Theology Questions

My question has not been cleared up, has it?

I guess I asked a hard one, but it does fall under the "Theology Questions" category.

Like Margaret said I do not think that slavery is evil but it can be miss used. The Bible gives proper instructions for how a master should treat his slave. Being a slave of Christ I believe that slavery is very biblical…but so is mercy and justice!

Here is an essay I wrote on this topic last year for school:

Christians and Slavery
By Matthew Minica

Freedom is something Americans crave. It is in our roots. It is the reason we have gone through so many wars, so many legal battles, so many conflicts and quarrels. It is the reason we did not allow Adolf Hitler to take over the world. It is the reason we had to stop Josef Stalin in his tracks, even after years of alliance with his country. It is the reason we even now have some of our military in Afghanistan where they are fighting for freedom. Freedom is a powerful thing. I sometimes wonder, though; is it what the Bible teaches? Does Scripture say that freedom is a right to be fought for?
Take one manifestation of freedom – or rather, the absence of it: slavery. Ironically, the “freedom” of each state to choose whether to practice slavery was the dividing point in the American Civil War. Slavery is now outlawed in our country. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Yet even the Bible does not condemn slavery. Ephesians 6:5 says, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ…” The root Greek word for “servants”, doulos, can also be translated “slaves”. Notice that Paul does not say, “Do away with slavery among you. Everyone is equal in the body of Christ.” No, he says, “Servants, be obedient to your masters!” Several other passages in Scripture say something similar, such as Colossians 3:22 and 1 Peter 2:18. Why, then, are we as Christians so against slavery, if the Bible allows it?
Context is essential in understanding the answer to this question. In Ephesians 6:9, four verses down from the just-quoted Scripture, we find another important point: “And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” This makes a world of difference in the way we understand slavery. One sees now that the slavery rampant in the 1800’s was radically different than the “slavery” discussed in the New Testament. One is cruel and sadistic; the other is peaceful and gentle. Indeed, I believe that there is nothing wrong with slavery in and of itself; however, the word “slavery” has a negative connotation in these days because of the cruel treatments associated with it. Therefore, it is better to call the slaves in the New Testament “servants”.
So back to my question. Why are Christians so against slavery, since so many of Paul’s writings so clearly state there is nothing wrong with it? One must look at another passage of Scripture to find the answer. Exodus 20:2 says, “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Herein lies the answer. God wants His people to be free from needless bondage. This phrase (“out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage”), with variations, is used numerous times in the Pentateuch. Slavery and bondage by one nation over another is clearly an abomination to the Lord. Furthermore, God does not approve when humans take their fellow men slaves against their will. However, the servants in the New Testament were (hopefully) treated well and were not captives of their masters. So why are we as Christians against slavery? Well, based on Scripture, we are against the slavery described in the Bible as evil, but we have nothing against having servants in the home.
Why does any of this matter? There are two reasons. First, since the end of Reconstruction the issue of slavery has been carried a bit too far in our country. A century ago child labor in factories was outlawed – and for a couple of good reasons: the conditions were dangerous, and the children were mistreated. However, today, attacks have taken place upon parents who “work their children too hard” – on the basis of the child labor laws. Just as always, one must be careful not to take a good thing too far.
Second, if any of us were to see a form of slavery anywhere, especially in other countries, we need not be shocked or dismayed. Instead, we should remember that Paul permitted his Christian followers to have servants; is there any reason why we should not do the same?
Slavery can be very dangerous and in most cases is not necessary. It may be placed in the same category as wine and drugs. However, just as Paul told Timothy to “use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (1 Timothy 5:23), one must conclude that slavery is not all bad and in appropriate situations, can be quite beneficial. Did not God use it for good in the life of Joseph?

Great job Matthew! :)

Thankyou Matthew, That addressed the issue very well.

So here is a question for y'all:

What do y'all think this passage means?

Romans 11:25-31
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Judah"; "And this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive money.

Good question,

The context of this passage is the end of Paul's argument that Israel will be saved (Romans 9-11).

In the Old Testament numerous promises, including a promise to be God’s own people, were given to Israel. However, in the New Testament it would seem that those promises were taken away because of her rejection of Jesus (Acts 18:6). This leads us to the question of whether Israel lost the salvation which it God had promised her? Paul, however, refutes this notion, “it is not as though the word of God has failed.” (9:6) and later, “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” (11:2). He gives two reasons for this position. First, he says, “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,” (11:1), he goes on to explain that God always has a remnant who are faithful to Him who will receive the blessing, citing the prophets in Elijah’s day as an example (11:2-5). Second, he says, “For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery… that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” (v. 25) This verse shows that the summary rejection of Israel as corporate people is not permanent. Though we now live in a time when the Church is the center of God’s working in this world, after the rapture (1 Thess. 4:16, Rev. 3:10), during the Tribulation (described in Revelation 6-18) physical Israel will once again be the way that God blesses the world, as he promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3. Note that Israel cannot be the Church in this passage as some would claim because they are clearly not saved at the time Paul is writing. The Jews were enemies of the gospel, but they were still destined as a corporate group to be saved, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” Thus we are reminded that “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise,” (2 Peter 3:9) This is such a beautiful thing for all believers. God does not simply jettison his promises because they become inconvenient. He always fulfills His promises and this means that neither Israel, or anyone else, whether corporate or individual can ever love their salvation.

I have been thinking about these verses:

“Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” 1 Cor. 14:34-35

It has often crossed my mind that perhaps it is wrong for women to argue Theology (as these verse seem to imply). What does that mean for me? Should I be “teaching” (as it were) on these Theological Discussions? I love these discussions and I have learned so much from them that I would never have learned otherwise. Does anyone have a better answer for me?

I think the same too!! am curious to see what others have to say.

I think that women may "teach" men, but not in the church. That seems to be all that the verse is saying. :)

I disagree with those who would say that this means women should not speak at all when they are at church, or that they should never discuss theology. This passage is talking about the place of women in congregational worship. The "Sunday-morning service," if you will. This is not saying that women can't speak a word the entire time they're in the church building. But in the worship of God, only a man is to be preaching or performing any sort of leadership function. If a woman has a comment/question, she is to keep it to herself until later, when the congregation is no longer gathered together in that way. There is no restriction at all on women's freedom to discuss the things of God. That would make no sense at all, honestly. =P

What do u all think about women singing in church…like a solo or something?

We don't think anyone should sing in church, they're usually pretty bad

I personally don't like it. In our church we do have that, sadly.

Why is it wrong for women to sing in Church? The principle behind the biblical command that women not speak in Church specifically refers back to Genesis 3 where the command is for a woman not to rule or have authority over a man. This is something which women singing (solos or otherwise) does not violate.

I don't think it is wrong for women to sing solos in church. There's nothing in the Bible that says it is wrong. And so long as the songs are good and the woman is dressed modestly I think it's fine. But sadly I have seen this abused. The woman was not dressed modestly, and it was a song that was kind of pointless as she sang it in latin. Also everything should be done for the glory of God and not to glorify ourselves. Though the singer may be doing it to glorify God I personally don't find it that way…being distracted by thinking about how the woman looks, her clothing, her style of singing, etc… So, I don't think it is wrong for a woman to sing a solo in church but it needs to be done in such a way that the congregation glorifies God and focuses on God rather then focusing on the woman.

Thank you for your answer to my question about Romans 11:25-32. I do not agree, though, and I'll write a reply soon. Thanks for your patience. :-)

Let me clarify…I think women singing in church along with everybody else as a congregation singing, is fine. I just personally dislike when women sing solos in church.

Thank you for clarifying, I was thinking the same thing as Andrew. Certainly it should always be for the glory of God, and perhaps women are more tempted than men to attract attention to their own body. However, anyone can have a solo and sing for the wrong reason, and women can sing for the right reason and glorify God.

Focusing on God rather than yourself is necessary while worshiping God, whether you are male or female.

Thank you fro replying! Now I would like to ask how you explain these verses? :)

"12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control." 1 Tim. 2:12-15

I think he could say the same to those verses that he said to the others… :)

Unlike those other verses these seem to be talking about woman not just in the church.

So what exactly do you think the verses are saying? I believe that they are simply saying that a woman may not speak or act in authority over a man at any time, in church or out. This does not necessarily mean that she cannot teach a man, but that she cannot presume to be in authority over him. I can teach my parents about something I learned in Science class without being in authority over them. ;)

@SBG: In context, though, it appears as though Paul is referencing the Church here. Throughout Scripture, God says in numerous places that men are to be the spiritual authorities, but I do not think that God is actually prohibiting women from practicing any and all kinds of authority. I can think of numerous instances in which having a women lead would be the necessary thing to do (say, if the man were completely unstable mentally). I am not saying that it is always wise to have women in authority. Were, perhaps, we to have a woman President, I would feel that such authority possessed by a woman would lead others to throw off and ignore men's important leadership role in spiritual affairs. I feel at the same time, though, that small positions of authority (like a widower owning a small business with employees, one of whom is male) is not Biblically wrong and still fits within the context of the 1 Timothy passage, which mainly addresses the Church. What do you think?

I disagree with those who would say that this means women should not speak at all when they are at church, or that they should never discuss theology. This passage is talking about the place of women in congregational worship. The "Sunday-morning service," if you will. This is not saying that women can't speak a word the entire time they're in the church building. But in the worship of God, only a man is to be preaching or performing any sort of leadership function. If a woman has a comment/question, she is to keep it to herself until later, when the congregation is no longer gathered together in that way. There is no restriction at all on women's freedom to discuss the things of God. That would make no sense at all, honestly. =P

Hmm… I guess you're probably right. :) That passage, in context, does seem to be talking mainly about the church. But the thing that led me to think otherwise at first was the fact that Paul uses Adam's authority over Eve as the foundation for male authority; doesn't this seem to indicate that the passage is talking about more than just church authority?

Would- could this setting (the TDs) be considered the "Church" since it is a kind of gathering together of believers? What is your definition of Church? What do you believe makes up the Church?

The people on the TDs are (mostly, I hope! :D) members of the universal Church (all believers), but the churches in which women are not to be in authority over men are local assemblies, with positions of government.

Hi everyone,

Could some of you maybe shed some insight on Judges 1:19?

Blessings,

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19

"He" is not here referring to the Lord, but to Judah. I think that's where your greatest problem lay. :) But it was not that even with the Lord's help Judah could not drive out these people; on the contrary, it was likely because they refused the Lord's help, probably since they thought that the enemies' iron chariots would keep them from driving them out. Does that help? :)

Excellent response, Nicolas! I've seen this verse explained something like this:

Suppose someone said, 'I helped you with the dishes. You cleaned all the dishes, except for some that had stains too hard for you to get out.' This statement isn't saying anything about my ability to clean the dishes; it simply says that you were unable to clean some of them.

Great illustration! :)

@SavedByGrace

Thanks for your answer. :) However I didn't have a "problem" with the verse. I didn't know what you meant by that…. ;) I am sorry if I didn't phrase the question well.

Sorry, I probably just didn't phrase my answer well. :} I didn't think you actually had difficulty believing the verse; rather, I meant only that you were having difficulty interpreting it. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying anything different than that. :)

I'm sorry if I came across as harsh. :) You were right, I was having difficulty interpreting it. :) Thanks for your answer by the way, it made total sense. :)

Oh no, you didn't come across as harsh! I just felt I had to apologize for accidentally saying something I didn't mean. :)

And you're welcome for the answer… but it wasn't really mine. :P I looked it up on a commentary website. xP

Well, thanks for the answer anyway. :) It was helpful.

What is your definition of a true/false Christian? A true/false convert?

Pretty easy; a true Christian/convert is a person who has repented of his sins, trusted in Jesus Christ alone for his salvation, and has become a new creature by the power of the Holy Spirit (and thus has new loves and desires, in conformity with the will of God). A false Christian/convert is a person who makes an outward profession of faith in Christ, but has not been changed from the inside by the Holy Spirit, and does not bear the fruits of a changed life. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a true and a false convert, but close examination will almost always display a person's true spiritual condition.

Great answer. Thanks for your insight. ;D

1.) Yes it is pretty easy, but only as one looks into their own life, this is not a standard by which we can perceive the salvation or lack thereof of another believer/unbeliever. It may be a standard by which we can discern whether they are actively following Jesus.
2.) I believe that a person can be saved while living in sin. Good works follow salvation, but only when they are following Jesus. Do you see the point I am making? Saved means our sins have been forgiven. Following means we forsake sin, and train our ways in the ways of the Holy Spirit.
3.) What do you think of this idea: "When a man is saved, he is saved from the penalty of sin, and the power of sin. If the man doesn't walk in the spirit he cannot please God with good works." Can a saved person not have the Holy Spirit in them?

1. Careful observation almost always points to a very likely option. We cannot be certain of anyone's salvation but our own, but we can get pretty close.
2. Yes, a person can be saved while living in sin. But if he is living in unrepentant sin, he cannot be a true Christian. The Spirit in a Christian always convicts him of sin, and since he has been given a heart that is responsive to God, he will eventually repent. And all along the way he will truly hate his sin, even if he does commit it often.
3. No, a person cannot be saved with having the Holy Spirit in him. There is a verse that says directly that, Romans 8:9–"Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." And if you don't belong to Christ, you aren't saved, simple as that. Now, can a person disobey the Spirit's leading while a Christian? Of course. But the general tendency of his life will be responsiveness to the Spirit; a person whose whole life is characterized by sin is simply not saved.

So, you would disagree with this Martin Luther quote?

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly,  but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world]  we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness,  but, as Peter says,  we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.  No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.

I am asking only for clarification. :)

I know many people on here disagree with me, but here's where I (a fallible human) stand;

No, there is nothing we can do to separate ourselves from Christ, in the sense that we cannot lose our salvation. Though if someone is continuing in a gross sin and is showing no evidence of turning from it, it certainly needs to be realized that it is possible that person is not truly saved, albeit he has made an outward profession of faith. Luther's point, thought, I agree with; we are never "too bad" for God to forgive us, no matter how much we feel like it.
Yes, we can experience 'separation' - a lesser measure of God's spirit in us - as a fatherly punishment for our actions, in order to make us turn back to him.

I'm not exactly sure what he means by "sin boldly" - do you know the larger context of this quote?

I really don't like what I just wrote, because I gave no backing for what I wrote except my own opinions (which don't really matter), but as people disagree with me I'll try to support my position.

I agree with Seth. Yes, nothing will separate us from God once we are saved; I apologize profusely if it seems that I said otherwise. But I hold that it is not possible for someone to commit fornication murder a thousand times a day–in good conscience, at least–and yet be a Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A Christian can, granted, fall into deep sin, and possibly for long periods of time, but it is not the overall tendency of his life. A Christian is a new creation.

So, do you think a Christian can sin purposefully and still remain saved (in other words, continually sinning)?

Most certainly! It is impossible for someone not to "remain saved", if he truly is saved. But my point is that a Christian, even if he is involved in continual sin, will: 1) hating his sin even as he is doing it, because of the Holy Spirit inside him, and 2) will eventually stop the continual sin (unless God takes him home first) and repent of it.

Do not doubt the weakness of humans. Rare that they could kill that many people, but not too hard to do a thousand other sins in a day. I wonder if you hold all sins to be of the same inportance in God's veiw? Psalm 19 Keep back thy servant also from presumptous sins. Referring to, I think, sins that we think uninportant, or of less seriousness, than those like murder. So in that case it could be anger at your brother(pretty easy), which one could justify if they believe they were provoked.

True that. We do as humans commit innumerable sins every day, and, I believe, all are equally heinous in God's sight. But many of those sins are committed "accidentally", if you would; they are not entirely intentional. But believers do not often participate long in constant, rebellious sins; or if this does occur, they do not do it gladly, as would unbelievers. God's regeneration of a human heart is no small matter; it is a complete turnaround. It is also a slow progression, granted, but the sinfulness of a Christian is usually noticeably less than that of an unbeliever.

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