Would the powers of reasoning be lost in the torments of a literal fire?

The implications of the question are so overwhelming that they forbid our answering this in some theoretical or philosophic manner. Eternal realities can only be expressed by the Word of God. The other danger which we must avoid is trying to understand eternal experiences by earthly temporal ones. Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 reveals to us a man in hell. Along with having other faculties, he is evidently able to think, remember, recognize responsibility, and draw conclusions. He remembers five brethren. If he was the eldest, this shows his sense of responsibility for their welfare. He recognizes and logically deduces that if they follow the same path as he has, they will also be in hell. He formulates a plan, "Send Lazarus..." which he assumes will convert them. All of this argues for the preservation of reasoning.

Just as the body was used as a vehicle for sin and therefore must participate in the suffering, so the mind and reasoning, employed to keep God at bay throughout life, must be preserved to suffer. Suffering upon earth frequently dulls the mind and destroys the body. The God who will prevent the destruction of bodies in eternal fire will also prevent the destruction of reasoning.

A. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the Lord Jesus possess omniscience only as far as the Father allows?

Does the Lord Jesus possess omniscience only as far as the Father allows? (John 13:3)" TARGET="_blank">John 13:3)

The passage from which this question arises is, "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands . . ." (John 13:3)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:3). Another passage that raises this question is "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mar 13:32)." TARGET="_blank">Mar 13:32). The Lord’s statement, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power" (Acts 1:7)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:7), may shed some helpful light on this issue. The Father has placed information in His authority. It is His right to disclose it in keeping with His purpose. The Son knew all things (John 16:30)." TARGET="_blank">John 16:30). For instance, He knew all that the Father was going to do, but He only acted on what the Father was doing at that moment (5:19). He knew all that was involved as He brought God into full revelation (1:18), yet He only spoke what the Father told Him to speak (12:49). In the passage under question in John 13," TARGET="_blank">John 13, He always knew what the Father had committed into His hands, but He now acted in keeping with that awareness. He always acted, thought, and spoke consistent with His distinct role in the Godhead.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What will encourage believers to invite visitors to weekly gospel meetings?

What will encourage believers to invite visitors to weekly gospel meetings?

Assembly life is "normal" when believers regularly invite visitors to assembly gospel meetings. When an assembly announces a gospel meeting, the message presented must be clear and consistent with the dignity of the gospel. This is the responsibility of the elders and ought to be the burden of the weekly prayer meeting. The primary resource in assembly life is always spiritual.

Effective meetings require Spirit-filled men who have sufficient capability to communicate the gospel. Even in assemblies which have a number of such men, occasionally inviting capable men from other assemblies in the area to help with the preaching is valuable. In smaller assemblies, this is essential. Where an assembly is geographically isolated, foresight, kind hospitality, and an invitation might encourage a brother and his family to visit for a Sunday - including the gospel meeting. Inviting a different speaker every month or two (at least) would encourage the believers to invite visitors to the meetings. Also, it helps when all the believers attend each gospel meeting.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the main thrust of Matthew 18?

What is the main thrust of this passage?

"For" at the beginning of verse 20 indicates that this verse provides the reason for the previous teaching.

How does the Lord provide for the protection of His "little ones?" Is there a place where righteousness reigns? What authority does it have? How will it be able to make right decisions?

The church (v. 17) is the place where His own find ultimate protection. There they can be preserved, corrected, and restored to Him (vv. 15-17). The church is to be a place of impartiality where justice prevails. It has divine authority (v. 18). Obeying His infallible Word and humbly depending on God for guidance (v. 19), it carries out God's will.

The reason for this is because He dwells there ("there am I"). This is not merely stating that He is present when believers are together. The church (v.17) has the character of the House of God (1Ti 3:15)." TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:15). This is the place of His administration, the "gate of heaven" (Gen 28:17)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 28:17). Here heaven and earth are united in carrying out the will of God (Mat 6:10; 18:18)." TARGET="_blank">Mat 6:10; 18:18). When the King reigns on earth, He will be the One in Whom this administration centers (John 1:51)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:51). Anticipating that, He administers through His own, by His Word, on behalf of His own where two or three are gathered to His name. Here He protects His own and maintains heaven's righteous standard.

This verse is a powerful statement, giving God's view of an assembly.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How often should I say "Father" when praying?

In public prayer should we address God repeatedly and without purpose?

If a young believer falls into this habit, encourage him to keep on praying in public - and in private. Praying aloud with his family or "in his closet" may help him, but it would be better to say nothing than to make him hesitate to pray publicly. The Lord may receive more from the stammering of a spiritual child than from the eloquence of a sage.

On occasion, private, deeply burdened prayer may be a faint reflection of the Lords prayer in Gethsemane. Combining Matthew, Mark, and Lukes records indicates the Lord may have addressed His Father in 3 different ways in His brief prayers. Such praying is different from the repetition in question.

Often a more mature believer is unaware that he is addressing God repeatedly. Is this actually taking "the Name of the Lord... in vain" (Exodus 20:7)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20:7), a serious offense? In conversation, would we normally address someone repeatedly and purposelessly? This raises searching questions; do we really know God? Are we actually conscious that we are speaking to Him? "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

As evident in Pauls recorded prayers, spiritual intelligence guided him to address God in various ways (for example, Eph 1:17; 3:14)." TARGET="_blank">Eph 1:17; 3:14). What a habit to cultivate.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

If the cup is not a type, must we use wine and not simply "the fruit of the vine"?

If the cup is not a type, must we use wine and not simply "the fruit of the vine"?

"Fruit of the vine" (Luke 22:18)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:18) is the only description we have of the contents of the cup. The grape harvest was in the Fall. The Passover came in the Spring. Without refrigeration or canning, "the fruit of the vine" began to ferment by Passover. This makes it impossible to insist that that contents of the cup cannot be fermented.

The contents are not typical, so we cannot prescribe the degree of fermentation for the contents of the cup. In fact, because it isnt typical, we cannot require that the contents must be fermented.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Will the Church be sent to separate the wheat from the tares?

We read in Matthew 13:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:41: “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.”

Are we not right in understanding the angels here to be the Church glorified, and made equal to the angels, seeing we read in Hebrews 2:5," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5, “For unto the angels (the angels of chapter 1) hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.”?

No, it would be a great mistake to confound angels with the Church, as this questioner suggests. I do not know of any passage which teaches that the Church becomes angels, or indeed that any saints do. In Luke 20:36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20:36, where our Lord uses the expression, “equal unto the angels,” it is only as to the question of their immortality (“neither shall they die any more”), that the children of the resurrection (not here oniy the Church) “are equal to the angels.” The next words add a point of blessing, in which these surpass the angels, “and are the children of God,” which the angels are not. I think Hebrews 2:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5 argues rather against, than for, the thesis of the questioner. “The world to come” (i.e., the millennial age) will not be subjected to angels, which is another point of their inferiority to the Church, for that age will be subject to Christ, with Whom God associates not angels, but the many sons whom He is bringing to glory. If the angels are excluded from this rule, how can they be the same as the Church?

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Christ become the Son of God when He was born?

It is being taught in some quarters that our Lord was “God the Son in eternity,” and became the “Son of God in incarnation.”

Is this distinction scriptural?

I do not know where the phrase, “God the Son,” occurs in Scripture, though no serious objection need be raised to it. As a Trinitarian Person He was God the Son, but THEN, too, He was in the relation of Son to the Father, and was therefore Son of God. There are those who deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ, which is a very serious error, but clearly the teacher referred to here admits this important truth.

But I believe it is unscriptural to limit the expression “Son of God” to incarnation. To the Son He saith, “Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever,” and to the Son also, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth” (Hebrews 1:8-10)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:8-10)—uttered to the Lord centuries before His incarnation. I doubt if the Sonship of Christ is ever made to depend on His incarnation. He was CALLED the Son of God’ in incarnation, because He was the Son of God before incarnation (Luke 1:35)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35), just as the “Son given” is called “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God,” because He was all this before being “the child, born” of the virgin (Isaiah 9:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6). The above teacher has been referred to as to the phrase this question is based on, and he replies that what he intended to be printed was, “Christ was God the Son in eternity, and became the Son of God as Man,” which seems only to mean that personally He was unchanged, but now as Son of God He entered into Manhood and became changed in condition.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible teach about cloning?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How should a woman respond to a husband's immoral beharvior?

For an assembly couple, what is a wife's responsibility when she knows her husband's behavior has adversely affected the assembly's testimony?

Such behavior requires correction. If mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5: fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness or extortion, the sin requires her husband to be put away from the fellowship. Loyalty or love for her husband must not interfere. If the wife has clear proof of his wrong behavior and fails to make it known to the elders, she becomes an accessory. Consider Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 5: By urging her husband to confess the matter, she promotes an easier solution than going to the brethren herself. If he will not do so, her higher duty is to her Lord. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:29).

If it is a lesser matter, such as unbecoming speech or business practices, she need not act condescendingly when she encourages him to repent and make things right with those affected.

J. Slabaugh

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu