If man is incapable of pleasing God in his sins, then why does God commend Cornelius in Acts 10?

How do the commending statements about Cornelius harmonize with teaching regarding human depravity?

Cornelius was just and reputable, prayed, feared God, and gave alms (Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 24, 31, 35)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 24, 31, 35). These notable commendations coordinate with Peters growing awareness ("I perceive," verse 34) through previous revelation (eg. Luke 24:47)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:47), his vision (Acts 10:11-16)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:11-16), and his circumstances (verses 19-33) that God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles who seek Him (verse 35).

"There is not a just man upon earth" (Ecclesiastes 7:20;" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:10); "there is no fear of God" in man by nature (Romans 3:18);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:18); "there is none that seeketh after God" (Romans 3:11)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:11). These harmonize with what is said about Cornelius only because he responded to the light of divine revelation and the dealings of the Spirit of God. Although he was not saved (Acts 11:14)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 11:14), he chose to do right things; yet each of those acts came short of Gods righteous requirements (Romans 3:23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:23). None of what is said about Cornelius indicates that he was saved apart from grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:8). Gods grace spoke to Cornelius, granting him repentance (11:18) and remission of sins (10:43). Before and after his salvation, Cornelius had nothing in which to boast before God. As is proper, he submitted to God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

What is the Bible’s teaching regarding this subject?

Some assert the Bible merely condemns such behavior outside a "committed relationship" (compare Gen. 19:5;" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 19:5; Jdg. 19:22)." TARGET="_blank">Jdg. 19:22). Because the word "abomination" is linked with idolatry, some maintain the clear statements regarding this behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13)" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 18:22; 20:13) only legislate against idolatrous immorality, not the behavior per se. The context of both these Leviticus passages is wider than idolatry and involves any behavior that violates the sanctity of marriage (see the 7th commandment). Calling them an abomination shows how detestable such acts are to God (compare 1 Sam 15:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Sam 15:23).

Paul’s three references on the subject (Rom 1:23-27;" TARGET="_blank">Rom 1:23-27; 1 Cor 6: 9;" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 6: 9; 1 Tim 1:10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Tim 1:10) are crucial. In Romans, Paul addresses male with male and female with female relations. Both are against nature, violating God’s purpose in creation; they epitomize moral degradation. In First Corinthians, the words "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are relevant to the subject and express behavior foreign to Christian standards: "such were some of you." The first two terms of First Timothy chapter 1, verse 10 include every form of homosexuality and violate God’s moral law (v. 9). Such acts are sinful.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Has God lost control of the world to Satan?

GOD’S GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE

Is it scriptural to teach that God has ceased to hold the reins of government relative to the universe (presently)?

If so, give a little enlightenment on such verses as Jeremiah 27:5-8;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 27:5-8; Daniel 4:25" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 4:25 and 26; Matthew 22:21;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-2;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2. 17." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2. 17.

I should say it is very unscriptural. There is no such thought, that I know of, in the Scriptures. If Satan and man are in rebellion against God and try to usurp His authority, and apparently succeed to a certain extent, it is only by His permission and within strictly prescribed limits. I think Jeremiah 27:5-8;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 27:5-8; Daniel 4:25;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 4:25; Matthew 22:21;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7," TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:1-7, verses quoted by the questioner, are quite sufficient to prove that God has never relinquished the reins of government of the Universe or of this world even. Satan is certainly called the “Prince of this World,” but it was only by God’s permission, Who “makes the wrath of man to praise Him,” and he is never called this since the Cross and resurrection of our Lord. But nowhere is Satan entitled as Prince of the Universe. How could it be said “The Lord reigneth” (Psalm 93," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 93, Psalm 97," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 97, Psalm 99.)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 99.), had He ceased to hold the reins of government?
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Hobab in Numbers 10:29 the same person as in Judges 4:11?

Is Hobab in Numbers 10:29" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29 the same person as in Judges 4:11" TARGET="_blank">Judges 4:11?

Two problems underlie this question: both Raguel and Hobab are called Moses’ father-in-law; one is a Midianite, the other a Kenite. Reuel (Exodus 2:18)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 2:18) is the same word as Raguel (Numbers 10:29)" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29) the Midianite, which makes it clear that he was Moses’ father-in-law. Jethro (Exodus 18:1, 27)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 18:1, 27) is another of his names. In Numbers 10:29," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29, Raguel is Hobob’s father, but Hobab is also called Moses’ father-in-law in Judges 4:11." TARGET="_blank">Judges 4:11. The word translated "father-in-law" in both these cases is also translated "son-in-law" (1 Samuel 18:21," TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 18:21, etc.) and "mother-in-law" (Deuteronomy 27:23)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 27:23). It signifies anyone related by marriage. In Judges 4:11," TARGET="_blank">Judges 4:11, the relationship is brother-in-law. Moses’ father-in-law is both a Kenite (Judges 1:16)" TARGET="_blank">Judges 1:16) and a Midianite (Numbers 10:29)," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 10:29), so his son Hobab is the same man in these 2 passages.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is the Breaking of Bread inseparable from an assembly?

Why is the Breaking of Bread inseparable from an assembly?

Breaking bread is a testimony (1 Corinthians 11:26)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:26). Unlike baptism, being honest, witnessing to individuals, and many other Christian behaviors, breaking bread in remembrance of the Lord is not an individual responsibility but a responsibility shared with others. Like unity (1 Corinthians 1)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1), discipline (1 Corinthians 5)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5), headship (1 Corinthians 11)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11), the functioning of varied gifts (1 Corinthians 12)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12), defending doctrine (1 Corinthians 15)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15), collective giving (1 Corinthians 16)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16), and spreading the gospel (Acts 13:1-3)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:1-3), remembering the Lord is part of assembly testimony.

In addition, the breaking of bread expresses a fellowship (1 Corinthians 1:9; 10:16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:9; 10:16). When all believers in an assembly take their part from the bread, they express that the assembly is one, as a body is (10:17). This truth affects their relationships (11:29-34; 12:25, 26) and how varied gifts function (12:14-25, 27).

Remembering the Lord in the Breaking of Bread is therefore impossible apart from an established assembly whose testimony is consistent with the scriptural truths which the fellowship holds in common with one another and the Lord Himself.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does "breaking bread" in Acts always refer to the Lord's Supper?

Among the various passages where “breaking bread” is mentioned, in Acts and elsewhere, please distinguish, which do, and which do not, refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever difficulty there may be of settling this point in any particular instance, is due to one or both of two considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the usual Jewish method of eating bread was by first breaking it up into convenient portions; and therefore the statement that a person had “broken bread” might with them signify merely that he had had a meal, with bread as its prominent feature. On the other hand, it also seems to be beyond doubt that in the apostles’ days the Lord’s Supper was often associated with a meal, of which the saints partook in fellowship together; and therefore, when the phrase “break bread” is linked with some other one about taking food, it is open to question whether this, or an ordinary meal only, is meant.

In Acts 27:35," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:35, and of course in the references in the Gospels to the Lord breaking bread to feed the hungry multitudes, there can be no suggestion of the Ordinance; and to these occurrences I would add Luke 24:30, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:30, 35; for although the Lord there took bread, blessed, brake, and gave to the two disciples; and although their eyes were opened to recognise Him as He did so; they could not, even in thought, connect this with the Supper which had been instituted a few days previously; since none but the apostles had been present on that occasion.

Over against these instances we may place Acts 2:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16; as passages in which the reference to the Lord’s Supper cannot reasonably be denied; and we then are left with Acts 2." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2. 46 and Acts 20." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20. II, as the only occurrences about which there may be difference of opinion, In each of these there is an additional word or phrase about the partaking of food; and although in the view of some, this rules out any reference to the Ordinance; it seems to me that its effect is just the opposite. For why, if an ordinary meal, and nothing more, is intended, should the two separate expressions have to be used at all? Either of them, in that case, would have said all that was to be said, without the other.

In Acts 2:46" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46 the significance of the statement appears to be that, while some of the activities of the early disciples could be carried on in the precincts of the Temple, the Breaking of Bread could not; and so it took place in their homes (see R.V.). As for Acts 20:2," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:2, the insertion of “the” (R.V., “had broken the bread”), which is according to the reading of all the most ancient authorities, links the statement with verse 7, and implies that here too the Ordinance is meant; though some may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul’s long address would thus have been given before the Supper, transgressing certain views they hold as to it being out of place for a brother to speak, or even to read the Scriptures, in the part of the meeting which precedes it.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do the churches of Revelation show a historical timeline?

In what ways does this view fit with history?

The mystery view is not a prophecy of secular events. The Lord is unfolding the attack of evil on His golden lampstands. Rather than fixing the dates by secular events, it is likely best to see general periods during which these influences predominated. The effect of these attacks began earlier and lasted longer in some areas. Clearly some of the conditions coexist until the Lord’s return, since the letters to the last four churches particularly point to His coming. "Church history" adds tremendous color to what the Lord discloses, but pressing the details too specifically has led to contradictory and sensational "interpretations."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Are Christians now like the church of Laodicea?

Are Christians now like the church of Laodicea?

Sitting in judgment on others is relatively easy. The characteristics of professed testimony for God mark the seven assemblies in Asia (Rev 1-3)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 1-3). The characteristics in Laodicea (3:14-20) are searching: activity without effective power, self-promotion without contrition, apparent success without spiritual character, Christian involvement without personal communion. These characteristics will mark professed Christian testimony before the coming of Christ and they are apparent around us today. The Lord’s specific concern in writing to those seven assemblies, however, is that these golden candlesticks to whom He has entrusted true testimony sadly reflect the characteristics of those who profess to bear testimony for Him. In writing to the last four assemblies, the Lord indicates that His testimony is only a remnant, a part of the whole.

Our peaceful coexistence with the world is strong evidence that Laodicean characteristics mark us.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Who was the "virgin" who "shall conceive" in Isaiah 7?

Could you explain Isaiah 7:15-16" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:15-16?

The context of these verses must include verse 14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest ("fearest," JND) shall be forsaken of both her kings." Ahaz, Judahs king, feared the combined might of Syria and Israel (the 10 northern tribes). The current heir in Davids royal house thus received assurance of Judahs deliverance. The sign of this deliverance was a child named Immanuel, conceived, brought forth, and named by an unmarried woman. Although living in poverty (eating butter - or curds - and honey), the child would not be morally mature (knowing to refuse evil and choose good) before the forced removal of Israels and Syrias kings destroyed their feared alliance. Viewing this entire passage as referring to Christ (Matthew 1:22,23)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:22,23) brings with it the insurmountable problem of suggesting that there was a time when the Lord did not know to refuse the evil and choose the good (verses 15b, 16a). His deity demands omniscience and holiness from the moment of incarnation. In addition, the passage seems to clearly state that the promised deliverance (v.16) would come before the son (v. 14) came to moral maturity (v. 15).

Three observations may help: the word "virgin" means an unmarried woman capable of bearing children (E. Young, W. E. Vine); the passage does not sanction her naming her son "Immanuel," a name that only God could rightly bear; this is likely not the same son as foretold in 8:1. If these are reasonable, then the sign the Lord promised was fulfilled in Isaiahs day.

New Testament citations of Old Testament passages sometimes give a deeper meaning (not a differing or contradictory meaning) to that passage. In addition, we need not force every detail of a passage to conform with the prophecy or principle the Spirit highlights in a passage (see Psalm 41:9" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 41:9 with John 13:18;" TARGET="_blank">John 13:18; Psalm 69:4," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69:4, 5 with John 15:25)." TARGET="_blank">John 15:25). Joseph, current heir of Davids royal house (Mathew 1:16), received news that a virtuous, unmarried woman (verse 20) had conceived a son. The virgin birth of the true Immanuel assured the final and spiritual deliverance of His people (verse 21); this fulfilled the deeper meaning of Isaiah 7:14." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is

WEAKNESS IN TESTIMONY

Is “The Church of God” in ruins, as held and taught by many?

If by the “Church of God” is meant “the Church which is His Body,” the statement is quite erroneous, for that is preserved for ever. But “Church of God” is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:9;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:13, in an extended sense of all Christians he could get at, though the term generally refers to the local expression of the Church. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 10:32," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32, the inhabitants of the city are divided into “Jews,” “Greeks,” and “the Church of God” (see Acts 20:28;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1: 2; 11:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1: 2; 11:22).

We have, too, the expression the “Churches of God” (see `1 Corinthians 11:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 2:14). The expression, “IN RUINS,” would apply rather to some WORLDWIDE ORGANISATION. When that breaks down, they say the Church is in ruins, but it is THEIR ORGANISATION. None of God’s assemblies, low as their state was, was ever said to be in ruins, though Ephesus was warned lest her lampstand be removed. The testimony, too, is of a remnant character, and in weakness; but such as it is, it is not “IN RUINS,” nor ever need be. Such an expression is not applied in the Scriptures to a Church of God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu