral condition is decaying. There are many signs of such, but perhaps it is unnecessary to cite them.
The prophet Habakkuk in the Old Testament faced a society with lots of degradation. He cried out to the Lord, "O Lord, how long shall I cry, and You will not hear? Even cry out to You, 'Violence!' and You will not save." (1:2). God makes it clear to him that He is going to use a more sinful nation to punish Judah. Habakkuk, though frustrated, responds, "Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail, and the fields yield no food; though the flock may be cut off from the fold, and there be no herd in the stalls--yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength; He will make my feet like deer's feet, and He will make me walk on my high hills." We must be like Habakkuk; no matter how bad things get around us, we must put our trust in the Lord, for He is still in control.
The prophet Daniel is another good example for us. When faced with the decision of whether to obey the king or to serve his God, Daniel did not waiver. It was at great risk that Daniel made the right moral choice...and it worked out right in the end because God took care of him.
Isaiah 55: 8,9 tells us that our ways are not God's ways; His are higher.....and we must put our trust in Him. Thanks for reading. Have a great week!
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Once Saved Always Saved
I received a question regarding salvation, and specifically questioning the Billy Graham type of calling for someone to come forward and profess their faith and receive salvation on the spot. To me, this is a challenging question and requires some soul-searching and Bible searching to answer. The best I can do here is to cite some Bible examples of salvation. The questioner cited the conversion of Simon in Acts 8. The scripture says that Simon "believed," but then we read where Simon sinned trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit with money. So was Simon saved and then fell away, or was he never really saved in the first place. I have an opinion, but can't be sure because we aren't told the answer in the text. I think all we can do is look elsewhere in the Bible.
There are some people who profess Christianity that believe once a person is saved, he cannot be lost. But the New Testament presents the theme clearly that a Christian must beware of not falling back into sin. Probably a thousand verses could be found, but I will offer one. In Hebrews, in writing to a group of Christian believers, Hebrews 3:12-14 says, "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is call 'Today,' lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end..." If a saved Christian couldn't sin and fall away there would not be all of the warnings about such.
The questioner seems correct in saying that "heart of God actions have to follow these initial first steps. " But the New Testament does give us examples of the early Christians taking those first steps. For example, in Acts 8 we see the Ethiopian eunuch nobleman being taught "Jesus." That is all that we are told that he was taught; but following that, he asks to be baptized. The preacher says, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." In this example we see the obedience in baptism but also are witnessing an appeal to the heart. So then the question: is he saved at this point? From the text, the answer seems clear that he is. Will he always be saved? That depends on his keeping his heart right, seeking the Lord.
Back to Simon; Was Simon's heart right when he "believed?" I don't know, and we aren't told. It turned sour rather quickly, but you will have to judge that one. But I agree with the questioner that the key to real salvation is not just the first steps but the desire of the heart following those first steps. Have a good week! May God Bless You!
There are some people who profess Christianity that believe once a person is saved, he cannot be lost. But the New Testament presents the theme clearly that a Christian must beware of not falling back into sin. Probably a thousand verses could be found, but I will offer one. In Hebrews, in writing to a group of Christian believers, Hebrews 3:12-14 says, "Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is call 'Today,' lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end..." If a saved Christian couldn't sin and fall away there would not be all of the warnings about such.
The questioner seems correct in saying that "heart of God actions have to follow these initial first steps. " But the New Testament does give us examples of the early Christians taking those first steps. For example, in Acts 8 we see the Ethiopian eunuch nobleman being taught "Jesus." That is all that we are told that he was taught; but following that, he asks to be baptized. The preacher says, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." In this example we see the obedience in baptism but also are witnessing an appeal to the heart. So then the question: is he saved at this point? From the text, the answer seems clear that he is. Will he always be saved? That depends on his keeping his heart right, seeking the Lord.
Back to Simon; Was Simon's heart right when he "believed?" I don't know, and we aren't told. It turned sour rather quickly, but you will have to judge that one. But I agree with the questioner that the key to real salvation is not just the first steps but the desire of the heart following those first steps. Have a good week! May God Bless You!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Question: The Role of Women in the Church
I received a question regarding the role of women in the church. I will start by trying to briefly state the question: In Romans 16:1, 2 & 7, there is mention of Phoebe and Junia as servants or possibly an apostle or deacon versus 1 Timothy 2 where " I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." How does one reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages?
First, let me assure the reader that I do not claim to have all the answers; I do believe that the Bible does, that the Bible is completely accurate, and it does not contradict itself. With that disclaimer, here is what I see; here are a few basic facts, what I believe are basic facts:
God made man, then made woman from man to be a helper to him (Genesis 2:18).
In God's eyes, all are equal. Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
In the New Testament, starting with Acts and following, as we follow the development of the church, we see that the Lord started the church with the Apostles. To be an apostle was to first meet certain qualifications. These are made clear in Acts 1:15-26. The primary qualification was to have been a direct eyewitness of Jesus. When Judas betrayed, they filled his position with another in Acts 1. Later Paul is called an apostle; and in fact he was an eyewitness of Jesus having witnessed Him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). I would suggest that there is no other person in the New Testament who is called an "Apostle." Junia in Romans 16 is not. Junia was "of note among the apostles," but was not an apostle.
And from Acts and the following books, we see that there were other positions that were established in the churches (Acts 14:23). In Acts 20, Paul called the Ephesian elders to meet with him. In this one passage, the terms for "elder" are also called overseer, shepherd and bishop, all the same thing. This same multiple name situation occurs in 1 Peter 5. There were specific qualifications for the men of this position; these are given in 1 Timothy and Titus. But without question, these qualifications only apply to men.
In addition, there are men appointed to the position of "deacon," as recorded in 1 Timothy and Titus. The qualifications given here are specific to men. But the word "deacon" just means servant. So what I see in the NT is that there were men appointed to the position of "deacon" and also people, men and women, who were described as servants; this can be hard to distinguish; I won't try. Were there women deacons? I don't know, but there were women "servants" as I see in Romans 16:1.
In summary, what I see in the NT is that men and women were equal in God's eyes. Women did teach; we see examples of that, but not perhaps taking charge over a man. And while equal, men and women are given different roles. There were no women apostles and there were no women elders (overseers, shepherds, bishops.) There were women teachers and even women prophets. Women were, and are, important in the work of the Lord!
I hope that all of my answers here are purely Biblical, not my opinion; I have tried hard to keep opinion out of this. And I hope this helps. God bless you!
First, let me assure the reader that I do not claim to have all the answers; I do believe that the Bible does, that the Bible is completely accurate, and it does not contradict itself. With that disclaimer, here is what I see; here are a few basic facts, what I believe are basic facts:
God made man, then made woman from man to be a helper to him (Genesis 2:18).
In God's eyes, all are equal. Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
In the New Testament, starting with Acts and following, as we follow the development of the church, we see that the Lord started the church with the Apostles. To be an apostle was to first meet certain qualifications. These are made clear in Acts 1:15-26. The primary qualification was to have been a direct eyewitness of Jesus. When Judas betrayed, they filled his position with another in Acts 1. Later Paul is called an apostle; and in fact he was an eyewitness of Jesus having witnessed Him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9). I would suggest that there is no other person in the New Testament who is called an "Apostle." Junia in Romans 16 is not. Junia was "of note among the apostles," but was not an apostle.
And from Acts and the following books, we see that there were other positions that were established in the churches (Acts 14:23). In Acts 20, Paul called the Ephesian elders to meet with him. In this one passage, the terms for "elder" are also called overseer, shepherd and bishop, all the same thing. This same multiple name situation occurs in 1 Peter 5. There were specific qualifications for the men of this position; these are given in 1 Timothy and Titus. But without question, these qualifications only apply to men.
In addition, there are men appointed to the position of "deacon," as recorded in 1 Timothy and Titus. The qualifications given here are specific to men. But the word "deacon" just means servant. So what I see in the NT is that there were men appointed to the position of "deacon" and also people, men and women, who were described as servants; this can be hard to distinguish; I won't try. Were there women deacons? I don't know, but there were women "servants" as I see in Romans 16:1.
In summary, what I see in the NT is that men and women were equal in God's eyes. Women did teach; we see examples of that, but not perhaps taking charge over a man. And while equal, men and women are given different roles. There were no women apostles and there were no women elders (overseers, shepherds, bishops.) There were women teachers and even women prophets. Women were, and are, important in the work of the Lord!
I hope that all of my answers here are purely Biblical, not my opinion; I have tried hard to keep opinion out of this. And I hope this helps. God bless you!
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Literal Interpretation of the Bible
I received a question regarding how literal should the Bible be interpreted. I don't propose to know all the answers; I do believe that the Bible has all the answers, however. So I won't spend much time on my opinions. I recommend letting the Bible answer the questions for you.
Perhaps the number one rule for understanding the Bible is to consider the context. Taking verses out of context will only lead to wrong conclusions, misunderstanding, and is "cherry picking" as one reader would call it. One must always consider the context, to whom the writing is being made, who is doing the writing and from what circumstance. An extreme example would be the book of Revelation. This book is written clearly in a form that is not to be taken literally. But every book has its special situation that must be considered in order to get the full meaning.
But beyond this, there are disagreements of accuracy of the Bible. Some will say that because of obvious discrepancies in the Bible, inaccuracies, the Bible cannot be taken literally. I pause here to recall 1Timothy 2:12, where Paul said, "..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," so you are on your own here. For me, the Bible is accurate and contains no mistakes; it is from God, the Holy Spirit guiding the writers. And if that is true, it is mistake free. If it had mistakes, then I couldn't trust it.
As for taking statements in the Bible literally, yes, I see no other way than to take many things literally, at face value. That is, if it says it clearly, straight out, then it means what it says. An example: In Mark 16 where Jesus said to His disciples, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned," He meant that to be done. No interpretation required. But we also see that the Bible uses figurative language often. Jesus said "You are the salt of the earth." We understand that this is figurative language, not literal. Generally, it is easy enough to distinguish.
Enough for now. Whatever we believe about literal interpretation, we still work together to seek the truth in love, love for God and love for each other. Have a good week!
Perhaps the number one rule for understanding the Bible is to consider the context. Taking verses out of context will only lead to wrong conclusions, misunderstanding, and is "cherry picking" as one reader would call it. One must always consider the context, to whom the writing is being made, who is doing the writing and from what circumstance. An extreme example would be the book of Revelation. This book is written clearly in a form that is not to be taken literally. But every book has its special situation that must be considered in order to get the full meaning.
But beyond this, there are disagreements of accuracy of the Bible. Some will say that because of obvious discrepancies in the Bible, inaccuracies, the Bible cannot be taken literally. I pause here to recall 1Timothy 2:12, where Paul said, "..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," so you are on your own here. For me, the Bible is accurate and contains no mistakes; it is from God, the Holy Spirit guiding the writers. And if that is true, it is mistake free. If it had mistakes, then I couldn't trust it.
As for taking statements in the Bible literally, yes, I see no other way than to take many things literally, at face value. That is, if it says it clearly, straight out, then it means what it says. An example: In Mark 16 where Jesus said to His disciples, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned," He meant that to be done. No interpretation required. But we also see that the Bible uses figurative language often. Jesus said "You are the salt of the earth." We understand that this is figurative language, not literal. Generally, it is easy enough to distinguish.
Enough for now. Whatever we believe about literal interpretation, we still work together to seek the truth in love, love for God and love for each other. Have a good week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
