Theology Questions

What do you think of the verse saying "Quench not the spirit"? Eph. 6:19 I believe.

I always took that verse to mean that when you are in a situation where the Spirit is urging you to do something (to preach, condemn an egregious sin, or something of that nature), than you should not withdraw out of fear, subduing or quenching the Spirit's urgings. What do you think?

I was asking in the context of the recent conversation, about whether you would be separated from the Holy Spirit.

So, can we, as God's redeemed, sin *on purpose* and still remain saved?

Sorry it took my so long to get back to you. But I believe I spoke clearly in my last few posts; yes, that is a possibility. I believe it may be impossible for a Christian to go through his whole life without sinning intentionally! The most important thing I'm trying to say here is that nothing can "unsave" a saved person. But if your continual pattern of life is purposeful rebellion, you never were a Christian in the first place, no matter what you claim to be.

Hi, Nicholas!

Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "continual pattern of life"? I would venture to say that even the most devout believers have intentionally sinned twice or thrice a week (either thinking wrong thoughts or in some way knowingly falling short of God's will or commands). While they may be repentant, they appear to be in a pattern of intentional sin. In what way, then, would you say that one thousand times a day committing a sin is different from twice or thrice a week committing a sin (let's say for discussion purposes that it in the neighborhood of envy or lust or lying)? Where is your line of natural sinful temptations and a sinful habit that shows one to be a false believer.

I am not trying to attack your argument, by the way. :) I am just trying to draw out the discussion for better understanding to see what you think (we probably think the same way on this issue, by the way). :)

First… it's Nicolas. Not a big deal, but I just wanted to make sure you know. ;)

When I say "continual pattern of life," I mean a habitual, purposeful, constant, unrepentant sin pattern. I guess the key word which I failed to include was "unrepentant". I suppose that even a Christian can continue in a purposeful pattern of sin for a time, but it will always end up with him repenting because of the Holy Spirit's prompting. I don't know if I could draw an exact line of distinction, but a true believer will always eventually come to repentance, and a false believer will not. In addition, I should add that a true Christian will inwardly hate his sin, while a false one will not; but this is more difficult to actually detect.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify. I see your point - I am still new to this particular discussion.

Can anyone tell me why there are so many differences between Matthew 26 and John 18? These are the two passages that cover the time just before his crucifixion, while he is in the garden. Matthew doesn't mention the conversation with the band of men, and John doesn't mention the role of Judas with them. These two could fit together but neither tell their stories in that way.

Thanks for any replies, Jason

Very good question, Jason. To be honest, this is not the only event of which the Gospels seem to give different accounts; there's also the Transfiguration, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. All the Gospels seem to have different views on the same events. But these are reconcilable–in fact, they must be, since the same God wrote them all through different men.

It is the same in all these events: one author may share one part of the story that he thought was important to the main point of his Gospel, another author might not share it because it was not as important to his main point. You mention that Matthew does not include the conversation with the band of men in his account of Jesus' arrest. Well, he–through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit–apparently did not find it necessary to share that piece of information in his account. You also say that John did not tell of Judas's role in Jesus' arrest. Actually, looking at the beginning verses of John 18, John does mention that Judas procured the band that went to arrest Jesus, and even went with them. But John apparently just did not see fit to tell of the specifics of the interaction between Judas and Jesus. But all this does not at all mean that Matthew or John are denying that some of these events occurred; they simply did not mention them.

I hope this was helpful. :)

First of all, what SBG said. Secondly, I could bring up the fact that there are many biographies of Abraham Lincoln, but some don't cover his pious Christianity, and some leave out the fact that slave-holding states in the Union were left out of his Emancipation Proclamation. (Examples could be given with pretty much any other historical figure.)
So the Holy Spirit simply directed Matthew and John to write the account from different perspectives. (Which all makes sense when you consider that Matthew was probably writing specifically to the Jews, and John was not.)

I want to thank both of you for taking time to write out those good replies. The differences between the stories can often be confusing, especially when there are four books of the bible all talking about the same thirty three years. I am sorry, I didn't say what I meant about the meeting of Judas and Jesus very clearly, but you explained it well.

So who here has read Narnia? in The Last Battle where the world ends they really focus on Aslan vs. Tash (Jesus vs. Satan) and Aslan says something very interesting "Everything that Tash does is evil but things done in his name that are good are counted to my name and everything that i (aslan) do is good but anything that is wrong or evil that is done in my name is credited to Tash" is this how it works with Jesus and Satan? i was wondering because the other theology in Narnia is fairly sound.

In Narnia, Tash and Aslan may be equal but polar opposites, but Jesus is the creator of Satan, an angel (yes chief) that rebelled, and fell. There is no competition or comparison between the two. Any of our 'good' works that not done in the name of Jesus are the filthy rags of self righteousness. Any deed done against God's law is an evil one, regardless of in whose name we commit the deed.

I actually read that book last night. I don't agree with that view at all. I can't articulate the reasons right now, 'cause I just saw this, but another interesting observation from that is the way that the Ape was calling him 'Tashlan'. Rather interesting, especially when you think of the 'Christlam' that is on the rise.

Thanks a lot this really helped me:)

• 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
• Revelation 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy
  There are some Catholics however, that will argue that they aren't worshiping the 'saints', or even 'praying' to them but merely asking for their prayers on our behalf, but this is where 1 Tim 2:5 fits directly.

Upon searching, I encountered this site: http://carm.org/praying-saints-biblical which I would recommend looking at for this issue.
What I would ask them is the reason that they 'pray to saints', instead of praying to God himself who has infinite understanding, power and wisdom, why bother with anything less, idolatry is the attributing God's unique attributes to others, or giving to others what is meant for God alone.