Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
What are the Christian themes in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?	Answer The third of the “Chronicles of Narnia” series by [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html), The Voyage of the Dawn Treader reunites readers with the two younger Pevensie children, Lucy and Edmund, who are catapulted back into the land of Narnia via a painting of a ship on a bedroom wall. As they stare at the painting, suddenly the ship begins to move, the sea waves spray the children with briny foam, and they are pulled into the painting and back into Narnia. Aboard the ship are King Caspian, from the second book, Prince Caspian, and his entourage, who are on a quest to discover the fate of the seven lords of Narnia who sailed west and never returned. This quest and the ensuing adventures form the outline of the book. Drawn into Narnia along with Lucy and Edmund is their cousin, Eustace Clarence Scrubb. If ever a child deserved such a name, it is Eustace, an insufferable brat who is quarrelsome, arrogant, greedy and jealous, a character ripe for Lewis’ brilliant thematic portrayal of sin and redemption. Having landed on one of the Lone Islands, Eustace wanders off to avoid helping refit the ship and takes refuge during a storm in a dragon’s cave, where he finds a vast treasure of gold and jewels and lies down to sleep on a pile of coins. When he awakes, he finds that through his greediness and selfishness, he has himself become a dragon, the outer form manifesting his inner self. He eventually tries to shed his skin, along with his dragonish nature, by bathing himself in the pool, but to no avail, a clear picture of the self\-effort of man to cleanse himself of sin through works of some sort (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:8,9\). When he is finally confronted by Aslan, the great lion of Narnia who is the picture of Christ in the series, it is Aslan himself who must remove the rough, scaly dragon skin with his claws. “The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart,” Eustace explains. Aslan then dresses him in new clothes, the whole process being symbolic of the Christian becoming a new creation in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 3:8\-10\). From that point forward, Eustace begins to be a better boy. He still has lapses, but his transformation has begun. Here is a picture of the Christian life. Aslan reappears in times of need throughout the book, which is reminiscent of the presence of the Holy Spirit who guides and directs the believer (John 16:13\). At one point, Caspian and Edmund nearly come to blows when they are temporarily blinded by greed and lust upon discovering a pool that turns everything to gold. It is only the appearance of Aslan pacing slowly on a nearby hill that brings them to their senses and convinces them that this is a place with a curse upon it. They name the island Deathwater and determine never to return. Later, when Lucy opens the Magician’s book on the island of the Dufflepuds, she finds a spell which will give her beauty “beyond the lot of mortals.” She sees a vision of her beautiful self lording it over her less attractive sister and is overcome with the desire for the preeminence such beauty would bring her, even though her conscience is pricked. “I will say the spell. I don’t care. I will.” But as she looks back at the book, she sees the face of “the great Lion, Aslan himself…He was growling and you could see most of his teeth. She became horribly afraid and turned over the page at once.” Clearly, Lewis is depicting Aslan as the Holy Spirit who indwells, sanctifies, and instructs believers (Romans 8:9\-11\), convicts us of sin and reminds us not to let sin reign in our lives (Romans 6:1\-22; Colossians 3:5\). Aslan, the embodiment of the Spirit of God, appears to Lucy again later, not to convict of sin, but to encourage and sustain her faith. The ship is engulfed in a terrifying darkness from which there seems to be no escape. In her despair, Lucy whispers, “Aslan, if you ever loved us at all, send help now.” Suddenly, in the distance a light appears in the shape of a cross. Then it takes the shape of a bird that circles the mast and leads the ship out of the darkness. Lucy hears the “small, still voice” (1 Kings 19:12\) of Aslan whispering to her, “Courage, dear heart,” and she feels his warm breath on her face. Here is a picture of Christ (the bird) who leads His people (the ship) from the darkness of the evil one into the light of His gospel (John 8:12; 12:46; Acts 26:18\). The Lion appears for the final time in the last chapter of the book, where he emerges as a Lamb who feeds them the most delicious meal they have ever had, a foreshadowing of the marriage supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19:19\. Here we see the depiction of Jesus, the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5\) as well as the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36; 1 Peter 1:19\). These are just a few of the Christian themes in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader that provide plentiful opportunities for parents to teach biblical truths to their children in a beautiful setting of fantasy and adventure.
What is Zionism / Christian Zionism?	Answer Zionism, simply a political movement at its inception, has today become more of an ideology than anything else. Zionism is an international movement for the return of the Jewish people to Zion, the land of Israel, while exercising the right to retain authority of government over the state of Israel, which was promised to them in the Hebrew Scriptures. The roots for Zionism lie in Genesis chapters 12 and 15, in which God makes a covenant with Abraham promising him that his descendants would inherit the land between Egypt and the Euphrates River. Due to the fact that Zionism was begun as a politically motivated movement, there exists among secular Gentiles and non\-religious Jews a line of thought stating that the religious background of the Jewish people had nothing to do with Zionism. It is argued that Zionism was instead a reaction of the Jewish people to worldwide persecution during World Wars I and II. No nation would take them in, so they were forced to create their own nation, the land of their ancestry being the most opportune place. Regardless, the Zionist movement, begun in the late 1890s, found fulfillment in 1948 when Israel was officially recognized as a state and granted sovereignty as a nation by the United Nations. This is when, technically, the political Zionist movement ended and the ideology of Zionism began, and as such, has become a much\-debated topic. Some would say that Zionism has become a motivation for racism, or a reaction against anti\-Semitism. Others believe that Zionism as it currently exists is merely Jewish patriotism. Associated with Jewish Zionism is Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism is simply Gentile support of Jewish Zionism as based on the promises to Israel found in the Bible, passages such as Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 34\. Christian Zionists are primarily evangelical and give support in any way possible to the Jewish state of Israel. The return of the Jews to the Promised Land is the fulfillment of prophecy and is seen, especially by dispensationalists, as a sign that the world has entered the [end times](signs-end-times.html).
What is the true meaning of Christmas?	Answer The true meaning of Christmas is love. John 3:16\-17 says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." The true meaning of Christmas is the celebration of this incredible act of love. The real Christmas story is the story of God’s becoming a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ. Why did God do such a thing? Because He loves us! Why was Christmas necessary? Because we needed a Savior! Why does God love us so much? Because He is love itself (1 John 4:8\). Why do we celebrate Christmas each year? Out of gratitude for what God did for us, we remember His birth by giving each other gifts, worshiping Him, and being especially conscious of the poor and less fortunate. The true meaning of Christmas is love. God loved His own and provided a way—the only Way—for us to spend eternity with Him. He gave His only Son to take our punishment for our sins. He paid the price in full, and we are free from condemnation when we accept that free gift of love. "But God demonstrated His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8\).
What are the Christian themes in The Silver Chair?	Answer The Silver Chair is the fourth book in the “Chronicles of Narnia” series by [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html). Eustace Scrubb, having learned some hard lessons in the previous book, returns to Narnia. There, he and a girl named Jill embark on a quest to rescue a prince and save Narnia from the machinations of a wicked witch. Prince Rilian, son of King Caspian from the book Prince Caspian, suffers under the curse of the Emerald Witch, who has held him captive for ten years with the aid of an enchanted chair. Eustace and Jill, along with an amusingly melancholy creature named Puddleglum, are sent by Aslan to find Rilian and bring him back to Narnia. Aslan gives the adventurers four “Signs,” which they are to remember and obey. The Signs are soon forgotten, unfortunately, and the children are beset with many additional dangers as a result. This is symbolic of the Bible, which gives us the wisdom we need to take the right paths in life. When we forget its wisdom, we find ourselves in all kinds of dangers. In the end, however, the chair is destroyed, the captives are set free, and grace prevails. The major theme in The Silver Chair concerns following truth—the Signs—versus following falsehood, which often appears to be true. As Aslan tells Jill in the second chapter, “Pay no attention to appearances. Remember the Signs and believe the Signs. Nothing else matters.” Examples of false appearances in the book include the disguise of the witch, the duplicity of the gentle giants, and the children’s misreading of the gnomes. The Lord Jesus (in the form of Aslan) is presented as the wise Guide who demands obedience yet patiently forgives those who go astray. Other themes include resurrection, encouragement, and the shortcomings of “progressive” education. The book also includes a wonderful picture of the “fountain of the water of life” (Revelation 21:6\).
What does the Bible say about a sixth sense / third eye?	Answer The movie entitled The Sixth Sense stirred up a renewed interest in the ability to see "dead people," and/or communicate with the spirit world. Television shows titled Medium and Ghost Whisperer continue the trend. Is it truly possible to see the spirits of dead people? Is there such a thing as a "sixth sense" or "third eye"? A sixth sense can also be described as ESP, or extra\-sensory perception. [Extra\-sensory perception](extrasensory-perception-ESP.html) is the means by which we acquire information through any sense other than the five basic senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing) or other well\-documented scientific physiological senses. Depending on one’s culture and beliefs, a sixth sense can be attributed to anything from the spiritual to the technological. Parapsychology addresses certain types of ESP—such as those possessed by psychics and mediums—including clairvoyance, telekinesis, and communication with the dead. The Bible makes it clear that these types of experiences should be avoided. We should not exercise any sort of spiritual abilities outside the realm of what the Bible deems acceptable, nor should we consult with anyone who does so. If such a thing as a sixth sense or third eye truly exists, it is not of God. Those who claim to practice such abilities are either deceivers, self\-deceived, and/or under the power of demonic forces. Leviticus 19:31 says, "Do not rely on mediums and psychics, for you will be defiled by them. I, the Lord, am your God." Consulting spiritists is foolish and angers the Lord (2 Chronicles 33:6\). Acting as a medium or psychic was punishable by death in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:27\). The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit of God has been given to each of us who has received salvation through faith in Christ (Romans 8:9\-11\). This Spirit will be our guide and teacher of all truth (John 16:13\). For Christians, all spiritual leading and communication should come from God, through prayer and revelation from His Word. The only “sixth sense" we need is the Holy Spirit; everything else is counterfeit. But if we allow the Spirit to fill and control us (Ephesians 5:18\), we will not be led astray by deceiving spirits.
Who was Harold Camping?	Answer Harold Camping (1921—2013\) was a [false teacher](false-teachers.html) who was most infamous for his repeated, failed “judgment day” predictions. Through the use of publications, mass marketing, and a radio network, Camping spread his ideas and gained a following. In 1958 Harold Camping helped establish Family Radio in Oakland, California, under the name Family Stations, Inc. As president of Family Radio, Camping hosted “Bible Class of the Air” and a call\-in program, “Open Forum.” For years, the Family Radio network was the vehicle through which Camping promulgated his particular brand of allegorical biblical interpretation. In 1988, Camping declared that the church age was over, the great tribulation had begun, and all institutional churches were apostate. He said the Holy Spirit was no longer present in the church and, because of the Spirit’s absence there, people in church who accepted Christ as Savior were not saved. Camping’s first [prediction of the end of the world](end-times-date-setting.html) pointed to May 21, 1988\. The prediction failed, of course, but that did not stop Camping, who in his book 1994? speculated that Christ would return and judge the world in September 1994\. After the 1994 speculation proved amiss, Camping blamed incomplete research and went on to set another date: the world would end on May 21, 2011, which Camping figured to be exactly 7,000 years after the Flood of Noah’s day. The judgment on that day would include an earthquake at 6:00 P.M. and begin several months of suffering, culminating in the demise of the whole planet on October 21, 2011\. Harold Camping and his followers sought to get the word out about the end of the world through Family Radio and Project Caravan, which involved renting space on 20,000 billboards worldwide and organizing a caravan of RVs to travel around North America warning people of impending doom. Many of Camping’s followers emptied their saving accounts, said good\-bye to loved ones, and joined the effort, believing time was short. When May 21, 2011, came and went without the catastrophes Camping had predicted, Family Radio issued an apology on its website. Camping modified his teachings to say that judgment did indeed fall on May 21, but it was “invisible,” i.e., spiritual in nature. The world would still be destroyed, he said, on October 21, 2011\. Harold Camping suffered a stroke in June 2011 and entered a nursing home. The October 21 date passed without a fulfilment of his prophecy. Camping subsequently issued a statement that his end\-of\-the\-world prediction had been an “incorrect and sinful statement” and that he had “learned the very painful lesson that all of creation is in God’s hands and he will end time in his time, not ours! . . . We humbly recognize that God may not tell his people the date when Christ will return” (Banks, Adelle, “Harold Camping says May 21 prediction was ‘incorrect and sinful,’” The Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2012\). Camping died in December 2013\. In October 2018, Family Radio severed all ties to Harold Camping, removing his teachings from the air. Tom Evans, Family Radio president and general manager, said, “Family Radio has come out of self\-imposed isolation and we’ve repented from many of our former positions, date\-setting the end of the world and all that, as well as the condemnation of the church” (Gryboski, Michael, “Harold Camping Programs Canceled by Family Radio, Says Teachings ‘Not Scriptural,’” Christian Post, Sep. 27, 2018\). Family Radio is now committed to airing biblical teaching from the likes of John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, and [R. C. Sproul](R-C-Sproul.html). Harold Camping was an obvious false prophet and therefore did not speak for God, whose prophets were held to the standard of 100 percent accuracy (see Deuteronomy 18:21–22\). Camping made Jesus’ return the centerpiece of his teaching, yet he consistently ignored the words of the Lord Jesus regarding His return: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36\). Camping fancied himself as knowing what not even the angels knew—what not even Jesus knew. Setting a date for Jesus’ return has been the pursuit of many, including [Joseph Smith](Joseph-Smith.html), William Miller, [Ellen G. White](Ellen-G-White.html), Pope Sylvester II, [Charles Taze Russell](Charles-Taze-Russell.html), and Edgar Whisenant. Harold Camping is just one more. All such false prophets were eventually proven wrong, and, what’s worse, millions of people have been and continue to be led astray by their teachings.
I have just put my faith in Jesus...now what?	Answer Congratulations! You have made a life\-changing decision! Perhaps you are asking, “Now what? How do I begin my journey with God?” The five steps mentioned below will give you direction from the Bible. When you have questions on your journey, please visit [www.GotQuestions.org](https://www.gotquestions.org). 1\. Make sure you understand salvation. First John 5:13 tells us, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” God wants us to understand salvation. God wants us to have the confidence of knowing for sure that we are saved. Briefly, let’s go over the key points of salvation: (a) We have all sinned. We have all done things that are displeasing to God (Romans 3:23\). (b) Because of our sin, we deserve to be punished with eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23\). (c) Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). Jesus died in our place, taking the punishment that we deserved. Jesus’ resurrection proved that His death was sufficient to pay for our sins. (d) God grants forgiveness and salvation to all those who place their faith in Jesus—trusting His death as the payment for our sins (John 3:16; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1\). (e) The Holy Spirit comes to reside permanently within us at the moment of faith. He assures us of everlasting life. He teaches us God’s Word and empowers us to live according to it. That is the message of salvation! If you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Savior, you are saved! All of your sins are forgiven, and God promises to never leave you or forsake you (Romans 8:38–39; Matthew 28:20\). Remember, your salvation is secure in Jesus Christ (John 10:28–29\). If you are trusting in Jesus alone as your Savior, you can have confidence that you will spend eternity with God in heaven! 2\. Find a good church that teaches the Bible. Don’t think of the church as a building. The church is the people. It is very important that believers in Jesus Christ fellowship with one another. That is one of the primary purposes of the church. Now that you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ, we strongly encourage you to find a Bible\-believing church in your area and speak to the pastor. Let him know about your new faith in Jesus Christ. A second purpose of the church is to teach the Bible. You can learn how to apply God’s instructions to your life. Understanding the Bible is key to living a successful and powerful Christian life. 2 Timothy 3:16\-17 says, “All Scripture is God\-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” A third purpose of the church is worship. Worship is thanking God for all He has done! God has saved us. God loves us. God provides for us. God guides and directs us. How could we not thank Him? God is holy, righteous, loving, merciful, and full of grace. Revelation 4:11 declares, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” 3\. Set aside time each day to focus on God. It is very important for us to spend time each day focusing on God. Some people call this a “quiet time.” Others call it “devotions,” because it is a time when we devote ourselves to God. Some prefer to set aside time in the mornings, while others prefer the evenings. It does not matter what you call this time or when you do it. What matters is that you regularly spend time with God. What events make up our time with God? (a) Prayer. Prayer is simply talking to God. Talk to God about your concerns and problems. Ask God to give you wisdom and guidance. Ask God to provide for your needs. Tell God how much you love Him and how much you appreciate all He does for you. That is what prayer is all about. (b) Bible Reading. In addition to being taught the Bible in church, Sunday School, and/or Bible studies – you need to be reading the Bible for yourself. The Bible contains everything you need to know in order to live a successful Christian life. It contains God’s guidance for how to make wise decisions, how to know God’s will, how to minister to others, and how to grow spiritually. The Bible is God’s Word to us. The Bible is essentially God’s instruction manual for how to live our lives in a way that is pleasing to Him and satisfying to us. 4\. Develop relationships with people who can help you spiritually. 1 Corinthians 15:33 tells us, “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’” The Bible is full of warnings about the influence “bad” people can have on us. Spending time with those who engage in sinful activities will cause us to be tempted by those activities. The character of those we are around will “rub off” on us. That is why it is so important to surround ourselves with other people who love the Lord and are committed to Him. Try to find a friend or two, perhaps from your church, who can help you and encourage you (Hebrews 3:13; 10:24\). Ask your friends to keep you accountable in regard to your quiet time, your activities, and your walk with God. Ask if you can do the same for them. This does not mean you have to give up all your friends who do not know the Lord Jesus as their Savior. Continue to be their friend and love them. Simply let them know that Jesus has changed your life and you cannot do all the same things you used to do. Ask God to give you opportunities to share Jesus with your friends. 5\. Be baptized. Many people have a misunderstanding of baptism. The word baptize means “to immerse in water.” Baptism is the biblical way of publicly proclaiming your new faith in Christ and your commitment to follow Him. The action of being immersed in the water illustrates being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection. Being baptized is identifying yourself with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3\-4\). Baptism is not what saves you. Baptism does not wash away your sins. Baptism is simply a step of obedience, a public proclamation of your faith in Christ alone for salvation. Baptism is important because it is a step of obedience – publicly declaring faith in Christ and your commitment to Him. If you are ready to be baptized, you should speak with a pastor.
Can monotheism be proven?	Answer The word “monotheism” comes from two words, “mono” meaning “single” and “theism” meaning “belief in God.” Specifically, monotheism is the belief in one true God who is the only creator, sustainer, and judge of all creation. Monotheism differs from “henotheism,” which is the belief in multiple gods with one supreme God over all. It is also opposed to polytheism, which is the belief in the existence of more than one god. There are many arguments for monotheism, including those from special revelation (Scripture), natural revelation (philosophy), as well as historical anthropology. These will only be explained briefly below, and this should not in any way be considered an exhaustive list. Biblical arguments for Monotheism \- Deuteronomy 4:35: “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides Him there is no other.” Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Malachi 2:10a, “Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?” 1 Corinthians 8:6: “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” Ephesians 4:6: “One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” James 2:19: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” Obviously, for many people, it wouldn’t suffice to simply say that there is only one God because the Bible says so. This is because without God there is no way to prove that the Bible is His Word in the first place. However, one might argue that since the Bible has the most reliable supernatural evidence confirming what it teaches, monotheism can be affirmed on these grounds. A similar argument would be the beliefs and teaching of Jesus Christ, who proved that He was God (or at the very least approved by God) by His miraculous birth, life, and the miracle of His resurrection. God cannot lie or be deceived; therefore, what Jesus believed and taught was true. Therefore, monotheism, which Jesus believed and taught, is true. This argument may not be very impressive to those unfamiliar with the case for the supernatural confirmations of Scripture and Christ, but this is a good place to start for one who is familiar with its strength. Historical arguments for Monotheism \- Arguments based on popularity are notoriously suspect, but it is interesting just how much monotheism has affected world religions. The popular evolutionary theory of religious development stems from an evolutionary view of reality in general, and the presupposition of evolutionary anthropology which sees “primitive” cultures as representing the earlier stages of religious development. But the problems with this evolutionary theory are several. 1\) The kind of development it describes has never been observed; in fact, there seems to be no upward development toward monotheism within any culture—actually the opposite seems to be the case. 2\) The anthropological method’s definition of “primitive” equates to technological development, yet this is hardly a satisfactory criterion as there are so many components to a given culture. 3\) The alleged stages are often missing or skipped. 4\) Finally, most polytheistic cultures show vestiges of monotheism early in their development. What we find is a monotheistic God who is personal, masculine, lives in the sky, has great knowledge and power, created the world, is the author of a morality to which we are accountable, and whom we have disobeyed and are thus estranged from, but who has also provided a way of reconciliation. Virtually every religion carries a variation of this God at some point in its past before devolving into the chaos of polytheism. Thus, it seems that most religions have begun in monotheism and “devolved” into polytheism, animism, and magic—not vice versa. (Islam is a very rare case, having come full circle back into a monotheistic belief.) Even with this movement, polytheism is often functionally monotheistic or henotheistic. It is a rare polytheistic religion which does not hold one of its gods as sovereign over the rest, with the lesser gods only functioning as intermediaries. Philosophical/Theological arguments for Monotheism \- There are many philosophical arguments for the impossibility of there being more than one God in existence. Many of these depend a great deal on one’s metaphysical position concerning the nature of reality. Unfortunately, in an article this short it would be impossible to argue for these basic metaphysical positions and then go on to show what they point to regarding monotheism, but rest assured that there are strong philosophical and theological grounds for these truths that go back millennia (and most are fairly self\-evident). Briefly, then, here are three arguments one might choose to explore: 1\. If there were more than one God, the universe would be in disorder because of multiple creators and authorities, but it is not in disorder; therefore, there is only one God. 2\. Since God is a completely perfect being, there cannot be a second God, for they would have to differ in some way, and to differ from complete perfection is to be less than perfect and not be God. 3\. Since God is infinite in His existence, He cannot have parts (for parts cannot be added to reach infinity). If God’s existence is not just a part of Him (which it is for all things which can have existence or not), then He must have infinite existence. Therefore, there cannot be two infinite beings, for one would have to differ from the other. Someone may wish to argue that many of these would not rule out a sub\-class of “gods,” and that is fine. Although we know this to be untrue biblically, there is nothing wrong with it in theory. In other words, God could have created a sub\-class of “gods,” but it just happens to be the case that He did not. If He had, these “gods” would only be limited, created things—probably a lot like angels (Psalm 82\). This does not hurt the case for monotheism, which does not say that there cannot be any other spirit beings—only that there cannot be more than one God.
Does God still give visions to people today?	Answer Can God give visions to people today? Yes! Does God give visions to people today? Possibly. Should we expect visions to be an ordinary occurrence? No. As recorded in the Bible, God spoke to people many times by means of visions. Examples are Joseph, son of Jacob; Joseph, the husband of Mary; Solomon; Isaiah; Ezekiel; Daniel; Peter; and Paul. The prophet Joel predicted an outpouring of visions, and this was confirmed by the apostle Peter in Acts chapter 2\. It is important to note that the difference between a vision and a dream is that a vision is given when a person is awake while a dream is given when a person is asleep. In many parts of the world, God seems to be using visions and dreams extensively. In areas where there is little or no gospel message available, and where people do not have Bibles, God is taking His message to people directly through dreams and visions. This is entirely consistent with the biblical example of visions being frequently used by God to reveal His truth to people in the early days of Christianity. If God desires to communicate His message to a person, He can use whatever means He finds necessary—a missionary, an angel, a vision, or a dream. Of course, God also has the ability to give visions in areas where the gospel message is already readily available. There is no limit to what God can do. At the same time, we must be careful when it comes to visions and the interpretation of visions. We must keep in mind that the Bible is finished, and it tells us everything we need to know. The key truth is that if God were to give a vision, it would agree completely with what He has already revealed in His Word. Visions should never be given equal or greater authority than the Word of God. God’s Word is our ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice. If you believe you have had a vision and feel that perhaps God gave it to you, prayerfully examine the Word of God and make sure your vision is in agreement with Scripture. Then prayerfully consider what God would have you do in response to the vision (James 1:5\). God would not give a vision to a person and then keep the meaning of the vision hidden. In Scripture, whenever a person asked God for the meaning of a vision, God made sure it was explained to the person (Daniel 8:15\-17\).
If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?	Answer Some people claim that our Lord should not be referred to as “Jesus.” Instead, we should only use the name “Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew. Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.) Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.” As for the controversy over the letter J, it is much ado about nothing. It is true that the languages in which the Bible was written had no letter J. But that doesn’t mean the Bible never refers to “Jerusalem” or “Judah.” And it doesn’t mean we cannot use the spelling “Jesus.” If a person speaks and reads English, it is acceptable for him to spell things in an English fashion. Spellings can change even within a language: Americans write “Savior,” while the British write “Saviour.” The addition of a u (or its subtraction, depending on your point of view) has nothing to do with whom we’re talking about. Jesus is the Savior, and He is the Saviour. Jesus and Yeshuah and Iesus are all referring to the same Person. The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10\). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter. We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English\-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32\). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation.
What is Christianity and what do Christians believe?	Answer The core beliefs of Christianity are summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:1\-4\. Jesus died for our sins, was buried, was resurrected, and thereby offers salvation to all who will receive Him in faith. Unique among all other faiths, Christianity is more about a relationship than religious practices. Instead of adhering to a list of “do’s and don’ts,” the goal of a Christian is to cultivate a close walk with God. That relationship is made possible because of the work of Jesus Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Beyond these core beliefs, there are many other items that are, or at least should be, indicative of what Christianity is and what Christians believe. Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired, “God\-breathed” Word of God and that its teaching is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20\-21\). Christians believe in one God that exists in three persons—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Christians believe that mankind was created specifically to have a relationship with God, but sin separates all men from God (Romans 3:23; 5:12\). Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ walked this earth, fully God, and yet fully man (Philippians 2:6\-11\), and died on the cross. Christians believe that after His death, Christ was buried, He rose again, and now lives at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for the believers forever (Hebrews 7:25\). Christianity proclaims that Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient to completely pay the sin debt owed by all men and this is what restores the broken relationship between God and man (Hebrews 9:11\-14; 10:10; Romans 5:8; 6:23\). Christianity teaches that in order to be saved and be granted entrance into heaven after death, one must place one’s faith entirely in the finished work of Christ on the cross. If we believe that Christ died in our place and paid the price of our own sins, and rose again, then we are saved. There is nothing that anyone can do to earn salvation. We cannot be “good enough” to please God on our own, because we are all sinners (Isaiah 53:6; 64:6\-7\). There is nothing more to be done, because Christ has done all the work! When He was on the cross, Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30\), meaning that the work of redemption was completed. According to Christianity, salvation is freedom from the old sin nature and freedom to pursue a right relationship with God. Where we were once slaves to sin, we are now slaves to Christ (Romans 6:15\-22\). As long as believers live on this earth in their sinful bodies, they will engage in a constant struggle with sin. However, Christians can have victory in the struggle with sin by studying and applying God’s Word in their lives and being controlled by the Holy Spirit—that is, submitting to the Spirit’s leading in everyday circumstances. So, while many religious systems require that a person do or not do certain things, Christianity is about believing that Christ died on the cross as payment for our own sins and rose again. Our sin debt is paid and we can have fellowship with God. We can have victory over our sin nature and walk in fellowship and obedience with God. That is true biblical Christianity.
How does the geologic timescale fit with the view of a young earth?	Answer The question of how the geologic timescale fits with the “young\-earth” view is a good one. Not all scientists, and not all Christians, agree on how the evidence seen in geology can be harmonized with a young\-earth account. Some, even those who believe the Bible is true and God is the Creator, deny that young\-earth views can be harmonized with observations of the geologic timescale. It is easy to be overwhelmed with conflicting claims. An avalanche of competing evidence, for those without deep scientific knowledge, is not especially helpful. In the end, the most reliable conclusion a non\-expert can draw about the geologic timescale is that of open\-mindedness. Nothing discovered in geology, in any sense, casts doubt on the veracity of the Bible. Scientists who take Scripture to be infallible and inerrant sometimes disagree on exactly how to interpret those observations. Since the geologic timescale is not a subject explicitly stated in the Bible, there is ample room for Christians to come to different conclusions. Rock layers in the earth’s crust are examined by geologists to gauge how long ago those materials were deposited. In some cases, these layers, called strata, may contain remnants from plant and animal life buried and preserved through fossilization. In some cases, specific fossils are unique to certain layers, and are referred to as “index fossils.” Paleontologists—scientists who study ancient plants and animals—frequently use assumptions about fossils to date rock layers. Critics suggest this creates a circular loop. Assumptions about fossil age are used to date rock layers; assumptions about the age of rock layers are used to date fossils. Those critics also point out that strata are not always found in their expected order. They also note that some rock formations show discrepant fossils: organisms that are preserved in the “wrong layer” based on paleontology’s assumptions. In some cases, it’s possible to find fossils from supposedly different eras preserved in the same rock. The conundrum this poses for the non\-scientist was succinctly stated by J. E. O’Rourke in the mid\-1970s: “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard\-headed pragmatism” (“Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47\). While O’Rourke’s comment has some truth, it also omits a lot of information. The “hard\-headed pragmatism” of geologists is, in a sense, a reason to take their interpretations seriously. Secular or devout, a geologist is generally interested in understanding rocks such that one can make predictions and properly analyze the earth’s crust. This is especially important in the energy sector—e.g., fossil fuels—and in mining. Those industries in particular have provided literally hundreds of thousands of observations about strata. There is little incentive, and very much at risk, for any geologist to favor an inaccurate assumption. Christian geologists, for example, point out that natural phenomena can cause geologic strata to be mixed or inverted. The basic geologic timescale used today predates Darwin’s theories of evolution. In fact, this general system was finalized by devout believer John Phillips, who debated [Charles Darwin](Darwinism-definition.html) on such issues. At the very least, this indicates the modern geologic timescale is not in any sense dependent on certain views of [evolution](creationism-vs-evolution.html). Those same Bible\-believing scientists also note that the development of an old\-earth geologic timescale was driven more by the discovery of processes that give every appearance of requiring long times to complete. When radiometric and astronomic observations of the early twentieth century matched those observations, it seemed to confirm that the geologic timescale—at least by appearances—is much older than what is suggested by young\-earth views. Ultimately, the geologic column and the accepted geologic timescale are like most other aspects of human knowledge. They are fallible and subject to change but not to be dismissed entirely. More importantly, it is not necessary for a Christian to hold dogmatically to either a young\-earth or old\-earth view to be faithful to Scripture. Arguments of various types, with varying validity, can be made for either side. All Christians should agree, however, on two crucial points. First, it is possible for God to have created a young earth that has the appearance of great age. Second, widespread scientific observation unmistakably gives the impression of an “old” earth. What exactly that means so far as Scripture is concerned is open to a certain level of personal liberty.
How does radiometric dating fit with the view of a young earth?	Answer Radiometric dating does not fit with the “[young\-earth](young-earth-creationism.html)” view. Radiometric dating is a method that scientists use to determine the age of various specimens, mainly inorganic matter (rocks, etc.), though there is one radiometric dating technique, radiocarbon dating, which is used to date organic specimens. How do these dating techniques work? Basically, scientists take advantage of a natural process by which unstable radioactive “parent” isotopes decay into stable “daughter” isotopes spontaneously over time. Uranium\-238 (U238\), for example, is an unstable radioactive isotope that decays into Lead\-206 (Pb206\) naturally over time (it goes through 13 unstable intermediate stages before it finally stabilizes into Pb206\). In this case, U238 is the “parent,” and Pb206 is the “daughter.” Scientists begin by measuring how long it takes for a parent isotope to decay into a daughter isotope. In this particular case, it takes 4,460,000,000 years for half of a sample of U238 to decay into Pb206\. It takes another 4,460,000,000 years for half of the remaining sample to decay into Pb206 and then another 4,460,000,000 years for half of what’s then left to decay, and so on. The time it takes for half of a sample to decay is called a “half\-life.” By measuring radioactive half\-lives, by measuring how much parent and daughter are present in any given specimen, and by making certain key assumptions, scientists believe they are able to accurately determine the age of a specimen. The measurements involved can be quite accurate. The questions are, what are the underlying key assumptions, and how reliable are they? The three key underlying assumptions in radiometric dating are 1\) the rate of decay of parent into daughter has remained constant throughout the unobservable past; 2\) the specimen being examined hasn’t been contaminated in any way (that is, no parent or daughter has been added or taken away at any point during the unobservable past); and 3\) we can determine how much parent and daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process—not all of the Pb206 present today necessarily came from decaying U238; Pb206 may have been part of the original constitution of the specimen. If any of these assumptions are wrong, the method cannot accurately determine the age of a specimen. The second and third assumptions behind this technique have always been a bit troublesome. This is especially true of the third assumption, which involves the original constitution of a particular specimen. The first assumption was thought to be a safe bet, since scientists were not able to vary the decay rates much in a lab. Recently, however, new research has revealed that the decay rates may have been drastically different in the unobservable past. This, in truth, opens room for doubt concerning the entire method. Despite those potential sources of error, radiometric dating is widely used by geologists, paleontologists, and archaeologists. These scientists are aware of the potential drawbacks but also find that radiometric dating is repeatable and consistent, even across radiometric methods. In other words, “it works” for the purposes for which those scientists need it to “work.” It should be noted that this drive for practical results, itself, is not connected to any philosophical view of the age of the earth or evolution or religion. That this system might be grossly in error is a possibility these scholars consider, but only as a remote possibility. Radiometric dating, like any other technique, is not infallible. Nor is it beyond the need for more research and improvement. As with any human effort, it should be used to enhance our knowledge but not relied on as a perfect test of any truth.
What are the differences between Catholics and Protestants?	Answer There are several important differences between Catholics and Protestants. While there have been many attempts in recent years to find common ground between the two groups, the fact is that the differences remain, and they are just as important today as they were at the beginning of the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). The following is brief summary of some of the more important differences: One of the major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the source of God’s special revelation to mankind and teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “[sola scriptura](sola-scriptura.html)” and is one of the “five solas” (sola is Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation. There are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and claim it to be sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. One of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16, where we see that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Catholics reject the doctrine of sola scriptura and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred [Roman Catholic tradition](Catholic-tradition.html) are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such as purgatory, [praying to the saints](prayer-saints-Mary.html), [worship or veneration of Mary](worship-saints-Mary.html), etc., have little or no basis in Scripture but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. The Roman Catholic Church’s insistence that the Bible and tradition are equal in authority undermines the sufficiency, authority, and completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many, if not all, of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. Another disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is over the office and authority of the Pope. According to Catholicism the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” (a vicar is a substitute) and represents Jesus as the head of the Church. As such, the Pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra (literally, “from the chair,” that is, with authority on matters of faith and practice). His pronouncements made from the seat of authority are infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand, Protestants believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of the Church. Catholics rely on apostolic succession as a way of establishing the Pope’s authority. Protestants believe that the church’s authority comes not from apostolic succession but from the Word of God. Catholicism teaches that only the Catholic Church can properly interpret the Bible, but Protestants believe that the Bible teaches God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all born\-again believers, enabling all believers to understand the message of the Bible (John 14:16–17, 26; 1 John 2:27\). A third major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is how one is saved. Another of the five solas of the Reformation is [sola fide](sola-fide.html) (“[faith alone](salvation-faith-alone.html)”), which affirms the biblical doctrine of [justification](justification-by-faith.html) by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–10\). However, Catholics teach that the Christian must rely on faith plus “meritorious works” in order to be saved. Essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation are the [Seven Sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html), which are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony. Protestants believe that, on the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God, as all their sins are paid for by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that Christ’s righteousness is imparted to the believer by “grace through faith,” but that in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must supplement the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works. Catholics and Protestants also disagree on what it means to be justified before God. To the Catholic, justification involves being made righteous and holy. He believes that faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation and that the individual must build upon that with good works because God’s grace of eternal salvation must be merited. This view of justification contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as Romans 4:1–12 and Titus 3:3–7\. Protestants distinguish between the one\-time act of justification (when we are declared righteous by God based on our faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross) and the process of [sanctification](sanctification.html) (the development of righteousness that continues throughout our lives on earth). Protestants recognize that works are important, but they believe the works are the result or fruit of salvation—never the means to it. Catholics blend justification and sanctification into one ongoing process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved. A fourth major difference between Catholics and Protestants has to do with what happens after death. Both groups teach that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell, but there are significant differences about what happens to believers. From their church traditions and their reliance on non\-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions” (Hanna, E., “Purgatory,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 12\. Robert Appleton Company, 1911\). On the other hand, Protestants believe that we are justified by faith in Christ alone and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us; therefore, when we die, we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6–10 and Philippians 1:23\). One disturbing aspect about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is the belief that man can and must pay for his own sins. This results in a low view of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Simply put, the Roman Catholic view of salvation implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross was insufficient payment for the sins of those who believe in Him and that even a believer must pay for his own sins, either through acts of penance or time in purgatory. Yet the Bible teaches that it is Christ’s death alone that can satisfy or propitiate God’s wrath against sinners (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10\). Our works of righteousness cannot add to what Christ has already accomplished. The differences between Catholicism and evangelical Protestants are important and significant. Paul wrote Galatians to combat the Judaizers (Jews who said that Gentile Christians had to obey the Old Testament Law to be saved). Like the Judaizers, Catholics make human works necessary for one to be justified by God, and they end up with a completely different gospel. It is our prayer that God will open the eyes of those who are putting their faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is our hope that everyone will understand that “works of righteousness” cannot justify or sanctify a person (Isaiah 64:6\). We pray that all will put their faith solely in Christ and the fact that we are “justified freely by \[God’s] grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith” (Romans 3:24–25\). God saves us, “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5–7\).
Who were Dismas and Gestas?	Answer Dismas and Gestas are the names sometimes mentioned as the two thieves crucified on crosses to the right and left of Jesus. In the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion, two men are mentioned, yet their names are never given. The names Dismas and Gestas do not come from the New Testament, but are taken from a [pseudepigraphal book](pseudepigrapha.html) not included in the New Testament [canon](canon-of-Scripture.html). As a result, whether Dismas and Gestas were the true names of the two men crucified at the time of Jesus is unknown. The names Dismas and Gestas are first found in the apocryphal writing entitled “The Gospel of Nicodemus” that historians typically agree was written in the 4th century. Since this document was written over two centuries after the events and is found in a book containing other disputable information, few argue that much certainty can be attached to these two specific names. Finally, it should be mentioned that Dismas (sometimes spelled Dysmas) was the name associated with the good thief who asked Jesus to remember him in paradise (Luke 23:43\), while Gestas was the one who taunted Jesus along with the crowd. In the Roman Catholic tradition, Dismas was canonized as a saint whose feast is celebrated March 25\.
Is it possible to sell your soul to the devil?	Answer In the fanciful tale of Dr. Faustus, a man makes a deal with the devil: in exchange for his body and soul, the man is to receive supernatural power and pleasures for 24 years. The devil agrees to the trade, and Dr. Faustus enjoys the pleasures of sin for a season, but his doom is sealed. At the end of 24 years, Faustus attempts to thwart the devil’s plans, but he meets a frightful demise, nonetheless. This legend works well as a morality tale and as a metaphor for the wages of sin, but the details of its plot are not biblical. The Bible has no instance of a person “selling his soul” to Satan, and it never implies that making a bargain with the devil is possible. Here is some of what Scripture does reveal about Satan: 1\) Satan has power enough to oppose even the angels (Jude 9; Daniel 10:12\-13\). 2\) Satan seeks to deceive by masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14\-15\). 3\) God has provided the means of defending ourselves against Satan’s attacks (Ephesians 6:11\-12\). 4\) Satan’s power is limited by God’s will (Job 1:10\-12; 1 Corinthians 10:13\). 5\) As “the god of this world,” Satan has dominion over those who live without Christ in the world (2 Corinthians 4:4\). Surely, there are those who suffer under direct satanic control, such as the young medium of Philippi (Acts 16:16\-19\). And there are those who have devoted themselves to the devil’s work, such as the sorcerers Simon (Acts 8:9\-11\) and Elymas (Acts 13:8\). However, in each of these three examples, the power of God prevails over Satan’s slavery. In fact, Simon is offered a chance to repent (Acts 8:22\). Obviously, there had been no irrevocable “selling” of Simon’s soul. Without Christ, we are all under condemnation of death (Romans 3:23\). Before we are saved, we are all in bondage to the devil, as 1 John 5:19 says, “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” Praise the Lord, we have a new Master, One who can break the chains of any sin and set us free (1 Corinthians 6:9\-11; Mark 5:1\-15\).
What is the Apocalypse?	Answer The word “apocalypse” comes from the Greek word apocalupsis which means “revealing, disclosure, to take off the cover.” The book of Revelation is sometimes referred to as the “Apocalypse of John” because it is God’s revealing of the end times to the apostle John. Further, the Greek word for “apocalypse” is the very first word in the Greek text of the book of Revelation. The phrase “apocalyptic literature” is used to describe the use of symbols, images, and numbers to depict future events. Outside of Revelation, examples of apocalyptic literature in the Bible are Daniel chapters 7–12, Isaiah chapters 24–27, Ezekiel chapters 37–41, and Zechariah chapters 9–12\. Why was apocalyptic literature written with such symbolism and imagery? The apocalyptic books were written when it was more prudent to disguise the message in images and symbolism than to give the message in plain language. Further, the symbolism created an element of mystery about details of time and place. The purpose of such symbolism, however, was not to cause confusion, but rather to instruct and encourage followers of God in difficult times. Beyond the specifically biblical meaning, the term “apocalypse” is often used to refer to the end times in general, or to the last end times events specifically. End\-times events such as the second coming of Christ and the battle of Armageddon are sometimes referred to as the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse will be the ultimate revealing of God, His wrath, His justice, and, ultimately, His love. Jesus Christ is the supreme “apocalypse” of God, as He revealed God to us (John 14:9; Hebrews 1:2\).
Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau?	Answer Malachi 1:2\-3 declares, “‘I have loved you,’” says the LORD. But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ the LORD says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’” Malachi 1:3 is quoted in Romans 9:10\-13, “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Why did God love Jacob and hate Esau? If God is love (1 John 4:8\), how could He hate anyone? When studying the Bible, it is critically important to always study the context of a particular Bible verse or passage. In these instances, the prophet Malachi and the apostle Paul are using the name “Esau” to refer to the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau. Isaac and Rebekah had two sons, Esau and Jacob. God chose Jacob (whom He later renamed “Israel”) to be the father of His chosen people, the Israelites. God rejected Esau (who was also called “Edom”) and did not choose him to be the father of His chosen people. Esau and his descendants, the Edomites, were in many ways blessed by God (Genesis 33:9; Genesis chapter 36\). So, considering the context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the human emotions of love and hate. It has everything to do with God choosing one man and his descendants and rejecting another man and his descendants. God chose Abraham out of all the men in the world. The Bible very well could say, “Abraham I loved, and every other man I hated.” God chose Abraham’s son Isaac instead of Abraham’s son Ishmael. The Bible very well could say, “Isaac I loved, and Ishmael I hated.” Romans chapter 9 makes it abundantly clear that loving Jacob and hating Esau was entirely related to which of them God chose. Hundreds of years after Jacob and Esau had died, the Israelites and Edomites became bitter enemies. The Edomites often aided Israel’s enemies in attacks on Israel. Esau’s descendants brought God’s curse upon themselves. Genesis 27:29 tells Israel, “May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed.”
What does the Bible say about liturgy?	Answer The American Heritage Dictionary defines "liturgy" as follows: "1\. The rite of the Eucharist. 2\. The prescribed form for a public religious service; ritual." Looking at Scripture, there is not a "prescribed form for a public religious service" set forth for the church. At the same time, several New Testament passages do give us important ingredients that should be part of a healthy local church. Among these are the following: True fellowship: treating fellow believers as they are—family, with the associated love, unity of heart, and giving toward others that is common to a good family (Acts 2:44\-46\). The observance of the ordinances: baptism of believers and remembrance of the Lord’s Supper / Communion (Acts 2:41,42,46; 1 Corinthians 11:23\-32\). Steadfast observance of the apostles' doctrine, the reading of the Word of God, and the teaching / preaching of the Word of God (Acts 2:42; 1 Timothy 4:13\-16; 2 Timothy 4:2\). Prayer and praise, with dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s direction (Acts 2:42,47; Acts 13:1\-4; 1 Timothy 2:1\-8; Ephesians 6:18\). Evangelism and discipleship, with all members of the church using their spiritual gifts to serve Christ as part of the Body of Christ (Matthew 28:18\-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Timothy 4:5; Ephesians 4:11\-16; Romans 12:3\-8\). While some churches are labeled as "liturgical" because of their very formal and predetermined order and manner of worship, all churches to some degree have a format that they typically follow. The major distinction would be both the degree to which this is true, and the possibility of changing that common format if necessary. It is obvious from Acts 13 that the church in the city of Antioch was flexible in that they were open to the Holy Spirit’s leading. If a church is so liturgical that changes according to His leading are not a possibility, liturgy has gone too far. A church that is too structured would never allow for the Spirit’s leading—they already have their own "agenda"; they don’t need His. There are two additional possible dangers in relation to liturgical worship: (1\) Liturgies designed by men are fallible and thus need to be examined to see whether they are scriptural. But this is true both for so\-called liturgical churches as well as for those not given that label. In both cases fallible men set the format of the service. (2\) Liturgies that call for the recitation of repetitious prayers, responses, etc., can begin to be done in rote without thought or true worship from the heart. And when this happens they become "vain repetitions." But nonetheless, it is still very possible for one of a sincere heart to worship God with repetitious prayers, etc., as he reflects upon what is being said and thus enters into those prayers from the heart. Besides, even in non\-liturgical churches, certain songs and choruses are sung repeatedly over time and carry the same danger of being sung glibly rather than with reflection upon what is being said and sung. Whether a church is liturgical is not as important as the soundness of the doctrine of the church and the soundness of the pastor doctrinally and spiritually (1 Timothy 4:16; Acts 2:42\). Agreement with Scripture, not liturgy, determines whether a church’s practices are compatible with those of a healthy and biblically\-based church.
What is Hanukkah?	Answer Chanukkah (or Hanukkah) is the Jewish Festival/Feast of Dedication, also known as the "Festival of Lights.” It is an eight\-day festival beginning on the 25th day of the Jewish month of Kislev, which typically falls in November or December on our calendar. Although this Jewish festival in not mentioned in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), it is referenced in the Talmud: “On the 25th of Kislev are the days of Chanukkah, which are eight... these were appointed a Festival with Hallel \[prayers of praise] and thanksgiving” (Shabbat 21b, Babylonian Talmud). Chanukkah is probably one of the best\-known Jewish holidays, not because of any great religious significance, but because of its proximity to Christmas. Many non\-Jews think of this holiday as the Jewish Christmas, adopting many of the Christmas customs, such as elaborate gift\-giving and decoration. Because of this, it is ironic that this holiday, which has its roots in a revolution against assimilation and the suppression of Jewish religion and people, has become the most assimilated, secular holiday on the Jewish calendar. The holiday of Chanukkah celebrates the events which took place over 2,300 years ago in the land of Judea, which is now Israel. It begins in the reign of Alexander the Great, who conquered Syria, Egypt, and Israel, but allowed the lands under his control to continue observing their own religions and retain a certain degree of autonomy. Under this relatively benevolent rule, many Jews assimilated much of Hellenistic culture, adopting the language, the customs, and the dress of the Greeks, in much the same way that Jews in America today blend into the secular American society. More than 100 years after Alexander, Antiochus IV rose to power in the region. He began to oppress the Jews severely, placing a Hellenistic priest in the Temple, massacring Jews, prohibiting the practice of the Jewish religion, and desecrating the Temple by requiring the sacrifice of pigs (a non\-kosher animal) on the altar. One of the groups which opposed Antiochus was led by Mattathias (Matitiyahu) the Hasmonean and his son Judah Maccabee (“The Hammer”). This small band of pious Jews led guerrilla warfare against the Syrian army. Antiochus sent thousands of well\-armed troops to crush the rebellion, but the Maccabees succeeded in driving the foreigners from their land. According to historical accounts, Jewish fighters entered Jerusalem in about December 165 BC. The Holy Temple, the Jewish religious center, was in shambles, defiled and desecrated by foreign soldiers. The Maccabees cleansed the Temple and re\-dedicated it on the 25th day of the Jewish month of Kislev. When it came time to re\-light the Menorah (the multi\-branched lampstand), they searched the entire Temple, but only one small jar of oil bearing the pure seal of the High Priest could be found. Miraculously, the small jar of oil burned for eight days, until a new supply of oil could be brought. From then on, Jews everywhere have observed a holiday for eight days in honor of this historic victory and the miracle of the oil. The observance of Chanukkah features the lighting of a special Chanukkah menorah with eight branches (plus a helper candle), adding one new candle each night. In the Brit Chadasha (The New Covenant), in the Gospel of John, we learn that Jesus the Jewish Messiah was at the Holy Temple during the “feast of dedication” or Chanukkah: “At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon” (John 10:22\-23\). During this great season of remembering miracles, Jesus pointed out to His listeners that the miracles He had done authenticated His claim that He was, indeed, the long\-awaited Jewish Messiah (see John 10:37\-38\). His works and His true character clearly demonstrated who He was. Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (John 8:12\). The Lord Jesus gives all of us, Jew and Gentile, the “light of life.” And He commanded us to “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16\). Should Christians celebrate Chanukkah today? First, be mindful of the fact that we are under no obligation or “law” to celebrate any of the Jewish festivals given to Israel in the Torah (Law of Moses). But to all true Believers in Jesus Christ, especially those who have a profound appreciation for the Hebraic roots of our Christian faith, celebrating the “true light” of this world only seeks to glorify our wonderful Lord and Savior. As Christians, we can celebrate the “Festival of Lights” as we rededicate our lives to Christ and acknowledge Him as the perfect and true light of this world. As believers, when we celebrate Chanukkah it reminds us of God’s wonderful miracles on our behalf. It reminds us of God’s protection throughout our lives. It reminds us to remain true to God even when the world around us tries to force us into assimilation. Jesus told us that whoever follows Him will not have darkness, but the Light of Life. What a wonderful time of the year to remember and commemorate the great miracle that God has done for us, by giving us new light and new life.
Does the Bible teach mortal and venial sin?	Answer The Roman Catholic Church divides sin into two categories, mortal sin and venial sin. The issue of sin as the Bible teaches it is one of the most fundamental aspects of understanding life with God and what it means to know Him. As we walk through this life, we must know how to respond biblically to our own sin and the manifestations of humankind’s sinfulness that we encounter moment by moment, day by day. The consequences of not having a biblical understanding of sin and, thus, not responding to sin accordingly, are devastating beyond words. An incorrect understanding of sin can result in an eternity separated from God in hell. But praise to the glorious name of our God and Savior Christ Jesus! In His Holy Word, God has shown plainly what sin is, how it affects us personally, and what the proper response to it is. Thus, as we try to understand the concepts of mortal and venial sin, let us look for final answers in God’s all\-sufficient Word. In order to know if the Bible teaches the concepts of mortal and venial sin, some basic descriptions will be helpful. The concepts of mortal and venial sin are essentially Roman Catholic. Evangelical Christians and Protestants may or may not be familiar with these terms. Working definitions of mortal and venial sins could be these: Mortal Sin is “sin causing spiritual death,” and Venial Sin is “sin that can be forgiven.” Venial sin is invariably used in contrast with mortal sin. Mortal sins are those sins that exclude people from the kingdom; venial sins are those sins that do not exclude people from it. Venial sin differs from mortal sin in the punishment it entails. Venial sin merits temporal punishment expiated by confession or by the fires of purgatory, while mortal sin merits eternal death. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church is found this description of mortal sin: “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’” According to the Catechism, “Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments.” The Catechism further states that mortal sin “results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell.” Regarding venial sin, the Catechism states the following: “One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of virtues and practice of moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. ‘Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.’” In summary, mortal sin is an intentional violation of the Ten Commandments (in thought, word or deed), committed in full knowledge of the gravity of the matter, and it results in the loss of salvation. Salvation may be regained through repentance and God’s forgiveness. Venial sin may be a violation of the Ten Commandments or a sin of a lesser nature, but it is committed unintentionally and/or without full consent. Although damaging to one’s relationship with God, venial sin does not result in loss of eternal life. Biblically, the concepts of mortal and venial sin present several problems: first of all, these concepts present an unbiblical picture of how God views sin. The Bible states that God will be just and fair in His punishment of sin and that on the day of judgment some sin will merit greater punishment than others (Matthew 11:22, 24; Luke 10:12, 14\). But the fact is that all sin will be punished by God. The Bible teaches that all of us sin (Romans 3:23\) and that the just compensation for sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23\). Over and against the concepts of mortal and venial sin, the Bible does not state that some sins are worthy of eternal death whereas others are not. All sins are mortal sins in that even one sin makes the offender worthy of eternal separation from God. The Apostle James articulates this fact in his letter (James 2:10\): “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” Notice his use of the word “stumbles.” It means to make a mistake or fall into error. James is painting a picture of a person who is trying to do the right thing and yet, perhaps unintentionally, commits a sin. What is the consequence? God, through His servant James, states when a person commits even unintentional sin, he is guilty of breaking the entire law. A good illustration of this fact is to picture a large window and understand that window to be God’s law. It doesn’t matter if a person throws a very small pebble through the window or several large boulders. The result is the same\-\-the window is broken. In the same way, it doesn’t matter if a person commits one small sin or several huge ones. The result is the same\-\-the person is guilty of breaking God’s law. And the Lord declares that He will not leave the guilty unpunished (Nahum 1:3\). Second, these concepts present an unbiblical picture of God’s payment for sin. In both cases of mortal and venial sin, forgiveness of the given transgression is dependent upon the offender making restitution of some type. In Roman Catholicism, this restitution may take the form of going to confession, praying a certain prayer, receiving the Eucharist, or another ritual of some type. The basic thought is that in order for Christ’s forgiveness to be applied to the offender, the offender must perform some work, and then the forgiveness is granted. The payment and forgiveness of the transgression is dependent upon the offender’s actions. Is this what the Bible teaches regarding the payment for sin? The Bible clearly teaches that the payment for sin is not found in or based upon the actions of the sinner. Consider the words of 1 Peter 3:18, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Take note of the wording, “Christ also died for sins once for all.” This passage teaches that for the person who is believing in Jesus Christ, all of his or her sins have been taken care of on the cross. Christ died for all of them. This includes the sins the believer committed before salvation and the ones he has committed and will commit after salvation. Colossians 2:13 and 14 confirms this fact: “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He \[God] made you alive together with Him \[Christ], having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” God has “forgiven us all our transgressions.” Not just the sins of the past, but all of them. They have been nailed to the cross and taken out of the way. When Jesus, on the cross, stated, “It is finished” (John 19:30\), He was stating that He had fulfilled all that was necessary to grant forgiveness and eternal life to those who would believe in Him. This is why Jesus says in John 3:18 that “he who believes in Him \[Jesus] is not judged.” Paul states this fact in Romans 8:1: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Why are believers not judged? Why is there no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus? It is because the death of Christ satisfied God’s righteous wrath against sin (1 John 4\), and now those who trust in Christ will not bear the penalty of that sin. Whereas the concepts of mortal and venial sin place responsibility to gain God’s forgiveness for a given transgression in the hands of the offender, the Bible teaches that all sins of the believer are forgiven at the cross of Christ. The Bible does teach by word (Galatians 6:7 and 8\) and example (2 Samuel 11\-20\) that when a Christian gets involved in sin, he or she may reap temporal, physical, emotional, mental and/or spiritual consequences. But the believer never has to reacquire God’s forgiveness due to personal sin because God’s Word declares that God’s wrath toward the believer’s sin was satisfied completely at the cross. Third, these concepts present an unbiblical picture of God’s dealings with His children. Clearly, according to Roman Catholicism, one of the consequences of committing a mortal sin is that it removes eternal life from the offender. Also, according to this concept, God will grant again eternal life through repentance and good works. Does the Bible teach that a person who is truly saved by God through Christ can lose his salvation and regain it? It clearly does not teach this. Once a person has placed his faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life, the Bible teaches that that person is eternally secure\-\-he cannot be lost. Consider the words of Jesus in John 10:27\-28: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” Consider also the words of Paul in Romans 8:38\-39: “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Reflecting back upon the fact of the total satisfaction of God’s wrath toward our sin in the death of Christ, our sins cannot separate us from God’s love. In love, God chooses to take Christ’s death as payment for believers’ sins and doesn’t hold them against the believer. Thus, when the believer commits sin, the forgiveness of God in Christ is already present, and, although the believer may experience self\-inflicted consequences of sin, God’s love and forgiveness are never in jeopardy. In Romans 7:14\-25, Paul clearly states that the believer will struggle with sin throughout his earthly existence, but that Christ will save us from this body of death. And “therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1\). Whereas the concept of mortal sin teaches that a person can lose his salvation through personal sin, the Bible teaches that God’s love and favor will never be removed from His children. Some point to 1 John 5:16–17 as a proof text for the concept of mortal and venial sin. In that passage John says, “If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.” We take the “death” mentioned here to be physical death, not eternal death in hell. When a believer continues in unrepentant sin, he will eventually reach the point when God may decide to remove him from this world. God at times purifies His church by removing those who stubbornly disobey Him. The “[sin that leads to death](sin-unto-death.html)” does not result in loss of salvation but in loss of earthly life (see 1 Corinthians 11:30\). God’s grace not only redeems the believer from every lawless deed, but it also guides the believer into holy living and makes the believer zealous for good deeds. This doesn’t mean that the believer never sins, but that his passion will be to honor God because of God’s grace working in the believer’s life. Forgiveness and holiness are two sides of the same coin of God’s grace\-\-they go together. Although a believer may stumble and fall into sin at times\-\-maybe even in a big way\-\-the general path and direction of his life will be one of holiness and passion for God and His glory. If one follows the concepts of mortal and venial sin, he or she may be deceived into viewing sin with a flippant attitude, thinking that he or she can sin at will and simply seek God’s forgiveness at a point of personal desire. The Bible instructs us that the true believer will never view sin flippantly and will strive, in the strength of God’s grace, to live a holy life. Based on the above biblical truth, the concepts of mortal and venial sin are not biblical and should be rejected. In Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, the problem of our sin is completely taken care of, and we need look no further than that amazing demonstration of God’s love for us. Our forgiveness and right standing with God is not dependent upon us, our failings, or our faithfulness. The true believer is to fix his eyes on Jesus and live in light of all that He accomplished on our behalf. God’s love and grace are truly amazing! May we live in light of the life we have in Christ! Through the power of the Holy Spirit, may we be victorious over all sin, whether “mortal,” “venial,” intentional, or unintentional.
Did Jesus really exist?	Answer Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question by asking for evidence “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus’ death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non\-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus’ death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D. It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus’ existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Considering that Jesus’ ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following: The first\-century Roman [Tacitus](Tacitus.html), who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15\.44\). Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3\) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was \[the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and \[he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness that followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18\). [Pliny the Younger](Pliny-the-Younger.html), in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus’ crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy. Lucian of Samosata was a second\-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus’ teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, and renunciation of material goods. Mara Bar\-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers. Then we have all the Gnostic writings ([The Gospel of Truth](Gospel-of-Truth.html), The [Apocryphon of John](Apocryphon-of-John.html), The [Gospel of Thomas](gospel-of-Thomas.html), The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus. In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non\-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshiping Him as God (Pliny the Younger). There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century AD, including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
What is Epiphany / Three Kings’ Day?	Answer Epiphany is an ancient church festival celebrating the magi’s visit to the Christ Child (Matthew 2:1\-12\). It is kept on January 6\. Epiphany is also called “Three Kings’ Day” and “Twelfth Day”—the latter name because January 6 is twelve days after Christmas; the eve of Epiphany is called “Twelfth Night.” It is celebrated mainly in Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and other liturgical churches. The word epiphany means “manifestation” or “revelation.” Thus, the holiday celebrates the manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles, represented by the magi (see Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:32\). For some, Epiphany also commemorates the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:21\-22\) and His turning water into wine (John 2:1\-11\)—manifestations of Christ’s divinity to the world. Many traditions surround Epiphany celebrations, which vary from culture to culture. Customs include the Star Singers (children dressed as kings and holding up a large star, singing carols from house to house); collecting money for charity; and the “plundering” and burning of Christmas trees. In the French Catholic culture, Epiphany marks the beginning of Mardi Gras, as “king cakes” are baked and served. Other traditions include prayers (some offered to “Caspar,” “Melchoir,” and “Balthasar,” the traditional names of the magi); the blessing of holy water; the burning of “blessed” herbs; and the offering of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Should a Christian celebrate Epiphany? There is certainly nothing wrong with celebrating the different events of Christ’s life, and a Christian is free to observe whatever day he wants, as long as he “does so to the Lord” (see Romans 14:4\-6\). Having said that, we should be careful to avoid the superstitions and empty rituals (Isaiah 1:13\-14\) which have sprung up around many holidays, including Epiphany. Sprinkling “holy” water, for example, and burning “blessed” herbs are nothing but superstitious practices. And some customs directly conflict with scripture. For instance, asking the magi to bless one’s house conflicts with the Bible’s clear teaching that we pray only to God Himself (Psalm 91:15; Matthew 6:6, 9; 1 Timothy 2:5\). Whatever holidays we choose to observe, the Lord should always be glorified in them; however our calendars are marked, the Bible must remain our only rule for faith and practice.
What is religious syncretism?	Answer Syncretism, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is “the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief.” This is most evident in the areas of philosophy and religion, and usually results in a new teaching or belief system. Obviously, this cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity. Religious syncretism often takes place when foreign beliefs are introduced to an indigenous belief system and the teachings are blended. The new, heterogeneous religion then takes a shape of its own. This has been seen most clearly in Roman Catholic missionary history. Take, for example, the Roman Catholic Church’s proselytizing of animistic South America. Threatened with the fear of death, natives were baptized into the church by the tens of thousands without any preaching of the Gospel whatsoever. Former temples were razed, with Catholic shrines and chapels built on the same spot. Natives were allowed to substitute praying to saints instead of gods of water, earth and air, and replaced their former idols with new images of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet, the animistic religion the natives had formerly practiced was never fully replaced—it was adapted into Catholic teachings, and this new belief system was allowed to flourish. More recently, religious syncretism can be seen in such religious systems as the [New Age](new-age-movement.html), [Hinduism](hinduism.html), [Unitarianism](unitarian-universalism.html), and [Christian Science](Christian-science.html). These religions are a blending of multiple different belief systems, and are continually evolving as the philosophies of mankind rise and fall in popularity. Therein lies the problem, for syncretism relies on the whim of man, not the standard of Scripture. The Bible makes it very clear what true religion is. Think on just a few things stated in Scripture: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37\); "Jesus replied, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6\); "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31\); and “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12\). Religious syncretism is simply not compatible with true Christianity. In fact, any modification to biblical law and principle for the sake of a “better” religion is heresy (Revelation 22:18\-19\).
What does it mean that the Holy Spirit is our Paraclete?	Answer After Jesus announced to His disciples that He would be leaving them soon, He gave them a statement of great encouragement: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:16–17\). The Greek word translated “Comforter” or “Counselor” (as found in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; and 16:7\) is parakletos. This form of the word is unquestionably passive and properly means “one called to the side of another”; the word carries a secondary notion concerning the purpose of the calling alongside: to counsel or support the one who needs it. This Counselor, or Paraclete, is God the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity who has been “called to our side.” He is a personal being, and He indwells every believer. During His earthly ministry, Jesus had guided, guarded, and taught His disciples; but now, in John 14—16, He is preparing to leave them. He promises that the Spirit of God would come to the disciples and dwell in them, taking the place of their Master’s physical presence. Jesus called the Spirit “another Comforter”—another of the same kind. The Spirit of God is not different from the Son of God in essence, for both are God. During the Old Testament age, the Spirit of God would come on people and then leave them. God’s Spirit departed from King Saul (1 Samuel 16:14; 18:12\). David, when confessing his sin, asked that the Spirit not be taken from him (Psalm 51:11\). But when the Spirit was given at Pentecost, He came to God’s people to remain with them forever. We may grieve the Holy Spirit, but He will not leave us. As Jesus said in Matthew 28:20, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” How is He with us when He is in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father? He is with us by His Spirit (the Helper—the Parakletos). To have the Holy Spirit as our Paraclete is to have God Himself indwelling us as believers. The Spirit teaches us the Word and guides us into truth. He reminds us of what Jesus has taught so that we can depend on His Word in the difficult times of life. The Spirit works in us to give us His peace (John 14:27\), His love (John 15:9–10\), and His joy (John 15:11\). He comforts our hearts and minds in a troubled world. The power of the indwelling Paraclete gives us the ability to live by the Spirit and “not gratify the desires of the sinful flesh” (Galatians 5:16\). The Spirit can then produce His fruit in our lives (Galatians 5:22–23\) to the glory of God the Father. What a blessing to have the Holy Spirit in our lives as our Paraclete—our Comforter, our Encourager, our Counselor, and our Advocate!
What are archangels?	Answer The word archangel occurs in only two verses of the Bible. First Thessalonians 4:16 says, “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” The other passage is Jude 1:9: “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” Michael is the only named archangel in Scripture. The word archangel comes from a Greek word, archangelos, meaning “chief angel.” It’s a compound word formed from archon (“chief” or “ruler”) and aggelos (“angel” or “messenger”). The Bible suggests in several places that angels have a hierarchy of leadership, and an archangel seems to be the leader of other angels. Like all [angels](types-of-angels.html), archangels are personal beings created by God. They possess intelligence, power, and glory. They are spiritual in nature, rather than corporeal. Archangels serve God and carry out His purposes. Jude 1:9 uses the definite article the when referring to the archangel Michael, which could indicate that Michael is the only archangel. However, Daniel 10:13 describes Michael as “one of the chief princes.” This possibly indicates that there are more than one archangel, because it places Michael on the same level as the other “chief princes.” So, while it is possible that there are multiple archangels, it is best not to presume upon the Word of God by declaring other angels as archangels. Even if there are multiple archangels, it seems that Michael is the chief among them. In Daniel 10:21 an angel describes Michael the archangel as “your prince.” Since the angel is speaking to Daniel, and since Daniel is a Jew, we take the angel’s statement to mean that Michael is charged with overseeing the Jewish people. Daniel 12:1 confirms this interpretation, calling Michael “the great prince who protects your \[Daniel’s] people.” Perhaps other archangels are given the task of protecting other nations, but Scripture does not identify them. Fallen angels seem to have “territories” as well, as Daniel mentions a spiritual “prince of Greece” and a spiritual “prince of Persia” who oppose the holy angel who brought the message to Daniel (Daniel 10:20\). One of the duties of an archangel, as seen in Daniel 10, is to engage in [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html). In 1 Thessalonians 4, the archangel is involved in the return of Christ for His church. We also see Michael the archangel contending with Satan in Jude 1:9\. Even possessing the power and glory of an archangel, Michael called on the Lord to rebuke Satan. This shows how powerful Satan is, as well as how dependent Michael is on God’s power. If the archangel looks to the Lord for his help, should we do any less?
What is Fideism?	Answer Fideism is the idea that religious faith and reason are incompatible with each other. It is the view that religious faith is separate from reason and cannot be reconciled with it. According to fideism, faith involves a degree of absolute certainty and personal commitment that goes beyond what can be rationally justified. Therefore, one cannot and should not seek evidence for religious belief. A Christian who embraces the philosophy of fideism would say that the rational and scientific arguments for God are irrelevant because the essence of true Christianity is that people are saved by faith alone. Man’s rational abilities have been corrupted by sin and are untrustworthy, and the truths taught in Scripture must be believed even if they cannot be supported through logic or reason. In the simplest terms, it is the belief that if one could prove the existence of God, then faith would not be necessary or relevant. Many of the earlier writings on fideism came about as a response to the increasing reliance on human reasoning that was made popular by rationalism. One of the early advocates of fideism was the Danish philosopher [Søren Kierkegaard](Soren-Kierkegaard.html) (1813\-1855\). He believed that because faith is characterized by absolute certainty and passionate personal commitment, it can never be supported by reason. To substantiate his view of the relationship of faith and reason, Kierkegaard put forth three arguments, the first of which is the Approximation Argument. According to Kierkegaard, arguments can never prove things with absolute certainty because it is always possible that the evidence to support the argument has been misinterpreted, or that an error in reasoning has occurred. He believed that since faith requires absolute certainty, which cannot be attained through rational argument, then faith must always go beyond the evidence, and, therefore, it cannot be supported by reason. His second argument was the Postponement Argument. This argument is based on his belief that there is always the possibility of new data or evidence that will invalidate previous conclusions. Therefore if we were to base our faith on rational scientific investigation, we would have to wait forever until all the data is in. In order to have the certainty that faith demands, one must choose to believe what cannot be acquired from scientific investigation. His third argument was the Passion Argument. This argument emphasizes the personal commitment that is inherent in faith. He felt that since our evidence is imperfect at best, there is risk involved in believing any conclusion. He thought that the faith that goes against all known evidence is the most valuable because it is the riskiest faith of all. His view was that if we had conclusive evidence for God’s existence then belief in God would be unremarkable and uninteresting. In other words, if we could prove God’s existence through evidence or reason, then faith would be unnecessary. Another well\-known advocate of fideism was [Blaise Pascal](Blaise-Pascal.html) (1623\-1662\) a French mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher. He considered the various proposed proofs for the existence of God as being irrelevant, and instead of focusing on them he invited skeptics to view faith in God as a cost\-free choice that had the potential for reward. Instead of trying to argue for the existence of God, he instead emphasized that it might be of value to assume that God truly exists. His argument was basically presented as a win/win situation. If you believe in God and He does exist, you win, while, on the other hand, if you believe in God and He does not exist, you have lost nothing. This is best seen in what is known as Pascal’s Wager: “Either God is or he is not. If you wager he does exist and he doesn’t you haven’t lost anything. If he does exist you win everything. Therefore wager on God. From a standpoint of reason, faith in God is an even bet, but the existential dice are highly loaded in favor of having faith.” Christian fideism has both strengths and weaknesses. One of its strengths is that it correctly acknowledges that rational and logical arguments cannot ultimately prove the existence of a transcendent God as revealed in Scripture. It also correctly acknowledges neither evidence nor reason is an adequate basis for faith in God. That is because faith is based on who God is and the surety of His promises and not in the evidence of His existence. On the other hand, one of the shortcomings of Christian fideism is that a faith which is not both reasonable and logical will only be as strong as we feel at that given moment in time. The strength of our faith then rests upon our own strength and will likely wax and wane depending on our circumstances. However, faith that is founded on fact is both reasonable and logical and as such has many outside evidences to support it and strengthen it. Understanding the rational and logical foundations of our faith in Christ helps to lay a very solid foundation that will help us withstand life’s storms. While we cannot prove God’s existence scientifically, we certainly have ample evidence of His existence in creation alone (Psalm 19:1\-3; Romans 1:18\-32\).
Should Christians care about physical appearance?	Answer Physical appearance is important to God in that it reveals the glory of His creative abilities. So we should appreciate the beauty God has given us as His most complex and amazing creation. In ways we cannot understand, we reflect His own beauty. God places some value on appearances; if He did not, we would all look the same. It is not a wrong thing for us to notice and appreciate physical appearance as well. But it should be remembered that God judges our hearts, not our physical appearance (1 Samuel 16:7\). It is the inner man that is an even greater creation. We have souls that will never be destroyed, that live on forever in heaven or hell. Our hearts, too, are capable of so many thoughts and feelings, reflections of the complexities of God. We should not fall into the trap of believing that our looks are to be a source of pride or envy. Our true beauty should come from inside, not from the fleshly beauty that the world judges us on. In 1 Peter 3:3\-5, Peter tells wives that their “beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful.” Our outward appearance should not be our focus. If the reason we try to be the perfect weight, wear the best clothes, have facial treatments, etc., is to impress other people, then our physical appearance has become a matter of pride. We should be humbly aware of our appearance rather than acting to conform to the world’s standards. Matthew 23:12 says, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." And James 4:6 says, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." We must watch out for anything that draws us away from God, including the too\-often extreme emphasis the world places on appearances. God does not want us to love the world or anything in it (1 John 2:15\), and we are not to think as the world does (Romans 12:2\). God has shown us His own amazing power and beauty and love in an incredibly diverse creation. We should be humble, not committing idolatry in worshiping the creation rather than the Creator (Colossians 3:5\).
What does the Bible say about self-love, loving self?	Answer Love as described in the Bible is quite different from the love as espoused by the world. Biblical love is selfless and unconditional, whereas the world’s love is characterized by selfishness. In the following passages, we see that love does not exist apart from God and that true love can only be experienced by one who has experienced God’s own love firsthand: Romans 13:9–10, “The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” John 13:34–35, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” 1 John 4:16–19, “And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us.” The statement “love your neighbor as yourself” is not a command to love yourself. It is natural and normal to love yourself—it is our default position. There is no lack of self\-love in our world. The command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is essentially telling us to treat other people as well as we treat ourselves. Scripture never commands us to love ourselves; it assumes we already do. In fact, people in their unregenerate condition love themselves too much—that is our problem. In Jesus’ [parable of the Good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html), there was only one who showed himself to be a true neighbor to the man in need: the Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37\). There were two others, a priest and a Levite, who refused to help the man in need. Their failure to show love to the injured man was not the result of loving themselves too little; it was the result of loving themselves too much and therefore putting their interests first. The Samaritan showed true love—he gave of his time, resources, and money with no regard for himself. His focus was outward, not inward. Jesus presented this story as an illustration of what it means to love one’s neighbor as one’s self (verse 27\). We are to take our eyes off ourselves and care for others. Christian maturity demands it. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3–4\). According to this passage, loving others requires humility, a valuing of others, and a conscious effort to put others’ interests first. Anything less than this is selfish and vain—and falls short of the standard of Christ. None of this should be taken to mean that we should see ourselves as “worthless.” The Bible teaches that we are created in the image of God, and that fact alone gives us great worth (see Luke 12:7\). The balanced, biblical view is that we are God’s unique creation, loved by God in spite of our sin, and redeemed by Christ. In His love, we can love others. We love others based on God’s abiding love for us in Christ. In response to this love, we share it with all whom we come in contact with—our “neighbors.” Someone who is worried that he doesn’t love himself enough has the wrong focus. His concern, biblically, should be his love for God and his love for his neighbor. “Self” is something we want out of the way so that we can love outwardly as we ought.
Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22?	Answer Genesis 1:26 says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’” Genesis 3:22 states, “And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us.’” There are other passages in the Old Testament in which God refers to Himself using plural constructions. It is also interesting to note that [Elohim](meaning-of-Elohim.html), one of the primary titles of God in the Old Testament (occurring over 2,500 times), is in the plural form. Some people have used these verses to hypothesize that there are more than one God. However, we can rule out polytheism (belief in multiple gods), because that would contradict countless other Scriptures that tell us that God is one and that there is only one God. Three times in Isaiah 45 alone, God states, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me” (vv. 5, 6, 18\). A second possible explanation for God’s referring to Himself in the plural is that God was including the angels in His statement. In saying “us” and “our,” God was speaking of all the heavenly host, Himself included. However, the Bible nowhere states that angels have the same “image” or “likeness” as God (see Genesis 1:26\). That description is given to humanity alone. Since the Bible, and the New Testament especially, presents God as a [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html) (three Persons but only one God), Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 can only represent a conversation within the Trinity. God the Father is having a “conversation” with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament hints at the plurality of God, and the New Testament clarifies this plurality with the doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously, there is no way we can fully understand how this works, but God has given us enough information to know that He does exist in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
What is the Christian’s hope?	Answer Most people understand hope as wishful thinking, as in "I hope something will happen." This is not what the Bible means by hope. The biblical definition of hope is "confident expectation." Hope is a firm assurance regarding things that are unclear and unknown (Romans 8:24\-25; Hebrews 11:1, 7\). Hope is a fundamental component of the life of the righteous (Proverbs 23:18\). Without hope, life loses its meaning (Lamentations 3:18; Job 7:6\) and in death there is no hope (Isaiah 38:18; Job 17:15\). The righteous who trust or put their hope in God will be helped (Psalm 28:7\), and they will not be confounded, put to shame, or disappointed (Isaiah 49:23\). The righteous, who have this trustful hope in God, have a general confidence in God’s protection and help (Jeremiah 29:11\) and are free from fear and anxiety (Psalm 46:2\-3\). The New Testament idea of hope is the recognition that in Christ is found the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises (Matthew 12:21, 1 Peter 1:3\). Christian hope is rooted in faith in the divine salvation in Christ (Galatians 5:5\). Hope of Christians is brought into being through the presence of the promised Holy Spirit (Romans 8:24\-25\). It is the future hope of the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6\), the promises given to Israel (Acts 26:6\-7\), the redemption of the body and of the whole creation (Romans 8:23\-25\), eternal glory (Colossians 1:27\), eternal life and the inheritance of the saints (Titus 3:5\-7\), the return of Christ (Titus 2:11\-14\), transformation into the likeness of Christ (1 John 3:2\-3\), the salvation of God (1 Timothy 4:10\) or simply Christ Himself (1 Timothy 1:1\). The certainty of this blessed future is guaranteed through the indwelling of the Spirit (Romans 8:23\-25\), Christ in us (Colossians 1:27\), and the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:26\). Hope is produced by endurance through suffering (Romans 5:2\-5\) and is the inspiration behind endurance (1 Thessalonians 1:3; Hebrews 6:11\). Those who hope in Christ will see Christ exalted in life and in death (Philippians 1:20\). Trustworthy promises from God give us hope (Hebrews 6:18\-19\), and we may boast in this hope (Hebrews 3:6\) and exhibit great boldness in our faith (2 Corinthians 3:12\). By contrast, those who do not place their trust in God are said to be without hope (Ephesians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 4:13\). Along with faith and love, hope is an enduring virtue of the Christian life (1 Corinthians 13:13\), and love springs from hope (Colossians 1:4\-5\). Hope produces joy and peace in believers through the power of the Spirit (Romans 12:12; 15:13\). Paul attributes his apostolic calling to the hope of eternal glory (Titus 1:1\-2\). Hope in the return of Christ is the basis for believers to purify themselves in this life (Titus 2:11\-14, 1 John 3:3\).
Why does God require faith?	Answer Our relationship with God is similar to our relationship with others in that all relationships require faith. We can never fully know any other person. We cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions are. Proverbs 14:10 says, "The heart knows its own bitterness, and a stranger does not share its joy." We are incapable of even knowing our own hearts fully. Jeremiah 17:9 says that the human heart is wicked and deceptive, "Who can know it?" In other words, the human heart is such that it seeks to hide the depth of its wickedness, deceiving even its owner. We do this through shifting blame, justifying wrong behavior, minimizing our sins, etc. Because we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships. For example, a wife gets into a car with her husband driving, trusting him to drive safely, even though he often drives faster than she would on winter roads. She trusts him to act in their best interest at all times. We all share information about ourselves with others, trusting they will not betray us with that knowledge. We drive down the road, trusting those driving around us to follow the rules of the road. So, whether with strangers or with intimate friends and companions, because we cannot fully know others, trust is always a necessary component of our relationships. If we cannot know our fellow finite human beings fully, how can we expect to fully know an infinite God? Even if He should desire to fully reveal Himself, it is impossible for us to fully know Him. It is like trying to pour the ocean (seemingly infinite in quantity) into a quart\-measuring jar (finite)... impossible! Nonetheless, even as we can have meaningful relationships with others that we have grown to trust because of our knowledge of them and of their character, so God has revealed enough about Himself through His creation (Romans 1:18\-21\), through His written Word, the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16\-17; 2 Peter 1:16\-21\), and through His Son (John 14:9\), that we can enter into a meaningful relationship with Him. But this is only possible when the barrier of one’s sin has been removed by trusting in Christ’s person and work on the cross as payment for one’s sin. This is necessary because, as it is impossible for both light and darkness to dwell together, so it is impossible for a holy God to have fellowship with sinful man unless his sin has been paid for and removed. Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, died on the cross to take our punishment and change us so that the one who believes on Him can become a child of God and live eternally in His presence (John 1:12; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 2 Peter 3:18; Romans 3:10\-26\). There have been times in the past that God has revealed Himself more "visibly" to people. One example of this is at the time of the exodus from Egypt, when God revealed His care for the Israelites by sending the miraculous plagues upon the Egyptians until they were willing to release the Israelites from slavery. God then opened the Red Sea, enabling the approximately two million Israelites to cross over on dry ground. Then, as the Egyptian army sought to pursue them through the same opening, He crashed the waters upon them (Exodus 14:22\-29\). Later, in the wilderness, God fed them miraculously with manna, and He guided them in the day by a pillar of cloud and in the night by a pillar of fire, visible representations of His presence with them (Exodus 15:14\-15\). Yet, in spite of these repeated demonstrations of His love, guidance, and power, the Israelites still refused to trust Him when He wanted them to enter into the Promised Land. They chose instead to trust the word of ten men who frightened them with their stories of the walled cities and the giant stature of some of the people of the land (Numbers 13:26\-33\). These events show that God’s further revelation of Himself to us would have no greater effect on our ability to trust Him. Were God to interact in a similar fashion with people living today, we would respond no differently than the Israelites because our sinful hearts are the same as theirs. The Bible also speaks of a future time when the glorified Christ will return to rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1\-10\). More people will be born on the earth during that reign of Christ. He will rule with complete justice and righteousness, yet, in spite of His perfect rule, the Bible states that at the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will have no trouble raising an army to rebel against Christ’s rule. The future event of the millennium and the past event of the exodus reveal that the problem is not with God insufficiently revealing Himself to man; rather, the problem is with man’s sinful heart rebelling against God’s loving reign. We sinfully crave self\-rule. God has revealed enough of His nature for us to be able to trust Him. He has shown through the events of history, in the workings of nature, and through the life of Jesus Christ that He is all\-powerful, all\-knowing, all\-wise, all\-loving, all\-holy, unchanging, and eternal. And in that revelation, He has shown that He is worthy to be trusted. But, as with the Israelites in the wilderness, the choice is ours whether or not we will trust Him. Often, we are inclined to make this choice based on what we think we know about God rather than what He has revealed about Himself and can be understood about Him through a careful study of His inerrant Word, the Bible. If you have not already done so, begin a careful study of the Bible, that you may come to know God through a reliance upon His Son, Jesus Christ, who came to earth to save us from our sins, so that we might have sweet companionship with God both now and in a fuller way in heaven one day.
When were the Gospels written?	Answer It is important to understand that the dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books is at best an educated guess and at worst foolish speculation. For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 to as late as A.D. 140\. This wide range of dates from scholars indicates the subjective nature of the dating process. Generally, one will find that the presuppositions of the scholars greatly influence their dating of the Gospels. For example, in the past many liberal theologians have argued for a later dating of many of the New Testament books than is probably warranted or valid, in an attempt to discredit or cast doubts upon the content and authenticity of the Gospel accounts. On the other hand, there are many scholars who look to a much earlier dating of the New Testament books. There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating. There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html), [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html), and [Eusebius](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html) recorded that Matthew first wrote his Gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Israel. In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Israel to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40\-45 and as late as A.D. 55\. Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70\. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day. The bottom line for Christians is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after His death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are: the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16\). We should also remember that one of the promises Jesus gave His disciples was that He would send them “another helper,” the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things and “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26\). So, whether it was few years or many after Jesus’ death that the Gospels were written, we can have total confidence and faith in their completeness and accuracy, knowing that they were written by “men moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21\), who accurately recorded the very words of God.
Should a Christian consider having weight loss / gastric bypass surgery?	Answer When seeking the answer to issues that are not expressly mentioned in the Bible, we can and must "reason" from Scripture. This means we can find principles we can apply to every situation in our lives by comparing Scripture with Scripture in context. Obviously, gastric bypass surgery was not an issue when the Bible was written. Therefore, this is an area that we would call "doubtful," because there is no clear "you shall or you shall not" for us to turn to. It is not expressly a "sin" to have elective surgery. The question is, what is the purpose and will the end result have the effect of bringing us closer to God and glorifying Him in our lives? In other words, how will this surgery affect our personal relationship with God? There are several principles that we could cite that might help us to come to a decision. However, one thing is very important. None of us can tell another born\-again believer what he should or should not do with his own body where Scripture does not specifically address the issue. This is between the believer and the Lord. We can study, search for principles and present them, but it is up to the individual believer how he applies those principles to his own life. Believers stand before the Lord alone. Born\-again believers are commanded and may indeed choose to come alongside to comfort, counsel, and encourage one another, but we cannot make others’ choices for them. One important issue here is walking by faith. If one is not fully convinced in one’s own mind that an avenue of action is right and is not sinful, then as believers we must err on the side of righteousness. Romans 14:23 tells us that "whatever is not of faith is sin." In other words, if we have the conviction in our own minds that what we are doing is sin, then to us it is sin. Therefore, when it comes to those things that we do not have clear commandments on, we must make the choice to obey by faith first. However, let us be clear, we are not referring to inordinate guilt for a course of action. Rather, it is the "still small voice" of wisdom—the gift of the Spirit—that is important and not the accusations of our enemy who seeks to place us in bondage. If we are walking by faith and we are in fellowship with the Lord, then we do not have to worry about being in God’s will—God’s will always finds us. And the answer will be clear and not muddied with guilt. The Holy Spirit never accuses us; rather, He convinces and convicts us with the result that we choose to walk in obedience (John 16:12\-14\). The strident voice of accusation is always from our enemy (Revelation 12:10\). As born\-again believers, we are free to do whatever we want within the boundaries of Scripture. The Apostle Paul makes that very clear in two passages in 1 Corinthians. "’Everything is permissible for me’—but not everything is beneficial. ’Everything is permissible for me’—but I will not be mastered by anything" (1 Corinthians 6:12\). What the apostle is teaching in this passage is that grace makes us free in Christ. However, we must make the choice to discern what is "expedient" or convenient, what "edifies" or builds us up spiritually, and not to allow what we are doing to control our lives. The only thing that should control the lives of the born\-again believer is the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 4:22\-23\). In other words, just because we can do something does not mean that we should. Again, the important criterion must be what is beneficial to our own personal relationship with the Lord. As born\-again believers, we are to be faithful stewards of every aspect of our lives (1 Corinthians 4:2\). That includes our bodies. We are to be temperate in all things and we are to do "all things" to bring glory to God (1 Corinthians 10:31\). Excessive weight is a health issue, to be sure. However, the heart attitude that fuels the desire to lose weight must be examined. Being a faithful steward includes telling ourselves the truth. We can try to deceive ourselves but when we get down to the bottom of our issues with weight, the reality is that, unless we have a genuine medical problem that causes excess weight, we gain or lose weight by our own choices. Every choice we make has a consequence. Being a faithful steward means doing all things temperately and allowing the Holy Spirit, not food, to control our lives. Given these principles, we can come to some pertinent truths. First, we are not to walk by feelings but by faith. Second, we are to be temperate in all things and strive to do those things that will bring glory to God in our lives. Third, we are to be faithful stewards of all that God has given us. The choice to undergo stomach surgery is a serious matter. It is elective surgery, and any surgery comes with its own set of risks. When one makes the choice of whether or not to go ahead with this course of action, he must search his own heart using biblical principles, do some investigation, talk truthfully with doctors, and trust God to reveal the right choice. "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will" (Romans 12:1\-2\).
How can I find comfort when an unsaved loved one has died?	Answer For the believer, the death of an unsaved loved one is very difficult. Sometimes it seems we will never find comfort or peace of mind when we know the destiny awaiting the unsaved. When a saved loved one dies, we miss him, but we do not grieve “as others who have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13\), because we know we will be reunited in heaven one day. But for those who die without Christ, we know we will not see them again, and finding comfort in that situation is very difficult. Especially for those who have taken great pains to communicate Gospel truths to their loved ones, there is associated with this situation a pain that asks "why?" As Christians, we wonder how anyone could refuse such a precious gift. Our joy in the Lord moves us to want that same joy for others. However, the truth is that even though the invitation is open to all, some will not receive the gift. But we can take comfort, encouragement, and assurance in the truth that even though we may never see our loved one again, God is always faithful and just. It is amazing to understand that God is so patient and leaves the door open for so long. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right" (Genesis 18:25\)? This is a great comfort to those of us with loved ones who have passed into eternity and we are not sure of the destination of their souls. God is a sovereign Judge of righteousness, full of grace and mercy to all who call upon Him. It is His very justice that offers a "way" for all to escape the judgment of His righteousness, and it is in that justice that we must rest. It is grace that saves us, and it is grace in which we must stand when we go through the double grief of the death of an unsaved loved one. We must remember that we cannot make this choice for anyone else, and if they went into eternity without Christ, that was their choice in spite of the offer of grace. Although we may have pain in the remembrance of that loved one while we are in this life and go through the grief process, there will come a time when each born\-again believer will be with the Lord. In that day “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Revelation 21:4\). We cannot comprehend how that will be because we live in time and are constrained by our finite minds. However, just the thought of that is enough to bring comfort and encouragement. When we see the Lord, all of the sorrow we have now will disappear. "You now have sorrow; but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you" (John 16:22\). In the meantime, we can lean on the everlasting arms of God, who feels our pain and comforts us with His great love and mercy.
Why do so many people have to experience terrible suffering before death?	Answer Suffering is a universal part of our humanity that exists in a fallen world. The question of why there is suffering in death for some and not as much for others is really not answerable. For we reckon things from our human experience and do not understand the infinite mind and purpose of God. In the great faith chapter, we often read of the heroes of the faith but neglect the litany of those unnamed who suffered for their faith (Hebrews 11:33\-40\). These all died suffering deaths yet are heroes of the faith. They are unnamed and unsung among men, but God values their suffering and includes them in this great chapter of faith as a lesson to us. Suffering and death are part of the curse of sin on the world (Genesis 3:16\-19\). Adam and Eve fell, and when they did, they brought to themselves and to all of their descendants the suffering of death. "But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17\). We know that Adam and Eve did not die physically on the day that they ate of the tree. Adam lived to the age of 930 (Genesis 5:5\). But when Adam sinned, he was spiritually separated from God, and this is the first death. The question of why some suffer at death and others do not could be summed up in one statement: "God is sovereign." That is not just a trite and easy statement. When Jesus healed a man born blind, the disciples questioned Him. "‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life’" (John 9:1\-3\). In this passage is a principle that can be applied to our question. God allows some to suffer so that "the work of God might be displayed." In other words, God allows some to suffer to bring glory to His name and others not to suffer for the same reason. It is His sovereign will that determines each circumstance. Therefore, we can safely say that no suffering is without a purpose in the plan of God, even though we as finite humans may not see that purpose clearly. The Apostle Paul suffered much in his life and ministry. A litany of that suffering can be found in 2 Corinthians 11:23\-27\. Paul was killed for his testimony and according to universal tradition was decapitated after a long imprisonment. However, during this time, he wrote this testimony to Timothy: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing" (2 Timothy 4:7\-8\). Another purpose for suffering is to be a witness to those watching that God’s grace and strength is sufficient to enable a believer to stand in that suffering (2 Corinthians 12:9\). Paul also gives us an example as to how we should view suffering as a child of God. "But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Corinthians 12:9\-10\). And Paul also said, "For me to live is Christ, to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21\). Therefore, however a believer dies, in suffering or in relative peace, it is but a transition to "face to face" with the LORD. Once that transition has been made, all of the sorrow and pain of the suffering will end. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4\).
How should a Christian view environmentalism?	Answer There is a difference between the biblical view of the environment and the political movement known as "environmentalism." Understanding this difference will shape a Christian’s view of environmentalism. The Bible is clear that the earth and everything in it was given by God to man to rule over and subdue. "And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth'" (Genesis 1:28\). Because mankind was created in His image, God gave men and women a privileged place among all creatures and commanded them to exercise stewardship over the earth (Genesis 1:26\-28; Psalm 8:6\-8\). Stewardship implies caretaking, not abusing. We are to intelligently manage the resources God has given us, using all diligent care to preserve and protect them. This is seen in the Old Testament where God commanded that the fields and vineyards would be sown and harvested for six years, then left fallow for the seventh year in order to replenish the soil’s nutrients, both to rest the land and to ensure continued provision for His people in the future (Exodus 23:10\-11; Leviticus 25:1\-7\). In addition to our role of caretakers, we are to appreciate the functionality and beauty of the environment. In His incredible grace and power, God has placed on this planet everything needed to feed, clothe, and house the billions of people who have lived on it since the Garden of Eden. All the resources He has provided for our needs are renewable, and He continues to provide the sun and rain necessary to sustain and replenish those resources. And, as if this were not enough, He has also decorated the planet in glorious color and scenic beauty to appeal to our aesthetic sense and thrill our souls with wonder. There are countless varieties of flowers, exotic birds, and other lovely manifestations of His grace to us. At the same time, the earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet, nor was it ever intended to be. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever, and we know this is not God’s plan. He tells us in 2 Peter 3:10 that at the end of the age, the earth and all He has created will be destroyed: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up" (NKJV). The physical, natural earth in its present form, with its entire universe will be consumed, and God will create a "new heaven and a new earth" (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1\). So we see that, rather than trying to preserve the earth for thousands or even millions of years to come, we are to be good stewards of it for as long as it lasts, which will be as long as it serves God’s sovereign plan and purpose.
What is Confucianism?	Answer Confucianism, a religion of optimistic humanism, has had a monumental impact upon the life, social structure, and political philosophy of China. The founding of the religion goes back to one man, known as Confucius, born 500 years before Christ. Confucianism deals primarily with moral conduct and ethical living and is often categorized as an ethical system, rather than a religion. It emphasizes the earthly, not the heavenly. The doctrines of Confucianism center upon: 1\. Ancestor worship – veneration of the deceased ancestors whose spirits are believed to control the fortunes of the descendants. 2\. Filial piety – devotion and obedience to and reverence of the elders of the family by the younger members. Confucianism’s primary principles are: 1\. Jen – the golden rule 2\. Chun\-tai – the gentlemanly man of virtue 3\. Cheng\-ming – the proper playing of society’s roles 4\. Te – the power of virtue 5\. Li – ideal standards of conduct 6\. Wen – the peaceful arts (music, poetry, etc.) The ethical system of Confucianism has much to commend it because virtue is always something highly desirable, both in an individual and a society. However, the ethical philosophy Confucius espoused was one of self\-effort, leaving no room or need for God. Confucius taught that man is capable of doing all that is necessary to improve his life and his culture, relying on the virtue within himself to accomplish it. Biblical Christianity, however, teaches exactly the opposite. Not only does man lack the capacity to “clean up his act,” he is in no way able to please God on his own or to attain eternal life in heaven. The Bible teaches that man is inherently sinful from birth (Jeremiah 17:9\) and incapable of doing enough good works to make him acceptable to a holy and perfectly righteous God. “For no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law” (Romans 3:20\). Man is, simply put, in desperate need of a Savior to do that for him. God has provided that Savior in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin and make us acceptable to God. He exchanged His perfect life for our sinful ones: “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21\). Confucianism, like all false religions, relies on the works and abilities of man. Christianity alone recognizes that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\), and its followers rely solely on Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice on the cross opened heaven’s door to all who believe in Him and put their trust not in themselves, but in Him alone.
What is Coptic Christianity, and what do Coptic Christians believe?	Answer “Coptic” means “Egyptian,” and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians. As a denomination they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 \- A.D. 62\. The Coptic Church was actually involved in the very first major split in the Church, well before there was such a thing as "Roman" Catholicism, and it was also well before the East/West split. Prior to the “Great” East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Copts were separated from the rest by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451\. The council met to discuss the Incarnation of Christ and declared that Christ was "one hypostasis in two natures" (i.e., one person who shares two distinct natures). This became standard orthodoxy for Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches from then on. The Coptic understanding is that Christ is one nature from two natures: "the Logos Incarnate." In this understanding, Christ is from, not in, two natures: full humanity and full divinity. Some in the Coptic Orthodox Church believe that their position was misunderstood at the Council of Chalcedon and take great pains to ensure that they are not seen as [Monophysitic](monophysitism.html) (denying the two natures of Christ), but rather "Miaphysitic" (believing in one composite/conjoined nature from two). Some believe that perhaps the council understood the church correctly, but wanted to exile the church for its refusal to take part in politics or due to the rivalry between the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. To this day, 95 percent of Christians in Alexandria are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. The tradition says that when John Mark arrived on a missionary journey to Egypt, the Coptic form of religion of that day was god\-centered worship, but focused upon the pyramids. However, John Mark and the Gospel message were well received by the Coptic people as they also believed in “eternal life.” The Coptic people, under Roman rule and societal influence, consisted of Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians; therefore, Christianity had to take into account the different cultural, language, and religious backgrounds when evangelizing and in establishing its church. The Coptic Christians were originally well founded in theology, and other churches in cities throughout the Roman Empire looked up to them with great admiration and respect, willingly following their lead in doctrinal like\-mindedness and unity. It is interesting to note that when the Copts were under the rule of the Roman Empire, they suffered severe persecution and death for their steadfast faith and belief in Christ. Up until the [Edict of Milan](Edict-of-Milan.html) in A.D. 313, the Coptic Christians were persecuted by several Roman emperors, including Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. After that, they were persecuted by the [Byzantine](Byzantine-Period.html) rulers. About A.D. 641, yet another tribulation began when the Arab conquest of Egypt took place, at first relieving the Coptic Church from Byzantine persecution. What appeared to be their liberty and freedom became yet again bondage. The societal strength and control of the Arabs caused the Copts to endure a major language and culture change as well as confront the Islamic faith. Unfortunately, over the centuries, Christianity lost foothold, and most Copts converted to Islam. Today, there is a small population of Coptic Christians remaining in Alexandria, but most are located elsewhere. Estimates of the current population of the Coptic Church range from 10 million to 60 million members worldwide. Theologically, Coptic Christianity is very similar to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They profess to be genuine followers of Jesus Christ and a part of His worldwide Church. But, as with Catholicism, they tend to emphasize meritorious works in salvation along with liturgical ritual rather than salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Should a church tithe 10% of the offerings it receives?	Answer Tithing is given as an example in the Scriptures as how individuals should respond to God’s blessings. Many individuals question whether the tithe is still applicable for believers today since we are not "under the law." Despite that distinction, many believers consider it their privilege to give proportionately to the work of the Lord using the tithe as a pattern. Although churches are not given percentages in the New Testament, the principle of proportionate giving is given (1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8\). The New Testament also records that the believers in the church were collecting to give to other ministries. Although there may not be a specific verse stating that a church should tithe to other ministries, it seems that churches and other ministries should be generous in supporting other ministries as the Lord prospers them. For some churches, it helps them to keep outwardly focused by setting a certain amount in their budget toward "outside ministries." Therefore, it would not be unusual for a church or ministry to give a tithe (10%) or another percentage to what they consider missions. At the same time, this is not to be a legalistic requirement. Rather, it is to be a joyous celebration in response to the Lord’s provision.
Is corporate prayer important?	Answer Corporate prayer is an important part of the life of the church, along with worship, sound doctrine, communion, and fellowship. The early church met regularly to learn the doctrine of the apostles, break bread, and pray together (Acts 2:42\). When we pray together with other believers, the effects can be very positive. Corporate prayer edifies and unifies us as we share our common faith. The same Holy Spirit who dwells within each believer causes our hearts to rejoice as we hear praises to our Lord and Savior, knitting us together in a unique bond of fellowship found nowhere else in life. To those who may be alone and struggling with life’s burdens, hearing others lift them up to the throne of grace can be a great encouragement. It also builds in us love and concern for others as we intercede for them. At the same time, corporate prayer will only be a reflection of the hearts of the individuals who participate. We are to come to God in humility (James 4:10\), truth (Psalm 145:18\), obedience (1 John 3:21\-22\), with thanksgiving (Philippians 4:6\) and confidence (Hebrews 4:16\). Sadly, corporate prayer can also become a platform for those whose words are directed not to God, but to their hearers. Jesus warned against such behavior in Matthew 6:5\-8 where He exhorts us not to be showy, long\-winded, or hypocritical in our prayers, but to pray secretly in our own rooms in order to avoid the temptation of using prayer hypocritically. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that corporate prayers are “more powerful” than individual prayers in the sense of moving the hand of God. Far too many Christians equate prayer with “getting things from God,” and group prayer becomes mainly an occasion to recite a list of our wants. Biblical prayers, however, are multi\-faceted, encompassing the whole of the desire to enter into conscious and intimate communion with our holy, perfect, and righteous God. That such a God would bend an ear to His creatures causes praise and adoration to pour forth in abundance (Psalm 27:4; 63:1\-8\), produces heartfelt repentance and confession (Psalm 51; Luke 18:9\-14\), generates an outpouring of gratitude and thanksgiving (Philippians 4:6; Colossians 1:12\), and creates sincere intercessory pleas on behalf of others (2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2:16\). Prayer, then, is cooperating with God to bring about His plan, not trying to bend Him to our will. As we abandon our own desires in submission to the One who knows our circumstances far better than we ever could and who “knows what you need before you ask” (Matthew 6:8\), our prayers reach their highest level. Prayers offered in submission to the Divine will, therefore, are always answered positively, whether offered by one person or a thousand. The idea that corporate prayers are more likely to move the hand of God comes largely from a misinterpretation of Matthew 18:19\-20, “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” These verses come from a larger passage which addresses the procedures to be followed in the case of church discipline of a sinning member. To interpret them as promising believers a blank check for anything they might agree to ask God for, no matter how sinful or foolish, not only does not fit the context of church discipline, but it denies the rest of Scripture, especially the sovereignty of God. In addition, to believe that when “two or three are gathered” to pray, some kind of magical power boost is automatically applied to our prayers is not biblically supportable. Of course Jesus is present when two or three pray, but He is equally present when one believer prays alone, even if that person is separated from others by thousands of miles. Corporate prayer is important because it creates unity (John 17:22\-23\) and is a key aspect of believers’ encouraging one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11\) and spurring one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24\).
What is henotheism / monolatrism / monolatry?	Answer According to the American Heritage Dictionary, monolatry (also called monolatrism) is the worship of only one god without denying the existence of other gods. Henotheism is related in that it recognizes many gods yet chooses to focus exclusively on one—usually considered the god of one’s family or clan. A monolater or a henotheist is committed to one god, but he leaves room for other deities as well. Many cultures in ancient times believed in more than one god, but some of those cultures still paid homage to one god above the others. [Hinduism](hinduism.html) is a classic example of monolatry or henotheism in practice. Hindus generally worship one god, yet they acknowledge that there are countless other gods that can be worshiped as well. The ancient Egyptians believed in many gods but at times (depending on who the Pharaoh was) one god was elevated above others. The religion of the ancient Greeks and their worship of the Olympians is another well\-known example, with Zeus being the supreme ruler of eleven other gods. All twelve were worshiped, each individually by a different sect with its own temple, its own priests, and its own shrines (see Acts 14:12–13; 19:35\). Some historians believe that the early Israelites were henotheists/monolaters. This would help explain the production of the golden calf in Exodus 32:3–5 and why one of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3\). These passages hint that the ancient Israelites were not fully developed monotheists. Through Moses, God began to teach the Hebrews that the [God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob](God-of-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob.html) is the one true God over all. The prophet Isaiah, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reminded Israel and all other nations of God’s true nature: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; / apart from me there is no God. . . . / I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5–6\). Sometimes, the Israelites seemed to believe that other nations had their own gods, although Yahweh was still the supreme deity. However, if the Israelites tended toward henotheism or monolatry, they did so in spite of what God had revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Deuteronomy 6:4 takes away all doubt about there being multiple gods: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Henotheism or monolatry is incompatible with biblical teaching. The Bible is clear on the issue: there is only one God. Henotheism or monolatry is wrong in that it acknowledges the existence of other gods. The whole of the Bible hinges on the fact of one God, for, if other gods existed, then Jesus Christ would not have had to die—there would be many roads leading to heaven. Consider this passage: “We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one’” ” (1 Corinthians 8:4\). Idols are only “so\-called gods” (verse 5\). “Yet for us there is but one God” (verse 6\). When Paul visited Athens, he saw statues of many Greek and Roman gods. The Athenians had shrines to them all over the city. One particular altar caught Paul’s attention. On it were inscribed the words “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD” (Acts 17:23\). In their ignorance, the Greeks had erected an altar to whatever god they might have inadvertently left out of their pantheon, and some of the henotheists or monolaters had undoubtedly chosen that [“unknown god”](unknown-god.html) as the deity to focus on. Since the Greeks obviously didn’t know who this god was, Paul explained that their “unknown god” was the God of the Bible, the Creator of heaven and earth. The one true God does not dwell in temples made with hands. The Greeks were unable to find the one true God on their own, so the one true God came searching for them.
Is gluttony a sin?	Answer Playwright George Bernard Shaw wrote, “There is no love sincerer than the love of food” (Man and Superman, Act I). That may be true in some people, in which case they might be guilty of gluttony, the habit of eating immoderately. But the love of food should never be allowed to become disproportionate to the love of other, more important things. The Bible’s warnings against gluttony are mostly indirect, and there is no verse that says outright, “Gluttony is a sin.” However, when we consider what gluttony is and the biblical principles that apply, our conclusion has to be that gluttony is indeed a sin. Gluttony is eating to excess. [Aquinas](Saint-Thomas-Aquinas.html) defined gluttony as “an inordinate desire” for food and drink that goes beyond reasonableness and therefore departs from goodness (Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 148\). Gluttony can be seen as a form of [greed](Bible-greed.html)—a selfish desire for something—which is definitely sin. Jesus warned us to guard ourselves against “all kinds of greed” (Luke 12:15\). Gluttony can also be seen as a lack of self\-control, and self\-control is a quality believers are to pursue (2 Peter 1:5–6\). Gluttony is a sin because it gives too high a priority to physical desires. Paul took care not to be “disqualified” from the ministry, and part of that care was physical: “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Corinthians 9:27, ESV). He determined that he would “not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12\). Believers are not to “indulge the flesh” (Galatians 5:13\). All of this seems to indicate that gluttony—eating to excess—is wrong. In contrast to Paul’s commitment to exercise control over his body, the enemies of the gospel give free rein to their appetites: “Their god is their stomach” (Philippians 3:19\). Proverbs 23:19–21 mentions gluttony directly. In giving wisdom to those who would avoid self\-induced hardship, the wise man says, “Listen, my son, and be wise, and set your heart on the right path: Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.” The path of those who indulge in too much wine and too much food is a ruinous one. Moderation in all things is much preferred over gluttony (see also Proverbs 28:7\). Gluttony is a sin because the Bible promotes [self\-control](fruit-Holy-Spirit-self-control.html) as one of the characteristics of the Spirit\-led life. We are to curb physical appetites and not let them control us. There are many things about our bodies that we must control: our sexual behavior (1 Thessalonians 4:4\), our tongues (James 3:1–12\), our hands (Proverbs 16:17\), our feet (Proverbs 16:18\), and our eyes (Mark 9:47\). It stands to reason that we must also control our stomachs. The ability to say “no” to anything in excess is a godly skill. Jesus was accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34\), but it was a malicious false charge. The same evil\-hearted people accused John the Baptist of being demon\-possessed because he did not feast. Jesus attended feasts and so was labelled a “glutton.” The fault\-finders were unwise. As Jesus said, “Wisdom is proved right by all her children” (Luke 7:35\); that is, those who are truly wise will understand and appreciate both John and Jesus. God “richly gives us all we need for our enjoyment” (1 Timothy 6:17, NLT), and that includes an incredible variety of foods that are delicious, nutritious, and pleasurable. We should thank God for the colors, aromas, textures, and tastes that we enjoy at our meals. And we should honor God by partaking of His gifts in appropriate quantities.
Why was God going to kill Moses in Exodus 4:24-26?	Answer God had called [Moses](life-Moses.html) from the land of Midian to return to Egypt and lead the Hebrew people out of slavery. After some initial objections, Moses accepted the will of God, packed up his family, and started his journey west. Then something strange and troubling happened: “At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him” (Exodus 4:24\). This disturbing incident, in which God was going to kill Moses, is not fully explained in the text, but we can piece together an idea of what occurred. Here are the clues: \- God was seeking to kill Moses \- [Zipporah](Zipporah-in-the-Bible.html), Moses’ wife, took a flint knife and circumcised their son \- after the operation, Zipporah touched Moses’ feet with the foreskin \- Zipporah called her husband “a bridegroom of blood,” referring to the circumcision \- at that point, “the Lord let him alone” (Exodus 4:26\). Based on the fact that God was going to kill Moses, we assume that Moses had committed some sin against God. The fact that the [circumcision](circumcision.html) of Moses’ son caused the Lord to relent indicates that Moses’ sin was a failure to circumcise his son. The fact that Zipporah, not Moses, performed the surgery suggests that Moses was unable to do it himself; the same conclusion is supported by the fact that Zipporah touched Moses’ feet with the proof of circumcision—this would be more natural if Moses were bedridden. And, if Moses was confined to bed, the method that God was using to kill him was likely an illness of some kind. So, as far as we can tell, God was threatening to kill Moses because Moses had not circumcised his son. The question then is, why was that particular sin being judged so harshly? Surely there were other sins that Moses was guilty of, yet God chose to pursue the death penalty over a lack of circumcision. The answer probably goes back to the time of [Abraham](life-Abraham.html). When God called Abram and established a [covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html) with him, He changed his name to Abraham and gave him a sign of the covenant: circumcision. Moses later wrote this account: “Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you’” (Genesis 17:9–11\). God was clear that, among Abraham’s descendants, every male in every household was to be circumcised. No exceptions: “My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:13–14\). Moses, as a descendant of Abraham, had been circumcised. But, for some reason, he had not circumcised his own son. It could be that Moses, as a shepherd in Midian for forty years, had given up living like a Hebrew. Or perhaps he assumed he was already “cut off from his people,” so why bother with the sign of the covenant? The problem was that Moses was going to Egypt to rescue the circumcised people of God from the uncircumcised Egyptians. There was a sharp distinction between the slaves and the oppressors, but Moses, the leader of God’s people, was blurring the distinction in his own family. Further, Moses was to be the lawgiver for Israel, and it would not do for the giver of the law to be a lawbreaker. Part of the law would require circumcision (Leviticus 12:3\). For Moses to have an uncircumcised son would be blatantly hypocritical—and hypocrisy is never good in a national leader. Moses’ personal life had to be in order before he could properly direct the spiritual lives of the Hebrew people. Whatever the cause of Moses’ neglect of such an important rite, his sin made him unfit to serve as a spiritual leader. The situation had to be rectified before he could carry out his mission. God was about to kill Moses, but Moses lived because God allowed for repentance and forgiveness. Praise the Lord that “mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13\).
Why wasn’t Jesus named Immanuel?	Answer In the prophecy of the virgin birth, Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah declares, “The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” This prophecy had an initial fulfillment during Isaiah’s day, but it ultimately refers to the birth of Jesus, as we see in Matthew 1:22–23: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’ (which means ‘[God with us](God-with-us.html)’).” This does not mean, however, that the Messiah’s actual given name would be [Immanuel](what-does-Immanuel-mean.html). There are many “names” given to Jesus in the Old and New Testaments, and Immanuel is one of them. Isaiah elsewhere prophesied of the Messiah, “He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6\). Jesus was never called by any of those “names” by the people He met in Galilee or Judea, but they are accurate descriptions of who He is and what He does. The angel said that Jesus “will be called the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32\) and “the Son of God” (verse 35\), but neither of those was His given name. The prophet Jeremiah writes of “a King who will reign wisely” (Jeremiah 23:5\), and he gives us the name of the coming Messiah: “And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness’” (Jeremiah 23:6, ESV). Jesus was never called “The Lord Our Righteousness” as a name, but we can call Him that! He brings the righteousness of God to us. He is God in the flesh, and the One who makes us righteous (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). George Herman Ruth was named George, of course. But we can call him other things, and we’re talking about the same person: “Babe,” “the Bambino,” “the Sultan of Swat,” or “the Colossus of Clout.” The names for Babe Ruth multiplied due to his personal history and his signature talent on the ballfield. In a similar way, we can call Jesus by His given name, but we can also call Him “Immanuel.” Or “Wonderful,” “Counselor,” “Prince of Peace,” or “The Lord Our Righteousness.” The names of Jesus Christ multiply due to His divine nature and miraculous work. To say that Jesus would be called “Immanuel” means Jesus is God, that He dwelt among us in His incarnation, and that He is always with us. Jesus was God in the flesh. Jesus was God making His dwelling among us (John 1:1, 14\). God keeps His promises. The [virgin Mary](virgin-birth.html) bore a son. Two thousand years ago, in Bethlehem, we see that baby born and lowered into the hay for a resting place. That baby, as incredible as it seems, is God. That Baby is God with us. Jesus, as our Immanuel, is omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, and the love that never fails—with us. No, Joseph did not name Jesus “Immanuel,” but Jesus’ nature makes Him truly Immanuel, “God with us.” Isaiah told us to watch for Immanuel, the virgin\-born Son of God. He will save us; He will reconcile people to God and restore creation to its original beauty. We know Him as Jesus, but we can also call Him “God with us,” because that’s exactly who He is.
What does the Bible say about feminism?	Answer The modern concept of feminism was not present during the time that the Bible was written, but that does not mean the Bible has nothing to say on the basic issues of feminism. Even when the Scriptures seem to be silent on something that affects us today, there are eternal principles that speak to the underlying issue. First, we should define feminism, since the term can have different meanings for different people. Basically, feminism is a philosophy that advocates equal rights for women and men—socially, politically, economically, and in other ways. Early feminists fought for and won suffrage for women. Today’s feminism goes further than demanding equal treatment of men and women, however. Modern feminists fight for [abortion](abortion-Bible.html) on demand, language equality (insisting on saying “chairperson” instead of “chairman,” for example), and the blurring of gender lines. The more radical feminists actively seek to overthrow any vestige of male dominance in society, oppose the [biblical roles](roles-husband-wife-family.html) of husbands and wives, and promote [lesbianism](Bible-lesbian.html). Radical feminists deny there is any difference between men and women, teaching that any perceived differences between the sexes are due solely to social conditioning. Modern feminism is a counterfeit solution to the real issue of the [inequality](gender-equality-inequality.html) of women in a sinful society. Feminism arrogates to itself the right to demand respect and equality in every aspect of life. Feminism is based in arrogance, and it is the opposite of the call to the born\-again believer to be a servant. The modern, militant feminists call women to rise up and rebel against the order that God has given to humankind. That brand of feminism seeks to impose humanistic values in direct opposition to the Word of God. Feminism was originally a positive movement, focused on giving women the basic rights God intends for every human being to have. Tragically, feminism now focuses on destroying distinctions in the roles of men and women. What then should be a Christian’s view of feminism? A believing woman who is seeking to obey God and walk in peace and grace should remember that she has equal access to all [spiritual blessings](spiritual-blessings.html) in Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28\). A believing woman should not allow herself to be used as a pawn in the worldly agenda of the feminist movement. A believing man should uphold the nuclear family as the biblical model for society, promote true Christian values, and (if he’s married) honor and cherish his wife and take responsibility for protecting and providing for his family. Both men and women have a God\-given privilege to fulfill the plan He has set for us. Rebellion against that plan and the arrogance that seeks to put self above God’s Word brings difficult consequences. We see those consequences in damaged relationships between husbands and wives, the destruction of the family, and the loss of respect for human life. Many women today have bought into the lie that feminism will empower and free them. However, rallying for abortion, dispensing with God\-given roles, and working to dismantle the family unit will bring neither power nor freedom. Protection of the innocent, obedience to God’s Word, and fortification of the family are much more empowering and freeing. “I will walk in freedom,” says the psalmist, “for I have devoted myself to your commandments” (Psalm 119:45\). There has always been inequality in the world. It is sad but true that artificial barriers have always divided humanity—barriers that have no basis in God’s Word. It is sin in the heart that causes inequality, sin that causes some men to treat women in demeaning or objectifying ways. And it is sin that seeks counterfeit solutions to counteract these inequalities. The only cure for discrimination and inequality is obedience to God. If men and women would humbly submit to God’s Word, then striving would cease, the genders would complement each other, and the harmony that God ordained would flourish.
How should a Christian view addiction?	Answer The word addiction has two basic meanings. The first definition, and the one most of us are familiar with, is “to cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on a habit\-forming substance.” Those who are addicted or “given to much wine” (Titus 1:7; 2:3\), “drunkards” (1 Timothy 3:3\) or “heavy drinkers” (1 Timothy 3:8\) are disqualified from teaching or holding a position of authority in the church. It’s clear that church leadership needs to be sober and self\-controlled so that, by their example, they can teach others to be the same, for we know that “drunkards . . . shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:10\). Believers must not be dependent upon alcohol, and it stands to reason that this would also apply to addiction to any other substance, i.e. drugs, pornography, gambling, gluttony, tobacco, etc. The second definition of addiction is “to occupy (oneself) with or involve (oneself) in something habitually or compulsively.” This speaks of an unnatural (for the Christian, at least) obsession with anything other than God: sports, work, shopping and/or acquiring “stuff,” even family or children. We are to “love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5\), which is, according to Jesus, the first and greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37\-38\). We can conclude, then, that an addiction to anything other than God Himself is wrong. God is the only thing we can (and should) occupy ourselves with habitually. To do so with anything else draws us away from Him and displeases Him. He alone is worthy of our complete attention, love, and service. To offer these things to anything or anyone else is idolatry.
Is there any evidence for young earth creationism?	Answer Interpreting evidence is a somewhat subjective process because evidence can always be viewed from multiple vantage points. Police detectives examine crime scenes to determine the most likely perpetrators of the crimes. Sometimes the evidence seems to point in one direction only to later be proved to have been pointing in a different direction all along. Evidence rarely has only one possible explanation. [Old earth creationists](old-earth-creationism.html) examine the cosmological and geological data and conclude that the universe is billions of years old. [Young earth creationists](young-earth-creationism.html) admit that the earth and the universe appear to be billions of years old but contend that the data is being misinterpreted. Most young earth creationists believe that God created the earth and the universe with the appearance of age, much like Adam and Eve were created as adults. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the second day of their existence, the doctor would have said they were decades old even though they were only created the previous day. Similarly, God created the universe and earth so that it could sustain life from the moment He created it. Therefore, it gives the appearance of having aged billions of years even though it is only thousands of years old. So, all the cosmology, geology, and other sciences that uncover evidence for billions of years are in fact pointing to the appearance of age that resulted from God creating a mature and stable universe capable of harboring life. Most old earth creationists reject the “appearance of age” argument and see it as unnecessary, even deceptive. Why would God create something that appears to be old when it is in fact young? Further, there are many phenomena in the universe with origins seemingly unexplainable other than by allowing for billions of years, and they are unnecessary to harbor life. The old earth creationists say that, if everything in the universe seems to point to billions of years, it should be accepted that the universe is billions of years old. Both sides examine and interpret the same data. Young earth creationists see anything that points to billions of years as evidence for God creating the universe with the appearance of age or as examples of the scientific community misinterpreting the data. Old earth creationists see everything that points to billions of years as evidence that the universe is actually billions of years old. So, whether it is continental erosion, subterranean fluid pressure, global cooling, lunar recession, helium diffusion, radiometric dating, the geological column, the big bang theory, redshift, distant starlight, etc., both young earth and old earth creationists believe they can explain the evidence in such a way that supports their viewpoint and/or refutes the other side. Is there evidence for young earth creationism? Possibly. Is there evidence for old earth creationism? Possibly. It all depends on which viewpoint is correct. In reality, all of the evidence points in the direction of the truth of how long ago God created the universe. It is a matter of us interpreting the data correctly.
What does the Bible say about bisexuality?	Answer The Bible nowhere directly mentions bisexuality. However, it is clear from the Bible’s denunciations of homosexuality that bisexuality would also be considered sinful. Leviticus 18:22 declares having sexual relations with the same sex to be an abomination. Romans 1:26\-27 condemns sexual relations between the same sex as abandoning what is natural. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. These truths apply equally to bisexuals and to homosexuals. The Bible tells us that a person becomes bisexual or homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24\-27\). This does not necessarily mean sins the person has committed. Rather, it refers to sin itself. Sin warps, twists, and perverts everything in creation. Bisexuality and homosexuality are caused by sin "damaging" us spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically. Sin is the plague, and bisexuality is simply one of the symptoms. Many Christians mistakenly focus on bisexuality and homosexuality as particularly evil sins. The Bible nowhere describes homosexuality as being any less forgivable than any other sin. A bisexual is the same number of steps away from salvation as the "moral" legalist \- one. God offers forgiveness to anyone and everyone who will trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. This includes those involved in bisexuality. Once salvation through Christ is received, God will begin the process of destroying the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19\-21\) and developing the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). Sometimes God removes our desire for a particular sin and other times He gives us strength to resist temptation. The process of transformation takes a lifetime. When we fail, God is faithful to forgive and cleanse (1 John 1:9\). He is also faithful to complete His work in us (Philippians 1:6\). The promise of a "new creation" is available to anyone who will trust in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
What is Trinitarianism?	Answer Trinitarianism is the teaching that God is triune, that He has revealed Himself to be three co\-equal and co\-eternal Persons. For a detailed biblical presentation of the Trinity, please see our article on [what the Bible teaches about the Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html). The purpose of this article is to discuss the importance of Trinitarianism in regard to salvation and the Christian life. We are often asked the question, “Do I have to believe in the Trinity to be saved?” The answer is yes and no. Does a person have to fully understand and agree with every aspect of Trinitarianism to be saved? No. Are there some aspects of Trinitarianism that play key roles in salvation? Yes. For example, the [deity of Christ](deity-of-Christ.html) is crucially important to the doctrine of salvation. If Jesus is not perfect, His death could not have paid the penalty of sin. If Jesus is not holy, He could not be the Savior, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29\). An unbiblical view of Jesus’ divine nature results in an errant view of salvation. Every “Christian” cult that denies the true deity of Christ also teaches that we must add our own works to Christ’s death in order to be saved. The true and full deity of Christ, an aspect of Trinitarianism, refutes this concept. At the same time, we recognize that there are some genuine believers in Christ who do not hold to full Trinitarianism. While we reject [modalism](Modalistic-Monarchianism.html), we do not deny that a person can be saved while holding that God is not three Persons, but rather simply revealed Himself in three “modes.” The Trinity is a mystery, which no finite human being can fully, or perfectly, understand. For salvation to be received, God requires us to trust in Jesus Christ, God incarnate, as the Savior. For salvation to be received, God does not require complete adherence to every precept of sound biblical theology. No, full understanding and agreement with all aspects of Trinitarianism is not required for salvation. We strongly hold that Trinitarianism is a biblically\-based doctrine. We dogmatically proclaim that understanding and believing in biblical Trinitarianism is crucially important to understanding God, salvation, and the ongoing work of God in the lives of believers. At the same time, there have been godly men, genuine followers of Christ, who have had some disagreements with aspects of Trinitarianism. It is important to remember that we are not saved by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by trusting in our perfect Savior (John 3:16\). Do we have to believe in some aspects of Trinitarianism to be saved? Yes. Do we have to fully agree with all areas of Trinitarianism to be saved? No. Below is the best symbol for the Trinity we are aware of (click to expand): [![trinity](img/trinity.svg)](img/trinity.svg)
Are apparitions of Mary, such as Lady Fatima, true messages from God?	Answer In Catholic tradition, there are many reported [occurrences of Mary](apparitions-of-Mary.html), angels, and/or saints appearing and delivering a message from God. It is likely that, at least in some of these cases, the people were genuinely seeing something supernatural. While some of what is seen in various places is perhaps the work of charlatans, other apparitions were apparently authentic. However, an apparition being authentic does not mean it is a message from God or a genuine appearance of Mary, an angel, or a saint. Scripture declares that Satan and his demons masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14\-15\). Satanic deception is just as possible an explanation for the apparitions. The only way to determine whether an apparition is a "lying wonder" or a genuine message from God is to compare the message of the apparition with Scripture. If the teachings that are attached to these apparitions are contrary to the Word of God, the apparitions themselves are then satanic in nature. A study of the teachings of Our Lady Fatima with the "Miracle of the Sun" is a good example. It would indeed seem that something spectacular happened on October 13, 1917, and that “something” did in fact appear and deliver a message. The fact that its timing coincided with what had been told to the shepherd children three months earlier would seem to tie this event with the apparitions they had been seeing over the previous months, first of the angel and later of the "Lady of Fatima." When one compares the message of Fatima to what the Bible teaches, it is evident that the message of Fatima combines some biblical truth with several unbiblical practices and teachings. The following paragraphs are quoted directly from a website dedicated to the "Lady of Fatima," www.fatima.org. Specific words or sentences are underlined to indicate them to be unbiblical (not taught by the Bible), or anti\-biblical (contradictory to the Bible). Following the lengthy quotations, more information will be given with specific reasons for classifying these apparitions as "lying wonders." Here then is a quoted summary of the overall message given by the Lady of Fatima: The Message of Lady Fatima in General "The general Message of Fatima is not complicated. Its requests are for prayer, reparation, repentance, and sacrifice, and the abandonment of sin. Before Our Lady appeared to the three shepherd children, Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta, the Angel of Peace visited them. The Angel prepared the children to receive the Blessed Virgin Mary, and his instructions are an important aspect of the Message that is often overlooked. "The Angel demonstrated to the children the fervent, attentive, and composed manner in which we should all pray, and the reverence we should show toward God in prayer. He also explained to them the great importance of praying and making sacrifices in reparation for the offenses committed against God. He told them: 'Make of everything you can a sacrifice and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication, for the conversion of sinners.' In his third and final apparition to the children, the Angel gave them Holy Communion, and demonstrated the proper way to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist: all three children knelt to receive Communion; Lucy was given the Sacred Host on the tongue and the Angel shared the Blood of the Chalice between Francisco and Jacinta. "Our Lady stressed the importance of praying the Rosary in each of Her apparitions, asking the children to pray the Rosary every day for peace. Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her. "The children also saw that God is terribly offended by the sins of humanity, and that He desires each of us and all mankind to abandon sin and make reparation for their crimes through prayer and sacrifice. Our Lady sadly pleaded: 'Do not offend the Lord our God any more, for He is already too much offended!' "The children were also told to pray and sacrifice themselves for sinners, in order to save them from hell. The children were briefly shown a vision of hell, after which Our Lady told them: 'You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.' "Our Lady indicated to us the specific root of all the troubles in the world, the one that causes world wars and such terrible suffering: sin. She then gave a solution, first to individual people, then to the Church’s leaders. God asks each one of us to stop offending Him. We must pray, especially the Rosary. By this frequent prayer of the Rosary, we will get the graces we need to overcome sin. God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother. "In order to move ever closer to Her, and therefore to Her Son, Our Lady stressed the importance of praying at least five decades of the Rosary daily. She asked us to wear the Brown Scapular. And we must make sacrifices, especially the sacrifice of doing our daily duty, in reparation for the sins committed against Our Lord and Our Lady. She also stressed the necessity of prayers and sacrifices to save poor sinners from hell. The Message of Fatima, to individual souls, is summarized in these things." On the same website, there is recorded an interview between Sister Lucy (the 10\-year\-old shepherd girl who was among the three children who saw the apparitions in 1917\) and a Father Fuentes. The interview took place in 1957\. In this interview focusing on Fatima and its message, Sister Lucy says the following: "Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin, and the devil knows what it is that most offends God, and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily to seize them. "Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world, but She made me understand this for three reasons. The first reason is because She told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Hence from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil; there is no other possibility. "The second reason is because She said to my cousins as well as to myself, that God is giving two last remedies to the world. They are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others. "The third reason is because in the plans of Divine Providence, God always, before He is about to chastise the world, exhausts all other remedies. Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever then, as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us with a certain trepidation the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother. It is with a certain trepidation because if you despise and reject this ultimate means, we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven, because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin consists of openly rejecting, with full knowledge and consent, the salvation which He offers. Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother. We have recorded through many centuries of Church history the obvious testimony which demonstrates by the terrible chastisements which have befallen those who have attacked the honor of His Most Holy Mother, how Our Lord Jesus Christ has always defended the honor of His Mother. "The two means for saving the world are prayer and sacrifice. \[Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucy said:] Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary we will sanctify ourselves. We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls. "Finally, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Most Holy Mother, consists in considering Her as the seat of mercy, of goodness and of pardon, and as the sure door of entering Heaven." In the above paragraphs concerning the message that Sister Lucy felt that the apparition wished to communicate to the world, there are so many things that are not only not found in Scripture but are contrary to Scripture. 1\) Mary is referred to as the "Most Holy Mother" and having an "Immaculate Heart." By this Catholics do not mean that she was given the righteousness and holiness given to saints through the imputed righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\-21\) but that she was saved from sin in every form through having been conceived in her mother’s womb without the stain of original sin. Never does the Bible refer to Mary as being sinless. Never does it refer to her having an immaculate heart. Rather, Mary refers to God as her Savior (Luke 1:47\). This places her with the rest of humanity, as a sinner needing a Savior, but the Catholic Church holds that Mary was saved from sin through the merits of Christ by being conceived without sin and then living a sinless life. Again, never is this taught in Scripture. Rather, what Scripture teaches is that there is only one exception to the truth that we are all sinners (Romans 3:10, 3:23, etc.). That single exception is Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5\). 2\) Sister Lucy speaks of devotion to the "Immaculate Heart" of Mary and saying the Rosary as the "last two remedies to the world." She also states that there is no problem that cannot be solved by saying the Rosary. It is the teaching of Fatima that saying the Rosary will lead to the salvation of many souls. Again, never is such a teaching found in Scripture. The Rosary’s main prayer is the "Hail, Mary," which is repeated fifty times. The first half of it is a quote from Scripture of the greeting of the angel to Mary, "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." but the second half says, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." Besides giving Mary a title which Scripture does not, it asks Mary to pray for us. Indeed, Catholics not only see Mary as the one through whom ALL of God’s grace flows, and the one who intercedes to her Son on our behalf, but Catholics also direct prayers to her to deliver people from sin, from war, etc. Pope John Paul II’s prayer from the early 1980s to Mary is an example of such. In this prayer he repeatedly pleads to Mary to "deliver us" from nuclear war, famine, self\-destruction, injustice, etc. Again, never do we find a godly person in Scripture praying to anyone but God or asking for intercession by anyone but those still living on this earth. Prayer to Mary or to saints is not found in the Bible. Rather, Scripture directs us to pray to God (Luke 11:1\-2; Matthew 6:6\-9; Philippians 4:6; Acts 8:22; Luke 10:2, etc.)! God entreats us to come boldly unto the throne of grace (His throne) that we may find grace and help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14\-16\). God promised us that the Holy Spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God with groanings that cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26\). Why do we need to go through a saint, angel or Mary, especially considering the fact that neither the example of doing so nor the command of doing so is ever given in Scripture? Concerning prayer, we have the repeated example of two things in Scripture: a) Prayer is made to God alone (2 Corinthians 13:7; Romans 10:1; 15:30; Acts 12:5; Acts 10:2; Acts 8:24; Acts 1:24; Zechariah 8:21\-22; Jonah 2:7; 4:2, etc.) b) Requests for prayer are made only to the living (1 Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; Hebrews 13:18, etc.) In addition, nowhere is it taught that Mary is all\-seeing, all\-hearing, and omniscient (or nearly so), as she would have to be to hear and respond to the multitude of prayers that are directed toward her from the many Catholics who pray to her simultaneously around the world. Instead Scripture teaches that both angels and the spirits of the dead are finite beings, able to only be in one place at a time (Daniel 9:20\-23; Luke 16:19f). 3\) One of the repeated messages of Fatima is the call for personal "reparation" or "penance." This Catholic concept teaches that we must make amends to God and to Mary for the sins we have committed against them. Repeating one of the phrases from "The Message in General," the angel told the children to "make of everything you can a sacrifice and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended..." Reparation is defined as "an expiation ... something done or paid as amends; compensation." This ties in with the Roman Catholic teaching of temporal punishment which a person can take care of through penance now or through time spent in purgatory later. The Bible NEVER speaks of the need to make "reparation" for our sins or doing "penance" to pay for our sins. Rather, what it teaches is that we are to offer our lives as living sacrifices to God in gratitude for all of the mercies He has shown us in salvation (Romans 12:1\-2\). When a person becomes a Christian, his sins are forgiven and paid for in full by Christ. There remains no further payment that can be made for them, no further expiation required. 4\) A key aspect of following the Lady of Fatima is the bowing down before and venerating the images associated with the apparition. Throughout the Bible, we find that any time someone bows down before one of the "saints" or angels, he is told to get up and to stop. Only when done to "the Angel of the Lord" (a pre\-incarnate appearance of Christ) or before Jesus or God the Father is such veneration accepted. Catholics make a distinction between "worshiping" God and "venerating" Mary and the saints, but when John the Apostle prostrates himself before an angel, the angel does not ask, "Are you worshiping me or venerating me?" The angel simply tells him to stop and to "worship God" (Revelation 19:10\). Likewise, when Peter was being "venerated" (prokuneo \- the Greek word that the Catholic Church uses for "veneration" as opposed to "adoration" which only God deserves) by Cornelius in Acts 10:25, Peter tells Cornelius, "Stand up, I myself am also a man." It should be noted that prokuneo is used in the Revelation passage as well. Thus, we have the repeated example of an angel or "saint" being "honored" and the command to stop doing so! Thus, praying to Mary is contrary to the scriptural admonition to pray to God and the scriptural example to do so. It is also illogical to substitute praying to an all\-loving, omniscient, omnipotent God (Psalm 139; Hebrews 4:14\-16\) for praying to some saint or Mary, when there is no scriptural evidence that they can even hear prayers. To pray to saints and Mary on a worldwide basis is to ascribe to them the attributes of omnipresence and omniscience which God alone possesses—this truly is idolatry! 5\) Concerning the "Miracle of the Sun," there are repeated cases in which "lying wonders" are spoken of in Scripture (Exodus 7:22; 8:7; 8:18; Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22; Revelation 13:13\-14\). God tells us in Deuteronomy 13:1f that when someone makes a prediction that comes true or gives a seemingly miraculous "sign," but he is teaching the worship of strange gods, not to give heed to him but rather to treat him as a false prophet. For a Christian, the "content of faith" ought to be the Bible and what it teaches (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:16\). And while Catholics may argue that the "Lady of Fatima" is not calling on us to worship "strange gods" but to worship the true God, the idea of venerating Mary to such an extent that her "Immaculate Heart" is put on the same level of devotion as Jesus’ "Sacred Heart" is undeniably the exaltation of a woman to a position never given to her in Scripture—equality with God. To honor her as one would honor Christ is to exalt her. Likewise, to focus on Mary to such an extent that we spend more time praying to her than to God is also idolatrous, especially in light of the direct commands of Scripture to pray to God and the complete silence in Scripture concerning any exaltation of, or prayer to, Mary. Was the "Miracle of the Sun" a lying wonder? Based on biblical teaching, it would certainly seem so. Satan has no problem mixing enough truth to make a teaching seem right with just enough error to damn souls to hell. Where is the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ—the message repeated throughout the whole of the New Testament—ever mentioned in the whole message of Fatima? Where is it ever mentioned that salvation is only through faith in Christ’s finished work on Calvary and that our works have no merit apart from Him (Ephesians 2:8\-9\)? Penance and making offerings for reparation of our sins are antithetical to Christ’s finished work on Calvary and of our need for salvation by grace alone through faith in Him alone. Calling upon Mary and her “Immaculate Heart” and viewing the Rosary as the ultimate means of saving souls fly in the face of such biblical truths as Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5\. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20\).
What does the Bible say about prostitution?	Answer Prostitution is often referred to as the "oldest profession." Indeed, it has always been a common way for women to make money, even in Bible times. The Bible tells us that prostitution is immoral. Proverbs 23:27\-28 says, "For a prostitute is a deep pit and a wayward wife is a narrow well. Like a bandit she lies in wait, and multiplies the unfaithful among men." God forbids involvement with prostitutes because He knows such involvement is detrimental to both men and women. "For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, And her mouth is smoother than oil; But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, Sharp as a two\-edged sword. Her feet go down to death, Her steps lay hold of hell" (Proverbs 5:3\-5 NKJV). Prostitution not only destroys marriages, families, and lives, but it destroys the spirit and soul in a way that leads to physical and spiritual death. God’s desire is that we stay pure and use our bodies as tools for His use and glory (Romans 6:13\). First Corinthians 6:13 says, "The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." Although prostitution is sinful, prostitutes are not beyond God’s scope of forgiveness. The Bible records His use of a prostitute named Rahab to further the fulfillment of His plan. As a result of her obedience, she and her family were rewarded and blessed (Joshua 2:1; 6:17\-25\). In the New Testament, a woman who had been known for being a sexual sinner—before Jesus forgave and cleansed her from sin—found an opportunity to serve Jesus while He was visiting in the home of a Pharisee. The woman, recognizing Christ for who He is, brought a bottle of expensive perfume to Him. In regret and repentance, the woman wept and poured perfume on His feet, wiping it with her hair. When the Pharisees criticized Jesus for accepting this act of love from the "immoral" woman, He admonished them and accepted the woman’s worship. Because of her faith, Christ had forgiven all her sins, and she was received into His kingdom (Luke 7:36\-50\). When speaking to those who refused to believe the truth about Himself, Jesus Christ said, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him" (Matthew 21:31\-32\). Just like anyone else, prostitutes have the opportunity to receive salvation and eternal life from God, to be cleansed of all their unrighteousness and be given a brand new life! All they must do is turn away from their sinful lifestyle and turn to the living God, whose grace and mercy are boundless. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
How can I experience healing and recovery after an abortion?	Answer Abortion healing and recovery is possible. Having an abortion and regretting it later is a common experience felt by women. While what has been done cannot be undone, you can experience healing and recovery after an abortion. The God of all comfort and healing is more than able to ease the sorrow and pain of an abortion. He can restore you to life and joy. An unwanted pregnancy can be a frightening experience for someone who is not financially, emotionally, or physically prepared for such a responsibility. Perhaps you are one of the many women and teenage girls who are scared, confused, and desperate. In your search for answers, perhaps you were fooled into believing that your unborn child was an expendable “lump of tissue,” not really a pre\-born human being. Often the realization of the truth comes later, in the form of post\-abortion stress syndrome, guilt, and depression. This is where abortion healing and recovery is essential. There is good news for anyone who has had an abortion, and that is that God offers forgiveness to anyone who asks for it. Abortion healing and abortion recovery begin with accepting that forgiveness. Romans 3:22 says, “We are made right in God’s sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.” It is never too late to come to God for healing. There is nothing we can do that is so bad that it is unforgivable. God offers this forgiveness, through Christ, and with it He offers peace of mind and heart. Abortion recovery is yours if you will only receive it by putting your faith in Jesus, allowing Him permanent residence and authority in your life. Perhaps you are already a Christian, yet you decided to have an abortion, perhaps out of fear of how you would be perceived by the Christian community. Even if you understood how God feels about abortion, you may have felt, out of desperation, that you must get rid of the “evidence.” Please understand that abortion recovery is available. God is ready to offer forgiveness, redemption, healing, and restoration. Yes, having an abortion was wrong; it was the taking of a life, but it is not unforgivable. The Bible says that there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1\), and so, when we confess our sins to Him, He freely forgives (1 John 1:9\). This is not because we deserve forgiveness but because of the loving nature of our Lord. When you realize the repercussions of having an abortion, you may find it difficult to forgive yourself. But God does not want us to live with perpetual guilt; He wants us to learn from our mistakes and use them to His advantage, as well as our own. Abortion healing and recovery will provide freedom from guilt. It will require a lot of prayer, which is simply conversation with God. This and studying the Bible help us get to know God better so that we can trust Him to heal us and be better equipped to do His work. Instead of dwelling on your choice to have an abortion, be encouraged to use your experience to help others. You may need to seek Christian counseling to help get through the experience. But through the healing process, if you trust in the Lord, you will be stronger and more spiritually mature. You can experience abortion healing and abortion recovery! You will have gone through an experience that God is able to use to strengthen your character and prepare you for ministering to others. If you are looking for abortion healing or abortion recovery, please contact Found \& Woven ([www.foundandwoven.com](https://www.foundandwoven.com)) for free resources and counseling.
How did Jesus fulfill the meanings of the Jewish feasts?	Answer The way in which Jesus fulfilled the Jewish feasts is a fascinating study. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish prophet Amos records that God declared He would do nothing without first revealing it to His servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7\). From the Old Covenant to the New, Genesis to Revelation, God provides picture after picture of His entire plan for mankind and one of the most startling prophetic pictures is outlined for us in the Jewish feasts of Leviticus 23\. The Hebrew word for “feasts” (moadim) literally means "appointed times." God has carefully planned and orchestrated the timing and sequence of each of these seven feasts to reveal to us a special story. The seven annual feasts of Israel were spread over seven months of the Jewish calendar, at set times appointed by God. They are still celebrated by observant Jews today. But for both Jews and non\-Jews who have placed their faith in Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, these special days demonstrate the work of redemption through God’s Son. The first four of the seven feasts occur during the springtime (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, and Weeks), and they all have already been fulfilled by Christ in the New Testament. The final three holidays (Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles) occur during the fall, all within a short fifteen\-day period. Many Bible scholars and commentators believe that these fall feasts have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus. However, the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13\) for all believers in Jesus Christ is that they most assuredly will be fulfilled. As the four spring feasts were fulfilled literally and right on the actual feast day in connection with Christ’s first coming, these three fall feasts, it is believed by many, will likewise be fulfilled literally in connection to the Lord’s second coming. In a nutshell, here is the prophetic significance of each of the seven Levitical feasts of Israel: 1\) [Passover (Leviticus 23:5\)](what-is-Passover.html) – Pointed to the Messiah as our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7\) whose blood would be shed for our sins. Jesus was crucified during the time that the Passover was observed (Mark 14:12\). Christ is a “lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19\) because His life was completely free from sin (Hebrews 4:15\). As the first Passover marked the Hebrews’ release from Egyptian slavery, so the death of Christ marks our release from the slavery of sin (Romans 8:2\). 2\) [Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:6\)](Feast-of-Unleavened-Bread.html) – Pointed to the Messiah’s sinless life (as leaven is a picture of sin in the Bible), making Him the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Jesus’ body was in the grave during the first days of this feast, like a kernel of wheat planted and waiting to burst forth as the bread of life. 3\) [First Fruits](Feast-of-Firstfruits.html) (Leviticus 23:10\) – Pointed to the Messiah’s resurrection as the first fruits of the righteous. Jesus was resurrected on this very day, which is one of the reasons that Paul refers to him in 1 Corinthians 15:20 as the "first fruits from the dead." 4\) [Weeks or Pentecost](Feast-of-Weeks.html) (Leviticus 23:16\) – Occurred fifty days after the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and pointed to the great harvest of souls and the gift of the Holy Spirit for both Jew and Gentile, who would be brought into the kingdom of God during the Church Age (see Acts 2\). The Church was actually established on this day when God poured out His Holy Spirit and 3,000 Jews responded to Peter’s great sermon and his first proclamation of the gospel. 5\) [Trumpets](Feast-of-Trumpets.html) (Leviticus 23:24\) – The first of the fall feasts. Many believe this day points to the Rapture of the Church when the Messiah Jesus will appear in the heavens as He comes for His bride, the Church. The Rapture is always associated in Scripture with the blowing of a loud trumpet (1 Thessalonians 4:13\-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:52\). 6\) [Day of Atonement](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html) (Leviticus 23:27\) – Many believe this prophetically points to the day of the Second Coming of Jesus when He will return to earth. That will be the Day of Atonement for the Jewish remnant when they "look upon Him whom they have pierced," repent of their sins, and receive Him as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11:1\-6, 25\-36\). 7\) [Tabernacles or Booths](Feast-of-Tabernacles.html) (Leviticus 23:34\) – Many scholars believe that this feast day points to the Lord’s promise that He will once again “tabernacle” with His people when He returns to reign over all the world (Micah 4:1\-7\). Should Christians celebrate these Levitical feast days of Israel today? Whether or not a Christian celebrates the Jewish feast days would be a matter of conscience for the individual Christian. Colossians 2:16\-17 tells us, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Christians are not bound to observe the Jewish feasts the way an Old Testament Jew was, but we should not criticize another believer who does or does not observe these special days and feasts (Romans 14:5\). While it is not required for Christians to celebrate the Jewish feast days, it is beneficial to study them. Certainly, it could be beneficial to celebrate these days if it leads one to a greater understanding and appreciation for Christ’s death and resurrection and the future promise of His coming. As Christians, if we choose to celebrate these special days, we should put Christ in the center of the celebration, as the One who came to fulfill the prophetic significance of each of them.
I am Jewish, can I become a Christian?	Answer What a wonderful question! Here is my story; the story of another Jew, like yourself, who had asked this very same question many years ago: I grew up in an orthodox Jewish home in New York, and several years ago I came to believe that Yeshua (Yeshua is the Hebrew way to say the Greek name Jesus) is truly the Jewish Messiah. Believing that Yeshua is the Messiah wasn’t easy. I had many, many questions, and I spent months examining the evidences and seeking G\-d’s answers. During my journey, I constantly reminded myself of a very important verse from the Jewish Scriptures (the Tanakh). The Jewish prophet Jeremiah records the words of G\-d, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13\). The Jewish Scriptures (The Torah, The Prophets, and The Writings, which make up the Tanakh or the Jewish Bible) paint a very clear picture of who the Mashiach (Messiah) will be when He eventually comes to the nation of Israel. In fact, there are over 300 prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures, which detail many facts about this coming Messiah/king. Here is just a sampling (and remember, all these verses come from the Jewish Bible): Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:2\. Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10\. Messiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9\. Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22\. Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24\-27\. Messiah’s life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man’s tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13\-53:12\. Christian prophecy is remarkably specific. In detail as to lineage, birthplace, time and lifestyle, Jesus matched the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew Scriptures. The record of this fulfillment is to be found in the pages of the New Testament. As you review the more extensive list of Jewish Messianic prophecies, allow G\-d to speak to your heart and your mind as you seek HIS truth. Interestingly, the Jewish Scriptures paint seemingly two different pictures about the Messiah to come. For one, they talk about the Messiah who will come as the reigning King, who will usher in a period of unprecedented peace on earth. But many verses talk about the Mashiach who will be a suffering servant, who will suffer and die for the sins of the people. For many hundreds of years the rabbis believed that there would be two Messiahs, the King Mashiach ben David, and the suffering servant Mashiach ben Joseph. The rabbis, unfortunately, were not able to see that one Messiah would accomplish both missions. Christian prophecy was indeed fulfilled in the Jewish Messiah. Yeshua came to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" 2000 years ago. He came as Isaiah chapter 53 so clearly states, to die and "suffer" for the sins of the Jewish people. He came to the nation of Israel, but was rejected. If the Jews would have accepted His "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10\) atonement for sins, Yeshua would have ushered in the Kingdom of Heaven at that point in history. But the Jews did not recognize Him. Even though they had the Word of G\-d in their own Hebrew Scriptures, and more than 300 descriptions of who He would be when He comes, they missed Him. As a result, the Good News of God’s Kingdom went forth to the Gentile world, and for 2000 years now both Jew and Gentile have come together in Mashiach, looking forward to His soon return as reigning King, just as the rabbis have always expected. Although the nation of Jews rejected Yeshua when He came, G\-d has always, through the last 2000 years, kept a "remnant" of believing Jews for Himself. I and many thousands of Jews alive today, have received Yeshua as their Lord, and Savior, and Mashiach. We have been blessed with "new life" in Him, and we look forward to eternal life with Him in G\-d’s heavenly Kingdom. This is a lot to digest, but if you are asking this question, it is G\-d’s Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh) who has drawn you to this information. I pray that you will continue your examination of the evidences of who Jesus really is and His claims to be the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy. Remember the words of Yeshua, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me" (Revelation 3:20\). Perhaps Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah, is standing at the door of your heart right now! Consider Him! Open the door and allow Him to come into you!
Does Acts 2:38 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?	Answer Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "[Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?](salvation-faith-alone.html)" Why, then, do some come to the conclusion that we must be baptized in order to be saved? Often, the discussion of whether or not this passage teaches baptism is required for salvation centers around the Greek word eis that is translated “for” in this passage. Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for salvation are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.” As an example, when one says “Take two aspirin for your headache,” it is obvious to everybody that it does not mean “take two aspirin in order to get your headache,” but instead to “take two aspirin because you already have a headache.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1\-\-“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct. We need to start by looking back to the original language and the meaning of the Greek word eis. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for salvation and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.” One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14\-18; John 5:24; John 11:25\-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12\-14\). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17\-26; Acts 4:8\-12\). In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in "regard to." The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13\. The grammatical evidence surrounding this verse and the preposition eis are clear that while both views on this verse are well within the context and the range of possible meanings of the passage, the majority of the evidence is in favor that the best possible definition of the word “for” in this context is either “because of” or “in regard to” and not “in order to get.” Therefore, Acts 2:38, when interpreted correctly, does not teach that baptism is required for salvation. Besides the precise meaning of the preposition translated “for” in this passage, there is another grammatical aspect of this verse to carefully consider—the change between the second person and third person between the verbs and pronouns in the passage. For example, in Peter’s commands to repent and be baptized the Greek verb translated “repent” is in the second person plural while the verb “be baptized,” is in the third person singular. When we couple this with the fact that the pronoun “your” in the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” is also second person plural, we see an important distinction being made that helps us understand this passage. The result of this change from second person plural to third person singular and back would seem to connect the phrase “forgiveness of your sins” directly with the command to “repent.” Therefore, when you take into account the change in person and plurality, essentially what you have is “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” Or, to put it in a more distinct way: “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.” Another error that is made by those who believe Acts 2:38 teaches baptism is required for salvation is what is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. Simply put, this is the idea that just because a statement is true, we cannot assume all negations (or opposites) of that statement are true. In other words, just because Acts 2:38 says “repent and be baptized….for the forgiveness of sins…and the gift of the Holy Spirit,” does not mean that if one repents and is not baptized, he will not receive forgiveness of sins or the gift of the Holy Spirit. There is an important difference between a condition of salvation and a requirement for salvation. The Bible is clear that belief is both a condition and a requirement, but the same cannot be said for baptism. The Bible does not say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved. One can add any number of conditions to faith (which is required for salvation), and the person can still be saved. For example if a person believes, is baptized, goes to church, and gives to the poor he will be saved. Where the error in thinking occurs is if one assumes all these other conditions, “baptism, going to church, giving to the poor,” are required for one to be saved. While they might be the evidence of salvation, they are not a requirement for salvation. (For a more thorough explanation of this logical fallacy, please see the Question: [Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is required for salvation?](baptism-Mark-16-16.html)). The fact that baptism is not required to receive forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit should also be evident by simply reading a little farther in the book of Acts. In Acts 10:43, Peter tells Cornelius that “through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (please note that nothing at this point has been mentioned about being baptized, yet Peter connects believing in Christ with the act of receiving forgiveness for sins). The next thing that happens is, having believed Peter’s message about Christ, the “Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44\). It is only after they had believed, and therefore received forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, that Cornelius and his household were baptized (Acts 10:47\-48\). The context and the passage are very clear; Cornelius and his household received both forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit before they were ever baptized. In fact, the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized was that they showed evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit “just as Peter and the Jewish believers” had. In conclusion, Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is required for salvation. While baptism is important as the sign that one has been justified by faith and as the public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and membership in a local body of believers, it is not the means of remission or forgiveness of sins. The Bible is very clear that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (John 1:12; John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:21\-30; Romans 4:5; Romans 10:9\-10; Ephesians 2:8\-10; Philippians 3:9; Galatians 2:16\).
Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?	Answer As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches through careful consideration of the language and context of the verse. We also filter it through what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage ["Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?](salvation-faith-alone.html)" Regarding Mark 16:16, it is important to remember that there are some textual problems with Mark chapter 16, verses 9\-20\. There is some question as to whether these verses were originally part of the Gospel of Mark or whether they were added later by a scribe. As a result, it is best not to base a key doctrine on anything from Mark 16:9\-20, such as [snake handling](snake-handling.html), unless it is also supported by other passages of Scripture. Assuming that verse 16 is original to Mark, does it teach that baptism is required for salvation? The short answer is, no, it does not. In order to make it teach that baptism is required for salvation, one must go beyond what the verse actually says. What this verse does teach is that belief is necessary for salvation, which is consistent with the countless verses where only belief is mentioned (e.g., John 3:18; John 5:24; John 12:44; John 20:31; 1 John 5:13\). “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16\). This verse is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned. While this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they are saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, viz., “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse. Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious mistake that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This is the rule to follow: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." For example, the statement “a dog with brown spots is an animal” is true; however, the negative, “if a dog does not have brown spots, it is not an animal” is false. In the same way, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” is true; however, the statement “he who believes but is not baptized will not be saved” is an unwarranted assumption. Yet this is exactly the assumption made by those who support baptismal regeneration. Consider this example: "Whoever believes and lives in Kansas will be saved, but those that do not believe are condemned." This statement is strictly true; Kansans who believe in Jesus will be saved. However, to say that only those believers who live in Kansas are saved is an illogical and false assumption. The statement does not say a believer must live in Kansas in order to go to heaven. Similarly, Mark 16:16 does not say a believer must be baptized. The verse states a fact about baptized believers (they will be saved), but it says exactly nothing about believers who have not been baptized. There may be believers who do not dwell in Kansas, yet they are still saved; and there may be believers who have not been baptized, yet they, too, are still saved. The one specific condition required for salvation is stated in the second part of Mark 16:16: “Whoever does not believe will be condemned.” In essence, Jesus has given both the positive condition of belief (whoever believes will be saved) and the negative condition of unbelief (whoever does not believe will be condemned). Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that belief is the requirement for salvation. More importantly, we see this condition restated positively and negatively throughout Scripture (John 3:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:53\-54; John 8:24; Acts 16:31\). Jesus mentions a condition related to salvation (baptism) in Mark 16:16\. But a related condition should not be confused with a requirement. For example, having a fever is related to being ill, but a fever is not required for illness to be present. Nowhere in the Bible do we find a statement such as “whoever is not baptized will be condemned.” Therefore, we cannot say that baptism is necessary for salvation based on Mark 16:16 or any other verse. Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? No, it does not. It clearly establishes that belief is required for salvation, but it does not prove or disprove the idea of baptism being a requirement. How can we know, then, if one must be baptized in order to be saved? We must look to the full counsel of God’s Word. Here is a summary of the evidence: 1—The Bible is clear that we are saved by faith alone. Abraham was saved by faith, and we are saved by faith (Romans 4:1\-25; Galatians 3:6\-22\). 2—Throughout the Bible, in every dispensation, people have been saved without being baptized. Every believer in the Old Testament (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) was saved but not baptized. The thief on the cross was saved but not baptized. Cornelius was saved before he was baptized (Acts 10:44\-46\). 3—Baptism is a testimony of our faith and a public declaration that we believe in Jesus Christ. The Scriptures tell us that we have eternal life the moment we believe (John 5:24\), and belief always comes before being baptized. Baptism does not save us any more than walking an aisle or saying a prayer saves us. We are saved when we believe. 4—The Bible never says that if one is not baptized then he is not saved. 5—If baptism were required for salvation, then no one could be saved without another party being present. Someone must be there to baptize a person before he can be saved. This effectively limits who can be saved and when he can be saved. The consequences of this doctrine, when carried to a logical conclusion, are devastating. For example, a soldier who believes on the battlefield but is killed before he can be baptized would go to hell. 6—Throughout the Bible we see that at the point of faith a believer possesses all the promises and blessings of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31\). When one believes, he has eternal life, does not come under judgment, and has passed from death into life (John 5:24\)—all before he or she is baptized. If you believe in baptismal regeneration, you would do well to prayerfully consider whom or what you are really putting your trust in. Is your faith in a physical act (being baptized) or in the finished work of Christ on the cross? Whom or what are you trusting for salvation? Is it the shadow (baptism) or the substance (Jesus Christ)? Our faith must rest in Christ alone. “We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7\).
Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?	Answer As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "[Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?](salvation-faith-alone.html)" Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10\. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24\). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13\). Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ. An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament: “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word 'counterpart.' "So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.” Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first\-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21\). Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25\-26; 4:5\). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5\).
Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?	Answer As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "[Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?](salvation-faith-alone.html)" John 3:3\-7, “Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" When first considering this passage, it is important to note that nowhere in the context of the passage is baptism even mentioned. While baptism is mentioned later in this chapter (John 3:22\-30\), that is in a totally different setting (Judea instead of Jerusalem) and at a different time from the discussion with [Nicodemus](Nicodemus-in-the-Bible.html). This is not to say Nicodemus was unfamiliar with baptism, either from the Jewish practice of baptizing Gentile converts to Judaism, or from John the Baptist’s ministry. However, simply reading these verses in context would give one no reason to assume Jesus was speaking of baptism, unless one was looking to read into the passage a preconceived idea or theology. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted. Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “[born of water](born-of-water.html)” as evidence. As one person has put it, “Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate explanation of baptism.” However, had Jesus actually wanted to say that one must be baptized to be saved, He clearly could have simply stated, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized and [born of the Spirit](born-of-the-spirit.html), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Further, if Jesus had made such a statement, He would have contradicted numerous other Bible passages that make it clear that salvation is by faith (John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8\-9; Titus 3:5\). We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved. A common reply to that question is: “The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized? If “being born of water and the Spirit” is not referring to baptism, then what does it mean? Traditionally, there have been two interpretations of this phrase. The first is that being “born of water” is being used by Jesus to refer to natural birth (with water referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb) and that being born of the “Spirit” indicates spiritual birth. While that is certainly a possible interpretation of the term “born of water” and would seem to fit the context of Nicodemus’ question about how a man could be born “when he is old,” it is not the best interpretation given the context of this passage. After all, Jesus was not talking about the difference between natural birth and spiritual birth. What He was doing was explaining to Nicodemus his need to be “born from above” or “born again.” The second common interpretation of this passage and the one that best fits the overall context, not only of this passage but of the Bible as a whole, is the one that sees the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” as both describing different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again” or “born from above.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water and the Spirit,” He was not referring to literal water (i.e. baptism or the amniotic fluid in the womb), but was referring to the need for spiritual cleansing or renewal. Throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25\) and the New Testament (John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22\), water is often used figuratively of spiritual cleansing or regeneration that is brought forth by the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5\). The Barclay Daily Study Bible describes this concept in this way: “There are two thoughts here. Water is the symbol of cleansing. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, when we love Him with all our heart, the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten. The Spirit is the symbol of power. When Jesus takes possession of our lives it is not only that the past is forgotten and forgiven; if that were all, we might well proceed to make the same mess of life all over again; but into life there enters a new power which enables us to be what by ourselves we could never be and to do what by ourselves we could never do. Water and the Spirit stand for the cleansing and the strengthening power of Christ, which wipes out the past and gives victory in the future.” Therefore, the “water” mentioned in this verse is not literal physical water but rather the “living water” Jesus promised the woman at the well in John 4:10 and the people in Jerusalem in John 7:37\-39\. It is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings forth spiritual life to a dead sinner (Ezekiel 36:25\-27; Titus 3:5\). Jesus reinforces this truth in John 3:7 when He restates that one must be born again and that this newness of life can only be produced by the Holy Spirit (John 3:8\). There are several reasons why this is the correct interpretation of the phrase born of water and the Spirit. First of all, we should note that Nicodemus found his literal interpretation of born again to be incomprehensible. He could not understand how a grown man could re\-enter his mother’s womb and be “born again” physically (John 3:4\). Jesus restates what He had just told Nicodemus, this time making a distinction between flesh and spirit (verse 6\). Interestingly, the Greek word translated “again” or “anew” in John 3:3 and 7 has two possible meanings: the first one is “again,” and the second one is “from above.” “Born again,” “born from above,” and “born of water and Spirit” are three ways of saying the same thing. Second, the grammar in John 3:5 would seem to indicate “being born of water” and “being born of the Spirit” are thought of as one action, not two. Therefore, it is not speaking of two separate births, as Nicodemus incorrectly thought, but of one birth, that of being “born from above” or the spiritual birth that is necessary for anyone to “see the kingdom of God.” This need for one to be “born again,” or to experience spiritual birth, is so important that Jesus tells Nicodemus of its necessity three different times in this passage of Scripture (John 3:3, 3:5, 3:7\). Third, water is often used symbolically in the Bible to refer to the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying a believer, whereby God cleanses and purifies the believer’s heart or soul. In many places in both the Old and New Testaments, the work of the Holy Spirit is compared to water (Isaiah 44:3; John 7:38\-39\). Jesus rebukes Nicodemus in John 3:10 by asking him: “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” This implies that what Jesus had just told him was something Nicodemus should have known and understood from the Old Testament. What is it that Nicodemus, as a teacher of the Old Testament, should have known and understood? It is that God had promised in the Old Testament a time was coming in which He would: “sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” (Ezekiel 36:25\-27\). Jesus rebuked Nicodemus because he failed to recall and understand one of the key Old Testament passages pertaining to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33\). Nicodemus should have been expecting this. Why would Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding baptism considering the fact that baptism is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament? While this verse does not teach baptism is required for salvation, we should be careful not to neglect baptism’s importance. Baptism is the sign or the symbol for what takes place when one is born again. Baptism’s importance should not be downplayed or minimized. However, baptism does not save us. What saves us is the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, when we are born again and regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5\).
How can I overcome an addiction to internet porn?	Answer Studies show that terms relating to porn are by far the most commonly searched\-for terms in the internet search engines. Every day, literally millions of people do searches related to the porn industry. The powerful imagery of internet [pornography](pornography-Bible.html) is highly addictive. Many men (and women) have been caught in the snare of internet porn and find themselves helplessly addicted to its visual stimulation. This results in uncontrollable lust, an inability to experience true sexual intimacy in marriage, and often intense feelings of guilt and despair. Pornography is the \#1 cause of masturbation, sexual assault, and sexual deviancy. Most importantly, pornography is offensive to God, and is therefore a sin that must be confessed, repented of, and overcome. There are two primary aspects in the battle to overcome an addiction to internet porn: spiritual and practical. Spiritually, addiction to pornography is a sin that God desires you to overcome and therefore will enable you to do so. The first step is to make sure you have genuinely placed your trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior. If you are unsure, please visit our page on [salvation and forgiveness](way-of-salvation.html). Without salvation through Jesus Christ, there is no possibility of a true and lasting victory over pornography: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5\). If you are a believer in Christ and are struggling with an addiction to internet porn, there is hope and help for you! The power of the Holy Spirit is available to you (Ephesians 3:16\). The cleansing of God’s forgiveness is available to you (1 John 1:9\). The renewing capacity of God’s Word is at your disposal (Romans 12:1\-2\). Commit your mind and eyes to the Lord (1 John 2:16\). Ask God to strengthen you and help you to overcome pornography (Philippians 4:13\). Ask God to protect you from further exposure to porn (1 Corinthians 10:13\) and to fill your mind with things that are pleasing to Him (Philippians 4:8\). These are all requests that God will honor and answer. Viewing pornography is a sexual sin, but at its root it is a heart problem. Regardless of your reason for viewing pornography, it will always leave you dissatisfied and longing for more. The negative impact pornography has on the brain, mental health, view of the opposite sex, emotional health, and the marriage relationship should alert you to the true nature of pornography. God alone can heal the heart affected by hurt, trauma, or rejection. God is ultimately the only one who can satisfy, fulfill, and validate; only He can truly satisfy your longings and desires. Practically speaking, there are numerous tools to combat an addiction to internet pornography. There are good programs available at [www.X3pure.com](https://www.x3pure.com) and [www.PureDesire.org](https://puredesire.org/who-we-are/). There are several quality internet filtering programs that will completely block your computer from accessing pornography, such as [Covenant Eyes](https://www.covenanteyes.com). Another fantastic tool is available at [www.X3Watch.com](https://www.x3watch.com). X3watch is accountability software. It tracks your internet browsing and sends a report of any objectionable websites you have visited to an accountability partner of your choosing. Your temptation to view internet porn would be greatly reduced if you knew your youth pastor, parent, friend, pastor, or spouse would receive a detailed report about it. There are also quite a few good books on overcoming porn addiction: [Sexual Detox: A Guide for Guys Who Are Sick of Porn](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=07286X) by Tim Challies and [5 Steps to Breaking Free from Porn](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=953368) by Joe Dallas. These practical tools can help gain victory over sin as the heart issue behind pornography addiction or consumption is addressed. Do not despair! An addiction to internet porn is not an “unforgivable sin.” God can and will forgive you. An addiction to internet porn is not an “unconquerable sin.” God can and will enable you to overcome it. Commit your mind and eyes to the Lord. Commit yourself to filling your mind with God’s Word (Psalm 119:11\). Seek His help daily in prayer; ask Him to fill your mind with His truth and block unwanted thoughts and desires. Take the practical steps listed above to keep yourself accountable and block access to internet porn. “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us” (Ephesians 3:20\).
God helps those who help themselves - is it in the Bible?	Answer "God helps those who help themselves" is probably the most often quoted phrase that is not found in the Bible. This saying is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, quoted in Poor Richard’s Almanac in 1757\. In actuality, it originated from Algernon Sydney in 1698 in an article titled Discourses Concerning Government. Whatever the original source of this saying, the Bible teaches the opposite. God helps the helpless! Isaiah 25:4 declares, "For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat..." Romans 5:6 tells us, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." In terms of salvation, we are all utterly helpless. We are all infected by sin (Romans 3:23\), and condemned as a result of that sin (Romans 6:23\). Nothing we can do on our own can remedy this situation (Isaiah 64:6\). Thankfully, God is the helper of the helpless. While we were still sinners, Jesus died for us (Romans 5:8\). Jesus paid the penalty that we were incapable of paying (2 Corinthians 5:21\). God provided the "help" that we need precisely because we could not help ourselves. Apart from salvation, there is perhaps a way that the concept "God helps those who help themselves" is correct. As an example, if you asked me to help you move a piece of furniture, but then just watched me as I moved the furniture for you, I was not actually helping you. I would be doing the work for you. Many Christians fall into the trap of inactivity. Many Christians ask God for help, but then expect God to do everything Himself. They excuse this by pointing to the fact that God will provide according to His will and in His timing. However, this is not a reason for inactivity. As a specific example, if you are in need of a job, ask the Lord to help you find a job \- but then be active in actually looking for a job. While it is in His power to do so, it is highly unlikely that God will cause employers to come looking for you!
Is a wet dream / nocturnal emission a sin?	Answer Wet dreams / nocturnal emissions are fairly common in the lives of men. The Bible mentions "emissions" in a few places (Leviticus 15:16,18,32; 22:4; Deuteronomy 23:10\). Deuteronomy 23:10 specifically refers to nocturnal emissions: "If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there." Many young men (and older men) struggle with this concept. Is a wet dream / nocturnal emission sinful? How can it be a sin if we have no control over it? Ultimately, we cannot control what we dream about or what happens with our bodies while we are asleep. However, if we are filling our minds with lustful / sinful things during the day, it will likely show up in our dreams. A nocturnal emission is a natural bodily function that is made more frequent by sexual over\-stimulation. A nocturnal emission is not sinful in and of itself, but it can be the result of sinful thoughts, desires, and input. If you have a wet dream / nocturnal emission, examine your thought life. Examine what sort of images you are exposing yourself to. If you find that you have allowed yourself to be "inflamed" by lust, confess that to the Lord and ask for His help in overcoming it. In such a case, the wet dream / nocturnal emission is the result of sin, not a sin in and of itself. Follow the words of Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable \- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy \- think about such things.” If you find that the nocturnal emission / wet dream was simply the result of the body naturally "relieving itself," you do not need to confess anything to the Lord. The Old Testament law was very ceremonial in its treatment of [bodily discharges](bodily-discharge.html), for men and women. Thankfully, we are not bound by these regulations. A man who has had a wet dream / nocturnal emission is not "unclean." Again, the issue is what is going on with your mind. The reactions of our bodies are the result of what takes place in our minds (Matthew 12:34\-35\).
Does the Bible call Christians to defend the faith?	Answer The classic verse promoting apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith) is 1 Peter 3:15, which says that believers are to make a defense "for the hope that you have." The only way to do this effectively is to study the reasons why we believe what we believe. This will prepare us to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ,” as Paul said we should (2 Corinthians 10:5\). Paul practiced what he preached; in fact, defending the faith was his regular activity (Philippians 1:7\). He refers to apologetics as an aspect of his mission in the same passage (v.16\). He also made apologetics a requirement for church leadership in Titus 1:9\. Jude, an apostle of Jesus, wrote that "although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (v.3\). Where did the apostles get these ideas? From the Master Himself. Jesus was His own apologetic, as He often stated that we should believe in Him because of the evidence He provided (John 2:23; 10:25; 10:38; 14:29\). In fact, the whole Bible is full of divine miracles that confirm what God wants us to believe (Exodus 4:1\-8; 1 Kings 18:36\-39; Acts 2:22\-43; Hebrews 2:3\-4; 2 Corinthians 12:12\). People rightly refuse to believe something without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, we should not be surprised when He expects us to live rationally. As [Norman Geisler](Norman-Geisler.html) says, “This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.” Those who oppose these clear biblical teachings and examples may say, “The Word of God does not need to be defended!” But which of the world’s writings are the Word of God? As soon as someone answers that, he is doing apologetics. Some claim that human reason cannot tell us anything about God—but that statement itself is a "reasonable" statement about God. If it’s not, then there is no reason to believe it. A favorite saying is, “If someone can talk you into Christianity, then someone else can talk you out.” Why is this a problem? Did not Paul himself give a criterion (the resurrection) by which Christianity should be accepted or rejected in 1 Corinthians 15? It is only misplaced piety that answers in the negative. None of this is to say that apologetics alone, apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit, can bring someone to saving faith. This creates a false dilemma in the minds of many. But it does not have to be “Spirit versus Logic.” Why not both? The Holy Spirit must move someone to a position of belief, but how He accomplishes this is up to Him. With some people God uses trials; in others it is an emotional experience; in others it is through reason. God can use whatever means He wants. We, however, are commanded to use apologetics in as many or more places as we are told to preach the gospel.
Is partial preterism biblical?	Answer Preterism is the eschatological view that the “end times” prophecies of the Bible have already been fulfilled. So, when we read what the Bible says about the tribulation, we are reading history. Preterism is divided into two camps: full (or consistent) preterism and partial preterism. [Full preterism](preterist.html) takes an extreme view that all prophecy in the Bible has been fulfilled in one way or another. Partial preterists take a more moderate approach, and many partial preterists consider full preterists to be guilty of heresy. Those who hold to partial preterism believe that the prophecies in Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation (with the exception of the last two or three chapters) have already been fulfilled and were fulfilled no later than the first century AD. According to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in [AD 70](AD-70.html) and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself. In order for partial preterists to maintain their position, they insist that the book of Revelation was written early (before AD 70\). They must also use an inconsistent hermeneutic when interpreting prophetic passages. According to the preterist view of the end times, chapters 6—18 of Revelation are highly symbolic, not describing any literal events. Since the destruction of Jerusalem did not involve the wholesale destruction of sea life (Revelation 16:3\) or agonizing darkness (verse 10\), these judgments are interpreted by the preterist as purely allegorical. However, according to preterists, chapter 19 is to be understood literally—Jesus Christ will physically return. But chapter 20 is again interpreted allegorically by preterists, while chapters 21—22 are understood literally, at least in part, in that there will truly be a new heaven and new earth. No one denies that Revelation contains amazing and sometimes confusing visions. No one denies that Revelation describes many things figuratively—that’s the nature of apocalyptic literature. However, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation is to destroy the basis of interpreting any of the book literally. If the plagues, witnesses, beast, false prophet, millennial kingdom, etc., are all allegorical, then on what basis do we claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal? That is the failure of preterism—it leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter. Those who hold to partial preterism also do not read Matthew 24 in a literal sense. Christ spoke of the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:2\). But much of what He described did not occur in AD 70\. Christ speaks of that future time as one of “great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened” (Matthew 24:21–22\). Surely, this cannot be applied to the events of AD 70\. There have been worse times in the history of the world since then. The Lord also says, “Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:29–30\). In order for the events of these two verses to have already occurred, Jesus Christ must have returned bodily in AD 70—but He did not. The partial preterist believes that these verses do not refer to a bodily return of Christ but to an appearing of His judgment. However, this is not what a normal, literal reading of the text would lead anyone to believe. It is the “Son of Man” whom people see, not just His judgment. Partial preterists also appeal to Matthew 24:34 where Jesus speaks of “this generation.” They say that Christ was referring to those living at the time He spoke the words recorded in that chapter; thus, the tribulation had to occur within about 40 years of His statement. However, we believe that Jesus was not referring to the people of His day but to the generation who would witness the events recorded in Matthew 24:15–31\. That future generation will witness all of the swiftly moving events of the last days, including Christ’s bodily return (verses 29–30\). The partial preterist viewpoint leads to a belief in amillenialism (or post\-millenialism) and is associated with covenant theology. Of course, it rejects dispensationalism. But its main problem is its inconsistent hermeneutic and its allegorizing of many biblical prophecies that are better understood literally. While partial preterism is within the scope of orthodoxy, it is not the majority view among Christians today.
I am a Muslim. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?	Answer People often follow the religion of their parents or culture, whether Muslim, Buddhist, or Catholic. But when we stand before God on Judgment Day, each person must give account for himself—whether he believed in God’s truth. But among so many religions, what is the truth? “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6\). True Christians are followers of Jesus. How could Jesus claim to be the one and only way to God the Father? Let’s find out in the Scripture, the Bible. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection The Bible records how Jesus fulfilled prophecy when He was born to the virgin Mary. He grew up unique from any other human because He never sinned (1 Peter 2:22\). Crowds flocked to hear His teaching and marvel at His miracles. Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and walked on water. Of all people, Jesus did not deserve to die. Yet Jesus prophesied that He would be crucified and raised from the dead (Matthew 20:18\-19\). His words came to pass. Soldiers beat Jesus and put a crown of thorns on His head; people mocked and spit on Him; nails pierced His hands and feet into a wooden cross. Jesus had the power to save Himself, but He gave Himself, willingly dying on the cross (John 19:30\). Three days later, Jesus rose from the grave! Why the cross? As a Muslim, you may ask, “Why would Allah allow His Prophet Isa to be mistreated and killed?” Jesus’ death was essential because . . . • Every person is a sinner: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\). Whether dishonoring parents, telling a lie, failing to love God best, or disbelieving God’s Word, we each have sinned against the holy God. • The punishment for sin is death: “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23a). God pours out His wrath against unbelieving sinners by separating them forever in hell (2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9\). As the just Judge, God will not overlook sin. • We cannot save ourselves by good works: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). This is a key difference between Christianity and Islam. Islam teaches that a person can earn paradise by keeping the Five Pillars. Even if possible to outweigh bad deeds with good deeds, the Bible teaches that “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6b). Even one single sin makes a person guilty of breaking all God’s law (James 2:10\). Sinful humans can do nothing to merit heaven. • God sacrificed His Son for sinners: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16\). God knew mankind’s sin kept them from heaven. God knew the only way the sin debt could be paid was by a perfect One paying the price of death. God knew He alone could pay such an infinite price. So God’s eternal plan was to send His Son Jesus to die in the believing sinner’s place. Becoming a Christian “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31b). As a Muslim, you may say, “Oh, I believe in Jesus. I believe Isa was a true teacher, a great prophet, and a good man.” But you cannot say Jesus was a true teacher and yet deny His teaching that He is the only way, truth, and life (John 14:6\). You cannot believe Jesus was a great prophet and yet reject His prophecy that He would die and rise again in three days (Luke 18:31\-33\). You cannot admit Jesus is a good man yet disbelieve His claim to be the Son of God (Luke 22:70; John 5:18\-47\). You cannot consider becoming a Christian without realizing that Christianity excludes all other religions (Acts 4:12\). The inescapable conclusion of Christianity is this: either Jesus bears your sin on the cross or you bear your sin in hell. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36\). As you search the Bible, may God awaken your heart to turn from your sin and trust in Jesus. You may respond with a prayer like the one below. Remember, the prayer does not save you. God alone can save! But the prayer may be your expression of the faith God gives you in the Lord Jesus Christ. “Dear God, I grieve that I have sinned against You. As a sinner, I’m worthy of death in hell. But I believe You sent Your Son, Jesus, to die on the cross for sin and rise from the dead in victory. I now turn from following my own sinful desires and from trying to reach heaven through my own works. I trust in the Lord Jesus alone as my Savior from sin. I love You, Lord, and submit myself to follow You by Your Word, the Bible. Amen!” Have you trusted Jesus as your Savior and Lord because of what you have read here today? If so, click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below. If you have any questions, please use the question form on our [Bible Questions Answered](Bible-Questions.html) page.
If I convert to Christianity, I will be persecuted. Should I follow Jesus?	Answer Converting to Christianity means becoming a follower of Jesus by faith (John 10:26\-30\). Crowds flocked to Jesus, but most were not His true followers. They just wanted to experience healing of their diseases, see Jesus cast out demons, and eat their fill of the bread He miraculously provided. Jesus warned them of the cost of following Him. “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels’” (Mark 8:34\-38\). Would you follow your own fleshly desires, or would you deny yourself and follow Jesus? Do you value your earthly life or eternal life? Do you treasure the goods of this world or the salvation of your soul? Do you fear being ashamed of Jesus or fear Jesus being ashamed of you? You pursue what you treasure. You go to work and sweat because you know the rewards of a paycheck outweigh the temporary pleasure of reclining at home in front of the T.V. If Jesus calls you, you will follow, knowing that losing your earthly life is worth gaining eternal life. Would you follow Jesus? Count the cost (Luke 14:25\-33\): • Following Jesus costs your own life. Jesus said you must deny yourself, taking up your cross. One who rejects the cross cannot be Christ’s disciple (Luke 14:27\). • Following Jesus may cost the loss of family and friends. Jesus said His coming often brings division between His followers and their families, friends, and the world. Anyone who does not hate (meaning love less) his family is not worthy of Christ (Matthew 10:32\-39\). • Following Jesus may cost the loss of your possessions. One rich man proudly thought he was good enough to go to heaven. “Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me’” (Matthew 19:21\). Loving wealth more, the rich man sadly forsook Jesus. • Following Jesus will cost facing persecution. Christians should expect suffering as a normal part of belonging to the “man of sorrows” (See Isaiah 53 and John 15:18\-21\). Jesus even called the persecuted one “blessed,” saying “rejoice and be glad for your reward in heaven is great” (See Matthew 5:10\-12\). God’s people have always faced persecution. The prophets were reviled, tortured, and killed (Hebrews 11:37\). History records that ten of Jesus’ disciples were executed for preaching Christ. Tradition states that Peter insisted on being crucified upside down because he counted himself unworthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. Yet he wrote, “If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of God and of glory rests on you” (1 Peter 4:14\). The apostle Paul was jailed, beaten, shipwrecked, and stoned numerous times for preaching Christ, but he considered suffering not even worth mentioning compared to the reward he knew awaited in paradise (Romans 8:18\). Following Jesus doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll lose your possessions, family, friends, and physical life, but are you willing? While the cost of discipleship seems high, persecution brings earthly and heavenly rewards. Through persecution, the Lord stays with believers (Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 13:5\); He knows their limits and gives grace (1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 12:9\); He rewards them in heaven (Matthew 5:10\-12\); He works persecution for good, shaping the believer’s character and glorifying Himself (Romans 8:28–29\). The rewards far outweigh the cost of following Jesus! Jesus suffered and died on the cross to take the believer’s punishment for sin. The only way of forgiveness and eternal life is through faith in the Lord Jesus (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Although a Christian’s enduring persecution does not add any saving merit to the perfect work of Christ, a true believer will faithfully follow Jesus through suffering. “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, ‘who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth’ and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Peter 2:21\-25\).
What is a theophany? What is a Christophany?	Answer A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form. Some of the theophanies are found in these passages: 1\. Genesis 12:7\-9 – The Lord appeared to Abraham on his arrival in the land God had promised to him and his descendants. 2\. Genesis 18:1\-33 – One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre\-incarnate appearance of Christ. 3\. Genesis 32:22\-30 – Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28\-30\). This may also have been a Christophany. 4\. Exodus 3:2 \- 4:17 – God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do. 5\. Exodus 24:9\-11 – God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders. 6\. Deuteronomy 31:14\-15 – God appeared to Moses and Joshua in the transfer of leadership to Joshua. 7\. Job 38–42 – God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job’s questions. Frequently, the term “glory of the Lord” reflects a theophany, as in Exodus 24:16\-18; the “pillar of cloud” has a similar function in Exodus 33:9\. A frequent introduction for theophanies may be seen in the words “the Lord came down,” as in Genesis 11:5; Exodus 34:5; Numbers 11:25; and 12:5\. Some Bible commentators believe that whenever someone received a visit from “the angel of the Lord,” this was in fact the pre\-incarnate Christ. These appearances can be seen in Genesis 16:7\-14; Genesis 22:11\-18; Judges 5:23; 2 Kings 19:35; and other passages. Other commentators believe these were in fact angelophanies, or appearances of angels. While there are no indisputable Christophanies in the Old Testament, every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation, where God took the form of a man to live among us as Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23\).
How did Judas die?	Answer The death of [Judas Iscariot](Judas-Iscariot.html) was a suicide committed after he was filled with remorse (but not repentance) for his betrayal of Jesus. Matthew and Luke (in the book of Acts) both mention some details of Judas’s death, and reconciling the details between the two accounts has presented some difficulties. Matthew says that Judas died by hanging. Here is the account in Matthew’s Gospel: "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day" (Matthew 27:5–8\). Luke says that Judas fell into a field and that his body ruptured. Here is the account in Acts: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" (Acts 1:18–19\). Which account is correct? Did Judas die by hanging, or did he die by falling? Or are both true? A related question is, Did Judas buy the field, or did the priests buy the field? Concerning how Judas died, here is a simple reconciliation of the facts: Judas hanged himself in the potter’s field (Matthew 27:5\), and that is how he died. Then, after his body had begun to decay and bloat, the rope broke, or the branch of the tree he was using broke, and his body fell, bursting open on the land of the potter’s field (Acts 1:18–19\). Note that Luke does not say that Judas died from the fall, only that his body fell. The Acts passage presumes Judas’s hanging, as a man falling down in a field does not normally result in his body bursting open. Only decomposition and a fall from a height could cause a body to burst open. So Matthew mentions the actual cause of death, and Luke focuses more on the horror surrounding it. Concerning who paid for the field, here are two possible ways to reconcile the facts: 1\) Judas was promised the thirty pieces of silver several days before Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:11\). Sometime during the days leading up to his betrayal of Jesus, Judas made arrangements to purchase a field, although no money had yet been transferred. After the deed was done, Judas was paid, but he then returned the money to the chief priests. The priests, who considered the silver to be blood money, completed the transaction that Judas had begun and bought the field. 2\) When Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver down, the priests took the money and used it to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:7\). Judas may not have purchased the field personally, but he provided the money for the transaction and could then be said to be the purchaser.
How much authority should a pastor have over a church?	Answer The church is called “the flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2\), “God’s heritage” (1 Peter 5:3\), and “the church of God” (Acts 20:28\). Jesus is “the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23\) and “the chief Shepherd” (1 Peter 5:4\). The church rightly belongs to Christ, and He is the authority over it (Matthew 16:18\). This is just as true of the local church as of the universal Body of Christ. God’s blueprint for building His church includes using men in the office of [pastor](senior-pastor.html). The pastor is first an elder, and, along with the other elders, the pastor is responsible to do the following: 1\) Oversee the church (1 Timothy 3:1\). The primary meaning of the word bishop is “overseer.” The general oversight of the ministry and operation of the church is the responsibility of the pastor and the other elders. This would include the handling of finances within the church (Acts 11:30\). 2\) Rule over the church (1 Timothy 5:17\). The word translated “rule” literally means “to stand before.” The idea is to lead or to attend to, with an emphasis on being a diligent caretaker. This would include the responsibility to exercise church discipline and reprove those who err from the faith (Matthew 18:15–17; 1 Corinthians 5:11–13\). 3\) Feed the church (1 Peter 5:2\). Literally, the word pastor means “shepherd.” The pastor has a duty to “feed the flock” with God’s Word and to lead them in the proper way. 4\) Guard the doctrine of the church (Titus 1:9\). The teaching of the apostles was to be committed to “faithful men” who would teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2\). Preserving the integrity of [the gospel](gospel-message.html) is one of the pastor’s highest callings. Some pastors consider the title “overseer” as a command to have their hand in everything. Whether it’s running the sound system or selecting songs for Sunday or picking out drapes for the nursery, some pastors feel it their duty to be involved in every decision. Not only is this exhausting for the pastor, who finds himself in every committee meeting, it’s also hampering others from using their gifts in the church. A pastor can oversee and delegate at the same time. In addition, the biblical model of a plurality of elders, along with deacons appointed to assist the pastor and elders, precludes the pastorate from becoming a “one\-man show.” The command to “rule” the church is sometimes taken to extremes as well. A pastor’s official responsibility is to govern the church along with the elders, and his focus should be primarily spiritual, attending to matters such as edifying believers and equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:12\). We have heard of pastors who seem more dictatorial than shepherd\-like, requiring those under their authority to seek their permission before making an investment, going on vacation, etc. Such men, it seems to us, simply desire control and are unfit to rule the church of God (see 3 John 1:9–10\). First Peter 5:3 contains a wonderful description of a balanced pastoral ministry: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.” The pastor’s authority is not something to be “lorded over” the church; rather, a pastor is to be an example of truth, love, and godliness for God’s flock to follow. (See also 1 Timothy 4:12\.) A pastor is “the steward of God” (Titus 1:7\), and he is answerable to God for his leadership in the church.
Why does God allow birth defects?	Answer The ultimate answer to this difficult question is that when Adam and Eve sinned (Genesis chapter 3\), they brought evil, sickness, disease, and death into the world. Sin has been wreaking havoc on the human race ever since. Birth defects occur because of sin...not because of sins the parents or the baby have committed, but because of sin itself. The hard part of the question is why God allows people to be born with terrible birth defects and/or deformities. Why doesn’t God prevent birth defects from occurring? The book of Job deals with the issue of not understanding why God allows certain things to occur. God had allowed Satan to do everything he wanted to Job except kill him. What was Job’s reaction? “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him” (Job 13:15\). “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised” (Job 1:21\). Job didn’t understand why God had allowed the things He did, but he knew that God was good and therefore continued to trust in Him. Ultimately, that should be our reaction as well. God is good, just, loving, and merciful. Often things happen to us that we simply cannot understand. However, instead of doubting God’s goodness, our reaction should be to trust Him. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight" (Proverbs 3:5\-6\). Ultimately, the answer to this question has to be “I don’t know.” We will never be able to fully understand God and His ways. It is wrong for us to question why God allows something to occur. We simply have to trust that He is loving, good, and merciful – just like Job did – even when the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. Sickness and disease are the result of sin. God provided the “cure” for sin in sending Jesus Christ to die for us (Romans 5:8\). Once we are in heaven, we will be free from sickness, disease, and death. Until that day, we will have to deal with sin, its effects, and its consequences. We can praise God, though, that He can and will use birth defects and other tragedies for our good and His glory. John 9:2\-3 declares, "His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'"
Does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?	Answer As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "[Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?](salvation-faith-alone.html)" Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." The first question that must be answered is "when was Paul saved?" 1\. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11\-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." So, Paul heard and believed in Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17\). 2\. It also should be noted that, at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, Paul also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17\)—this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18\). Acts presents a transition period where God’s focus turns from Israel to the Church. The events recorded in Acts are not always normative. With regard to receiving the Holy Spirit, the norm is that a person receives and is permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. 3\. The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events. 4\. Concerning the words, "be baptized, and wash away your sins," because Paul was already cleansed spiritually at the time Christ appeared to him, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God’s inner work of washing away sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21\). 5\. It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12\-18\), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him.
What is the Gospel of Judas?	Answer Sometime in the 1970s, in a cave in Egypt, a copy of the “Gospel of Judas” was discovered. The circumstances of the discovery have been described as shady, with those who possessed the copy asking for exorbitant amounts of money for the codex. For decades, no institution was willing to pay for the purchase due to its dubious origins. Eventually the codex of the Gospel of Judas was purchased by a foundation in Switzerland. The existence of the Gospel of Judas codex was made public in 2004, but the actual release of the content of the codex was repeatedly delayed, finally being released in April 2006\. The dating of the original writing of the Gospel of Judas is thought to be about AD 150, with the Egyptian codex dating from the late 3rd century. According to various accounts, up to one third of the codex is missing or illegible. Prior to this discovery, the only reference to the Gospel of Judas was in the writings of a 2nd\-century Christian named Irenaeus. Irenaeus essentially wrote that the Gospel of Judas was the “invented history” of a long line of heretics and rebels against God. The essential message of the Gospel of Judas is that Jesus wanted Judas to betray Him because it was necessary to fulfill Jesus’ plan. If it was Jesus’ plan for Judas to betray Him, why would Jesus label Judas the “son of perdition” (John 17:12\) and state that it would have been better if Judas had never been born (Matthew 26:24\)? If Judas were simply following Jesus’ instructions, why would he commit suicide once he saw that Jesus was condemned (Matthew 27:5\)? The Gospel of Judas is a [Gnostic gospel](Gnostic-gospels.html), espousing a [Gnostic viewpoint of Christianity](Christian-gnosticism.html). The Gospel of Judas is simply a heretical forgery, much the same as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip. Just as Judas Iscariot rejected Jesus and betrayed Him with a kiss, the Gospel of Judas rejects the true gospel and truth of God with a fraudulent appearance of validity.
Does God require Sabbath-keeping of Christians?	Answer In Colossians 2:16\-17, the apostle Paul declares, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Similarly, Romans 14:5 states, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” These Scriptures make it clear that, for the Christian, Sabbath\-keeping is a matter of spiritual freedom, not a command from God. Sabbath\-keeping is an issue on which God’s Word instructs us not to judge each other. Sabbath\-keeping is a matter about which each Christian needs to be fully convinced in his/her own mind. In the early chapters of the book of Acts, the first Christians were predominantly Jews. When Gentiles began to receive the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, the Jewish Christians had a dilemma. What aspects of the Mosaic Law and Jewish tradition should Gentile Christians be instructed to obey? The apostles met and discussed the issue in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15\). The decision was, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:19\-20\). Sabbath\-keeping was not one of the commands the apostles felt was necessary to force on Gentile believers. It is inconceivable that the apostles would neglect to include Sabbath\-keeping if it was God’s command for Christians to observe the Sabbath day. A common error in the Sabbath\-keeping debate is the concept that the Sabbath was the day of worship. Groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists hold that God requires the church service to be held on Saturday, the Sabbath day. That is not what the Sabbath command was. The Sabbath command was to do no work on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8\-11\). Yes, Jews in Old Testament, New Testament, and modern times use Saturday as the day of worship, but that is not the essence of the Sabbath command. In the book of Acts, whenever a meeting is said to be on the Sabbath, it is a meeting of Jews and/or Gentile converts to Judaism, not Christians. When did the early Christians meet? Acts 2:46\-47 gives us the answer, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” If there was a day that Christians met regularly, it was the first day of the week (our Sunday), not the Sabbath day (our Saturday) (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2\). In honor of Christ’s resurrection on Sunday, the early Christians observed Sunday not as the “Christian Sabbath” but as a day to especially worship Jesus Christ. Is there anything wrong with worshiping on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath? Absolutely not! We should worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday! Many churches today have both Saturday and Sunday services. There is freedom in Christ (Romans 8:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1\). Should a Christian practice Sabbath\-keeping, that is, not working on Saturdays? If a Christian feels led to do so, absolutely, yes (Romans 14:5\). However, those who choose to practice Sabbath\-keeping should not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16\). Further, those who do not keep the Sabbath should avoid being a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 8:9\) to those who do keep the Sabbath. Galatians 5:13\-15 sums up the whole issue: “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”
What is Zion?	Answer Psalm 87:2–3 says, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion / more than all the other dwellings of Jacob. / Glorious things are said of you, / city of God.” According to this verse, Zion is synonymous with city of God, and it is a place that God loves. Zion is Jerusalem. Mount Zion is the high hill on which David built a citadel. It is on the southeast side of the city. The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and has the idea of being “raised up” as a “monument.” Zion is described both as the city of David and the city of God. As the Bible progresses, the word Zion expands in scope and takes on an additional, spiritual meaning. The first mention of Zion in the Bible is 2 Samuel 5:7: “David captured the fortress of Zion—which is the City of David.” Zion was originally an ancient Jebusite fortress in the city of Jerusalem. After David’s conquest of the fortress, Jerusalem became a possession of Israel. The royal palace was built there, and Zion/Jerusalem became the seat of power in Israel’s kingdom.. When Solomon built the [temple in Jerusalem](Solomon-first-temple.html), the meaning of Zion expanded further to include the temple area (Psalm 2:6; 48:2, 11–12; 132:13\). This is the meaning found in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:6, “Come, let us go up to Zion, to the LORD our God.” In the Old Testament Zion is used as a name for the city of Jerusalem (Isaiah 40:9\), the land of Judah (Jeremiah 31:12\), and the nation of Israel as a whole (Zechariah 9:13\). The word Zion is also used in a theological or spiritual sense in Scripture. In the Old Testament Zion refers figuratively to Israel as the people of God (Isaiah 60:14\). In the New Testament, Zion refers to God’s spiritual kingdom. We have not come to Mount Sinai, says the apostle, but “to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22\). Peter, quoting Isaiah 28:16, refers to Christ as the [Cornerstone](Jesus-Christ-cornerstone.html) of Zion: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6\). Mount Zion as a geographical area is currently the center of much dispute. The Bible is clear that, one day, Zion will be the sole possession of the Lord Jesus, and Zion—the nation and the city—will be restored. “Awake, awake, / Clothe yourself in your strength, O Zion; / Clothe yourself in your beautiful garments, / O Jerusalem, the holy city; / For the uncircumcised and the unclean / Will no longer come into you” (Isaiah 52:1\). And “the children of your oppressors will come bowing before you; / all who despise you will bow down at your feet / and will call you the City of the LORD, / Zion of the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 60:14\).
What is the Priory of Sion?	Answer In The Da Vinci Code, the Priory of Sion is a secret society, founded A.D. 1099, claiming such members as Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. According to The Da Vinci Code, the primary purpose of the Priory of Sion is to maintain the truth that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children with her. These children then intermarried with the [Merovingian](Merovingian-dynasty.html) line of Frankish kings, with the sacred bloodline surviving into modern times. As with most of what is contained in The Da Vinci Code, there is very little, if any, evidence that would support these conclusions about the Priory of Sion. The Priory of Sion was founded in 1956, not 1099\. The supposed ledgers of members of the Priory of Sion are considered to be fraudulent by most respected historians and scholars. The Da Vinci Code takes the Priory of Sion, attaches unfounded conspiracy theories about its origins and purposes, and uses it as evidence of a vast cover\-up of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene. Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene or to anyone else. Jesus did not have children with Mary Magdalene or with anyone else. The early church did not seek to cover this up because there was nothing to cover up. The only conspiracy theory that involves the Priory of Sion is the one invented by author Dan Brown and others, who are using wild imaginations and unfounded theories to attack what the Bible says about who Jesus Christ truly was and what He came to earth to do.
The Jesus Papers - what are they?	Answer In 2006, author Michael Baigent released a book entitled The Jesus Papers. The subtitle of the book is Exposing the Greatest Cover\-Up in History. The supposed cover\-up exposed by The Jesus Papers is that Jesus survived the crucifixion and was alive as late as AD 45\. The Jesus Papers themselves are documents that "prove" the conspiracy theory, including documents supposedly written by Jesus Himself. The gist of the book is that Jesus and Pontius Pilate made a secret agreement that Jesus would not be killed, but rather would be crucified and then rescued. Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus—likely the only concept in which The Jesus Papers and the biblical gospels agree. However, Pilate was under great pressure to please the Jewish authorities and prevent a riot. So, during one of the private discussions between Jesus and Pilate, they arranged the scheme. Further biblical evidence of this conspiracy, according to The Jesus Papers, is the fact that Jesus "died" so quickly, and that Pilate allowed Jesus’ body to be removed from the cross after only a few hours. There are many, many problems with this conspiracy theory. (1\) It is highly unlikely that anyone could survive crucifixion. While the historian Josephus records a friend of his surviving crucifixion, the odds would be astoundingly low. (2\) Each of the four biblical gospels specifically records Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection three days later. Jesus "gave up His spirit" (John 19:30; Luke 23:46\). (3\) If Jesus had survived the crucifixion, the disciples would have clearly seen that Jesus had not been resurrected. The wounds of crucifixion would have rendered Jesus crippled for months. Why would the disciples all be willing to die horrendous deaths for a belief in Jesus’ resurrection, which they all knew to be a lie? (4\) Why would Pontius Pilate, a brutal Roman governor, be willing to negotiate a deal with a "trouble\-maker" from Galilee? Pilate ordered the torture and crucifixion of hundreds of people. He would have had no good reason to spare Jesus’ life. Like most conspiracy theories, The Jesus Papers is high on conspiracy and low on evidence. Even the author admits that it is an unprovable theory. Further, the author admits that neither he nor anyone else has ever actually seen the supposed document that proves Jesus survived the crucifixion. There is not even a shred of evidence for The Jesus Papers theory, whether in the Bible or in history. The real issue here is the authority of Scripture. The Bible is the very Word of God, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the men who penned it (2 Timothy 3:16\). Its prophecies, histories and science are 100 percent accurate, and its authenticity has been miraculously preserved through countless translations over thousands of years. Most of all, unlike frauds like The Jesus Papers and The DaVinci Code, the power of God to transform lives exists in its pages. God’s extraordinary plan for the salvation of mankind is the central theme of His book. Jesus died on the cross, as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, just as the Bible says He did (1 John 2:2\).
Spiritual strongholds - what is the biblical view?	Answer The word strongholds is found once in the New Testament, used metaphorically by Paul in a description of the Christian’s spiritual battle: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses \[strongholds]” (2 Corinthians 10:3\-4, NASB). This passage reveals the following facts about our warfare: 1\) Our battle is not planned according to the way this world fights; earthly stratagems are not our concern. 2\) Our weapons are not physical, for our warfare is spiritual in nature. Rather than guns and tanks, our weapons are those of the “full armor of God” and consist of “the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:14\-17\). 3\) Our power comes from God alone. 4\) God’s plan is to demolish spiritual strongholds. What are these “strongholds” or “fortifications” we face? In the very next verse, Paul interprets the metaphor: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5\). The “arguments” are the philosophies, reasonings, and schemes of the world. The “pretensions” have to do with anything proud, man\-centered, and self\-confident. Here’s the picture: the Christian, wearing his spiritual armor and bearing his spiritual weapons, sets out to “conquer” the world for Christ, but he soon finds obstacles. The enemy has erected strongly fortified garrisons to resist the Truth and thwart God’s plan of redemption. There is the fortress of human reasoning, reinforced with many subtle arguments and the pretense of logic. There is the castle of passion, with flaming battlements defended by lust, pleasure, and greed. And there is the pinnacle of pride, in which the human heart sits enthroned and revels in thoughts of its own excellence and sufficiency. The enemy is firmly entrenched; these strongholds have been guarded for thousands of years, presenting a great wall of resistance to the Truth. None of this deters the Christian warrior, however. Using the weapons of God’s choosing, he attacks the strongholds, and by the miraculous power of Christ, the walls are breached, and the bastions of sin and error are battered down. The victorious Christian enters the ruins and leads captive, as it were, every false theory and every human philosophy that had once proudly asserted its independence from God. If this sounds a lot like Joshua fighting the battle of Jericho, you’re right. What a great illustration of spiritual truth that story is (Joshua 6\)! Sharing the gospel is not the only time we see resistance. We can also face demonic strongholds in our own lives, in our families, and even in our churches. Anyone who has fought an addiction, struggled with pride, or had to “flee youthful lusts” knows that sin, a lack of faith, and a worldly outlook on life are indeed “strongholds.” The Lord is building His Church, and the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18\). What we need are Christian soldiers, totally surrendered to the will of the Lord of Hosts, who will use the spiritual weapons He provides. “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God” (Psalm 20:7\).
What is Jacob’s Ladder?	Answer The term "Jacob’s Ladder" has become a common phrase—it has been used as a movie title, a book title, a name of a flower, and even as a name of an electrical device. But from where did this phrase originate? Genesis 28:10\-12 first mentions "Jacob’s Ladder" when it says, "Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway/ladder resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it." It is in this passage that God reveals Himself to Jacob and reaffirms the covenant He made with Abraham, promising Jacob (who will later be named Israel) that his offspring will be many and that the Promised Land will one day belong to his descendants. In this vision Jacob sees something similar to a ladder or a stairway (Hebrew word: sullam) which signifies a connection between God and man. In this instance, it was God who provided the means necessary to link Himself to man as opposed to the men of Babel in Genesis 11 who tried to reach heaven by their own actions, aside from the help of God. These two passages of Scripture reflect differing schools of thought over the issue of salvation: One group tries to reach heaven based on their own actions aside from God’s help, but the other group has access to heaven based on the provisions of God and only the provisions of God. As Christians we see this dream of Jacob’s as highly symbolic, representing the Mediator, Jesus Christ, who came to earth and became that ladder or stairway for us to reconnect the relationship with God that was severed because of sin. Romans 5:1\-2 says, "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." According to the Bible, Jesus was our ideal "Jacob’s Ladder" who came to earth, from the line of Jacob, through the provisions of God, and redeemed us so that we may live in heaven for eternity.
What is original sin?	Answer The term original sin refers to Adam’s sin of disobedience in eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and its effects upon the rest of the human race. Original sin can be defined as “the moral corruption we possess as a consequence of Adam’s sin, resulting in a sinful disposition manifesting itself in habitually sinful behavior.” The doctrine of original sin focuses particularly on its effect on our internal nature and our standing before God. There are three main views that deal with that effect: [Pelagianism](Pelagianism.html): This view says that Adam’s sin had no effect upon the souls of his descendants other than that he provided a sinful example. Adam’s example has influenced those who followed him to also sin. But, according to this view, man has the ability to stop sinning if he simply chooses to. Pelagianism runs contrary to a number of passages that indicate man is hopelessly enslaved by his sins (apart from God’s intervention) and that his good works are “dead” or worthless in meriting God’s favor (Ephesians 2:1–2; Matthew 15:18–19; Romans 7:23; Hebrews 6:1; 9:14\). [Arminianism](arminianism.html): Arminians believe Adam’s original sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a corrupt, sinful nature, which causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; God’s supernatural, enabling grace, called [prevenient grace](prevenient-grace.html), in conjunction with the gospel, allows that person to choose to exercise faith in Christ. The teaching of prevenient grace is not explicitly found in Scripture. [Calvinism](calvinism.html): The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin states that Adam’s sin has resulted not only in our having a sin nature, but also in our incurring guilt before God for which we deserve punishment. Being conceived with original sin upon us (Psalm 51:5\) results in our inheriting a sin nature so wicked that Jeremiah 17:9 describes the human heart as “deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” Not only was Adam found guilty because he sinned, but his sin was imputed to us, making us guilty and deserving of his punishment (death) as well (Romans 5:12, 19\). There are two views as to why Adam’s sin should be imputed to us. The first view states that the human race was within Adam in seed form; thus, when Adam sinned, we sinned in him. This is similar to the biblical teaching that Levi (a descendant of Abraham) paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:4–9\), even though Levi was not born until hundreds of years later. The other main view is that Adam served as our representative, and so, when he sinned, we were found guilty as well. Both the Arminian and Calvinistic views teach original sin and see individuals as unable to overcome sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Most all Calvinists also teach imputed sin; some Arminians deny imputation of sin, and others believe that Christ’s death has negated the effects of imputation. The fact of original sin means that we cannot please God on our own. No matter how many “good deeds” we do, we still commit sin, and we still have the problem of a corrupt nature within. We must have Christ; we must be born again (John 3:3\). God deals with the effects of original sin in our hearts through the process of [sanctification](sanctification.html). As John Piper puts it, “The problem of our moral defilement and habitual sinning is solved by his purifying us by the work of Spirit” (“Adam, Christ, and Justification: Part IV,” preached 8/20/2000\).
What is "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?	Answer Holy Blood, Holy Grail is the title of a book, originally published in 1982 by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, \& Henry Lincoln. The hypothesis of the book is essentially the underlying story of the popular book The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. According to Brown, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had at least one child with her. Mary Magdalene, their children, and perhaps even Jesus Himself moved to France, and eventually intermarried with the Frankish Merovingian dynasty. This truth was erased and covered up by the Roman Catholic Church, who wanted to preserve the Church’s authority through apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter, instead of through Jesus’ actual bloodline. The "Holy Blood" is the line of Jesus’ descendants. The "Holy Grail" is Mary Magdalene, who carried Jesus’ blood inside of her. All of the central themes of The Da Vinci Code can be found in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The Knights Templar, the Priory of Sion, Opus Dei, the cover\-up at the Council of Nicea, etc. are all presented in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and then fictionalized in The Da Vinci Code. There are so many similarities, in fact, that the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail sued Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code for plagiarism. Is there any truth to the theories brought up in Holy Blood, Holy Grail? Like most conspiracy theories, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is long on conspiracy and utterly lacking in evidence. Even non\-Christian scholars, with no reason to defend the historical Christian viewpoint, have labeled Holy Blood, Holy Grail as a "pseudohistory," and a baseless concoction of the authors. Even one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail admitted that their goal was to present a "plausible hypothesis," but that none of them actually believed it to be true. May we all follow their example, and recognize the completely fabricated nature of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code.
Who were the Knights Templar?	Answer The Knights Templar, also known as the Poor Fellow\-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, were an order of Christian knights that was formed in approximately 1119 A.D., following the First Crusade. The stated responsibility of the Knights Templar was to protect Christian pilgrims who were traveling to Jerusalem. The Knights Templar were given the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as their headquarters, and there are many legends of the Templars excavating the many tunnels beneath the Temple Mount in search of biblical treasures and artifacts. Primarily due to a financial dispute with King Philip IV of France, the Knights Templar were ordered to be disbanded by Pope Clement V. Many of the Knights Templar were arrested, tortured until they confessed to unimaginable crimes, and then burned at the stake as heretics. Some of the Knights Templar escaped the persecution and went into hiding. There are various traditions as to what happened to the surviving Knights Templar, with the most likely legend being that they eventually formed what is now known as the [Freemasons](free-masonry.html). The recent books, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code include the Knights Templar in their conspiracy theories. The unfounded and baseless legend says that the Knights Templar found evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they blackmailed the Roman Catholic Church, leading to the legendary wealth of the Knights Templar. Eventually, though, the Roman Catholic Church was able to orchestrate the heresy charges against the Knights Templar, leading to their disbanding and deaths. Similar to the other conspiracy theories in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code, these theories are completely lacking in historical merit.
What is Molinism and is it biblical?	Answer Molinism is named for the 16th\-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so\-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest\-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has [middle knowledge](middle-knowledge.html) (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge. 1\. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute. 2\. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will. 3\. Creative command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation. 4\. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will. Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self\-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced. According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9\. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances. Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal. Is Molinism biblical? Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, Matthew 11:21–24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Here, Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” This type of “if\-then” is an example of divine knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, Molinism sees this verse as evidence that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true. Strictly speaking, Molinism is a view that cannot be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The same is true of other philosophical\-theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. Middle knowledge is a philosophical concept that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the same time, it can be evaluated on multiple levels, including biblically and philosophically. Molinism is often criticized by both Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty. Arminians claim that, if God is in control of who is or is not saved, then free will is merely an illusion. Molinists would argue that both sovereignty and free will are biblically represented and real, and that middle knowledge allows both a God who is completely in control and a humanity who is completely free. Not all people feel Molinism is the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11\), even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1\). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13\), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10–11\). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24–26\). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21–22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3\). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33–36\). That being said, it should be noted that Molinism would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level where Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism disagree most is in interpreting doctrines such as total depravity and limited atonement, in light of these other ideas.
Does the Bible support the Catholic practice of a marriage annulment?	Answer Within the Catholic Church, the seven sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick, Reconciliation (Penance), Matrimony, and Holy Orders are considered the outward showing of inner grace, instituted by Christ. They are the very components of salvation as the Roman Catholic Church teaches it. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments themselves—in their view the foundation of salvation—cannot be tossed aside easily. Only if the sacrament was not lawful from the moment it was conferred can it be renounced. In recognition of the fact that that may happen from time to time, the Catholic Church has created the Catholic marriage annulment process, which will declare a sacrament invalid from the very beginning. An annulment is properly referred to as a Declaration of Nullity. Though it can be applied to any of the seven sacraments, it is most often sought for Matrimony. Since the Catholic Church holds that a married couple cannot divorce for any reason whatsoever, a divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church as a valid end to a marriage. It then follows that a Catholic priest will not marry those individuals who were divorced, even if the divorce occurred prior to joining the Catholic Church, even if the divorce occurred before the divorcee truly understood the consequences. When issued, an annulment does not end the effects the Roman Catholic Church teaches are conferred by the sacrament. Rather, the annulment declares that the sacrament in question was not valid from the start, and the recipient is treated as though he or she never actually received the sacrament. That does not mean that children from the marriage are now considered born out of wedlock or that the ex\-spouses committed any sort of fornication. It means that the receipt of the sacrament was somehow flawed. Annulments are granted for a variety of reasons by the Catholic Church. The most common reasons presented to tribunals are a lack of due discretion, defective consent, and psychological incapacity. Some annulments are for minor technicalities and rarely involve more than filling out the correct forms; for example, if one of the parties had a prior bond (was married in the Catholic sense of the word) at the time of the wedding. There is also defect of form, which includes marriages performed by a non\-Catholic minister or weddings held outside of a Catholic Church. More than half of all the annulments granted are for defect of form. But is the concept of Catholic marriage annulment a biblical concept? In regards to marriage being a sacrament, please read our article on the [seven Catholic sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html). The Roman Catholic concept of marriage as a sacrament is itself unbiblical. This puts the concept of an annulment on shaky ground to begin with. Catholic doctrine is based upon both Scripture and Church tradition. Based upon Jesus’ words, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9\) and upon the Church tradition that receiving a sacrament creates an undeletable mark upon the soul of the recipient, the Church teaches that a marriage CANNOT end. The Church does not ignore Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that allow divorce only in the case of the adultery of the other party. No, the way this is handled is much more disturbing. According to the New American Bible (NAB), a Catholic Bible translation, Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 read thus: "whoever divorces his wife (UNLESS THE MARRIAGE IS UNLAWFUL) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The concept of an "unlawful marriage" in the NAB is translated as either "(marital) unfaithfulness," "adultery," or "fornication" in every other major Bible translation. There does not seem to be any textual basis for the NAB’s choice of words, except to support the Catholic Church’s own doctrine. Although Jesus taught that divorce was only written into the Law because of human stubbornness (Matthew 19:8\) and that the original intent of God was for the spouses to never separate (Genesis 2:24\), He makes the exception in cases of sexual immorality/marital unfaithfulness. The Catholic Church’s teaching of marriage does not ignore this fact; rather, it mistranslates Scripture to support its own unbiblical teaching of marriage as unending, and then creates the annulment process to allow a Catholic\-sanctioned way to end said marriage by declaring it invalid. The Catholic marriage annulment process is unbiblical in the sense that Jesus only allowed for sexual immorality/marital unfaithfulness as the basis for ending a marriage, and the annulment process allows for many, many reasons, but not for the one reason Jesus mentioned. The Catholic Church does not accept the only biblical reason for divorce as valid and, in fact, creates a new list of unbiblical reasons for a marriage to end. The Roman Catholic Church’s practice of annulment is not biblical. It is founded on an unbiblical concept, that of the sacraments conferring grace. It is essentially an “escape” from what the Bible defines as a marriage. It ignores what the Bible does say about marriage, divorce, and marital unfaithfulness. Essentially, the Catholic practice of marriage annulment is an unbiblical way to escape from a doctrine that is itself unbiblical.
Is it wrong to have pictures of Jesus?	Answer When God first gave His Law to mankind, He began with a statement of who He is: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 20:2\) with a warning that Israel was to have no other God but Him. He immediately followed that by forbidding the making of any image of anything “in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below” (Exodus 20:4\) for the purpose of worshiping or bowing down to it. The fascinating thing about the history of the Jewish people is that they disobeyed this commandment more than any other. Again and again, they made idols to represent gods and worshiped them; beginning with the creation of the golden calf during the very time God was writing out the Ten Commandments for Moses (Exodus 32\)! Idol worship not only drew the Israelites away from the true and living God, it led to all manner of other sins including temple prostitution, orgies, and even the sacrifice of children. Of course, simply having a picture of Jesus hanging in a home or church does not mean people are practicing idolatry. It is possible that a portrait of Jesus or a crucifix can become an object of worship, in which case the worshiper is at fault. But there is nothing in the New Testament that would specifically forbid a Christian from having a picture of Jesus. Such an image could well be a reminder to pray, to refocus on the Lord, or to follow in Christ’s footsteps. But believers should know that the Lord cannot be reduced to a two\-dimensional image and that prayer or adoration is not to be offered to a picture. A picture will never be a complete image of God or accurately display His glory, and should never be a substitute for how we view God or deepen our knowledge of Him. And, of course, even the most beautiful representation of Jesus Christ is nothing more than one artist’s conception of what the Lord looked like. As it is, we don’t know what Jesus looked like. If the details of His physical appearance were important for us to know, Matthew, Peter, and John would certainly have given us an accurate description, as would Jesus’ own brothers, James and Jude. Yet these New Testament writers offer no details about Jesus’ physical attributes. We are left to our imaginations. We certainly don’t need a picture to display the nature of our Lord and Savior. We have only to look at His creation, as we are reminded in Psalm 19:1–2: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” In addition, our very existence as the redeemed of the Lord, sanctified and made righteous by His blood shed on the cross, should have Him always before us. The Bible, the very Word of God, is also filled with non\-physical descriptions of Christ that capture our imaginations and thrill our souls. He is the light of the world (John 1:5\); the bread of life (John 6:32–33\); the living water that quenches the thirst of our souls (John 4:14\); the high priest who intercedes for us with the Father (Hebrews 2:17\); the good shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep (John 10:11, 14\); the spotless Lamb of God (Revelation 13:8\); the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2\); the way, the truth, the life (John 14:6\); and the very image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15\). Such a Savior is more beautiful to us than any piece of paper hanging on the wall. In her book Gold Cord, missionary [Amy Carmichael](Amy-Carmichael.html) tells of Preena, a young Indian girl who became a Christian and lived in Miss Carmichael’s orphanage. Preena had never seen a picture of Jesus; instead, Miss Carmichael prayed for the Holy Spirit to reveal Jesus to each of the girls, “for who but the Divine can show the Divine?” One day, Preena was sent a package from abroad. She opened it eagerly and pulled out a picture of Jesus. Preena innocently asked who it was, and when she was told that it was Jesus, she burst into tears. “What’s wrong?” they asked. “Why are you crying?” Little Preena’s reply says it all: “I thought He was far more beautiful than that” (page 151\).
What does the Bible say about illegal immigration?	Answer Note: We wholeheartedly believe that Christians are called to be compassionate and merciful toward immigrants (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33–34; Matthew 25:35\). We also believe that the United States should have a compassionate and merciful immigration policy. However, that is not the question at hand. The question at hand concerns illegal immigration—whether it is wrong to violate a nation’s borders and transgress its immigration laws. Romans 13:1–7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government forces us to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29\). Illegal immigration is the breaking of a government’s law. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea of a sovereign nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is rebellion against God to unlawfully enter another country. Illegal immigration is a sin. Illegal immigration is definitely a controversial issue in the United States (and some other countries) today. Some argue that the immigration laws are unfair, unjust, and even discriminatory—thus giving individuals justification to immigrate illegally. However, Romans 13:1–7 does not give any permission to violate a law just because it is perceived as unjust. Again, the issue is not the fairness of a law. The only biblical reason to violate a government’s law is if that law violates God’s Word. When Paul wrote the book of Romans, he was under the authority of the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Nero. Under that reign, there were many laws that were unfair, unjust, and/or blatantly evil. Still, Paul instructed Christians to submit to the government. Are the immigration laws of the United States unfair or unjust? Some think so, but that is not the issue. All developed countries in the world have immigration laws, some more strict than the USA’s, and some less strict, and all have to deal with illegal immigration. There is nothing in the Bible to prohibit a country from having completely open borders or to have completely closed borders. Romans 13:1–7 also gives the government the authority to punish lawbreakers. Whether the punishment is imprisonment, deportation, or even something more severe, it is within the rights of the government to determine. Illegal immigration is a complex issue. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the United States have come for the purpose of having a better life, providing for their families, and escaping poverty. These are good goals and motivations. However, it is not biblical to violate a law to achieve a “good.” Caring for the poor, orphans, and widows is something the Bible commands us to do (Galatians 2:10; James 1:27; 2:2–15\). However, the biblical fact that we are to care for the unfortunate does not mean we should violate the law in doing so. Supporting, enabling, and/or encouraging illegal immigration is, therefore, a violation of God’s Word. Those seeking to emigrate to another country should always obey the immigration laws of that country. While this may cause delays and frustrations, it is better than acting illegally. A frustrating law is still a law. What is the biblical solution to illegal immigration? Simple—don’t do it; obey the laws. If disobedience is not a biblical option, what can be done in regards to an unjust immigration law? It is completely within the rights of citizens to seek to change immigration laws. If it is your conviction that an immigration law is unjust, do everything that is legally within your power to get the law changed: pray, petition, vote, peacefully protest, etc. As Christians, we should be the first to seek to change any law that is unjust. At the same time, we are also to demonstrate our submission to God by obeying the government He has placed in authority over us. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover\-up for evil, but living as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:13–16\).
What is the Via Dolorosa?	Answer The Via Dolorosa, literally “the sorrowful way,” is the traditional route in Jerusalem which our Lord traveled on the day of His crucifixion from the judgment seat of Pilate, also called the Praetorium (Matthew 27:2\-26\), to the place of His crucifixion on Mount Calvary. After his judgment by Pontius Pilate, the Lord Jesus was beaten, mocked and spit upon by the Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:26\-31\). Then he was forced to carry His own cross through the streets of Jerusalem to Golgotha, where He was crucified (Matthew 27:32\-50\). The Via Dolorosa is now marked with fourteen "[stations of the cross](stations-of-the-cross.html)" commemorating fourteen incidents that took place along the way. At least five of these incidents are not recorded in the Bible, springing instead from Roman Catholic tradition. Of the ones that are mentioned in Scripture, the actual place of the events along the way, such as the scourging (John 19:1\-3\) and the carrying of the cross by Simon of Cyrene (Matthew 27:32\), are not known. The Bible does not specifically mention the Via Dolorosa. All we know from Scripture is that Jesus carried His cross from the Praetorium to the site on Mount Calvary where He was crucified. The locations of these two sites are not known for certain, but wherever they were, the route between them was truly a sorrowful way. The scourging and physical pain the Lord Jesus suffered was minor in comparison to the pain caused by the real burden He was bearing—the burden of the sins of all believers. He bore our sins to the cross where He paid the penalty for them all. As Easter approaches and Christians contemplate this holiest of seasons, we are reminded what a precious gift our salvation is and the price paid for it by the Lord Jesus. “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5\). As we think about the pain and humiliation He suffered for us, paying a price that we could never pay ourselves, we can’t help but praise and thank Him and commit ourselves to a life of obedience to Him.
What is theodicy?	Answer Theodicy is a branch of philosophy dealing with the issue of [evil](definition-of-evil.html) in light of the existence of God. If [God is just](God-is-just.html) and holy and good, then how do evil and misery exist? That’s the question theodicy wrestles with. History’s most famous statement of the “[problem of evil](problem-of-evil.html)” comes from the ancient Greek philosopher [Epicurus](Epicureanism-Epicurean.html): Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Of course, most people have no experience with philosophers. They do, however, watch movies, and a slightly modified version of this idea came from the character of Lex Luthor in a recent action film: “If God is all powerful, he cannot be all good. And if he’s all good, then he cannot be all powerful.” – Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice The biggest hurdle in discussing theodicy is a tendency to waffle on the definitions of certain words. Or to color certain words with a meaning that is not part of the argument. So, in order to really understand the concept of theodicy, one has to carefully define his terms and then stick to those definitions. What evil is, is “not” The primary issue with the “Problem of Evil” is defining what evil actually is. Evil is typically seen as a force opposed to good, forming a yin and yang or two poles of a magnet. Defining evil in this way leads to a logical problem for the theist: why would God create evil? God created gravity, light, magnetism, and so forth: why would He also create evil? The most logical answer is simply that God didn’t create evil. Because evil, in and of itself, does not actually exist, except as the absence of goodness. Similarly, God created light, but did He also “create” darkness? No, because darkness in and of itself does not exist. Darkness is only a term we use to refer to a relative lack of light. It’s entirely defined in terms of deprivation: the absence of something else. The same is true of physical heat. Heat is a term used to describe the motion of atoms and molecules. When an object is cold, it simply has less molecular movement, relatively speaking. At absolute zero all molecular movement would completely stop, theoretically. You cannot get any “colder” than that, because there is no way to add more coldness. You can only remove heat, and when all the heat is gone, that’s as far as you can go. The same basic point applies to many descriptive words. Terms such as short or thin are all references to the relative lack of something else. There is no such thing as “shortness,” and one cannot “add” shortness. There are only varying measurements of length. Printer paper is not “thin” because it has more “thinness” added to it than cardboard. We use the term thin so we don’t have to say “less thick.” An example from mathematics is the constant i, or the square root of negative one (√(\-1\)). In reality, negative numbers cannot have a “square root,” but there are places in advanced equations where it’s a handy shortcut. The term i has meaning, at least in theory, even though we know it’s not a literal description of some tangible thing. Another mathematical example is the “number” 0\. The term zero literally refers to that which does not exist. It is a reference to nothing, to the absence of something. This is why adding or subtracting 0 results in no change, multiplying 0 is still “nothing,” and dividing by 0 is a logical contradiction. Is zero “real”? In the sense that it’s a term we can understand and that has use, yes. But, of course, 0 does not exist in any tangible sense. It’s literally defined as the absence of something (everything) else. Putting all of these thoughts together, then, the same can be said of evil. The term has meaning and use, but we don’t have to assume it’s some actual, tangible, created thing. Evil is a relative term used to mean anything that deviates from the will or moral perfection of God. Evil is the lack of goodness. All by itself, this reasoning goes a long way toward forming a proper theodicy. If evil is not some “thing” God created or some force outside of God that He cannot control, then the meaning of these questions becomes very different. Any premise that requires God to have created, formed, or generated evil is immediately invalidated. All that is required, then, is for God to have “allowed” it. Our will versus God’s will The debate of how we define evil doesn’t stop there, however. For many critics, the objection to God being “all good” inherently means “never allowing any evil.” The first problem with this view of God’s goodness is logical. The second is personal. Logically, if God is perfect, then anything different from Him, in any way, is no longer perfect. You cannot change absolute, complete perfection and still be absolutely and completely perfect. This means that anything God creates is, by definition, different from Him and must be less than perfect. Considering evil as a deviation from God’s goodness, this leads to two possibilities, in order for God to completely and totally avoid evil of any kind. First, God could simply not create anything at all. Second, God could create but allow nothing in His creation the capacity for moral free will. In other words, allow no deviation leading to “evil.” But this makes a mockery of every other emotion, ideal, and benefit that critics of God want to uphold. In short, a universe logically incapable of evil is also one logically incapable of love, nobility, sacrifice or success. A being unable to partake in evil is also incapable of exhibiting mercy, compassion, or love. It’s not hard to see how, if God had created things with this limitation, creation would seem like a waste of time. God desires love and glory—and our approval of that desire is irrelevant to its truth—but there can be no love given by robotic, choice\-less creations. So, for God to preclude even the possibility of evil, He must either not create or create something utterly pointless. Logically, it stands to reason that God allows the potential for evil because such freedom is intrinsically the same that allows the potential for nobility and virtue. Without that potential no love or other “good” things can actually occur. This leads to the “personal” problem with demanding that God disallow evil. Once a person accepts the idea that evil has to be possible in order for us to have a meaningful free will, the next step is often to criticize God for allowing “too much” evil or the “wrong kinds” of evil. Here, again, definitions and personal preferences are key. Critics of God often make an assumption at this stage. They make statements such as “a good God might allow some evil, but He would never allow X.” Once again, the logic leading to this point shows that God does not have to create evil for it to exist. This question also assumes, irrationally, that there cannot be things worse than X. Logically, it’s possible there could be evils even worse than X that God has prevented, and, because He has prevented them, we are unaware they are even possible. To continue to criticize God on account of there being “too much” evil is to waffle between logic and emotion. We may not like the idea that God allows certain kinds of evil. And, logically, there is nothing invalid about a person choosing to say, “I reject obedience to God because I don’t agree with His morality.” But theodicy is not a question of making God agree with our whims. What we cannot say, logically, is that, if God does not act according to our moral preferences, then He cannot exist in moral perfection. This makes the critic the ultimate standard of morality! To put that another way, claiming God cannot exist or cannot be perfectly moral unless He agrees with my moral preferences is to say this: “I am morally perfect, so if God and I differ on some moral issue, the only possible reason is that God is flawed, and I am not.” Once again, a person is not logically prevented from taking this approach. But just because it’s a possible viewpoint does not make it a reasonable one. Does this mean there could never be a circumstance where God’s supposed morality conflicts with what we see in our experience? Not at all. The problem—for the critic—is that many of the rules he claims God fails to live up to are simply fictional. God never promises to make everyone’s life easier or better, nor does He promise to alter cause and effect simply at our whims. There is an eternal context and a spiritual condition to what God tells us about suffering and evil in this world. This is a key part of any reasonable theodicy. So why allow evil? Logic says that God does not have to create evil in order for there to be evil. Logic says that God does not have to conform to our moral preferences in order to be perfectly good. So, then, how can a person rationalize the existence of evil in a way that’s relevant to our own experience? The first point that must be realized is that God is consistent in His “allowance” of our [free will](free-will.html) and the natural function of His creation. As it turns out, it’s the fact that God is consistent in His moral behaviors that greatly aggravates the skeptic. This is because God’s consistency runs counter to our human preferences: we’d rather God bend or break the rules to suit our own selfish preferences. For example, God is consistent in allowing human beings a broad use of free will. This includes allowing people the freedom to reject His will and spurn His commands. This can result in consequences for those who choose to disobey. At the same time, much of the suffering of man on earth is due to the decisions of other people. There, again, God is being consistent in allowing humanity the freedom to act. This is really nothing more than a re\-phrasing of the earlier argument about allowing the potential for evil, because, without it, there is no potential for good. The same natural laws that allow us to build skyscrapers and develop medicines can be abused to make bombs and illicit drugs. They are the same laws that produce earthquakes and hurricanes. Too often, we make choices knowing the risks involved or with a deliberate intent to misuse creation and then blame God when those potential problems materialize. The second point to make is that God is not motionless, silent, and inactive in the face of evil. Here, again, is a point where the critic becomes inconsistent. The same voices who attempt to say, “God is not doing enough to stop evil” are almost always the same ones who object when God does anything to stop evil. The incidents most often pointed to by critics of the Bible as evidence of God’s supposed immorality (such as the destruction of Sodom) were times when God explicitly stated that His actions were a response to malevolence. They were His means of stopping and preventing more evil. The same critic who cries, “God does nothing about evil,” is all too often the same person calling God immoral for His actions in the flood. Or against the Amalekites. Or at Jericho. God has already taken steps to neutralize and counter evil. Saying He does “nothing” is simply untrue. Complaining that He does “too much” to stop evil is all well and good, but that makes theodicy irrelevant and the problem of evil moot. The third point is that we have a limited perspective. This is not a very persuasive argument, especially for someone hostile to the idea of God. But, logically, it has to be said that the God under examination is posited to be omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and omnipresent. We, of course, are not. We often hear employers, military personnel, parents, doctors, and others reminding us that there are things happening “behind the scenes” that we simply cannot understand. Our inability to understand certain decisions is not hard evidence that those decisions are wrong. It means nothing more than that we have incomplete understanding. Finally, one has to take all criticisms of evil in the entire context of Christian teaching. If this life were all there is, then the problem of evil would be a much bigger problem. However, according to the Bible, this is not the only life we are going to live. A person can reject that belief, but he cannot criticize the God of the Bible and His morality as if the afterlife were not an intrinsic part of Christian moral understanding. Christians believe that all wrongs—every single one—will be reckoned with, someday. They believe that God is acting to restrain evil now, just as He has in the past. The Bible makes it clear that the struggles we experience now are not the purpose for which we exist, nor do they define our value. Instead, there is a point to the suffering and a plan that involves making all wrongs right. Back to the beginning Looking at these ideas, then, we can see that Epicurus’ version of the problem of evil suffers from a fatal flaw. This can be summed up in one simple statement: the “God” Epicurus criticizes is not the God of the Bible. In other words, Epicurus’ criticism only works against the deities of Greek polytheism and in the context of a polytheistic view of reality. The Christian can respond to Epicurus as follows: Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable to? Then he is not omnipotent. God is willing to limit evil and has acted to do just that. So, He is still omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. God is able, but not willing, to abolish our free will. So, He is still omnibenevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? God has acted to defeat evil. Evil comes simply when we fall short of His will. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? God is not willing to prevent our free will. Your disapproval does not make Him any less God. And, to the more pop\-culture\-friendly Lex Luthor, Christianity can respond as follows: “If God is all powerful, he cannot be all good. And if he’s all good, then he cannot be all powerful.” God can be all\-powerful and choose not to act according to your preferences. When you say “all good,” what you really mean is “doing things my way”; and when you say, “all powerful,” what you really mean is “capable of making us simultaneously free and robotic,” which is gibberish. An all\-powerful, all\-good God can allow evil in order to obtain the greater, eternal good. Human beings will always struggle with the problem of evil. Theodicy is not an attempt to make God appear as palatable as possible. In fact, the opposite is true. A truly rational theodicy has to begin with the admission that our dislike of something does not make it false. The question is not whether God is compatible with our personal preferences. The problem of evil is simply the debate over whether or not God is logically possible. Theodicy, taking all logic and evidence together, clearly says He is—whether we like Him or not.
Was Jonah truly swallowed by a whale?	Answer The [book of Jonah](Book-of-Jonah.html) recounts the story of a disobedient prophet who, upon being swallowed by a whale (or a “great fish”) and vomited upon the shore, reluctantly led the reprobate city of Nineveh to repentance. The Bible’s plain teaching is that, yes, Jonah was truly swallowed by a whale (or a great fish). The biblical account of Jonah is often criticized by skeptics because of its miraculous content. These miracles include the following events: • A storm is summoned and dissipated by God (1:4–16\). • A massive fish swallows the prophet after he is thrown into the sea by his ship’s crew (1:17\). • Jonah survives in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights—or he dies and is resurrected, depending on how you interpret the text (1:17\). • The fish vomits Jonah upon the shore at God’s command (2:10\). • A gourd is appointed by God to grow rapidly in order to provide Jonah with shade (4:6\). • A worm is appointed by God to attack and wither the gourd (4:7\). • A scorching wind is summoned by God to discomfort Jonah (4:8\). God’s use of a whale or great fish as Jonah’s mode of transportation was sure to capture Nineveh’s attention, given the prominence of Dagon worship in that particular area of the ancient world. Dagon was a fish\-god who enjoyed popularity among the pantheons of Mesopotamia and the eastern Mediterranean coast. He is mentioned several times in the Bible in relation to the Philistines (Judges 16:23–24; 1 Samuel 5:1–7; 1 Chronicles 10:8–12\). Images of Dagon have been found in palaces and temples in Nineveh and throughout the region. In some cases he was represented as a man wearing a fish. In others he was part man, part fish—a merman, of sorts. Orientalist Henry Clay Trumbull observes: “What better heralding, as a divinely sent messenger to Nineveh, could Jonah have had, than to be thrown up out of the mouth of a great fish, in the presence of witnesses, say on the coast of Phoenicia, where the fish\-god was a favorite object of worship? Such an incident would have inevitably aroused the mercurial nature of Oriental observers, so that a multitude would be ready to follow the seemingly new avatar of the fish\-god, proclaiming the story of his uprising from the sea, as he went on his mission to the city where the fish\-god had its very centre of worship” (“Jonah in Nineveh,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 2, No.1, 1892, p. 56\). Some scholars have speculated that Jonah’s appearance, bleached white from the action of the fish’s digestive acids, would have been of great help to his cause. It could be that the Ninevites would have been greeted by a man whose skin, hair, and clothes were bleached ghostly white—a man accompanied by a crowd of frenetic followers, many who had witnessed him being vomited upon the shore by a great fish. Given the piscine nature of Jonah’s arrival, Nineveh’s repentance follows from a logical progression. Apart from the Bible, there is no conclusive historical proof that Jonah was ever swallowed by a fish and lived to tell about it; however, there is some provocative corroboratory evidence. In the third century BC, a Babylonian priest/historian named Berosus wrote of a mythical creature named Oannes who, according to Berosus, emerged from the sea to give divine wisdom to men. Scholars generally identify this mysterious fish\-man as an avatar of the Babylonian water\-god Ea (also known as Enki). The curious thing about Berosus’ account is the name he used: Oannes. Berosus wrote in Greek during the Hellenistic Period. Oannes is just a single letter removed from the Greek name Ioannes, which happens to be used in the Greek New Testament for Jonah. As for the I being dropped from Ioannes, Professor Trumbull writes, “In the Assyrian inscriptions the J of foreign words becomes I, or disappears altogether; hence Joannes, as the Greek representative of Jona, would appear in Assyrian either as Ioannes or as Oannes” (ibid., p. 58\). Nineveh was an [Assyrian](Assyrians.html) city. What this essentially means is that Berosus wrote of a fish\-man named Jonah who emerged from the sea to give divine wisdom to man—a remarkable corroboration of the Hebrew account. Berosus claimed to have relied upon official Babylonian sources for his information. Nineveh was conquered by the Babylonians under King Nabopolassar in 612 BC, more than 300 years before Berosus. It is quite conceivable that record of Jonah’s success in Nineveh was preserved in the writings available to Berosus. If so, it appears that Jonah was deified and mythologized over a period of three centuries, first by the Assyrians, who no doubt associated him with their fish\-god, Dagon, and then by the Babylonians, who appear to have hybridized him with their own water\-god, Ea. Jonah was not an imaginary figure invented to play the part of a disobedient prophet, swallowed by a fish. He was part of Israel’s prophetic history. Jonah appears in the chronicles of Israel as the prophet who predicted Jeroboam II’s military successes against Syria (2 Kings 14:25\). He is said to be the son of Amittai (cf. Jonah 1:1\) from the town of Gath\-hepher in lower Galilee. Flavius Josephus reiterates these details in his Antiquities of the Jews (chapter 10, paragraph 2\). The city of Nineveh was rediscovered after more than 2,500 years of obscurity. It is now believed to have been the largest city in the world at the time of [its demise](Nineveh-destroyed.html) (see Tertius Chandler’s Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census). According to Sir Austen Henry Layard, who chronicled the rediscovery of Nineveh, the circumference of Greater Nineveh was “exactly three days’ journey,” as recorded in Jonah 3:3 (A Popular Account of Discoveries at Nineveh, New York: J. C. Derby, 1854, p. 314\). Prior to its rediscovery, skeptics scoffed at the possibility that so large a city could have existed in the ancient world. In fact, some skeptics denied the existence of Nineveh altogether. Its rediscovery in the mid\-1800s proved to be a remarkable vindication for the Bible, which mentions Nineveh by name eighteen times and dedicates two entire books (Jonah and Nahum) to its fate. It is interesting to note where the lost city of Nineveh was rediscovered. It was found buried beneath a pair of tells in the vicinity of Mosul in modern\-day Iraq. These mounds are known by their local names, Kuyunjik and Nabi Yunus. Nabi Yunus happens to be Arabic for “the prophet Jonah.” As for the whale or great fish that swallowed Jonah, the Bible doesn’t specify what sort of marine animal it was. The Hebrew phrase used in the Old Testament, gadowl dag, literally means “great fish.” The Greek used in the New Testament is këtos, which simply means “sea creature.” There are at least two species of Mediterranean marine life that are able to swallow a man whole. These are the cachalot (also known as the sperm whale) and the white shark. Both creatures are known to prowl the Mediterranean and have been known to sailors since antiquity. Aristotle described both species in his fourth\-century\-BC Historia Animalium. Skeptics scoff at the miracles described in the book of Jonah as if there were no mechanism by which such events could occur. That is their bias. We are inclined, however, to believe that there is [One](God-of-miracles.html) who is capable of manipulating natural phenomena in such supernatural ways. We believe that He is the Creator of the natural realm and is not, therefore, circumscribed by it. We believe God sent Jonah to Nineveh to bring about their repentance and that, in the process, Jonah was swallowed by a whale or great fish. Jesus spoke of Jonah’s ordeal as a real historical event. He used it as a typological metaphor for His own crucifixion and resurrection: “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:40–41\. The evidence is such that any Christian should have confidence to believe that Jonah was truly swallowed by a whale, and any skeptic should think twice before dismissing the story of Jonah as a fairy tale.
What is the Baha'i faith?	Answer The Baha'i faith is one of the newer world religions stemming originally from Shi'ite Islam in Persia (modern\-day Iran). However, it has come to achieve a unique status of its own. The Baha'i faith has distinguished itself as a unique world religion because of its size (5 million members), its global scale (236 countries), its practical autonomy from its parent religion of Islam (there is little blurriness between the two), and for its doctrinal uniqueness, being monotheistic yet inclusive. The Baha'i faith’s earliest forerunner was Sayid Ali Muhammad who on May 23, 1844, declared himself the Bab ("Gate"), the eighth manifestation of God and first since Muhammad. Implicit to that statement was the denial of Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet and a denial together of the unique authority of the Koran. Islam did not take kindly to such thoughts. The Bab and his followers, called Babis, saw heavy persecution and were part of great bloodshed before the Bab was executed as a political prisoner just six years later in Tabríz, Ádhirbáyján, July 9, 1850\. But before he died, the Bab spoke of a coming prophet, referred to as "He whom God will Manifest." On April 22, 1863, Mirza Husayn Ali, one of his followers, declared himself the fulfillment of that prophecy and the latest manifestation of God. He donned the title Baha'u'llah ("glory of God"). The Bab was therefore viewed as a "John the Baptist"\-type of forerunner leading up to Baha'u'llah who is the more significant manifestation for this age. His followers are called Baha’is. The uniqueness of this budding Baha'i faith, as it has come to be called, becomes clear in the Baha'u'llah’s declarations. Not only did he claim to be the latest prophet foreseen in Shi'ite Islam, and not only did he claim to be a manifestation of God, but he claimed to be the second coming of Christ, the promised Holy Spirit, the Day of God, the Maiytrea (from Buddhism), and the Krishna (from Hinduism). A kind of inclusivism is apparent from the early stages of the Baha'i faith. No other manifestation is said to have come since Baha'u'llah, but his leadership was passed on by appointment. He designated a successor in his son Abbas Effendi (later, Abdu'l\-Baha "slave of Baha"). While the successors could not speak inspired scripture from God, they could interpret scripture infallibly and were viewed as the maintenance of God’s true word on earth. Abdu'l\-Baha would appoint his grandson Shoghi Effendi as successor. Shoghi Effendi, however, died before appointing a successor. The gap was filled by an ingeniously organized governing institution called the Universal House of Justice which remains in power today as the governing body for the Baha'i World Faith. Today, the Baha'i faith exists as a world religion with yearly international conferences convening at the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel. The core doctrines of the Baha'i faith can be attractive in their simplicity: 1\) Adoration of one God and the reconciliation of all major religions. 2\) Appreciation of the diversity and morality of the human family and the elimination of all prejudice. 3\) The establishment of world peace, equality of women and men, and universal education. 4\) Cooperation between Science and Religion in the individual’s search for truth. To these may be added certain implicit beliefs and practices: 5\) A Universal Auxillary Language. 6\) Universal Weights and Measures. 7\) God who is himself unknowable nevertheless reveals himself through manifestations. 8\) These manifestations are a kind of progressive revelation. 9\) No proselytizing (aggressive witnessing). 10\) The study of different Scriptures besides simply Baha'i books. 11\) Prayer and worship is obligatory and much of that according to specific instructions. The Baha'i faith is quite sophisticated, and many of its followers today are educated, eloquent, eclectic, politically liberal, yet socially conservative (i.e., anti\-abortion, pro\-traditional family, etc.). Moreover, Baha’is are not only expected to understand their own uniquely Baha'i scriptures, but are also expected to study the scriptures of other world religions. Therefore, it is quite possible to encounter a Baha'i who is more educated on Christianity than is the average Christian. Furthermore, the Baha'i faith has a strong emphasis on education combined with certain liberal values such as gender egalitarianism, universal education, and harmony between science and religion. Nonetheless, the Baha'i faith has many theological gaps and doctrinal inconsistencies. Compared to Christianity, its core teachings are only superficial in their commonality. The differences are deep and fundamental. The Baha'i faith is ornate, and a full critique would be encyclopedic. So, only a few observations are made below. The Baha'i faith teaches that God is unknowable in His essence. Baha’is have the difficulty of explaining how they can have an elaborate theology about God yet assert that God is "unknowable." And it does not help to say that prophets and manifestations inform mankind about God because, if God is "unknowable," then humanity has no reference point whereby to tell which teacher is telling the truth. Christianity rightly teaches that God can be known, as is naturally known even by non\-believers, though they may not have a relational knowledge of God. Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…" God is knowable, not only through the creation, but through His Word and the presence of the Holy Spirit, who leads and guides us and bears witness that we are His children (Romans 8:14\-16\). Not only can we know Him, but we can know Him intimately as our "Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6\). True, God may not fit His infinity into our finite minds, but man can still have partial knowledge of God which is entirely true and relationally meaningful. About Jesus, the Baha'i faith teaches that He was a manifestation of God but not an incarnation. The difference sounds slight but is actually enormous. Baha’is believe God is unknowable; therefore, God cannot incarnate Himself to be present among men. If Jesus is God in the most literal sense, and Jesus is knowable, then God is knowable, and that Baha'i doctrine is exploded. So, Baha’is teach that Jesus was a reflection of God. Just as a person can look at a reflection of the sun in a mirror and say, "There is the sun," so one can look at Jesus and say, "There is God," meaning "There is a reflection of God." Here again the problem of teaching that God is "unknowable" surfaces since there would be no way to distinguish between true and false manifestations or prophets. The Christian, however, can argue that Christ has set Himself apart from all other manifestations and has confirmed His self\-attested divinity by physically rising from the dead (1 Corinthians 15\), a point which Baha’is also deny. While the resurrection would be a miracle, it is nonetheless a historically defensible fact, given the body of evidence. Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. William Lane Craig, and N.T. Wright have done well in defending the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Baha'i faith also denies the sole sufficiency of Christ and of Scripture. Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah were all manifestations of God, and the latest of these would have the highest authority since he’d have the most complete revelation of God, according to the idea of progressive revelation. Here, Christian apologetics can be employed to demonstrate the uniqueness of Christianity’s claims and its doctrinal and practical truthfulness exclusive of contrary religious systems. The Baha'i, however, is concerned for showing that all the world’s major religions are ultimately reconcilable. Any differences would be explained away as: 1\) Social Laws—Instead of supra\-cultural Spiritual Laws. 2\) Early revelation—As opposed to the more "complete" later revelation. 3\) Corrupted Teaching or Misinterpretation. But even granting these qualifications, the world’s religions are too varied and too fundamentally different to be reconciled. Given that the world’s religions obviously teach and practice contrary things, the burden is on the Baha'i to salvage the world’s major religions while dismantling almost everything foundational to those religions. Ironically, the religions which are most inclusive—Buddhism and Hinduism—are classically atheistic and pantheistic (respectively), and neither atheism nor pantheism is allowed within the strictly monotheistic Baha'i faith. Meanwhile, the religions that are least theologically inclusive of the Baha'i faith—Islam, Christianity, Orthodox Judaism—are monotheistic, as Baha'i is. Also, the Baha'i faith teaches a sort of works\-based salvation. The Baha'i faith is not much different from Islam in its core teachings about how to be saved except that, for the Baha'i, little is said about the afterlife. This earthly life is to be filled with good works counterbalancing one’s evil deeds and showing one’s self deserving of ultimate deliverance. Sin is not paid for or dissolved; rather, it is excused by a presumably benevolent God. Man does not have a significant relationship with God. In fact, Baha’is teach that there is no personality in God’s essence, but only in His manifestations. Thus, God does not submit easily to a relationship with man. Accordingly, the Christian doctrine of grace is reinterpreted so that "grace" means "God’s kind allowance for man to have the opportunity to earn deliverance." Built into this doctrine is a denial of Christ’s sacrificial atonement and a minimization of sin. The Christian view of salvation is very different. Sin is understood as being of eternal and infinite consequence since it is a universal crime against an infinitely perfect God (Romans 3:10, 23\). Likewise, sin is so great that it deserves a life (blood) sacrifice and incurs eternal punishment in the afterlife. But Christ pays the price that all owe, dying as an innocent sacrifice for a guilty humanity. Because man cannot do anything to unblemish himself or to deserve eternal reward, he either must die for his own sins or believe that Christ graciously died in his place (Isaiah 53; Romans 5:8\). Thus, salvation is either by God’s grace through man’s faith or there is no eternal salvation. It is no surprise then that Baha'i faith proclaims Baha'u'llah to be the second coming of Christ. Jesus Himself warned us in the Gospel of Matthew concerning the end times: "Then if any one says to you, 'Lo, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matthew 24:23\-24\). Interestingly, Baha’is typically deny or minimize any miracles of Baha'u'llah. His unique spiritual claims are based on self\-attested authority, uncanny and uneducated wisdom, prolific writing, pure living, majority consensus, and other subjective tests. The more objective tests such as prophetic fulfillment employ heavily allegorical interpretations of Scripture (see Thief in the Night by William Sears). The belief in Baha'u'llah largely reduces to a point of faith—is one willing to accept him as the manifestation of God, in the absence of objective evidence? Of course, Christianity also calls for faith, but the Christian has strong and demonstrable evidence along with that faith. The Baha'i faith therefore does not accord with classical Christianity, and it has much to answer for in its own right. How an unknowable God could elicit such an elaborate theology and justify a new world religion is a mystery. The Baha’i faith is weak in addressing sin, treating it as if it were not a big problem and is surmountable by human effort. Christ’s divinity is denied, as is the evidential value and literal nature of Christ’s resurrection. And for the Baha'i faith, one of its biggest problems is its pluralism. That is, how can one reconcile such divergent religious without leaving them theologically gutted? It is easy to argue that the world’s religions have commonalities in their ethical teachings and have some concept of ultimate reality. But it is another beast entirely to try to argue unity in their fundamental teachings about what the ultimate reality is and about how those ethics are grounded.
Why does Scripture emphasize the right hand of God?	Answer The Scripture has several words translated "right" and the usage of the term, "right hand" ranges from a direction, to the opposite of wrong, what is just or what conforms to an established standard, and to a place of honor or authority. In the case of division or appointment in the Bible, the right hand or right side came first, as when Israel (Jacob) divided the blessings to Joseph’s sons before he died (Genesis 48:13\-14\). In addition, a person of high rank who put someone on his right hand gave him equal honor with himself and recognized him as possessing equal dignity and authority. And this is what the Apostle Paul writes of Jesus Christ in Ephesians. "And what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us, the ones believing according to the working of His mighty strength which He worked in Christ in raising Him from the dead, and He seated Him at His right hand in the heavenlies, far above all principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name being named, not only in this world, but also in the coming age" (Ephesians 1:19\-21\). Here we see God exalting Jesus above all others by seating Him at the right hand of the Father. The term "God’s right hand" in prophecy refers to the Messiah to whom is given the power and authority to subdue His enemies (Psalm 110:1; Psalm 118:16\). We find a quote in Matthew 22:44 from Psalm 110:1, which is a Messianic Psalm. "The Son of David" is claimed by the LORD Jesus Christ as He is the "greater son of David" or the Messiah. In this passage of Matthew 22, Jesus questions the Pharisees about who they think the "Christ" or the Messiah is. "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make Thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?" (Matthew 22:41\-45, KJV). The position of the Messiah is at God’s right hand. The fact that Jesus Christ is at the "right hand of God" was a sign to the disciples that Jesus had indeed gone to heaven. In John 16:7\-15, Jesus told the disciples that He had to go away and He would send the Holy Spirit. So the coming of the Holy Spirit in the upper room on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1\-13\) was proof positive that Jesus was indeed in heaven seated at the right hand of God. This is confirmed in Romans 8:34 where the Apostle Paul writes that Christ is sitting at God’s right hand making intercession for us. Therefore, what we can say is that "God’s right hand" refers to the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ, and He is of equal position, honor, power, and authority with God (John 1:1\-5\). The fact that Christ is "sitting" refers to the fact that His work of redemption is done and when the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in (Romans 11:25\), Christ’s enemies will be made His [footstool](footstool-in-the-Bible.html). When the end of the age comes, all prophecy will be completed, and time will be no more.
What is the Gospel of Thomas?	Answer The Gospel of Thomas is a Coptic manuscript discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This manuscript contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Some of these sayings resemble sayings found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Other sayings were unknown until their discovery or even run counter to what is written in the four Gospels. One December day in 1945, far up the Nile Valley, two Egyptian peasants were looking for a local variety of crumbly nitrate rock used as fertilizer. They came across a large jar, about a meter tall, hidden by a boulder. Inside they found a collection of ancient leather\-bound books or codices. The spot where the books were found is within a few miles of the site of an early monastery, established by the founder of Christian "cenobitic" monasticism in Egypt, Pachomius. Nag Hammadi, a nearby village, has given this remarkable collection its name. The Nag Hammadi Library consists of fifty\-two texts or "tractates" written in Coptic on papyrus and gathered in thirteen volumes, twelve of which have separate leather bindings. Forty of the texts had previously been unknown to modern scholars. Most of the writings are of a Gnostic character. Scraps of paper found in the binding of eight codices bear dates indicating that the books were made in the mid\-fourth century, and at least one of these clearly appears to have come from a monastery. Efforts to date the books more precisely continue. In general, it can be said the collection dates from about the middle of the fourth century. The Coptic texts could be many years earlier, and the originals (probably written in Greek or Aramaic) from which the Coptic translations were made could have been still earlier. To understand how we got the Bible as we know it, please see the following two articles: [What is the canon of Scripture?](canon-of-Scripture.html) and [How was the Canon determined?](canon-Bible.html) Should the Gospel of Thomas be in the Canon? The early church councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1\) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2\) Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3\) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4\) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? The Gospel of Thomas fails all of these tests. The Gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus’ disciple [Thomas](Thomas-in-the-Bible.html). The early Christian leaders universally recognized the Gospel of Thomas as a forgery. The Gospel of Thomas was rejected by the vast majority of early Christians. The Gospel of Thomas contains many teachings that are in contradiction to the biblical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The Gospel of Thomas does not bear the marks of a work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Are there any other arguments that preclude the Gospel of Thomas from being included in the Bible? If we examine the 114 sayings in this writing, then we find some that are similar to existing sayings, some that are slightly different, but the majority cannot be found anywhere in the entirety of Scripture itself. Scripture must always confirm itself, and the majority of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas cannot be confirmed anywhere else in Scripture. One argument for precluding the Gospel of Thomas from the Bible is found in the overt "secretness" attributed to these 114 sayings by the work itself. Nowhere in Scripture is God’s Word given “in secret" but is given for all to read and understand. The Gospel of Thomas very clearly tries to maintain an air of secrecy in its words. The Gospel of Thomas is a [Gnostic gospel](Gnostic-gospels.html), espousing a [Gnostic viewpoint of Christianity](Christian-gnosticism.html). The Gospel of Thomas is simply a heretical forgery, much the same as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip. Perhaps the disciple Thomas' nickname of "[doubting Thomas](doubting-Thomas.html)" is appropriate here. We should all be doubting the Gospel of Thomas!
What is the G12 vision / movement?	Answer The G12 vision / movement is a cell\-church discipleship strategy pioneered by Cesar Castellanos at International Charismatic Mission of Bogota, Colombia, where he was a pastor. Castellanos believed that God spoke to him in a vision, laying out what He desired the Church do in response to the end times. This vision was the “government of 12” principle, a hierarchal pyramid scheme of discipleship and authority. He proposed that because Israel had 12 tribes, and Christ had 12 disciples, the Church needed to base their structure on this governmental model and become a cell\-church. The G12 model works this way: a pastor trains 12 people to be cell leaders. These cell leaders are each responsible for discipling 12 others in a cell group, usually with a minimum number coming from the community and not from within the church they attend. After a specified time, and after certain strict requirements are met, these cell members then become leaders themselves, and start their own cells. Thus, the membership of the church is multiplied, and the message of the Gospel is taken into the community. Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with this cell model. Churches worldwide are constantly seeking to discover the right balance of model and ministry to be effective in their communities, and this is yet another method they can use. However, the teachings that often accompany this model are what need to be questioned. Consider Cesar Castellanos himself. Castellanos is part of the charismatic New Apostolic Reformation, which is doctrinally unsound. This movement believes that God has raised up present\-day apostles to continue the work of the original apostles of Scripture and that these present\-day apostles are in charge of overseeing the work of the Church on earth. They are associated with phrases such as "name it and claim it," the "Toronto blessing," "word faith," "signs and wonders," and "health and prosperity," all unbiblical teachings. Castellanos borders on believing that God gives them post\-canonical revelation, including the G12 vision. Leaders of the G12 movement have also made a number of questionable statements, such as, "The model of ministry based on 12 is the most effective means of obeying the Great Commission of Jesus Christ to win disciples and of growing the Church" (from a brochure for a G12 conference being held in India in 2003\). Also implied by G12 leaders is that Government of 12 is what God is doing now, and that if you’re not on board with G12 you are opposing God. None of this, however, can be supported by Scripture. Dividing a church into cells of 12 cannot even be supported by Scripture. What we do find in Scripture is that the Church is likened unto a body—many parts make up the whole, each part just as necessary as another (1 Corinthians 12\). The Church is led by elders, served by deacons, and filled with believers. How each individual church is to govern and organize itself is left open to interpretation and supposition by Scripture. The G12 vision / movement simply isn’t found within the pages of the Bible, nor are many teachings its proponents espouse. This is where the true danger lies. As a church\-growth model, G12 seems to have worked for many churches, but its association with doctrinally corrupt teachings leave much to be desired for those intent on retaining Scripture, and not man’s teachings, as the sole measure for one’s life (2 Timothy 3:15\-16\).
What is the emerging / emergent church movement?	Answer The emerging, or emergent, church movement takes its name from the idea that as culture changes, a new church should emerge in response. In this case, it is a response by various church leaders to the current era of post\-modernism. Although post\-modernism began in the 1950s, the church didn’t really seek to conform to its tenets until the 1990s. Post\-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity." The emerging / emergent church movement can be thought of the same way. The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post\-modernist thinking—it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth. These are reactions to modernism and are thought to be necessary in order to actively engage contemporary culture. This movement is still fairly new, though, so there is not yet a standard method of "doing" church amongst the groups choosing to take a post\-modern mindset. In fact, the emerging church rejects any standard methodology for doing anything. Therefore, there is a huge range of how far groups take a post\-modernist approach to Christianity. Some groups go only a little way in order to impact their community for Christ, and remain biblically sound. Most groups, however, embrace post\-modernist thinking, which eventually leads to a very liberal, loose translation of the Bible. This, in turn, lends to liberal doctrine and theology. For example, because experience is valued more highly than reason, truth becomes relative. Relativism opens up all kinds of problems, as it destroys the standard that the Bible contains absolute truth, negating the belief that biblical truth can be absolute. If the Bible is not our source for absolute truth, and personal experience is allowed to define and interpret what truth actually is, a saving faith in Jesus Christ is rendered meaningless. Another area where the emerging / emergent church movement has become anti\-biblical is its focus on ecumenism. Unity among people coming from different religious backgrounds and diversity in the expression of corporate worship are strong focuses of the emergent church movement. Being ecumenical means that compromise is taking place, and this results in a watering down of Scripture in favor of not offending an apostate. This is in direct opposition to passages such as Revelation 2:14\-17, Jesus’ letter to the church of Pergamum, in which the Church is warned against tolerating those who teach false doctrine. False doctrine seems to abound within the emerging / emergent church movement, though, as stated previously, not within every group espousing emerging / emergent church beliefs. Because of this, care must be taken when deciding whether or not to become involved with an emergent church group. We all need to take heed of Matthew 7:15\-20, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." While seeking new ways to witness to a changing culture is admirable, utilizing ways which compromise the Truth of the Gospel in any way is nothing more than promoting false doctrine and leading others away from Christ instead of to Him.
What is Jainism?	Answer Jainism began in the 6th century as a reformation movement within Hinduism. It is based on the teachings of its founder, Mahavira. Believing that a life of self\-denial was the way to achieve “enlightenment,” Mahavira wandered naked and mute through India for 12 years, enduring hardship and abuse. After this, he took on disciples, preaching his newfound belief. Mahavira was vehemently opposed to the idea of acknowledging or worshiping a supreme being. Although Mahavira denied that any God or gods existed to be worshiped, he, like other religious leaders, was deified by his later followers. He was named the 24th Tirthankara, the last and greatest of the savior beings. According to Jain writings, Mahavira descended from heaven, committed no sin himself, and through meditation, freed himself from all earthly desires. Jainism is a religion of extreme legalism, for one attains his own salvation only through the path of asceticism (rigid self\-denial). There is no freedom in this religion, only rules, primarily the Five Great Vows, which mandate the renunciation of (1\) killing living things, (2\) lying, (3\) greed, (4\) sexual pleasure and (5\) worldly attachments. Women are to be avoided entirely because they are thought to be the cause of all kinds of evil. Like all false religion, Jainism is incompatible with biblical Christianity. First, the Bible condemns the worship of any god apart from the true and living God. “I am the Lord your God. . . . You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2, 3\). “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5\). Mahavira was not a god at all, but a man. Like all men, he was born, he sinned, and he died. He did not reach sinless perfection. Only one Man lived perfectly, the Lord Jesus Christ who “was in all points tempted just as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15\). Second, the Bible makes it clear that following laws and teachings, even those from the true and living God, will never result in the righteousness required for salvation. “For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Galatians 2:16\). The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8\-9\) who bore our sin on the cross so that we could bear His righteousness. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21\). The faith Jesus taught alleviates the burdens of people while Jainism only adds to them. Finally, two of Jainism’s “great vows” directly contradict the revealed Word of God. While avoiding greed, lying and worldly attachments is commendable, avoiding sexual pleasure, if taken to its extreme, would be the end of mankind. In order to assure the continuation of the generations of man on the earth, God granted the gift of sexual impulse to us. Within the constraints of holy marriage, the sexual impulse finds its complete fulfillment, and the future of our species is assured (Genesis 1:28; 2:24; 9:1\). In addition, one of the tenets of Jainism is ahimsa, the forbidding of taking life in any form. This directly contradicts both the Old and New Testaments where God gave animals to mankind for food (Leviticus 11 and Acts 10\). Like all false religions, Jainism is another lie from Satan whose desire is to entrap us in a system which focuses our attention on ourselves, the turning inward of our minds and spirits in an attempt to make ourselves worthy through self\-denial and the keeping of rules. Jesus commanded us to die to self, to live for Him and, through Him, for others. The failure of Jainism to advance much beyond certain areas of India speaks to the fact that it does not meet universal human need. This is in stark contrast to Jesus Christ, whose impact is universal.
What is Sikhism?	Answer Sikhism arose as an attempt to harmonize Islam and Hinduism. But viewing Sikhism as a harmonization of the two religions does not capture the theological and cultural uniqueness of Sikhism. To call Sikhism a compromise between Islam and Hinduism would be taken as an insult akin to calling a Christian a heretical Jew. Sikhism is not a cult nor a hybrid but a distinct religious movement. The recognized founder of Sikhism, Nanak (1469–1538\), was born to Hindu parents in India. Nanak is said to have received a direct call from God establishing him as a guru. He soon became known in the Punjab region of Northeast India for his devotion and piety and his bold assertion, "There is no Muslim, and there is no Hindu." He accumulated a considerable number of disciples (sikhs). He taught that God is one, and he designated God as the Sat Nam (“true name”) or Ekankar, combining the syllables ek (“one”), aum (a mystical sound expressing God), and kar (“Lord”). This monotheism does not include personality nor should it be blurred with any kind of Eastern pantheism (God is all). However, Nanak retained the doctrines of reincarnation and karma, which are notable tenets of Eastern religions such as with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Nanak taught that one can escape the reincarnation cycle (samsara) only through mystical union with God through devotion and chanting. Nanak was followed by an unbroken line of nine appointed gurus that maintained the leadership into the 18th century (1708\). Sikhism was originally pacifist, but it could not stay that way for long. Its rejection of the supremacy of Mohammad the prophet was taken as blasphemy and inspired much opposition from the historically warlike faith of Islam. By the time of the tenth guru, Gobind Rai, also known as Gobind Singh (“lion”), the Khalsa, a world\-renowned class of Sikh warriors, had organized. The Khalsa were characterized by their “five K’s”: kesh (long hair), kangha (a steel comb in the hair), kach (short pants), kara (a steel bracelet), and kirpan (a sword or dagger worn at the side). The British, who had a colonizing presence in India at that time, made use of the Khalsa as warriors and bodyguards. Gobind Singh was eventually assassinated by Muslims. He was the last human guru. Who was his successor? The Sikh holy book, the Adi Granth, took his place as indicated by its alternate name, Guru Granth. The Adi Granth, while not worshiped, is ascribed divine status. Despite its pacifist roots, Sikhism has come to be known as militant, which is unfortunate because such militancy stems largely from geographical issues outside of Sikh control. The hotly contested border of India and Pakistan partitioned in 1947 cuts directly across the Punjab region where the Sikhs had had a high degree of autonomy. Efforts to retain their political and social identity have often failed. Terrorists have taken extreme measures to establish a Sikh state, Khalistan, but the majority of Sikhs are peace\-loving people. The Christian and the Sikh can identify with each other insofar as both religious traditions have undergone much persecution and both worship only one God. The Christian and the Sikh, as persons, can have peace and mutual respect. But Sikhism and Christianity cannot be fused. Their belief systems have some points of agreement but ultimately have a different view of God, a different view of Jesus, a different view of Scripture, and a different view of salvation. First, Sikhism’s concept of God as abstract and impersonal directly contradicts the loving, caring “Abba, Father” God revealed in the Bible (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6\). Our God is intimately involved with His children, knowing when we sit down and rise up and understanding our very thoughts (Psalm 139:2\). He loves us with an everlasting love and draws us to Himself in patience and faithfulness (Jeremiah 31:3\). He also makes it clear that He cannot be reconciled with any so\-called god of another religion: “Before Me there was no god formed, and there will be none after Me” (Isaiah 43:10\) and “I am the Lord and there is no other; besides Me there is no god” (Isaiah 45:5\). Second, Sikhism denies the unique status of Jesus Christ. Christian Scripture asserts that salvation can come only through Him: “I am the way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6\). “And there is salvation in no other One; for there is no other name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12\). Whatever status the Sikhs may afford Christ, it is not the status He deserves, nor is it that which the Bible affords Him—Son of God and Savior of the world. Third, Sikhs and Christians each claim that theirs is the uniquely inspired Scripture. The source books for Christianity and Sikhism cannot both be “the only word of God.” To be specific, the Christian claims that the Bible is the very Word of God. It is God\-breathed, written for all who seek to know and understand, “and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). The Bible is given by our Heavenly Father that we might know and love Him, that we might “come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4\), and that we might come to Him for eternal life. Fourth and finally, the Sikh view of salvation rejects the sacrificial atonement of Christ. Sikhism teaches the doctrine of karma together with devotion to God. Karma is an inadequate explanation of sin, and no amount of good works can compensate for even one sin against an infinitely holy God. Perfect holiness cannot bear to do anything less than to hate evil. Since He is just, God cannot simply forgive sin without repayment of the debt that sin incurred. Since He is good, God cannot let sinful people into the bliss of heaven unchanged. But in Christ, the God\-man, we have a sacrifice of infinite worth to pay our debt. Our forgiveness was expensive beyond measure, so expensive we humans cannot afford it. But we can receive it as a gift. This is what the Bible means by “grace.” Christ paid the debt that we couldn’t afford to pay. He sacrificed His life in substitution for us so we could live with Him. We need only put our faith in Him. Sikhism, on the other hand, fails to address the infinite consequence of sin, the roles of God’s goodness and justice, and man’s total depravity. In conclusion, we may say that Sikhism has historical and theological traces of both Hinduism and Islam but cannot be properly understood as a mere hybrid of these two. It has evolved into a distinct religious system. A Christian can find common ground with the Sikh at some points, but ultimately Christianity and Sikhism cannot be reconciled.
What is Shintoism?	Answer Shintoism is a purely Japanese religion, the origins of which are buried in the hazy mists of ancient Japanese history. It is one of the world’s oldest religions. The Japanese people have a fierce love for their land and believe that the Japanese islands were the very first divine creation. In fact, Shintoism teaches that no other land is divine, making Japan unique in the world. Not surprisingly, Shintoism is not popular outside of Japan. The two fundamental Shinto doctrines are that Japan is the country of the gods and her people are the descendants of gods. This concept of the divine descent of the Japanese people, as well as the divine origin of the land, has given rise to a conviction of superiority over other countries and peoples. With the exception of a few designated sects of Shinto, the religion has no founder, no sacred writings, and no authoritative set of beliefs. Worship takes place at one of the numerous shrines in the country of Japan, although many Japanese have altars in their home to one or more of the large number of deities. The word Shinto comes from the Chinese word Shen\-tao, which means “the way of the gods.” A major feature of Shinto is the notion of kami, the concept of sacred power in both animate and inanimate objects. There is in Shinto a powerful sense of the presence of gods and spirits in nature. The gods of Shinto are too numerous to be grouped into a hierarchy, but the sun goddess Amaterasu is highly revered, and her grand imperial temple is located 200 miles southwest of Tokyo. Shinto teaches that the Japanese people are themselves descended from the kami. The religion of Shinto is entirely incompatible with biblical Christianity. First, the idea that the Japanese people and their land are favored above all others contradicts the Bible’s teaching that the Jews are the chosen people of God: “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deuteronomy 7:6\). However, though the Jews are God’s chosen people, they have never been designated as better than any other people, and the Bible does not teach that they were directly descended from gods. Second, the Bible is clear that there are not many gods, but one God: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5\). The Bible also teaches that God is not an impersonal force but a loving and caring Father to those who fear Him (2 Corinthians 6:17–18\). He alone created the universe, and He alone reigns sovereignly over it. The idea of gods that inhabit rocks, trees, and animals combines two different falsehoods: polytheism (the belief in many gods) and animism (the belief that gods are present in objects). These are lies from the father of lies, Satan, who “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8\). Third, Shintoism fosters pride and feelings of superiority in the Japanese people; such elitism is condemned in Scripture. God hates pride because it is the very thing that keeps people from seeking Him with their whole hearts (Psalm 10:4\). In addition, the teachings of the basic goodness and divine origin of the Japanese people preclude their need for a Savior. This is the natural consequence of assuming one’s race is of divine origin. The Bible states unequivocally that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\), that we all need a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12\). Shinto teaches that the kami might commune with those who have made themselves worthy through ritual purification, but the God of the Bible promises to be present to anyone who calls upon Him for forgiveness. No amount of personal purification (a form of salvation by works) will make a person worthy of the presence of God. Only faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross can accomplish cleansing from sin and make us acceptable to a holy God. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21\).
What is Eckankar?	Answer Eckankar is one of the [New Age](new-age-movement.html) religions, started in 1965 by journalist Paul Twitchell. Before founding Eckankar, Twitchell was involved in [yoga](Christian-yoga.html), self\-realization groups, and [Scientology](scientology-Christian-cult.html). In their own words, “The ECK is spirit. It is the force that sustains and supports all life throughout the worlds or SUGMAD \[God]. . . . In ECKANKAR, contemplation is the spiritual exercise that opens the door to expanded awareness. And the Inner Presence of the Living ECK Master \[Sri Harold Klemp] is the Spiritual Guide.” According to founder Paul Twitchell, the ECK Master, or Mahanta, is “omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent” (ECKANKAR: A Way of Life). Eckankar, according to its official website, allows followers to “explore their own spiritual experiences.” It is also called “the Ancient Science of Soul Travel,” which teaches that a person’s soul can transcend the physical universe and visit the spiritual world where God is. Based in a suburb of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, Eckankar claims to be mankind’s oldest religion. It has an estimated following of 40,000 to 60,000 members. The following are the basic beliefs of Eckankar: God: An impersonal, amoral, pantheistic spirit. Twitchell described God (“Sugmad”) in his book The Tiger’s Fang as ignorant, internally inconsistent, in need of wisdom and education, negative, unawakened, wondering, poor, unhappy, not content with his creation and in need of assistance. Twitchell also said, “You will never find God by searching for Him. He is here and now within you!” One can only wonder why anyone who sees God in this light would want to find Him in the first place. Sin: Simply karma that must be purged through the process of [reincarnation](reincarnation.html) and the work of the ECK. Salvation: While Eckankar believes it is the most direct path to God, it also teaches that all religions are created by the ECK. Jesus Christ: Twitchell stated that “Kal \[the devil] is the Jehovah of the Jewish faith and the Father of the Christian teachings. . . .Therefore, we really see Jesus as a son of Kal Niranjan, king of the lower worlds.” The fall, the second coming, heaven, and hell: All are Christian myths in the view of Eckankar. There is nothing within Eckankar to provide guidance on moral issues such as abortion, sexuality, or other important issues. Determining what is “right” is left up to the individual. The spiritual practices of Eckankar involve trances, meditation, soul travel accompanied by “spirit guides” (demons), E.S.P., telepathy, mind reading, clairvoyance, and plugging into the “cosmic consciousness.” According to Eckankar, the human soul is on a spiritual journey to discover and improve the true self, thereby realizing its own true inner divinity. It is clear that Eckankar is a false religion created by Satan and steeped in Hinduism and other Eastern religions. Satan is our “adversary, the devil, \[who] walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8\). When someone gets involved in any type of occult practice, he opens the door of his soul to the devil and his demons. This is why God is adamant in His Word about not involving ourselves in activities such as are promoted in Eckankar. “Let no one be found among you . . . who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:10–12a). Not only do such practices put us in danger of encountering demons, they are detestable to God because they replace worship of Him, the true and living God, with the worship of self. There is nothing new here. The New Age philosophy of Eckankar is nothing more than Hinduism in another package. Its real purpose is the exaltation of the self, the same old lie Satan has been propagating since the Garden of Eden when he tempted Adam and Eve by telling them, “You shall be as God” (Genesis 3:5\). Eckankar may appear peaceful and loving on the outside, but it houses occult doctrines and practices, it rejects the truth of God that He has revealed in the Bible, and it denies that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, except by Me” (John 14:6\).
What are tribulation saints?	Answer The tribulation saints are, quite simply, saints living during the [tribulation](tribulation.html). We believe that the church will be [raptured before the tribulation](rapture-tribulation.html), but the Bible indicates that a great number of people during the tribulation will place their faith in Jesus Christ. In his vision of heaven, John sees a vast number of these tribulation saints who have been martyred by the Antichrist: “There before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands” (Revelation 7:9\). When John asks who they are, he is told, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (verse 14\). The tribulation will be a time of great trouble for the wicked, because of God’s judgments. It will also be a time of great persecution for the believers—or saints—because of the Antichrist’s persecution (Revelation 13:7\). Daniel saw the Antichrist “waging war against the saints and defeating them” (Daniel 7:21\). Of course, the saints’ eternal salvation is secure: Daniel also saw that “the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom” (Daniel 7:22; cf. Revelation 14:12–13\). The tribulation saints will hear the gospel from several possible sources. The first is the Bible; there will be many copies of the Bible left in the world, and when God’s judgments begin to fall, many people will likely react by finding a Bible to see if prophecies are being fulfilled. Many of the tribulation saints will also have heard the gospel from the two witnesses (Revelation 11:1–13\). The Bible says these two individuals “will prophesy for 1,260 days \[three and a half years]” (verse 3\) and perform great miracles (verse 6\). And then there are the 144,000 Jewish missionaries who are redeemed and sealed by God during the tribulation (Revelation 7:1–8\). Immediately following the description of their sealing in Revelation 7, we read of the multitudes of tribulation saints who are saved from every corner of the world (verses 9–17\). The tribulation saints will serve their Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of desperate surroundings. Faithful to the end, many of these believers will die for their faith. But in their death, they overcome; “They overcame \[Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Revelation 12:11\). And God will reward them: “He who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 7:15–17\). We praise the Lord that the great day of trouble will also be a great day of grace. Even as God is meting out His just punishment on an unbelieving world, He will be restoring Israel to faith and extending grace to all who believe, both Jew and Gentile. God has always been in the business of saving people, and that salvation will still be available during the tribulation. Don’t wait until then, however; receive Jesus now (John 1:12\).
Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?	Answer [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) had obeyed God many times in his walk with Him, but no test could have been more severe than the one in Genesis 22\. God commanded, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you” (Genesis 22:2\). This was an astounding command because Isaac was the son of promise. God had [promised](Abrahamic-covenant.html) several times that from Abraham’s own body would come a nation as multitudinous as the stars in heaven (Genesis 12:2–3; 15:4–5\). Later, Abraham was specifically told that the promise would be through Isaac (Genesis 21:12\). Given that God’s testing of Abraham involved a command to do something He elsewhere forbids (see Jeremiah 7:31\), we must ask, “Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice [Isaac](life-Isaac.html)?” The Bible does not specifically address the answer to this question, but in our study of Scripture we can compile a few reasons: God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to test Abraham’s faith. God’s tests prove and purify our faith. They cause us to seek Him and trust Him more. God’s test of Abraham allowed His child—and all the world—to see the reality of faith in action. Faith is more than an inner spiritual attitude; faith works (see James 2:18\). God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to validate Abraham as the “father” of all who have faith in God. “Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness” (Romans 4:9\). And we today “who have the faith of Abraham” also find that “he is the father of us all” (verse 16\). Without Abraham’s response to the command to sacrifice Isaac, we would have difficulty knowing all that faith entails. God uses Abraham’s faith as an example of the type of faith required for salvation. God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to provide an example of absolute obedience. After God gave the command, “early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey” and headed out with his son and the wood for a burnt offering (Genesis 22:3\). There was no delay, no questioning, no arguing. Just simple obedience, which brought a blessing (verses 15–18\). God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to reveal God as [Jehovah\-Jireh](Jehovah-Jireh.html). On the way up the mountain to the place of sacrifice, Isaac inquired as to the animal to be sacrificed, and his father said, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8\). After God’s provision of a ram to take Isaac’s place on the altar, “Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide” (verse 14\). Thus we have another character\-revealing name of God: Yahweh\-Yireh. God’s command to sacrifice Isaac was to foreshadow God’s sacrifice of His own Son. The story of Abraham prefigures the New Testament teaching of the atonement, the sacrificial offering of the Lord Jesus on the cross for the sin of mankind. Here are some of the parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Christ: • “Take your son, your only son, whom you love” (Genesis 22:2\); “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16\). • “Go to the region of [Moriah](mount-Moriah.html). Sacrifice him there” (Genesis 22:2\); it is believed that this same area is where the city of Jerusalem was built many years later. Jesus was crucified in the same area that Isaac had been laid on the altar. • “Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:2\); “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3\). • “Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac” (Genesis 22:6\); Jesus, “carrying his own cross,” walked to Calvary (John 19:17\). • “But where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” (Genesis 22:7\); John said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29\). • “God himself will provide the lamb” (Genesis 22:8\); Jesus is likened to a [spotless lamb](Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html) in 1 Peter 1:18–19 and a slain lamb in Revelation 5:6\. • Isaac, who was likely a [young man](how-old-was-Isaac.html) at the time of his sacrifice, acted in obedience to his father (Genesis 22:9\); before His sacrifice, Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39\). • Isaac was resurrected figuratively, and Jesus in reality: “Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death” (Hebrews 11:19\); Jesus “was buried, and . . . was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4\). Many centuries after God’s command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56\). This is a reference to Abraham’s joy in seeing the ram caught in the thicket in Genesis 22\. That ram was the substitute that would save Isaac’s life. Seeing that ram was, in essence, seeing the day of Christ, the Substitute for all of us.
Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?	Answer Theologically speaking, scholars generally regard the book of Hebrews to be second in importance only to Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament. No other book so eloquently defines Christ as high priest of Christianity, superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. This book presents Christ as the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2\). However, both the authorship and audience are in question. The title “To the Hebrews,” which appears in the earliest known copy of the epistle, is not a part of the original manuscript. There is no salutation; the letter simply begins with the assertion that Jesus, the Son of God, has appeared, atoned for our sins, and is now seated at the right hand of God in heaven (Hebrews 1:1\-4\). The letter closes with the words “Grace be with you all” (Hebrews 13:25\), which is the same closing found in each of Paul’s known letters (see Romans 16:20; 1 Corinthians 16:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 6:24; Philippians 4:23; Colossians 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:18; 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 4:22; Titus 3:15; and Philemon 25\). However, it should be noted that Peter (1 Peter 5:14; 2 Peter 3:18\) used similar—though not identical—closings. It is possible that it was simply customary to close letters like this with the words “Grace be with you all” during this time period. Church tradition teaches that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, and until the 1800s that issue was closed. However, though a vast majority of Christians scholar still believe Paul wrote the book, there are some tempting reasons to think otherwise. First and foremost is the lack of a salutation. Some sort of personal salutation from Paul appears in all of his letters. So it would seem that writing anonymously is not his usual method; therefore, the reasoning goes, Hebrews cannot be one of his letters. Second, the overall composition and style is of a person who is a very sophisticated writer. Even though he was certainly a sophisticated communicator, Paul stated that he purposely did not speak with a commanding vocabulary (1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 11:6\). The book of Hebrews quotes extensively from the Old Testament. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have been familiar with the Scripture in its original Hebrew language. In other letters, Paul either quotes the Masoretic Text (the original Hebrew) or paraphrases it. However, all of the quotes in this epistle are taken out of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), which is inconsistent with Paul’s usage. Finally, Paul was an apostle who claimed to receive his revelations directly from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23; Galatians 1:12\). The writer of Hebrews specifically says that he was taught by an apostle (Hebrews 2:3\). If Paul didn’t write the letter, who did? The most plausible suggestion is that this was actually a sermon Paul gave and it was transcribed later by Luke, a person who would have had the command of the Greek language that the writer shows. Barnabas is another likely prospect, since he was a Levite and would have been speaking on a subject that he knew much about. Martin Luther suggested Apollos, since he would have had the education the writer of this letter must have had. Priscilla and Clement of Rome have been suggested by other scholars. However, there is still much evidence that Paul wrote the letter. The most compelling comes from Scripture itself. Remember that Peter wrote to the Hebrews (that is, the Jews; see Galatians 2:7, 9 and 1 Peter 1:1\). Peter wrote, “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him” (2 Peter 3:15\). In that last verse, Peter is confirming that Paul had also written a letter to the Hebrews! The theology presented in Hebrews is consistent with Paul’s. Paul was a proponent of salvation by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, 9\), and that message is strongly communicated in this epistle (Hebrews 4:2, 6:12, 10:19\-22, 10:37\-39, and 11:1\-40\), indicating that either Paul wrote the epistle or the writer was trained by Paul. Although it is a small detail, this epistle makes mention of Timothy (Hebrews 13:23\), and Paul is the only apostle known to have ever done that in any letter. So, who actually wrote Hebrews? The letter fills a needed space in Scripture and both outlines our faith and defines faith itself in the same way that Romans defines the tenets of Christian living. It closes the chapters of faith alone and serves as a prelude to the chapters on good works built on a foundation of faith in God. In short, this book belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16\-17\. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews and of all Scripture, even though we don’t know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words.

Subsets and Splits