Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
Why won’t God heal amputees?	Answer Some use this question in an attempt to "disprove" the existence of God. In fact, there is a popular anti\-Christian website dedicated to the “Why won’t God heal amputees?” argument: <http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com>. If God is all\-powerful and if Jesus promised to do anything we ask (or so the reasoning goes), then why won’t God ever heal amputees when we pray for them? Why does God heal victims of cancer and diabetes, for example, yet He never causes an amputated limb to be regenerated? The fact that an amputee stays an amputee is "proof" to some that God does not exist, that prayer is useless, that so\-called healings are coincidence, and that religion is a myth. The above argument is usually presented in a thoughtful, well\-reasoned way, with a liberal sprinkling of Scripture to make it seem all the more legitimate. However, it is an argument based on a wrong view of God and a misrepresentation of Scripture. The line of reasoning often employed in the “why won’t God heal amputees” argument makes at least seven false assumptions: Assumption 1: God has never healed an amputee. Who is to say that in the history of the world, God has never caused a limb to regenerate? To say, "I have no empirical evidence that limbs can regenerate; therefore, no amputee has ever been healed in the history of the world" is akin to saying "I have no empirical evidence that rabbits live in my yard; therefore, no rabbit has ever lived on this ground in the history of the world." It’s a conclusion that simply cannot be drawn. Besides, we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40\-42; Luke 17:12\-14\). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9\-13\), and the restoration of Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:50\-51\), not to mention the fact that Jesus raised the dead (Matthew 11:5; John 11\), which would undeniably be even more difficult than healing an amputee. Assumption 2: God’s goodness and love require Him to heal everyone. Illness, suffering, and pain are the result of our living in a cursed world—cursed because of our sin (Genesis 3:16\-19; Romans 8:20\-22\). God’s goodness and love moved Him to provide a Savior to redeem us from the curse (1 John 4:9\-10\), but our ultimate redemption will not be realized until God has made a final end of sin in the world. Until that time, we are still subject to physical death. If God’s love required Him to heal every disease and infirmity, then no one would ever die—because "love" would maintain everyone in perfect health. The biblical definition of love is "a sacrificial seeking of what is best for the loved one." What is best for us is not always physical wholeness. Paul the apostle prayed to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed, but God said, "No," because He wanted Paul to understand he didn’t need to be physically whole to experience the sustaining grace of God. Through the experience, Paul grew in humility and in the understanding of God’s mercy and power (2 Corinthians 12:7\-10\). The testimony of Joni Eareckson Tada provides a modern example of what God can do through physical tragedy. As a teenager, Joni suffered a diving accident that left her a quadriplegic. In her book Joni, she relates how she visited faith healers many times and prayed desperately for the healing which never came. Finally, she accepted her condition as God’s will, and she writes, "The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that God doesn’t want everyone well. He uses our problems for His glory and our good" (p. 190\). Assumption 3: God still performs miracles today just as He did in the past. In the thousands of years of history covered by the Bible, we find just four short periods in which miracles were widely performed (the period of the Exodus, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the ministry of Jesus, and the time of the apostles). While miracles occurred throughout the Bible, it was only during these four periods that miracles were "common." The time of the apostles ended with the writing of Revelation and the death of John. That means that now, once again, miracles are rare. Any ministry which claims to be led by a new breed of apostle or claims to possess the ability to heal is deceiving people. "Faith healers" play upon emotion and use the power of suggestion to produce unverifiable "healings." This is not to say that God does not heal people today—we believe He does—but not in the numbers or in the way that some people claim. We turn again to the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who at one time sought the help of faith healers. On the subject of modern\-day miracles, she says, "Man’s dealing with God in our day and culture is based on His Word rather than ‘signs and wonders’" (op cit., p. 190\). His grace is sufficient, and His Word is sure. Assumption 4: God is bound to say "yes" to any prayer offered in faith. Jesus said, "I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it" (John 14:12\-14\). Some have tried to interpret this passage as Jesus agreeing to whatever we ask. But this is misreading Jesus’ intent. Notice, first, that Jesus is speaking to His apostles, and the promise is for them. After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles were given power to perform miracles as they spread the gospel (Acts 5:12\). Second, Jesus twice uses the phrase "in My name." This indicates the basis for the apostles’ prayers, but it also implies that whatever they prayed for should be consonant with Jesus’ will. A selfish prayer, for example, or one motivated by greed, cannot be said to be prayed in Jesus’ name. We pray in faith, but faith means that we trust God. We trust Him to do what is best and to know what is best. When we consider all the Bible’s teaching on prayer (not just the promise given to the apostles), we learn that God may exercise His power in response to our prayer, or He may surprise us with a different course of action. In His wisdom He always does what is best (Romans 8:28\). Assumption 5: God’s future healing (at the resurrection) cannot compensate for earthly suffering. The truth is, "our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18\). When a believer loses a limb, he has God’s promise of future wholeness, and faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1\). Jesus said, "It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8\). His words confirm the relative unimportance of our physical condition in this world, as compared to our eternal state. To enter life maimed (and then to be made whole) is infinitely better than to enter hell whole (to suffer for eternity). Assumption 6: God’s plan is subject to man’s approval. One of the contentions of the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is that God just isn’t "fair" to amputees. Yet, Scripture is clear that God is perfectly just (Psalm 11:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:5\-6\) and in His sovereignty answers to no one (Romans 9:20\-21\). A believer has faith in God’s goodness, even when circumstances make it difficult and reason seems to falter. Assumption 7: God does not exist. This is the underlying assumption on which the whole "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is based. Those who champion the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument start with the assumption that God does not exist and then proceed to buttress their idea as best they can. For them, "religion is a myth" is a foregone conclusion, presented as a logical deduction but which is, in reality, foundational to the argument. In one sense, the question of why God doesn’t heal amputees is a trick question, comparable to "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?" and is designed not to seek for truth but to discredit faith. In another sense, it can be a valid question with a biblical answer. That answer, in short, would be something like this: "God can heal amputees and will heal every one of them who trusts Christ as Savior. The healing will come, not as the result of our demanding it now, but in God’s own time, possibly in this life, but definitely in heaven. Until that time, we walk by faith, trusting the God who redeems us in Christ and promises the resurrection of the body." A personal testimony: Our first son was born missing bones in his lower legs and in his feet and he only had two toes. Two days after his first birthday he had both feet amputated. We are now considering adopting a child from China who would require a similar surgery as he has similar issues. I feel God chose me to be a very special mother to these special children, and I had no idea until seeing the topic about why doesn’t God heal amputees that people used this as a reason to doubt the existence of God. As the mother of one child with no feet and the potential mother of another child that will be missing some of his lower limbs as well, I’ve never seen it in that light. Rather, I have seen His calling me to be a special mother as a way to teach others of the blessings of God. He is also calling me to give these children the opportunity to be added to a Christian family that will teach them to love the Lord in their special way and to understand that we can overcome all things through Christ. Some might find it to be a stumbling block; we find it to be a learning experience and challenge. We also thank Him for giving someone the knowledge to perform the necessary surgeries and make the necessary prostheses that allow my son, and hopefully our next son, to be able to walk, run, jump, and live to glorify God in all things. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28\).
Is born again virginity possible?	Answer Born\-again virginity is the claim that after having sex, a person can be restored to virginity by a spiritual renewal, vowing sexual purity until marriage and asking God for forgiveness. Some women have taken the idea of born\-again virginity so far that they actually have had surgery to physically restore themselves to a “virgin” physical\-sexual state. The pressure upon some Christians to become "born\-again virgins" is likely due in large part to the fear of condemnation from Christian brothers and sisters, or perhaps fear that God will not accept them unless they take steps to become “born\-again virgins.” Neither of these reasons should be a concern because God offers forgiveness and grace to all who ask with a sincere heart (1 John 1:9\). We need not try to restore for ourselves what God has already restored in us spiritually. The Bible says that when we are born again, we are new creations, our old selves are dead and gone, and we have new life given to us by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 5:17\). This means that God chooses to no longer remember our past transgressions (Jeremiah 31:34\), including losing virginity before marriage. Our sins are as far away from us as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12\). There is absolutely no doubt that God will forgive sex before marriage. God’s love for a person is not diminished because of the mistakes that person has made. However, though our sins are no longer counted against us, they are still very real and still carry with them earthly consequences. Once an act is done, it’s done. It is, therefore, not possible to claim physical born\-again virginity, just as it is not possible to reverse the consequences of any other sins we commit. What we can be done with, though, are the guilt feelings associated with having had premarital sex. This kind of guilt can cause us to doubt the power of God’s forgiveness because we can’t forgive ourselves. We can be tyrannized by our emotions and feel we are too bad to be forgiven. There are several reasons for this. First, the conscience speaks against forgiveness. The only thing our conscience knows about is guilt and conviction. It knows nothing of grace and mercy. Second, Satan is the “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10\), and he will do all he can to obscure the love and graciousness of God. But Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44\). Once we recognize that it’s to his advantage to keep us incapacitated and immobilized by our guilt feelings, we can reject his lies, cling to the promises of Scripture, truly believe that we have died to sin, and begin to live for God in Christ (Romans 6:11\). Consider the apostle Paul—consumed with rage against Christ and “breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1\), full of blasphemy and ungodliness, yet God forgave him and made Paul His chosen vessel to preach the Gospel to the whole world. Notice that God never required Paul to become a born\-again anything other than a born\-again believer in Jesus Christ. Paul goes on to tell us that although some of us were sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers (1 Corinthians 6:9\-12\), yet through the infinite goodness and free grace of God, we are washed from the filth and guilt of our sins, justified by the righteousness of Christ, sanctified by the Spirit of Christ, and decked and adorned with the precious grace of Christ, holy and perfect in the sight of God. Knowing this, how can we possibly hold onto our guilty feelings? Rather than seeking born\-again virginity, a Christian who has made the mistake of sex before marriage should commit himself/herself to God and to abstaining from sexual intercourse until marriage. Claiming born\-again virginity is not biblical. Believing wholeheartedly in God’s total forgiveness and making the choice to live righteously and in ways that are pleasing to Him—that is biblical.
How are predestination and election connected with foreknowledge?	Answer Certainly, since God knows everything, it would have been possible for God to base His predestination and election of individuals upon His foreknowledge of the future. In fact, that is the exact position that many Christians believe, as it is the Arminian view of predestination. The problem is that it really is not what the Bible teaches about predestination, election, and foreknowledge. In order to understand why the view that “God made His choice based on merely knowing the future” is not what the Bible teaches, let's first consider the passages that speak into the tension (but not irreconcilable tension) between predestination, election, and foreknowledge. Ephesians 1:5 tells us that God “predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” According to this verse, the basis of our being predestined is not something that we do or will do, but is based solely on God in accordance with His good will and pleasure. In Ephesians 1:11 we see that people are “chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” From these and many other passages, we see that Scripture consistently teaches that predestination or election is not based upon something that we do or will do. God predestined people based on His own sovereign will to redeem for Himself people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. God predetermined or predestined this from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4\) based solely on His sovereign will and not because of anything that He knew the people would do. But what about Romans 8:29 where it says that those “He foreknew, He also predestined”? Doesn't that seem to say that predestination is based upon the foreknowledge of God? Of course, the answer is yes, it does teach that predestination is based on the foreknowledge of God. But God’s foreknowledge, or knowing things or events before they exist or happen, is not the only basis for predestination. We know that His will and pleasure are also involved. God foreknowing and predestining reveals His sovereignty, but we also learn in the Bible that people are accountable for their choices (Joshua 24:14\-15, Luke 10:42, Hebrews 11:24\-25\). The issue really is not whether or not God knows who will believe, but why some believe and others do not. God’s desire is that all would be saved and come to repentance (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9\). He offers salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11\), yet we know that not everyone will be saved. The following quote by John Murray is excellent in dealing with this issue: “Even if it were granted that “foreknew” means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; He foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith, which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith He himself creates (cf. John 3:3\-8; 6:44, 45, 65; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians. 1:29; 2 Peter 1:2\). Hence His eternal foresight of faith is preconditioned by His decree to generate this faith in those whom He foresees as believing.”
What is the meaning of the Parable of the Two Sons?	Answer The Parable of the Two Sons can be found in Matthew 21:28\-32\. The basic story is of a man with two sons who told them to go work in the vineyard. The first son refused, but later obeyed and went. The second son initially expressed obedience, but actually disobeyed and refused to work in the vineyard. The son who ultimately did the will of his father was the first son because he eventually obeyed. Jesus then likens the first son to tax collectors and prostitutes—the outcasts of Jewish society—because they believed John the Baptist and accepted “the way of righteousness” (v. 32\), in spite of their initial disobedience to the Law. The key interpretive point in understanding the Parable of the Two Sons comes in defining to whom Jesus is speaking. For that we need to look at the overall context of this passage. Matthew chapter 21 begins with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The whole point of Matthew’s gospel is to show Jesus as the long\-awaited Messiah. The crowd responds by shouting Hosannas and praises to the King. The King’s first act upon entering Jerusalem is to cleanse the temple (21:12\-17\). Afterwards, we see Jesus cursing a fig tree (21:18\-22\). This account may seem an isolated story, but Jesus was making a strong symbolic point. The fig tree is often symbolic of Israel (cf. Hosea 9:10; Joel 1:7\). The fact that the fig tree had leaves but no fruit is symbolic of Israel’s religious activity—i.e., all the trappings of spirituality, but no substance. Israel may have had the leaves of activity, but not the fruit of repentance and obedience to God, which is why Jesus tells them the prostitutes and tax collectors will enter the kingdom ahead of them (v. 31\). In Matthew 21:23\-27, the religious authorities—the chief priests and elders—question Jesus’ authority. Who is this Jesus who comes into Jerusalem receiving the praises of the masses and drives the moneychangers out of the temple? The stage is set for the showdown. It is in this context that Jesus tells three parables—the Two Sons, the Tenants, and the Wedding Feast. Each of these parables is told to the Jewish religious leaders, each illustrates their rejection of Jesus, and each pronounces judgment on Israel for their rejection of their Messiah. In the Parable of the Two Sons, the leaders of Israel are the second son who claimed obedience, but did not do the will of the father.
What does the Bible mean by “you are gods” / “ye are gods” in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?	Answer Psalm 82:6 reads, “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.” In John 10, Jesus cites Psalm 82:6 and repeats the statement that “you are gods.” The context is a confrontation between Jesus and the Jews at the Festival of Dedication. They ask Him to reveal plainly if He is the Messiah (John 10:24\). Jesus responds that His actions prove He is the Messiah, and then He claims equality with God by saying, “[I and the Father](I-and-the-Father-are-one.html) are one” (John 10:30\). At that, the Jews pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:31–33\), but Jesus reasons with them by quoting Psalm 82:6: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” Who are the “gods” of Psalm 82:6, and what exactly is Jesus’ point in saying, “You are gods” in John 10:34 (or “ye are gods” in the KJV)? Let’s start with a look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34\. The Hebrew word translated “gods” in Psalm 82:6 is [elohim](meaning-of-Elohim.html). The term elohim is most frequently used to refer to the one true God, but it does have other uses. Yahweh is referred to as the Elohim above all elohim (Psalm 95:3\). Other uses of the term elohim include spiritual beings such as angels (Job 2:1; 38:7\); demons, idols, and gods of foreign nations (Genesis 35:4; Deuteronomy 32:17; 1 Kings 11:33\); and the disembodied dead (1 Samuel 28:13\). The Hebrew word elohim is also translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28\. Whom, then, does God call “gods” in Psalm 82:6? There are two main views: 1\) The “gods” are supernatural beings who rule under God. Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.” In the Hebrew, the phrase translated “great assembly” speaks of a divine congregation or a divine council. Some interpret this passage as God warning that those in the divine council who continue making unjust decisions will die “like mere mortals” and “fall like all other rulers” (Psalm 82:2, 6–8\). God created hell for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41\), and we know He will bring justice to them at the right time. They will fall like mere mortals. 2\) The “gods” of Psalm 82 are human magistrates, judges, and rulers who have been granted authority in the earth. In this view, the whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Psalm 82:6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” According to this view, God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people (see Exodus 7:1\). Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1\) he has authority over other human beings, 2\) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3\) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in Psalm 82:8\. Human rulers are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they use that authority. Now, let’s look at how Jesus uses this passage. When Jesus quotes Psalm 82, He says that the statement “you are gods” was directed to those “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35\). That is, those who received the message of God were called “gods.” Jesus had just claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:25–30\). The unbelieving Jews responded by charging Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33\). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6 and says, “If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to others besides God. If those who hold a divinely appointed office or those who have a divine position in the spiritual realm can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (John 10:34–36\)? [Mormonism](Mormons.html) uses these texts as proof texts to show the eventual divinity of man. However, neither of these passages is proof that man can attain godhood. We must beware of the lie that the serpent used to deceive Eve in the garden: “Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5\). This was a half\-truth. Their eyes were opened (verse 7\), but they did not become like God. In fact, they lost authority, rather than gaining it. Satan deceived Eve about her ability to become like the one true God, and so led her into a lie. Jesus defended His claim to be the Son of God on biblical and semantic grounds—there is a sense in which influential men and spiritual beings can be referred to as “gods”; therefore, the Messiah can rightly apply the term to Himself. Human beings are not “gods” or “little gods.” They will never become gods. God is God, and we who know Christ are His children.
What are appropriate reasons for missing church?	Answer Many people have an improper or unbiblical understanding of [church attendance](church-attendance.html). Some people’s feeling about church attendance borders on legalism—they must attend every time there is any kind of service or meeting, or they risk God’s wrath. Some people experience guilty feelings whenever they miss a Sunday morning service for any reason. Sadly, some churches encourage this guilt by putting excessive pressure on people. While indifference toward church or a willful avoidance of church may indicate a problem in one’s spiritual health, it is important to understand that the quality of a person’s relationship with God is not determined by how often he/she is in church. God’s love for His children is not based on the number of times they attend formal services. There is no doubt that Christians, followers of Jesus Christ, should attend church. It should be the desire of every Christian to worship corporately (Ephesians 5:19–20\), to fellowship with and encourage other Christians (1 Thessalonians 5:11\), and to be taught God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). Hearing the Word is what produces faith (Romans 10:17\). And gathering with other believers is a command (Hebrews 10:24–25\); we really do need each other. Just as God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7\), so He is pleased with a genuinely cheerful church attendee. Church attendance should be one of the priorities in the Christian life. Being committed to one’s local church is important. What then are appropriate reasons for missing church? It’s impossible to give a list that will work for everyone. Of course, it’s acceptable to miss church when one is ill. But, in other areas, the issue comes down to your attitude and motivation. If one’s motivation for missing church is to better serve the Lord elsewhere, to meet genuine needs, or to fulfill a God\-ordained responsibility, then there is nothing wrong with missing a church service. An on\-call policeman, for example, cannot be expected to ignore a call in order to take his place in the pew. But if one’s motivation for missing church is to fulfill the lust of the flesh, to pursue selfish ends, or to simply avoid Christian fellowship, then there is a problem. Each situation must be evaluated personally and honestly. Is it ever acceptable to miss church to attend a sporting event? Yes, depending on one’s motivation and attitude. What about missing church while on vacation? Again, it depends on one’s motivation and attitude. We want to avoid legalism; we are not saved by church attendance but by grace. At the same time, a Christian should desire to attend church to learn about the greatness of God’s gift of salvation, to learn how to become more like Christ, and to have opportunities to minister to others. In examining our motives for missing church, we should also examine our motives for attending church. Do we attend church to make ourselves appear spiritual? To interact with possible business contacts? Or do we attend because of the legalistic notion that says the more frequently we walk through the doors of a church, the more God is pleased with us? It’s true that there are many people who attend church regularly yet do not have a good relationship with the Lord. If your church attendance involves nothing more than sitting bored and inattentive through the singing and sermon, and then leaving immediately after the service ends, then you might as well have missed church, as you did not gain anything from it and you contributed nothing to it. We should want to attend church so we can fellowship with others who have also experienced the amazing grace of Jesus Christ. We should avoid missing church, whenever possible, because we recognize the importance of hearing God’s Word, applying it to our lives, and sharing it with others. We should attend church, not to collect spiritual bonus points, but because we love God, love His people, and love His Word. Every Christian should attempt to attend church regularly. At the same time, missing church for a good reason is in no sense a sin or something that should cause feelings of guilt. When you miss (do not attend) church, do you miss (have a longing for) church? If so, that’s a sign you have a good connection with church. If not, that is a sign you need to re\-evaluate your choice of church and/or participation in church. God knows our hearts. God is not impressed by a person simply because he attends every service. God’s desire is to build us up in Christ, and His method in this age involves the local church.
Is God cruel?	Answer There are atheists and agnostics who argue that the God who is presented in the Bible is cruel. For example, the online [Skeptics Annotated Bible](http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short.html) has an entire section devoted to biblical passages that, they claim, demonstrate that God is cruel. By labeling God as cruel, they are appealing to our human, moral sensibilities. The word cruelty is defined as "callous indifference to, or pleasure in, causing pain and suffering.” The question before us now is, Is God cruel? To answer in the affirmative, we would have to allow that God either doesn’t care about pain and suffering, or He actually enjoys watching His creatures suffer. The atheists / agnostics who claim that God is cruel have a large burden of proof. They are not merely claiming to know about the actions of God; they are also claiming to sufficiently know the circumstances in which He performed those actions, as well as His motivations. Additionally, they are claiming to know the very mind of God, ascribing to Him the attitudes of indifference and/or [sadistic](sadism-sadist.html) pleasure necessary to define Him as cruel. Quite frankly, this is beyond the skeptics’ ability to demonstrate—they can’t possibly know the mind of God. “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8\-9\). There is no doubt that God both allows and, at times, causes pain and suffering, but God’s goodness cannot be impugned because He commits an act that appears cruel to us. While we can’t claim to know His reasoning in every circumstance, we do know several reasons for actions that can appear to us to be cruel, especially if we don’t know—or don’t bother to find out—the circumstances: 1\. To mete out just punishment \- If a punishment is just, can it be said to be cruel? What critics usually do not understand is that God’s love is not diminished when He brings punishment on people. God is able to bring judgment on an evil group of people in order to spare those who are devoted to Him. To allow evil and wrongdoing to go unpunished would indeed be cruel and would indicate a callousness toward the innocent. When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14\). Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good. Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods. 2\. To bring about a greater good\- Pain and suffering that produce a greater good sometimes can be brought about by no other means. The Bible tells us that trials and difficulties produce stronger, better Christians, and we should “count it all joy” (James 1:2\) when we encounter them. God brings these about for our benefit, in order to refine us like gold in the fire of affliction. The Apostle Paul saw his own suffering—beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, cold, imprisonments—as a means of ensuring that he would be ever conscious of his own weakness, would remember always that the power at work in him was from God, not himself, and would never be deluded into relying on his own power (2 Corinthians 1:8\-10; 4:7\-12\). Against nonbelievers, God’s justice is vindicated when He causes pain and suffering to them because they deserve it. He demonstrates His mercy to them by warning them repeatedly of the consequences of sin. When, through their own rebellion, they bring upon themselves calamity, this is just punishment, not cruelty. The fact that He lets rebels go on shaking their fists at Him as long as He does indicates His mercy and patience, not cruelty. 3\. To glorify Himself \- God is glorified by the exhibition of His attributes. We all agree that He looks pretty good to us when His love and mercy are on display, but since each and every attribute is holy and perfect, even the exhibition of His wrath and anger bring Him glory. And that is the ultimate goal—His glory, not ours. Our tiny, finite brains can’t even adequately imagine Him, much less call Him into question. All these are worthy, valid, noble causes for pain and suffering. Contrary to the claims of skeptics, there are good reasons for God’s allowing evil and suffering in this world. We are privileged to know some of those reasons, but we do not always know why God allows evil and suffering. To trust God in spite of not knowing the reasons is not a blind [leap of faith](leap-of-faith.html). Rather, we trust Him with the things we don’t understand because we see His faithfulness in those actions which we do understand. If we read the Bible carefully, rather than seeing God act out of cruelty, we see Him acting out of His love for us. For example, the book of Job is often pointed to as an example of God’s sadistic actions against an innocent man. The book declares that Job was innocent of the suffering that came upon him, which appears to favor the claim of the atheist. But to claim that it proves God is sadistic betrays a very superficial understanding of the book of Job. In the Near East during the time of the patriarchs, a common belief was that God always blessed the righteous and brought suffering on the unrighteous. The book of Job is a polemic against that theology. The story shows that man’s view of God’s justice needed to be modified. We need to understand that God is not limited to using suffering as a means of retribution. He also uses it to tear people away from the earthly things that so easily entice them. Additionally, Job brings people closer to understanding God’s work of atonement on the cross. If mankind continued to think that God couldn’t allow an innocent man to suffer, then we would have missed God’s plan for redeeming the world. For God allowed the suffering of a perfectly innocent Man (Jesus Christ) in order to bring His own to salvation. So this book of Job ends up being an invaluable contribution to the history of redemption. In summary, the skeptic must bear a very large burden of proof in claiming that God’s actions are characterized by cruelty. In context, the biblical passages which appear to paint God as cruel actually do no such thing. In fact, with a proper understanding of the Scriptures, we see that God’s actions are always motivated by, and consistent with, His holy and perfect character.
What does the Bible say about self-worth?	Answer The Bible actually has many passages that tell us what God has to say about our worth and our value in His eyes. Genesis 1:26\-27 says we are made in His image, the very image of God. Psalm 139:13\-16 says we are fearfully and wonderfully made, and all the days of our lives were written in God’s book before we were ever born, confirming God’s prior knowledge and plan for our lives. Ephesians 1:4 says God chose His children before the foundations of the earth were ever formed, and in Ephesians 1:13\-14 we’re told we are God’s own possession, chosen for the praise of His glory, and that we have an inheritance in heaven with Him as His children. But notice the wording in each of the above phrases: “are made,” “are fearfully and wonderfully made,” “were written,” “God chose His children,” “we are God’s own possession,” and “we have an inheritance.” These phrases all have one thing in common: they are things done to us or for us by God. These are not things we have done for ourselves, nor have we earned or deserved them. We are, in fact, merely the recipients of “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3\). Therefore, we can conclude that our worth is not really of the “self” at all; rather, it is worth given to us by God. We are of inestimable value to Him because of the price He paid to make us worthy—the death of His Son on the cross. The Bible tells us that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8\). In fact, we “were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1\). What worth is there in dead things? None. God imputed to us His own righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21\) not because we were worthy of it, but because we were unworthy, unlovable, and unable to make ourselves worthy in any way. But—and here’s the miracle—He actually loved us in spite of our condition (John 3:16\), and because He did, we now have infinite worth. John 1:12 tells us that to those who received Christ and believed in His name, God gave the right to become His children. First John 1:9 tells us that if we confess our sins, He is faithful to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we focus on how much God loves us and the price He paid to redeem us, we’ll come to see ourselves as God sees us, and that will help us understand just how much we’re really worth as children of the most high God. Our self\-worth is too often based on what other people tell us about ourselves. The one, true authority on our self\-worth is Jesus Christ, and since He gave His own life up for us by dying on a cross, that should tell us just how valuable we really are.
What is Euthyphro’s Dilemma?	Answer Plato’s famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it’s good because it is good. This is known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma (named after the character Euthyphro in Plato’s ’socratic dialogue' on the subject of goodness). The problem this question raises for the Christian is two\-fold. First, if a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don’t want a morality based on God’s arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing’s goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don’t want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma. There is, however, a third option. As Christians we should affirm both God’s sovereignty and His non\-derived goodness. Thus, we don’t want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God’s nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God’s nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues. How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing’s goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human\-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.) In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.
Where is hell?	Answer Various theories on the location of hell have been put forward. A traditional view is that hell is in the center of the earth. Others propose that hell is located in outer space in a [black hole](black-holes.html). In the Old Testament, the word translated “hell” is Sheol; in the New Testament, it’s Hades (meaning “unseen”) and Gehenna (“the Valley of Hinnom”). Sheol is also translated as “pit” and “grave.” Both Sheol and Hades refer to a temporary abode of the dead before judgment (Psalm 9:17; Revelation 1:18\). Gehenna refers to an eternal state of punishment for the wicked dead (Mark 9:43\). The idea that hell is below us, perhaps in the center of the earth, comes from passages such as Luke 10:15: “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell” (KJV). Also, in 1 Samuel 28:13\-15, the medium of Endor sees the spirit of Samuel “coming up out of the ground.” We should note, however, that neither of these passages is concerned with the geographic location of hell. Capernaum’s being thrust “down” is probably a reference to their being condemned rather than a physical direction. And the medium’s vision of Samuel was just that: a vision. In the King James Version, Ephesians 4:9 says that before Jesus ascended into heaven, “he also descended . . . into the lower parts of the earth.” Some Christians take “the lower parts of the earth” as a reference to hell, where they say Jesus spent the time between His death and resurrection. However, the New International Version gives a better translation: “he also descended to the lower, earthly regions.” This verse simply says that Jesus came to earth. It’s a reference to His incarnation, not to His location after death. The notion that hell is somewhere in outer space, possibly in a black hole, is based on the knowledge that black holes are places of great heat and pressure from which nothing, not even light, can escape. Surprisingly, this concept of hell is presented in the 1979 [Walt Disney](Christian-Disney.html) film The Black Hole. Near the movie’s end, all the characters pass through a black hole. On the other side, the villain finds himself in a fiery place of torment, while the other characters enjoy disembodied bliss. It’s interesting that a Disney movie would include a depiction of hell, but it’s best not to base our theology on movies! Another speculation is that the earth itself will be the “lake of fire” spoken of in Revelation 20:10\-15\. When the earth is destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 21:1\), the theory goes, God will use that burning sphere as the everlasting place of torment for the ungodly. Again, this is mere speculation. To sum up, Scripture does not tell us the geological (or cosmological) location of hell. Hell is a literal place of real torment, but we do not know where it is. Hell may have a physical location in this universe, or it may be in an entirely different “dimension.” Whatever the case, the location of hell is far less important than the need to avoid going there.
Can Christians live their best life now?	Answer [Joel Osteen’s](Joel-Osteen.html) book Your Best Life Now has caused many people to seek their “best life now.” Among the claims Mr. Osteen makes are “God wants to increase you financially” (page 5\). He goes on to explain that this quest for financial and material increase is actually pleasing to God. No doubt, Osteen is sincere in what he says and believes that wealth and success really are the way to happiness. But is that what the Bible says? Does God want all His children to be wealthy, and does He tell us that is the way to find happiness? More importantly, is your best life now or is your best life in the world to come? To say that life on this earth is the best you can have is absolutely true—if you’re not a Christian. The non\-Christian lives his best life in the here and now because his next life is one of no hope, no joy, no meaning, no satisfaction, and no relief from eternal suffering. Those who have rejected Jesus Christ will spend an eternity in “outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This phrase is used five times (Matthew 8:12, 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28\) to describe the miserable existence of those who are thrust into it at the moment of their deaths. So, seeking to enjoy life while they can makes perfect sense for them because they really are living their best life now. The next life will be truly dreadful. For the Christian, however, life here, no matter how good it is, is nothing compared to the life that awaits us in heaven. The glories of heaven—eternal life, righteousness, joy, peace, perfection, God’s presence, Christ’s glorious companionship, rewards, and all else God has planned—is the Christian’s heavenly inheritance (1 Peter 1:3\-5\), and it will cause even the best life on earth to pale in comparison. Even the richest, most successful person on earth will eventually age, sicken, and die, and his wealth cannot prevent it, nor can his wealth follow him into the next life. So, why would you be encouraged to live your best life now? "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. [For where your treasure is](for-where-your-treasure-is.html), there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19\-21\). This verse brings us to the next difficulty with “your best life now” philosophy. Our hearts reside wherever our treasure resides. What we value in life permeates our hearts, our minds, and our very existence, and it inevitably comes out in our speech and actions. If you’ve ever met someone whose life is bound up in pursuing wealth and pleasure, it is obvious immediately, because it’s all he talks about. His heart is filled with the things of this life, and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth speaks (Luke 6:45\). He has no time for the things of the Lord—His Word, His people, His work, and the eternal life He offers—because he is so busy pursuing his best life now. But the Bible tells us that the “kingdom of heaven,” not worldly wealth, is like a treasure hidden in a field—so valuable that we should sell everything we have to attain it (Matthew 13:44\). There are no scriptural admonitions to pursue and store up wealth. In fact, we are encouraged to do just the opposite. Jesus urged the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and follow Him so that he would have treasure in heaven, but the young man went away sad because his wealth was his heart’s true treasure (Mark 10:17\-23\). No doubt the young man experienced his best life on earth, only to lose the hope of real life in the future. “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Mark 8:36\). But doesn’t God want us to live in comfort and financial security? We have only to look at the Lord Jesus and the apostles to know that the “best life now” philosophy is devoid of truth. Jesus certainly had no wealth, nor did those who followed Him. He didn’t even have a place to lay His head (Luke 9:58\). The apostle Paul’s life would certainly not qualify as blessed by Osteen’s standards, either. Paul says, “From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness” (2 Corinthians 11:24\-27\). Does that sound like Paul was living his best life? Of course not. He was waiting for his best life in the future, his blessed hope, “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven” for him and all who are in Christ. That is our best life, not this “vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away” (James 4:14\). How can we expect a world infected by sin to provide your best life now? How can we ignore scriptures like “man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7\) and “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12\) and “count it all joy when you fall into various trials” (James 1:2\), and tell people their best life is here and now? How can we count as meaningless the suffering of the early Christian martyrs who were hanged, burned at the stake, beheaded, and boiled in oil for their faith and their faithfulness to Christ, gladly suffering for the Savior they adored? Did they die these excruciating deaths because no one ever told them they could have experienced their best lives if only they pursued wealth and a healthy self\-image, as Joel Osteen claims? The Lord never promised health, wealth, or success in this life. We can’t expect the promises He makes for heaven to be fulfilled now, and the Church dare not promise people the impossible illusion of their best life now. Such a promise encourages people to decide for themselves what will constitute their best lives and then reject Jesus when He doesn’t deliver. The “your best life now” philosophy is nothing more than the old “power of positive thinking” lie repackaged to scratch the itching ears of the current generation. If we know Jesus Christ as our Savior, our best lives await us in heaven where we will spend eternity in joy and bliss, enjoying a life that is better than the “best” we could have now.
Does Satan still have access to Heaven?	Answer Satan was originally one of God’s holy angels, but he rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18\). That was only the first stage of his judgment. Satan’s kingdom was vanquished at the cross (John 12:31–32\). Later, he will be bound in the abyss for one thousand years (Revelation 20:1–3\) and then will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity (Revelation 20:10\). Until his final judgment, Satan is "the prince of this world" (John 14:30\), but it seems that he still has restricted access to the heavenly realms. In Job 1:6, Satan stands in the presence of God. There is a similar situation in 2 Chronicles 18:18–21 involving a "lying spirit." Since God is holy and absolutely without sin (Isaiah 6:3\), and since He will not even look on evil (Habakkuk 1:13\), how can Satan be in heaven? The answer involves God’s sovereign restraint of sin. In Job 1, Satan stood before God to give an account of himself. God initiated the meeting, led the proceedings, and remained in absolute control (verse 7\). The result was that Satan’s power was limited (verse 12\) and God was glorified. Here are some other facts to note: 1\) Satan does not have open access to God’s presence. He is summoned by God. 2\) The visits are temporary. His time before God’s throne is limited. 3\) In no way is the purity of heaven tainted by the brief, God\-ordained presence of a sinful being, "quarantined," as it were, by God’s regulatory power. And, 4\) Satan’s access is only granted prior to the final judgment. After the judgment, God creates a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1\), wipes away all tears from our eyes (verse 4\), reveals the New Jerusalem (verse 10\), and promises the complete absence of sin (verse 27\). When we say, "God cannot allow sin into heaven," we simply mean that God cannot allow human beings who are still in their sin to live in His presence. But it is possible for God to command a sinful being to stand (temporarily) in His presence in order to commission him (Isaiah 6\), to exact an account from him (Job 1\-2\), or to judge him (Revelation 20:11–15\) without compromising His holiness. God’s holiness will eventually consume all sin. Until that day, His holiness regulates sin, and that means that Satan, on certain occasions, is briefly summoned before his Creator to give an account of his actions.
What is the theory of punctuated equilibrium?	Answer “Punctuated equilibrium” refers to a concept in evolutionary biology that is both controversial and widely misunderstood. Both punctuated equilibrium and its alternatives have significant drawbacks, either in plausibility or evidence. Punctuated equilibrium seeks to reconcile the idea of natural evolution with the missing links in the fossil record. The debate within science over the validity of punctuated equilibrium demonstrates many of the problems with evolutionary theory in general. Punctuated equilibrium attempts to answer a major problem with the fossil record. For almost a century, naturalistic science assumed that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually be filled, and there would be a semi\-complete record of so\-called “transitional forms” between the various species. In fact, the opposite happened, and the gaps became even more pronounced. The actual fossil record indicates species seemingly appearing from nowhere, and without the long, slow, gradual changes expected by classical evolutionary theory. Punctuated equilibrium seeks to answer this problem by supposing that evolution doesn’t occur steadily, but sporadically. In 1972, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge published a landmark paper on punctuated equilibrium. Their contention was that the gaps in the fossil record were best explained by gaps in evolution. That is, that most species did not change much over time, but occasionally experienced major changes in brief periods of time. “Classic” Darwinian evolution is presumed to take place very gradually, with a steady and slow change of organisms over time. Punctuated equilibrium replaces this slow change with long periods lacking any change at all, mixed with relatively short periods of rapid change. Another way of looking at this is to say that, according to punctuated equilibrium, species are normally not evolving, and when they do evolve, it is relatively quick and dramatic. At times, this has become a source of controversy within the scientific community. Depending on whom you ask, punctuated equilibrium is either a refutation of gradual evolution, or just a specific form of it. This is one of the major disagreements over the theory – whether it replaces or enhances the classical notion of naturalistic evolution. Despite a better agreement with available evidence, there are many scientific problems with punctuated equilibrium itself. The mechanism for punctuated equilibrium is assumed to be small groups of a particular organism separated in some way from the main population. This would accelerate the transmission of mutated genes through the population, and much more quickly produce a new species. However, multiple studies have found that inbreeding such as this produces extremely negative effects, which run counter to the idea of rapid advancement. The fossil record also calls into question the plausibility of this notion. The so\-called “Cambrian Explosion,” for instance, is the sudden emergence of almost every biological type known to man, in a geological blink of an eye. This seems to contradict the idea of broad genetic stability intermixed with localized change. There are also several points of irony related to punctuated equilibrium that have little to do with the science, and a great deal to do with the assumptions of the scientists. Gould was criticized for being heavy on rhetoric and light on scientific substance by the “old guard” of evolutionary theory. This same criticism has been applied by theists to atheistic naturalism in general. Gould and Eldredge predicted resistance to their ideas, stating that the scientific community was too devoted to theories and not facts. That is, they expected to be resisted for no other reason than what they proposed didn’t follow the preferred assumptions. More than 30 years later, this is still one of the major obstacles to open, honest dialogue about science. Punctuated equilibrium represents an odd combination of traits. It closes some holes in evolutionary theory, but opens up others. It supposedly makes evolutionary theory more evidence\-based, and therefore more scientific, but it also makes the “naturalism of the gaps” attitude easier to take. That is, punctuated equilibrium makes it easier to explain away the lack of transitional forms as though it was evidence that actually supports evolution. When all is said and done, punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to reconcile available evidence with the idea of naturalistic evolution. It is, in many ways, another example of re\-interpreting facts in order to fit an ideology. Still, any willingness to modify evolutionary theory in light of evidence is good, since this can only lead closer and closer to the idea of a Creator God. Pursuit of these ideas might help close the philosophical gaps between atheistic naturalism and intelligent design – which might be the very reason punctuated equilibrium is so highly resisted in some academic circles.
Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?	Answer Exodus 7:3\-4 says, “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out...my people the Israelites.” It seems unjust for God to harden Pharaoh’s heart and then to punish Pharaoh and Egypt for what Pharaoh decided when his heart was hardened. Why would God harden Pharaoh’s heart just so He could judge Egypt more severely with additional plagues? First, Pharaoh was not an innocent or godly man. He was a brutal dictator overseeing the terrible abuse and oppression of the Israelites, who likely numbered over 1\.5 million people at that time. The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh—possibly even the pharaoh in question—ordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16\). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions. Second, on least a couple occasions, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15\). “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:32\). It seems that God and Pharaoh were both active in one way or another in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. As the plagues continued, God gave Pharaoh increasingly severe warnings of the final judgment to come. Pharaoh chose to bring further judgment on himself and his nation by hardening his own heart against God’s commands. It could be that, as a result of Pharaoh’s hard\-heartedness, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart even further, allowing for the last few plagues and bringing God’s full glory into view (Exodus 9:12; 10:20, 27\). Pharaoh and Egypt had brought these judgments on themselves with 400 years of slavery and mass murder. Since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23\), and Pharaoh and Egypt had horribly sinned against God, it would have been just if God had completely annihilated Egypt. Therefore, God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart was not unjust, and His bringing additional plagues against Egypt was not unjust. The plagues, as terrible as they were, actually demonstrate God’s mercy in not completely destroying Egypt, which would have been a perfectly just penalty. Romans 9:17\-18 declares, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.” From a human perspective, it seems wrong for God to harden a person and then punish the person He has hardened. Biblically speaking, however, we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23\), and the just penalty for that sin is death (Romans 6:23\). Therefore, God’s hardening and punishing a person is not unjust; it is actually merciful in comparison to what the person deserves.
What are Red Letter Christians?	Answer The name “Red Letter Christians” refers to the words of Jesus, which are [printed in red](red-letter-Bible.html) in many editions of the New Testament. Red Letter Christians are a group of liberal Christians whose desire is to counter the political influence of conservative Christians. In the past thirty years, the voice of evangelical Christianity has been fairly prominent in the political process, much to the chagrin of secularists, non\-evangelicals, and liberal Christians. As conservative Christians networked in such groups as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and American Values, popular figures within liberal Christianity began to feel disenfranchised. They deemed their faith to have been “hijacked” by the religious right. Framers of the Red Letter movement include Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine; Shane Claiborne, an activist and leader in the [New Monasticism](New-Monasticism.html) movement; Richard Rohr, a well\-known Catholic writer; Brian McLaren, an [emergent church](emerging-church-emergent.html) leader; and Tony Campolo, a popular speaker and author of Red Letter Christians: a Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics. These men desired to counter the voice of evangelicalism in the political world. The group chose the name for a couple of reasons: first, to stress that its political philosophy is based on Jesus’ teachings—a “What Would Jesus Do?” approach to governmental policy. Second, to appear apolitical—the appellation “Red Letter Christians” avoids the political connotations of labels such as “liberal” and “progressive,” and it facilitates the group’s claim that it transcends politics. Of course, the founding of the Red Letter Christian movement was politically motivated, and the organization is inherently political, as it supports various (liberal) government policies. Red Letter Christians resent what they see as the religious right’s fixation on abortion and homosexual rights. Since Jesus did not deal with those two issues, they say, we should not make them more urgent than other issues. Instead, Red Letter Christians focus on political policies affecting poverty, global warming, racial discrimination, the role of the military, capital punishment, foreign aid, and public education. Red Letter Christians believe that moral values should be a major subject of dialogue within American politics but that conservative Christians have embraced the wrong values. Red Letter Christians seek to redefine moral values according to their interpretation of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and other “red letter” passages. They plan to spread their message via websites, blogs, candidates’ forums, debates, and printed voter guides. All politics aside, there are some problems associated with the Red Letter Christian movement. The first concerns the group’s open theology. Bringing together various faith backgrounds is very tolerant and progressive, but theologically untenable. Founders of the movement include those who believe that we must earn our way to heaven and those who distrust the inspiration of the Word of God. The second problem involves the group’s piecemeal approach to Scripture. To concentrate on certain parts of the Bible to the exclusion of others is unbalanced and dangerous. “All Scripture is God\-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16\). The Epistles, for example, were written to instruct us on the practical outworking of Jesus’ teaching and are just as inspired as Jesus’ own words. Paul’s words should not be considered inferior, as the term “Red Letter Christians” implies. A third problem relates to their interpretation of Jesus’ words. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was not trying to write national government policy. He was presenting Himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament Law (Matthew 5:17\) and the Savior from sin for all who would believe in Him. He clearly separated Himself from all political movements and paradigms when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36\). While it is true that Jesus was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we need public discussion on all moral values, not just abortion and homosexuality, we must handle God’s Word honestly and guard against those who undermine the sufficiency of Scripture and the sacrifice of Christ.
Are many practices and traditions in Christianity actually pagan in origin?	Answer In their 2008 book Pagan Christianity, authors Frank Viola and George Barna present the surprising origins of many of the practices commonly found in churches today. The authors of Pagan Christianity claim that many common church practices / traditions actually have their roots in paganism (non\-Christian religions), not in the Bible. But is it accurate to claim that the practices of modern Christianity are pagan? Is what typically occurs in a church supported by what the Bible teaches about the church? Many Christians recognize that some pagan ideas and practices have infiltrated the Christian church. Sadly, much of what Jesus Christ abolished by His death and resurrection, the early Christians re\-established. Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled God’s requirements, ending the need for any further sacrifices (Hebrews 7:27; 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18\). The early church, due to pagan influences, warped the celebration of the Lord’s Supper into a re\-sacrifice / re\-offering of Christ’s once\-for\-all sacrifice. Jesus’ perfect sacrifice abolished the need of a formal priesthood (Hebrews 10:12\-14\), creating instead a “kingdom of priests” (Revelation 1:6; 5:10\). The early church, again influenced by paganism, re\-established a priesthood that added a barrier between the “ordinary” believer and God (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15\). These are just two of many possible examples. Most Christians wholeheartedly agree that beliefs / practices such as these need to be rejected and the biblical truth upheld. Following are the primary issues Pagan Christianity raises. (1\) The Church Building. The New Testament records the early Christians meeting in homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19\). Neither Jesus nor the Apostles encourage Christians to build temples / church buildings. In John 4:21\-24, Jesus declares that a time is coming where worship will not be tied to any particular location or building. For the first few hundred years of the Christian faith, church buildings were very rare. It was not until Constantine and his succeeding Roman Emperors made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire that Christians began to build temples. In some instances, Christians, with the aid of Roman soldiers, took over pagan temples and “Christianized” them into churches. Christians building church buildings resulted in multiple problems. First, people began to think of a church building as “sacred space.” This resulted in a separation between what goes on inside a church building, and what takes place outside of a church building. Among some, blatant evil and immorality was tolerated outside of the church as long as behavior inside the church was proper. Second, some people lost the idea of God’s omnipresence. The biblical fact that fellowship with God could be had anywhere was lost, and replaced with the idea that a church building and/or the altar inside a church building was the only place one could connect with God. Third, some people lost sight of the fact that believers in Christ are the church, and instead began to think of the church as the building. But is the idea of a church building pagan? Since the Bible does not instruct Christians to build church buildings, does that mean it is wrong to have a church building? The fact that the Bible does not command something does not mean the Bible is opposed to that something. The Bible neither encourages nor discourages the idea of Christians meeting in buildings that are specifically designed for corporate worship. The question of a church building is one where it is crucially important to recognize the difference between description and prescription. The New Testament describes the early Christians meeting in homes. The New Testament does not prescribe that Christians should only meet in homes. A church building in which the biblical truth about the church is declared is in no sense unbiblical. The building is not what is unbiblical. It is the beliefs that are often attached to the building that are unbiblical. (2\) The structure of the church. In many churches today, there is a “set in stone” structure for how a service will proceed. The structure changes somewhat from church to church, but the core items remain the same: announcements, corporate worship, meeting and greeting, prayer, the sermon, a closing song. In some churches, the order of service is absolutely unbendable. In other churches, there is some flexibility. Whatever the case, the idea of a church meeting having such a rigid structure is not presented in the New Testament. When a church has such a rigid structure, it can stifle, rather than promote, true worship and fellowship. First Corinthians 14:40 teaches, “but everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” Order and structure are not unbiblical. Rigidity and legalism are unbiblical. While a church should ensure that its services are reasonably organized, it is unbiblical for a church service to be so structured that it prevents any participation, freedom, or moving of the Spirit. (3\) Church leadership. The Bible undeniably teaches that the church is to have godly leadership (1 Timothy 3:1\-13; 5:17\-20; Titus 1:6\-9; 1 Peter 5:1\-4\). Sadly, the early church took the concept of church leadership, and due to pagan influences, molded it into a priesthood. While most Protestant and Evangelical churches do not refer to its leadership as priests, in some instances, the pastor/preacher serves in much the same role as a priest. Pastors are expected to do all, or nearly all, of the ministry work. In some churches, the re\-introduction of the idea of a priest into Christianity resulted in the biblical identity of all believers being saints, ministers, and priests, being lost. In church leadership, the result can be burnt\-out pastors or overly authoritative pastors. The result in the congregation can be passivity and inactivity. The idea that a Christian can unenthusiastically sing a few songs, lackadaisically shake a few hands, inattentively listen to a sermon, and reluctantly give an offering – and thereby fulfill his/her role in the church – is completely unbiblical. The church is intended to be a place of healthy fellowship, active participation, and mutual edification. First Corinthians chapter 12 likens the church to a human body. All of the parts of the body must be functioning for the body to do what it is intended to do. (4\) The sermon. The Bible clearly declares that God’s Word is to be taught (1 Timothy 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:2\). There is undeniably a place for a godly man teaching other believers in a sermonic / oratory format. One problem is that many churches fall into the trap of one man being the sole teacher. Another problem is when churches, whether intentionally or unintentionally, convey the idea that passively listening to a sermon is all that God expects. In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul encourages Timothy to entrust teaching to others who are gifted by the Holy Spirit for teaching. The presence of a non\-participatory sermon is not the problem. The lack of opportunities for others to teach and/or the lack of willingness to teach can be a problem. One of the goals of the church is to make disciples, not pew\-warmers. Many churches could do a much better job at recognizing the gift of teaching in others and training and encouraging them to use that gift. At the same time, no one should seek the position of teacher unless he really has been gifted by the Holy Spirit, a fact which can be verified by the testimony of others who can give witness to the presence of this gift. In fact, James 3:1 warns us, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” For other issues raised by Pagan Christianity, please read the following articles: [https://www.gotquestions.org/dress\-up\-church.html](dress-up-church.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/tithing\-Christian.html](tithing-Christian.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/pastors\-paid\-salary.html](pastors-paid-salary.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian\-baptism.html](Christian-baptism.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/communion\-Christian.html](communion-Christian.html) It is undeniable that pagan ideas and practices have crept their way into the Christian church. To varying degrees, every church has practices that are not completely based in Scripture, either in the practice itself or in the understanding of the practice. But again, this does not mean these practices are pagan or wrong. Churches would do well to continually re\-evaluate their methods and motivations, to make sure they are biblically solid. While no church practice should contradict Scripture, a church practice does not have to be explicitly biblical to be a viable choice. Nor does a practice not being taught in the Bible make it pagan. A practice having a pagan origin does not necessarily make it unbiblical. The key to avoiding “pagan Christianity” is comparing every belief and practice with Scripture and removing anything that contradicts what the Bible prescribes for the church. For those issues on which the Bible is silent, the church leadership should prayerfully consider whether or not to continue them.
Is the Church of Christ a good biblical church?	Answer This is a difficult question to answer due to the label “Church of Christ” being such a broad description. There are many churches who refer to themselves as the “Church of Christ.” Even within the most widespread “Church of Christ” association, which is the “Church of Christ” that came out of the [Restoration Movement](Restoration-movement.html), there can be significant differences among the churches. There is no doubt that many in the Church of Christ group are genuine believers in Christ who desire to truly worship, follow, and obey Him. At the same time, there are others in the Church of Christ, and some Church of Christ churches, that are borderline cult\-like in their preferences, practices, and doctrines. We are by no means disparaging every Church of Christ congregation or all churches that refer to themselves as the “Church of Christ.” The purpose of this article is to express some concerns and answer some questions about the Restoration Movement “Church of Christ” that we have observed and experienced. One “minor” issue is the Church of Christ policy of not allowing [musical instruments](musical-instruments-church.html) in their church services. While we entirely agree that a church is well within the freedom God gives to not use musical instruments in worship, the problem is that some within the Church of Christ are fanatically against musical instruments. Some are fanatical to the point of declaring any church that uses musical instruments as not being a true, biblical, or godly church. Such dogmatism on a clearly non\-essential issue is often the mark of a cult, not the mark of a good biblical church. A second issue is the fact that some in the Church of Christ claim to be “the one true church,” outside of which there is no salvation. By no means do all Church of Christ members believe this, but it is prevalent enough to warrant concern. Some go so far as to argue that since the name is “Church of Christ,” that indicates that the church / denomination is the one and only true Church of the Lord Jesus. This is completely unbiblical. There is no one church or denomination that encompasses the entire Body of Christ. The “one true church of Christ” is comprised of all those who have, by grace through faith, personally received Jesus Christ as Savior. The Church is composed of true believers everywhere, no matter the local church or denominational affiliation. The claim of exclusive access to salvation is another common identification of a cult, not the teaching of a good biblical church. A third and very important issue is the Church of Christ’s emphasis on [baptism as being necessary for salvation](baptism-salvation.html). Church of Christ advocates point to Scriptures such as Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Acts 22:16 as biblical evidence that baptism is required for salvation. There is no denying that baptism is very important. Baptism is intended to be an initial act of obedience to Christ, an illustration of Christ’s death and resurrection, a public declaration of faith in Christ, a step of identification with Him, and a proclamation of desire to follow Him. In the minds of the apostles and early Christians, baptism was so inextricably linked with salvation that the two were viewed as inseparable. The idea that a person could receive Christ as Savior and not be baptized was completely foreign to the early church. With that said, however, baptism is not required for salvation. There are biblically plausible and contextually valid interpretations of each of the above Scriptures that do not indicate baptism as being necessary for salvation. There are many Scriptures that declare salvation to be received by faith / believing, with no mention of baptism or any other requirement (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8\-9\). If baptism is necessary for salvation, these Scriptures are in error and the Bible is contradictory. Church of Christ advocates argue that when the Bible speaks of salvation “by faith,” it is speaking of a living faith, a faith that produces works of obedience, such as baptism and confession (Romans 10:9\-10\). They do not claim that baptism is a work that earns salvation, or in any sense makes a person worthy of salvation. Rather, the Church of Christ teaches that baptism is a work that God requires before He grants salvation. For the Church of Christ, baptism and confession are no different from faith and repentance—they are what God requires before He grants salvation to a person. The problem with this is that, while it may seem to be a subtle difference from the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, it is in fact a crucially important difference. A person who has genuinely received salvation will produce good fruit. Good works are the inevitable result of salvation (Ephesians 2:10\). What differentiates a “living faith” from a “dead faith” in James 2:14\-26 is the presence of good works. Church of Christ advocates are right to denounce churches that teach intellectual assent to the facts of the Gospel as sufficient for salvation. The Church of Christ is right to reject the idea that a dead faith, a faith that produces no good works, is what saves a person. Faith / trust in Christ as the Savior is what saves a person, but this faith is a living faith that always results in and produces good works. To say that good works must be present BEFORE a person is saved is to make salvation dependent on our obedience, which is works\-salvation, not salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. As Titus 3:5 declares, “He saved us – *not by works of righteousness that we had done*, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” So, are Church of Christ churches good biblical churches? This is a question that cannot be answered with an all\-encompassing response. Many Church of Christ churches are in fact solid, biblically based churches. There are many Church of Christ churches which declare the true Gospel of salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. At the same time, with an extreme over\-emphasis on the absence of musical instruments, with a claim of exclusive access to salvation, and with a doctrine of salvation that is borderline (at best) works\-based, there are other Church of Christ churches that should definitely not be attended / participated in. This requires discernment on the part of a believer considering joining a Church of Christ church. The answer to the question depends entirely on which type of Church of Christ church it is.
Why did Judas betray Jesus?	Answer While we cannot be absolutely certain why [Judas](Judas-Iscariot.html) betrayed Jesus, some things are certain. First, although Judas was chosen to be one of the Twelve (John 6:64\), all scriptural evidence points to the fact that he never believed Jesus to be God. He even may not have been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (as Judas understood it). Unlike the other disciples that called Jesus “Lord,” Judas never used this title for Jesus and instead called him “Rabbi,” which acknowledged Jesus as nothing more than a teacher. While other disciples at times made great professions of faith and loyalty (John 6:68; 11:16\), Judas never did so and appears to have remained silent. This lack of faith in Jesus is the foundation for all other considerations listed below. The same holds true for us. If we fail to recognize Jesus as God incarnate, and therefore the only One who can provide forgiveness for our sins—and the eternal salvation that comes with it—we will be subject to numerous other problems that stem from a wrong view of God. Second, Judas not only lacked faith in Christ, but he also had little or no personal relationship with Jesus. When the synoptic gospels list the Twelve, they are always listed in the same general order with slight variations (Matthew 10:2\-4; Mark 3:16\-19; Luke 6:14\-16\). The general order is believed to indicate the relative closeness of their personal relationship with Jesus. Despite the variations, Peter and the brothers James and John are always listed first, which is consistent with their relationships with Jesus. Judas is always listed last, which may indicate his relative lack of a personal relationship with Christ. Additionally, the only documented dialogue between Jesus and Judas involves Judas being rebuked by Jesus after his greed\-motivated remark to Mary (John 12:1\-8\), Judas’ denial of his betrayal (Matthew 26:25\), and the betrayal itself (Luke 22:48\). Third, Judas was consumed with greed to the point of betraying the trust of not only Jesus, but also his fellow disciples, as we see in John 12:5\-6\. Judas may have desired to follow Jesus simply because he saw the great following and believed he could profit from collections taken for the group. The fact that Judas was in charge of the moneybag for the group would indicate his interest in money (John 13:29\). Additionally, Judas, like most people at the time, believed the Messiah was going to overthrow Roman occupation and take a position of power ruling over the nation of Israel. Judas may have followed Jesus hoping to benefit from association with Him as the new reigning political power. No doubt he expected to be among the ruling elite after the revolution. By the time of Judas’ betrayal, Jesus had made it clear that He planned to die, not start a rebellion against Rome. So Judas may have assumed—just as the Pharisees did—that since He would not overthrow the Romans, He must not be the Messiah they were expecting. There are a few Old Testament verses that point to the betrayal, some more specifically than others. Here are two: “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me” (Psalm 41:9, see fulfillment in Matthew 26:14, 48\-49\). Also, “I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—the handsome price at which they priced me!' So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter” (Zechariah 11:12\-13; see Matthew 27:3\-5 for the fulfillment of the Zechariah prophecy). These Old Testament prophecies indicate that Judas’ betrayal was known to God and that it was sovereignly planned beforehand as the means by which Jesus would be killed. But if Judas’ betrayal was known to God, did Judas have a choice, and is he held responsible for his part in the betrayal? It is difficult for many to reconcile the concept of “free will” (as most people understand it) with God’s foreknowledge of future events, and this is largely due to our limited experience of going through time in a linear fashion. If we see God as existing outside of time, since He created everything before “time” began, then we can understand that God sees every moment in time as the present. We experience time in a linear way—we see time as a straight line, and we pass from one point gradually to another, remembering the past we have already traveled through, but unable to see the future we are approaching. However, God, being the eternal Creator of the construct of time, is not “in time” or on the timeline, but outside of it. It might help to think of time (in relation to God) as a circle with God being the center and therefore equally close to all points. In any case, Judas had the full capacity of making his choice—at least up to the point where “Satan entered into him” (John 13:27\)—and God’s foreknowledge (John 13:10, 18, 21\) in no way supersedes Judas’ ability to make any given choice. Rather, what Judas would choose eventually, God saw as if it was a present observation, and Jesus made it clear that Judas was responsible for his choice and would be held accountable for it. “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me” (Mark 14:18\). Notice that Jesus characterizes Judas’ participation as a betrayal. And regarding accountability for this betrayal Jesus said, “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:21\). Satan, too, had a part in this, as we see in John 13:26\-27, and he, too, will be held accountable for his deeds. God in His wisdom was able, as always, to manipulate even Satan’s rebellion for the benefit of mankind. Satan helped send Jesus to the cross, and on the cross sin and death were defeated, and now God’s provision of salvation is freely available to all who receive Jesus Christ as Savior.
Is Eckhart Tolle’s "New Earth" compatible with Christianity?	Answer Oprah Winfrey is arguably one of the most influential women in the world. With a daily viewership that has peaked around 10 million, The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely has the potential to impact the lives of many people. The Oprah Winfrey Show definitely promotes much that is good. However, there is another side of Oprah that has only recently become an integral part of her show—and that is her rejection of biblical Christianity. Oprah has made statements on her show in the past that have given a small glimpse into her personal spiritual beliefs, speaking mostly about her belief that there are many ways, millions even, for a person to "get to what some call God." This more recent exposure of her beliefs revolves around the book A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, which she helped to make a best\-seller by promoting it on Oprah’s Book Club and on her website. Beyond simply promoting the book, Oprah has partnered with Tolle in presenting weekly online webcast classes in order to explore the ideas and principles expressed in A New Earth. Some have gone as far as labeling Oprah a cult leader—and with good reason. She is a figurehead for the promotion and propagation of anti\-biblical beliefs which deny every foundational truth of historical Christianity. Her webcasts have attracted hundreds of thousands of participants with the promise of gaining new perspectives on how to live a life of enrichment, peace, newfound self\-worth, and spiritual freedom. Eckhart Tolle, a well\-known New Age author and speaker, promotes nothing short of personal divinity in his teachings. In an attempt to deceive people into thinking that his religion is compatible with Christianity, Tolle occasionally quotes from the Bible and refers to biblical principles. The problem is that Eckhart Tolle’s book, A New Earth, is in complete opposition to biblical Christianity from cover to cover. Nearly every reference to, or quote of, Scripture is twisted by Tolle’s consistent misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Consider what can be found in just the pages of the first chapter: evolution of life over millions of years is accepted, assumed, and understood to be fact; Jesus is misquoted; flowers, crystals, precious stones, and birds are believed to be temporary manifestations of the Universal Consciousness and are themselves considered enlightened life forms; the definition of sin is misinterpreted; Jesus Christ is thought of as just one of those rare people who, like the Buddha, achieved divine consciousness; other religions, such as Buddhism, are considered just as valid and true as Christianity; an early Christian cult, Gnosticism, is portrayed as one of the few groups who actually understood the teachings of Jesus; original sin was simply a forgetting of the connectedness and oneness with the Source, along with everything else connected with the Source—a delusion of separateness; heaven is portrayed as merely an "inner realm of consciousness." These teachings are found in just the first chapter. Obviously, Eckhart Tolle is promoting a new religion, one which combines the most mystical aspects of every major religion. The first chapter, of course, sets the tone and direction for the rest of the book. This direction happens to be as far from biblical truth as is possible. If you are concerned at all with whether or not this book is compatible with the Christian faith, you need not read any further than the first chapter to understand what Tolle believes and what Oprah is encouraging others to believe. Tolle ends the book writing about the new heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21\. He states near the end of chapter 10: The only existence the future actually has is as a thought form in your mind, so when you look to the future for salvation, you are unconsciously looking to your own mind for salvation. You are trapped in form, and that is ego. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” writes the biblical prophet. \[T]he foundation for a new earth is a new heaven \- the awakened consciousness. The earth \- external reality \- is only its outer reflection. The arising of a new heaven and by implication a new earth are not future events that are going to make us free. Nothing is going to make us free because only the present moment can make us free. That realization is the awakening. Awakening as a future event has no meaning because awakening is the realization of Presence. So the new heaven, the awakened consciousness, is not a future state to be achieved. A new heaven and a new earth are arising within you at this moment, and if they are not arising at this moment, they are no more than a thought in your head and therefore not arising at all. What did Jesus tell his disciples? “Heaven is right here in the midst of you.” In line with chapter 1, chapter 10 places the final stamp of approval on a belief system completely void of biblical truth. Salvation is presented as a state of being, achieved through one’s own power; heaven is referred to as simply a state of consciousness; and Jesus Christ is relegated to a spiritual master who taught that one only needs look within oneself to find spiritual release. Scripture is used only out of context and presented as obscurely as possible. There is no room for Jesus Christ, the God\-Man, or His teachings in Oprah and Tolle’s belief system. In fact, Oprah and Tolle propose that all people free their minds from a belief in Christ. Truly, deception is the only thing that Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey offer. They, and those that follow their teachings, have fallen for Satan’s original lie, “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5\).
Is the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar biblical?	Answer The rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice and the movie of the same name, directed by Norman Jewison, tell the story of the final days of Jesus. The opera’s theme deals with fame and how popularity can deceive and corrupt. Superficially at least, Jesus Christ Superstar contains many elements of the biblical narrative: Jesus has disciples, and He teaches. The priests Caiaphas and Annas, out of jealousy and fear, foment a plot to destroy Jesus. Mary Magdalene and other women serve Him. Judas plans to betray Him. Jesus enters Jerusalem amid celebration, cleanses the temple, and eats a meal with His disciples. After He prays in a garden, He is arrested, taken before several officials, and beaten. Peter denies knowing the Lord, and Judas hangs himself. Jesus is crucified. None of this conflicts with the biblical record. Upon closer inspection, however, the biblical failings of Jesus Christ Superstar become apparent. When a story is retold, a certain amount of interpretation is required. The author’s ideas, presuppositions, and opinions are injected. In this retelling of Jesus’ passion, the character and motivations of both Jesus and Judas are re\-imagined and reinterpreted. Judas has the first song. In it, he complains that Jesus has been caught up in His own fame and rages over the fact that Jesus won’t listen to him. Judas calls Jesus’ followers “blind,” accuses them of twisting Jesus’ words, and expresses a desire to “strip away the myth from the man.” Considering these words come from Judas, we might be prone to dismiss them as a villain’s distortion. However, the insistence that Jesus is “just a man” is repeated later by Mary Magdalene in one of the opera’s most famous songs, “I Don’t Know How to Love Him.” In the next scene, Judas objects to Mary’s proximity to Jesus. He warns Jesus of the scandal that will erupt if Jesus is not more careful. Later, when Mary anoints Jesus, Judas objects again, reminding Jesus that their mission is to the poor. Jesus’ response is for Judas to “enjoy the good” while he has it. Throughout this scene, we have the contrast of Mary’s telling Jesus to “close your eyes,” versus Judas’s trying to open His eyes to the needs of society; as Mary sings, “Relax,” Judas urges action on behalf of the poor. No mention is made of Judas’s greed and thievery (John 12:6\). When Jesus enters Jerusalem, there is a celebration of His being a “superstar.” Interestingly, Jesus only rides on the donkey for a short time. When he enters the city, He walks with the crowd until he sits down with some children. Also, unlike the biblical account, the praise is not quite spontaneous. Jesus initiates the singing at one point, and He even commands the crowd to “sing me your songs.” He briefly teaches about the Kingdom of God, saying, “You can win it.” The next scene has Jesus surrounded by adoring multitudes. There is a mention of salvation and a belief in God as the crowd offers Him their devotion and a kingdom. Judas looks on in disgust and disbelief. Jesus ends the celebration by speaking of death, which He says can only be conquered by dying. There is no mention of Jesus as the Life and no prediction of His resurrection. In a later scene, Jesus is surrounded by people who need healing. No one is healed; rather, an overwhelmed Jesus cries out, “There’s too many of you. There’s too little of me. Leave me alone!” When Judas meets with the Jewish council to betray Jesus, he makes it clear that he is only trying to “save” Jesus, who has let His own popularity spiral out of control. He takes the money they offer him unwillingly. During the Last Supper, the disciples dream of lasting fame. Jesus bitterly accuses His disciples about not caring about Him: “For all you care, this wine could be my blood! For all you care, this bread could be my body!” He tells them to remember Him when they eat, but then He says, “I must be mad, thinking you’ll remember me!” Judas leaves to complete the betrayal, because Jesus tells him he must. Jesus’ prayer in the garden is very telling. He admits that He has changed, that He is no longer inspired. Now He’s only “sad and tired.” After three years of trying to serve God, Jesus has lost His original vision. Considering becoming a martyr, Jesus selfishly asks, “Will I be more noticed? What will be my reward?” This statement is in direct contrast to Judas’s unselfishness in not wanting a reward for his betrayal. At the end of His prayer, Jesus finally submits to God’s plan—sort of. The song ends with an equivocation: “Take me now, before I change my mind.” When Jesus is arrested, His disciples talk of fighting for Him. Jesus rebukes them with these words: “Stick to fishing from now on.” This is as close to the Great Commission as the opera ever gets. Pilate repeatedly calls Jesus “Someone Christ,” a name which emphasizes the fact that Jesus is a nobody—a fact which Jesus is desperately attempting to change through His martyrdom. Through the various trials, Judas keeps close by, wanting to see what will happen. Judas then returns the money to the priests, again expressing his wish to “save” Jesus. In Pilate’s second interview with Jesus, he asks Jesus if He is a king. Jesus’ answer is fuzzy at best: “I have no kingdom. In this world, I’m through. There may be a kingdom for me somewhere, if you only knew” (see John 18:36\-37 for Jesus’ real answer). When the mob cries out for His crucifixion, Pilate delivers a series of accusations against Jesus: “He’s mad, ought to be locked up . . . he’s a sad little man, not a king or god . . . he’s misguided, thinks he’s important . . . a misguided martyr . . . a misguided puppet.” (What Pilate actually said was, “I find no basis for a charge against him” \[John 18:38].) After Jesus is whipped, the music immediately (and significantly) shifts into the “Superstar” theme. This is a way of saying that the martyrdom has begun, and Jesus has won His fame. This idea is stressed in Judas’s final song, in which he mentions both Buddha and Mohammed but says that Jesus has more appeal because of how He died. The opera ends with Jesus’ crucifixion. There is no resurrection. To summarize the theme of Jesus Christ Superstar, Jesus was not divine but was a fascinating and magnetic man of good intentions who let things get out of control. Overwhelmed by His own fame, He desired to return to a simpler, more sincere life, but He couldn’t. Of the disciples, only Judas recognized what was happening. He hated what Jesus had become but still loved Him and wanted to help Him. Jesus saw only one way out of His predicament: to die as a martyr; then, perhaps, some of His good teaching might be remembered. Of course, this is not biblical. Jesus is more than just a man; He is the Son of God (John 10:30\). Jesus never lost sight of His mission to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10\), which required His sacrificial death on the cross as payment for our sin (1 Peter 3:18\). Jesus did not just die; He rose again (1 Peter 1:3\). Jesus Christ Superstar is more than a popular opera that happens to get some facts wrong. It is an attempt to rewrite history. It makes the traitor Judas Iscariot a victim and reduces the Lord Jesus Christ to a burnt\-out celebrity who is in over His head.
Who are the Black Hebrews / Black Israelites?	Answer The terms “Black Hebrews” and “Black Israelites” refer as a categorical whole to several independent sub\-sects whose unifying characteristic is that their members are of black African descent who claim Hebrew / Israelite ancestry. Apart from this unifying characteristic, however, these sub\-sects are very distinct from one another. For example, members of the Original African Hebrew Israelite Nation of Jerusalem (or the African Israelites, for short) believe that, after the Roman expulsion of the Jews from the land of Israel, many Jews migrated to West Africa. From there, their descendants were transported by slave ship to the United States, where the group began in the 1960s. According to this view, the biblical Hebrews of the Old Testament times had multiracial descendants. Members of the Nation of Yahweh, on the other hand, believe that all of the Old Testament prophets, Jesus Christ, and God Himself are all black. They believe that all whites, but especially Jews, are infidels, whom they call “white devils.” Only blacks are “true Jews.” This group is considered a black supremacist group by many and has a history of violence and terror. In 1966, African Israelite founder and leader Ben Ammi (the name literally means “Son of My People,” formerly Ben Carter of Chicago) claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel. According to Ben Ammi, Gabriel instructed him to “lead the children of Israel to the Promised Land, and establish the long\-awaited Kingdom of God.” Ben Ammi then established the Original African Hebrew Israelite Nation of Jerusalem and led approximately 400 members to the West African nation of Liberia for a two\-and\-a\-half year period of purification. From there, those who remained for the entire two\-and\-a\-half years began migrating to Israel in waves, beginning in 1969\. The authorities in Israel did not accept Ben Ammi and his followers as biblical Jews and did not deem them entitled to citizenship under the Israeli “Right of Return” law. Instead, the African Israelites were granted temporary tourist visas. Legal troubles ensued when it became apparent that the African Israelites had no intention of ever leaving. The Jewish authorities did not want to expel them, however, and face accusations of racial discrimination. After much perseverance, the group was finally granted residency in 2004\. This allowed them to stay in Israel, but not as full citizens. In 2008, there were approximately 2,500 African Israelites living in Israel. They adhere to strict dietary and behavioral laws, which include veganism and Old Testament Mosaic Law. These are just two of many Black Hebrew / Israelite sub\-sects, each one distinct and independent from the others. Other Black Hebrew / Israelite groups include the Church of the Living God, the Pillar Ground of Truth for All Nations, the Church of God and Saints of Christ, and the Commandment Keepers. What they have in common is their race (i.e., black African descent) and their claim to have descended from the biblical Hebrews of Old Testament times. Is it possible that Old Testament Hebrews left behind some black ancestors? Yes. Given Israel’s proximity to Africa, it is plausible that there are African Jewish groups, especially following the Roman expulsion and the Diaspora of the Jews. In fact, the entire Jewish nation spent four centuries in Africa before returning to the Promised Land (modern\-day Israel), and interactions between the Hebrews and African nations are documented throughout the Old Testament. There is a group of black Jews living in Africa today who practice a very ancient form of Judaism. Unlike the modern Original African Hebrew Israelite Nation of Jerusalem, the Beta Israel group of Ethiopia is accepted by the majority of Jews and by the nation of Israel as being historically Jewish. When it comes to the question of Black Hebrews / Israelites, it is not so much a matter of whether there are groups of blacks with partial Jewish ancestry living in the world today. The question is whether these particular groups claiming Jewish ancestry truly are descendants of the biblical Hebrews. Whether or not any of the Black Hebrew / Israelite groups have Jewish ancestry is not the most important issue. Even if it could be conclusively proven that a Black Hebrew / Israelite faction is partially genetically descended from the biblical Israelites, what these groups believe is far more important than their ancestry. Each of these groups, to varying degrees, have beliefs that are unbiblical. Above everything else, the most crucial error is a misunderstanding, or in some cases denial, of [who Jesus Christ is](who-is-Jesus.html), what He taught, and how His death and resurrection provide the way of salvation.
Is it possible to be a gay Christian?	Answer “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9\-10\). There is a tendency to declare homosexuality as the worst of all sins. While it is undeniable, biblically speaking, that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural (Romans 1:26\-27\), in no sense does the Bible describe homosexuality as an unforgivable sin. Nor does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin Christians will never struggle against. Perhaps that is the key phrase in the question of whether it is possible to be a gay Christian: “struggle against.” It is possible for a Christian to struggle with homosexual temptations. Many homosexuals who become Christians have ongoing struggles with homosexual feelings and desires. Some strongly heterosexual men and women have experienced a “spark” of homosexual interest at some point in their lives. Whether or not these desires and temptations exist does not determine whether a person is a Christian. The Bible is clear that no Christian is sinless (1 John 1:8,10\). While the specific sin / temptation varies from one Christian to another, all Christians have struggles with sin, and all Christians sometimes fail in those struggles (1 Corinthians 10:13\). What differentiates a Christian’s life from a non\-Christian’s life is the struggle against sin. The Christian life is a progressive journey of overcoming the “acts of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19\-21\) and allowing God’s Spirit to produce the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22\-23\). Yes, Christians sin, sometimes horribly. Sadly, sometimes Christians are indistinguishable from non\-Christians. However, a true Christian will always repent, will always eventually return to God, and will always resume the struggle against sin. But the Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian. Notice 1 Corinthians 6:11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." First Corinthians 6:9\-10 lists sins that, if indulged in continuously, identify a person as not being redeemed—not being a Christian. Often, homosexuality is singled out from this list. If a person struggles with homosexual temptations, that person is presumed to be unsaved. If a person actually engages in homosexual acts, that person is definitely thought to be unsaved. However, the same assumptions are not made, at least not with the same emphasis, regarding other sins in the list: fornication (pre\-marital sex), idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, alcoholism, slander, and deceit. It is inconsistent, for example, to declare those guilty of pre\-marital sex as “disobedient Christians,” while declaring homosexuals definitively non\-Christians. Is it possible to be a gay Christian? If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who struggles against homosexual desires and temptations – yes, a “gay Christian” is possible. However, the description “gay Christian” is not accurate for such a person, since he/she does not desire to be gay, and is struggling against the temptations. Such a person is not a “gay Christian,” but rather is simply a struggling Christian, just as there are Christians who struggle with fornication, lying, and stealing. If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.
What does the Bible say about shaving?	Answer The Old Testament law forbade priests from shaving their heads or trimming their beards (Leviticus 21:5\). A similar instruction is given to the general populace in Leviticus 19:27\. In the ancient Hebrew culture, men usually had long beards. In fact, it was considered a disgrace for an adult man not to have a beard (2 Samuel 10:4\-5\). Men taking the Nazarite vow were not to cut their hair until the vow was completed, at which time they were to shave their heads. Regarding women shaving, Scripture says that it is disgraceful for a woman to shave her head (1 Corinthians 11:5\-6\) and that her hair “is a glory to her” (v. 15 KJV). Other than the hair and beard, the Bible nowhere directly mentions shaving any other part of the body. It appears that God has given us great freedom in regard to what we do with our hair. The only New Covenant principle that applies today is that men should have masculine hairstyles and women should have feminine hairstyles (1 Corinthians 11:3\-16\). Even in that, there is a lot of flexibility, as what differentiates masculine and feminine varies somewhat from one culture to another. Hair is interesting in that, for humans, it does not serve a critical purpose. A human being could live a healthy life with no hair whatsoever. The fact that hair grows back when cut or shaven likely indicates that God intends us to have hair. The fact that hair is so easy to adjust and alter likely indicates that God allows us to shave, cut, style, etc., according to our personal preferences. There is a trend today of people shaving their entire bodies. Men and women are shaving their heads, legs, arms, armpits, chest, eyebrows, and private areas. Laser hair removal, which is permanent, is becoming increasingly popular. While it is in the realm of personal preference and individual freedom, completely ridding our bodies of hair does not seem to be consistent with the fact that God gave us hair for a purpose. While a person is biblically free to shave whatever area of his/her body he/she wants to shave, the body\-shaving trend may be more about vanity than preference or necessity. That is the only issue a person should consider in regard to shaving.
What is Verbal Plenary Preservation?	Answer “Verbal Plenary Preservation” is an argument from [textual criticism](textual-criticism.html), which is the study of ancient copies of original manuscripts in order to determine the author’s intended meaning. Ultimately, biblical textual criticism seeks to determine what the original, divinely inspired autographs actually said. To find out which Bible translation is closest to the original, we must consider the texts from which the translation was rendered. Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is an argument promoted by some (usually “[King James Version Only](KJV-only.html)” advocates) in support of the view that the [Textus Receptus](textus-receptus.html), or TR, is the only New Testament text that is both divinely inspired and divinely preserved. Verbal Plenary Preservation, if true, would require generation after generation of handwritten copies to be produced without error of any kind from the original autographs in the first century, producing the later manuscripts known as the “Majority Text,” from which the TR was created. In doing so, VPP proponents incorrectly link the doctrine of inerrancy with inspiration and “providential preservation.” Their conclusion is that the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text (MT) from which the TR came are not only faithful, inerrant, and identical replicas of the original autographs, but that all other New Testament manuscripts from any location, language, or time period are not inspired of God and are therefore unworthy of use. The underlying problem with the doctrine of VPP is its false presupposition that God’s inspiration of Scripture at a particular point in human history also requires His divine preservation of every jot and tittle ever written down by anyone who ever sought to do the work of a scribe. Further, VPP advocates insist the Majority Text is the one so preserved by virtue of the number of extant manuscripts—the majority rules—and its public accessibility. This idea runs counter to the Bible’s own testimony, historical evidence, what constitutes a true “majority,” and the force of plain reason. The Textus Receptus is a compilation/translation by Erasmus from manuscripts dating mostly from AD 900 to 1100\. These manuscripts are referred to as the [Majority Text](majority-text.html) (also referred to as the Byzantine Text). The name “Majority,” however, is a misnomer. Erasmus could have used manuscripts from numerous geographic locations to avoid any drifting in textual renderings inherent to a specific geography, people group, or scribal tradition. He also could have consulted manuscripts from various time periods to identify scribal inaccuracy or considered the available Latin manuscripts, which outnumbered the Greek two\-to\-one! Instead, Erasmus made use of none of these variables and used a very narrow group of texts. Majority of What? When? Where? As is usually the case with historical documents, the older something is, the fewer examples tend to survive. At the same time, older copies are generally believed to be the more accurate renditions. The thinking is that a fifth\-generation copy (written four hundred years after the original autograph) is likely to be more accurate than a twelfth\-generation copy written fourteen hundred years after the original. TR/MT advocates would have us believe the exact opposite is true. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls, predating the MT by hundreds of years, substantiate the accuracy of earlier, non\-Majority texts. The fact is that the MT is only a selection of texts from a particular area and a particular time in only one language. We do not know Erasmus’s justification for choosing certain manuscripts while disregarding others. Erasmus may have used a narrow cross section of texts to minimize variant readings. But even in narrowing the textual sources, no consensus emerged. Erasmus’s texts cannot in any real sense be considered a majority. Recent studies have found there to be six to ten variant renderings of each verse within the texts Erasmus chose. Additionally, there are nearly 2,000 places where Erasmus’s TR differs from the MT, and numerous renderings in the TR have never been found in any Greek manuscript of any time period. Recently, 52 variants have been found within just two verses within the MT. In such cases how are MT advocates to determine what constitutes a majority within the text? Any certainty regarding the accuracy of renderings of the original text into the TR is logically and mathematically impossible. Even worse is the inherent view that majority equals certainty of inspiration. So, even if the MT were the only manuscripts in the world, thousands of verses in the TR not only lack a majority but even a single duplicate. The doctrine of VPP puts God’s divinely inspired revelation at the mercy of man’s recognition of emergent majority renderings (among dozens to choose from), thus placing God in need of human omniscience to preserve textual and doctrinal purity. With dozens of variations from verse to verse, Erasmus would indeed have to be inspired by God to get even half the New Testament right. Clearly, God would not subject His divine message to such a flawed process, producing only one inspired copy. Even if we concede that God might have done so, when we look at the physical evidence of Erasmus’s own work, we see flawed results that cannot be attributed to God. In a hasty effort to publish his work, Erasmus made hundreds of translational mistakes in his first and subsequent publications. Several editions of his TR were published as Erasmus discovered more and more mistakes after each printing. Additionally, the printings contained hundreds of typographical and mechanical mistakes. So, again, the TR/MT advocate cannot say that the MT is credible and preserved without error based on its “majority.” All errors aside, we still have to determine which TR publication was the inspired one and, for theological consistency, how it constitutes a majority among the other TR versions. Historical Evidence All ancient writings (both secular and religious) indicate the Byzantine Text that make up the “Majority Text” were non\-existent in at least the first three centuries after Christ. Early manuscripts like the Codex Sinicatus (by far the earliest complete NT text ever discovered), the Alexandrian Text, early Latin manuscripts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls all predate the MT and support the renderings of modern translations. Also, the non\-MT manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, while the group of manuscripts making up the MT lacks certain portions of the NT altogether. Yet TR/MT advocates claim the TR/MT is the only group of manuscripts “providentially preserved” by God? Who was inspired? TR advocates generally believe that the MT was divinely inspired and preserved. However, the MT did not contain the entire New Testament. So, in some places Erasmus was forced to back\-translate his own Greek text from existing Latin manuscripts (not part of the MT) that were themselves translations from other Greek manuscripts. In other places the Majority Text had so many variants of a given verse that Erasmus could not determine which reading to use, so he made up his own. Proponents of VPP, if they recognize these facts, are forced to conclude either that the Textus Receptus was not divinely preserved (as they define it) or that God’s inspiration of Scripture continued for another 1,500 years after Christ’s resurrection. This would place Erasmus in the category of inspired biblical authors with Peter, Paul, and John. The initial publication of the TR was arguably its most publicly accessible edition, yet it contained the most errors. Updated versions were published in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535\. In point of fact, the actual edition that became the “Textus Receptus,” as we know it, was Robert Estienne’s third revision of Erasmus’ fourth edition; and that wasn’t printed until 1550\. Biblical testimony and public access In 2 Kings 22 we see there was a time when God had sovereignly preserved only one copy of the Old Testament. Additionally, we see throughout the Bible that God often works through the remnant, and the “majority” is consistently in the wrong. Most TR/MT advocates argue the virtue of majority rule, saying that public accessibility is evidence of God’s providential preservation. However, the Greek manuscripts that comprise the MT were not accessible to non\-Greek\-speaking individuals, nor were they accessible to the vast majority of Greek\-speaking Christians outside the geography from which the MT came. Those without MT access (throughout every age of Christian history) vastly outnumber those Greek\-speaking Christians who did have access. Furthermore, the MT has only been publicly accessible in any general sense since the early 1980s. Biblical and historical evidence Few Old Testament scholars would claim that there are any extant Hebrew manuscripts without error. All extant OT manuscripts (approximately 10,000\) have been verified to have errors in them (most of them scribal errors). These errors amount to far less than 1 percent of the text and have no doctrinal significance—the “errors” are usually misspellings of names. In addition to these “errors,” the Hebrew manuscripts have thousands of variant renderings of passages, verses, phrases, or words. Ironically, because of the scribal traditions requiring the destruction of any scroll discovered to contain even a single error, those manuscripts that have been discovered are of a far higher quality than even the very best manuscripts from the MT. Yet they, too, are imperfect and have variations from one manuscript to another. Therefore, the mere existence of the imperfect manuscripts seems to disprove VPP. So, if inspiration equals inerrancy and divine preservation, then 1\) God was careless or incapable of preserving the OT; 2\) He had no interest in preserving it, and the preservation of Scripture has only been through the power of mankind; or 3\) God preserved the NT using VPP but did not do so for the OT (which constitutes roughly 80 percent of the Bible). Clearly, none of these conclusions are accurate or reasonable. Force of plain reason Can any informed Verbal Plenary Preservation advocate reasonably claim that the MT represents God’s best efforts to provide an inerrant, divinely inspired, providentially preserved collection of Holy Scripture, when it is easily demonstrable that every extant manuscript in the MT not only has errors but is incomplete? If the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation were true, then, presumably, the older surviving texts would also have been divinely preserved, making the MT possible yet completely inconsequential. The MT would then be a variant of earlier texts and would have to be considered an errant version and proof that the VPP is false. So, proponents of VPP are forced to conclude that VPP applies only to the MT/TR, with no historical, biblical, or logical reason for the claim. Ironically, the early church had no doctrine of preservation. In fact, no doctrine of preservation in any form was ever stated in a creed until the seventeenth century. This is significant because the doctrine was apparently non\-existent during the creation of the earliest manuscripts predating the MT, during the period of the MT, and even well beyond the creation of the TR by Erasmus. The simplest and most reasonable conclusion regarding Verbal Plenary Preservation is this: God inspired the original autographs and has sovereignly protected His Word through the preservation of thousands of manuscripts with thousands of slight variations—arguably none of which is doctrinally significant. Taken as a whole, these variations do not negate God’s message or His preservation of that message. God has ensured the purity and preservation of His Word through thousands of surviving manuscripts spread over thousands of years and miles. These manuscripts show God’s superintending care through the use of imperfect men so that the Bibles we have today can truly be called God’s Word.
What is the Majority Text?	Answer The Majority Text, also known as the Byzantine and Ecclesiastical Text, is a method of determining the original reading of a Scripture by discovering what reading occurs in a majority of the manuscripts. As the Greek New Testament was copied hundreds of times over 1500 years, the scribes, as careful as they were, occasionally made mistakes. The vast majority of these mistakes are in misspellings, or in whether "the" or a preposition occurs. It is important to remember, though, that no doctrine of the Christian faith is put into doubt by these textual questions. The testimony of the thousands of manuscripts over 1500 years is entirely consistent on all the key issues of the Christian faith. It is vital, though, that our Bibles are as accurate as possible. The accuracy of the manuscripts plays a large role in determining the accuracy of the translation. While the presence of a “the” is not usually vital to the meaning of a verse, there are times when it can be. This is where the science of “[textual criticism](textual-criticism.html)” comes in. The goal of textual criticism is to examine all of the available manuscripts, and by comparison and contrast, to determine what the original text truly was. The Majority Text method within textual criticism could be called the “democratic” method. Essentially, each Greek manuscript has one vote, all the variants are voted on by all the manuscripts, and whichever variant has the most votes wins. At first glance, the Majority Text method would seem to be the most likely to result in the correct original reading. The problem is that the Majority Text method does not take into account two very important factors: (1\) The age of the manuscripts, and (2\) the location of the manuscripts. (1\) The age of the manuscripts. The more times a manuscript is copied, the more likely it is that errors will occur. A first\-generation copy——one that was copied directly from the original——is very likely to be closer to the original than a tenth\-generation copy (a copy that was copied from a copy, from a copy . . . from the original). Manuscripts from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries should be far closer to the originals than manuscripts from the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. The problem is that the majority of the manuscripts are from the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. To illustrate, let’s say there is a man named James Smith. Let’s say you are attempting to discover James Smith’s middle name. Who would be a better source, James Smith’s one thousand great\-great\-great\-great\-great\-grandchildren, or James Smith’s son? Of course it would be James Smith’s son. Similarly, a 2nd\- or 3rd\-generation copy of the New Testament is far more likely to be correct than a 12th\- or 13th\-generation copy. (2\) The location of the manuscripts. The vast majority of Christians through the centuries have lived in western and eastern Europe. For cultural, theological, and political reasons, the western and eastern churches split. The western church became the Roman Catholic Church while the eastern church become the Orthodox Church. A few centuries after the start of Christianity, the western church began using Latin as its primary language. The eastern church continued using Greek as its primary language for another thousand years (and in some places, even to today). Textual critics have discovered that the manuscripts discovered in one part of the world tend to be very similar to other manuscripts from that part of the world, likely due to originating from the same source. Since the eastern church continued using Greek as its primary language for 1000\+ years longer than the western church, there are significantly more Greek manuscripts that were discovered in eastern Europe than in western Europe. And, these eastern Greek manuscripts (the Byzantine manuscripts) are all very similar to each other. When the Majority Text is applied, this results in the eastern manuscripts having far greater weight than the western manuscripts. However, if the thousands of Latin manuscripts from the western church were thrown into the Majority Text “equation,” the results of the voting would be far more balanced, and would actually tilt away from the eastern / Byzantine reading. Perhaps another illustration will help. Let’s say that there are two copies of a document, document A and document B, with minor differences between them due to copying mistakes. Document A is copied 100 times, while Document B is copied three times. If you used the Majority Text method, the Document A copies would have 100 votes, while the Document B copies would only have 3 votes. The Document A copies would win every vote. However, since Document A and Document B are both first\-generation copies of another document, Document A and Document B and their "descendants" should be given equal weight in determining the most likely original reading. The principles of age and location, then, result in “the majority rules” not being the best method in textual criticism. What, then, is the best method? The best method would seem to be taking into account all factors: majority, age, location, difficulty of the reading, and which variant best explains the origin of the other variants. This method is known as the “Eclectic Text” or “Critical Text.” Other than the King James Version, the New King James Version, and the World English Bible, all of the modern English translations are based on the Eclectic Text. Most assume that the King James Version and New King James Version are based on the Majority Text. This is not correct. The King James Version and New King James Version are based on the [Textus Receptus](Textus-Receptus.html). The Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text, but there are in fact hundreds of differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. Erasmus used several Greek manuscripts, which were eastern / Byzantine in nature. This explains why the Textus Receptus is very similar to the Majority Text. However, Erasmus by no means had access to all of the Greek manuscripts, so there was no way he could develop a true Majority Text. The Textus Receptus is based on a very limited number of manuscripts, all of them eastern, and all of them dating to around the 12th century. As a result, compared to the Electic Text and the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus is far less likely to have the most accurate reading. To summarize, the Majority Text is a method within textual criticism that uses the “majority rules” to determine which variant is most likely to be original. While the Majority Text method does result in the most likely original reading in most instances, it should not be employed universally or exclusively. There are many other important factors in determining which variant is most likely to be original.
Is it acceptable to “lay out a fleece” before God in prayer?	Answer The concept of “putting out a fleece” comes from the story of Gideon, a leader in Israel, in Judges 6\. When God directed him to gather the Israelite troops to defeat the Midianite invaders, Gideon wanted to be sure it was really God’s voice he was hearing and that he understood His directions. He asked God for a sign to prove that this was truly His will. So he put out a piece of wool overnight and asked God to make it wet while keeping the surrounding dirt dry. God graciously did as Gideon asked, and in the morning the fleece was wet enough to produce a bowl of water when it was wrung out. But Gideon’s faith was so weak that he asked God for another sign—this time to keep another fleece dry while making the surrounding dirt wet. Again, God complied, and Gideon was finally convinced that God meant what He said and that the nation of Israel would have the victory the angel of the Lord had promised in Judges 6:14\-16\. Putting out the fleeces was the second time Gideon had asked for a sign that God was really talking to him and would do what He said He would. There are several lessons for us in Gideon’s story. First, God is incredibly gracious and patient with us, especially when our faith is weak. Gideon knew he was treading on dangerous ground and was trying God’s patience by asking for multiple signs. After the first fleece sign, he said, “Do not be angry with me. Let me make one more request” (Judges 6:39\). But our God is a merciful, loving and patient God who knows our weaknesses. However, the story of Gideon should be for our instruction and not serve as a model for our own behavior. Jesus said on two occasions that “a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign” (Matthew 12:39; 16:1\-4\). His point was that the signs He had already given them—His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, healings, and miracles—were sufficient for them to respond to the truth, if truth was what they were seeking. Clearly, it was not. Another lesson of Gideon’s fleeces is that those asking for signs are exhibiting a weak and immature faith that won’t be convinced by the signs anyway! Gideon had received more than enough information without the sign of the fleeces. God had told him he would have victory (v. 14\), and He had responded to a previous request for a sign with a miraculous display of power in fire (v. 16\). Still, Gideon asked for two more signs because of his own insecurity. In the same way, even when God does provide the sign we ask for, it doesn’t give us what we crave because our wavering faith still doubts. That often leads us to ask for multiple signs, none of which give us the assurance we need, because the problem isn’t with God’s power; it’s with our own perception of it. A problem with following Gideon’s example of fleece\-setting is that it does not take into account that our situation and his are really not comparable. As Christians, we have two powerful tools that Gideon lacked. First, we have the complete Word of God which we know 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” (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\). God has assured us that His Word is all we need to be “thoroughly equipped” for anything and everything in life. We do not need experiential proof (signs, voices, miracles) to verify what He has already told us in His Word. Our second advantage over Gideon is that every Christian has the Holy Spirit, who is God Himself, residing in his heart to guide, direct, and encourage. Prior to Pentecost, believers had the Old Testament only and were directed externally by God’s providential hand. Now we have His complete Bible and His indwelling presence in our hearts. Rather than seeking signs via fleeces, we should be content to know God’s will for us in every situation every day: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Colossians 3:16\); “Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus” (1 Thessalonians 5:16\-18\); “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17\). If these things characterize our lives, the decisions we make will be in accordance with God’s will, He will bless us immeasurably with His peace and assurance, and there will be no need to put out fleeces or ask for signs.
What does the Bible say about cannibalism?	Answer Cannibalism is mentioned in the Bible. Although there is no direct statement such as, “Thou shalt not eat human flesh,” the obvious indication from Scripture is that cannibalism is a terrible evil. After the global flood, God gave Noah permission to eat meat. "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything” (Genesis 9:3\). However, God specifies that the “food for you” does not include fellow human beings. People are treated much differently from animals: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (Genesis 9:6\). Cannibalism is mentioned several times in Scripture (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53\-57; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10\), but in each case, the practice is regarded as a horrible curse and inhuman act of desperation. Moses and other prophets predicted that, if the Israelites forsook God, they would fall into such awful degradation as to cannibalize their own children. These harrowing prophecies were fulfilled during the siege of Samaria during the reign of King Jehoram (2 Kings 6:28\-29\). Cannibalism was the physical horror which accompanied the spiritual horror of apostasy. Cannibalism has been ritualized in some pagan cultures as part of a religious ceremony or cultural superstition. Thus, not only is the act itself wrong, but also the reason behind the act is wrong. For example, some people groups would eat the flesh of dead family members, believing that doing so would allow the spirits of those who had died to live on. Such cannibalistic rites have no biblical justification. The Bible teaches that the spirit does not remain in the body, nor does it wander around at liberty. A spirit either goes to be with the Lord immediately upon death (2 Corinthians 5:8\) or goes to hades to be kept until the judgment (Luke 16:19\-26; Revelation 20:11\-15\). Murdering someone in order to cannibalize him (homicidal cannibalism) is undeniably wrong. But what about cannibalizing someone who is already dead (necro\-cannibalism) in order to prevent starvation? This is not an entirely hypothetical question, as “survival cannibalism” has indeed occurred. Those who have resorted to cannibalism to stave off starvation include the Donner party in 1846 and the survivors of a 1972 plane crash in the Andes. However, given the Bible’s wholly negative portrayal of cannibalism, it would seem that self\-preservation cannot justify such barbarism. Even in the direst and most desperate circumstances, cannibalism should not be a consideration. In summary, while Scripture gives no explicit command against cannibalism, from the beginning (Genesis 1:26\-27\) God made it clear that mankind is unique and distinct from the animal kingdom. Mankind, created in God’s image, has a value and honor above that of animals. The Old Testament closely associates cannibalism with the final stages of judgment from God, thus marking it as a loathsome and evil practice.
Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?	Answer In attempts to discredit the reliability of the Bible, many skeptics claim that the Bible depicts a flat earth. Further, there are more than a few Christians who believe the Bible teaches the earth is flat. Even further, there are some people who simply question the scientific consensus and the seemingly overwhelming scientific evidence and/or see some sort of conspiracy to deceive humanity that the earth is spherical when it is, in fact, flat. Regarding the biblical evidence, references such as Revelation 7:1 are cited, which speaks of “four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.” Some also point to Psalm 75:3, which says God holds “the pillars” of the earth firm. Other passages they claim teach a flat earth are Deuteronomy 13:7; Job 28:24; Psalm 48:10; and Proverbs 30:4; all of which reference the “ends” of the earth. So, are they correct? Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat? The truth is, the Bible does not comment on the shape of Planet Earth. It does not say that the earth is flat, and it does not say that it is spherical. Let’s take a closer look at some of the commonly cited passages that supposedly depict a flat earth: Revelation 7:1 says, “I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth.” In writing this, the apostle John was using idiomatic language—the “[four corners of the earth](corners-of-the-earth.html)” refer to “every distant location.” We use the same idiom today; for example, when we speak of Olympic athletes coming from the four corners of the earth to compete in the games, we mean they are coming from all over the world. The [book of Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html) is full of non\-literal descriptions and symbolic language. To press Revelation 7:1 into a hyper\-literal interpretation makes no sense. John simply says that, at one point during the tribulation, God will cause all wind to stop blowing. The “four corners” encompass the cardinal directions—north, south, east, and west. All wind will cease at God’s command. Psalm 75:3 quotes God saying, “When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.” Other passages also refer to the earth’s “pillars,” such as 1 Samuel 2:8, but in no case should the language be taken literally. The [book of Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) and Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2 are poetry. The writers liken the founding of the earth to the constructing of a house, and their descriptions are comparative (i.e., [metaphorical](biblical-symbolism.html)), not literal. The point is not that the earth is flat but that the earth belongs to God; it is His construction, and He guarantees its stability. God’s “pillars” will not move, and His “roof” will not cave in. Even when the moral order of the world seems to have crumbled and people are overcome with fear, God will not fully withdraw His sustaining power. What about the Bible’s references to the “ends of the earth” in Deuteronomy 13:7; Job 28:24; Psalm 48:10; Proverbs 30:4; and other passages? Does a reference to the “ends” of the earth teach that the earth has an edge and is therefore flat? We’ll take Deuteronomy 13:7 as representative of all the passages: here, Moses warns the people of “the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other” (ESV). A couple things can be said about the phrase the ends of the earth to show that it does not refer to a flat earth. First, that phrase, like the four corners of the earth, is idiomatic. We don’t expect people to take us literally when we speak of going “back to the drawing board”; neither should we force a literal interpretation on “the ends of the earth.” When biblical writers speak of the “ends of the earth” (28 times in the KJV), they are simply referring to “the farthest reaches of the inhabited world.” Second, the phrase the ends of the earth at times refers to people, not to land. For example, Psalm 67:7 says, “May God bless us still, so that all the ends of the earth will fear him.” In this verse, the ends of the earth references the people who inhabit remote and distant places (see also Psalm 98:3 and Isaiah 45:22\). Obviously, in this context the phrase is metaphorical and cannot be used to depict the earth as having a physical edge. The same phrase, used elsewhere, should also be considered figurative. The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. The references to the “earth” in the Bible are often not references to planetary earth but to a portion of dry land bound by water. For example, Genesis 1:10 says, “God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas” (ESV). “Earth” is mentioned as distinct from “Seas” and cannot refer to Earth as a planet; the same Hebrew word for “Earth” is used in Deuteronomy 13:7 and the other passages listed above. While the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, neither does the Bible explicitly teach that the earth is spherical. Some passages do allow for a spherical earth, such as Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22\. And Job 26:10 makes reference to God’s drawing “a circular horizon . . . at the boundary of light and darkness” (NKJV), a description suggesting two hemispheres. In any event, the Bible is far from affirming a naïve or unscientific understanding of the earth and the solar system. There is simply no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. Biblical passages that could be interpreted to present a flat earth are better understood symbolically.
What is the God particle?	Answer The “God particle” is the nickname of a subatomic particle called the Higgs boson. In layman’s terms, different subatomic particles are responsible for giving matter different properties. One of the most mysterious and important properties is mass. Some particles, like protons and neutrons, have mass. Others, like photons, do not. The Higgs boson, or “God particle,” is believed to be the particle which gives mass to matter. The “God particle” nickname grew out of the long, drawn\-out struggles of physicists to find this elusive piece of the cosmic puzzle. What follows is a very brief, very simplified explanation of how the Higgs boson fits into modern physics, and how science is attempting to study it. The “standard model” of particle physics is a system that attempts to describe the forces, components, and reactions of the basic particles that make up matter. It not only deals with atoms and their components, but the pieces that compose some subatomic particles. This model does have some major gaps, including gravity, and some experimental contradictions. The standard model is still a very good method of understanding particle physics, and it continues to improve. The model predicts that there are certain elementary particles even smaller than protons and neutrons. As of the date of this writing, the only particle predicted by the model which has not been experimentally verified is the “Higgs boson,” jokingly referred to as the “God particle.” Results obtained by researchers in 2012 recorded observations consistent with the Higgs Boson. While subsequent results seem promising, analysis continues as physicists seek further confirmation of the elusive particle. Each of the subatomic particles contributes to the forces that cause all matter interactions. One of the most important, but least understood, aspects of matter is mass. Science is not entirely sure why some particles seem mass\-less, like photons, and others are “massive.” The standard model predicts that there is an elementary particle, the Higgs boson, which would produce the effect of mass. Confirmation of the Higgs boson would be a major milestone in our understanding of physics. The “God particle” nickname actually arose when the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Leon Lederman was published. Since then, it’s taken on a life of its own, in part because of the monumental questions about matter that the God particle might be able to answer. The man who first proposed the Higgs boson’s existence, Peter Higgs, isn’t all that amused by the nickname “God particle,” as he’s an avowed atheist. All the same, there isn’t really any religious intention behind the nickname. Currently, efforts are under way to confirm the Higgs boson using results obtained in 2012 from the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator in Switzerland, which should be able to confirm or refute the existence of the God particle. As with any scientific discovery, God’s amazing creation becomes more and more impressive as we learn more about it. Either result—that the Higgs boson exists, or does not exist—represents a step forward in human knowledge and another step forward in our appreciation of God’s awe\-inspiring universe. Whether or not there is a “God particle,” we know this about Christ: “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible . . . all things were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1:16\).
What is church planting?	Answer Church planting is the establishing of an organized body of believers in a new location. The process of church planting involves evangelism, the discipleship of new believers, the training of church leaders, and the organization of the church according to the New Testament model. Usually the process also includes writing a church charter and/or doctrinal statement and finding a place to meet or buying property and erecting a new building. Church planting is a specific focus within the larger work of “missions.” Church planters are missionaries who concentrate their efforts on preaching and teaching the Word of God. Other missionaries who specialize in certain skills may not be considered “church planters” officially, but they provide valuable service to those who are. Such supporting missionaries include radio broadcasters, aviators, printers, Bible translators, and medical personnel. The ultimate goal of most church planters is to glorify the Lord in a community by founding an autonomous, self\-propagating body of believers. Once this goal has been reached and the church is able to stand on its own, the church planter will usually move on to a different community and begin the process again. The church\-planting focus is biblical. As the apostle Paul traveled through an area, he always tried to spend enough time in each city to establish a local body of believers and train the leadership (Acts 14:21\-23\). Later, he would try to revisit those churches to confirm and encourage them in the faith (Acts 15:41; 1 Thessalonians 3:2\). The churches he established would then begin to send out missionaries themselves, and so the work of church planting continued (1 Thessalonians 1:8\).
Is it allowable to use candles in connection with prayer?	Answer There is no biblical reason why we can’t light candles while we pray or while we do anything else, for that matter. Candles are inanimate objects. They have no power, no strength, and no mystical or supernatural abilities. They are nothing more than wax and a piece of string with maybe some scent added in. Candles—and other lights such as Christmas decorations—can remind us that Jesus is the Light of the World. Candles can remind us to put our “trust in the Light so that \[we] may become sons of Light” (John 12:36\). Having a candle burning while we pray might serve to focus our prayers and thoughts on Jesus as the Light of the world. What candles cannot do, however, is accompany our prayers to heaven, make our prayers more powerful or effective, add anything to our prayers, or pray for us in any way. Candles burning in a Roman Catholic church, for example, are thought to continue the pray\-er’s petition long after he/she has left the church. This is unbiblical. Prayer is a conversation with our heavenly Father—a dialogue between two live, conscious, responsive beings who share the same Spirit. No candle can enter into such a relationship. Candles are used in various types of worship rituals. Witches and shamans, Catholics, new\-agers, some Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus all use candles in their worship services. Lighting votive candles is also consistent with the emerging worship trends that embrace mystery, mysticism, and entering into reality through experience. In the end, the use of candles in prayer is innocent in itself. The danger is in ascribing to them a power they simply don’t possess.
What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?	Answer Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non\-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words. Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would\-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us. The process of exegesis involves 1\) observation: what does the passage say? 2\) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3\) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4\) application: how should this passage affect my life? Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1\) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2\) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3\) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross\-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea. To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage: 2 Chronicles 27:1\-2 “Jotham was twenty\-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.” EISEGESIS First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1\-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?” Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1\-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show. EXEGESIS First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26\-27; 2 Kings 15:1\-6, 32\-38\). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16\-20\). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” (2 Chronicles 26:21\). Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12\-15\. By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient. The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them. Of course, exegesis takes more time than eisegesis. But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is the only way.
What does the Bible say about Bipolar Disorder?	Answer Note: as with many psychological issues, there are often both a physical and spiritual aspect of manic depression/bipolar disorder. While we believe psychologists often miss the true spiritual nature of the sickness, we strongly encourage anyone suffering with a mental illness to seek medical attention and counseling. Answer: “Bipolar disorder” is a name that first appeared in 1957 for a severe mental illness. Before that, the same illness was called “manic depressive illness” or “manic depression,” though that name only dates back to 1921\. Neither term appears in the Bible, but the Bible teaches us a number of lessons we can apply to bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder or manic depression is a serious mental illness characterized by severe mood fluctuations. These fluctuations go far beyond simply being “happy” or “sad.” The “manic” symptoms can include feelings of extreme euphoria, marked increase in risk\-taking, racing thoughts, forced speech, and increased energy. The “depressive” symptoms can include feelings of extreme sadness or hopelessness, fatigue/lethargy, changes in appetite, inability to concentrate, and suicidal/morbid thoughts. There are several types of the disorder, usually defined by the severity or intensity of the symptoms. The most severe type can even include psychotic symptoms such as auditory or visual hallucinations. The exact cause of bipolar disorder is unknown, although science has demonstrated a genetic component to the disorder. Some practitioners are also employing brain imaging. Bipolar disorder is generally diagnosed based on the symptoms displayed by an individual, which has led to some controversy. A Christian who suffers from bipolar disorder or manic depression should treat it like any other physiological disease. While God certainly has the ability to work miracles and cure any malady, He often lets us continue our journey with a “[thorn in the flesh](Paul-thorn-flesh.html)” to remind us that He is sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:7–9\). If a believer had diabetes, he would seek medical advice from trained doctors, take prescribed medications, and seek godly counsel on how to deal with both his physical and emotional symptoms. The same holds true for a believer with bipolar disorder. Because bipolar disorder or manic depression affects the way a person thinks, finding godly counsel (Proverbs 1:5\) and spending time in God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16–17\) are essential. In order to do what is right, we must know what is true. Bipolar disorder alters a person’s perceptions of reality, so a strong foundation in truth is a necessity when dealing with its symptoms. Someone with bipolar disorder or manic depression might give in to the misperceptions caused by the disease and commit sinful acts. A person with bipolar disorder must treat those sins like any other person should. He should recognize his actions as sinful, [repent](repentance.html), and seek forgiveness. Believers with bipolar disorder should never blame their illness for their actions (see John 15:22\). Believers should treat a person with bipolar disorder or manic depression with the same compassion they would show toward everyone else (James 2:1\). The church offers people with bipolar disorder something they desperately need in their lives—truth (John 17:17\). One thing people with bipolar disorder need more than anything else is the hope that is in Jesus Christ. Even though their illness tries to steal their lives away, they can have an [abundant life](abundant-life.html) in Christ (John 10:10\).
Why is it so hard to understand the Bible?	Answer Everyone, to varying degrees, struggles in trying to understand the Bible. Even after nearly 2,000 years of church history, there are some Bible verses and passages that leave even the most brilliant of Bible scholars speculating as to the exact and correct meaning. Why is it so hard to understand the Bible? Why does it take so much effort to fully and correctly understand the Bible? Before the question is explored, it must be made clear that God did not make His Word unclear. The message of God’s Word is perfectly clear. The reason that the Bible can sometimes be hard to understand is that we are all fallen beings \- sin clouds and distorts our understanding and leads us to twist the Bible to our own liking. There are several factors that sometimes make the Bible hard to understand. First, there is a time and culture difference. Depending on what part of the Bible you are studying, there is between 3,400 and 1,900 years between when the Bible was written and us today. The culture in which the Bible was written was very different from most of the cultures that exist today. The actions of nomadic shepherds in 1800 B.C. in the Middle East often do not make much sense to computer programmers in 21st\-century America. It is crucially important that, when trying to understand the Bible, we remove the 21st\-century “lenses” we have and try to recognize the culture in which the Bible was written. Second, there is the fact that the Bible contains different types of literature. The Bible contains history, law, poetry, songs, wisdom literature, prophecy, personal letters, and apocalyptic literature. Historical literature must be interpreted differently from wisdom literature. Poetry cannot be understood in the same way as apocalyptic writings. A personal letter, while having meaning for us today, may not have the exact application to us as it did to the person(s) to whom it was written. Recognizing the fact that the Bible contains different genres is key in avoiding confusion and misunderstanding. Third, we are all sinners; we all make mistakes (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8\). As much as we strive not to read our preconceived biases into the Bible, it is inevitable that we all occasionally do so. Sadly, at some point everyone misinterprets a Scripture due to a presupposed understanding of what a particular Scripture can or cannot mean. When we study the Bible, we must ask God to remove the biases from our minds and help us interpret His Word apart from our presuppositions. This is often a difficult step to take, as admitting presuppositions requires humility and a willingness to admit mistakes. By no means are the three steps outlined above all that is needed to properly understand the Bible. Entire books have been written on how to interpret the Bible. Biblical hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. However, the three steps above are an excellent start in how to understand the Bible. We must recognize the cultural differences between ourselves and the people in Bible times. The different genres of literature must be taken into account. We must strive to allow the Bible to speak for itself, not allowing our presuppositions to determine the interpretation. Trying to understand the Bible can sometimes be a difficult task, but with God’s help, it is possible. Remember, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, God’s Spirit indwells you (Romans 8:9\). The same God who "breathed out" Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\), is the same God who indwells you and will open your mind to the truth and understanding of His Word if you rely on Him. This is not to say that God will always make it easy. God desires us to search His Word and to fully explore its treasures. Understanding the Bible is not always easy, but it is always eminently rewarding.
What does the Bible say about torture?	Answer Torture can be defined as “the infliction of intense pain to punish, to coerce, or to derive sadistic pleasure.” Of course, [sadism](sadism-sadist.html) is never appropriate or just, but what about punishment or coercion? Is there ever a time when inflicting pain is justified in order to punish wrongdoing or to obtain a confession? What does the Bible say? The Bible acknowledges the existence of torture. In a parable, Jesus spoke of a servant who was “turned . . . over to the jailers to be tortured” (Matthew 18:34\). Such an allusion seems to indicate that the use of torture was common in the prisons of the day. The Bible also records the stories of many victims of torture: Jesus, Paul and Silas (Acts 16\), the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:2; 38:6\), and other unnamed saints (Hebrews 11:35\). In every case, we see that the godly are the victims of torture, never the perpetrators of torture. As individuals, we are not to seek revenge. Vengeance belongs only to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19\). Also, as individuals we have no authority to punish society’s wrongdoers or to extract confessions from them. Therefore, as individuals, we can have no license to torture; inflicting intense pain on others is wrong. God alone is able to mete out punishment with perfect justice, and it is His prerogative to make His punishment painful. Demons are aware of a future time of “torture” for themselves (Matthew 8:29\). Hell is a place of “torment” and intense agony (Matthew 13:42; Luke 16:23\-24\). During the Tribulation, torment will be part of the plagues upon evildoers (Revelation 9:5; 11:10\). In any of His judgments, God is holy and perfectly fair (Psalm 119:137\). Now we’ll consider the use of torture in relation to governmental policy. We know that God has appointed civil governments and charged them with maintaining justice in this world (Romans 13:1\-5\). “For \[the ruler] is God’s servant to do you good . . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (verse 4\). Elsewhere, God calls judges and magistrates “gods”; that is, their authority to provide justice comes from God Himself (Psalm 82:1\-4\). If they fail in their duty, they will themselves be judged by the Lord, the Judge of all (verses 7\-8\). So government bears the responsibility to protect the good and punish the evil. What methods may it employ in carrying out that responsibility? Beyond the endorsement of capital punishment (Romans 13:4; Genesis 9:6\), the Bible does not say. The Bible neither condemns nor condones a government’s use of torture. Many questions can and should be asked: What specific techniques should be considered “torture”? Where do we draw the line? Is the infliction of any kind of pain inherently wrong? What if there are no permanent physical effects? Is sleep deprivation torture? What about a forced change in diet? Should yelling at a prisoner be considered psychological torture? May a government, in order to protect its law\-abiding citizens, engage in “highly coercive interrogation” (the use of strongly persuasive techniques to obtain tactical information)? What if these techniques do not inflict physical pain? What if the goal of torture is to prevent further tragedy? What if a prisoner is withholding information that could save the life of an innocent person? What if a hundred lives could be saved? A thousand lives? Should that prisoner be threatened with physical pain until he reveals the information? What, then, if his information is wrong? And what about unlawful enemy combatants who are, legally, not prisoners of war and therefore do not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention? These are all questions not addressed in the Bible and that are beyond the scope of this article, but they highlight the need for us to pray “for kings and all those in authority” (1 Timothy 2:2\). May our policy makers have the wisdom to distinguish good from evil and to provide true justice.
What does the Bible say about procrastination?	Answer Procrastination is “the act of willfully delaying the doing of something that should be done,” and in some people it is a habitual way of handling any task. While the word itself is not found in the Bible, we can find some principles to help guide us. Sometimes, procrastination is the result of laziness, and the Bible has plenty to say about that. The Bible commends hard work and industry (Proverbs 12:24; 13:4\) and warns against sloth and slackness (Proverbs 15:19; 18:9\). One cure for procrastination is more diligence, regardless of the task. The Christian should be supremely motivated to be diligent in his work, since he is ultimately serving the Lord. “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men” (Colossians 3:23\). If we put our hearts into our work, as this verse says to do, we will probably find it difficult to procrastinate too much. The Bible says that when it comes to some things, we should never delay. Jesus taught that reconciling with an offended brother should be done immediately upon our remembrance of the situation (Matthew 5:23\-24\). He also said to “settle matters quickly” with our adversaries (verse 25\). However distasteful it may be to pursue peace with an enemy, we must avoid stalling. Similarly, we are instructed, “Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry” (Ephesians 4:26\). Dealing appropriately with our anger is a matter of great importance, and we must not put it off until tomorrow, which will give the devil “a foothold” (verse 27\). Christians must not procrastinate when it comes to sharing the gospel with the lost. There is no time to waste. Jesus likened evangelistic efforts to a man inviting people to a great banquet. As he sent out his servants with the invitations, he said, “Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” (Luke 14:21\). The most striking qualities of the invitation are its openness (anyone and everyone was invited) and its urgency (the call to the feast must go out “quickly”). Some people, upon hearing the gospel and knowing their spiritual need, delay in making a response. This is the most dangerous type of procrastination. Life is short, and we do not know what will happen tomorrow (James 4:13\-14\). The Bible urges us to get right with God today. “See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. As has just been said: ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion’” (Heb 3:12\-13, 15\). To procrastinate and put off getting right with God is to harden one’s own heart. Jesus could return at any time; we do not know when (Luke 12:40\). Our Lord illustrated the importance of being prepared for His coming in Matthew 25:1\-13\. In this parable, ten virgins await the arrival of the bridegroom and the commencement of the wedding feast. Five of the virgins were prepared for his arrival; five did not attempt to prepare until it was too late, and they were left behind. Jesus calls the unprepared virgins “foolish”; one reason they were unprepared may have been that they procrastinated. So in the matter of our spiritual life, we dare not procrastinate. It is also unwise to delay healing a broken relationship or dealing with anger. And since our service to God motivates all we do, we have no reason to procrastinate. In short, procrastination is a bad habit that can have eternal effects.
What is the Sabbath day?	Answer At first glance, the question “What is the Sabbath day?” seems fairly simple. According to Exodus 20:8–11, the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, on which the children of Israel were to rest, in remembrance that God created the universe in six days and then “rested” on the seventh day. However, due to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some Christian groups, the meaning of the Sabbath day rest has been confused. Some Christian groups, such as the [Seventh Day Adventists](Seventh-Day-Adventism.html), view the Sabbath as the day of worship, the day on which Christians should attend church/worship services. While these groups typically also teach that no work is to be done on the Sabbath, the concept of the “day of worship” is sometimes more emphasized than the “day of rest.” Originally, the Sabbath was a day of rest, and that purpose was retained in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 16:23–29; 31:14–16; 35:2–3; Deuteronomy 5:12–15; Nehemiah 13:15–22; Jeremiah 17:21–27\). Under the Old Covenant, sacrifices were made daily at the tabernacle/temple. The “worship” was continual. And there were special commands given to Israel regarding a “[sacred assembly](solemn-assembly.html)” held on the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3; cf. Numbers 28:9\). The keeping of the Sabbath was the “sign” of the covenant between Israel and the Lord (Exodus 31:13\). The New Testament records Jews and converts to Judaism meeting in synagogues on the Sabbath (Mark 6:2; Luke 4:31; Luke 13:10–16; Acts 13:14, 27, 42–44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4\). Obviously, with no work being done on the Sabbath day, the Sabbath day would be the ideal day to have organized worship services. However, the New Testament does not command that the Sabbath be the day of worship. The church is not under the Mosaic Law. The church is under the New Covenant, established by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible nowhere describes Christians setting aside the Sabbath day as the day of worship. The only Scriptures that describe Christians in any sense meeting on the Sabbath are in fact pointing to evangelistic efforts at Jewish synagogues, which met on the Sabbath day. Acts 2:46 records the early Christians meeting every day. The Bereans studied the Scriptures every day (Acts 17:11\). Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 both mention Christians meeting on the first day of the week. There is no evidence in the New Testament that the apostles or the early Christians in any sense observed the Sabbath day as the prescribed day of worship. Traditionally, Christians have held their primary corporate worship services on Sundays, the first day of the week, in celebration of Christ’s resurrection, which occurred on a Sunday (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1\). It is important to understand, though, that Sunday is not the commanded day of corporate worship, either. There is no explicit biblical command that either Saturday or Sunday be the day of worship. Scriptures such as Romans 14:5–6 and Colossians 2:16 give Christians freedom to observe a special day or to observe every day as special. God’s desire is that we worship and serve Him continually, every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday. Please read our other articles on the [Sabbath day](Saturday-Sunday.html) and [Sabbath keeping](Sabbath-keeping.html) to explore this issue further.
What is expository preaching?	Answer Expository preaching involves the exposition, or comprehensive explanation, of the Scripture; that is, expository preaching presents the meaning and intent of a biblical text, providing commentary and examples to make the passage clear and understandable. The word exposition is related to the word expose—the expository preacher’s goal is simply to expose the meaning of the Bible, verse by verse. As a method, expository preaching differs from topical preaching and textual preaching. To prepare a topical sermon, the preacher starts with a topic and then finds a passage in the Bible that addresses that topic. For example, for the chosen topic of “Laziness,” the preacher might refer to Proverbs 15:19 and 18:9 and touch on Romans 12:11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:10\. None of the passages is studied in depth; instead, each is used to support the theme of laziness. In a textual sermon, the preacher uses a text as a springboard for discussing a particular point. For example, someone could use Isaiah 66:7\-13 to preach on motherhood, although motherhood is only peripheral in that text, being merely an illustration of the true theme, which is the restoration of Israel during the Millennial Kingdom. In both topical and textual sermons, the Bible passage is used as support material for the topic. In expository sermons, the Bible passage is the topic, and support materials are used to explain and clarify it. To prepare an expository sermon, the preacher starts with a passage of Scripture and then studies the grammar, the context, and the historical setting of that passage in order to understand the author’s intent. In other words, the expositor is also an exegete—one who analyzes the text carefully and objectively. (See our article “[What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?](exegesis-eisegesis.html)”) Once the preacher understands the meaning of the passage, he then crafts a sermon to explain and apply it. The result is expository preaching. [G. Campbell Morgan](G-Campbell-Morgan.html), pastor of London’s Westminster Chapel and known as “the prince of expositors,” taught that a sermon is limited by the text it is covering. Every word from the pulpit should amplify, elaborate on, or illustrate the text at hand, with a view towards clarity. He wrote, “The sermon is the text repeated more fully.” A sermon’s primary function is to present the text. While exposition is not the only valid mode of preaching, it is the best for teaching the plain sense of the Bible. Expositors usually approach Scripture with these assumptions: 1\) The Bible is God’s Word. If every word of God is pure and true (Psalm 12:6; 19:9; 119:140\), then every word deserves to be examined and understood. 2\) Men need divine wisdom in order to understand the Word (1 Corinthians 2:12\-16\). 3\) The preacher is subject to the text, not the other way around. Scripture is the authority, and its message must be presented honestly, apart from personal bias. 4\) The preacher’s job is to clarify the text and call for a corresponding response from his hearers. An expositor cares little if his audience says, “What a great sermon” or “What an entertaining speaker.” What he truly wants them to say is, “Now I know what that passage means,” or “I better understand who God is and what He requires of me.”
What is the prayer of Jabez?	Answer The prayer of Jabez is found in a historical note within a genealogy: “Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. His mother had named him Jabez, saying, ‘I gave birth to him in pain.’ Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, ‘Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.’ And God granted his request” (1 Chronicles 4:9–10\). The prayer has become well\-known due to the publication of the best\-selling book, The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life (2000\), by Dr. Bruce Wilkinson with David Kopp. Little is known of Jabez, other than he was a descendant of Judah, he was an honorable man, and his mother named him “Jabez” (meaning “sorrowful” or “sorrow\-maker”) because his had been a painful birth. In his prayer, Jabez cries out to God for protection and blessing. Using a play on words, Jabez, the “man of sorrow,” asks God to keep him from that sorrow that his name both recalled and foreboded. The prayer of Jabez in 1 Chronicles 4:10 contains an urgent request for four things: 1\) God’s blessing. Jabez acknowledges that the God of Israel is the source of all blessing, and he asks God for His grace. No doubt, this request was based, at least in part, on God’s promise of blessing to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 22:17\). 2\) An expansion of territory. Jabez prays for victory and prosperity in all his endeavors and that his life would be marked by increase. 3\) The presence of God’s hand. This was Jabez’s way of asking for the guidance of God and His strength to be evident in his daily existence. 4\) Protection from harm. Jesus taught His disciples to pray in this way: “Father in heaven . . . deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:9, 13\). Jabez looks to God in confidence as his defender. Jabez’s goal in his prayer was to live free from sorrow, and the last thing we read about him is that God heard and answered his prayer. Like Solomon’s humble prayer for wisdom (1 Kings 3:5–14\), Jabez’s devout prayer for blessing was answered. The success Jabez enjoyed outweighed the sorrow of his beginning. The prayer of Jabez overcame the name of Jabez. The prayer of Jabez is a good example of how we should make [prayer](what-is-prayer.html) a priority in our lives. We should always look to God for our help in time of need, and we can take our requests straight to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16\). Along with the prayers of Hannah, Jonah, Hezekiah, Paul—and of course our [Lord’s model prayer](Lords-prayer.html) (Matthew 6:9–13\)—the prayer of Jabez provides a wonderful instance of a child of God approaching the Majesty on High in humility, faith, and reliance upon God’s goodness.
What is prophetic prayer?	Answer Like other aspects of the “prayer movement,” such as [soaking prayer](soaking-prayer.html), prophetic prayer—or prophetic intercession—is an unbiblical practice that seeks to ascribe to the pray\-er power and privilege that have no foundation in Scripture. The practitioners of prophetic prayer believe they are praying the very words of God into the world. This type of prayer is performed by self\-styled “prophets” who believe they can deliver messages straight from the throne room of God, thus acting as conduits for God’s Word and making their prayers “prophetic.” But the Bible tells us that the canon of Scripture is closed (Revelation 22:18\). This means that God is not giving new revelation to so\-called prophets today. He has spoken through His Word, and our job is to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3\). We are not to seek further revelations from God. Prophetic prayer is usually described as the act of commanding God’s “prophetic vision” to be fulfilled in the earth, with the result that God’s will is accomplished. Prophetic prayer is taught in some charismatic ministries as a means of bringing God’s judgment on the earth and ushering in God’s Kingdom. Prophetic prayer is aimed at individuals, so they will fulfill their “prophetic purpose” (their service in God’s plan), and at the world in general, so God’s desires can be accomplished on earth. But Jesus’ prayer in Matthew 6 teaches us to submit to God’s will; it does not teach that we possess special powers to actualize God’s will. God’s plan will come to pass on His exact timetable, which He has not shared with us (Matthew 24:36; 25:13; Mark 13:32; Luke 12:37\-47\). Demanding His judgment to fall and His kingdom to come at the will of the “prophet” is arrogant—and possibly blasphemous. The Lord is the one who will bring to pass all His will: “What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do” (Isaiah 46:11\). Prophetic prayer assumes the existence of modern\-day prophets, men and women who are God’s spokesmen in the world and who can utter divine revelation with all the authority of God Himself. When someone engages in prophetic prayer, he is not asking for God’s will to be done; he is commanding God’s will to be done, and he believes that—as the rain fell when Elijah prayed—he must be obeyed. Those who teach prophetic prayer point to Jesus’ model prayer, which includes the words “your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10\). This verse, they say, teaches that we should demand God’s will in the world around us. As a modern\-day prophet speaks God’s words “into the earth” or “into the atmosphere,” he believes that he changes his environment to conform to God’s command and paves the way for God’s purpose. Prophetic pray\-ers believe they do not just predict what will happen; they believe they actually create the thing predicted! Prophetic prayer is believed to actually bring into existence its own answer. But the Bible declares that God alone decides when, where, and how He will act. We are to pray for Him to act according to His perfect will and timing, not according to our own. Those who teach prophetic prayer also believe that God uses prophets to provide answers to other people’s prayers. If someone is seeking an answer to prayer, God may urge a prophet to pray prophetically, so the other person’s prayer will be answered. But the Bible teaches that the answer to our prayers is not dependent on any “prophet” in this world. There is only one Mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5\). Is prophetic prayer biblical? No.
Is it okay to get tattoos if they are of a Christian nature?	Answer As a background, please read our article on "[What does the Bible say about tattoos and body piercings?](tattoos-sin.html)". Beyond the general theme of that article, there is the question of Christian tattoos. Do the same principles apply to tattoos that are of a Christian nature, such as a cross, a Christian slogan, or even a Bible verse? Some Christians have found that having tattoos gives them more credibility, and thereby more possibilities of evangelism, with some groups of people. So what about Christian tattoos? Obviously, a tattoo of a cross is “better” than a tattoo of a flaming skull, naked woman, or demon. Having a tattoo saying “Jesus saves” could indeed be a conversation starter with some people who would never approach a preacher wearing a suit and tie. Some refer to Revelation 19:16 as an example of Jesus possibly having a tattoo on His thigh, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” The question is not necessarily “is getting a tattoo a sin?” The question is more “is getting a tattoo a good and necessary thing to do?” First Corinthians 10:23 declares, “Everything is permissible – but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive.” Christian tattoos may be “permissible,” but are they beneficial and constructive? In 1 Corinthians 9:22\-23, Paul exclaims, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel.” Becoming all things to save some is perhaps the only good reason for getting a Christian tattoo. If having a tattoo genuinely opens doors for evangelism that would otherwise be closed, getting Christian tattoos would likely “qualify” under Paul’s “becoming all things” qualification. At the same time, it is frankly difficult to envision a scenario in which having a tattoo would enable a greater possibility of evangelism. If a person will not listen to you due to a lack of a tattoo, it is highly unlikely that such a person would genuinely listen due to the presence of a tattoo. With that said, the biblically based conclusion would seem to be that Christian tattoos are permissible, but it is highly questionable whether they can be considered beneficial and constructive. A Christian considering getting a tattoo should pray for wisdom (James 1:5\) and ask the Lord to provide pure motives and discernment.
Why is understanding the Bible important?	Answer Understanding the Bible is important because the Bible is God’s Word. When we open the Bible, we read God’s message to us. What could be more important than understanding what the Creator of the universe has to say? We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a man seeks to understand a love letter from his sweetheart. God loves us and desires to restore our relationship with Him (Matthew 23:37\). God communicates His love to us in the Bible (John 3:16; 1 John 3:1; 4:10\). We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a soldier seeks to understand a dispatch from his commander. Obeying God’s commands brings honor to Him and guides us in the way of life (Psalm 119\). Those commands are found in the Bible (John 14:15\). We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a mechanic seeks to understand a repair manual. Things go wrong in this world, and the Bible not only diagnoses the problem (sin) but also points out the solution (faith in Christ). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23\). We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason a driver seeks to understand traffic signals. The Bible gives us guidance through life, showing us the road of safety and wisdom (Psalm 119:11, 105\). We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason someone in the path of a storm seeks to understand the weather report. The Bible predicts what the end times will be like, sounding a clear warning of impending judgment (Matthew 24\-25\) and how to avoid it (Romans 8:1\). We seek understanding of the Bible for the same reason an avid reader seeks to understand his favorite author’s books. The Bible reveals to us the person and glory of God, as expressed in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:1\-18\). The more we read and understand the Bible, the more intimately we know the Author. As Philip was traveling to Gaza, the Holy Spirit led him to a man who was reading a portion of Isaiah. Philip approached the man, saw what he was reading, and asked this very important question: “Do you understand what you are reading?” (Acts 8:30\). Philip knew that understanding was the starting point for faith. Without understanding the Bible, we cannot apply it, obey it, or believe it.
Why is the dove often used as a symbol for the Holy Spirit?	Answer All four Gospel accounts refer to the baptism of Jesus by John at the Jordan River (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32\). Luke says, “And the Holy Spirit came down in a bodily shape, like a dove on Him.” Because the Holy Spirit is just that—spirit—He is not visible to us. On this occasion, however, the Spirit took on a visible appearance and was doubtless seen by the people. The dove is an emblem of purity and harmlessness (Matthew 10:16\), and the form of the dove at Jesus’ baptism signified that the Spirit with which Jesus was endowed was one of holiness and innocence. Another symbol involving the dove comes from the account of the Flood and Noah’s ark in Genesis 6\-8\. When the earth had been covered with water for some time, Noah wanted to check to see if there was dry land anywhere, so he sent out a dove from the ark; the dove came back with an olive branch in her beak (Genesis 8:11\). Since that time, the olive branch has been a symbol of peace. Symbolically, the story of Noah’s dove tells us that God declared peace with mankind after the Flood had purged the earth of its wickedness. The dove represented His Spirit bringing the good news of the reconciliation of God and man. Of course, this was only a temporal reconciliation, because lasting, spiritual reconciliation with God only comes through Jesus Christ. But it is significant that the Holy Spirit was pictured as a dove at Jesus’ baptism, thereby once again symbolizing peace with God. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit assumed the form of “tongues of fire” (Acts 2:3\) to signify the miraculous power of the apostles’ message and their radically changed lives. The Spirit’s appearance as the dove at Jesus’ baptism symbolizes the gentle Savior bringing peace to mankind through His sacrifice.
What is sovereign grace?	Answer Sovereign grace combines two of God’s attributes, His sovereignty and His graciousness. Both of these characteristics of God are so vast that many volumes have been written about each. Briefly though, the doctrine of sovereign grace is the melding of the two into a thrilling truth that gives us a glimpse into the mind and heart of our great God. The sovereignty of God is His total control of all things past, present, and future. Nothing happens beyond His knowledge and control. All things are either caused by Him or allowed by Him for His own purposes and in accordance with His perfect will and timing (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6\). He is the only absolute and omnipotent ruler of the universe and is sovereign in creation, providence, and redemption. The other half of sovereign grace is grace. The grace of God is His unmerited favor toward those who have not earned it. It is undeserved favor. There are numerous examples of God’s grace in the Bible, both to His people and to those who reject Him. Mary found grace in the eyes of the Lord who bestowed upon her the privilege of bearing the Savior of mankind (Luke 1:28\). She may have been a godly young woman, but nothing she could have done would have made her worthy of such a blessing. She was the recipient of God’s grace, and He sovereignly chose her for the task—sovereign grace. The apostle Paul admits that he was a servant of God only by grace and it was by grace that he labored effectively for the cause of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:10\). Sovereign grace chose to save Paul on the Damascus Road, and sovereign grace showered him with untold blessings. As Christians we, too, benefit from God’s sovereign grace. “For by grace are you saved through faith” (Ephesians 2:8\). Our very salvation and position in Christ is due to His grace through the faith that He gives us (Hebrews 12:2\). Even those who hate God receive His grace. Every breath God allows them to take is a product of His common grace to all creation: “He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45\). Even the atheist enjoys the effects of God’s sovereign grace through God’s beautiful creation and His provision of the resources necessary for food, clothing, and housing. God doesn’t owe these things to us, but He sovereignly provides them to exhibit His grace. The sovereign grace of God is noted most often by theologians in the matter of election. We see it best explained in Ephesians 1:5–6: “He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.” Here, in the same sentence, we have a reference to predestination (God’s sovereignty) and God’s glorious grace—sovereign grace. God sovereignly chose those He would save through His gracious act of sending His Son to die on the cross for their salvation. Sinners were unable to save themselves or, like Mary, to merit God’s favor because of their transgression of His Law. “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Romans 5:20\). Therefore, Christians are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24\). God in His sovereign grace has chosen to save those on whom He has set His love (Romans 9:8–13\). They are picked out of the stream of helpless men and women cascading into hell. This is a humbling truth and should result in immense gratitude on our part. Why did God bestow His sovereign grace on believers? Not because we deserve salvation but to demonstrate “the riches of His glory” (Romans 9:14–23\). Our only proper response is to proclaim, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3\).
What does God have to say to single mothers?	Answer The Bible does not directly address single mothers, but there are many examples of God’s gentle interaction with women, mothers, widows and their children. These examples, and God’s gentleness, apply whether a mother is single or married or widowed or divorced. God knows each person intimately and knows her situation completely. The Bible warns that sex outside of marriage is sinful and dangerous and will bring troubles, one of which is that a woman might have to raise a child by herself, which is undoubtedly difficult. And if it is her own sin that has resulted in single motherhood, our gracious God is still just as willing to bring help and comfort. And what’s better is that He offers forgiveness for those sins through Jesus Christ and the eternal comfort of heaven for the mother who accepts Him, the children who accept Him, and even the estranged father who accepts Him! But often a woman finds herself alone and raising children through no fault of her own. Sadly, women are often innocent victims of a world wracked by war and terrorism. Husbands go off to war and never return, selflessly giving their lives for their countries. If a husband’s death has left a woman single with children, there is no doubt that God will help and comfort that woman. God cares about families. But He is more concerned that each person, no matter what her family looks like, repenting of sin and coming into a relationship with Him. He wants us to know Him, because His creatures knowing Him brings us joy and brings Him glory. We get bound up in the details of our lives, worrying what other people will think of us and whether the church will accept us and whether we have ruined things entirely. But God calls the Christian to the joy of being above the weight of worry. He has said that we should cast all our cares upon Him, for He cares for us (1 Peter 5:7\). He wants to carry the burden and forgive our sins and then forget about our sins and help us to move on. All He asks us to do is know Him, delight in Him, and trust Him. Single mothers are often very responsible people, and sometimes it can be hard to just “set aside” worries and cares. A single mother might feel guilty just thinking about it! But God commands us to do it anyway, to spend a little time each day to focus on Him, and trust (during the rest of the day) that He will provide for us, both physically and emotionally as we lean on Him. What this might look like for a single mom is setting aside time to read the Bible and pray. She might think, “I just don’t have time for that between working and raising a child and taking care of the house and everything else.” But if even for half an hour when her child is sleeping or being watched by a relative or friend, she can set aside time to talk to God in prayer and listen to His voice in Scripture, even if it means not cleaning that pile of dishes, she will find His amazing strength and comforting presence will be with her for the rest of the day. Memorizing verses like “The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?” (Psalm 118:6\) or “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13\) will help provide tangible reminders of His love and protection when things get tough or stressful. So, what does God have to say to single mothers? The same thing He has to say to everyone else. Repent of sin, trust in Christ for forgiveness, communicate with God through prayer, listen to His voice through Scripture, lean on God for strength in trials, and put your hope in the amazing eternal life with Him that He has planned. “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9, NLT).
What is the definition of idolatry?	Answer The definition of idolatry, according to Webster, is “the worship of idols or excessive devotion to, or reverence for some person or thing.” An idol is anything that replaces the one, true God. The most prevalent form of idolatry in Bible times was the worship of images that were thought to embody the various pagan deities. From the beginning, God’s covenant with Israel was based on exclusive worship of Him alone (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7\). The Israelites were not even to mention the names of false gods (Exodus 23:13\) because to do so would acknowledge their existence and give credence to their power and influence over the people. Israel was forbidden to intermarry with other cultures who embraced false gods, because God knew this would lead to compromise. The book of Hosea uses the imagery of adultery to describe Israel’s continual chasing after other gods, like an unfaithful wife chases after other men. The history of Israel is a sad chronicle of idol worship, punishment, restoration and forgiveness, followed by a return to idolatry. The books of 1 \& 2 Samuel, 1 \& 2 Kings, and 1 \& 2 Chronicles reveal this destructive pattern. The Old Testament prophets endlessly prophesied dire consequences for Israel if they continued in their idolatry. Mostly, they were ignored until it was too late and God’s wrath against idol\-worship was poured out on the nation. But ours is a merciful God, and He never failed to forgive and restore them when they repented and sought His forgiveness. In reality, idols are impotent blocks of stone or wood, and their power exists only in the minds of the worshipers. The idol of the god Dagon was twice knocked to the floor by God to show the Philistines just who was God and who wasn’t (1 Samuel 5:1\-5\). The “contest” between God and His prophet Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel is a dramatic example of the power of the true God and the impotence of false gods (1 Kings 18:19\-40\). The testimony of Scripture is that God alone is worthy of worship. Idol worship robs God of the glory that is rightfully His, and that is something He will not tolerate (Isaiah 42:8\). Even today there are religions that bow before statues and icons, a practice forbidden by God’s Word. The significance God places upon it is reflected in the fact that the first of the Ten Commandments refers to idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exodus 20:3\-5\). Idolatry extends beyond the worship of idols and images and false gods. Our modern idols are many and varied. Even for those who do not bow physically before a statue, idolatry is a matter of the heart—pride, self\-centeredness, greed, gluttony, a love for possessions and ultimately rebellion against God. Is it any wonder that God hates it?
What are some modern forms of idolatry?	Answer All the various forms of modern idolatry have one thing at their core: self. Most of the world no longer explicitly bows down to idols and images. Instead we worship at the altar of the god of self. This brand of modern idolatry takes various forms. First, we worship at the altar of materialism which feeds our need to build our egos through the acquisition of more “stuff.” Our homes are filled with all manner of possessions. We build bigger and bigger houses with more closets and storage space in order to house all the things we buy, much of which we haven’t even paid for yet. Most of our stuff has “planned obsolescence” built into it, making it useless in no time, and so we consign it to the garage or other storage space. Then we rush out to buy the newest item, garment or gadget and the whole process starts over. This insatiable desire for more, better, and newer stuff is nothing more than covetousness. The tenth commandment tells us not to fall victim to coveting: "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Exodus 20:17\). God doesn’t just want to rain on our buying sprees. He knows we will never be happy indulging our materialistic desires because it is Satan’s trap to keep our focus on ourselves and not on God. Second, we worship at the altar of our own pride and ego. This often takes the form of obsession with careers and jobs. Millions of men—and increasingly more women—spend 60\-80 hours a week working. Even on the weekends and during vacations, our laptops are humming and our minds are whirling with thoughts of how to make our businesses more successful, how to get that promotion, how to get the next raise, how to close the next deal. In the meantime, our children are starving for attention and love. We fool ourselves into thinking we are doing it for them, to give them a better life. But the truth is we are doing it for ourselves, to increase our self\-esteem by appearing more successful in the eyes of the world. This is folly. All our labors and accomplishments will be of no use to us after we die, nor will the admiration of the world, because these things have no eternal value. As King Solomon put it, “For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving with which he labors under the sun? All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 2:21\-23\). Third, we idolize mankind through naturalism and the power of science. We cling to the illusion that we are lords of our world and build our self\-esteem to godlike proportions. We reject God’s Word and His description of how He created the heavens and the earth, and we accept the nonsense of atheistic evolution and naturalism. We embrace the goddess of environmentalism and fool ourselves into thinking we can preserve the earth indefinitely when God has declared that this current age will have an end: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:10–13\). As this passage states, our focus should not be on worshiping the environment but on living holy lives as we wait eagerly for the return of our Lord and Savior. He alone deserves worship. Finally, and perhaps most destructively, we worship at the altar of self\-aggrandizement or the fulfillment of the self to the exclusion of all others and their needs and desires. This manifests itself in self\-indulgence through alcohol, drugs, sexual sins, and food. Those in affluent countries have unlimited access to alcohol, drugs (prescription drug use is at an all\-time high, even among children), and food. Obesity rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed, and childhood diabetes brought on by overeating is epidemic. The self\-control we so desperately need is spurned in our insatiable desire to eat, drink, and medicate more and more. We resist any effort to get us to curb our appetites, and we are determined to make ourselves the god of our lives. This has its origin in the Garden of Eden where Satan tempted Eve to eat of the tree with the words “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5\). This has been man’s desire ever since—to be god and, as we have seen, the worship of self is the basis of all modern idolatry. All idolatry of self has at its core the three lusts found in 1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” If we are to escape modern idolatry, we have to admit that it is rampant and reject it in all its forms. It is not of God, but of Satan, and in it we will never find fulfillment. This is the great lie and the same one Satan has been telling since he first lied to Adam and Eve. Sadly, we are still falling for it. Even more sadly, many churches are propagating it in the preaching of the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel built on the idol of self\-esteem. But we will never find happiness focusing on ourselves. Our hearts and minds must be centered on God and on others. This is why when asked what is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37\). When we love the Lord and others with everything that is in us, there will be no room in our hearts for idolatry.
Is Lucifer Satan?	Answer In common usage, Lucifer is another name for [Satan](who-Satan.html). Famously, John Milton used this name for Satan in [Paradise Lost](Paradise-Lost.html). There is no verse in the Bible that says, “Lucifer is Satan.” In fact, there is some dispute as to whether Lucifer is even a proper name in the Bible. A character referred to as “Lucifer” appears in Isaiah 14\. The setting is a “taunt against the king of Babylon” (Isaiah 14:4\). The wicked king, who oppressed other nations, is brought to ruin. God has broken the king of Babylon’s scepter (Isaiah 14:5\) and laid him low (verse 8\). The defeated king of Babylon is pictured as entering the place of the dead, where other departed kings await him with glee: “’You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us.’ All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you” (Isaiah 14:10–11\). The prophecy against the king of Babylon continues with this interesting passage: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit” (Isaiah 14:12–15, NKJV). The King James Version and the New King James Version have “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12, but other translations have “morning star” (NIV), “Day Star” (ESV), or “shining one” (NET). Is the term meant as a proper name, or simply as a metaphor for the king’s greatness? Scholars are divided on the issue. Clearly, the primary interpretation of Isaiah 14 is that of a prophecy against the human king of Babylon. However, the poetic descriptions of his grandeur, his sin, and his fate are so extravagant as to cause many scholars to consider a secondary interpretation, viz., a reference to Satan. We note that the following things are true about the king in Isaiah 14: • he falls from heaven (verse 12\) • he is cast down to the earth (verse 12\) • he had destroyed nations (verse 12\) • he sought to ascend to God’s throne (verse 13\) • he desired to be like the Most High (verse 14\) • he is relegated to the lowest part of the Pit (verse 15\) In a clear reference to Satan, Jesus uses some similar wording in Luke 10:18: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” The link between Satan and Lucifer seems to be supported by Satan’s fall from heaven, mentioned by Jesus; Satan’s temptation of Eve that suggested she could be like God (Genesis 3:5\); Satan’s work as a destroyer (Job 1:12–19; 2:7\); and Satan’s masquerading as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14\). We believe the best way to look at Isaiah 14 is as a dual condemnation: the human king of Babylon and the spiritual force behind him are both facing God’s judgment for their pride and wickedness. The human king had occupied a glorious throne in this world—he was a “star” among rulers—and the spiritual entity had occupied a glorious position in the heavenlies—a true “Lucifer,” or “star of the morning.”
Is God imaginary?	Answer Godisimaginary.com is not the first to claim that God is imaginary. In an article entitled “Theology and Falsification” written many years ago, Anthony Flew, one of the twentieth century’s most outspoken atheists wrote, Two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. . . . Yet still the believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, who comes secretly to look after the garden he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs. “But what remains of the original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?” Following Flew’s thoughts from decades ago, the web site godisimaginary.com provides what it believes are 50 “proofs” that God does not exist – that He is nothing more than an imaginary gardener, a superstition, a myth. The site claims, “Let’s agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists. If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today’s 'God,' nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists.” Actually, when a person thinks as a rational person and tosses away any preconceived bias and baggage that’s held, one must disagree with the site’s assertions and instead reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist. Addressing each of the 50 points is unnecessary as it doesn’t matter if the site had 50,000 “proof” points against God; all one needs to do is use a logical, rational, and reasonable argument to show that God does indeed exist and every point becomes irrelevant. It is telling and interesting that godisimaginary.com focuses so much of its time on red herrings of issues with prayer and why God won’t do tricks upon request, and ignores the primary question of philosophy and religion: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” In other words, like Flew, the site concentrates on issues with a gardener they believe to be imaginary and ignores the question of why a garden exists in the first place. The only place on the site where a possible answer to this question is offered is “proof” point 47\. Complexity, says the site, could only arise from either Nature itself or a Creator. “Proof” point 47 then states, “The advantage of the first option is that it is self\-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.” This assertion and conclusion is flawed as they have proposed two explanations and then bundle a third option into the solution they like – spontaneous generation with an eternal universe. An eternal universe is, initially, a logical option but not spontaneous generation, which is a scientific term for something coming from nothing or self\-creation, which is an analytically false statement – that is, a statement that shows itself to be false by definition. A fundamental law of science is ex nihilo nihil fit – out of nothing, nothing comes. And as Aristotle said, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” The web site derides Christians for believing in magic, yet it embraces greater magic than anything found in the Bible – life just appearing out of nothing from non\-life with no cause. Next, their argument ignores the basic laws of causality – an effect must resemble its cause. How can an impersonal, meaningless, purposeless, amoral universe accidentally create beings who are full of personality and obsessed with meaning, purpose, and morality? It can’t. Further, intelligence doesn’t arise from non\-intelligence, which is why even Richard Dawkins (noted atheist) and Francis Crick (co\-discoverer of DNA) admit that intelligence had to engineer DNA and life on earth – they just say it was a superior alien race who seeded the earth, which of course, begs the question of who engineered that superior alien race. Godisimaginary.com claims, “No intelligence is required to encode DNA,” but refuting this statement is the very co\-discoverer of DNA himself – Francis Crick – who admits there is no way for DNA to have arisen apart from intelligence. But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence. This one piece of evidence alone began to turn Anthony Flew away from atheism. These facts being evident, it then becomes quite easy to offer a simple, reasonable, logical proof for God in the following way: 1\. Something exists 2\. You don’t get something from nothing 3\. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists 4\. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator 5\. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe 6\. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists The only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Any fanciful assertions of collapsing universes, imaginary time, and the like are just that – fanciful – and require more faith than to believe in God. The two choices are simple – matter before mind or mind before matter – and it is interesting that this web site claims it is their intelligence that causes them to choose the former over the latter. “But who created God?” the site asks. Why not ask, “Where is the bachelor’s wife?” or “What does the color blue taste like?” It’s a category mistake – you don’t make the unmade. Further, why sit back comfortably and believe in an unmade universe and yet angrily bristle at the notion of an unmade Creator? Could it be because mindless matter cannot call human beings into moral account whereas a personal God can? Finally, is it more reasonable to embrace a cause that contains none of the characteristics of its effect (personality, love, meaning, purpose, etc.) or a cause that embodies them all (a personal God)? The site claims, “In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary,” but in reality, logic, reason, and evidence disprove their position and point in the absolute other direction. The conclusion is that a personal Creator exists. Moreover, this Being who created everything mirrors the God described in the Bible quite well as evidenced by what one can infer just from the fact of creation alone: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (incredibly). • He must be eternal (self\-existent, because there is no infinite regress of causes). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal can’t create personality). • He must be necessary as everything else depends on Him. • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given). The Judeo\-Christian God perfectly fits this profile. At this point, all 50 “proofs” on the web site become irrelevant – God exists; therefore, all points offered on the site are incorrect in the final conclusion that they collectively try to reach. Wondering why God won’t cure all the cancer in the world because a group of Christians prayed for it, pointing out the divorce rate among Christians, scoffing because God doesn’t create money for churches out of thin air, wondering why Jesus never moved a physical mountain, asserting a false dichotomy that says a person must be a person of facts or of faith (many brilliant scientists believe in God), making unprovable claims that Jesus never did a concrete miracle, and erroneously stating that the Bible “advocates” senseless murder, slavery, and oppression of women \- all end up being impotent in light of the conclusion that a creator God exists. Answering such objections – if they are genuine and not extended in a way that refuses to believe even if reasoned responses are given – requires only the disciplined study of Scripture alongside the Spirit of God who inspired it. Arguments with those who possess a hardened skeptical spirit are to be avoided as 1 Timothy 6:20 says, “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge.'” But even still, God is fully capable of using His powerful general revelation (the creation) to witness to those who appear completely lost due to a skeptical and hardened heart. In stark contrast to the article he’d written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.” This being the case, one thing is certain – the 50 frail attempts on godisimaginary.com to prove that God is imaginary fall far short of even causing a nick on the armor of evidence that opposes them.
What is the God of the gaps argument?	Answer The “God\-of\-the\-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.” The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing. However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information\-packed than had ever been conceived of previously. Much of what had once been filed away as “solved” in the early twentieth century is now found to be inadequately explained by naturalism. Twenty\-first century technology is increasingly revealing gaping holes in conventional evolutionary theory. The information\-rich content of the “simple” has only recently been understood at any real level and found to be anything but simple. Information can now be understood to be inherently non\-material. Therefore, materialistic processes cannot qualify as sources of information. In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18\-20\). The God\-of\-the\-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies. There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the [fine\-tuning](fine-tuning-argument.html) thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1\).
What is saving grace?	Answer As an idiom, “saving grace” refers to a “redeeming quality” that makes a person or a thing acceptable. But that is not the biblical meaning. The word grace in the Bible means “unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification” or “God’s benevolence to the undeserving.” Biblically, “saving grace” is the grace of God that saves a person. Scripture says that grace, the unearned favor of the Lord, is necessary “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Romans 3:20 NASB). The only way to receive God’s saving grace is through faith in Christ: “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested . . . the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (Romans 3:21\-22 NASB). Saving grace results in our sanctification, the process by which God conforms us to the image of Christ. At the moment of salvation, by grace through faith, God makes us new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17\). And He promises to never forsake His children: “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:6\). We have nothing in ourselves that will commend us to God (Romans 3:10\-11\)—we have no “saving grace” on our own. Being fundamentally unacceptable to God, we ask, along with Jesus’ disciples, “How can we be saved?” Jesus’ answer is reassuring: “What is impossible with men is possible with God” (Luke 18:26\-27\). Salvation is God’s work. He gives the grace we need. Our “saving grace” is Christ Himself. His work on the cross is what saves us, not our own merit. It is easy to think that, by our faith, we contribute in some small way to our salvation. After all, Christ’s merit must be applied to us by faith, and it seems our faith is coming from us. But Romans 3:10\-12 says that none of us seek after God. And Ephesians 2:8 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that \[faith] not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. God’s saving grace is completely His gift. Even our ability to accept His saving grace is just another gift from God.
Why did God allow the Holocaust?	Answer In dealing with the problem of evil in the world, we run into many problems like this one. Could God have prevented the Holocaust? Yes, He could have. He could also have prevented Stalin’s massacres in the U.S.S.R., the Spanish Inquisition’s torture of dissidents, and Nero’s reign of terror. In each case, God allowed evil men to exercise a certain amount of power for a short period of time. Ultimately, we do not know the reasons for what God allows. His ways and thoughts are infinitely higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8\-9\). His sovereign plan takes in the whole scope of history, past, present, and future, encompassing every possible course of action, every cause and effect, every potentiality, and every contingency. There is no way we could possibly fathom the intricacies of His design. By faith, we trust that His plan is the best plan possible for restoring fallen humanity and a cursed world to righteousness and blessing. But we can understand this: God’s permission is not the same as His approval. God allowed Adam to eat of the forbidden tree, but He did not approve of the action. In the same way, God’s allowing the Holocaust in no way suggests His approval of it. God is grieved by the sinfulness of man and the hardness of his heart (Genesis 6:6; Mark 3:5\). We also know that God has done everything possible to redeem us from the sin which would destroy us. He gave His only Son, who sacrificed His life for our sin and took our penalty. All who turn to Jesus Christ in faith are saved. The sin in this world, and horrors such as the Holocaust, are a direct result of mankind’s continued rebellion against God. While nothing can justify the evil of the Holocaust, it did indirectly bring about an advancement in biblical prophecy. The Holocaust was a primary reason the White Paper of 1939 was rescinded, freeing European Jews to immigrate to Israel. Regardless of one’s political stance, the fact is that the 1948 restoration of an independent Jewish state helps to fulfill such biblical prophecies as Ezekiel 37 and Matthew 24\. In all of His doings, God is just (Psalm 145:17\). The blame for the Holocaust lies squarely on the shoulders of sinful humanity. The Holocaust was the product of sinful choices made by sinful men in rebellion against a holy God. If the Holocaust proves anything, it is the utter depravity of man. Just fourteen years after "the war to end all wars" (World War I), Hitler rose to power. What is even more shocking is that millions followed him, enabling his horrific policies and pursuing a path to national destruction. And while Nazism took hold in Germany, where were the European churches? Some, it is true, stood fast against the evil in their midst, and some churchmen, such as [Dietrich Bonhoeffer](Dietrich-Bonhoeffer.html), paid the ultimate price for dissenting. But they were the minority. Most churches of the era acquiesced to Nazi Party rules and remained silent while the Jews were slaughtered. Where were the world leaders? Other than England’s Winston Churchill, the world’s politicos took the route of isolation or appeasement. Neither worked. Where were the good, decent people? Edmund Burke is often quoted as saying, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." Although there were a few Germans and other Europeans such as Oscar Schindler and [Corrie ten Boom](Corrie-ten-Boom.html) and her family, who risked their lives to save thousands of Jews from annihilation, most remained silent and the Holocaust ensued. The question is not so much "Why did God allow the Holocaust?" but "Why did we?" God gives mankind freedom of choice. We can choose to follow Him and take a stand for righteousness, or we can rebel against Him and pursue evil. The problem resides in the heart of man. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9\). Until man’s heart turns to God, the world will continue to witness "ethnic cleansings," genocides, and atrocities such as the Holocaust.
Is there an angel of death?	Answer The idea of an “angel of death” is present in several religions. The “angel of death” is known as Samael, Sariel, or Azrael in Judaism; as Malak Almawt in Islam; as Yama or Yamaraj in Hinduism; and as the Grim Reaper in popular fiction. In various mythologies, the angel of death is imagined as anything from a cloaked skeletal figure with a sickle, to a beautiful woman, to a small child. While the details vary, the core belief is that a being comes to a person at the moment of death, either actually causing death or simply observing it—with the purpose of then taking the person’s soul to the abode of the dead. This “angel of death” concept is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere teaches that there is a particular angel who is in charge of death or who is present whenever a person dies. Second Kings 19:35 describes an angel putting to death 185,000 Assyrians who had invaded Israel. Some also see Exodus chapter 12, the death of the firstborn of Egypt, as the work of an angel. While this is possible, the Bible nowhere attributes the death of the firstborn to an angel. Whatever the case, while the Bible describes angels causing death at the command of the Lord, Scripture nowhere teaches that there is a specific angel of death. God, and God alone, is sovereign over the timing of our deaths. No angel or demon can in any sense cause our death before the time God has willed it to occur. According to Romans 6:23 and Revelation 20:11\-15, death is separation, separation of our soul\-spirit from our body (physical death) and, in the case of unbelievers, everlasting separation from God (eternal death). Death is something that occurs. Death is not an angel, a demon, a person, or any other being. Angels can cause death, and may be involved in what happens to us after death—but there is no such thing as the “angel of death.”
What is sacerdotalism?	Answer Sacerdotalism is the belief that priests are essential mediators between God and man. The word sacerdotal comes from the Latin word for “priest” and literally means “to make sacred.” Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican forms of worship are sacerdotal. Sacerdotalism teaches that the priesthood is a special class of churchman and is a necessary part of worship. People cannot approach God on their own, but must come through a priest, whether it is for confessing sin, taking communion, or receiving grace. Any divine blessing conferred upon an individual comes through the Church; that is, through the Church’s ordained priesthood. The Old Testament law placed the Jews under a sacerdotal system. Aaron and his sons were divinely selected to be the first priests to minister to Israel (Exodus 28:1\). The priestly duties included offering sacrifices for the atonement of sin (Hebrews 5:1\); representing the nation before God (Exodus 28:9\-12\); and teaching the people God’s Word (Ezekiel 44:23\). The Old Testament priesthood was a picture of the future ministry of Christ, who fulfills all that the Levitical priesthood anticipated. The book of Hebrews, especially chapters 5\-10, presents Jesus Christ as the perfect High Priest and the fulfillment of the Old Testament law. In Christ, the entire legalistic system of sacrifice and ritual, including the priesthood, is made obsolete (Romans 10:4\). The New Testament does not support a sacerdotal system of worship. As Martin Luther points out in The Private Mass and Consecration of Priests, the Holy Spirit has “in the New Testament diligently prevented the name sacerdos, priest or [cleric](what-is-a-cleric.html), from being given even to an apostle or to various other offices.” In other words, the Bible never uses the word priest in relation to church leadership; rather, the Bible teaches the universal priesthood of all believers. When Jesus offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin, God tore the veil in the temple in two, indicating open access to His presence through the body of Christ (Hebrews 10:19\-20\). Jesus now occupies the office of eternal High Priest, making constant intercession for His people (Hebrews 7:24\-25\). Sacerdotalism insulates people from God, erecting human barriers where the New Testament places none. The Scripture is clear that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5\). Biblically speaking, every believer is a priest “offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5\).
What does the Bible say about the end of the world (eschaton)?	Answer The event usually referred to as “the end of the world” (eschaton) is described in 2 Peter 3:10: “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” This is the culmination of a series of events called “the day of the Lord,” the time when God will intervene in human history for the purpose of judgment. At that time, all that God has created, “the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1\), He will destroy. The timing of this event, according to most Bible scholars, is at the end of the 1000\-year period called the millennium. During these 1000 years, Christ will reign on earth as King in Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:32\-33\) and ruling in peace but with a “rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15\). At the end of the 1000 years, Satan will be released, defeated again, and then cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7\-10\). Then, after a final judgment by God, the end of the world described in 2 Peter 3:10 occurs. The Bible tells us several things about this event. First, it will be cataclysmic in scope. The “heavens” refers to the physical universe – the stars, planets, and galaxies—which will be consumed by some kind of tremendous explosion, possibly a nuclear or atomic reaction that will consume and obliterate all matter as we know it. All the elements that make up the universe will be melted in the “fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:12\). This will also be a noisy event, described in different Bible versions as a “roar” (NIV), a “great noise” (KJV), a “loud noise” (CEV), and a “thunderous crash” (AMP). There will be no doubt as to what is happening. Everyone will see and hear it because we are also told that “the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” Then God will create a “new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1\), which will include the “New Jerusalem” (v. 2\), the capital city of heaven, a place of perfect holiness, which will come down from heaven to the new earth. This is the city where the saints—those whose names were written in the “Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 13:8\)—will live forever. Peter refers to this new creation as “the home of righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13\). Perhaps the most important part of Peter’s description of that day is his question in verses 11\-12: “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” Christians know what is going to happen, and we should live in a way that reflects that understanding. This life is passing away, and our focus should be on the new heavens and earth to come. Our “holy and godly” lives should be a testimony to those who do not know the Savior, and we should tell others about Him so they can escape the terrible fate that awaits those who reject Him. We wait in eager anticipation for God’s “Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10\).
What is the Shekinah glory?	Answer The word shekinah does not appear in the Bible, but the concept clearly does. The Jewish rabbis coined this extra\-biblical expression, a form of a Hebrew word that literally means “he caused to dwell,” signifying that it was a divine visitation of the presence or dwelling of the Lord God on this earth. The Shekinah was first evident when the Israelites set out from [Succoth](Valley-of-Succoth.html) in their escape from Egypt. There the Lord appeared in a cloudy pillar in the day and a fiery pillar by night: “After leaving Succoth they camped at Etham on the edge of the desert. By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people” (Exodus 13:20–22\). God spoke to Moses out of the pillar of cloud in Exodus 33, assuring him that His Presence would be with the Israelites (v. 9\). Verse 11 says God spoke to Moses “face to face” out of the cloud, but when Moses asked to see God’s glory, God told Him, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (v. 20\). So, apparently, the visible manifestation of God’s glory was somewhat muted. When Moses asked to see God’s glory, God hid Moses in the cleft of a rock, covered him with His hand, and passed by. Then He removed His hand, and Moses saw only His back. This would seem to indicate that God’s glory is too awesome and powerful to be seen completely by man. The visible manifestation of God’s presence was seen not only by the Israelites but also by the Egyptians: “During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. He made the wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, ‘Let’s get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt’” (Exodus 14:24\-25\). Just the presence of God’s Shekinah glory was enough to convince His enemies that He was not someone to be resisted. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the dwelling place of God’s glory. Colossians 2:9 tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” causing Jesus to exclaim to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9\). In Christ, we see the visible manifestation of God Himself in the second person of the Trinity. Although His glory was also veiled, Jesus is nonetheless the presence of God on earth. Just as the divine Presence dwelled in a relatively plain tent called the “tabernacle” before the Temple in Jerusalem was built, so did the Presence dwell in the relatively plain man who was Jesus. “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2\). But when we get to heaven, we will see both the Son and the Father in all their glory, and the Shekinah will no longer be veiled (1 John 3:2\).
What is bibliolatry?	Answer The term bibliolatry comes from combining the Greek words for Bible and worship. In a Christian context, simply stated, bibliolatry is the worship of the Bible. Typically, the accusation of bibliolatry is used as an attack on those who hold to the inerrancy, infallibility, and supremacy of Scripture. It is often employed as an inflammatory and derogatory attack on believers who hold to “sola scriptura” and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is important to note that the charge of bibliolatry does not claim some Christians literally bow down before a Bible and worship it, as if it were an idol. While there may be some strange cult out there that literally worships the Bible, that is not what bibliolatry is referring to. The accusation of bibliolatry is that some Christians elevate the Bible to the point that it is equal with God, or to the point that studying the Bible is more important than developing a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. Is the charge of bibliolatry accurate? First, it is important to understand what the Bible says about itself. Second Timothy 3:16\-17 declares, “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.” So, if the Bible is “God\-breathed,” and “God does not lie” (Titus 1:2\), then every word in the Bible must be true. Believing in an inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Bible is not bibliolatry. Rather, it is simply believing what the Bible says about itself. Further, believing what the Bible says about itself is in fact worshiping the God who breathed out His Word. Only a perfect, infallible, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God could create written revelation that is itself perfect and infallible. Do some believers emphasize the Bible to the point that other things of importance—such as tradition, nature, reason, and experience—are neglected? Yes. However, the Bible, based on what it says about itself, must be a higher authority than any of these and must, in fact, be the authority against which they are judged. God would never contradict Himself by revealing something in nature, reason, or experience that disagrees with what He revealed in His Word. The Bible is not to be worshiped, but the God of the Bible is to be worshiped. To ignore what God has revealed about Himself in His Word and instead elevate the subjective “revelations” of nature, reason, and experience is idolatry (Romans 1:18\-25\). The Bible is not God. The Bible does not contain all of God’s knowledge. While the Bible gives principles that apply to every situation, it does not explicitly give us all the information we need to daily live our lives. Part of the problem is that some Christians take the saying “the Bible says it, that settles it, I believe it” to extremes. While the statement is absolutely true and should reflect how we view the Bible, God’s Word does not instruct us to abandon our brains or ignore our experiences. True reason is completely compatible with Scripture. Experience can help us in our understanding of Scripture. While the Bible must be our authority, we must also use it to confirm and verify the conclusions we reach with our God\-given reason and God\-directed experience (1 Peter 3:15\). Believing what the Bible says about itself is not bibliolatry. Rather, accepting God’s Word for what it claims to be is in fact worshiping the God who breathed it.
What is natural theology?	Answer Natural theology is the study of God based on the observation of nature, as distinct from "supernatural" or revealed theology, which is based on special revelation. Because observing nature is an intellectual pursuit, natural theology involves human philosophy and reasoning as means of knowing God. By examining the structure and function of a snapdragon bloom, I might reasonably conclude that the God who created the snapdragon is powerful and wise—that is natural theology. By examining the context and meaning of John 3:16, I might reasonably conclude that God is loving and generous—that is revealed theology. The division of theology into "natural" and "revealed" had its roots in the writings of Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224 \- 1274\). In an attempt to apply Aristotelian logic to the Christian faith, Aquinas emphasized man’s ability to comprehend certain truths about God from nature alone. However, Aquinas maintained that human reason was still secondary to God’s revelation, as taught by the Church. Aquinas was careful to distinguish what could be learned through "natural reason" from doctrinal tenets, calling the truths gleaned from nature "preambles to the articles \[of faith]" ([Summa Theologica](Summa-Theologica.html), First Part, Question 2, Article 2\). That is, reason may lead to faith, but it cannot replace faith. Later theologians took Aquinas’s idea and expanded it. Other writers emphasizing natural theology were Samuel Clarke, William Paley, and [Immanuel Kant](Immanuel-Kant.html). Over the years, the miraculous was downplayed as Christianity was reduced more and more to a "rational" philosophy. The deists relied solely on natural theology for their knowledge of God, to the complete exclusion of special revelation. To the deist, God is unknowable except through nature, and the Bible is unnecessary. This is why Thomas Jefferson, a deist, literally cut all the accounts of miracles from his Bible—Jefferson wanted a natural theology only. The Romantic poets, as a whole, were proponents of natural theology. Although they stressed man’s emotion over his intellect, they were constantly extolling the virtue and transcendence of nature. One very clear presentation of natural theology is William Wordsworth’s famous poem "The Rainbow," which ends with these lines: "And I could wish my days to be / Bound each to each by natural piety." Wordsworth expressly wishes for a "natural" (versus a "supernatural") piety. His spirituality is rooted in the natural world; the joy he feels at the sight of a rainbow is, for him, the truest worship of God. Those today who say, "I feel closer to God on a walk through the forest than I do at church" are expressing Wordsworth’s brand of natural theology. An undue emphasis on natural theology has even accommodated pantheism. Some have gone past the idea that nature is an expression of God to the idea that nature is an extension of God. Since, the logic goes, we are part of nature, then we are all a little part of God, and we can therefore know Him. In more modern times, "natural theology" can also refer to the attempt to synthesize human knowledge from every area of science, religion, history, and the arts. The new natural theology pursues a transcendent "encompassing reality" in which mankind exists, but the focus is humanity, not God; consequently, it is really another form of humanism. Here are some biblical points concerning natural theology: 1\) The Bible teaches that a basic understanding of God can be gained from the natural world; specifically, we can see "his eternal power and divine nature" (Romans 1:20\). We call this "general revelation" (see also Psalm 19:1\-3\). 2\) The context of Romans 1 indicates that such a basic understanding of God’s existence and power is not enough to lead a person to salvation. In fact, the pagan’s inherent knowledge of God (through nature) has been distorted, leading to judgment rather than to salvation. 3\) Natural theology can cause someone to theorize that God is invisible, omnipotent, and wise, but these are all abstract characteristics of an unnamed "Supreme Being." Natural theology cannot teach the love, mercy, or judgment of God, and it is worthless for bringing anyone to saving faith in Jesus Christ. "How can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14\). 4\) The fall of man has affected the whole person, including the intellect. A reliance on natural theology assumes that human reason has not been tainted by original sin, yet Scripture speaks of the "depraved mind" (Romans 1:28\), the "sinful mind" (Romans 8:7\), the "corrupt mind" (1 Timothy 6:5\), the "dull" mind (2 Corinthians 3:14\), the "blinded" mind (2 Corinthians 4:4\), and the need for the mind to be renewed (Romans 12:2\). Natural theology is useful insofar as God has created the world and the world still points to Him as Creator. However, given the fallen state of our intellect, we cannot properly interpret even that without God’s special revelation. We need God’s gracious intervention to find our way back to Him. What we need more than anything is faith in the Bible and in Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:19\).
What does it mean to find God?	Answer To “find God” is a rather nebulous expression that can mean different things to different people. For some, the phrase find God is synonymous with getting religion, whatever religion that may be. For others, to “find God” means to “clean up one’s life,” usually with the help of a higher power. It is sometimes used derogatorily to describe a spiritual transformation of questionable authenticity. In any case, to “find God” involves a change in someone’s attitude and/or behavior. There are several people in Scripture who earnestly sought to find God. In his distress, [Job](life-Job.html) cried out, “If only I knew where to find God, I would go to his court” in order to argue his case before the Judge of the universe (Job 23:3\). The [sons of Korah](sons-of-Korah.html) expressed their desire to find God: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God?” (Psalm 42:1–2\). Biblically speaking, to find God means to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It is only through Jesus that anyone can come to God (John 14:6\), and receiving Christ results in a spiritual transformation (2 Corinthians 5:17\). Therefore, to find God is to recognize one’s need of salvation and exercise faith in Christ. The result of finding God is living the Christian life. The Bible says that we do not naturally seek God (Psalm 14:2–3\). God commands us to forsake our sin and seek Him (Isaiah 55:6–7\). Those who seek and find God receive mercy and goodness (Psalm 9:10; 22:26\). The Israelites had God’s promise that, if in the midst of their exile they sought to find God, they would surely find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29\). God wants to be found. He delights in mercy and forgiveness, and He is close to all who would call on Him. As Paul taught, “God \[deals with us] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27\).
Was the Lakeland, Florida, revival led by Todd Bentley of Fresh Fire Ministries a true biblical revival?	Answer The Lakeland Revival of 2008 in Lakeland, Florida, sometimes called the Lakeland Outpouring or the Florida Healing Outpouring, was not a true biblical revival. The leader of the revival, Fresh Fire Ministries’ Todd Bentley, is himself a [false teacher](false-teachers.html), and the thousands of people who went to Lakeland for healing or to hear a word from God were misled. Todd Bentley (born 1976\), is a Canadian\-born ex\-convict convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault prior to becoming a minister and itinerant evangelist. As the leader of Fresh Fire Ministries of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Bentley traveled throughout North America for the purpose of what his website called “power evangelism and healing ministry.” In April 2008 he was invited to lead a one\-week revival at Ignited Church in Lakeland, Florida. He stayed for over four months. Throughout his ministry, Bentley set himself up as something special, claiming to have met with the apostle Paul and Jesus Christ, to regularly speak to angels, to perform miracles, and even to raise the dead. In his popular [Charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html) revivals, he led overflowing crowds in ecstatic displays of religious fervor. Unsurprisingly, Bentley’s revival in Lakeland focused on spectacle. He claimed the ability to generate oil from his palms and produce gold dust from his pores. According to a story published in the St. Petersburg Times, Bentley claimed to heal people violently, “kicking a woman in the face, slamming a crippled woman’s legs against the stage and knocking out a man’s tooth. This was done, he claimed, on behalf of the Holy Spirit” (Lake, T., “Todd Bentley's revival in Lakeland draws 400,000 and counting,” 6/30/08\). Of course, he asked for money, saying, “Generosity and the anointing go hand in hand” (ibid.). The Lakeland Revival was promoted by several prominent leaders in the Charismatic movement, including Ché Ahn, [John Arnott](Toronto-blessing.html), [Bill Johnson](Bethel-Church-Redding.html), and Rick Joyner. On June 23, 2008, a group of “[apostles](false-apostles.html)” and “[prophets](prophets-today.html)” met on stage in Lakeland to commission Bentley and endorse his ministry. Self\-proclaimed “apostle” Peter Wagner said, “I take the apostolic authority that God has given me and I decree to Todd Bentley, your power will increase, your authority will increase, your favor will increase, your influence will increase, your revelation will increase” (Buseck, C., “Apostolic Leaders Commission Lakeland Revival Leader Todd Bentley,” https://www1\.cbn.com, 6/25/08, accessed 1/10/22\). How wrong Wagner was in his “apostolic decree”! In August 2008, less than two months after his apostolic commissioning, Todd Bentley left the Lakeland Revival and resigned from Fresh Fire Ministries. Soon thereafter, he announced that he and his wife were separating, and the couple later divorced. Bentley went through a “restoration” process and in 2009 remarried. Eventually, Bentley went on tour again, preaching in South Africa and Pakistan. Allegations of continued sexual misconduct followed him wherever he went, however. In 2019, a panel of Charismatic leaders investigated the claims leveled against Bentley. In January 2020, they released a statement that found “credible accusations of a steady pattern of ungodly and immoral behavior” dating back to 2004 and verified by an independent investigator (Brown, M., “Official Statement from the Leadership Panel on Todd Bentley,” https://askdrbrown.org, 1/2/20, accessed 1/10/22\). The panel’s conclusion was that Bentley is “without a doubt” unfit for ministry (ibid.). Bentley disagreed: he “denounced the panel as unbiblical” and “rejected the panel’s methods and findings” (Smietana, B., “Todd Bentley Investigation Finds ‘Steady Pattern’ of Immoral Conduct,” Christianity Today, 1/3/20\). Jesus said concerning false teachers, “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:20\), and by his fruit of immorality we know Todd Bentley to be a false teacher. Do not be deceived by him. His [Latter Rain](latter-rain-movement.html) doctrine, his promotion of [Joel’s Army](Joels-Army.html) theology, his emphasis on angels, his bizarre, violent healing methods, his embrace of [William Branham’s](Branhamism.html) legacy, and his repeated adultery are all warning signs that should keep believers far away: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, NASB). “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, NKJV). Bentley continues in ministry through Fresh Fire USA Ministries based in Fort Mill, South Carolina, and Revival Harvest Ministries in Pineville, North Carolina. He still travels to speak at various “outpouring” revivals, operates several Charismatic schools, and hosts the podcast “Supernatural Living with Todd Bentley.”
What is Pauline Christianity?	Answer Pauline Christianity is a term applied to what some perceive as the religious teaching unique to Paul’s writings and distinct from the gospel of Jesus. That is, Jesus taught one thing, and Paul taught something completely different. Those who believe in a separate Pauline Christianity believe that the Christianity of today has little to do with Jesus’ teachings; rather, it is the product of Paul’s corruption of those teachings. We believe that the New Testament is a unified whole: the Gospels present the life and work of Jesus the Messiah; the Epistles explain the meaning and scope of Jesus’ work and apply it to daily living. For example, Matthew 28 narrates the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, and 1 Corinthians 15 explains the significance of His resurrection. Mark 15:38 tells of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died; Hebrews 10:11\-23 reveals the import of that event. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Gospels also inspired the Epistles to give us a fuller understanding of God’s plan of salvation. However, those who theorize about a separate “Pauline Christianity” tell a different story: Jesus, a great teacher, considered himself to be the long\-awaited Messiah for the Jews. He believed that God would overthrow Rome and bring His kingdom to earth. In preparation for this, Jesus taught a message of unconditional love, tolerance, and non\-judgmental acceptance of everyone. Alas, Jesus’ mission of inaugurating a new earthly age failed when the Romans crucified him. Jesus’ followers, believing that God had raised their rabbi from the dead, continued to meet in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, Jesus’ brother. Their intention was to await the still\-coming kingdom and continue observing Jesus’ brand of enlightened Judaism. But along came Saul of Tarsus, who faked a conversion in order to infiltrate the church. Peter and James and others who had actually known Jesus were suspicious of Saul, who had never met Jesus. Then Saul, who started calling himself “Paul,” had a stroke of genius. He artfully combined traditional Hebrew ideas with those of pagan Greek philosophy, creating a new religion that could appeal to both Jews and Gentiles. He began preaching that Jesus was actually God, that Jesus’ death was linked to the Jewish system of sacrifice, that one could be saved by simply believing, and that the Mosaic law was obsolete. Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence. One of Paul’s fervent followers wrote the book of Acts, which gave Paul legendary status with its glowing portrayal of him as the hero of the church. Later, four unknown writers gathered scraps of information about Jesus and wrote books they called “Matthew,” “Mark,” Luke,” and “John”—but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion. In short, Paul was a charlatan, an evangelical huckster who succeeded in twisting Jesus’ message of love into something Jesus himself would never recognize. It was Paul, not Jesus, who originated the “Christianity” of today. Commonly, those who hold to the above theory also believe the following: 1\) Jesus was not divine. He never claimed to be God, and he never intended to start a new religion. 2\) The Bible is not an inspired book and is riddled with contradictions. None of the Bible, except possibly the book of James, was written by anyone who knew Jesus. There are fragments of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, but it is difficult to discern what he really said. 3\) Paul was never a Pharisee and was not highly educated. His “conversion” was either a personal hallucinogenic experience or an outright fraud. His claims to be an apostle were attempts to further his own authority in the church. 4\) Pauline theological “inventions” include a) the deity of Jesus; b) salvation by grace through faith; c) salvation through the blood of Jesus; d) the sinless nature of Jesus; e) the concept of original sin; and f) the Holy Spirit. None of these “new doctrines” were accepted by Jesus’ true followers. 5\) The Gnostic Gospels are closer to the truth about Jesus than are the traditional four Gospels of the Bible. The concept of “Pauline Christianity” represents an outright attack on the Bible as the Word of God. Adherents of the “Pauline Christianity” theory are truly misrepresenting Jesus’ teachings. They choose to believe His words on love but deny His teachings on judgment (such as Matthew 24\). They insist on a human Jesus, denying His divinity, although Jesus plainly taught His equality with God in passages such as John 10:30\. They want a “loving” Jesus without having to accept Him as Lord and Savior. Any time a skeptic finds a “disagreeable” doctrine in the Bible, he is likely to say, “That passage has been corrupted,” or, “Paul wrote that, and we know he was a liar.” Where the Gospels teach a “Pauline” doctrine, such as Jesus’ atonement for sin in John 1:29, the skeptic dismisses it as “inserted by devotees of Paul.” In reality, the skeptic’s only basis for such a selective approach to Scripture is a personal bias against the idea of Jesus’ atonement. Interestingly, Paul’s credentials as an apostle were attacked, even in his own lifetime, by those who desired to lead the church into legalism and other errant ideologies. Paul defends himself from the spurious attacks of false teachers in 1 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 12; and Galatians 1\. Paul’s apostleship is attested to by the miracles he performed (Romans 15:19\), the training he received (Galatians 1:15\-20\), and the testimony of the other apostles. Peter, far from being Paul’s enemy, wrote this about him: “Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15\-16\).
What is the Satanic bible?	Answer The Satanic bible is a collection of essays, composed and compiled in 1969 by Anton LaVey, detailing the basic, fundamental Satanic rituals and ideology. Its proponents regard the Satanic bible as the foundation of the Satanic paradigm, while maintaining that the book is not subject to revision nor interpretation and that no ritual or ideology contrary to what is depicted in the Satanic bible is compatible with Satanism. Note – the vast majority of Satanists do not even believe in the existence of a personal being named Satan. Rather, Satan is a symbol of struggle against a tyrannical God. The Satanic bible is divided into four books, namely, “The Book of Satan,” “The Book of Lucifer,” “The Book of Belial,” and finally “The Book of Leviathan.” It is generally believed that LaVey obtained this hierarchy from “The Book of the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage,” in which the above four demons are said to be the chiefs of hell. Each book addresses a different principle of Satanism, and serves a unique purpose within the book as a whole. The Satanic bible builds upon the traditional secular humanistic philosophy that each individual can be his or her own “god.” This leads to the arrogant and self\-centered worldview that man on his own can determine truth, independent of any notion of God or higher authority. This is clearly in sharp contrast with the biblical teaching that we will be held accountable to God for all things we have done in this life (Jeremiah 17:10\) and is the same deception which Satan fed to Eve in the Garden of Eden, asserting that “…you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5\). The Satanic bible argues that sin is an inherent part of mankind’s character and is, for the most part, not immoral or shameful. The argument goes that Christianity chose carefully such actions which are part of mankind’s instinctual drive to declare as sin in order to ensure man’s continued dependence on Christ and His mercy. LaVey argues that sin in the biblical sense is to be encouraged rather than frowned upon. Conversely, the Bible teaches that sin is indeed an inherent part of human nature, for “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9\). The Bible makes it emphatically clear that the ultimate consequence of sin is death and eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23\) and also offers words of encouragement: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it” (1 Corinthians 10:13\). Same\-sex relationships and other forms of sexually immoral behavior are openly condoned by the Satanic bible. On page 69 of the Satanic bible, LaVey states that “Satanism encourages any form of sexual expression you may desire, so long as it hurts no one else.” This is also expressly in conflict with the Bible, which makes it abundantly clear the place of sexual relations is exclusively within the context of marriage, which is intended by God as a relationship between one man and one woman for life. First Corinthians 6:18\-20 commands us to “flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” The teaching of the Satanic bible concerning the existence of the afterlife is that there is no such thing as life after death, and thus life must be lived to the full in this world. This is the premise on which many of the Satanic teachings are based, for it removes the element of accountability. Hebrews 9:27, however, indicates that “man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” There are two ultimate afterlife destinations—heaven and hell. After death, the determination of where one will spend eternity is absolute and final. The destination to which one is headed is dependent on whether one has accepted Christ as personal Savior, through faith, and thus has received his free gift of salvation made available through the death of Christ, paying the penalty for man’s sin. In conclusion, the Satanic bible and its pertaining dogma is to be considered diametrically opposed to the key principles of Christianity. The Satanic religion is based on unbiblical and false doctrines. Eternal destruction is the only thing that will result from its false teaching. The fires of hell will be a bitter reality for those who have been taught that hell does not exist.
What is a “dark night of the soul”?	Answer The phrase “dark night of the soul” comes from a poem by [St. John of the Cross](St-John-of-the-Cross.html) (1542\-1591\), a Spanish Carmelite monk and mystic, whose Noche obscura del alma is translated “The Dark Night of the Soul.” This eight\-stanza poem outlines the soul’s journey from the distractions and entanglements of the world to the perfect peace and harmony of union with God. According to the poet, the “dark night of the soul” is synonymous with traveling the “narrow way” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:13\-14\. The monk taught that one seeking God will cast off all attachments to this world and live a life of austerity. Before attaining union with God, however, the soul must pass through a personal experience of Christ’s passion. This time of testing and agony is accompanied by confusion, fear, and uncertainty—including doubts of God—but on the other side are Christ’s glory, serenity, and a mystical union with God. The dark night is not pleasant, but to the end that it allows one to approach nearer to God and His love, the poet calls it a “happy night” and a “night more lovely than the dawn.” At the end of one’s journey, he concludes, God takes away all feeling, leaving the traveler senseless to everything except the presence of God Himself. From a theological standpoint, the concept of a dark night of the soul fits with the Catholic teaching of the necessity of purgatory and of earning God’s favor through penance and other works. However, the idea of a step\-by\-step process of self\-denial and affliction culminating in glory is not taught in Scripture. Jesus predicted that His followers would face persecution (John 15:20\), but He also gives His peace to those same followers (John 14:27\). A believer has God’s peace now; he doesn’t have to experience a “dark night” first (Romans 5:1\). The child of God is already seated “in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6\). Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught a “dark night of the soul.” The ideas contained in “The Dark Night of the Soul” have been applied in contexts outside of Catholicism. Protestants have been known to use the phrase to describe a period of questioning one’s salvation. And the phrase is sometimes used generically to describe any type of mental, emotional, or spiritual anguish.
What does it mean to abide in Christ?	Answer To “abide” is to live, continue, or remain; so, to abide in Christ is to live in Him or remain in Him. When a person is saved, he or she is described as being “in Christ” (Romans 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17\), held secure in a permanent relationship (John 10:28–29\). Therefore, abiding in Christ is not a special level of Christian experience, rather, it is the position of all true believers. The difference between those abiding in Christ and those not abiding in Christ is the difference between the saved and the unsaved. Abiding in Christ is taught in 1 John 2:5–6, where it is synonymous with “knowing” Christ (verses 2 and 3\). Later in the same chapter, John equates “remaining” in the Father and the Son with having the promise of eternal life (verses 24 and 25\). Biblically, “abiding in,” “remaining in,” and “knowing” Christ are references to the same thing: salvation. The phrase abiding in Christ pictures an intimate, close relationship, and not just a superficial acquaintance. In John 15:4–7, Jesus tells His disciples that drawing life from Him is essential, using the picture of branches united to a vine: “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” Without that vital [union with Christ](union-with-Christ.html) that salvation provides, there can be no life and no productivity. Elsewhere, the Bible likens our relationship with Christ to that of a body with a head (Colossians 1:18\)—another essential union. Some people take the warning of John 15:6 (branches that do not abide in the vine are thrown away and burned) to mean that Christians are always in danger of losing their salvation. In other words, they say it’s possible to be saved but not “abide,” in which case we would be cast away. But this could only be true if “abiding” were separate from salvation, referring to a state of intimacy with Christ we must strive to attain post\-salvation. The Bible is clear that salvation comes by grace and is maintained by grace (Galatians 3:2–3\). Also, if a branch could somehow fall away from the vine, resulting in the loss of salvation, then other, very clear passages of Scripture would be contradicted (see John 10:27–30\). It is best to interpret the [True Vine](true-vine.html) metaphor this way: Jesus is the True Vine, obviously. The branches who “abide” in Him are the truly saved—they have a real and vital connection to the Savior. The withered branches who do not “abide” in Him are the unsaved pretenders who feigned an attachment to the Vine but drew no life from Him. In the end, the pretenders will be seen for what they were: hangers\-on who had no authentic attachment to Jesus. For a while, both Peter and Judas seemed identical in their walk with Christ. But Peter was attached to the Vine; Judas was not. John restates the withered\-branch principle this way: “They \[people now opposed to Christ] went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19\). One of the proofs of salvation is [perseverance](perseverance-saints.html), or sustained abiding in Christ. The saved will continue in their walk with Christ (see Revelation 2:26\). That is, they will “abide” or remain in Him. God will complete His work in them (Philippians 1:6\), and they will bring forth much fruit to the glory of God (John 15:5\). Those who fall away, turn their backs on Christ, or fail to abide simply show their lack of saving faith. Abiding is not what saves us, but it is one of the signs of salvation. Proofs of abiding in Christ (i.e., proofs that one is truly saved and not just pretending) include obedience to Christ’s commands (John 15:10; 1 John 3:24\); following Jesus’ example (1 John 2:6\); living free from habitual sin (1 John 3:6\); and the awareness of a divine presence within one’s life (1 John 4:13\).
How is Jesus our Sabbath Rest?	Answer The key to understanding how Jesus is our Sabbath rest is the Hebrew word sabat, which means "to rest or stop or cease from work." The origin of the Sabbath goes back to Creation. After creating the heavens and the earth in six days, God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made" (Genesis 2:2\). This doesn’t mean that God was tired and needed a rest. We know that God is omnipotent, literally "all\-powerful." He has all the power in the universe, He never tires, and His most arduous expenditure of energy does not diminish His power one bit. So, what does it mean that God rested on the seventh day? Simply that He stopped what He was doing. He ceased from His labors. This is important in understanding the establishment of the Sabbath day and the role of Christ as our Sabbath rest. God used the example of His resting on the seventh day of Creation to establish the principle of the Sabbath day rest for His people. In Exodus 20:8\-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12\-15, God gave the Israelites the fourth of His Ten Commandments. They were to "remember" the Sabbath day and "keep it holy." One day out of every seven, they were to rest from their labors and give the same day of rest to their servants and animals. This was not just a physical rest, but a cessation of laboring. Whatever work they were engaged in was to stop for a full day each week. (Please read our other articles on the [Sabbath day](Sabbath-day-rest.html), [Saturday vs. Sunday](Saturday-Sunday.html) and [Sabbath keeping](Sabbath-keeping.html) to explore this issue further.) The Sabbath day was established so the people would rest from their labors, only to begin again after a one\-day rest. The various elements of the Sabbath symbolized the coming of the Messiah, who would provide a permanent rest for His people. Once again the example of resting from our labors comes into play. With the establishment of the Old Testament Law, the Jews were constantly "laboring" to make themselves acceptable to God. Their labors included trying to obey a myriad of do’s and don’ts of the ceremonial law, the Temple law, the civil law, etc. Of course they couldn’t possibly keep all those laws, so God provided an array of sin offerings and sacrifices so they could come to Him for forgiveness and restore fellowship with Him, but only temporarily. Just as they began their physical labors after a one\-day rest, so, too, did they have to continue to offer sacrifices. Hebrews 10:1 tells us that the law "can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship." But these sacrifices were offered in anticipation of the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross, who "after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right of God" (Hebrews 10:12\). Just as He rested after performing the ultimate sacrifice, He sat down and rested—ceased from His labor of atonement because there was nothing more to be done, ever. Because of what He did, we no longer have to "labor" in law\-keeping in order to be justified in the sight of God. Jesus was sent so that we might rest in God and in what He has provided. Another element of the Sabbath day rest which God instituted as a foreshadowing of our complete rest in Christ is that He blessed it, sanctified it, and made it holy. Here again we see the symbol of Christ as our Sabbath rest—the holy, perfect Son of God who sanctifies and makes holy all who believe in Him. God sanctified Christ, just as He sanctified the Sabbath day, and sent Him into the world (John 10:36\) to be our sacrifice for sin. In Him we find complete rest from the labors of our self\-effort, because He alone is holy and righteous. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21\). We can now cease from our spiritual labors and rest in Him, not just one day a week, but always. Jesus can be our Sabbath rest in part because He is "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8\). As God incarnate, He decides the true meaning of the Sabbath because He created it, and He is our Sabbath rest in the flesh. When the Pharisees criticized Him for [healing on the Sabbath](heal-on-the-Sabbath.html), Jesus reminded them that even they, sinful as they were, would not hesitate to pull a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. Because He came to seek and save His sheep who would hear His voice (John 10:3,27\) and enter into the Sabbath rest He provided by paying for their sins, He could break the Sabbath rules. He told the Pharisees that people are more important than sheep and the salvation He provided was more important than rules. By saying, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27\), Jesus was restating the principle that the Sabbath rest was instituted to relieve man of his labors, just as He came to relieve us of our attempting to achieve salvation by our works. We no longer rest for only one day, but forever cease our laboring to attain God’s favor. Jesus is our rest from works now, just as He is the door to heaven, where we will rest in Him forever. Hebrews 4 is the definitive passage regarding Jesus as our Sabbath rest. The writer to the Hebrews exhorts his readers to “enter in” to the Sabbath rest provided by Christ. After three chapters of telling them that Jesus is superior to the angels and that He is our Apostle and High Priest, he pleads with them to not harden their hearts against Him, as their fathers hardened their hearts against the Lord in the wilderness. Because of their unbelief, God denied that generation access to the holy land, saying, “They shall not enter into My rest” (Hebrews 3:11\). In the same way, the writer to the Hebrews begs his readers not to make the same mistake by rejecting God’s Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ. “There remains, then, a Sabbath\-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:9–11\). There is no other Sabbath rest besides Jesus. He alone satisfies the requirements of the Law, and He alone provides the sacrifice that atones for sin. He is God’s plan for us to cease from the labor of our own works. We dare not reject this one\-and\-only Way of salvation (John 14:6\). God’s reaction to those who choose to reject His plan is seen in Numbers 15\. A man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, in spite of God’s plain commandment to cease from all labor on the Sabbath. This transgression was a known and willful sin, done with unblushing boldness in broad daylight, in open defiance of the divine authority. “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp’” (verse 35\). So it will be to all who reject God’s provision for our Sabbath rest in Christ. “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” (Hebrews 2:3\).
What does selah mean in the Bible?	Answer The word selah is found in two books of the Bible, but is most prevalent in the Psalms, where it appears 71 times. It also appears three times in the third chapter of the minor prophet Habakkuk. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the meaning of selah. Most versions of the Bible do not attempt to translate selah but simply transliterate the word straight from the Hebrew. The Septuagint translated the word as “daplasma” (“a division”). Well\-meaning Bible scholars disagree on the definition of selah and on its root word, but since God has ordained that it be included in His Word, we should make an effort to find out, as best we can, the meaning. One possible Hebrew word related to selah is calah, which means “to hang” or “to measure or weigh in the balances.” Referring to wisdom, Job says, “The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it, neither shall it be valued with pure gold” (Job 28:19\). The word translated “valued” in this verse is the Hebrew calah. Here Job is saying that wisdom is beyond comparing against even jewels, and when weighed in the balance against wisdom, the finest jewels cannot equal its value. Selah is also thought to be rendered from two Hebrew words: s\_lah, “to praise”; and s\_lal, “to lift up.” Another commentator believes it comes from salah, “to pause.” From salah comes the belief that selah is a musical notation signifying a rest to the singers and/or instrumentalists who performed the psalms. If this is true, then each time selah appears in a psalm, the musicians paused, perhaps to take a breath, to sing a cappella, or to let the instruments play alone. Perhaps they were pausing to praise the One about whom the song was speaking, perhaps even lifting their hands in worship. This theory would encompass all these meanings—“praise,” “lift up,” and “pause.” When we consider the three verses in Habakkuk, we also see how selah could mean “to pause and praise.” Habakkuk’s prayer in chapter 3 inspires the reader to pause and praise God for His mercy, power, sustaining grace, and sufficiency. Perhaps the best way to think of selah is a combination of all these meanings. The Amplified Bible adds “pause and calmly think about that” to each verse where selah appears. When we see the word selah in a psalm or in Habakkuk 3, we should pause to carefully weigh the meaning of what we have just read or heard, lifting up our hearts in praise to God for His great truths. “All the earth bows down to you; they sing praise to you, they sing the praises of your name. Selah!” (Psalm 66:4\).
What is the glory of God?	Answer The glory of God is the beauty of His spirit. It is not an aesthetic beauty or a material beauty, but the beauty that emanates from His character, from all that He is. The glory of man—human dignity and honor—fades (1 Peter 1:24\). But the glory of God, which is manifested in all His [attributes together](attributes-God.html), never passes away. It is eternal. Moses requested of God, “Now show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18\). In His response, God equates His glory with “all my goodness” (verse 19\). “But,” God said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (verse 20\). So, God hid Moses in “a cleft in the rock” to protect him from the fulness of God’s glory as it passed by (verses 21–23\). No mortal can view God’s excelling splendor without being utterly overwhelmed. The glory of God puts the pride of man to shame: “Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust, From the terror of the Lord And the glory of His majesty. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, The haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day” (Isaiah 2:10–11, NKJV). Often, in the Old Testament, the manifestation of God’s glory was accompanied by supernatural fire, thick clouds, and a great quaking of the earth. We see these phenomena when God gave the law to Moses: “[Mount Sinai](mount-Sinai-significance.html) was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently” (Exodus 19:18; see also Deuteronomy 5:24–25; 1 Kings 8:10–11; and Isaiah 6:1–4\). The prophet Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of God was full of fire and lightning and tumultuous sounds, after which he saw “what looked like a throne of lapis lazuli, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezekiel 1:26–28\). In the New Testament, the glory of God is revealed in His Son, Jesus Christ: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14\). Jesus came as “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of \[God’s] people Israel” (Luke 2:32\). The miracles that Jesus did were “signs through which he revealed his glory” (John 2:11\). In Christ, the glory of God is meekly veiled, approachable, and knowable. He promises to return some day “on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30\). Isaiah 43:7 says that God saved Israel for His glory—in the redeemed will be seen the distillation of God’s grace and power and faithfulness. The natural world also exhibits God’s glory, revealed to all men, no matter their race, heritage, or location. As Psalm 19:1–4 says, “The [heavens declare](heavens-declare-glory-God.html) the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” Psalm 73:24 calls heaven itself “glory.” Sometimes Christians speak of death as being “received unto glory,” a phrase borrowed from this psalm. When the Christian dies, he or she will be taken into God’s presence and surrounded by God’s glory and majesty. In that place, His glory will be seen clearly: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12\). In the future New Jerusalem, the glory of God will be manifest: “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp” (Revelation 21:23\). God will not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; cf. Exodus 34:14\). Yet this is the very thing that people try to steal. Scripture indicts all idolaters: “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:22–23\). Only God is eternal, and His perfect and eternal attributes of holiness, majesty, goodness, love, etc., are not to be exchanged for the imperfections and corruption of anything in this world.
I am a Jehovah’s Witness. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?	Answer Perhaps the most important commonality between Evangelical Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses is our belief and trust in the Bible as the ultimate authority inspired by God, on issues concerning God and His expectations for us. While we may understand things differently, Jehovah’s Witnesses are to be highly commended for their dependence on and diligence in studying the Holy Scriptures to know God and His will. Like the Bereans, we would be wise to examine all things in life, in light of the Scriptures. To that end, we shall examine verses of the New World Translation (the version of the Bible published by their Watchtower Society) to clear up some common misunderstandings. A Rose by Any Other Name… Christians get their name from being followers and worshipers of Jesus Christ, first called “Christians” in Antioch during Paul’s ministry (Acts 11:26\). Paul repeatedly made it clear that to be a Christian was to be a witness to men concerning the person of Christ, to be a witness to the words and works of Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that we are to focus our worship exclusively on God the Father (who is referred to in some Bible translations as “Jehovah”). The name Jehovah, however, was a hybrid name created by Christians by adding vowels to the tetragrammaton YHWH, which was the original rendering of what we now know as Yahweh. Evangelical Christians understand Jesus to be God in all His fullness, equal in deity but different in function from God the Father. Christians acknowledge that one of the historic names for God the Father is Jehovah; however, there are many other names and titles that the Scriptures use in reference to God the Father. Jehovah’s Witnesses understand Jesus to be Michael the Archangel, and categorically deny His deity. As we shall see, if we understand Jesus to be anything other than God, many verses present obvious contradictions. However, we know that God’s Word is inerrant and does not contradict itself. Therefore, we must understand the truth of God’s Word in a way that is consistent and faithful to His revelation. You will notice that these same verses lack any contradiction if we understand Jesus to be God the Son—the fullness of God in bodily form—who surrendered His rights to be the suffering servant and sacrifice for our sin. (All verses are quoted directly from the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation.) God’s Glory (Verses regarding God the Father) Isaiah 42:8 “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.” Isaiah 48:11 “…And to no one else shall I give my own glory.” (Verses regarding Jesus) John 8:54 “…It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is YOUR God” John 16:14 “That one will glorify me…” John 17:1 “…Father, the hour has come; glorify your son…” John 17:5 “So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.” Philippians 2:10 “so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground” Hebrews 5:5 “So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but \[was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him; ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.” The Savior (About the Father) Isaiah 43:3 “For I am Jehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel your Savior.” Isaiah 43:11 “I am Jehovah and besides me there is no savior.” Isaiah 45:21 “Is it not I, Jehovah besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?” (About Jesus) Luke 2:11 “because there was born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord…” Acts 13:23 “From the offspring of this \[man] according to his promise God has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus.” Titus 1:4 “…May there be underserved kindness and peace from God \[the] Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” Whose name are we to have faith in? (said about Jesus or by Jesus) John 14:12 “Most truly I say to YOU, He that exercises faith in me, that one also will do the works that I do…” Acts 4:12 “Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 26:18 “…and inheritance among those sanctified by \[their] faith in me.” Revelation 2:13 “I know where you are dwelling, that is where the throne of Satan is, and yet you keep on holding fast my name, and you did not deny your faith in me…” John 20:28 “In answer Thomas said to him: My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me have you believed? John 20:31 “ But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing YOU may have life by means of his name.” Acts 2:38 “Peter \[said] to them: ‘Repent, and let each one of YOU be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...” 1 John 3:23 “Indeed, this is his commandment, that we have faith in the name of his Son Jesus Christ…” Created or Creator? Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jehovah created Jesus as an angel, and that Jesus then created all other things. What do the scriptures say? (About the Father) Isaiah 66:2 “Now all these things my own hand has made, so that all these came to be.” Isaiah 44:24 “…I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens, by myself…” (About Jesus) John 1:3 “All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.” If all things came into existence through Jesus, He could not have been created because He is included in the “all things.” Status, Names and Titles of Jesus and Jehovah Isaiah 9:6 “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us, and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:17\-18 “…I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys to death and of Hades.” Revelation 2:8 “…These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last, who became dead, and came to life \[again]” Revelation 22:12\-16 “Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end…I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.” Revelation 21:6\-7 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” If Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega (the first and last Greek letters), then the “first and the last” must refer to Jehovah, so the Witnesses claim. But when did Jehovah become dead? The only “first and last” who died and lived again is Jesus. Hebrews 1:13 “But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said ‘Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? Truth and Unity Jesus’ substitutionary atonement was accepted for one reason: God accepts only His own righteousness. The righteousness of a man or an angel is insufficient to hold up to the holy and perfect standard of God’s righteous law. Jesus was the only suitable sacrifice because He was the righteousness of God, and as God’s law required shed blood, Jesus took on flesh so that He might be a ransom for all who believe in His name. Notice that if we understand Jesus to be God incarnate, then all the above verses can be understood to be true and mutually consistent in their claims. They can also be understood clearly with plain reason, taken at face value. However, if we attempt to suggest that Jesus is something less than God—Michael the archangel—then these verses are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true, when taken in their natural context. Therefore, the truth of God’s Word necessitates that we must come to another understanding in which all Scripture is unified, interconnected, interdependent, inerrant, and true. That unifying truth can be found only in the person and deity of Jesus Christ. May we see the truth revealed in Scripture as it is, not as we would each have it to be, and may God receive all the glory. If you have any questions about Jesus as God incarnate, please ask us. If you are ready to place your trust in this God incarnate Jesus, you can speak the following words to God: “Father God, I know that I am a sinner and am worthy of your wrath. I recognize and believe that Jesus is the only Savior, and that only by being God, could Jesus be the Savior. I place my trust in Jesus alone to save me. Father God, please forgive me, cleanse me, and change me. Thank you for your wonderful grace and mercy!” Have you placed your full trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior because of what you have read here? If so, please 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.
What does the Bible say about ordination?	Answer The modern definition of ordination is “the investiture of clergy” or “the act of granting pastoral authority or sacerdotal power.” Usually, we think of an ordination service as a ceremony in which someone is commissioned or appointed to a position within the church. Often, the ceremony involves the laying on of hands. However, the biblical definition is a little different. The word ordain in the Bible refers to a setting in place or designation; for example, Joseph was “ordained” as a ruler in Egypt (Acts 7:10\); the steward in Jesus’ parable was “ordained” to oversee a household (Matthew 24:45\); deacons were “ordained” to serve the Jerusalem church (Acts 6:1\-6\); and pastors were “ordained” in each city in Crete (Titus 1:5\). In none of these cases is the mode of ordination specified, nor is any ceremony detailed; the “ordinations” are simply appointments. The word can even be used negatively, as an appointment to punishment (Luke 12:46\). Acts 13 includes a good example of a ministerial appointment: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia” (vv. 2\-4\). In this passage, we note some key facts: 1\) It is God Himself who calls the men to the ministry and qualifies them with gifts (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 4:11\). 2\) The members of the church recognize God’s clear leading and embrace it. 3\) With prayer and fasting, the church lays hands on Paul and Barnabas to demonstrate their commissioning (cf. Acts 6:6; 1 Timothy 5:22\). 4\) God works through the church, as both the church and the Spirit are said to “send” the missionaries. Paul regularly ordained pastors for the churches he planted. He and Barnabas directed the appointment or ordination of elders “in each church” in Galatia (Acts 14:23\). He instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” on Crete (Titus 1:5\). Titus himself had been ordained earlier, when “he was chosen by the churches” (2 Corinthians 8:19\). In the above passages, the ordination of elders involves the whole congregation, not just the apostles. The Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 8:19 for Titus’s appointment and in Acts 14:23 for the choosing of the Galatian elders literally means “to stretch forth the hands.” It was a word normally used for the act of voting in the Athenian legislature. Thus, the ordination of church leaders involved a general consensus in the church, if not an official vote. The apostles and the congregations knew whom the Spirit had chosen, and they responded by placing those men in leadership. When God calls and qualifies a man for the ministry, it will be apparent both to that man and to the rest of the church. The would\-be minister will meet the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1\-16 and Titus 1:5\-9, and he will possess a consuming desire to preach (1 Corinthians 9:16\). It is the duty of the church elders, together with the congregation, to recognize and accept the calling. After that, a formal commissioning ceremony—an ordination service—is appropriate, though by no means mandatory. The ordination ceremony itself does not confer any special power; it simply gives public recognition to God’s choice of leadership.
Is there such a thing as an ex-Christian?	Answer This is a question for which there is definitely a clear and explicit biblical answer. First John 2:19 declares, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This Scripture makes it abundantly clear—there is no such thing as an ex\-Christian. If a person is truly a Christian, he/she will never depart from the faith “…for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us…” If a person who claimed to be a Christian denies the faith, he/she was not truly a Christian. “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us…their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” No, there is truly no such thing as an ex\-Christian. It is important to distinguish between a true Christian and an “in name only” Christian. A true Christian is a person who has fully trusted in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. A true Christian is a person who understands what the Bible says about sin, sin’s penalty, who Jesus is, what Jesus did for us, and how that provides for the forgiveness of sin. A true Christian is a person who has received Jesus Christ as personal Savior, has been made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17\), and is progressively being transformed into the image of Christ. A true Christian is a person who is kept a Christian by the power of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:13, 30; 2 Corinthians 1:22\). This true Christian can never become an ex\-Christian. No one who has truly and fully trusted in Christ as Savior could ever deny Him. No one who truly comprehends the evil of sin, the terror of sin’s consequences, the love of Christ, and the grace and mercy of God, could ever turn back from the Christian faith. There are many in this world who claim to be Christians, but are not. Being a Christian does not mean being an American or having white skin. Being a Christian does not mean recognizing that Jesus was a great teacher or even seeking to follow His teachings. Being a Christian means being a representative of Christ and a follower / servant of Christ. There are people who have had some connection to a “Christian” church and then later renounced that connection. There are people who have “tasted” and “sampled” Jesus Christ, without ever actually receiving Him as Savior. However, there is no such thing as a true ex\-Christian. A true Christian will never, and could never, renounce the faith. Any person who claimed to be a Christian, but later rejects the Christian faith, was never truly a Christian.
What is GotQuestions.org’s review of The Shack by William P. Young?	Answer The Shack has become a publishing phenomenon, a bestseller by a first\-time author that has rocketed up the sales charts and was made into a movie—not bad for a book that was self\-published by the author, William P. Young, and started out being sold out of a garage. The glowing reviews for The Shack hail it as everything from the new Pilgrim’s Progress (theologian [Eugene Peterson](Eugene-Peterson.html), translator of the Bible paraphrase The Message) to "the best novel of 2007" and "one of the rare fiction books that could change your life" (various Amazon.com five\-star reviewers). According to the book jacket, Young was raised by missionary parents living among a Stone Age tribe in New Guinea. He wrote the novel for his six children to explain his own journey through pain and misery to "light, love and transformation," according to a profile in USA Today. The "shack" of the story was the ugly place inside him where everything awful was hidden away, a result of his history as a victim of sexual abuse, his own adultery and the ensuing shame and pain, all stuffed deep in his psyche, as Young explained. This background is important because Young’s past appears to greatly color his view of both God and Christianity, resulting in a severely flawed view of both. The story begins with Mackenzie "Mack" Phillips, a father suffering great pain—a "Great Sadness," according to the story—because of the death of his young daughter at the hands of a serial killer. Mack receives a note from "Papa" to meet him at the rundown shack in the woods where police had found evidence of his daughter’s murder six years earlier. Mack, who was raised by a hypocritical, vicious and abusive father who was also a pastor, already understands from previous experience that "Papa" is God. Mack approaches The Shack with rising anger, wanting to lash out at God for allowing his young girl to be killed. Instead of the old man with a long white beard, as Mack expects, he’s suddenly embraced by "a large beaming African\-American woman" who introduces herself as Papa. Mack is then introduced to the rest of the Trinity: Jesus, a Middle Eastern man dressed as a laborer, and the Holy Spirit, a woman of "maybe northern Chinese or Nepalese or even Mongolian ethnicity" named Sarayu. The rest of the story is a conversation among the three members of the Trinity and Mack as they work through issues of creation, fall and redemption. Subtle and not\-so\-subtle heresies Young’s intentions are good. He wants to introduce readers to a loving God who was willing to sacrifice his own Son to save us from our sins. But all heresies begin with misconstruing the nature of God. From Jehovah’s Witnesses to Mormonism to even Islam, they all get it wrong when it comes to understanding the God of Scripture. Young joins their company. Part of the problem arises because his story is confused and inconsistent. He doesn’t set out to mislead, but he himself is misled, either by himself or others. He wants desperately to show us the God of love as found in Scripture (1 John 4:8\), but he ignores the other side, the God of utter holiness (Isaiah 6:1\-5\) and, ultimately, the final Judge (Revelation 20:11\-15\). Any presentation of God that shows only one side of His nature is wrong. In an effort to counter a false view of God as only the judging avenger of wrath, we must not go the opposite direction and present Him only as a loving, indulgent parent who never judges sin. Both extremes are false in that they present an incomplete picture of God as He shows Himself to us in Scripture. By emphasizing only one part of God’s nature, The Shack actually leads readers astray with regard to God’s attitude towards sin. Papa tells Mack, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” To be sure, sin often carries within itself its own punishment (Romans 1:27\). But sometimes the wicked prosper in this life (Jeremiah 12:1\). More importantly, Scripture is full of references to God’s impending wrath against sin and unbelief (John 3:36, Romans 1:18, Romans 2:5\-8, Colossians 3:6, and many others.) For The Shack to give the impression that it is not God’s purpose to punish sin is the height of bad theology and irresponsibility. We anthropomorphize (attribute human qualities to) God the Father at our peril. He is spirit (John 4:24\), and when He refers to Himself in anthropomorphic terms, it is always as a father. This is important because any attempt to make God a female inevitably leads to goddess religion and God’s becoming some sort of fertility figure, a worship of the creation instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25\). And for some reason Papa changes form later in the book to become a gray\-haired, pony\-tailed male. No, God does not change Himself to accommodate our flawed understanding of Him. He changes us so we can see Him as He truly is (1 Corinthians 13:12\). Papa acknowledges that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, but she adds, “\[H]e has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being. He is just to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him, the first to believe in my love and my appearance without regard for appearance or consequence.” But that’s not what Scripture says. Jesus in fact was before all things and through Him all things were created and hold together (Colossians 1:16\-17\). The words Papa speaks are a form of the ancient heresy of subordinationism, which puts Jesus in a lower rank within the Trinity. Scripture teaches that all three persons of the Trinity are equal in essence. Scripture also teaches that there is a hierarchy of authority and submission within the Trinity. Papa tells Mack that authority and submission are a result of sin, and the Trinity is a perfect circle of communion. "Mackenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command or 'great chain of being' as your ancestors termed it. What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us." But Scripture teaches that authority and submission are inherent to the Godhead and have existed from the beginning. Jesus was sent by the Father (John 6:57\), and Jesus says it is His intention to obey the Father’s will (Luke 22:42\). The Holy Spirit obeys both the Father and the Son (John 14:26, John 15:26\). These are not the result of sin; they are the very nature of the Godhead in which all three persons are equal in essence but exist within a hierarchy of authority and submission. The Shack also teaches a form of patripassionism, another ancient heresy that teaches that God the Father suffered on the cross. At one point, Mack notices "scars in \[Papa’s] wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his," and later Papa says, "When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood." God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not speak themselves into human existence; only the Son became human (John 1:14\). A low view of Scripture The Shack wants to make God accessible to a hurting world, but its author also has a very low view of Scripture; in fact, he mocks anyone who holds that there is such a thing as correct doctrine: “In seminary Mack had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners' access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?” If one is to teach error, it is important to do away with Scripture, either by adding to it (Mormonism), mistranslating it (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or simply mocking it (The Shack and some others in the ”emergent church”). But if you are going to claim to teach about God, you must stick to what He has declared to be His revelation about Himself and His will to us. In other words, doctrine must be correct, a point stressed numerous times in Scripture (1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 1:9, Titus 2:1\). Yes, we are not just to be hearers (and readers) of the Word; we are to live it. But we can’t live it unless we know it, believe it, and trust it. Otherwise, the God you present is merely a creation of your own imagination and not the God that everyone must stand before on that final day, either as friend or condemned sinner. But it’s only fiction Some defend The Shack by saying it’s only a work of fiction. But if you’re going to have God as a character in your fiction, then you must deal with God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters, The Shack is clearly indicating that it’s talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about Himself in Scripture, and much of what’s in this novel contradicts that. More importantly, why does the author feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he’s saying that the God who reveals Himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. The author needs to "improve" the image to make it more palatable. But God never changes Himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed His nature, He would cease to be God. If a friend had a cold, abusive father, don’t make the God of your story into a warm, loving female to compensate. Show your friend what a true father is like, using the example from Scripture. If your friend is hurting, don’t comfort him with soothing lies, such as The Shack’s assertion that God does not judge sin. Show him the God of all comfort found in Scripture, the God who was willing to save him from that judgment by sending His Son.
Why is the Bible called the Holy Bible?	Answer The phrase biblia sacra (holy books) first appeared sometime in the Middle Ages. In English, one of the earliest—if not the earliest—uses of “The Holy Bible” appeared in 1611 on the cover of the Authorized Version, known in the U.S. as the King James Version. The word holy has several meanings, and, as we will see, all of them describe the Word of God. One meaning of holy is “sacred, sanctified, hallowed.” When God spoke to Moses at the burning bush, He commanded Moses to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground. This was ground made holy by God’s presence. Because God is sacred, the words He speaks are also sacred, and sinful men such as Moses must be mindful of God’s holiness. In the same way, the words God gave Moses on Mount Sinai are also sacred, just as all words God has given to mankind in the Bible are holy and sacred because He is holy and sacred. Just as God is perfect, so are His words perfect (Psalm 19:7\). Just as God is righteous and pure, so is His Word righteous and pure (Psalm 19:8\). The Bible is also holy because it was written by men under the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit. “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” (2 Timothy 3:16\). The Greek word translated “God\-breathed” is Theopneustos, from theos, meaning “God,” and pneo, meaning “to breathe or breathe upon.” We get the English word pneumonia from this Greek root. So, our Holy God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, literally breathed the holy words of Scripture into the writers of each of the books through supernatural means. The divine Writer is holy; therefore, what He writes is holy. Another meaning of holy is to be “set apart,” just as God set the nation of Israel apart from her contemporaries to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6\). Similarly, Christians are set apart from unbelievers who walk in darkness, as described by Peter: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” This “set apart” aspect of holiness is true of the Bible because it is a book set apart from all others. It is the only book written by God Himself, and the only book that has the power to set men free (John 8:32\), to change their lives and make them wise (Psalm 19:7\), to sanctify them and make them holy (John 17:17\). It is the only book that gives life, comfort, and hope (Psalm 119:50\), and it is the only book that will endure until the end of time (Matthew 5:18\).
Is the United States a Christian nation?	Answer Among issues debated in modern politics, few are more controversial than the role of religion. The United States, in particular, finds this subject provocative. The very question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” can be a source of debate, because the term Christian nation can be taken to mean several different things, causing the answer to vary drastically. There are three main ways to approach the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” Each requires a different approach and results in a different answer. The first issue is whether or not the U.S. is the product of a Christian worldview; the answer is absolutely “yes.” The second question is whether or not the U.S. currently demonstrates a Christian worldview; the answer is absolutely “no.” The third angle is whether the government of the U.S. is Christian in its structure; the answer is “sort of.” Is the U.S. the product of a Christian worldview? One way to interpret the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” is to ask if the U.S. has a Christian heritage. In other words, do the history, culture, language, and lifestyle of the nation reflect Christianity, and to what extent? This is, by far, the least controversial aspect of this issue, since the answer is so obviously and clearly “yes.” History is unambiguous in showing that the U.S. has been predominantly Christian, in a general sense, for its entire existence. The vast majority of religious expression, terminology, and practice in the U.S. has been Christian or heavily influenced by the Christian worldview. Of course, as a secular nation, the USA has allowed [free expression of other faiths](freedom-of-religion.html), to varying degrees. Yet the primary religious outlook of the American people has long been that of Judeo\-Christianity. Historically, the U.S. has been deeply involved in Christian evangelism and charity around the world. It’s beyond debate, then, that the United States is a historically “Christian” nation, in terms of religious heritage. Does the U.S. exemplify a Christian worldview? Another way to examine the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” is to ask if the U.S. currently has a [Christian worldview](biblical-worldview.html). In other words, do the prevalent outlook, morals, lifestyle, and attitude of the nation reflect biblical, true\-to\-the\-faith Christianity? This answer is occasionally divisive but has become less so over time. Based on current attitudes and trends, the answer is most definitely “no.” There is a massive difference between a worldview inspired by Christianity or developed from Christianity and one that is actually Christian. Many of the values Western culture finds indispensable, such as charity, altruism, respect, tolerance, mercy, peace, and so forth are historically rooted in a Christian worldview. These virtues were absent from or explicitly opposed to the pagan worldviews that Christianity replaced in the West. Insofar as the modern U.S. follows those ideals, it’s acting in accordance with a biblical worldview. On the other hand, the modern United States not only tolerates ideas contrary to Christianity, but it openly embraces and celebrates them. Sexual immorality, including pornography, homosexuality, and premarital sex, are widely accepted as normal in the U.S. Vulgarity, drunkenness, drug use, promiscuity, and other abuses of freedom are also celebrated as forms of entertainment. Atrocities such as abortion are rampant, as are instances of violence, greed, and corruption. In fact, the United States has come to the point where some of these sins are not merely accepted but consecrated; those who do not endorse fashionable behaviors are vilified and ostracized (see 1 Peter 4:4\). In terms of literal spirituality, few in the United States have a truly “biblical” worldview. [Self\-labeled “Christians”](nominal-Christianity.html) in the U.S. tend toward a watered\-down, generic, [convenience\-driven version of the faith](Moralistic-Therapeutic-Deism.html). This is not to say they don’t actually believe in God or in the Bible; however, in both theory and practice, most self\-professed American believers live in deep conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Even worse, many in the U.S. claim the name of Christ, or even the title of clergy, yet peddle a false, self\-created [parody of the truth](itching-ears.html). Historians can debate at what point the U.S. “crossed the line” with respect to being a Christian nation, in terms of worldview. That being said, it’s abundantly clear that the United States of America, on the whole, does not presently exhibit a Christian worldview. Does the U.S. have a Christian form of government? The third way to examine the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” is to ask if the United States has a Christian government. In other words, are the structure and form of the U.S. government uniquely Christian, dependent on Christianity, or inseparable from Christian principles? Ironically, this particular angle is rarely controversial, only as it is seldom considered. The answer, with careful qualification, is absolutely “yes.” In fact, the [Founding Fathers](Founding-Fathers.html) were explicit about the relationship between the structure of the U.S. government and the Judeo\-Christian worldview. It’s crucial to establish that not all religions are the same. It is both ignorant and bigoted to assume all faiths approach ethics and civil discourse the same way or that all religious views lead to the same conclusions. Not every religion is equally compatible with all forms of government. Gasoline engines are designed to run on gasoline. Diesel engines are designed to run on diesel fuel. These two liquids have many similarities, but are not identical. Where they differ, they do so drastically. Gasoline engines and diesel engines, likewise, are similar but diverge in critical ways. Putting diesel fuel in a gasoline engine renders it inoperative. Running gasoline through a diesel engine can destroy it. There is nothing prejudiced about pointing out the obvious: the design of these engines presumes certain fuels. When fed with something else, they no longer function as intended. In much the same way, governments are designed with certain assumptions about the worldview of the population. Attempting to manage a nation using a government incompatible with a particular culture is like putting gasoline in the diesel engine or diesel fuel in the gas engine. Not all combinations of government and religion will work. The point is not that the Constitution of the United States requires citizens or elected officials to be Christian. Nor is it that the government must be an extension of the church. Logic and common sense, however, say the United States was structured to govern a particular worldview. One of the Founding Fathers, John Adams, explained this in 1798 (emphasis added): “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” As a parallel, college classrooms often allow students to choose their own seats and to enter and leave as they wish. Given that such students are appropriately self\-controlled, that structure enhances education. Applying the same structure to a classroom of kindergarteners, however, would be a disaster; there are other systems of classroom seating and control better suited to young students. Vice versa, classroom rules that allow kindergartners to thrive would be toxic for college students. In other words, governments “contend” with differing worldviews through different methods and divergent designs. As compared to the U.S., most governments impose drastically stricter control over the people. The constitutional republic of the United States, with an overt emphasis on personal freedom, is simply not “adequate” to govern a people who are “unbridled,” as Adams would say, by the [ethics and morality of Judeo\-Christianity](Judeo-Christian-ethic.html). In the same vein, George Washington wrote this prayer in a letter from 1783: “That \[God] would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.” Even the Declaration of Independence speaks of this reliance on a Judeo\-Christian worldview. Though not a formal part of the Constitution, Jefferson’s epic work explicitly grounds rights such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the reality of a Creator. This same worldview is reflected in other concepts fundamental to the U.S. Constitution. Ideas such as personal responsibility, rule of law, protection of the innocent, personal property, and so forth are deeply ingrained in the Judeo\-Christian worldview. At the very least, the U.S. Constitution reflects a heavy influence of biblical thinking, whether or not any part of that system is explicitly drawn from Scripture. The term happiness itself is more closely tied to religion than many people realize. The word happiness is derived from the idea of outcomes and occurrences. The same idea is present in words such as perhaps, mayhap, happening, happenstance, and so forth. In Jefferson’s era, the term happiness carried a sense of [divine blessing](blessing-Bible.html); the pursuit of happiness, then, was understood at that time to mean something more like “the pursuit of blessedness” than “the pursuit of [good feelings](joy-happiness.html).” The freedom being sought was very much the right to pursue a godly and moral life as each person saw fit. In contrast, religious worldviews such as [Islam](Islam.html), [Hinduism](hinduism.html), and [atheism](atheism.html) reject, directly or indirectly, principles that the U.S. Constitution takes for granted. The fundamental ideas on which the U.S. Constitution operates are either contradictory to or absent from the central ideas of other faith systems. For instance, Islam patently rejects individual rights with respect to religion; there are mandatory consequences for Muslims who apostatize from Islam and for Christians and Jews who do not “submit.” Hinduism is rooted in the idea of karma and linked to the caste system, both of which reject the idea of persons being “created equal.” Atheism, of course, provides no basis for universal human rights, equality, or fair treatment at all. That in no way implies that Muslims, Hindus, and atheists cannot be productive and integrated citizens in the U.S. Yet the fact remains that their worldview inherently conflicts with some of the Constitution’s ideals. There is no question that the government of the United States is structured to allow great personal freedom in matters of ethics, morality, and religion. It is especially designed to [prevent government from interfering with individual rights](separation-church-state.html) to participate—or not to participate—according to personal religious faith. At the same time, there is no question that the entire function of the U.S. Constitution presumes a citizenry guided, as Adams noted, by morality and religion. History, once again, is unequivocal: the dominant worldview of the nascent United States and its founders was Judeo\-Christianity. From a “design” standpoint, the United States is not explicitly Christian in that it does not require any person or politician to be a believer. Nor does it insist that the government always be run in accordance with overtly biblical ideas. The Christian religion is not the formal basis of the U.S. Constitution. However, just as a gasoline engine is designed to process gasoline, not diesel fuel, the United States Constitution was designed to govern a predominantly Judeo\-Christian people. The more the USA drifts away from this worldview, the less capable the government will be to properly function—a symptom that current events prove is the case. *What does Christian nation* mean?** To give an appropriate answer to this question, it’s necessary to clarify what a person means when he speaks about the United States being a “Christian” nation. Various angles require different examinations and give a different conclusion. Historically, the U.S. is most certainly “Christian.” Culturally, the U.S. is absolutely not “Christian” in terms of current attitudes and behaviors. Constitutionally, the U.S. government was designed to guide a population operating under a predominantly Judeo\-Christian worldview, and it shows clear evidence of influence from that faith tradition. The United States is under no obligation to keep a particular worldview. Nor is it guaranteed to maintain any sort of connection with its Christian heritage. History cannot be changed, but the decision of whether or not the U.S. will exhibit a Christian worldview will greatly impact the continuation of its particular form of government. Whether the U.S.’s constitutional republic survives, experiences drastic change, or fails entirely depends on the morality of its people.
How can I become more Christlike?	Answer Becoming more like Christ is the desire of every believer, and it is encouraging to know that God has the same desire for us. In fact, the Bible says that God “predestined \[believers] to be conformed to the likeness of his Son” (Romans 8:29\). Making us Christlike is God’s work, and He will see it through to the end (Philippians 1:6\). However, the fact that God will transform us into Christlikeness doesn’t mean we can sit back and be carried to heaven “on flow’ry beds of ease.” The process demands our willing cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Becoming more Christlike requires both divine power and the fulfillment of human responsibility. There are three things which contribute to our being more Christlike: our surrender to God, our freedom from sin, and our spiritual growth. 1\) Becoming more Christlike is the result of surrender to God. Romans 12:1\-2 says that worship involves a total self\-dedication to God. We volunteer our bodies as “living sacrifices,” and our minds are renewed and transformed. When Jesus said, “Follow me,” Levi left his money tables immediately (Mark 2:14\); so do we freely surrender all we have for the sake of following the Lord. As John the Baptist said, “He must become greater; I must become less” (John 3:30\), so we focus more and more on Jesus and His glory, losing ourselves in His will. 2\) Becoming more Christlike is the result of freedom from sin. Since Jesus lived a sinless life, the more we consider ourselves “dead to sin” (Romans 6:11\) and live a life of purity, the more like Jesus we will be. As we offer ourselves to God, sin is no longer our master, and we are more clearly identified with Christ (Romans 6:1\-14\). Jesus invites us to follow Him, and we have His example of obedience (John 15:10\), sacrificial love (John 15:12\-13\), and patient suffering (1 Peter 2:19\-23\). We also have the example of the apostles, who modeled Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1\). When it comes to restraining sin in our lives, we have divine help: praise the Lord for the Word of God (Psalm 119:11\), the intercession of Christ (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25\), and the power of the Spirit who indwells us (Romans 8:4; Galatians 5:16\)! 3\) Becoming more Christlike is the result of Christian growth. When we are first saved, we are immature in wisdom and knowledge and inexperienced in grace and love. But then we grow. In each of these things, our charge is to become stronger—and more Christlike. “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18\). “May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else” (1 Thessalonians 3:12\). Right now, God works in us: “We, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever\-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18\). One day, however, the process will be complete: “When he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2\). The promise of being fully Christlike in the future is in itself motivation for becoming more Christlike now: “Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure” (1 John 3:3\).
What is the meaning of the blood of Christ?	Answer The phrase “blood of Christ” is used several times in the New Testament and is the expression of the sacrificial death and full atoning work of Jesus on our behalf. References to the Savior’s blood include the reality that He literally bled on the cross, but more significantly that He bled and died for sinners. The blood of Christ has the power to atone for an infinite number of sins committed by an infinite number of people throughout the ages, and all whose faith rests in that blood will be saved. The reality of the blood of Christ as the means of atonement for sin has its origin in the Mosaic Law. Once a year, the priest was to make an offering of the blood of animals on the altar of the temple for the sins of the people. “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22\). But this was a blood offering that was limited in its effectiveness, which is why it had to be offered again and again. This was a foreshadowing of the “once for all” sacrifice which Jesus offered on the cross (Hebrews 7:27\). Once that sacrifice was made, there was no longer a need for the blood of bulls and goats. The blood of Christ is the basis of the New Covenant. On the night before He went to the cross, Jesus offered the cup of wine to His disciples and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20\). The pouring of the wine in the cup symbolized the blood of Christ which would be poured out for all who would ever believe in Him. When He shed His blood on the cross, He did away with the Old Covenant requirement for the continual sacrifices of animals. Their blood was not sufficient to cover the sins of the people, except on a temporary basis, because sin against a holy and infinite God requires a holy and infinite sacrifice. “But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:3\). While the blood of bulls and goats were a “reminder” of sin, “the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19\) paid in full the debt of sin we owe to God, and we need no further sacrifices for sin. Jesus said, “It is finished” as He was dying, and He meant just that—the entire work of redemption was completed forever, “having obtained eternal redemption” for us (Hebrews 9:12\). Not only does the blood of Christ redeem believers from sin and eternal punishment, but “His blood will make our consciences pure from useless acts so we may serve the living God” (Hebrews 9:14 NCV). This means that not only are we now free from having to offer sacrifices which are “useless” to obtain salvation, but we are free from having to rely on worthless and unproductive works of the flesh to please God. Because the blood of Christ has redeemed us, we are now new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\), and by His blood we are freed from sin to serve the living God, to glorify Him, and to enjoy Him forever.
Is giving a child a Christian education important?	Answer For believers in Jesus Christ, the question of whether or not a Christian education is important seems obvious. The answer would be an emphatic “Yes!” So why ask the question? It’s because the question comes from a myriad of perspectives within the Christian faith. Maybe the question should be “who is responsible for introducing my child to Christianity?” or “should my child’s education be done in a public, private, or home\-based system?” There is no shortage of opinions on this topic, some very strongly held and endlessly and emotionally debated. As we begin to search for a biblical perspective, we come to the definitive Old Testament passage on educating children found in Deuteronomy 6:5\-8: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.” Hebrew history reveals that the father was to be diligent in instructing his children in the ways and words of the Lord for their own spiritual development and well\-being. The message in this passage is repeated in the New Testament where Paul exhorts parents to raise children in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4\). Proverbs 22:6 also tells us to "train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." Training includes not only formal education, but also the first instructions parents give to a child, i.e., his early education. This training is designed to plant the child firmly on the foundation upon which his life is based. As we move to the subject of formal education, however, there are misunderstandings that need to be addressed. First, God is not saying that only parents are to educate children as many would assert, and, second, He is not saying that public education is bad and we are to educate our children only in Christian schools or home schools. The principle found throughout all of Scripture is that of ultimate responsibility. God never directs parents to avoid education outside of the home; in fact, it isn’t even addressed. So, to say that the only “biblical” method of formal education is homeschooling or Christian schools would be adding to God’s Word, and we want to avoid using the Bible to validate our own opinions. Just the opposite is true: we want to base our opinions on the Bible. We also want to avoid the argument that only “trained” teachers are capable of educating our children. Again, the issue is that of ultimate responsibility, which belongs to parents. The issue in Scripture is not what type of general education our children receive, but through what paradigm that information is to be filtered. For example, a homeschooler can be given a “Christian” education but fail in life because he or she does not truly know the God of Scripture and does not truly understand scriptural principles. Likewise, a child educated publicly can grow to understand the fallacies of the world’s wisdom by seeing its failure through God’s Word which has been diligently taught to him at home. Information is being sifted through a biblical lens in both cases, but true spiritual understanding only exists in the latter. Similarly, a student can attend a Christian school but never grow to understand God in an intimate, personal relationship. Ultimately, it is the parents who are responsible for shaping and molding the child in a way that will succeed in accomplishing true spiritual education. In Hebrews 10:25, God gives Christians the command, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” The body of Christ is an integral part of the education of children, assisting parents in nurturing and educating children in spiritual matters. Exposure to something outside of the family structure, in this case sound biblical teaching from church and Sunday school, is good and necessary. So, no matter what type of institution of learning we choose, parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s spiritual education. A Christian school teacher can be wrong, a pastor and Sunday school teacher can be wrong, and parents can be wrong on any particular viewpoint theologically. So, as we teach our children spiritual things, they need to understand that the only source of absolute truth is the Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16\). Therefore, perhaps the most important lesson we can teach our children is to follow the example of the Bereans who “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11\), and to test all things they are taught—from whatever source—against the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 5:21\).
What makes Christianity unique?	Answer Is Christianity really unique, or is it just one of many roads on the path to Truth? Is Christianity truly unique among the many religions around the world? If it is, what makes it so? Unique among all religions, Christianity makes several claims that others do not. First, all other religions exhort man to reach up to God and grasp hold of Him through their own efforts. Christianity is the only religion where God reaches down to man. Second, other religions are systems of do’s and don’ts to appease God; whereas Christianity is a relationship with God. Third, Christianity looks to the Bible as the singular source of Truth. Finally, Christianity is based upon truly the most amazing event in all of human history—the resurrection. As to the first issue, other forms of religion subscribe to a system of works—those we should do and those we should avoid—which will make us “good enough” to please God and merit His favor. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on the biblical principle that we can never be good enough to be in the presence of a perfect, holy God. The Mosaic Law was given to mankind to prove to us that we can’t keep it. Galatians 3 describes the purpose of the Law. It is a “tutor” or “schoolmaster” to lead us to Christ because “…by observing the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16\). The impossibility of keeping the Law is revealed in what Jesus called the “first and greatest commandment” in Matthew 22:37: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This would mean loving God with every fiber of our being 24/7, with never a thought for ourselves, an impossible task for anyone. But rather than condemning us as law\-breakers and leaving it at that, God provided a substitute—Jesus Christ—who obeyed the Law perfectly for us. By faith in Him and accepting His work on our behalf, we are justified and made righteous. Here is the crucial difference between Christianity and all other religions. As to the second point, Christianity is not a religious system, but a relationship with God, one that He initiated and maintains. Christians believe that mankind was created specifically to have a relationship with God, but sin separates all men from Him (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 to restore the relationship that was broken by sin. After His death on the cross, Christ was buried, He rose again, and now lives at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for believers forever (Hebrews 7:25\). The intimacy of this relationship is revealed in two poignant pictures. Now no longer seen as law\-breakers, we have been adopted into God’s own family as His children (Ephesians 1:5\). Even more intimately, believers are the very “body of Christ” of which He is the head (Ephesians 1:22\-23\), having been purchased by His blood (Hebrews 9:12\). No other religion makes assertions that even begin to approximate this incredible truth. Another thing that makes Christianity unique is its source of information. All religions have some sort of basis of information that outlines its beliefs and practices, but none have one source of information that makes the claims Christianity does about the Bible—it is the written Word of God, and it is infallible and inerrant and all that is necessary for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16\). Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired—literally “God\-breathed”—Word of God and that its teaching is the final authority (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20\-21\). Though there are other religions that use prophecy, none are 100% accurate, as are those in the Bible, and none of them point to someone like Jesus who made incredible claims and performed incredible deeds. Perhaps the most defining principle of Christianity that makes it truly unique in every way and provides its fundamental basis is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important, for without it, Christianity does not exist, and our faith is useless (1 Corinthians 15:14\). It was Jesus’ resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh. No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tomb, and then rose three days later to appear to many people. The resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide the only means of redemption for mankind. Buddha did not rise from the dead. Muhammad did not rise from the dead. Confucius did not rise from the dead. Krishna did not rise from the dead. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. He has conquered death. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, died and rose from the dead, and claimed that He alone is “the way the truth and the life” (John 14:6\) and that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
How do I make Jesus Lord of my life?	Answer The key is understanding that Jesus is already Lord of your life. We do not make Jesus Lord. Jesus is Lord. What we are supposed to do is submit to His lordship. Another word for our response to Jesus’ lordship is “submission.” To submit is to yield to the will and control of another, and, with reference to Christians, it is yielding to the will and control of Jesus Christ. This means that when Scripture commands believers to love one another (John 15:17\), that is what is to be done. It means that when Scripture says we are not to commit adultery or steal (Exodus 20:14\-15\), these things are not to be done. It should be understood that submission, or obedience to the commands of God, is related to Christian growth and maturity, and is not related to becoming a Christian. A person becomes a Christian by faith alone in Christ apart from works (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). We should realize that complete obedience cannot be accomplished simply by willing it to be done or in the strength of one’s inner being. It will not happen simply because we “decide” to do it. This is because even believers are prone to sinful conduct and thoughts apart from the work and power of the Holy Spirit. In order to be obedient, we must rely on the power provided by the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16\-17\). This in itself is an act of obedience, for we are commanded in Ephesians 5:18 to be filled with the Spirit. This doesn’t mean that a believer gets more of the Spirit, but rather that the Spirit gets more of the believer—which is the whole idea of submission. Being filled with the Spirit is yielding to the Spirit’s control. Practically speaking, this happens as a believer responds positively to the leading of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean feeling one is being lead into full\-time Christian ministry and obeying that feeling, although this may be included. Rather, it refers to the day\-to\-day decisions we make, such as responding kindly to someone who has mistreated us (Romans 12:17\); being truthful in our communication with others (Ephesians 4:25\); being honest in our business dealings (Ephesians 4:28\); spending time in prayer and studying God’s Word as we are commanded (2 Timothy 2:15\). These are a just a few examples of daily decisions that demonstrate submissiveness to Christ. It is also important to note that even when we fail to obey, God has made a provision so that we can remain in fellowship with Him. First John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” Even this is part of submission and obedience—to confess our sins to God so that we can remain in fellowship with Him. It is important to note that when tough decisions arise, the first thing we should do is pray, asking the Lord to help us to make the right decision and/or be obedient to what we already know is right from the Word. To sum up the idea of the Lordship of Christ, it does not consist of one act of obedience but rather is measured by the sum of our obedience, and it cannot be accomplished in our own strength or power, but by the power available to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are strongest when we are relying on Him (2 Corinthians 12:10\).
What is a Christian Testimony?	Answer The word “testimony” is used in few different ways. One common usage is when a person is brought into a courtroom and placed under oath to tell, attest to, or give witness to his or her personal knowledge or experience with reference to the case that is being heard. To link the word “Christian” to the word “testimony” is to narrow the focus of the testimony and who can give it. Only a Christian can give a Christian testimony, and a Christian is one who has received forgiveness for sin by trusting alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ for that forgiveness. A Christian testimony is given when Christians relate how we came to know the God of the Bible through the moving of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Most commonly, we are sharing how we became Christians by God’s miraculous intervention and work in our lives through specific events. Often we can only see that in hindsight, but sharing that experience is vital. Also, when giving this testimony, a sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is always a necessity. Though we can include specific information about how we came to accept Christ as Savior, those details should not be the focus of the testimony. The focus should be about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. A Christian testimony should not end with the conversion experience, but should also include the ways in which the Lord has worked in our lives to sanctify us for His service. As an example, a testimony could include how He brought us through a difficult time in our life (such as a loss or some sort or a severe illness) and built our faith in Him through that experience. We should also be able to describe the continual process by which the Spirit who now indwells us leads, guides, molds and shapes us into mature Christians. Again, the focus should be on the Lord and His faithfulness, and should include at least one verse that speaks of that faithfulness (Psalm 18:2, 6\).
How do I share my Christian testimony?	Answer An effective testimony is one that conveys both your own experience and the Gospel of Christ so that someone else has the information about the process of salvation. (1\) Start by writing down the details of how you came to trust in Christ to save you. Answering the following questions to help you: a) Who told me about Christ? b) What events led up to me trusting or believing in Christ? c) When did I trust in Christ? d) Where was I when I first believed? e) How has faith in Christ been a blessing to me? (2\) Next write this out so that it flows well as a story. Try to be as concise as possible. As a goal, try to make the length of your testimony so that it can be effectively shared in three minutes or less. (3\) Make sure you have included the appropriate Scriptures in your testimony. Remember that it is Scripture that is authoritative because it is God’s Word. As an example, your testimony should consist of your becoming aware that you were separated from God by your sin (Romans 3:23\), the realization that you would spend eternity away from God if you did not receive forgiveness (Romans 6:23\), the understanding that God sent His only perfect Son Jesus to die and pay for your sin (Romans 5:8\), and finally your receiving forgiveness by trusting alone in Christ’s payment for sin (Acts 16:31\). As an example, below is my testimony of how I came to trust in Christ as my Savior. Though as a child and teenager I spoke with a pastor three or four times about how I might go to heaven when I died, I never really understood the Gospel of Christ until I was a young adult in my mid 20s. Over the course of a few years, I began reading the Bible, listening to a couple of good conservative Bible teachers on television, and discussing what I had heard with Christians at work. Through this, I came to realize that I was sinner separated from God and deserved to be eternally separated from God. This was based on Romans 3:23 “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin is death.” I also came to understand that God loves me so much that He sent His Son Jesus, and Jesus came to earth specifically to die for my sins (and the sins of the whole world) so that I could be forgiven (Romans 5:8; John 3:16\). Finally, I came to understand that there was no way I could be good enough or work my way to heaven. Romans 3:10 says there is none who does good and Ephesians 2:8\-10 declares that salvation is a gift of God, not something earned, and it is received only by faith, which is to simply trust in or rely completely on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as payment for my sin. After I came to understand these truths from Scripture, I had a sense of assurance that since I could not work for my salvation, I could not lose it either since it is a gift from God. There was a great sense of relief in knowing that I was forgiven and that God was on my side and wanted and still wants what is best for me. Since beginning my life with Christ, He has, by the power of the Holy Spirit who lives in my heart, continued to sanctify me through His Word and His working in my life. This forgiveness and security that I have from God can be yours too if you will trust Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins.
How is the church the Body of Christ?	Answer The phrase “the Body of Christ” is a common New Testament metaphor for the Church (all those who are truly saved). The Church is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, “one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17, “the body of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12, and “the body” in Hebrews 13:3\. The Church is clearly equated with “the body” of Christ in Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:24\. When Christ entered our world, He took on a physical body “prepared” for Him (Hebrews 10:5; Philippians 2:7\). Through His physical body, Jesus demonstrated the love of God clearly, tangibly, and boldly—especially through His sacrificial death on the cross (Romans 5:8\). After His bodily ascension, Christ continues His work in the world through those He has redeemed—the Church now demonstrates the love of God clearly, tangibly, and boldly. In this way, the Church functions as “the Body of Christ.” The Church may be called the Body of Christ because of these facts: 1\) Members of the Body of Christ are joined to Christ in salvation (Ephesians 4:15\-16\). 2\) Members of the Body of Christ follow Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:22\-23\). 3\) Members of the Body of Christ are the physical representation of Christ in this world. The Church is the organism through which Christ manifests His life to the world today. 4\) Members of the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9\). 5\) Members of the Body of Christ possess a diversity of gifts suited to particular functions (1 Corinthians 12:4\-31\). “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ” (verse 12\). 6\) Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or ministry. “There should be no division in the body, but . . . its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1 Corinthians 12:25\). 7\) Members of the Body of Christ are secure in their salvation (John 10:28\-30\). For a Christian to lose his salvation, God would have to perform an “amputation” on the Body of Christ! 8\) Members of the Body of Christ partake of Christ’s death and resurrection (Colossians 2:12\). 9\) Members of the Body of Christ share Christ’s inheritance (Romans 8:17\). 10\) Members of the Body of Christ receive the gift of Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5:17\).
Is faith in God religulous?	Answer In his 2008 film “Religulous,” Bill Maher makes the argument that belief in God is ridiculous. The term “religulous” is a combination of the words “religion” and “ridiculous.” Maher’s main goal with the film seems to be to convince people that religion is responsible for most of the evil in the world, and that we would all be better off if religion was eradicated. The “Religulous” film begins with Maher in Israel, near the Valley of Megiddo, the location where the end\-times Battle of Armageddon is prophesied in the Bible. Maher’s point is that religion, if it is not destroyed, will cause the destruction of the world. In his assault on religion, Maher attacks Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism. His main target, though, is Christianity. Nearly half of the documentary is dedicated to attacking Christianity. Maher argues that there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed and that the main beliefs of Christianity are simply Christianized versions of other religious beliefs. Maher, of course, presents very one\-sided views on these issues. Since these attacks have already been well\-answered many times, we will only respond to them briefly. First, there is overwhelming historical evidence that a man named Jesus lived in Israel in the early 1st century A.D. There is more attestation to Jesus’ existence than nearly any other historical figure of that time period. Second, all of the beliefs that Maher claims Christianity borrowed from other religions are, in fact, evidence of the opposite. There are no historical or religious documents which pre\-date Christianity that contain beliefs that are identical, or even closely similar, to the beliefs of Christianity. All of the documents from these religions that contain beliefs that are similar to Christianity are dated to centuries after Christianity began. Maher, in “Religulous,” makes the illogical assumption that the post\-spread\-of\-Christianity beliefs of these religions are the same as the pre\-spread\-of\-Christianity beliefs of these religions. History records that Christianity spread rapidly in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. The other religions of that time copied Christian beliefs, attributing Christ\-like characteristics to their own messiahs / founders, in an attempt to stop the spread of Christianity. Again, there is not a single ancient document that pre\-dates the spread of Christianity which presents explicit Christian\-like beliefs in other religions. In addition to reusing these weak and invalid arguments, “Religulous” spends a great deal of time showing Maher making religious people look ridiculous. Whether it is an actor who plays Jesus at a Holy Land theme park, or a South American cult leader who claims to be Jesus, or tourists of biblical sites in Israel, Maher asks loaded questions, and the responses are clearly edited to make the person look as foolish as possible. “Religulous” gives very little time to anyone who can intelligently argue for God’s existence or defend the beliefs of Christianity. Instead, Maher interviews only individuals whom even most Christians would consider to be ridiculous. Perhaps the only redeeming quality of Maher’s “Religulous” is the expose on Islam. Maher correctly notes how dangerous radical Islam is. The problem is that Maher seemingly attributes this same danger to anyone who believes in God. Maher’s goal was not to produce an honest and informative documentary on the dangers of religion. Rather, Maher’s goal was to make any and every religion appear to be ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. Maher claims to be an agnostic. He claims to not know whether God exists or if there is life after death. However, for someone who claims not to know, Maher dogmatically argues against any belief in God. Maher clearly believes that God does not exist. The core message of “Religulous” is that anyone with a brain should be able to come to the conclusion that God does not exist. Maher’s arrogance, disdain for people of faith, and condescension to anyone who does not agree with him is clearly seen throughout the film. Maher reveals himself to be precisely what he is attacking, a closed\-minded bigot who thinks he has all the answers. Psalm 14:1 declares, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” The word “fool” in this verse does not refer to intelligence. It is the Hebrew word that refers to a person without morals. Psalm 14:1 is saying that an immoral person denies the existence of God to remove any responsibility for the immoral and evil actions the person commits. Maher is an intelligent man. Morally speaking, though, Maher is a fool. In “Religulous,” Maher himself says that he rejects God because God has rules that interfere with his sex life. In the end, that is all that “Religulous” is, a sad attempt to attack religion in order to escape from God’s moral commands. Bill Maher clearly demonstrates the truth of Psalm 14:1, “The \[immoral] fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
Why are Christians pro-life when it comes to abortion while at the same time in favor of the death penalty and supportive of war?	Answer The primary problem with this question is that it attempts to create a moral equivalency between abortion, the death penalty / capital punishment, and war. There is absolutely nothing equivalent about an innocent baby’s life being taken in the womb and a convicted murderer being executed. A baby in the womb has committed no crime. The death penalty should be, and in most cases is, employed only with the most evil of crimes. It was God who ordained the death penalty (Genesis 9:6\), and it is God who gives governments the authority to enforce the death penalty (Romans 13:1\-7\). It is entirely consistent to believe that the life of an innocent baby in the womb should be protected while believing that the perpetuators of the most heinous of crimes should be executed. In regards to war, the idea that Christians are “pro\-war” is not accurate. No Christian should ever be a proponent of war. But at the same time, there are some instances in which war is the best option, as demonstrated by the many wars and battles recorded in Scripture (see the book of Joshua as an example). Christians should only be in favor of a “just war.” It can always be debated whether a certain war is just, but for the Bible\-believing Christian, the belief that war is never the proper recourse is not a valid viewpoint. Christians should be consistently pro\-life. However, being pro\-life does not necessitate being anti\-death in all circumstances. If one person murders another person, the just penalty is to end the life of the murderer. This actually upholds the value of life. Anyone who violates life in premeditated murder should be put to death – proclaiming clear support for the value of life. The same can be true with war. War, while never a pleasant choice, in the right “just war” circumstances, actually preserves more life than it ends. Sometimes the best way to uphold the value of life is to end the lives of those seeking to destroy life. In summary, it is entirely consistent for Christians to be pro\-life when it comes to abortion and at the same time to support the death penalty and wars that are clearly just.
Where was Joseph when Jesus was an adult?	Answer The last time [Joseph](Joseph-the-father-of-Jesus.html) is mentioned in the Bible is when Jesus was twelve years old. Returning from a trip to Jerusalem, Jesus became separated from His parents, who eventually found Him in the temple conversing with the teachers. Ironically, it was at that time—when Jesus announced that He had to be about His heavenly Father’s business—that all mention of his earthly father ceases (Luke 2:41\-50\). Because Joseph is not mentioned again, most scholars assume he died sometime before Jesus began His public ministry. By the time we get to the wedding at Cana (John 2\), Joseph is conspicuously absent. We see Mary there, but no mention is made of Joseph. Perhaps a part of the reason why Jesus remained at home until He was 30 is that He had a responsibility to care for the family. The theory that Joseph had died by the time Jesus was an adult is given further credibility by the fact that Jesus, when He was on the cross, made arrangements for His mother to be cared for by the apostle John (John 19:26\-27\). Joseph must have been dead by the time of the crucifixion, or Jesus would never have committed Mary to John. If Joseph were still alive, Jesus wouldn’t say, “Now, Mother, I’m going to commit you to John.” Joseph would have rightly responded, “Wait a minute; it is my responsibility to take care of her.” Only a widow could have rightly been given into the care of someone outside the immediate family. It is thought by some that perhaps Joseph died sometime after Jesus began His public ministry. This is unlikely, because, if Joseph had died during the three\-year ministry of Christ, that would have been a major event; Jesus undoubtedly would have gone to the funeral with His disciples, and at least one of the Gospel writers would have recorded it. Although we don’t know for sure, the most likely scenario is that Joseph died sometime before Jesus began His earthly ministry.
How should Christians respond to global poverty and hunger?	Answer According to the latest statistics, over 840 million people worldwide are chronically undernourished. Every day, 26,000 young children die due to poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases. With so much of the world’s population in such lamentable condition, what’s a Christian to do? How should the Church respond? Christians should respond to global poverty and hunger with compassion. Having true compassion for the needy, as modeled by Jesus (Mark 8:2\), means we are aware of the need, we care about the people involved, and we are ready to act on their behalf. Having compassion on a needy brother is proof of the love of God within us (1 John 3:17\). We honor God when we are kind to the needy (Proverbs 14:31\). Christians should respond to global poverty and hunger with action. Of course, prayer for those in need is something every Christian can do. Beyond that, Christians should do all they can to alleviate the suffering caused by global poverty and hunger. Jesus said, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. . . . For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:33\-34\). Like Tabitha, we should “always \[be] doing good and helping the poor” (Acts 9:36\). The believer who selflessly gives to the poor will be blessed by God. “He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, / and he will reward him for what he has done” (Proverbs 19:17\). These divine blessings may be spiritual rather than material, but a reward is guaranteed—giving to the poor is an investment in eternity. There are several Christian relief organizations that work not only to combat global poverty and hunger, but also to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. Groups such as Compassion International strive to meet the needs of the total person, both physical and spiritual. Christians should respond to global poverty and hunger with hope. Believers can act on behalf of the poor with the confidence that they are helping further God’s work in the world: “I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor / and upholds the cause of the needy” (Psalm 140:12\). Believers labor with the hope that Jesus will return, and “with righteousness he will judge the needy, / with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth” (Isaiah 11:4\). Until that day of ultimate equity, Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11\). That being the case, we have unlimited opportunities—and the urgent obligation—to serve the Lord by serving others.
What is the Christian life supposed to be like?	Answer The Christian life is supposed to be a life lived by faith. It is by faith that we enter into the Christian life, and it is by faith that we live it out. When we begin the Christian life by coming to Christ for forgiveness of sin, we understand that what we seek cannot be obtained by any other means than by faith. We cannot work our way to heaven, because nothing we could ever do would be sufficient. Those who believe they can attain eternal life by keeping rules and regulations—a list of do’s and don’ts—deny what the Bible clearly teaches. “But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is clear, for, ‘The just shall live by faith’" (Galatians 3:11\). The Pharisees of Jesus’ day rejected Christ because He told them this very truth, that all their righteous deeds were worthless and that only faith in their Messiah would save them. In Romans 1, Paul says that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power that saves us, the gospel being the good news that all who believe in Him will have eternal life. When we enter into the Christian life by faith in this good news, we see our faith grow as we come to know more and more about the God who saved us. The gospel of Christ actually reveals God to us as we live to grow closer to Him each day. Romans 1:17 says, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” So part of the Christian life is diligent reading and study of the Word, accompanied by prayer for understanding and wisdom and for a closer, more intimate relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. The Christian life is also supposed to be one of death to self in order to live a life by faith. Paul told the Galatians, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20\). Being crucified with Christ means that we consider our old nature as having been nailed to the cross and we choose to live in the new nature, which is Christ’s (2 Corinthians 5:17\). He who loved us and died for us now lives in us, and the life we live is by faith in Him. Living the Christian life means sacrificing our own desires, ambitions, and glories and replacing them with those of Christ. We can only do this by His power through the faith that He gives us by His grace. Part of the Christian life is praying to that end. The Christian life is also supposed to persevere to the end. Hebrews 10:38\-39 addresses this issue by quoting from the Old Testament prophet Habukkuk: “Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” God is not pleased with one who “draws back” from Him after making a commitment, but those who live by faith will never draw back, because they are kept by the Holy Spirit who assures us that we will continue with Christ until the end (Ephesians 1:13\-14\). The writer of Hebrews goes on to verify this truth in verse 39: “But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.” The true believer is one who believes to the end. So the Christian life is one lived by faith in the God who saved us, empowers us, seals us for heaven, and by whose power we are kept forever. The day\-to\-day life of faith is one that grows and strengthens as we seek God in His Word and through prayer and as we unite with other Christians whose goal of Christlikeness is similar to our own.
What are the different names and titles of Jesus Christ?	Answer There are some 200 names and titles of Christ found in the Bible. Following are some of the more prominent ones, organized in three sections relating to names that reflect the nature of Christ, His position in the tri\-unity of God, and His work on earth on our behalf. Names and titles of Jesus Christ — His nature Chief Cornerstone: (Ephesians 2:20\) – Jesus is the cornerstone of the building which is His church. He cements together Jew and Gentile, male and female—all saints from all ages and places into one structure built on faith in Him which is shared by all. Firstborn over all creation: (Colossians 1:15\) – Jesus is not the first thing God created, as some incorrectly claim, because verse 16 says all things were created through and for Christ. Rather, the meaning is that Christ occupies the rank and pre\-eminence of the first\-born over all things, that He sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; He is pre\-eminent above all others; He is at the head of all things. Head of the Church: (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23\) – Jesus Christ, not a king or a pope, is the only supreme, sovereign ruler of the Church—those for whom He died and who have placed their faith in Him alone for salvation. Holy One: (Acts 3:14; Psalm 16:10\) – Christ is holy, both in his divine and human nature, and the fountain of holiness to His people. By His death, we are made holy and pure before God. Judge: (Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:8\) – The Lord Jesus was appointed by God to judge the world and to dispense the rewards of eternity. King of kings and Lord of lords: (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 19:16\) – Jesus has dominion over all authority on the earth, over all kings and rulers, and none can prevent Him from accomplishing His purposes. He directs them as He pleases. Light of the World: (John 8:12\) – Jesus came into a world darkened by sin and shed the light of life and truth through His work and His words. Those who trust in Him have their eyes opened by Him and walk in the light. Prince of peace: (Isaiah 9:6\) – Jesus came not to bring peace to the world as in the absence of war, but peace between God and man who were separated by sin. He died to reconcile sinners to a holy God. Son of God: (Luke 1:35; John 1:49\) – Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14\). Used 42 times in the New Testament, “Son of God” affirms the deity of Christ. Son of man: (John 5:27\) – The phrase “[Son of Man](Jesus-Son-of-Man.html)” emphasizes the humanity of Christ which exists alongside His divinity. It is also a messianic title (Daniel 7:13\-14; Mark 14:63\). Word: (John 1:1; 1 John 5:7\-8\) – The Word is the second Person of the triune God, who said it and it was done, who spoke all things out of nothing in the first creation, who was in the beginning with God the Father, and was God, and by whom all things were created. Word of God: (Revelation 19:12\-13\) – This is the name given to Christ that is unknown to all but Himself. It denotes the mystery of His divine person. Word of Life: (1 John 1:1\) – Jesus not only spoke words that lead to eternal life, but according to this verse He is the very words of life, referring to the eternal life of joy and fulfillment which He provides. Names and titles of Jesus Christ — His position in the Trinity Alpha and Omega: (Revelation 1:8; 22:13\) – Jesus declared Himself to be the beginning and end of all things, a reference to no one but the true God. This statement of eternality could apply only to God. Emmanuel: (Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:23\) – Literally “God with us.” Both Isaiah and Matthew affirm that the Christ who would be born in Bethlehem would be God Himself who came to earth in the form of a man to live among His people. I Am: (John 8:58, with Exodus 3:14\) – When Jesus ascribed to Himself this title, the Jews tried to stone Him for blasphemy. They understood that He was declaring Himself to be the eternal God, the unchanging Yahweh of the Old Testament. Lord of All: (Acts 10:36\) – Jesus is the sovereign ruler over the whole world and all things in it, of all the nations of the world, and particularly of the people of God’s choosing, Gentiles as well as Jews. True God: (1 John 5:20\) – This is a direct assertion that Jesus, being the true God, is not only divine, but is the Divine. Since the Bible teaches there is only one God, this can only be describing His nature as part of the triune God. Names and titles of Jesus Christ — His work on earth Author and Perfecter of our Faith: (Hebrews 12:2\) – Salvation is accomplished through the faith that is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8\-9\) and Jesus is the founder of our faith and the finisher of it as well. From first to last, He is the source and sustainer of the faith that saves us. Bread of Life: (John 6:35; 6:48\) – Just as bread sustains life in the physical sense, Jesus is the Bread that gives and sustains eternal life. God provided manna in the wilderness to feed His people and He provided Jesus to give us eternal life through His body, broken for us. Bridegroom: (Matthew 9:15\) – The picture of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride reveals the special relationship we have with Him. We are bound to each other in a covenant of grace that cannot be broken. Deliverer: (Romans 11:26\) – Just as the Israelites needed God to deliver them from bondage to Egypt, so Christ is our Deliverer from the bondage of sin. Good Shepherd: (John 10:11,14\) – In Bible times, a good shepherd was willing to risk his own life to protect his sheep from predators. Jesus laid down His life for His sheep, and He cares for and nurtures and feeds us. High Priest: (Hebrews 2:17\) – The Jewish high priest entered the Temple once a year to make atonement for the sins of the people. The Lord Jesus performed that function for His people once for all at the cross. Lamb of God: (John 1:29\) – God’s Law called for the sacrifice of a spotless, unblemished Lamb as an atonement for sin. Jesus became that Lamb led meekly to the slaughter, showing His patience in His sufferings and His readiness to die for His own. Mediator: (1 Timothy 2:5\) – A mediator is one who goes between two parties to reconcile them. Christ is the one and only Mediator who reconciles men and God. Praying to Mary or the saints is idolatry because it bypasses this most important role of Christ and ascribes the role of Mediator to another. Rock: (1 Corinthians 10:4\) – As life\-giving water flowed from the rock Moses struck in the wilderness, Jesus is the Rock from which flow the living waters of eternal life. He is the Rock upon whom we build our spiritual houses, so that no storm can shake them. Resurrection and Life: (John 11:25\) – Embodied within Jesus is the means to resurrect sinners to eternal life, just as He was resurrected from the grave. Our sin is buried with Him and we are resurrected to walk in newness of life. Savior: (Matthew 1:21; Luke 2:11\) – He saves His people by dying to redeem them, by giving the Holy Spirit to renew them by His power, by enabling them to overcome their spiritual enemies, by sustaining them in trials and in death, and by raising them up at the last day. True Vine: (John 15:1\) – The True Vine supplies all that the branches (believers) need to produce the fruit of the Spirit— the living water of salvation and nourishment from the Word. Way, Truth, Life: (John 14:6\) – Jesus is the only path to God, the only Truth in a world of lies, and the only true source of eternal life. He embodies all three in both a temporal and an eternal sense.
Why are there times in my life when finding God is so difficult?	Answer Some of the most promising and spectacular words ever spoken by God are found in the book of Jeremiah: “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you” (Jeremiah 29:13–14\). And sometimes, in our quest for finding God, it appears that He wants to remind us of this extraordinary promise. We’re deeply troubled, so we fervently pray. We’re distressed, so we cry out to God for relief. But sometimes all we hear in reply is a silence so deafening it drowns out every thought but this: God isn’t listening. So we ask, “Has God abandoned me?” Many believers have experienced the feeling that finding God is difficult or impossible. After C. S. Lewis lost his wife to cancer, he called out to God for comfort but sensed no reply. Confused, he asked, “What can this mean? Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in time of trouble?” The Scripture speaks of cries for help from those who are intent on finding God: “Will the Lord reject forever? Will he never show his favor again? Has his unfailing love vanished forever? Has his promise failed for all time?” (Psalm 77:7–8\). This prayer of the psalmist communicates the heart of someone focused on finding God: “O God, do not keep silent; be not quiet, O God, be not still” (Psalm 83:1\). At times, finding God seems difficult, even for those who have a relationship with Him. Changes in life bring uncertainty: the loss of a job, a divorce, a job promotion, the birth of a child. Some have referred to these unexpected changes in life as “divine interruptions.” Even when the change is positive, it can interrupt our feelings of well\-being and leave us feeling alone. The question arises, “Where is God anyway? Why am I having such a difficult time finding God?” It’s important to remember that, in finding God, the promise of Jeremiah 29:13–14 is never nullified by our subjective feelings. Just because we feel that God is far from us doesn’t mean He is. In fact, He has told us that He will never leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5\). Since God never lies, we reject incorrect conclusions about our circumstances when those conclusions contradict what we know about God from His Word. We [walk by faith](walk-by-faith-not-by-sight.html), not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7\). For the key to finding God, we have to go back to Psalm 77\. After the psalmist laments that God has rejected him and His love has vanished (verses 7–8\), he comes to his senses and writes verses 11–12, giving us the two\-part solution to feeling abandoned by God: “I will remember the deeds of the LORD; yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago. I will meditate on all your works and consider all your mighty deeds.” First, the psalmist determines to remember God’s deeds and His miracles. Just remembering how God saved us from a life of futility and an eternity in hell should give us a proper perspective on His love. When we think of the many times God has intervened in our lives in the form of answered prayer, we are reminded of His faithfulness. Some people find it helpful to keep a journal of answered prayer that they can refer back to in the “dry” times of doubts and confusion. Second, the psalmist determines to meditate on God’s Word to reach his objective of finding God. Meditating on God’s Word is the only sure way to come to right conclusions about God. Those who are “blessed” in Psalm 1 are those who mediate on God’s law—the Bible—“day and night.” God’s Word delights us (Psalm 1:2\) and makes us strong, fruitful, and able to withstand life’s storms without withering (verse 3\). To neglect the Word is to neglect the only means of sanctification in our lives (John 17:17\) and to leave ourselves open to the lies of the devil, who would like nothing better than to convince us that God has abandoned us. Jeremiah promises that, when we seek God with all our hearts, God will be found. As Paul told the Athenians, God “is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being’” (Acts 17:27–28\). As we embark on the never\-ending quest to find God in every single day, we remember and meditate on His mighty works, and we welcome His “divine interruptions.”
What were the key events in the life of Jesus Christ?	Answer The following are the key events in the life of Christ and the Bible books where each is described (Part 1\): Birth: (Matthew 1—2; Luke 2\) – Within these passages are all the elements of the well\-known Christmas story, the beginning of the earthly life of Christ. Mary and Joseph, no room at the inn, the babe in the manger, the shepherds with their flocks, a multitude of angels rejoicing. We also see wise men from the East following the star to Bethlehem and bearing gifts for the Christ child, and Joseph, Mary, and Jesus escaping to Egypt and later returning to Nazareth. These passages also include Jesus being presented at the temple at eight days old and, at twelve years old, remaining behind at the temple speaking with the teachers there. The story of the birth of the Savior two thousand years ago is amazing, filled with exquisite and meaningful details treasured by those present as well as believers millennia after. But the story of God coming to earth as a man began thousands of years earlier with the prophecies of the coming Messiah. God spoke of a Savior in Genesis 3:15\. Centuries later, Isaiah foretold of a virgin who would conceive and bear a son and call His name Emmanuel, which means “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14\). The first of the key events in the life of Christ is the humble beginning in a stable, when God came to be with us, born to set His people free and to save us from our sins. Baptism: (Matthew 3:13\-17; Mark 1:9\-11; Luke 3:21\-23\) – Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist at the Jordan River is the first act of His public ministry. John’s was a baptism of repentance, and although Jesus did not need such a baptism, He consented to it in order to identify Himself with sinners. In fact, when John balked that Jesus wanted to be baptized by him, saying that it was he, John, who should be baptized by Jesus, Jesus insisted. Jesus said, "It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness," so John did as requested (Matthew 3:13\-15\). In His baptism, Jesus identified with the sinners whose sins He would soon bear on the cross where He would exchange His righteousness for their sin (2 Corinthians 5:21\). The baptism of Christ symbolized His death and resurrection, prefigured and lent importance to Christian baptism, and publicly identified Christ with those for whom He would die. In addition, His identity as the long\-awaited Messiah was confirmed by God Himself who spoke from heaven: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17\). Finally, Jesus’ baptism was the scene of the very first appearance of the Trinity to man. The Son was baptized, the Father spoke, and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove. The Father’s command, the Son’s obedience, and the Holy Spirit’s empowerment present a beautiful picture of the ministry and life of Christ. First miracle: (John 2:1\-11\) – It is fitting that John’s Gospel is the only one that records Jesus’ first miracle. John’s account of the life of Christ has as its theme and purpose to reveal the deity of Christ. This event, where Jesus turns water into wine, shows His divine power over the elements of the earth, the same power that would be revealed again in many more miracles of healing and the control of the elements such as wind and the sea. John goes on to tell us that this first miracle had two outcomes—the glory of Christ was manifest and the disciples believed in Him (John 2:11\). The divine, glorified nature of Christ was hidden when He assumed human form, but in instances such as this miracle, His true nature burst forth and was made manifest to all who had eyes to see (Matthew 13:16\). The disciples always believed in Jesus, but the miracles helped to strengthen their faith and prepare them for the difficult times that lay ahead of them. Sermon on the Mount: (Matthew 5:1\-7:29\) – Perhaps the most famous sermon of all time was preached by Jesus to His disciples early in His public ministry. Many memorable phrases that we know today came from this sermon, including “blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth,” “salt of the earth,” “an eye for an eye,” “the lilies of the field,” “ask and you will receive,” and “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” as well as the concepts of going the extra mile, turning the other cheek, and the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Also in the sermon is the Lord’s Prayer. Most importantly, though, the Sermon on the Mount dealt a devastating blow to the Pharisees and their religion of works\-righteousness. By expounding the spirit of the Law and not just the letter of it, Jesus left no doubt that legalism is of no avail for salvation and that, in fact, the demands of the Law are humanly impossible to meet. He ends the sermon with a call to true faith for salvation and a warning that the way to that salvation is narrow and few find it. Jesus compares those who hear His words and put them into practice to wise builders who build their houses on a solid foundation; when storms come, their houses withstand.
What were the key events in the life of Jesus Christ?	Answer The following are the key events in the life of Christ and the Bible books where each is described: (Part 2\) Feeding of the 5,000: (Matthew 14:15\-21; Mark 6:34\-44; Luke 9:12\-17; John 6:5\-13\) – From five small loaves and two fish, Jesus created enough food to feed many more than 5,000 people. The Gospels tell us there were 5,000 men present, but Matthew adds that there were women and children there besides. Estimates of the crowd are as high as 20,000\. But our God is a God of abundant provision, and little is much in the hands of the Lord. A poignant lesson is learned by seeing that, before He multiplied the loaves and fishes, Jesus commanded the multitude to sit down. This is a beautiful picture of the power of God to accomplish what we cannot, while we rest in Him. There was nothing the people could do to feed themselves; only He could do that. They had only a pittance, but in God’s hands it became a feast that was not only sufficient—it was bountiful. Transfiguration: (Matthew 17:1\-8; Mark 9:2\-8; Luke 9:26\-36\) – This event is referred to as the “Transfiguration,” meaning “a change in form,” because Jesus was changed before the eyes of Peter, James, and John into a reflection of His true nature. His divine glory radiated from Him, changing His face and clothing in such a way that the Gospel writers had trouble relating it. Just as the apostle John used many metaphors to describe what he saw in the visions of Revelation, so, too, did Matthew, Mark, and Luke have to resort to images like “lightning,” “the sun” and “light” to describe Jesus’ appearance. Truly, it was otherworldly. The appearance of Moses and Elijah to converse with Jesus shows us two things. First, the two men represent the Law and the Prophets, both of which foretold Jesus’ coming and His death. Second, the fact that they talked about His upcoming death in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31\) shows their foreknowledge of these events and the sovereign plan of God that was unfolding just as He had foreordained. God spoke from heaven and commanded the disciples to “Hear Him!” thereby stating that Jesus, not Moses and Elijah, now had the power and authority to command them. Raising of Lazarus: (John 11:1\-44\) – Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany, was a personal friend of Jesus, which is why Jesus was sent for by the family when Lazarus was sick. Jesus delayed several days before going to Bethany, knowing that Lazarus would be dead long enough by then to verify this amazing display of divine power. Only God has the power over life and death, and by raising Lazarus from the grave, Jesus was reiterating His authority as God and His supremacy over death. Through this incident, the Son of God would be glorified in an unmistakable way. As with many other miracles and incidents, one of the goals was that the disciples—and we—“may believe” (John 20:31\). Jesus is who He said He was, and this most astounding of His miracles testifies to that fact. Jesus told Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25\) and asked her if she believed what He was saying. This is the basis of the Christian life. We believe that Jesus is the very power of resurrection, and we trust in Him to give us eternal life through that power. We are buried with Him and raised by His authority over death. Only through His power can we be truly saved. Triumphal entry: (Matthew 21:1–11, 14–17; Mark 11:1–11; Luke 19:29–44; John 12:12–19\) – Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem the week before the crucifixion is the basis of what is known as Palm Sunday. The multitudes who greeted Him laid palm branches in the road for Him, but the worship of Him was short\-lived. In just a few days, other crowds would be calling for His death, shouting “Crucify him! Crucify him!” (Luke 23:20\-21\). But as He rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey’s colt, He received the adoration of the crowd and their acknowledgement of His messianic claim. Even the little children welcomed Him, demonstrating that they knew what the Jewish leaders did not, that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy of Zechariah repeated in John 12:15: “See, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”
What were the key events in the life of Jesus Christ?	Answer The following are the key events in the life of Christ and the Bible books where each is described: (Part 3\) Last Supper: (Matthew 26:1\-30; Mark 14:12\-26; Luke 22:7\-38; John 13:1\-38\) – This poignant last meeting with His disciples, whom He loved, begins with an object lesson from Jesus. The disciples had been arguing about who among them was the greatest (Luke 22:24\), displaying their distinctly ungodly perspective. Jesus quietly rose and began to wash their feet, a task normally performed by the lowest, most menial slave. By this simple act, He reminded them that His followers are those who serve one another, not those who expect to be served. He went on to explain that, unless the Lamb of God cleanses a person’s sin, that person will never be clean: “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me” (John 13:8\). During the Last Supper, Jesus also identifies the traitor, Judas, who would betray Him to the authorities and bring about His arrest. The disciples were saddened when Jesus said that one of them would betray Him and wondered which one it could be. They were still confused when Jesus confirmed that it was Judas, whom He instructed to leave and do quickly what he had to do. Also at this supper, Jesus instituted the New Covenant in His blood and gave a new command that those who follow Him are to love one another and live by the power of the Holy Spirit. We remember Jesus’ giving of the New Covenant each time we enter into the Christian ordinance of communion, celebrating Christ’s body that was broken for us and His blood that was shed for us. Arrest at Gethsemane: (Matthew 26:36\-56; Mark 14:32\-50; Luke 22:39\-54; John 18:1\-12\) – After the Last Supper, Jesus led the disciples to the garden of Gethsemane, where several things took place. Jesus separated Himself from them in order to pray, asking them to watch and pray as well. But several times He returned to find them sleeping, overcome with fatigue and grief at the prospect of losing Him. As Jesus prayed, He asked the Father to remove the cup of wrath He was about to drink when God poured out on Him the punishment for the sins of the world. But, as in all things, Jesus submitted to the will of His Father and began to prepare for His death, strengthened by an angel sent to minister to Him in His last hours. Judas arrived with a multitude and identified Jesus with a kiss, and Jesus was arrested and taken to Caiaphas for the first of a series of mock trials. Crucifixion and burial: (Matthew 27:27\-66; Mark 15:16\-47; Luke 23:26\-56; John 19:17\-42\) – The death of Jesus on the cross was the culmination of His ministry on earth. It is the reason He was born as a man—to die for the sins of the world so that those who believe in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16\-18\). After finding Him innocent of all charges, Pilate nevertheless handed Jesus over to the people to be crucified. The events of that day are recorded as including His seven last sayings, the mocking and taunting by the soldiers and the crowd, the casting of lots among the soldiers for His clothing, and three hours of darkness. At the moment Jesus gave up His spirit, there was an earthquake, and the huge, heavy curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was torn from top to bottom, signifying that access to God was now open to all who believe in Jesus. The body of Jesus was taken down from the cross, laid in a borrowed tomb, and left until after the Sabbath. Resurrection: (Matthew 28:1\-10; Mark 16:1\-11; Luke 24:1\-12; John 20:1\-10\). The Bible does not record the actual resurrection so much as it tells of the empty tomb and the news that Jesus had risen. It also speaks of Him appearing to many. We find out that Jesus has risen from the dead when women came to the tomb where He’d been laid to prepare His body for burial. The Gospels each offer different details regarding the account. In short, the tomb was empty, the women were bewildered, and angels announced to them that Jesus had risen. Jesus appeared to them. Peter and John also verified that the tomb was empty, and Jesus appeared to the disciples as well. Post\-resurrection appearances: (Matthew 28:1–20; Mark 16:1–20; Luke 24:1–53; John 20:1—21:25; Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:6–8\) — During the forty days between the crucifixion and His ascension, Jesus appeared many times to people. On the morning of His resurrection, He appeared to Mary the mother of James and other women on their way from the tomb to find the disciples (Matthew 28:9–10\). He then appears to Mary Magdalene at the tomb (John 20:11–18\). Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5\) and to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–32\). Jesus then appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36–43; John 20:19–25\) and later appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26–31\). In Galilee, Jesus appears to seven disciples by the sea (John 21:1–25\) and to about 500 disciples at once (1 Corinthians 15:6\). The risen Christ also appears to His half\-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7\) and finally to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8\). In the course of these meetings, Jesus teaches His disciples many things and gives them the Great Commission. Ascension: (Luke 24:50\-53; Acts 1:9\-12\) – Jesus’ final act on earth was His ascension into heaven in the presence of the disciples. He was taken up in a cloud that hid Him from their view, but two angels came to tell them that He would return one day in a similar manner. For now, Jesus sits at the right hand of His Father in heaven. The act of sitting down signifies that His work is done, as He affirmed before dying on the cross when He said, “It is finished.” There is nothing more to be done to secure the salvation of those who believe in Him. His life on earth is over, the price is paid, the victory is won, and death itself has been defeated. Hallelujah! “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25\).
Is Barack Obama the antichrist?	Answer Typically, there are at least two inherent flaws when this question is asked. First, in the United States and surely other nations, many seek to demonize those with whom they disagree politically. Calling a man the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html) is essentially declaring him to be Satan incarnate. Some were convinced that President Bill Clinton was the Antichrist; others were convinced that President George Bush was the Antichrist. And those who disagreed with the political views of President Barack Obama were throwing the Antichrist label at him as well. This political demonization is ridiculous, as the biblical indicators of who is the Antichrist have nothing to do with conservative or progressive politics. Second, Christians in the United States tend to forget that the end times revolve around the nation of Israel, not the United States. The Bible nowhere explicitly prophesies the existence of the United States. While the United States may have a role in the end times and with the Antichrist, it is also possible that the United States will not even exist in the end times. Misinformation abounds about the Antichrist—the uniquely evil, end\-times world leader—and some of it has been used to create links between the man of sin and Barack Obama. A common claim is that the Antichrist will be a man of Muslim/Arab descent in his 40’s who will rule for 42 months (close to the length of a U.S. Presidency). The Bible nowhere says anything about the ethnicity, religion, or age of the Antichrist. Further, Barack Obama has vehemently denied accusations that he is a Muslim, and he is not of Arab descent. The “42\-months” concept is taken from Revelation 13:5–8, but there is absolutely nothing to connect the 42 months with the 4\-year (48\-month) tenure of a U.S. President. Intentionally spreading such misinformation will likely make it more difficult to recognize the true Antichrist once he appears on the scene. Let’s look at a few things that argue against Barack Obama being the Antichrist. Foremost is the fact that he is no longer President and therefore not the most powerful man in the world any more. Also, there is the matter of his ethnic background. There is some debate among Bible scholars as to the ethnicity of the Antichrist. Some believe that the Antichrist will be of Jewish descent, as he would have to be a Jew to claim to be the Messiah. Others believe that the Antichrist will come from a [revived Roman Empire](Revived-Roman-Empire.html), most likely identified with modern\-day Europe. Barack Obama is the son of a white, non\-Jewish mother, and a black, non\-Jewish, Kenyan father. He is neither Jewish nor European (unless the United States is considered part of Europe in terms of Bible prophecy). Ethnically/racially speaking, Obama does not seem to match what the Bible says about the Antichrist. Also, Barack Obama claims to be a Christian and claims to have faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. While anyone can make such claims, it seems highly unlikely that the Antichrist would even pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Now let’s look at a few qualities that the Bible ascribes to the Antichrist that are similar to traits possessed by Barack Obama. Barack Obama is undeniably a charismatic, intelligent, determined, and revolutionary individual. Often, hundreds of thousands of people attended events when Obama spoke. Believing someone to be a great leader is one thing; mass hysteria and complete devotion are another thing entirely. As a candidate and as President, Barack Obama seemed to have the ability to lead and inspire millions of people. The Antichrist, who will be the leader of a one\-world governmental system in the end times, would have to also possess such traits. It will take such a person to deceive the entire world in the end times (2 Thessalonians 2:11\). The Bible prophesies that the Antichrist will come to power promising peace (Revelation 6:2\) but will rule the earth in a time of evil and devastation (Revelation 6–19\). Barack Obama’s message of world unity and peace was similar to what the Bible says about the promises of the Antichrist’s reign. Further, Barack Obama favored a “big government,” globalist approach to solving the world’s problems. While the end times’ one\-world government is far beyond anything that Obama proposed, his policies did lead in that general direction. Probably the most important factor in identifying the Antichrist is the nation of Israel. The Bible teaches that the Antichrist will enter a 7\-year peace covenant with the nation of Israel but then break the covenant after 3\.5 years (Daniel 9:27\). The Antichrist will then essentially attempt a second Holocaust, the annihilation of the nation of Israel and Jews around the world. Barack Obama claimed that he would come to Israel’s defense should it be attacked. At the same time, Barack Obama made some unclear statements regarding his support of Israel and had relationships with individuals and groups with anti\-Semitic tendencies. Obama’s claim of support for Israel, contradicted by dubious statements and troubling relationships, did seem reminiscent of what the Bible says about the Antichrist’s relationship with the nation of Israel. So, is Barack Obama the Antichrist? Unless Obama could somehow re\-emerge as a global leader, it is not even remotely likely. While Obama does possess some traits that are similar to what the Bible says about the Antichrist, the same could be said for many of today’s world leaders. Second Thessalonians 2:3 states that the Antichrist, “the man of lawlessness,” will be revealed—when the time comes, it will be abundantly clear who he is. Rather than speculating and demonizing, our responsibility is to be wise and discerning, based on what the Bible says about the Antichrist. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4\). And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?” (Revelation 13:1–4\). Addendum: There have been claims that the name “Barack” is found in the Qur’an, and that this fact gives legitimacy to the idea that Barack Obama is a Muslim and/or the Antichrist. According to a word search of the entire Qur’an, this is not the case. The unrelated name “Buraq” (“lightning”) is found in the Isra and Mi’raj, a story also called “Night Journey.” The Isra and Mi’raj are briefly sketched in Surah 17, but Buraq is only mentioned in the extended story found in the Hadith, the gloss or extra\-Qur’anic writings similar to the [Jewish Talmud](Talmud.html). Buraq was a human\-faced, winged horse that provided transportation for the prophets. According to Islamic tradition, Buraq took Abraham from Syria to Mecca to visit Hagar and Ishmael. In “Night Journey,” the Buraq takes Muhammad on a tour of the seven levels of heaven. In more recent times, “Buraq” has become the name of an airline in Libya. The name “Barack” is etymologically unrelated to “Buraq” and is the African form of the Hebrew name “Baruch” (Jeremiah 32:12\), which means “blessed.”
What was early Christianity like?	Answer Christianity began roughly 2,000 years ago, shortly after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Acts 11:26b says, “It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.” “Christians” means “Christ’s people.” Early Christianity consisted of a group of loosely connected local bodies of believers who gathered together on a regular basis, usually in each other’s homes to fellowship and worship together (Acts 16:15; 18:7; 21:8; Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15\). These churches generally had the organization of pastors, elders, and deacons within each individual congregation. This early New Testament church lived communally and often shared resources such as food and money (Acts 2:44\-45 and Acts 4:32\-36\). Their services consisted mainly of preaching (during which time they might also read letters from missionaries such as Paul) and the singing of songs. They took offerings to support the journeys of their missionaries, and they performed baptisms. Also, the early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper each time they gathered together. But, soon, early Christianity was challenged by Roman persecution. The majority of the persecution began with the great fire in Rome that destroyed much of the city and devastated the economy. In an attempt to absolve himself, the Roman Emperor Nero claimed it was the Christians who tried to destroy Rome and its pagan gods. From that point on, the Christians were blamed for many of the misfortunes befalling the Empire. Persecution and martyrdom was quick to follow. Because of this persecution, the early Christians were forced to meet in the catacombs, which were long, dark galleries under the city of Rome. There they continued their meetings, baptisms, and even burials for their dead. As a result of the persecution, many of the early Christians were scattered throughout the Roman Empire, expediting the cause of evangelism and fulfilling the Lord’s commands to make disciples of all nations (Acts 8:1, 4\-40; 11:19\-26; Matthew 28:18\-20\). The early Christians had a pure, simplistic approach. The people were able to concentrate on the study of God’s Word, service and dedication to one another, hospitality, benevolence, and missions (Romans 1:8; 15:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:7\-8; Acts 13:1\-26:32\). The programs and technology present in many churches today can be useful tools in helping us emphasize the same things, but can also sometimes be distractions. Compared to the structured organization of the church today, the early church looked more like the informal settings of one of our Bible studies or small groups. Both early Christianity and modern Christianity have good and bad characteristics, and neither can be idealized. The positives which characterized the early church—a passion for Christ and His Word and a strong love for one another—are what we should strive to emulate in the modern church.
What is Taoism / Daoism?	Answer Taoism (also spelled Daoism) is a religion whose adherents are mostly found in Far Eastern countries such as China, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Singapore where its temples are found. Current estimates are that several hundred million people practice some form of Taoism, with some 20 to 30 million on the Chinese mainland. This is quite remarkable since mainland China is a communist nation and forbids many forms of religion. Taoism’s origins can be traced back to the 3rd or 4th century B.C. Like many religions, Taoism has its own set of scriptures, the main one simply referred to as the "Tao." Other texts are included, and the full spectrum of Taoist canon is known as the Daozang. The word "Tao" comes from the character in the Chinese alphabet of the same name. The word means "way" or "path." Taoism has never been a unified religion, and some scholars place it in three categories: philosophical, religionist and Chinese folk religion. Because of this it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what Taoists believe. Roughly stated, Tao deals with the flow of the universe, or the force behind natural order that keeps all things balanced and in order. It is considered to be a source of existence and "non\-existence." Some Eastern religions refer to this as the "yin and yang" of the universe, which can also express itself as the equal forces of "good" and "evil." Most adherents of Taoism believe anything from polytheism (belief in many gods) to ancestor worship. Taoists tend to worship mostly on holidays in their calendar when food is set out as a sacrifice to the gods or the spirits of departed ancestors. Other forms of sacrifice include burning paper money so it will rematerialize in the spirit world for a departed ancestor to use. A number of martial arts disciplines such as T'ai Chi Ch'uan and Bagua Zang have their roots in Taoism. Few people in the Western world practice Taoism, and it would appear some have confused Tao with Zen, as evidenced from the books The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra or The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff. Although the word Tao means "way," it is not the true Way. There are many religions which claim they are one of the ways to get to God. But Jesus Christ said that He is the only way to God (John 14:6\). Because Taoism denies this, it fails in that it does nothing to deal with the sin nature of mankind. Everyone who has ever been born (except Jesus) came into the world with a sin nature inherited from Adam in the Garden of Eden, and it is that sin that separates us from God. A holy and righteous God must judge sin. But in His mercy, He sent His Son Jesus (who was God in the flesh) into this world to die on the cross and exchange His righteousness for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21\). It is only by accepting this atoning death and believing in Christ that we can escape the judgment of God and receive eternal life (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Christ, not Tao, is the way to eternal life.
How can I have the mind of Christ?	Answer In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13 and then makes a statement concerning all believers: “We have the mind of Christ.” Having the mind of Christ means sharing the plan, purpose, and perspective of Christ, and it is something that all believers possess. Having the mind of Christ means we understand God’s plan in the world—to bring glory to Himself, restore creation to its original splendor, and provide salvation for sinners. It means we identify with Christ’s purpose “to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10\). It means we share Jesus’ perspective of humility and obedience (Philippians 2:5\-8\), compassion (Matthew 9:36\), and prayerful dependence on God (Luke 5:16\). In the verses leading up to 1 Corinthians 2:16, we note some truths concerning the mind of Christ: 1\) The mind of Christ stands in sharp contrast to the wisdom of man (verses 5\-6\). 2\) The mind of Christ involves wisdom from God, once hidden but now revealed (verse 7\). 3\) The mind of Christ is given to believers through the Spirit of God (verses 10\-12\). 4\) The mind of Christ cannot be understood by those without the Spirit (verse 14\). 5\) The mind of Christ gives believers discernment in spiritual matters (verse 15\). In order to have the mind of Christ, one must first have saving faith in Christ (John 1:12; 1 John 5:12\). After salvation, the believer lives a life under God’s influence. The Holy Spirit indwells and enlightens the believer, infusing him with wisdom—the mind of Christ. The believer bears a responsibility to yield to the Spirit’s leading (Ephesians 4:30\) and to allow the Spirit to transform and renew his mind (Romans 12:1\-2\).
Does the Bible support Communism?	Answer Communism, a branch of socialism, is an experimental social system based on a set of ideals that, at first glance, seem to agree with some biblical principles. On closer examination, however, little evidence can be found that the Bible truly supports or endorses communism. There is a difference between communism in theory and communism in practice, and the Bible verses that seem to comply with communist ideals are in fact contradicted by the practices of a communist government. There is a surprising sentence in a description of the church in Acts 2 that has led many people to wonder whether the Bible supports communism, and has led some people to defend strongly the idea that communism is actually biblical. The passage reads, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44\-45\). This statement seems to imply that communism (which has, at its heart, a desire to eliminate poverty by “spreading the wealth around”) is found here in the earliest of Christian churches. However, there is a crucial difference between the church in Acts 2 and a communist society that must be understood. In the Acts 2 church, the people were giving to each other out of their own good will to those who had a need, and they were giving freely, without regulation of how much they were to give. In other words, they shared what they had out of a shared love for one another and a common goal—living for Christ and glorifying God. In a communist society, people give because a system of government forces them to give. They don’t have a choice in the matter as to how much they give or to whom they give. This, therefore, does not reflect on who they are; it says nothing about their identity or character. Under communism, the cheerful, generous giver and the stingy man are both required to give exactly the same amount – namely, everything they earn. The issue is one of cheerful giving (which the Bible supports) versus forced giving. Second Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” After all, the Bible contains a great number of references to helping the poor, being generous with what we have, and looking out for those who are less fortunate. When we obey in this area with cheerful hearts with the proper motivation, our giving is pleasing to God. What is not pleasing to God is giving out of compulsion, because forced giving is not giving out of love and therefore profits nothing in the spiritual sense. Paul tells the Corinthians, “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3\). Loveless giving is the inevitable result of communism. Capitalism is actually a better system when it comes to giving because it has proven to increase individual wealth, which allows its citizens to give out of their increase. Communism has proven to simply make all its citizens poor, except the very few in power who decide where the wealth goes. But even capitalism won’t work, by itself, as a system for aiding the poor. It depends on its citizens to be diligent (Proverbs 10:4\) and generous with the fruits of their labor (1 Timothy 6:18\) and to give out of love for God and neighbor. Thus, we see that God has designed for the physical and financial needs of the poor to be met by Christian individuals, rather than by any system of government.
When will the Resurrection take place?	Answer The Bible is clear that resurrection is a reality and this life is not all that there is. While death is the end of physical life, it is not the end of human existence. Many erroneously believe that there is one general resurrection at the end of the age, but the Bible teaches that there will be not one resurrection, but a series of resurrections, some to eternal life in heaven and some to eternal damnation (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28\-29\). The first great resurrection was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is documented in each of the four Gospels (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20\), cited several times in Acts (Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:2, 33; 26:23\), and mentioned repeatedly in the letters to the churches (Romans 1:4; Philippians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:3\). Much is made of the importance of Christ’s resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12\-34, which records that over five hundred people saw Him at one of His post\-resurrection appearances. Christ’s resurrection is the “first fruits” or guarantee to every Christian that he will also be resurrected. Christ’s resurrection is also the basis of the Christian’s certainty that all people who have died will one day be raised to face fair and even\-handed judgment by Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30\-31\). The resurrection to eternal life is described as “the first resurrection” (Revelation 20:5\-6\); the resurrection to judgment and torment is described as “the second death” (Revelation 20:6, 13\-15\). The first great resurrection of the Church will occur at the time of the rapture. All those who have placed their trust in Jesus Christ during the Church Age, and have died before Jesus returns, will be resurrected at the rapture. The Church Age began on the Day of Pentecost and will end when Christ returns to take believers back to heaven with Him (John 14:1\-3; 1 Thessalonians 4:16\-17\). The Apostle Paul explained that not all Christians will die, but all will be changed, i.e., given resurrection\-type bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50\-58\), some without having to die! Christians who are alive, and those who have already died, will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and be with Him always! Another great resurrection will occur when Christ returns to earth (His Second Coming) at the end of the Tribulation period. After the rapture, the Tribulation is the next event after the Church Age in God’s chronology. This will be a time of terrible judgment upon the world, described in great detail in Revelation chapters 6\-18\. Though all Church Age believers will be gone, millions of people left behind on earth will come to their senses during this time and will trust in Jesus as their Savior. Tragically, most of them will pay for their faith in Jesus by losing their lives (Revelation 6:9\-11; 7:9\-17; 13:7, 15\-17; 17:6; 19:1\-2\). These believers in Jesus who die during the Tribulation will be resurrected at Christ’s return and will reign with Him for a thousand years during the Millennium (Revelation 20:4, 6\). Old Testament believers such as Job, Noah, Abraham, David and even John the Baptist (who was assassinated before the Church began) will be resurrected at this time also. Several passages in the Old Testament mention this event (Job 19:25\-27; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:1\-2; Hosea 13:14\). Ezekiel 37:1\-14 describes primarily the regathering of the Nation of Israel using the symbolism of dead corpses coming back to life. But from the language used, a physical resurrection of dead Israelis cannot be excluded from the passage. Again, all believers in God (in the Old Testament era) and all believers in Jesus (in the New Testament era) participate in the first resurrection, a resurrection to life (Revelation 20:4, 6\). There may be another resurrection at the end of the Millennium, one which is implied, but never explicitly stated in Scripture. It is possible that some believers will die a physical death during the Millennium. Through the prophet Isaiah, God said, "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed” (Isaiah 65:20\). On the other hand, it is also possible that death in the Millennium will only come to the disobedient. In either event, some kind of transformation will be required to fit believers in their natural bodies in the Millennium for pristine existence throughout eternity. Each believer will need to have a “resurrected” type of body. It is clear from Scripture that God will destroy the entire universe, including the earth, with fire (2 Peter 3:7\-12\). This will be necessary to purge God’s creation of its endemic evil and decay brought upon it by man’s sin. In its place God will create a new heaven and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1\-4\). But what will happen to those believers who survived the Tribulation and entered the Millennium in their natural bodies? And what will happen to those who were born during the Millennium, trusted in Jesus, and continued to live in their natural bodies? Paul has made it clear that flesh and blood, which is mortal and able to decay, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That eternal kingdom is inhabitable only by those with resurrected, glorified bodies that are no longer mortal and are not able to decay (1 Corinthians 15:35\-49\). Presumably, these believers will be given resurrection bodies without having to die. Precisely when this happens is not explained, but theologically, it must happen somewhere in the transition from the old earth and universe to the new earth and new heaven (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1\-4\). There is a final resurrection, apparently of all the unbelieving dead of all ages. Jesus Christ will raise them from the dead (John 5:25\-29\) after the Millennium, the thousand\-year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:5\), and after the destruction of the present earth and universe (2 Peter 3:7\-12; Revelation 20:11\). This is the resurrection described by Daniel as an awakening “from the dust of the ground ... to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2\). It is described by Jesus as a “resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28\-29\). The Apostle John saw something that would happen in the future. He saw a “great white throne” (Revelation 20:11\). Heaven and earth “fled away” from the One sitting on it. This is evidently a description of the dissolution by fire of all matter, including the entire universe and earth itself (2 Peter 3:7\-12\). All the (godless) dead will stand before the throne. This means they have been resurrected after the thousand years (Revelation 20:5\). They will possess bodies that can feel pain but will never cease to exist (Mark 9:43\-48\). They will be judged, and their punishment will be commensurate with their works. But there is another book opened—the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 21:27\). Those whose names are not written in the book of life are cast into the “lake of fire,” which amounts to “the second death” (Revelation 20:11\-15\). No indication is given of any who appear at this judgment that their names are found in the book of life. Rather, those whose names appear in the book of life were among those who are blessed, for they received forgiveness and partook of the first resurrection, the resurrection to life (Revelation 20:6\).
What is a prayer labyrinth?	Answer A labyrinth is a path which leads, via a circuitous route, to the center of an intricate design and back out again. A labyrinth’s route is unicursal; that is, it has only a single path. Unlike a maze, a labyrinth is designed for ease of navigation, and it is impossible to get lost within one. A prayer labyrinth is a labyrinth used to facilitate prayer, meditation, spiritual transformation, and/or global unity. The most famous prayer labyrinths today include an ancient one in the cathedral of Chartres, France, another in the cathedral of Duomo di Siena, Tuscany; and two maintained by Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. While prayer labyrinths have been used in Catholic cathedrals for centuries, the past decade has seen resurgence in their popularity, especially within the Emergent Church and among New Age groups and neo\-pagans. Labyrinths have been used by a wide variety of cultures for at least 3,500 years. Evidence of ancient labyrinths exists in Crete, Egypt, Italy, Scandinavia, and North America. Ancient labyrinths had what is usually called the “classical” design of seven rings, or circuits. They were decidedly pagan in function: many labyrinths were dedicated to a goddess and used in ritualistic dances. The Hopi Indians saw the labyrinth as a symbol of Mother Earth, and the hundreds of stone labyrinths along the Scandinavian shoreline were used as magic traps for trolls and evil winds to ensure safe fishing. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church adapted the labyrinth for its own purposes within its cathedrals. The classical form gave way to a more intricate design of 11 circuits in 4 quadrants, usually called the “medieval” design. Within Catholicism, the labyrinth could symbolize several things: the hard and winding road to God, a mystical ascension to salvation and enlightenment, or even a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for those who could not make the actual journey. The modern “rediscovery” of the labyrinth and its use in church settings is celebrated by groups such as The Labyrinth Society and Veriditas, The World\-Wide Labyrinth Project. According to these groups, the labyrinth is a “divine imprint,” a “mystical tradition,” a “sacred path,” and a “sacred gateway.” The stated purpose of Veriditas is “to transform the Human Spirit,” using “the Labyrinth Experience as a personal practice for healing and growth, a tool for community building, an agent for global peace and a metaphor for the blossoming of the Spirit in our lives” (from the official Veriditas website). According to Veriditas, walking a prayer labyrinth involves 3 stages: purgation (releasing), illumination (receiving), and union (returning). Purgation occurs as one moves toward the center of the labyrinth. During this stage, one sheds the cares and distractions of life and opens his heart and mind. Illumination occurs at the center of the labyrinth; this is the time to “receive what is there for you” through prayer and meditation. Union occurs as one exits the labyrinth and involves “joining God, your Higher Power, or the healing forces at work in the world.” Proponents of prayer labyrinths speak of using the labyrinth to become enlightened, realigned with the universe, and increasingly empowered to know one’s Self and to accomplish the work of the soul. Some, such as Dr. Lauren Artress, president of Veriditas, also speak of the “many levels of consciousness” which touch the worshiper in a labyrinth, including the consciousness that he is “one of those pilgrims walking in the early times. It feels like it’s from another time; it doesn’t feel like it’s in this life” (from an interview with Dr. Lauren Artress on the official Veriditas website). Perhaps as a throwback to the old goddess worship, many prayer labyrinths contain feminine symbols in the center. Dr. Artress recognizes the symbolism and speaks freely of connecting with the “sacred feminine” in a labyrinth and of the need to view God as both a “he” and a “she.” Are prayer labyrinths biblical? No, they are not. Not only are labyrinths never mentioned in the Bible, but they also conflict with several biblical principles of worship and prayer. 1\) God seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24; Philippians 3:3; Psalm 29:2\). Proponents of prayer labyrinths speak of “body worship” and the goal to employ all five senses in worship. But body worship is not a biblical concept. We live by faith, not by sight, and worship is not a sensuous, physical activity; worship is a matter of the heart, expressed in praise and service to God. For the New Testament believer, worship has nothing to do with external trappings such as lighting candles, kneeling at an altar, or walking in circles. 2\) Prayer is not to become ritualistic (Matthew 6:5\-8\). Dr. Artress says that “ritual feeds the soul” and recommends repeated, regular trips through the labyrinth. If ritual were truly food for the soul, then the Pharisees of Jesus’ day should have been the best\-fed souls alive—after all, their religious system abounded in ritual and tradition. Yet Jesus rebuked them on more than one occasion for the deadness and hypocrisy of their religion (Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:6\-13\). 3\) Every believer has the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16\). Many who walk prayer labyrinths are seeking special insight, new revelation, or a discovery of “the God who’s within.” Such an emphasis on mysticism and esoteric knowledge comes dangerously close to Gnosticism and New Age thinking. The Christian has no need of mystical experience or extra\-biblical revelation: “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth” (1 John 2:20\). 4\) God is near to all those who call upon Him in truth (Psalm 145:18; Acts 17:27\). No ritual, including walking a labyrinth, can bring anyone any closer to God. Jesus is the way (John 14:6\). Repentance and faith are what is required (Acts 20:21\). 5\) The Bible is sufficient to make the Christian holy, wise, and completely proficient for his work in this world (2 Timothy 3:15\-17\). To say that, in order to find real power, we must add mysticism or tradition to the Bible is to denigrate God’s Word and the Spirit’s work through it. Historically, labyrinths were rooted in paganism and incorporated by Catholicism. Now they are promoted by the Emergent Church and others who seek an open spirituality apart from the Bible. Paul’s warning to the church should suffice to keep us focused on Jesus and avoid empty ritual: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8\).
What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?	Answer Christians and non\-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro\-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled. There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way. Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons. First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution. Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The fossil record might seem to support [punctuated equilibrium](punctuated-equilibrium.html), but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time. While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead. Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate. The second flaw is the problem of extending [“microevolution” into “macroevolution.”](microevolution-macroevolution.html) Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. Long\-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large\-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another. Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non\-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti\-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God. Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.
Who was the real historical Jesus?	Answer Without a doubt one of the most frequently asked questions is “Who was Jesus?” There is no doubt that Jesus has, by far, the highest name recognition throughout the world. Fully one\-third of our world’s population—about 2\.5 billion people—call themselves Christians. Islam, which comprises about 1\.5 billion people, actually recognizes Jesus as the second greatest prophet after Mohammed. Of the remaining 3\.2 billion people (roughly half the world’s population), most have either heard of the name of Jesus or know about Him. If one were to put together a summary of the life of Jesus from His birth to His death, it would be somewhat sparse. He was born of Jewish parents in Bethlehem, a small town south of Jerusalem, while the territory was under Roman occupation. His parents moved north to Nazareth, where He grew up; hence He was commonly known as “Jesus of Nazareth.” His father was a carpenter, so Jesus likely learned that trade in His early years. Around thirty years of age, He began a public ministry. He chose a dozen men of dubious reputation as His disciples and worked out of Capernaum, a large fishing village and trading center on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. From there He traveled and preached throughout the region of Galilee, often moving among neighboring Gentiles and Samaritans with intermittent journeys to Jerusalem. Jesus’ unusual teachings and methodology startled and troubled many. His revolutionary message, coupled with astonishing miracles and healings, garnered a huge following. His popularity among the populace grew rapidly, and, as a result, it was noticed by the well\-entrenched leaders of the Jewish faith. Soon, these Jewish leaders became jealous and resentful of His success. Many of these leaders found His teachings offensive and felt that their established religious traditions and ceremonies were being jeopardized. They soon plotted with the Roman rulers to have Him killed. It was during this time that one of Jesus’ disciples betrayed Him to the Jewish leaders for a paltry sum of money. Shortly thereafter, they had Him arrested, engineered a hastily arranged series of mock trials, and summarily executed Him by crucifixion. But unlike any other in history, Jesus’ death was not the end of His story; it was, in fact, the beginning. Christianity exists only because of what happened after Jesus died. Three days after His death, His disciples and many others began to claim that He had returned to life from the dead. His grave was found empty, the body gone, and numerous appearances were witnessed by many different groups of people, at different locations, and among dissimilar circumstances. As a result of all this, people began to proclaim that Jesus was the Christ, or the Messiah. They claimed His resurrection validated the message of forgiveness of sin through His sacrifice. At first, they declared this good news, known as the gospel, in Jerusalem, the same city where He was put to death. This new following soon became known as the Way (see Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23; Acts 24:22\) and expanded rapidly. In a short period of time, this gospel message of faith spread even beyond the region, expanding as far as Rome as well as to the very outermost of its vast empire. It was Dr. James Allan Francis who penned the following words that aptly describe the influence of Jesus through the history of mankind: "Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. "He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself. . . . "While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth—His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. "Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress. "I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life." The late Wilbur Smith, respected Bible scholar of the last generation, once wrote, “The latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica gives twenty thousand words to this person, Jesus, and does not even hint that He did not exist—more words, by the way, than are given to Aristotle, Alexander, Cicero, Julius Caesar, or Napoleon Bonaparte.” George Buttrick, recognized as one of the ten greatest preachers of the twentieth century, wrote: “Jesus gave history a new beginning. In every land he is at home. . . . His birthday is kept across the world. His death\-day set a gallows against every skyline.” Even Napoleon himself admitted, "I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ was no mere man: between him and whoever else in the world there is no possible term of comparison."

Subsets and Splits

Top Long Responses

Returns the prompts and responses where the response length falls within a specified range, ordered by decreasing length, which provides basic insight into the distribution of response lengths.