I had an inquiry as to your understanding of Matthew 13:29. What is your take on the statement to not gather the tares because you may root up the wheat with them. I understand this will happen at the end of the age and I also understand we have free will to accept our Lord. It’s just kinda curious to me.
My husband and I have really enjoyed your teachings and they have caused us to grow and seek God more than ever. I am writing with a question regarding the view of “inclusivism” or “universalism”. Do you know anything about it? Is it Biblically sound? Our understanding of inclusivism is that Christ died for all and therefore all are saved, regardless of religion or belief system. This means we’ll be seeing Hindus and Muslims in heaven. Is this true?
I just read an article by a pastor who is explaining the scripture where Jesus says “In my Father’s house there are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you…” This pastor explains that “mansion” actually means “residence” or “resident”. A resident (as in a new doctor being a “resident” in a hospital) is actually a place of authority. So his understanding of this verse is that God has prepared a “place of authority” in his government for each of us and not a “large house” as most of us believe. I find this disappointing. What are your thoughts on this?
I love your website and I visit it daily to read the various questions and answers as well as the articles. My question is in regard to the Bible translation The Message. My husband prefers it over any other version as he considers it easier to understand. From the few verses I’ve read, it doesn’t seem to read like NIV versions or NKJV versions. In fact, when my husband was asked to read a particular verse the pastor thought my husband wasn’t reading the correct one. Needless to say, it was slightly embarrassing. I was wondering your thoughts about this and whether or not it was okay for him to continue using it.
When I was in the seventh grade, I heard a sermon about Mary and Martha. Before I heard this sermon I never really cared about God, or desired to get to know Him. But after this sermon, I decided I wanted to live for Christ. I didn’t understand that I was a sinner or that I needed a Savior, but after deciding that I wanted to follow Christ, my whole perspective changed. I wanted to get to know Christ and read the Bible and share about God’s love. But I realize that I had absolutely no understanding of a need for a savior or that Christ had died so that I could be reconciled to God. My life definitely changed in a radical way after deciding to follow Jesus, but was I saved somehow by this decision even though I had no understanding of the Gospel?
I have had discussions with my Catholic family where they say how Jesus did not have brothers because that would contradict the Catholic belief that Mary remained a life long virgin. Didn’t Jesus indeed have brothers?
“Why are there so many symbols used in the Book of Revelation? For example the woman representing Israel being chased by the dragon (Satan) after the Man-child (Jesus) was caught up to heaven. If the Book of Revelation consists of revelations of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t it be more straightforward to describe events or things to come without the use of symbols or figures of speech?”
I asked this question because quite a few of my friends who are believers are put off from delving more into the Book of Revelation because of the abundance of symbols and imagery which makes the book hard to digest and understand.
I write to inquire about the passage found in Ezekiel 38:16. In particular, the second sentence of the NIV, which reads: “In days to come, O Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.”
If God has chosen this event to demonstrate His holiness to the nations, does it necessarily follow that this event must precede the catching up of the church? Otherwise, God would be showing Himself holy through the removal of His church. Any insight is greatly appreciated.
I am wondering what the Biblical responsibility towards Jerusalem and the Jewish people is for those who have received Christ as their Savior and live under grace. I see pastors wearing prayer shawls and holding firm to the Old Testament laws, holidays and feasts and have noticed a major influx of church leaders preaching and teaching about the Jewish people still being God’s chosen people and about how much we owe them.
I pray daily for the peace of Jerusalem, but I don’t feel led by the Lord to buy a prayer shawl or observe feasts and holidays as laid out in the Old Testament. I can’t find the requirement for any of that in the post resurrection scriptures, but, if these are things I should be addressing, I will. My outlook on this is simply stated: Either Jesus changed everything, or He didn’t. I believe He did. Can you please clarify this for me?
I’ve just read the story about Cain and Able. In this story, Cain is cursed for killing his brother but goes on to live a long life and have a large family tree… Able is just simply dead. At face value I ask myself, who ended up in the better position here – the dead guy or the guy who goes on to populate a large part of the earth? The biblical story goes on to report that Eve had another male child whose name most people don’t remember and who doesn’t appear to be significant in terms of descendants or genealogy. I can’t understand why the murderer in this story is so blessed while the other brothers are dead or seemingly inconsequential. Please help put this into the context of a loving and just God for me.