Anonymous asks: Can you explain Ezekiel 30:10-11 and how it was fullfilled? because from what i could find Nebucanezzar failed to conquer Egypt
I am not an OT scholar! I would make the following points.
The context of the passage is the exile of Judah. The intransigent amongst them looked to Egypt for help. This passages communicates that Egypt would not be a refuge from the Day of the Lord that was the exile.
Nebuchadnezzar may not have entered the land of Egypt but his defeat of them up to and throughout the Negeb was the beginning of Egypt’s demise. The Persians and Greek empires would complete Egypt’s reduction from super-power to provincial status. I can see some prophetic “foreshortening” going on here.
Poetic licence should not be easily discounted. Just because Nebuchadnezzar did not personally defeat the Egyptians, his armies and those of his successors, as far as I understand, definitely did.
Those are my initial thoughts. Feel free to push back in comments (not Q&A) below.
Anonymous asks: do you anwser every question from the Q&A that is given to you?
Pretty much. Some Q&A questions are really actually comments for a post. In those cases I repost the question as a comment. Occasionally I get some spam. But yep, I answer all Q&A that I get.
Anonymous asks: does the anglican church believe rhat praying to saints is okay, because i seem to get rather contradictory answers….
No we don’t. One of our defining formularies is the 39 Articles and Article 22 states:
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.
Which pretty much sums it up really. If God is not the object of our prayers, and the agent of our prayers, then we are asserting that we can reach out to God in our own strength, or through the strength of someone else. This undermines the work of Christ and suggests that we do not have absolute need of him – something that goes against the heart of the Christian faith. Christ alone is our mediator.
We do respect the “Saints” as particular exemplars of the faith and count them amongst the “church triumphant” – but we count them as forebears – brothers and sisters in service, not the captains that we follow.
Antionin asks: Do you believe that there are contradictions or errors in the Bible
Hi Antionin,
Thanks for the question. It depends what you mean by “contradictions” or “errors.” Your question interacts with the nature and communication of truth, which is not always simplistically propositional.
For instance in Job 38:4-7 we read
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone —
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
I assert that this paragraph is true. Yet it is ‘false’ and “in error” in some literal sense: Surely the earth does not have literal cornerstones and foundations; surely God did not use an actual measuring line! Yet the intention of this passage is clear and it is achieved – Job’s finitude in comparison to God’s magnitude is thoroughly and effectively communicated.
It is for this reason that I personally prefer to use the term “infallibility” when referring to the veracity of the Bible. It’s an imprecise term which some use to water things down to mean that Scripture is only true when it needs to be. I don’t mean it like that. I mean that Scripture always communicates truth, it achieves what it needs to be achieved, and this is infallibly true.
As for contradictions, it is hard to respond without specific examples to consider. Most of those that I have googled for usually end up at imprecision in language (or translation), different-perspectives on the same thing that aren’t actually contradictory, or forcing one part of the Bible to speak to the context of another part. Even the most famous “contradiction” of the supposedly irreconcilable resurrection accounts can be analysed using these sorts of concepts. (I’ve had a quick look at this page and it seems to be a good example)
So to answer your question, in the sense that I’ve outlined, I do not believer that there are errors or contradictions in the Bible.
Anonymous asks: When do you think the rapture will happen than? There are now wars and rumors of war (IRAN), we will not know the day or the hour, but we will know the season. Is fall 2012 the season?
Yes, absolutely, autumn 2012 is the season. And so was winter 2011, and spring of 1804, and, and…. pick a random date. We have been in the end times for approximately 2000 years and there has never failed to be wars and rumours of wars. Every war or rumour that occurs is a testimony that we are living in an age where the work of Christ’s faithfulness must, in faith, be exercised.
I don’t care when the rapture will or if it will happen. How will the answer to that help me fulfil God’s purpose for my life? I suspect those who are still living will meet Christ “in the sky” somehow to welcome him to his eternal kingdom. But in the meantime I will continue to worship him in every part of my life, whether it be planting a tree or writing a sermon, sharing fellowship in my church or drinking coffee with a new-found friend; with all my strength and by the love of Christ doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with my God.
Arguments about eschatological precision have always struck me as useless and vain controversies – they have no relevance to the real world! The Scriptures assures me that his kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven and so I will continue to pray that prayer and work that work with a sure and certain hope. That is enough.
It’s interesting. I haven’t heard of Unity before. Your question is a general one – what do I think about charismatic visions like this one and do I believe in these gifts or not.
Let me answer generally, therefore. I do believe that God gifts his church with visions and revelations at times. Some examples in Scripture of such “extra-biblical revelation” include Agabus’ foreknowledge of a famine (Acts 11) as well as through a prophetic symbolic act regarding Paul’s likely imprisonment in Jerusalem (Acts 21). Paul himself had dreams that directed his movements (the famous “Man from Macedonia” in Acts 16). None of this is surprising in that the fulfillment of Joel (“Your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams”) is applied to the church in and through the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.
I know a number of people who have had similar experiences in their own ministry and mission work. I myself have had times of overwhelming conviction in certain circumstances. Surely this form of revelation/understanding/awareness/knowledge, whatever you would like to call it, can be a genuine and credible part of the Christian walk.
A key characteristic, however, is that revelations of this type are always SERVANTS of God’s clear and authoritative Revelation of himself through the Scriptures and its revelation of Jesus. If you like, the benefit of these forms of (little-r) revelation is that they help apply the (big-R) Revelation to a particular time and place. So the people of God can respond to the famine, Paul can be directed to Macedonia, and so forth.
I am ready to accept the revelations people experience from their walk with God – but they will always be tested by Scripture, and should always be a means of applying or grasping further the authoritative Truth of God.
Having said all that – let me consider Unity’s vision. It is interesting in that it is a broad statement with very little specifics. It draws on biblical imagery from Revelation 13 and Matthew 25. It does very little, however, to help us apply those Scriptures. In many ways my conclusion would be “Why do we need this vision at all? Reading Revelation 13 and Matthew 25 directly would be a lot more powerful.”
But, bring on revival in Australia. I can admire that sentiment.
Anonymous asks: http://www.themysteryunlocked.com/ takea look at this book apperently the rapture is going to happen on july 24th 2012! do you think his arguements are weak for his jutifcation
Wow, less than a month away! Bring it on. Maranatha!
But, what do I think of the author’s arguments? He is Mark Alexander who describes the foundation of his authorship and the book thus (his emphasis):
This servant of God, has no background of being through a Seminary School/College, has no large Ministry and confesses that he is insignificant and unworthy of such a Great Revelation in more than many ways and that would be the challenge of God to the readers, so that in the end of it, only He the Great God would get all the Glory who is only worthy of all Glory. All the Scripture verses and knowledge and wisdom in this Book, has come, purely in and through the Holy Spirit’s revelation and guidance to this untaught servant, (an agent and go between) to bring this Hidden Mystery to God’s People in God’s time, in these Last Daysand as many as have been appointed to eternal life will believe.
So, unless I’m willing to accept that Mark Alexander is an authoritative purveyor of a previously unknown Revelation from God, the book would be quite useless. The humility is false, he is claiming a power that is rightfully Christ’s alone.
Any argument based on this premise will be weak. I have no inclination to investigate further 🙂
Tony asks: You are an Anglican right-does your church believe that faith alone is needed to go to heaven
Hi Tony,
The short answer is “yes.”
Within orthodox Anglican theological circles there is variance as to what “faith alone” means (along the spectrum of the efficacy of our faith, or the faithfulness of Christ), and what “go to heaven” means (along the spectrum from ethereal eternal life to the Kingdom of God on earth). And of course there are a number of Anglicans who have moved away from orthodoxy.
But the short answer is “yes.”
The Anglican formularies helpfully expound the definitive Anglican view. The Thirty-Nine Articles speak to your question. I have included some of the relevant articles below.
Thanks,
W.
Article X
Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
Article XI
Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
Article XII
Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s Judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Anonymous asks: How many websites does the Aussie church need to keep everyone happy with the latest technology that has more-or-less replaced genuine inspiration?
Thanks for the question. It’s one of those ones where I have to decipher what the premise of it is! Let me respond to a false dichotomy between web-presence and “genuine inspiration.” Yes, surely there are many many tacky web site out there. Yes, surely there are many churches that invest more in their uber flashy professional-grade web presence than they do with real ministry. But this is no new thing. In the past all churches had an entry in the white pages just like every church should now have a web page somewhere that at least communicates phone number, time and place. But some also had ads in the yellow pages. Most had ads in the Saturday paper. Some had large billboards and flashy neon. Some even put ads on buses and took out radio and TV ads. There is nothing new under the sun.
So its a false dichotomy – having a website doesn’t mean giving up on “genuine inspiration.” Neither does making sermons available and engaging with the church community through social media. These are tools for communication and our job is communication.
The real problem, which is also not new under the son, is when the tools of communication (be they Gutenberg-pressed tracts to Jack Chick cartoons to animated vegetables) overwhelm the reality of what is actually being communicated.
All churches are called to faith, to trust God to enable their purpose and mission. That faith is often costly and difficult. When churches refuse to count the cost or face the difficult they often end up faking it. The sovereign presence of the Spirit is replaced with a light show. The reverence and transcendance of the glory of God is replaced with controlled, dry, performance. Genuine communication is replaced with glitzy websites. We grow by tickling ears, and, yes, by keeping everybody happy.
In the end, then, the problem is not the number of websites, the problem is an authenticity of faith. I’d rather be counting that than the number of superfluous URLs.
Anonymous asks: Should all the Billy Graham era stalwarts now be euthinased (sic)?
The answer to your frivolous question is a resounding “no” of course. The legacy of Billy Graham is clearly a nett positive for the world and for the church. He called a generation to faith and hope. Yes, sure, his gospel presentation was repetitious and slightly over-simplistic. Yes, he had an (over?-)emphasis on individual salvation more than kingdom emphasis on society. But so what? Many were rescued not just from <whatever definition of eternal punishment you prefer> but also from a spiritual passivity and an entirely self-serving life. Those stalwarts have been leaders in their own right and the blessing has multiplied into subsequent generations.
Those stalwarts are now, by and large, reaching retirement age. They should be honoured, their wisdom should be heard, and the up and coming generation of leaders should spend lots of time with them as they wrestle with the complexity of our own era.
