Gospel Hall - GospelHall

Does the Gap Theory agree with the Bible?

How well does the Gap Theory square with the Bible as a whole?

If we compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 2:13), we find several passages that make the Gap Theory untenable. First, Exodus 20:11" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20:11 puts the creation of everything that God made inside of six literal days: "In six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything that moveth therein and rested the seventh day." This allows no gap, and requires a recent creation. Exodus 31:17" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 31:17 says the same thing and Nehemiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 9:6 links the creation of the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1) with the days that follow in Genesis 1." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1. Further, Romans 5:12" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12

states that "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin," and 1 Corinthians 15:21" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:21 also affirms that "By man came death." And Romans 8:20-22" TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:20-22 reveals that the groaning of creation results from Adam's sin. If suffering and death came by Adam, then suffering and death did not predate Adam. Yet death is a necessary prerequisite for becoming a fossil. If fossils are assigned to the gap period, then death must have prevailed on the earth before sin entered into the world. How then could God pronounce everything that He had made "very good" (Genesis 1:31)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:31)? In what sense are vast graveyards full of dead things "very good"? God's assessment of the creation at the end of the sixth day must mean that Satan had not yet fallen, that no death had occurred, and that the earth was just as He intended it to be.

D. Vallance

Is the subject of homosexuality a necessary part of an assembly’s teaching?

Is the subject of homosexuality a necessary part of an assembly’s teaching?

This lifestyle is flaunted on the streets. The public media paints this as part of the mainstream of living. The brunt of the effort to change society’s thinking assails the young especially. They are particularly susceptible to the pressure of peers, the usual curiosity of maturing, and the onslaught of prurient literature and web sites.

The Bible addresses this subject. To be fully equipped to live as believers and testify effectively in this world, we need "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:27). Paul assures us that the Scriptures equip us for every need (2 Timothy 3:17)," TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:17), and his letters exemplify the application of truth to current needs.

This is an emotional subject, so we may tend to avoid it, overreact to it, or fail to understand the devious nature of the attack. As comfortable or appealing as it may be to either avoid the subject or handle it with a "hit and run" approach, an assembly must provide guidance and teaching on the many issues relevant to this subject.

D. Oliver

Is the "fear of death" no longer satanic in its origin?

Is the "fear of death" no longer satanic in its origin?

Satan used Adam to bring death into God’s creation. In that sense, death is satanic in its origin. The fear of death, though, is more likely human in its origin, but can certainly be used as a tool by Satan.

The passage, if the above suggestions are correct, is not drawing a contrast between people before the cross and after the cross, as though believers or unbelievers before the cross had a greater fear of death. It is true that we have received a clearer revelation of the afterlife than Old Testament believers had. We therefore should look forward with greater delight to our eternal home.

The point of the passage, though, seems to be building toward the statement of verse 16, connected to verses 14 and 15 by "for." Verse 16 gives the logic of what precedes it.

D. Oliver

My friend has doubts about his salvation. How can I help?

How can we help a person when we doubt his profession of salvation?

The Lord seems to have dealt with people on the basis of what they claimed to be, even when He knew their claim was false. He addressed the Samaritan woman as a worshiper (John 4:20-24)," TARGET="_blank">John 4:20-24), the lawyer as an honest questioner (Luke 10:29-37)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:29-37), and the womans accusers as defenders of the law (John 8:6-9)." TARGET="_blank">John 8:6-9). He kept the channel of communication open, but immediately, graciously, and wisely used that open channel to convey truth that worked effectively to expose their position. By limiting our ability to communicate further with individuals, we can no longer help them. When we maintain a channel of communication, we can effectively communicate Gods living, powerful Word (Heb. 4:12)." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 4:12).

Allowing for the possibility that our assessment is mistaken, we can pray for him, take a genuine interest in him, and act on his claim to be saved: feed him with Gods Word and talk often about the Savior and salvation with him. A lack of response to Gods Word, transformation in the life, and appreciation for the value of the cross indicates a lack of spiritual life.

If he is not saved, the channel of communication remains open for seeing him saved. If he is saved, cultivating spiritual growth fulfils the responsibility to "disciple all nations" (Matthew 28:19)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19).

D. Oliver

What does praying in the Spirit mean?

Q: I have come out of the charismatic church. I am praying for wisdom and understanding. I am unsure of speaking in tongues now. I do have the 'gift' but now i am unsure. Well, I do understand the 'speaking in tongues' is actually a language that needs an interpreter that it was origionally designed to spread the gospel for other countries. Now I want to know why in the bible there is a verse saying, " continue to pray in the spirit at all times' what is then praying in the spirit? My brain is experiencing some conflict but I am at peace with leaving the cahrismatic church and its beliefs and I am now searching the bible and discovering truth for myself however there are some parts which i cannot fully explain as I was taught that tongues were a sign from God. Please can you let me know your interpretation of praying in the spirit. Thank you and God bless

A: I'm glad you are examining your experience in the light of scripture. Often, we are more comfortable to interpret experiences based on feelings or advice of others.

Praying in the Spirit is mentioned three times in Scripture.

1) 1 Corinthians 14:15" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15 says, “So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.”

2) Ephesians 6:18" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:18 says, “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.”

3) Jude 20" TARGET="_blank">Jude 20 says, “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.”

Some Christians understand these Scriptures to be referring to praying in tongues. However, God usually communicates to us in our native language and we speak to him with understanding by using our own language. As you mentioned in your email, when a person has the gift of speaking in tongues, it is sign to the audience that God is revealing new information through direct revelation. The miracle of tongues authenticates the messengers.

So what does it mean? “Pray in” the Spirit can have several different meanings. It can mean “by means of,” “with the help of,” “in the sphere of,” and “in connection to.” Praying in the Spirit does not refer to the words we are saying. Rather, it refers to how we are praying. Praying in the Spirit is praying according to the Spirit’s leading. It is praying for things that the Spirit leads us to pray for.

1 Corinthians 14:15" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15 uses the words "my spirit" which means Paul's spirit - the inner, spiritual part of man that responds to God's truth. Paul is using both his powers of reason and capacity to worship when he prays.

Ephesians 6" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6 tells us that we should be sensitive to spiritual necessities of every moment and every person. A spiritual person recognizes these needs by being awakened to such needs - for example, how we see a financial crisis in a home can be interpreted as nothing more than poverty, or we can see a spiritual problem in a relationship as the root cause. A spiritual insight means we see problems that have a spiritual solution which may be salvation, obedience to a commandment of the scripture or a clearer understanding of who we are in Christ.

Jude refers to spiritual growth in our faith. Increasing understanding and appreciation to "the faith" or the doctrines of scripture will affect the way we pray - enlightened by the spirit of God in the understanding of His word.

Romans 8:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:26 tells us, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.”

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

Must there be only one bread and one cup used at the Lord’s Supper?

Must there be only one bread and one cup used at the Lord’s Supper?

Two factors frame the response to this question. The first is the text and the second is the stated symbolism.

"The cup of blessing which we bless . . ." (Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">Co 10:16) indicates a singular vessel. It is a drinking vessel, literally derived from the root word "drink." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Words says regarding this drinking vessel, "In a Palestinian home it is the pitcher (usually an earthen bowl) that stands filled on the table." Obviously, in this passage, Paul is using a figure of speech. We do not drink the cup; we drink its contents. What we drink comes from a common source, a vessel for drinking.

In the same verse, Paul speaks of "the bread which we break." Again, it is a singular entity. The object is a loaf of whatever shape or substance used as bread. In addition, taking from the loaf is a personal act, each one "breaking bread."

The stated symbolism when we partake of these two emblems expresses a communion, a common fellowship, a sharing with others, or a joint participation (v 17).

To answer the question, then, apart from having one loaf and one vessel for drinking, we cannot express the intended symbolism. If that one loaf is distributed so that more than one person is taking from the loaf at one time, this does not compromise the symbolism. When all have taken from the loaf and the remainder returns to its original place (usually a table), there is value in reuniting the remaining parts to form - as best as possible - a loaf. The loaf has no typical significance. An opening (like a wound) in the side of the loaf, the wheat from which it is made, the process of preparing it, the color of its flour, or our taking the bread are not to be analyzed for added significance. The loaf reminds us of the Lord’s body given for us; taking our part from the loaf expresses our fellowship with those in the assembly who have "broken bread." One loaf seen both before and after we break bread expresses this effectively.

If all drink their portion of the "fruit of the vine" from a common vessel, this expresses our fellowship with the Lord. This is not primarily to express our individual fellowship with the Lord but to express that all unitedly share with God in "the fellowship" that honors His Son. Therefore, although the symbol of the blood of Christ may be distributed in more than one vessel, if it visibly comes from a common vessel, this does maintain the scriptural symbolism.

D. Oliver

How can we help visitors understand New Testament teaching about assembly reception?

How can we help visitors understand New Testament teaching about assembly reception?

Society’s creed is tolerance. Evangelicals generally see no distinction between the Church, the Body, and the Church of God. These two factors combined make it likely that visitors not familiar with an assembly’s practices will question why they cannot enjoy the privileges of an assembly. Sometimes on short notice and with little time, overseers will have to give a Biblical answer to those questions. Wherever possible, when bringing a visitor to the Breaking of Bread, help him understand what will happen and why. Be prepared to answer with grace and truth. We would all like to effectively answer such questions, but can be assured that a perfect answer won’t persuade every questioner. We have a responsibility to wisely, patiently, considerately help others understand God’s ways. Help is available through prayer and dependence on the Spirit of God.

D. Oliver

Does Revelation describe the Roman Catholic Church?

Does Revelation 17:5" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 17:5 describe the Roman Catholic Church?

The history of Babylon with its religious implications goes back to Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-10;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:8-10; Genesis 11:1-9)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:1-9). Old Testament references to Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 8:14), the queen of heaven (Jeremiah 7:18;" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 7:18; Jeremiah 44:17-19, 25)" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 44:17-19, 25) and Baal point to the abominations of Babylon’s confusion. Zechariah 5:5-11" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 5:5-11 sees a woman who embodies all wickedness and whose house is built in Shinar (Babylon, see Gen 10:10)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 10:10). The influence of "the mother of harlots and abominations" preceded Christendom. Her influence is obvious in the greatest institution in Christendom with its use of the title "Pontifex Maximus," with the worship of the mother and child, and with the proliferation of idols for "worship." When, however, Babylon is seen in her most complete manifestation, why ignore her pre-Christian roots and limit her to an "institution of Christendom"? She has corrupted all forms of false worship and will likely embrace them all in her "greatest hour." Although she will unite all worship that rivals the true God, she will be eclipsed by the "abomination that makes desolate" (see Daniel 9:27;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:15), a man claiming worship as God (2 Thessalonians 2:4)." TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:4).

D. Oliver

What is a good commentary for Genesis and Daniel?

Which commentaries are the best helps to study these books?

The series, "What the Bible Teaches," is a valuable first resource for each book it covers. At present, it covers Genesis, but not Daniel. Most general commentaries recommended in Truth and Tidings January, 2001; February, 2001) have some help on these books.

For Genesis, commentaries on the Pentateuch recommended by J. McColl (April, 2001) will provide help. W H. Griffith Thomas on Genesis is highly recommended by both Wilbur M. Smith and Cyril J. Barber, whose evaluations of Bible study books are widely respected. Barber writes that Thomas book is "possibly the most helpful devotional exposition of Genesis available." Henry M. Morriss book, "The Genesis Record," is valuable, especially for scientific data.

On Daniel, Wilbur Smith (who had about thirty commentaries on Daniel, a favorite book of his) said that, if he could have only one book on Daniel, it would be Arno C. Gaebeleins, "The Prophet Daniel." Interestingly, Harold Paisley (before he wrote his good book on Daniel) considered Gaebelein to be the best on Daniel. Wilbur Smith wrote of Charles Boutfiowers book, "In and Around the Book of Daniel," that "in historical matters, it is the finest work of its kind in our language.

W. Gustafson