 |
 |
 |
|
| STUDIES | |||
|
|
|
|
|
| STUDIES | |||
|
ANSWERS to QUESTIONS The answers will be posted with the most current ones at the head of this page. QUESTION #10 From Barbara 3/20/02 ANSWER #10 QUESTION #9 From Bill 3/14/02 bh>I recently heard a tape of Dr. J Veron McGee.
He was asked the question is Israel's current possession of Israel
fulfillment of God's promise to them. His answer was no and he based
this on statements from Dr. Dwight D.Penecost but could not remember the
text. He said it is based on the last parts of Isaiah. ANSWER #9 See Chapter: The Re-gathering of Israel Concerning the last two chapters of Isaiah, there is language there that is not fulfilled at the present time. 65:18-25 And Ezekiel 38-39 have not been fulfilled ------------- QUESTION #8 (3/01/02) Does the title, Jew, refer only to a member of the tribe of Judah or does it refer to the entire nation of Israel? ANSWER #8 During and after the Babylonian Captivity of 605 to 636 BC, since the people of the Northern kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) had been mingled with the people of the Southern kingdom of Judah, there was only ONE nation. Since after the captivity this nation was centered in Judah, the people became known as Jews. But this term applied to ANYONE of any tribe who was an Israelite. 1. Jer. 34:8-10, The term Hebrew is equated with the
term Jew. (587 BC) 2. In Esther, the term Jew(s) refers to a member of
the nation of Judah, which was comprised of people from all the tribes.
Ezra 2:70, all Israel. 2 Chron. 34:5-6, 33; 35:18
3. Jew is used in John and Acts to refer to a member
of the nation and not specifically a member of the tribe of Judah. 4. Romans 3:1-2, the Jews were entrusted with the
oracles of God. 5. The comparison in Paul's theology is between Jew and Gentile (Greek), not Jew, Israelite and Gentile. This is because Israelite and Jew were synonymous. Rom. 1:16; 2:9;10:12; Gal. 2:14; 3:28; Col. 3:11 6. The adjective, "Jewish" is used in John to refer to that which pertains to the nation of Israel. John 2:6; 19:42; Acts 12;11; 16:1; 19:13-14; 7. Christ's title: the King of the Jews. He is king of all Israel, not just those from Judah. 8. Other documentation:
11/07/01 lw>Can you show me scripturally that "lying" to protect oneself in a hostile/violent situation such as being a POW or the unfortunate victim of a criminal break in and takeover is right or wrong? If someone breaks in my home and wants to know where my wife and kid's are, would I not be morally justified in this case to lie about there whereabouts, in order, of course, to protect them?<< ANSWER #7 Lying is a type of verbal sin - category DECEPTION. Key passages on lying: Proverbs 6:16-19 (notice both
lying tongue and false witness are mentioned here); 12:22; Ephesians
4:25; Col. 3:9 However, while lying is deception. SILENCE is not
deception. Comments on Rahab's lie: James 2:25 Later, she would be taught to deal with personal sins and failures in application of truth to every area of her life. She was victorious when she made the decision to help the spies but she sinned when she failed to extend her faith just a little bit further. The preservation of life is in God's hands; He is in control. The consistent maintenance of INTEGRITY allows God to get the glory instead of your own imaginative human viewpoint attempt to do God's work for Him. One certainly does not need to TELL where people are or divulge sensitive, important or compromising information, BUT one does not need to FALSIFY - unless of course one's intent is to PROTECT self or others from harm - which, as I suggest, takes the handling of the situation out of God's hands. A PERFECT example that involves something other than lying is what happened with Shad, Me and Abed at Daniel 3. Neb wanted them to bow down to the idol image or else be thrown into the furnace of fire. Their answer is CLASSIC and applies to many different situations. Daniel 3:16-18 (NASB)
BUT LET IT BE KNOWN that I will not compromise my integrity no matter what threats you make toward me or mine. 8/14/01 KE>Titus 2:11 seems to say that the grace sufficient for salvation has appeared to all men. What exactly does this mean? Please expound on these verses liberally. Please include a exhaustive grammatical and syntactical exposition of these verses. << ANSWER #6 The grace of God has appeared: This is the verb, epiphaino as an aorist passive indicative. The aorist tense communicates a point of time arrival in history and refers to the universal salvation provision that was accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This salvation provision is called GRACE, because it is something that God does for man without any merit or contribution from man. Man does not and cannot earn or deserve the loving expression of God the Father that did not spare his only son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom. 8:32). At verse 3:4, it is the kindness and love of God that APPEARED in that SAME point of time, and is thus the basis for Him saving us - not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy. And that is why Paul writes at Ephesians 2:8-9, that by GRACE we have been saved through faith, and THAT (salvation) is not of ourselves but is the gift of God - not of works. Now the issue is argued - whether this grace that appeared is RESTRICTED to only SOME, or is a universal provision to all mankind. The adjective that occurs next is soterios, which is an ACTIVE adjective and it means saving, delivering and thus BRINGING salvation or deliverance. So grace BRINGS salvation, but to whom does grace bring salvation - some or all? The prepositional phrase, "to all men," is the dative case of the adjective pas, which means ALL, plus the noun it modifies - anthropos (plural) to give us the translation, all men. The Calvinist has to water this down and desert the literal INTENT of the statement, and claims that it refers to all TYPES or categories of men. But I am unable to see and certainly cannot accept such a rationalization of this very clear statement. Thus, the literal, natural, grammatical and COMMON SENSE understanding is that God's grace appeared in a particular point of time, and in that appearance (manifested by the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross) PROVIDED salvation to all men. But although such a LITERAL understanding is the most natural, it is necessary to find contextual support for it, JUST as it is necessary to find any contextual support for alternate suggestions, such as what Calvinistic theology offers. Calvinism however, comes up short and quite deficient of any contextual support and can only perpetuate the same convoluted watering down of the word ALL, instead of letting it stand on its own merits. Accordingly, I appeal to 1 Timothy 2:6, which says of our Lord Jesus, that he "gave Himself as a ransom FOR ALL," which was BECAUSE God "desires ALL MEN to be saved," as stated at verse 4. In view of this, it was quite appropriate for Paul to proclaim to the people of Athens, "Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance (Old Testament period), God is now declaring to men, that ALL everywhere SHOULD REPENT, because He has fixed a day when He will judge the world." (Acts 17:30-31). But again, is this all, as in ALL CATEGORIES of men, or should we let the all stand on its own merits and refer to a universal invitation in view of a universal judgment? Furthermore, if God's grace has provided salvation for all men, then He stands as the Savior of all men. Is He the savior of only the ones chosen - the elect? Or is He also the savior of those who are not elect? If salvation is provided ONLY for the elect, then He is the savior of only the elect. However, Paul informs us that "the living God is the Savior of ALL men, ESPECIALLY of believers," (1 Timothy 4:10). This tells us that He is the POTENTIAL savior of all men, but only the ACTUAL savior of those who believe. If there were no valid potential for ALL men to be saved, then Paul could not have used this language under the inspiration of the Spirit. For more details see topic: Unlimited Atonement The rest of the verse in this context refers to what the gospel teaches to those who become believers. The gospel (the GOOD NEWS) of God's provision of NEW LIFE involves both the ACQUISITION of eternal life, and the LIVING of eternal life here on earth. The grace of God appeared - and accomplishes TWO things. (1) it brings salvation to all men, and (2) it THEN instructs any out from among those "all" men, who believe, HOW TO LIVE in this present age. 7/23/01 Does your idea of volitional theology incorporate "antinomy" or two views that seem to conflict, but, nevertheless, exist concurrently and can not really be understood this side of Heaven? Any comments? ANSWER #5 No, volitional theology does not see a conflict between God's sovereignty and man's volition, because God IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY has CHOSEN to give man that free expression of his mentality. There is a great deal of information on the Bible Fragrances website that explains volitional theology. The following is an excerpt from the introduction and I trust it answers the question more completely. The term volitional theology is used to designate the view that both the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man function together in the universe, with neither being compromised. In His sovereignty, God has CHOSEN to give to His creatures the capacity and the responsibility to make MENTAL decisions concerning the standards of right and wrong as revealed by God. This capacity was not altered through the fall and remains the basis for entering into a relationship with God. God provides the plan of salvation for the entire human race, and individuals relate to that plan through a personal choice of either accepting or rejecting it. Sovereignty does not affect that choice by either "causing" or "preventing" any particular thought expression. But once an individual makes the choice to accept God's plan of salvation, then God's sovereignty seals and secures that person in the plan. All throughout a person's life, he will make both good and bad "mental" decisions; this is the expression of volition or free will. Whether he is ABLE to physically follow through with those decisions is an entirely different issue, for he is finite and may indeed be impotent in "causing" something to happen. Furthermore, God may Himself, choose to prevent the ACTION that is decided upon, but in such cases, the normal function of human volition is still unimpeded. 7/15/01 REGARDING 1 Corinthians 15:24-25, Then comes the end,
when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has
abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until
He has put all His enemies under His feet. ANSWER#1 The session of Christ has two parts: (1) Preparation for David's kingdom, which began when Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Father, during which time His bride is being completed through the building of the church, and (2) the actual physical reign which is on the earth for 1000 years when Jesus will sit on David's throne. Christ's location at the right hand of the Father is a place of HONOR and GLORY. It is an OFFICE rather than a physical location where He must always stay. This allows for Him to stand up (Acts 7:55-56), to come at the rapture (1 Thes. 4:14-17), to descend physically to the earth at Armageddon (Zechairah 14:4), and to reign personally on the earth for 1000 years (Matthew 19:28; Rev. 20:4), all without vacating his OFFICIAL place of session at the right hand of the Father. David's throne is an earthly throne and Jesus will sit on it during the 1000 year kingdom. There is an idiom that is used in association with this reign - "forever and ever." This is idiomatic to refer to the duration of human history, not for all eternity. In the Old Testament the reign of the Messiah was not given a specific time frame (1000 years) as it is in the New Testament, so the idiom, "forever and ever" was used to indicate a time span that theoretically embraces all of human history. This reign is seen as future at Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And at Matthew 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." And at Matthew 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And at 2 Timothy 4:1 I solemnly charge {you} in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
QUESTION 2: At 1 Corinthians 15:25, with the word "until" does this mean that He will stop reigning when (until) He has put all His enemies under His feet? ANSWER 2 Both His OFFICIAL session at the right hand of the Father and the physical reign end after the last judgment when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power, and turns over the physical kingdom to the Father.
QUESTION 3: 1 Corinthians 15:24 indicates He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. Whose rule and authority, etc. is He abolishing? ANSWER 3
QUESTION 4: 1 Corinthians 15:24, in relation to verse 25; does this mean that Christ's reign ends completely when He delivers the kingdom? ANSWER 4 After the final enemy is destroyed (physical death, 1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 20:14) at the last judgment, then both the session of the Son and the reign of his humanity will be terminated. Then from that time onward, all throughout eternity, the Son and the Father (and the Spirit) will function in a way that parallels the function of the Godhead prior to the incarnation. 1. Before the incarnation: John 1:1; Philippians 2:6 2. During the incarnation: John 1:14; Philippians 2:7-8 3. After the last judgment: 1 Corinthians 15:28
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
İRon Wallace, http://www.biblefragrances.com.
Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it, |
||||
 |
 |
|||