Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
What is the origin of Christianity?	Answer "And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead . . . the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints . . . Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:18, 26\-28\). Discussing the origin of Christianity requires the review of an intricate story spanning time and eternity. Instead of a simple beginning, we consider Christianity’s origin from several points of view. Acts 2 records the birth of the church at Pentecost. This was indeed a Feast of Harvest (Exodus 23:16\), because a harvest of about 3,000 souls took place on that day when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and disciples (Acts 2:1\-41\). Biblically, Christianity is not a building or religion but the church, or household of God. It is embodied in Christ and His people, individually and collectively. Before time began, the church was conceived in the mind of God. Then, “when the time had fully come" (Galatians 4:4\), God sent His only son, "born of a woman, born under law" to be the church’s true founder, foundation, and head (1 Corinthians 3:11\). As the first of the chosen ones (1 Peter 2:6\), Jesus, the anointed one, died as the perfect Passover lamb fifty days before the events of Acts 2\. Before that, He prepared the apostles for three years, giving them the Father’s Word and keeping them in His name (John 17:12, 14\). After His resurrection He breathed into the apostles the breath of eternal life in the form of the Holy Spirit, who was to indwell them (John 20:22; cf. John 14:25\-26\). They became the seeds of the new church, which sprouted into thousands when the Holy Spirit came upon them, empowering them to witness, preach, and carry out the mission Jesus gave them. Rising from the dead, Jesus was the first fruits of God’s Kingdom; ''then, when he comes, those who belong to him will also rise, never to die again (John 11:25\-26\). Thus, Jesus is the one foundation and source of the church. The Old Testament had prophesied that a “shoot” would come from the “stump” of Jesse (King David’s father) and that this “branch” would bear fruit (Isaiah 11:1, 10\). Jesus is that Messiah or Christ. He is the hope of Jews and Gentiles. "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him" (Romans 15:12; cf. Revelation 5:5; 22: 16\). Peter learned that Jesus is not merely a human being, the Son of David, when God showed him that Jesus is "the Son of the living God." To this, Jesus added that He Himself is the Rock or foundation upon which He would build His church (Matthew 16:16\-18; see also Isaiah 26:4\). The building of the church upon Jesus, the Rock of Israel (Isaiah 30:29\), is taught in 2 Corinthians 6:16 (see also Ephesians 2:21\-22\). Some writers mention that the word for “church” in the original Greek is ecclesia, meaning “a called\-out assembly” (εκκλησιαν – Matthew 16:18\) and that the church is formed by the “elect” or chosen (Mark 13:20; Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33\). Yes, the elect have been called out from the kingdom of darkness, but we have also been called into God’s family as adopted children. “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Romans 8:16; cf. Ephesians 5:1, 8\). We are chosen, but Jesus is the first of the chosen (1 Peter 2:6\), and He lives in us as we live or abide in Him (John 8:31; 15:4\-9\). Christians are individually in Christ even as the church as a whole is in Christ (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30\). The mystery of Christ and the church is brought out in Paul’s discussion of the mystery by which two become “one flesh” in marriage, in Ephesians 5\. There the apostle writes that “this mystery is profound,” referring to Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32\). The tense of the Greek word translated “mystery” (μυστηριον) is singular. This grammatical detail shows that in their unity Christ and the church are one mystery. They are not a mixture or compound; rather, their union is like that of a man and woman in holy matrimony who become “one flesh” or a new family unit without giving up their individuality (Genesis 2:24\). In marriage a couple becomes legal “kin,” even though they are not blood relatives as Adam and Eve were. Similarly, through Christ God legally adopts the chosen as children (Ephesians 1:5\). Because of this, and because Christ lives in each member of the church, His spiritual body, He is our hope of glory (Colossians 1:18, 26\-28\). Christ’s presence in Christians answers Jesus’ prayer in John 17: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you” (John 17:20\-21; see also John 17:11\). The connection between the words “church” and “Christianity” is old and complicated, but we can simply say that Christians do not go to church; rather, they are the church. Most disciples who first joined the growing church were Jews. Like Paul (Philippians 3:5; Romans 11:1\), they considered themselves Israelites, descendants of Abraham, to whom belonged the covenants, the giving of the law, etc. (Romans 9:4\-5\). They acknowledged the Lord Jesus as Messiah and God but did not (at first) call themselves “Christians.” At Antioch in the first century, outsiders first called the followers of the Christ “Christians” (Acts 11:26\). They thought “Christ” was the proper name of the God whom they worshiped, not aware that “Christ” means “anointed” and that Jesus is the Christ. As for “church,” some early Christian writers used this word to refer to the place where people worshiped (i.e., the church building). But in the New Testament, the word translated “church” refers to the “household of God.” In Ephesians 2:19, the Greek word translated “household” is οἰκεῖοι. This plural form refers to all those who belong to the immediate family of God, i.e., those who are spiritually family in the faith (Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19\). As members of this universal household, Christians have taken root and blossomed among the various peoples and in almost every language group in the world. Now, let’s look beyond history to reflect on the eternal origins of the church (i.e., “Christianity”) in the mind of God. Even as God chose Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:18\), He also elected the church in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4\). In eternity past, God willed that the elect would be saved and made part of His household by adoption. “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:5\). However, the church born on Pentecost has not yet realized its ultimate purpose in its development. The church is not yet the spotless bride of Christ (Revelation 19:6\-8\), in accord with God’s purpose for it, as we read in Ephesians 1:4: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” The fulfillment of this prophetic purpose which God set forth in Christ (Romans 8:28; 9:11\) “to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment” (Ephesians 1:10\) does not depend on “… anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9\). One reason the “visible” church is not perfect is because within its ranks there are false Christians. Jesus told the apostles that within the church there would be a mixture of “wheat and chaff,” genuine saints and secret, unrepentant, self\-deceived sinners (hypocrites). Considering that Christ has not yet returned in power and glory (Matthew 26:64; Mark 13:26\), and that the elect have not yet been revealed as God’s children (Romans 8:19; 1 John 3:2\), the mystery of Christ and the church, kept secret for long ages (Romans 16:25\), remains partially concealed. The unveiling of the church will not take place until the moment we are changed, as 1 Corinthians 15:51\-53 says. The real hope for Christians is not that we will be immortal (the damned in hell will also be immortal, but they will be without Christ), but that Christ lives in us now (Colossians 1:28\). This brings us to a final thought about the church’s present hidden\-ness and ultimate unveiling. We have been redeemed, we are no longer slaves to sin, and death no longer has dominion over us (Romans 6:5\-9\). Nevertheless, our “body of sin” or “body of death” (Romans 6:6; 7:24\) has yet to be “brought to nothing.” We still await the resurrection and redemption of our sin\-stained flesh. This will take place when the Lord returns for us. Then “we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is” (1 John 3:2\). Then, our glorious, imperishable spiritual bodies will be revealed (Philippians 3:20\-21\), and we will no longer be burdened by what remains of the carnal or sinful mind. Thus, in a real sense, the church or Christianity in its perfection, as the undefiled and glorified bride of Christ, continues to wear a discrete veil, until she is called to heaven in glory at the marriage supper of the Lamb. This event is prophesied in Revelation 19:6\-8, where we read, “Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: ‘Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.’ (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)”
Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times?	Answer The Bible does not use the phrase one\-world government or one\-world currency in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days. In his apocalyptic vision in the book of Revelation, the apostle John sees the “beast,” whom we identify as the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), rising out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1\). Comparing this vision to Daniel’s similar one (Daniel 7:16–24\), we can conclude that some sort of world governance system will be inaugurated by the beast, the most powerful “horn,” who will “wage war against God’s holy people and . . . conquer them” (Revelation 13:7\). The ten\-nation confederacy is also seen in the statue of Daniel 2:41–42, where the final world government consists of ten entities represented by the statue’s ten toes. Whoever the ten nations are and however they come to unite, Scripture is clear that the beast will subdue three of them (Daniel 7:8\), and the rest will do his bidding. John describes the ruler of this vast empire as having power and great authority, given to him by Satan himself (Revelation 13:2\). This ruler receives worship from “all the world” (Revelation 13:3–4\) and will have authority over “every tribe, people, language and nation” (Revelation 13:7\). This person will truly be the leader of a one\-world government that is recognized as sovereign over all other governments. We see nations today willing to give up some of their sovereignty to combat climate change; it’s easy to imagine that the disasters and plagues described in Revelation 6—11 would create such a monumental crisis that the nations of the world will embrace anything and anyone who promises a solution. Once entrenched in power, the beast (the Antichrist) and the power behind him (Satan) will move to establish absolute control. In demanding worship, Satan edges toward his goal of being like God (see Isaiah 14:12–14\). To truly control people, commerce must be controlled. Revelation 13 describes how this will happen. Everyone, “great and small, rich and poor, free and slave,” will be forced to receive [some type of mark](mark-beast.html) “on their right hands or on their foreheads” in order to buy and sell (Revelation 13:16\). No doubt the majority of people in the world will receive the mark simply to survive. This new system of commerce will be universal, it will be compulsory, and it will be associated with the worship of the beast (Revelation 13:15\). There is a great deal of speculation as to what form this mark will take and how it will be affixed, but the technologies available right now could accomplish it easily. Those who are left behind after the [rapture of the church](rapture-of-the-church.html) will be faced with an excruciating choice—accept the mark of the beast or face starvation and horrific persecution by the Antichrist and his followers. But those who come to Christ during that time, those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 13:8\), will choose to endure, even through martyrdom.
What did Jesus mean when He promised an abundant life?	Answer In John 10:10, Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (ESV). Unlike a thief, the Lord Jesus does not come for selfish reasons. He comes to give, not to get. He comes that people may have life in Him that is meaningful, purposeful, joyful, and eternal. We receive this abundant life the moment we accept Him as our Savior. This word “abundant” in the Greek is perisson, meaning “exceedingly, very highly, beyond measure, more, superfluous, a quantity so abundant as to be considerably more than what one would expect or anticipate.” In short, Jesus promises us a life far better than we could ever imagine, a concept reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 2:9: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” The apostle Paul tells us that God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, and He does it by His power, a power that is at work within us if we belong to Him (Ephesians 3:20\). Before we begin to have visions of lavish homes, expensive cars, worldwide cruises, and more money than we know what to do with, we need to pause and think about what Jesus teaches regarding this abundant life. The Bible tells us that wealth, prestige, position, and power in this world are not God’s priorities for us (1 Corinthians 1:26\-29\). In terms of economic, academic, and social status, most Christians do not come from the privileged classes. Clearly, then, abundant life does not consist of an abundance of material things. If that were the case, Jesus would have been the wealthiest of men. But just the opposite is true (Matthew 8:20\). Abundant life is eternal life, a life that begins the moment we come to Christ and receive Him as Savior, and goes on throughout all eternity. The biblical definition of life — specifically eternal life — is provided by Jesus Himself: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3\). This definition makes no mention of length of days, health, prosperity, family, or occupation. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does mention is knowledge of God, which is the key to a truly abundant life. What is the abundant life? First, abundance is spiritual abundance, not material. In fact, God is not overly concerned with the physical circumstances of our lives. He assures us that we need not worry about what we will eat or wear (Matthew 6:25\-32; Philippians 4:19\). Physical blessings may or may not be part of a God\-centered life; neither our wealth nor our poverty is a sure indication of our standing with God. Solomon had all the material blessings available to a man yet found it all to be meaningless (Ecclesiastes 5:10\-15\). Paul, on the other hand, was content in whatever physical circumstances he found himself (Philippians 4:11\-12\). Second, eternal life, the life a Christian is truly concerned with, is not determined by duration but by a relationship with God. This is why, once we are converted and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, we are said to have eternal life already (1 John 5:11\-13\), though not, of course, in its fullness. Length of life on earth is not synonymous with abundant life. Finally, a Christian’s life revolves around “grow\[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18\). This teaches us that the abundant life is a continual process of learning, practicing, and maturing, as well as failing, recovering, adjusting, enduring, and overcoming, because, in our present state, “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” (1 Corinthians 13:12\). One day we will see God face to face, and we will know Him completely as we will be known completely (1 Corinthians 13:12\). We will no longer struggle with sin and doubt. This will be the ultimately fulfilled abundant life. Although we are naturally desirous of material things, as Christians our perspective on life must be revolutionized (Romans 12:2\). Just as we become new creations when we come to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\), so must our understanding of “abundance” be transformed. True abundant life consists of an abundance of love, joy, peace, and the rest of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\), not an abundance of “stuff.” It consists of life that is eternal, and, therefore, our interest is in the eternal, not the temporal. Paul admonishes us, “Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:2\-3\).
What does the Bible say about vampires?	Answer The popularity of the teen romance novels in the Twilight series has given rise to a renewed interest in vampires. The vampire is a mythological being who is said to exist by drinking the blood of other people, usually by biting their necks, after which the victim also becomes a vampire who seeks new victims. The vampire legend can be traced back to medieval and Eastern European folklore, but variations of tales of vampire\-like creatures also exist in Africa, Asia and the Americas. The current vampire craze really has its roots in two quasi\-romantic novels of the 19th century, The Vampyre by John Polidori (1819\) and Dracula by Bram Stoker (1897\). These two are the progenitors of the romantic vampire genre of fantasy fiction. The seductive “kiss of the vampire” has generated an alluring mystique, especially for young women, and that mystique, along with the “forbidden fruit” syndrome, is the basis for the popularity of the Twilight series. The romantic/sexual attraction of the suave, sophisticated vampire Count Dracula as portrayed by Frank Langella in the movie Dracula (1979\) is an example of the allure of the vampire. The film’s tagline is "Throughout history, he has filled the hearts of men with terror, and the hearts of women with desire." While fantasy fiction such as Twilight is probably for the most part harmless, any obsessive interest in vampires—or, for that matter, witches, ghosts, and other occult figures—can be unhealthy at best and dangerous at worst. It depends on the spiritual state of the person whose interest is piqued by such subjects. A weak, emotionally fragile young girl, for example, whose life is characterized by family stress, self\-esteem issues, and a lack of strong role models, could be at risk for developing an unhealthy interest in the occult. Such an interest can be an open door for demons to infiltrate her mind and spirit. Satan, as we know, is the enemy of our souls, who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8\). This is why God, in His wisdom, forbids occult practices, describing them as an “abomination” and “detestable” (Deuteronomy 18:9\-12\). How is the Christian to think about vampires and vampire fiction? We are reminded in Philippians 4:8 to fill our minds with “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy.” While there are elements of nobility in the Twilight books, there are also elements of darkness and the occult. There is also a very strong pull toward the “hero” of the book, Edward, who is a vampire. He is a seductively attractive, charismatic figure who has a great deal of appeal to teen girls. The author skillfully portrays a beautiful, romantic, perfect—although flawed—character, the kind of guy most teen girls are drawn to. The problem comes from idealizing such a person and then setting out to find someone like him. No human male can live up to such an ideal. Christian girls and young women should be seeking beauty and perfection in Christ. When they understand true beauty of character, they will be able to recognize it in the young man God brings to them for a husband. So does this mean that Christians should avoid vampire fiction altogether? For some families, the answer is yes. For others, the answer is no. Parents whose teen or preteen daughter is interested in the series would do well to read it for themselves, discuss it with their girls, and perhaps point out the ways in which it contradicts God’s Word. Such an analytical discussion can do much to dispel the mystique that surrounds the vampire myth. Ultimately, the decision regarding any reading material for Christian children and teens is the responsibility of parents.
Is GotQuestions.org affiliated with the “Bible Answer Man,” Hank Hanegraaff?	Answer Due to our ministry’s nature (providing Bible answers), we are frequently asked if we are affiliated with the [“Bible Answer Man” broadcast](http://www.equip.org/), hosted by Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute (CRI). The answer to the question is no, we are in no sense affiliated or connected with the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast, Hank Hanegraaff, or CRI. The official website of Hank Hanegraaff, CRI, and the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast is <http://www.equip.org>. Overall, we find the Christian Research Institute to be an excellent organization that provides a much needed service to the Body of Christ. While we do not agree with Hank Hanegraaff and CRI on every issue, we agree with them far more often than we disagree. We find CRI’s counter\-cult and apologetics material to be immensely valuable. The “Bible Answer Man’s” frequent coverage of the false doctrines and abuses of the [Word\-Faith](Word-Faith.html) / [Prosperity movement](prosperity-gospel.html) is crucially needed. One significant area of disagreement we have with the Bible Answer Man is over the interpretation of end times Bible prophecy. Hank Hanegraaff takes a viewpoint somewhat similar to “[partial preterism](partial-preterism.html),” although Hanegraaff uses the phrase “exegetical eschatology” to describe his viewpoint. GotQuestions.org has a [premillennial](premillennialism.html) and [dispensational](dispensationalism.html) interpretation of the end times. Overall, the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast is well worth listening to, and we encourage you to read Hank Hanegraaff’s books. As with any Bible teacher, including the writers here at GotQuestions.org, always compare what is taught with Scripture. Allow teachers such as the “Bible Answer Man” to provide you with guidance and information, but always go back to the Word of God as your ultimate authority. Update: On April 9, 2017, Hank Hanegraaff announced his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, specifically the Greek Orthodox Church. While we do not doubt the genuineness of his faith, we strongly disagree with Hanegraaff’s assertions that the Evangelical and Orthodox versions of Christianity are compatible and the differences minimal.
How does the Bible define a good Christian family?	Answer Technically, the Bible does not define a good Christian family, because that term is not found in the Bible. However, the Bible does delineate what a [family](Bible-family.html) is and conveys its importance. Once we have a biblical understanding of the family, we can carefully apply the adjectives good and Christian. The biblical ideal of a family is one man and one woman united by marriage to become “one flesh” for a lifetime (Genesis 2:24\) and to produce children whom they raise to adulthood. Ideally, then, a “Christian” family would be a believing man and woman united by marriage and raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4\). And a “good” Christian family would be one that possesses all the qualities necessary to be “Christian” and “family.” Note that the above is the ideal of a good Christian family. We live in a broken world, and ideals are rarely realized. We are each marred by sin and “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\). This affects our marriages, our families, and so much more. So what we see most often in the church are imperfect families—struggling families—who are striving to respond in a Christian manner to the brokenness around them. It’s a family’s response to trials and dysfunction that can be properly called “Christian” or “good.” So, a good Christian family might be one in which not all the roles are filled. A childless couple who are seeking God and growing in Christ is still a good Christian family, even without children. A single mother doing her best to make ends meet and provide spiritual training for her children is in charge of a good Christian family. A single father who loves his children and teaches them the Bible is leading a good Christian family. This is true whether the singleness is the result of a spouse’s death or a divorce. A good Christian family might be one in which various members of the family wrestle with some serious issues. A husband fights an addiction, a wife struggles with depression, a son rebels, a daughter runs away—it is the response to each of these crises that shows a family to be “good” and “Christian.” A good Christian family is not perfect; it is one that seeks to follow biblical principles in every circumstance, that cries out to God for help, and that desires to provide a nurturing place of stability and growth even in the midst of hardship. It is impossible to have a good Christian family without love. As we know, “love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7, ESV). Believers in a family unit understand intuitively that [God’s love](agape-love.html) is the bond that unites them, and they will seek to show that love to each other in practical ways. A good Christian family may not often live up to the biblical ideal. In fact, it might be lacking in many respects. Despite its flaws, it can still be a picture\-perfect representation of Christ’s redemptive power and the enduring nature of love.
What are the names and titles of the Holy Spirit?	Answer The Holy Spirit is known by many names and titles, most of which denote some function or aspect of His ministry. Below are some of the names and descriptions the Bible uses for the Holy Spirit: Author of Scripture: (2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16\) The Bible is inspired, literally “God\-breathed,” by the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity. The Spirit moved the authors of all 66 books to record exactly what He breathed into their hearts and minds. As a ship is moved through the water by wind in its sails, so the biblical writers were borne along by the Spirit’s impulse. Comforter / Counselor / Advocate: (Isaiah 11:2; John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7\) All three words are translations of the Greek parakletos, from which we get “[Paraclete](paraclete-Holy-Spirit.html),” another name for the Spirit. When Jesus went away, His disciples were greatly distressed because they had lost His [comforting](who-is-the-Comforter.html) presence. But He promised to send the Spirit to comfort, console, and guide those who belong to Christ. The Spirit also “bears witness” with our spirits that we belong to Him and thereby assures us of salvation. Convicter of Sin: (John 16:7\-11\) The Spirit applies the truths of God to men’s own minds in order to convince them by fair and sufficient arguments that they are sinners. He does this through the conviction in our hearts that we are not worthy to stand before a holy God, that we need His righteousness, and that judgment is certain and will come to all men one day. Those who deny these truths rebel against the conviction of the Spirit. Deposit / Seal / Earnest: (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13\-14\) The Holy Spirit is God’s seal on His people, His claim on us as His very own. The gift of the Spirit to believers is a down payment on our heavenly inheritance, which Christ has promised us and secured for us at the cross. It is because the Spirit has sealed us that we are assured of our salvation. No one can break the seal of God. Guide: (John 16:13\) Just as the Spirit guided the writers of Scripture to record truth, so does He promise to guide believers to know and understand that truth. God’s truth is “foolishness” to the world, because it is “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14\). Those who belong to Christ have the indwelling Spirit who guides us into all we need to know in regard to spiritual matters. Those who do not belong to Christ have no “interpreter” to guide them to know and understand God’s Word. Indweller of Believers: (Romans 8:9\-11; Ephesians 2:21\-22; 1 Corinthians 6:19\) The Holy Spirit resides in the hearts of God’s people, and that indwelling is the distinguishing characteristic of the regenerated person. From within believers, He directs, guides, comforts, and influences us, as well as producing in us the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). He provides the intimate connection between God and His children. All true believers in Christ have the Spirit residing in their hearts. Intercessor: (Romans 8:26\) One of the most encouraging and comforting aspects of the Holy Spirit is His ministry of intercession on behalf of those He inhabits. Because we often don’t know what or how to pray when we approach God, the Spirit intercedes and prays for us. He intercedes for us “with wordless groans,” so that when we are oppressed and overwhelmed by trials and the cares of life, He comes alongside to lend assistance as He sustains us before the throne of grace. Revealer / Spirit of Truth: (John 14:17; 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:12\-16\) Jesus promised that, after the resurrection, the Holy Spirit would come to “guide you into all truth.” Because of the Spirit in our hearts, we are able to understand truth, especially in spiritual matters, in a way that non\-Christians cannot. In fact, the truth the Spirit reveals to us is “foolishness” to them, and they cannot understand it. But we have the mind of Christ in the Person of His Spirit within us. Spirit of God / the Lord / Christ: (Matthew 3:16; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Peter 1:11\) These names remind us that the Spirit of God is indeed part of the triune godhead and that He is just as much God as the Father and the Son. He is first revealed to us at the creation, when He was “hovering over the waters,” denoting His part in creation, along with that of Jesus who “made all things” (John 1:1\-3\). We see this same Trinity of God again at Jesus’ baptism, when the Spirit descends on Jesus and the voice of the Father is heard. Spirit of Life: (Romans 8:2\) The phrase “Spirit of life” means the Holy Spirit is the one who produces or gives life, not that He initiates salvation, but rather that He imparts newness of life. When we receive eternal life through Christ, the Spirit provides the spiritual food that is the sustenance of the spiritual life. Here again, we see the triune God at work. We are saved by the Father through the work of the Son, and that salvation is sustained by the Holy Spirit. Teacher: (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:13\) Jesus promised that the Spirit would teach His disciples “all things” and bring to their remembrance the things He said while He was with them. The writers of the New Testament were moved by the Spirit to remember and understand the instructions Jesus gave for the building and organizing of the Church, the doctrines regarding Himself, the directives for holy living, and the revelation of things to come. Witness: (Romans 8:16; Hebrews 2:4; 10:15\) The Spirit is called “witness” because He verifies and testifies to the fact that we are children of God, that Jesus and the disciples who performed miracles were sent by God, and that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired. Further, by giving the gifts of the Spirit to believers, He witnesses to us and the world that we belong to God.
Is Jesus a myth?	Answer There are a number of people claiming that the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are simply myths borrowed from pagan folklore, such as the stories of Osiris, [Dionysus](Jesus-Dionysus.html), Adonis, Attis, and Mithras. The claim is that these myths are essentially the same story as the New Testament’s narrative of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. As Dan Brown claims in The Da Vinci Code, “Nothing in Christianity is original.” To discover the truth about the claim that the Gospel writers borrowed from mythology, it is important to (1\) unearth the history behind the assertions, (2\) examine the actual portrayals of the false gods being compared to Christ, (3\) expose any logical fallacies being made, and (4\) look at why the New Testament Gospels are trustworthy depictions of the true and historical Jesus Christ. The claim that Jesus was a myth or an exaggeration originated in the writings of liberal German theologians in the nineteenth century. They essentially said that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of popular dying\-and\-rising fertility gods in various places—Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt. Of note is the fact that none of the books containing these theories were taken seriously by the academics of the day. The assertion that Jesus was a recycled Tammuz, for example, was investigated by contemporary scholars and determined to be completely baseless. It has only been recently that these assertions have been resurrected, primarily due to the rise of the Internet and the mass distribution of information from unaccountable sources. This leads us to the next area of investigation—do the mythological gods of antiquity really mirror the person of Jesus Christ? As an example, the Zeitgeist movie makes these claims about the Egyptian god Horus: • He was born on December 25 of a virgin: Isis Mary • A star in the East proclaimed his arrival • Three kings came to adore the newborn “savior” • He became a child prodigy teacher at age 12 • At age 30 he was “baptized” and began a “ministry” • Horus had twelve “disciples” • Horus was betrayed • He was crucified • He was buried for three days • He was resurrected after three days However, when the actual writings about Horus are competently examined, this is what we find: • Horus was born to Isis; there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary.” Moreover, “Mary” is our Anglicized form of her real name, Miryam or Miriam. “Mary” was not even used in the original texts of Scripture. • Isis was not a virgin; she was the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris. • Horus was born during month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), not December 25\. Further, there is no mention in the Bible as to Christ’s actual birth date. • There is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. The Bible never states the actual number of magi that came to see Christ. • Horus is not a “savior” in any way; he did not die for anyone. • There are no accounts of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12\. • Horus was not “baptized.” The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water. • Horus did not have a “ministry.” • Horus did not have 12 disciples. According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four demigods that followed him, and there are some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. • There is no account of Horus being betrayed by a friend. • Horus did not die by crucifixion. There are various accounts of Horus’ death, but none of them involve crucifixion. • There is no account of Horus being buried for three days. • Horus was not resurrected. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and then becoming the lord of the underworld. When compared side by side, Jesus and Horus bear little, if any, resemblance to one another. Jesus is also compared to Mithras by those claiming that Jesus Christ is a myth. All the above descriptions of Horus are applied to Mithras (e.g., born of a virgin, being crucified, rising in three days, etc.). But what does the Mithras myth actually say? • He was born out of a solid rock, not from any woman. • He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithras killed the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race. • Mithras’s birth was celebrated on December 25, along with winter solstice. • There is no mention of his being a great teacher. • There is no mention of Mithras having 12 disciples. The idea that Mithras had 12 disciples may have come from a mural in which Mithras is surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac. • Mithras had no bodily resurrection. Rather, when Mithras completed his earthly mission, he was taken to paradise in a chariot, alive and well. The early Christian writer Tertullian did write about Mithraic cultists re\-enacting resurrection scenes, but this occurred well after New Testament times, so if any copycatting was done, it was Mithraism copying Christianity. More examples can be given of Krishna, Attis, Dionysus, and other mythological gods, but the result is the same. In the end, the historical Jesus portrayed in the Bible is unique. The alleged similarities of Jesus’ story to pagan myths are greatly exaggerated. Further, while tales of Horus, Mithras, and others pre\-date Christianity, there is very little historical record of the pre\-Christian beliefs of those religions. The vast majority of the earliest writings of these religions date from the third and fourth centuries A.D. To assume that the pre\-Christian beliefs of these religions (of which there is no record) were identical to their post\-Christian beliefs is naive. It is more logical to attribute any similarities between these religions and Christianity to the religions’ copying Christian teaching about Jesus. This leads us to the next area to examine: the logical fallacies committed by those claiming that Christianity borrowed from pagan [mystery religions](mystery-religions.html). We’ll consider two fallacies in particular: the fallacy of the false cause and the terminological fallacy. If one thing precedes another, some conclude that the first thing must have caused the second. This is the fallacy of the false cause. A rooster may crow before the sunrise every morning, but that does not mean the rooster causes the sun to rise. Even if pre\-Christian accounts of mythological gods closely resembled Christ (and they do not), it does not mean they caused the Gospel writers to invent a false Jesus. Making such a claim is akin to saying the TV series Star Trek caused the NASA Space Shuttle program. The terminological fallacy occurs when words are redefined to prove a point. For example, the Zeitgeist movie says that Horus “began his ministry,” but the word ministry is being redefined. Horus had no actual “ministry”—nothing like that of Christ’s ministry. Those claiming a link between Mithras and Jesus talk about the “baptism” that initiated prospects into the Mithras cult, but what was it actually? Mithraic priests would place initiates into a pit, suspend a bull over the pit, and slit the bull’s stomach, covering the initiates in blood and gore. Such a practice bears no resemblance whatsoever to Christian baptism—a person going under water (symbolizing the death of Christ) and then coming back out of the water (symbolizing Christ’s resurrection). But advocates of a mythological Jesus deceptively use the same term, “baptism,” to describe both rites in hopes of linking the two. This brings us to the subject of the truthfulness of the New Testament. No other work of antiquity has more evidence to its historical veracity than the New Testament. The New Testament has more writers (nine), better writers, and earlier writers than any other existing document from that era. Further, history testifies that these writers went to their deaths claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead. While some may die for a lie they think is true, no person dies for a lie he knows to be false. Think about it—if you were threatened with crucifixion, as tradition says happened to the apostle Peter, and all you had to do to save your life was renounce a lie you had knowingly told, what would you do? In addition, history has shown that it takes at least two generations to pass before myth can enter a historical account. That’s because, as long as there are eyewitnesses to an event, errors can be refuted and mythical embellishments can be exposed. All the Gospels of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, with some of Paul’s Epistles being written as early as A.D. 50\. Paul directly appeals to contemporary eyewitnesses to verify his testimony (1 Corinthians 15:6\). The New Testament attests to the fact that, in the first century, Jesus was not mistaken for any other god. When Paul preached in Athens, the elite thinkers of that city said, “‘He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,’—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, ‘May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean’” (Acts 17:18–20, NASB). Clearly, if Paul were simply rehashing stories of other gods, the Athenians would not have referred to his doctrine as a “new” and “strange” teaching. If dying\-and\-rising gods were plentiful in the first century, why, when the apostle Paul preached Jesus rising from the dead, did the Epicureans and Stoics not remark, “Ah, just like Horus and Mithras”? In conclusion, the claim that Jesus is a copy of mythological gods originated with authors whose works have been discounted by academia, contain logical fallacies, and cannot compare to the New Testament Gospels, which have withstood nearly 2,000 years of intense scrutiny. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other gods disappear when the original myths are examined. The Jesus\-is\-a\-myth theory relies on selective descriptions, redefined words, and false assumptions. Jesus Christ is unique in history, with His voice rising above all false gods’ as He asks the question that ultimately determines a person’s eternal destiny: “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15\).
What is the meaning of, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)?	Answer Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to mean that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal, which often refers to an impious person who has no perception of ethical or religious truth. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God.” In other words, it is a wicked thing to deny God, and a denial of God is often accompanied by a wicked lifestyle. The verse goes on to list some other characteristics of the irreligious: “They are corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.” Psalm 14 is a study on the universal depravity of mankind. Many atheists are very intelligent. It is not intelligence, or a lack thereof, that leads a person to reject belief in God. It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God. Many people do not object to the idea of a Creator, as long as that Creator minds His own business and leaves them alone. What people reject is the idea of a Creator who demands morality from His creation. Rather than struggle against a guilty conscience, some people reject the idea of God altogether. Psalm 14:1 calls this type of person a “fool.” Psalm 14:1 says that denying God’s existence is commonly based on a desire to lead a wicked life. Several prominent atheists have admitted the truth of this. Some, such as author Aldous Huxley, have openly admitted that a desire to avoid moral restraints was a motivation for their disbelief: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning \- the Christian meaning, they insisted \- of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” ― Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means Belief in a divine Being is accompanied by a sense of accountability to that Being. So, to escape the condemnation of conscience, which itself was created by God, some simply deny the existence of God. They tell themselves, “There is no overseer of the world. There is no Judgment Day. I can live as I please.” The moral pull of the conscience is thus more easily ignored. Trying to convince oneself there is no God is unwise. The point of “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” is that it is an impious, sinful heart that will deny God. The atheist’s denial flies in the face of much evidence to the contrary, including his own conscience and the universe he lives in. A lack of evidence of God’s existence is not the true reason atheists reject a belief in God. Their rejection is due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints God requires and to escape the guilt that accompanies the violation of those constraints. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them . . . so that people are without excuse…Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts…They exchanged the truth about God for a lie” (Romans 1:18–25\).
Is the doctrine of preservation biblical?	Answer The doctrine of preservation in regard to Scripture means that the Lord has kept His Word intact as to its original meaning. Preservation simply means that we can trust the Scriptures because God has sovereignly overseen the process of transmission over the centuries. At the same time, we must also be aware that we do not possess the original writings/autographs. What we do have are thousands of manuscripts from which the original writings can be ascertained. By thorough examination and comparison of those manuscripts, it is determined what the original writings stated. This does not mean that there are absolutely no differences between the manuscripts. But the differences are extremely small and insignificant and do not in any way affect the basic teachings or meaning of God’s Word. The differences are things like minor spelling variations. We should keep in mind that this would not and does not affect the accuracy of Scripture, nor does it mean that God has not preserved His Word. God has supernaturally kept or preserved His Word. The early scribes, whose jobs were to make exact copies of Scripture, were very meticulous. One example of their scrupulous precision is the practice of counting all the letters in a given book and noting the middle letter of the book. They would then do the same for the copy to make sure it matched. They employed such time\-consuming and painstaking methods to ensure accuracy. Further, we can take note of the following verses that demonstrate God’s plan to preserve His Word. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” In this verse Jesus declared that not even the smallest stroke of a letter in the Hebrew alphabet would pass away until all is accomplished. He couldn’t make that promise unless He was sure that God would preserve His Word. Jesus also said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33\). Jesus again affirms that God’s Word will not pass away. God’s Word will remain and accomplish that which God has planned. The prophet Isaiah, through the power of the Holy Spirit, stated that God’s Word would remain forever. “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8\). This was reaffirmed in the New Testament when Peter quoted the same passage and referred to it as “the word that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:24\-25\). Neither Isaiah nor Peter could make such statements without the understanding of God’s preservation of Scripture. We should keep in mind that when the Bible speaks of God’s Word remaining forever, it cannot be referring to it being kept hidden away in some vault in heaven. God’s Word was given specifically for mankind, and it would not be fulfilling its purpose if it were not available to us. “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4\). Also note that a person cannot be saved apart from the gospel message, which is recorded in God’s Word (1 Corinthians 15:3\-4\). Therefore, in order for the gospel message to be proclaimed “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47\), the doctrines and truths of the Word must be protected. If Scripture were not supernaturally preserved, there would be no way to ensure the consistency of the message it contains.
Can demons attach themselves to non-living/inanimate objects?	Answer There is no biblical support to the idea that demons can attach themselves to physical objects. This belief is actually part of superstitious practices and occult beliefs found in [animistic](Animism.html) cultures and among those who practice the occult. Some say that verses such as Acts 19:19, where former magicians burned their magic books, prove that objects can have demons. But the passage does not say that. It is more likely that these new believers were burning their magic books to prevent the spread of lies and to show that they were now believers in Jesus. The Bible records accounts of demons afflicting or possessing unbelieving people. But there are no accounts of demons being in or attached to objects, and the Bible does not warn us about demons attaching themselves to objects. Occult practices may attract evil spirits, and, since certain objects are used in those practices, it might seem that the demons are attracted to the objects; however, this does not mean the demons are in the objects. It is the occult activity itself that attracts them. When people who have been involved in the occult come to Christ, they are often advised to get rid of their occult books and objects, not because the objects have demons in them, but because the books and objects would be a source for future temptation. Believers in Christ are not to fear demons, although we are to be vigilant and alert for their temptations (1 Peter 5:8\). The key is submission to God and walking in the truth of Christ daily: “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7\). Those who have put their faith in Christ have nothing to fear, as the apostle John explained, “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome \[Satan and his false prophets], because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4\).
What is baby dedication?	Answer In the majority of Protestant denominations that practice it, child dedication is a symbolic ceremony undertaken by Christian parents soon after the birth of a child. Some churches perform these ceremonies en masse and have several couples and children participating at the same time. The rite is intended to be a public statement by the parents that they will train their children in the Christian faith and seek to instill that faith in them. The congregation often responds through responsive reading or some other method to affirm that they, as a church family, will also seek to encourage the parents to bring up the child in the faith. There is no implied salvation in the ceremony, and it varies from church to church. The idea of dedicating a child to the Lord can certainly be found in the Bible. Hannah was a barren wife who promised to dedicate her child to God if He would give her a son (1 Samuel 1:11\). Luke 2:22 begins the account of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple after forty days in order to dedicate Him to the Lord. This was slightly more involved since it involved a sacrifice, but once again this ceremony did not indicate any level of salvation. Child / baby dedication is not one of the two ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—required of Christians in the New Testament. As Christians, we are baptized and participate in the Lord’s Supper as outward and public signs of what Christ has done within us. While baby dedication is not an officially instituted ordinance of the church, there does not seem to be any conflict with Scripture as long as parents do not view it as assuring the salvation of the child.
What is the Godhead?	Answer The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9\. In each of the three verses, a slightly different Greek word is used, but the definition of each is the same: “deity” or “divine nature.” The word Godhead is used to refer to God’s essential nature. We’ll take a look at each of these passages and what they mean. In Acts 17, Paul is speaking on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens. As he argues against idolatry, Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29, KJV). Here, the word Godhead is the translation of the Greek theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity. Paul, speaking to Greeks, used the term in reference to the only true God. In Romans 1, Paul begins to make the case that all humanity stands guilty before God. In verse 20 he says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV). Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s argument is that all of creation virtually shouts the existence of God; we can “clearly” see God’s eternal power, as well as His “Godhead” in what He has made. “The heavens declare the glory of God; / the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1\). The natural world makes manifest the divine nature of God. Colossians 2:9 is one of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible: “In him \[Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés. According to this verse, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He embodies all (“the fulness”) of God (translated “the Deity” in the NIV). This truth aligns perfectly with Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him \[Christ].” Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30\). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9\). In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3\).
Are the teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church biblical?	Answer There are many people, some of them formerly involved in the Local Church, who are absolutely convinced that the Local Church is a cult, or at least a non\-biblical and non\-evangelical movement. The more we research the Local Church, however, the more we run into widely divergent views of the movement. Due to the major concerns many people have about the Local Church, we strongly advise you to use the utmost caution and discernment before visiting or joining the Local Church movement. Here are some sites at which you could pursue further research into the Local Church / Witness Lee / Living Stream movement: [http://faithsaves.net/watchman\-nee](http://faithsaves.net/watchman-nee/) <http://assemblylife.com> [http://www.open\-letter.org](http://www.open-letter.org/pdf/Geisler_Rhodes_Response_to_CRI.pdf) [https://contrast2\.wordpress.com](https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/the-false-gospel-of-witness-lee-and-the-living-stream-ministries/) [contendingforthefaith.org](https://www.contendingforthefaith.org) [http://www.apologeticsindex.org](http://www.apologeticsindex.org/379-local-church-encyclopedia-of-cults-and-new-religions) Witness Lee was the protégé of his predecessor, [Watchman Nee](Watchman-Nee.html), a well\-known missionary in China. The Local Church movement was founded in China by Nee and brought to America in 1962 by Witness Lee. Thus began a long and strange saga of charges, counter\-charges, lawsuits, strife, and misunderstandings between the Local Church movement and the evangelical community that has left much wreckage in its wake, and has yet to be fully resolved. Foremost in the controversy is whether the Local Church is a legitimate movement within Christianity or a cult. Statements made by Lee over the years have caused his organization to be described as a cult by such counter\-cult organizations as the Christian Research Institute—under both founder Walter Martin and current president Hank Hanegraaff—and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project. However, a 50\-page series of articles in a 2009 edition of the CRI Journal has come out strongly in favor of Lee’s teachings and the Local Church movement. The history of the conflict between Witness Lee and his Local Church movement—also known as the “Lord’s Recovery Movement,” along with their publishing arm, Living Stream Ministry (LSM)—and the counter\-cult establishment is far too long for a detailed recounting here, but those who are interested in the full story can access it through the CRI website <https://www.equip.org/PDF/EnglishOpt.pdf>. Since the publication of CRI’s retraction of their former stand, churches and ministries have had to rethink and reinvestigate their stand on Witness Lee and the Local Church. For the purposes of this article, the major causes of controversy between the Local Church and the Christian community in the West will be addressed. The concerns raised by counter\-cult organizations about Lee’s teachings center primarily on four areas: the nature of God, the nature of man, the legitimacy of evangelical churches and denominations, and the lawsuits brought against Evangelical churches, publishers, and individuals by the Local Church. We will look at them one by one. Regarding Lee’s views on the theological doctrines of God and man, the controversy centers around statements which are “red flags” to evangelicals, particularly those in the West. This is an important factor in this discussion because it appears much of the controversy could have been avoided if only Lee and his followers had made an effort to understand the Western Christian culture into which they were moving. Part of the training of Western missionaries sent to foreign countries is sensitivity to other cultures. Unfortunately, in bringing their doctrines to the West, no effort was made to “Westernize” them, and this was the source of much of the confusion, misunderstandings, and recriminations that resulted. For one thing, Lee’s method of teaching—to make radical statements and then balance them elsewhere in his teachings—proved to be antithetical to the Western idea of “say what you mean and mean what you say.” Lee’s doctrinal statements on the nature of God and the nature of man are perfect examples. In one of his messages, he states, “The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism” (Life Messages, p. 164\). Naturally, this is enough to inflame Western evangelicals, who proudly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been passed down from the great theologians of our Western Christian heritage. To judge it to be “grossly inadequate” by Lee raised legitimate concerns about Lee himself. Closer scrutiny of Lee’s teachings elsewhere, however, brings to light that they actually agree with evangelical orthodoxy. The same can be said of his teachings on the nature of man. Some of his most inflammatory statements are in regard to what appears, on the surface, to assert the deity of man. In an LSM publication, A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing (p. 54\), Lee states, ”My burden is to show you clearly that God’s economy and plan is to make Himself man and to make us, His created beings, God.” On page 53 we read, “We are born of God; hence, in this sense, we are God.” In the same publication, Lee refers to the Triune God as now the ‘four\-in\-one’ God, with man as the fourth person. Nothing raises a red flag to evangelicals more quickly than any notion that man is God, because we are rightly taught that it is the original lie from the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:5\) and is the same lie propagated by cults and false religions such as Hinduism, New Age, and Mormonism throughout history. To the Western mind, at least, imparting the idea of any kind of godhood to those who struggle against the sin nature is disastrous. Western Christians, already steeped in the philosophy of freedom, autonomy, individuality, and the triumph of the human will—and the pride such thinking inevitably produces—need not be encouraged to see themselves as divine. But the CRI researchers found that a closer examination of context and terminology reveals that Lee’s views on the “deification” of man (another unfortunate choice of words and a red flag term) do not really mean that at all. The sentence after the “in this sense, we are God” quote reads, “Nevertheless, we must know that we do not share God’s Person and cannot be worshiped by others.” Herein lies the problem. Putting the two statements together, Lee is essentially saying we are God, but we are not God. It is no wonder that confusion is rampant. Regarding the third area of controversy, this is what Witness Lee has said in his own publications about Christians and Christianity: “We do not care for Christianity, we do not care for Christendom, we do not care for the Roman Catholic Church, and we do not care for all the denominations, because in the Bible it says that the great Babylon is fallen. This is a declaration. Christianity is fallen, Christendom is fallen, Catholicism is fallen, and all the denominations are fallen. Hallelujah!” Once again, Lee’s unfortunate choice of words, possibly due to English not being his native language, has caused consternation among American evangelicals. To say that Christianity is fallen is seen as painting with a far\-too\-broad brush and accusing the entire body of Christ of being false and fallen creatures. But here again, we have to dig more deeply to find what Lee really meant by that statement. Context and terminology are once again at the center of a true understanding of Lee’s doctrine. After careful and diligent examination, the CRI researchers came to the conclusion that Lee’s pattern of the use of “certain hot button words associated in our minds with heresy or cultism” has led to misunderstanding of his meaning. As one of the LSM leaders expressed it, “We are not out to proclaim that the denominations are Babylon.” However, Lee’s own statement, quoted above, that “we do not care for all the denominations, because in the Bible it says that the great Babylon is fallen,” seems a direct contradiction, whether intentional or not. The fourth major area of controversy between evangelicals and the Local Church centers on the number of lawsuits brought by the Local Church and LSM leadership against individuals and ministries that were critical of them, despite the clear New Testament teaching against suing a Christian brother (1 Corinthians 6:1\-8\). This led to allegations of a “history of litigiousness” on the part of the Local Church and charges that they forced some of their opposing ministries into bankruptcy by the litigation expenses they were forced to incur. This is a complicated situation that has gone on for more than a decade and the details—who sued whom, when, and how often—are still in dispute among the parties. For a complete history of the litigants and legal decisions, the reader is once again referred to the CRI article. Summing up the crux of the conflict, it would appear that both parties bear a share of the responsibility. Lee and the Local Church leadership do not share the Western heritage that has shaped the thought processes and approaches of the Westerners among whom they settled. English was not their first language, particularly of the early leaders, and both the cultural differences and language barrier led to much misunderstanding. At the same time, the Local Church’s distinctively Chinese approach to Christianity was so unfamiliar to Westerners that it smacked of cultism, whether or not any actually existed. The Local Church leadership was unaware of the impact the use of certain “hot button” words would have on cult\-wary evangelicals in America, while Western Christians were unaware of the tremendous impact that labeling a group a cult had on the Chinese. The Local Church resisted any changes in their terminology and for the most part refused to provide contextual explanations for some of their doctrines, an unfortunate approach that led to even deeper rifts between the two sides. At the same time, the counter\-cultists failed to be as thorough as they could have been in their research. Thus, both sides developed an “us vs. them” mentality which negatively influenced both their thoughts and actions. What is the conclusion of the matter, and what are Christians to believe about Witness Lee and the Local Church movement? Elliot Miller, editor\-in\-chief of the Christian Research Journal, declares at the end of the 50\-page treatment “We were wrong” and concludes that the Local Church is not an “aberrant Christian group” but a “solid orthodox group of believers.” Others who have thoroughly examined the Local Church and/or been a part of the Local Church strongly disagree (please see the links above). With the conflicting viewpoints in mind, the advice of Got Questions Ministries is to thoroughly and prayerfully investigate the Local Church, the teachings of Witness Lee, and the publications of Living Stream Ministry before attending a Local Church or getting involved with their ministry/outreach.
Is it wrong to attend two (or more) different churches?	Answer The New Testament does not directly address the subject of attending two or more different churches. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians begins, “To the church of God in Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2\), indicating one church, whereas the book of Galatians begins with “to the churches in Galatia” (Galatians 1:2\), indicating more than one in the area. In any case, either people did not attend more than one gathering, or the issue did not warrant Paul’s attention. Today, however, with multiple local churches in cities—and even in small towns—the question of whether to attend more than one church on a regular basis does arise. First, it is important to understand the purpose of church attendance and/or membership. When Christians unite with a local body of believers, they are following the model for the local church as seen in Acts 2:41\-42: “Those who accepted his \[Peter’s] message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” These early Christians met in the temple courts and in their own homes to continue in praise and worship (Acts 2:46\-47\). In addition, believers came together to minister to one another the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who distributes those gifts to His people in order for us to edify—build up—one another in the faith (Ephesians 4:7\-13\). The question becomes whether we can effectively pray, fellowship, sit under teaching, and use our spiritual gifts with two or more groups of Christians at the same time. Because the Bible is silent on the issue, we cannot be dogmatic about it. But what we can do is address the issue of motivation—what prompts Christians to feel led to spread their church attendance around to multiple churches and what are the effects and implications of doing so. Sadly, too often people “church hop” to more than one local body with the intention of picking and choosing something from each one because they feel they cannot find one church that “meets their needs” or gives them everything they think they should be getting from a church. They may attend one church for the music, another for the preaching, and a third for the social gatherings. The problem with this line of thinking is that Christians are to align themselves with a group of believers in order to give, not to get. We are to be actively serving and ministering to one another with the spiritual gift we have received from the Spirit, and when we spend minimal time in each group, we cannot do that effectively. In addition, we give the impression that we are not committed to the believers or the leadership in any one church, and that is a poor witness to others. While there may be legitimate reasons for someone to attend two or more churches, and nothing in the Bible forbids it, it is hard to see how such a practice could fully benefit either the believer or the local churches he or she attends.
What does the Bible say about revenge?	Answer The Bible has a great deal to say about revenge. Both the Hebrew and Greek words translated “vengeance,” “revenge,” and “avenge” have as their root meaning the idea of punishment. This is crucial in understanding why God reserves for Himself the right to avenge. The key verse regarding this truth is found in the Old Testament and quoted twice in the New Testament. God said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30\). In Deuteronomy, God is speaking of the stiff\-necked, rebellious, idolatrous Israelites who rejected Him and incurred His wrath with their wickedness. He promised to avenge Himself upon them in His own timing and according to His own perfect and pure motives. The two New Testament passages concern the behavior of the Christian, who is not to usurp God’s authority. Rather, we are to allow Him to judge rightly and pour out His divine retribution against His enemies as He sees fit. Unlike us, God never takes vengeance from impure motives. His vengeance is for the purpose of punishing those who have offended and rejected Him. We can, however, pray for God to avenge Himself in perfection and holiness against His enemies and to avenge those who are oppressed by evil. In Psalm 94:1, the psalmist prays for God to avenge the righteous, not out of a sense of uncontrolled vindictiveness, but out of just retribution from the eternal Judge whose judgments are perfect. Even when the innocent suffer and the wicked appear to prosper, it is for God alone to punish. “The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies” (Nahum 1:2\). There are only two times in the Bible when God gives men permission to avenge in His name. First, after the Midianites committed hideous, violent acts against the Israelites, the cup of God’s wrath against the Midianites was full, and He commanded Moses to lead the people in a holy war against them. “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people’" (Numbers 31:1\-2\). Here, again, Moses did not act on his own; he was merely an instrument to carry out God’s perfect plan under His guidance and instruction. Second, Christians are to be in submission to the rulers God has set over us because they are His instruments for “vengeance on evildoers” (1 Peter 2:13\-14\). As in Moses’ case, these rulers are not to act on their own, but are to carry out God’s will for the punishment of the wicked. It is tempting to try to take on the role of God and seek to punish those who we feel deserve it. But because we are sinful creatures, it is impossible for us to take revenge with pure motives. This is why the Mosaic Law contains the command “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD” (Leviticus. 19:18\). Even David, a “man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14\), refused to take revenge on Saul, even though David was the innocent party being wronged. David submitted to God’s command to forego vengeance and trust in Him: “May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you (1 Samuel 24:12\). As Christians, we are to follow the Lord Jesus’ command to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44\), leaving the vengeance to God.
What does the Bible say about dealing with difficult people?	Answer We all know people whom we find “difficult” in one way or another, and we’re all called upon to deal with difficult people at some time or another. A difficult person may be one who is condescending, argumentative, belligerent, selfish, flippant, obtuse, or simply rude. Difficult people seem to know just how to “push one’s buttons” and stir up trouble. Dealing with difficult people becomes an exercise in patience, love, and grace. Our response to difficult people should model the examples provided by Jesus, for He surely dealt with many difficult people during His time here on earth. In His interactions with difficult people Jesus never displayed an attitude of harsh superiority or dismissive pride; rather, He showed authority under control. He used rebuke when necessary (John 8:47\), but He also dealt with difficult people by remaining silent (John 8:6\), asking questions (Mark 11:28–29\), pointing them to Scripture (Mark 10:2–3\), and telling a story (Luke 7:40–42\). In the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html), Jesus was quite specific about dealing with difficult people in love and humility: “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:27–31\). We must never give tit for tat: “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Peter 3:9\). In dealing with difficult people, we must guard against [pride](pride-Bible.html). It is important to recall the admonition given by the apostle Paul in Romans 12:3: “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you” (see also Philippians 2:3–4\). So, when we know we must deal with a difficult person, we approach the situation in meekness. Love is also key: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14\). We are to show God’s love to everyone—including difficult people. The [book of Proverbs](Book-of-Proverbs.html) provides much wisdom in dealing with difficult people. Proverbs 12:16 promotes patience in our relationships: “A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.” Proverbs 20:3 commends peace\-making: “It is to one’s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel.” Proverbs 10:12 encourages love: “Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs.” Proverbs 17:14 values foresight and deference: “Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.” If possible, it might be best to avoid the situation altogether by choosing carefully whom we associate with: “Do not make friends with a hot\-tempered person, do not associate with one easily angered” (Proverbs 22:24\). Dealing with difficult people is unavoidable. When we deal with difficult people, it’s easy to respond in the flesh. But that just brings out the worst in us. How much better to allow our dealings with difficult people to bring out the fruit of the Spirit in us (Galatians 5:22–23\)! By the grace of God, may we deal with difficult people in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and—to top it all off—self\-control. May we extend the same love, grace, and mercy that God extended to us. And may we be careful not to become the “difficult people” ourselves!
What does “Many are called but few are chosen” in Matthew 22:14 mean?	Answer This statement is the conclusion to the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Jesus spoke this parable to show what the kingdom of heaven will be like when the end of the age comes. In the parable, the king sends his servants out to gather the wedding guests to the wedding feast. But those invited refused to come, some because they were too busy with their own worldly pursuits and some because they were positively hostile toward the king. So the king commands his servants to go out and invite anyone they find, and many come and fill the wedding hall. But the king sees one man without wedding clothes, and he sends him away. Jesus concludes by saying that many are called/invited to the kingdom, but only those who have been “chosen” and have received Christ will come. Those who try to come without the covering of the blood of Christ for their sins are inadequately clothed and will be sent into “outer darkness,” (v. 13\) i.e., hell. Many people hear the call of God coming through His revelation of Himself through creation, the conscience, and the preaching of the Word. But only the “few” will respond because they are the ones who are truly hearing. Jesus said many times, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8, 14:35\). The point is that everyone has ears, but only a few are listening and responding. Not everyone who hears the gospel receives it but only the “few” who have ears to hear. The “many” hear, but there is no interest or there is outright antagonism toward God. Many are called or invited into the kingdom, but none are able to come on their own. God must draw the hearts of those who come; otherwise they will not (John 6:44\). Second Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.” God creates life, grants repentance and gives faith. Man is totally unable by himself to do these things which are necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. Ephesians 1:4\-6: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 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.” Salvation is by God’s will and pleasure for His glory. John 6:37\-39, 44\-45: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.” So, all of God’s “chosen” will be saved without exception; they will hear and respond because they have spiritual ears to hear the truth. God’s power makes this certain. Romans 8:28\-30: “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. For those God foreknew (loved) he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” How do we know if we are among the few that have ears to hear? By responding to the call. Assurance of this certain call, this chosen call, is from the Holy Spirit. Consider Philippians 1:6, which says, “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.” “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Philippians 2:12\-13\.) If we listen with our spiritual ears and respond to the invitation, there will be fear and trembling in our souls as we recognize that it was God’s work in us that caused our salvation.
Why didn’t the disciples always recognize Jesus after His resurrection?	Answer The Bible does not specifically tell us why the followers of Christ did not always recognize Jesus after His resurrection. As a result, some of the following is speculation. Keeping this in mind, there are a few things that might have contributed to the disciples not recognizing Jesus immediately when He first appeared to them after His resurrection. First, even though Jesus had predicted that He would rise again on the third day, the disciples did not fully understand (Mark 9:32\), because clearly they were not looking for Him to be resurrected. This can account for some of their surprise and shock at seeing Him. One of the instances where Jesus was not recognized was Mary Magdalene’s coming to the tomb early in the morning (John 20:15\). Instead of recognizing Jesus, she first mistook Him for the gardener. One thing that is important to remember is that we do not know how far Mary was from Jesus when she misidentified Him. It could be that she was simply too far to clearly recognize who He was until He spoke to her. Second, we must remember that since it was very early in the morning, the light would not have been very bright which could also have made it more difficult for her to see Him clearly. When we couple that with the fact that she was not expecting to see Him alive, it is easy to see why she did not recognize Him from a distance until He spoke to her. A second instance in which Jesus was not immediately recognized was when the disciples did not recognize Him when they were out fishing (John 21:4\). This could also be related to the distance Jesus might have been from them. A third instance is when the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13\-35\) did not recognize Jesus until He broke bread. How could these two disciples have walked, talked, and eaten with Jesus without recognizing Him? In this instance, it seems that they were supernaturally prevented from recognizing Jesus. Jesus perhaps had taken on a different appearance to keep Himself from being recognized. Why would Jesus have done this? The Bible does not say. Perhaps Jesus “veiled” His identity so the two disciples would truly think through the things Jesus was saying, rather than accepting the teaching blindly, as they likely would have if they had known it was Jesus. What we can know for certain is that it was Jesus Himself who appeared to them because of all the testimony of those who saw the resurrected Christ. In addition, there was the witness of the remarkable change that took place in the lives of the disciples. Immediately before and after the crucifixion, the eleven apostles were in hiding in fear, yet after spending considerable time with the resurrected Christ, they became fearless evangelists proclaiming the gospel boldly no matter how strong the opposition. In addition, all eventually gave their lives for the sake of the gospel. Only witnessing the resurrected Jesus Christ can account for such a radical change.
Why did Jesus curse the fig tree?	Answer The account of Jesus cursing the barren fig tree is found in two different gospel accounts. First, it is seen in Matthew 21:18\-22, and then also in Mark 11:12\-14\. While there are slight differences between the two accounts, they are easily reconciled by studying the passages. Like all Scripture, the key to understanding this passage comes from understanding the context in which it happened. In order to properly understand this passage, we must first look at the chronological and geographical setting. For example, when did this occur, what was the setting, and where did it happen? Also, in order to fully understand this passage, we need to have an understanding of the importance of the fig tree as it relates to the nation of Israel and understand how the fig tree is often used in the Scriptures to symbolically represent Israel. Finally, we must have a basic understanding of the fig tree itself, its growing seasons, etc. First, in looking at the general chronological setting of the passage, we see that it happened during the week before His crucifixion. Jesus had entered Jerusalem a day earlier amid the praise and worship of the Jewish people who were looking to Him as the King/Messiah who was going to deliver them from Roman occupation (Matthew 21:1\-11; Mark 11:1\-11\). Now, the next day, Jesus is again on His way to Jerusalem from where He was staying in Bethany. On His way, both Matthew and Mark record that He was hungry and saw a fig tree in the distance that had leaves on it (Mark 11:13\). Upon coming to the tree expecting to find something to eat, Jesus instead discovered that the fig tree had no fruit on it and cursed the tree saying, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” (Matthew 21:19; Mark 11:14\). Matthew records the cursing and the withering of the fig tree all in one account and includes it after the account of Jesus cleansing the Temple of the moneychangers. Mark explains that it actually took place over two days, with Jesus cursing the fig tree the first day on the way to cleanse the Temple, and the disciples seeing the tree withered on the second day when they were again going to Jerusalem from Bethany (Mark 11:12\-14 and Mark 11:19\-20\). Of course, upon seeing the tree “withered from the roots up,” the disciples were amazed, as that would have normally taken several weeks. Having reviewed the general chronological setting of the story, we can begin to answer some of many questions that are often asked of it. First of all is the question, Why did Jesus curse the fig tree if it was not the right season for figs? The answer to this question can be determined by studying the characteristics of fig trees. The fruit of the fig tree generally appears before the leaves, and, because the fruit is green it blends in with the leaves right up until it is almost ripe. Therefore, when Jesus and His disciples saw from a distance that the tree had leaves, they would have expected it to also have fruit on it even though it was earlier in the season than what would be normal for a fig tree to be bearing fruit. Also, each tree would often produce two to three crops of figs each season. There would be an early crop in the spring followed by one or two later crops. In some parts of Israel, depending on climate and conditions, it was also possible that a tree might produce fruit ten out of twelve months. This also explains why Jesus and His disciples would be looking for fruit on the fig tree even if it was not in the main growing season. The fact that the tree already had leaves on it even though it was at a higher elevation around Jerusalem, and therefore would have been outside the normal season for figs, would have seemed to be a good indication that there would also be fruit on it. As to the significance of this passage and what it means, the answer to that is again found in the chronological setting and in understanding how a fig tree is often used symbolically to represent Israel in the Scriptures. First of all, chronologically, Jesus had just arrived at Jerusalem amid great fanfare and great expectations, but then proceeds to cleanse the Temple and curse the barren fig tree. Both had significance as to the spiritual condition of Israel. With His cleansing of the Temple and His criticism of the worship that was going on there (Matthew 21:13; Mark 11:17\), Jesus was effectively denouncing Israel’s worship of God. With the cursing of the fig tree, He was symbolically denouncing Israel as a nation and, in a sense, even denouncing unfruitful “Christians” (that is, people who profess to be Christian but have no evidence of a relationship with Christ). The presence of a fruitful fig tree was considered to be a symbol of blessing and prosperity for the nation of Israel. Likewise, the absence or death of a fig tree would symbolize judgment and rejection. Symbolically, the fig tree represented the spiritual deadness of Israel, who while very religious outwardly with all the sacrifices and ceremonies, were spiritually barren because of their sins. By cleansing the Temple and cursing the fig tree, causing it to wither and die, Jesus was pronouncing His coming judgment of Israel and demonstrating His power to carry it out. It also teaches the principle that religious profession and observance are not enough to guarantee salvation, unless there is the fruit of genuine salvation evidenced in the life of the person. James would later echo this truth when he wrote that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26\). The lesson of the fig tree is that we should bear spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22\-23\), not just give an appearance of religiosity. God judges fruitlessness, and expects that those who have a relationship with Him will “bear much fruit” (John 15:5\-8\).
What is old earth creationism?	Answer Please note, as a ministry, GotQuestions.org officially holds to [young earth creationism](young-earth-creationism.html). We truly and fully believe that young earth creationism best fits with the biblical account of creation. However, we recognize that old earth creationism is a valid viewpoint that a Christian can hold. In no sense is old earth creationism heresy and in no sense should old earth creationists be shunned as not being brothers and sisters in Christ. We thought it would be worthwhile to have an article that positively presents old earth creationism, as it is always good for our viewpoints to be challenged, motivating us to further search the Scriptures to make sure our beliefs are biblically sound. Old earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term used to describe biblical creationists who deny that the universe was created within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years over the course of six consecutive 24\-hour days. Rather, old earth creationists believe that God created the universe and its inhabitants (including a literal Adam and Eve) over a much longer period of time than is allowed for by young earth creationists. The list of notable Christian leaders who are at least open to an old earth interpretation is a long one, and that list continues to grow. The list includes men such as Walter Kaiser, Norman Geisler, William Dembski, J.I. Packer, J.P. Moreland, Philip E. Johnson, and Chuck Colson, as well the late Francis Schaefer and Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer. Old earth creationists usually agree with the mainstream scientific estimates of the age of the universe, humanity, and Earth itself while at the same time rejecting the claims of modern evolutionary theorists with respect to biological evolution. Old earth creationists and their young earth creationist brothers hold several important points in common, including: 1\) The literal creation of the universe out of nothing a finite time ago ([creation ex nihilo](creation-ex-nihilo.html)). 2\) The literal creation of Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve out of Adam’s side as well as the historicity of the Genesis account. 3\) The rejection of the claim of Darwinists that random mutation and natural selection can adequately account for the complexity of life. 4\) The rejection of the claim that God used the process of evolution to bring man to today ([theistic evolution](theistic-evolution.html)). Both old earth and new earth creationism categorically reject the theory of common ancestry. However, old earth creationists differ with young earth creationists on the following: 1\) The age of the universe. Young earth creationists believe that God created the universe 6,000\-10,000 years ago. Old earth creationists place the creation event at approximately 13\.7 billion years ago, thus being more in line with “mainstream” science, at least on this point. 2\) The time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Young earth creationists place the creation of Adam no later than 10,000 years ago. Old earth creationists are varied on this point with estimates ranging somewhere between 30,000\-70,000 thousand years ago. The controversy between the two views of creationism hinges on the meaning of the Hebrew word yom, meaning “day.” Young earth creationists insist that the meaning of the word yom in the context of Genesis 1–2 is a 24\-hour period of time. Old earth creationists disagree and believe that the word yom is being used to denote a much longer duration of time. Old earth creationists have used numerous biblical arguments to defend their view including the following: 1\) Yom is used elsewhere in the Bible where it is referring to a long period of time, particularly Psalm 90:4, which is later cited by the apostle Peter: “A day (yom) is like a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8\). 2\) The seventh “day” is thousands of years long. Genesis 2:2\-3 states that God rested on the seventh “day” (yom). Scripture teaches that we are certainly still in the seventh day; therefore, the word “day” could also be referring to a long period of time with reference to days one through six. 3\) The word “day” in Genesis 1–2 is longer than 24 hours. Genesis 2:4 reads, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (NASB). In this verse, “day” is referring to the first six days as a whole and thus has a more flexible meaning than merely a 24\-hour period. 4\) The sixth “day” is probably longer than 24 hours. Genesis 2:19 tells us that Adam observed and then catalogued every living animal on the earth. At face value, it does not appear that Adam could have completed such a monumental task in a mere 24\-hour period. To be sure, the issues dividing young and old earth creationists are both complex and significant. However, this issue should not be made a test for orthodoxy. There are godly men and women on both sides of this debate. In the final analysis, biblical creationists—both young and old Earth varieties—have a great deal in common and should work together to defend the historical reliability of the Genesis account.
Does the Bible prophesy the coming of Muhammad?	Answer There are three primary passages in the Bible that Muslims often point to as prophecies of the coming of [Muhammad](who-was-Muhammad.html): Deuteronomy 18:15\-22, Song of Solomon 5:16, and John 16:5\-11\. First, in regards to Deuteronomy 18:15\-22, the immediate context of this passage refers back to verses 9\-14\. There Moses warns the people of the danger of false prophets. God’s people are to avoid any and all who presume to speak authoritatively about spiritual truth apart from God’s truth. What is God’s truth? Verse 15 says a particular prophet will arise from the Jews (i.e., “your own brothers”) who will be like Moses. Notice that it’s not just any prophet, as there have been many, but a special prophet. People who studied and believed the Old Testament writings were looking for this particular, special prophet. In fact, some Jewish leaders thought the fiery preacher John the Baptist might be the fulfillment of Moses’ prophecy (see John 1:19\-30\). John the Baptist, however, said that he was the forerunner of the prophet of whom Moses spoke, not the prophet Himself. Who then is this prophet spoken of in the Bible? He is clearly none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:43\-45 records that the early followers of Jesus understood He was the prophet of whom Moses wrote. Jesus Himself declared this about Himself (Luke 24:27\). The most complete statement pointing to Jesus as the promised prophet is found in Acts 3:12\-26\. The deacon, Stephen, reiterated this in Acts 7:37\. Such notable men as John the Baptist, Philip, Peter, and Stephen all testified that Jesus Christ, not Muhammad, is the prophet predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15\-22\. Second, in Song of Solomon 5:16, the maiden says of her lover, "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem." The word translated as "lovely" is the Hebrew word machamadim. It is the plural of machamad, which means “lovely, cute, or desirable.” Although it is the root word of Muhammad, it does not follow that the verse refers to Muhammad, especially since the word used is a plural adjective, not the name of a person. Finally, in John 16:5\-11, Jesus prophesies that after He leaves, the Counselor will come, and this Counselor will “convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8\). Who is this Counselor? Jesus Himself gives the answer a few verses later in John 16:13, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth…” Jesus explicitly identifies the Counselor as the Holy Spirit. Jesus previously had used very similar terminology to predict the coming of the Holy Spirit: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name…” (John 14:26\). It is abundantly clear in the Bible that the Counselor Jesus prophesied was the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad. In conclusion, the Bible nowhere specifically predicts the coming of Muhammad. Muhammad was not the prophet Moses predicted, and Muhammad was not the Counselor Jesus predicted. Since the message of Muhammad contradicts the message of Jesus and the Bible on many points, the only biblical prophecy that would apply to the coming of Muhammad would be Matthew 24:11, “And many false prophets will appear and deceive many people…”
What is the meaning of the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector?	Answer The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in the Temple (Luke 18:9\-14\) is rich with spiritual truth. In fact, it contains the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As verse 9 tells us, Jesus spoke this parable to those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others” (NKJV). Jesus spoke often of the issue of righteousness, pleading with His hearers to understand their utter inability to be righteous enough to attain the kingdom of heaven. This knowledge was essential if they were to understand His mission on earth, which was to save sinners—those who knew they could not save themselves. The Pharisees, on the other hand, thought their own goodness was so impressive that it could not fail to make them acceptable to God. They held rigorously to the ceremonies and traditions of the law, making a public show of their religiosity, all to be seen by other men, many of whom they despised as being beneath them. The Pharisee in the story is the epitome of one who is self\-justifying. Notice that his prayer has no elements of confession. He does not ask forgiveness for his sins, perhaps because he believes he has nothing to confess. Nor is there any word of praise or thanksgiving to God. His prayer is all about him. Even the thanks he does offer is designed to exalt himself and place himself above others whom he treats with disdain. Going to the temple to pray with the condition of his heart as it was, he might as well have stayed home. Such a “prayer” is not heard by God. Unlike the Pharisee, who stands boldly in the temple reciting his prayers of self\-congratulation, the tax collector stood “afar off” or “at a distance,” perhaps in an outer room, but certainly far from the Pharisee who would have been offended by the nearness of this man. Tax collectors, because of their association with the hated Romans, were seen as traitors to Israel and were loathed and treated as outcasts. This man’s posture spoke of his unworthiness before God. Unable to even lift his eyes to heaven, the burden of his guilt and shame weighed heavily upon him, and the load he carried had become unbearable. Overcome by his transgressions, he beats his breast in sorrow and repentance and appeals to God for mercy. The prayer he speaks is the very one God is waiting to hear, and his attitude is exactly what God wants from all who come to Him. The tax collector exhibits precisely what Jesus spoke about in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3\). Being poor in spirit means admitting we have nothing to offer to God to atone for our sin. We come to God as empty, impoverished, despised, bankrupt, pitiable, desperate beggars. The tax collector recognizes his sinful condition and seeks the only thing that can bridge the gap between himself and God. “Have mercy on me,” he cries, and we know from the end of the parable that God heard his prayer for mercy and answered it. Jesus tells us in verse 14 that the tax collector went away justified (made righteous) because he had humbled himself before God, confessing that no amount of works could save him from his sin and that only God’s mercy could. If we are truly broken\-hearted over our sin, we can be assured of God’s boundless love and forgiveness in Christ. He has promised in His word to accept us, love us, and make us alive again through His Son (Colossians 2:13\). No amount of good works, church attendance, tithes, community service, loving our neighbor or anything else we do is sufficient to take away the blot of sin and enable us to stand before a holy God on our own. That is why God sent Jesus to die on the cross. His death is the only “work” that is able to cleanse us and make us acceptable to God. In addition, we must not make the mistake of comparing ourselves with others and gaining confidence from what we see in that comparison. In fact, Jesus specifically warns us against this attitude at the beginning of the parable. When we try to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves to others, we naturally end up despising them. Our standard for comparison is God Himself, and we all fall short of His glory (Romans 3:23\).
What is the meaning of the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard?	Answer This lengthy parable is found only in the gospel of Matthew. Jesus tells the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1\-16\) in response to Peter’s question in Matthew 19:27: "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" Peter wanted to know what reward would be given to those who give up everything to follow Jesus. In response, Jesus explains this truth about the kingdom of heaven. Planting, maintaining and harvesting vineyards in first\-century Israel was strenuous work requiring hard physical labor in the heat of summer. Often, additional laborers were required to get all the work done. The owner of this particular vineyard went to the marketplace at the first hour of the morning (6:00 a.m.) to find workers for the day. His offered wage of one denarius, a Roman’s soldier’s pay for a day, was generous indeed. The workers in the first group were more than happy to work for the generous wage. As the day progressed and more workers were hired, the specific wage was not mentioned, but the landowner promised to pay “whatever is right.” Apparently, the workers were sufficiently confident of the landowner’s character that they trusted him at his word. Altogether, four groups of workers were hired, the last group just one hour before the end of the day. When the time came for the wages to be paid, the first group of workers saw the last group being paid a denarius and were naturally thinking they would be paid more since they had worked the longest. Their anger against the landowner spilled forth when they saw they would all be paid the same, even though they got exactly what they had agreed upon when they were hired. The landowner was forced to defend his actions to the first group, even though he had dealt with them in perfect fairness according to the contract. The landowner, whose decision to pay all the workers the same was an act of mercy—not injustice—represents God, whose grace and mercy are shed abundantly upon those of His choosing. “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (Romans 9:15\-16\). In the matter of salvation, His grace and mercy are given to those whose self\-righteous works could never obtain it. We are all sinful and “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\), but His grace is sufficient to redeem all who believe. Whether God calls someone early or late in life to partake of His grace, the glory and praise for our salvation is His and His alone and in no way amounts to unfairness. Just as the landowner has a right to do what he wishes with his own money, so does God have the right to have mercy on whom He will have mercy. The first group of workers in the vineyard resented receiving the same wage as the last group. Their attitude was similar to that of the Pharisees, who were incensed at Jesus’ teaching that others could inherit a heavenly kingdom they thought was reserved for them alone. They despised Jesus for offering the kingdom to poor, oppressed, weak sinners whom He made equal to them. In verse 15, the landowner asks, “Is your eye evil because I am good?” The “evil eye” was a Hebrew expression referring to jealousy and envy. God’s goodness and mercy produced in the self\-righteous Pharisees the evil eye of envy. The rest of the workers received their wages without complaint or envy of others. In the same way, as Christians, we should rejoice when others come to the Savior, as we should rejoice in the service others render to Him. He is faithful to reward us for our service as He has promised, and how He rewards others should be of no consequence to us, nor should it affect our devotion to Him. The message in verse 16, “the last will be first, and the first last,” is that no matter how long or how hard a believer works during his lifetime, the reward of eternal life will be the same given to all—an eternity of bliss in heaven in the presence of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The thief on the cross (Luke 23:39\-43\), whose life of service was limited to a moment of repentance and confession of faith in Christ, received the same reward of eternal life as the apostle Paul. Of course, Scripture also teaches that there are different [rewards in heaven](heavenly-crowns.html) for different services, but the ultimate reward of eternal life will be achieved by all equally.
Why are both Jesus and Satan referred to as the morning star?	Answer The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18\). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus unmistakably identifies Himself as the [morning star](bright-morning-star.html). Why are both Jesus and Satan described as the “morning star”? It is interesting to note that the concept of the “morning star” is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways. The idea of a “bright morning star” is a star that outshines all the others, and Jesus is the One who is called “bright.” Satan was a morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is the BRIGHT and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful “light” in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as “morning stars,” in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5\). Only Jesus’ light is “bright” and self\-existent. Satan may be a morning star, but he is only a poor imitation of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world.
Is the universe eternal?	Answer The Bible makes it clear that the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, and that the beginning was its creation by God (Genesis 1:1\). This truth has been denied by philosophers and pseudo\-scientists who have come up with a variety of different theories in an effort to “prove” the eternality of the universe. Further, atheists will say that matter and energy are eternal, following the first law of thermodynamics—“Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed.” Philosophically, why do we have something rather than nothing at all? If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause, and therefore cannot be eternal. And every drop of evidence we have points to the universe having a beginning, but this truth is not something welcomed by naturalists and atheists. Numerous scientifically minded atheists have expressed a desire to find a loophole to the scientific fact that the present order of nature had a beginning. Unfortunately for them, such a loophole does not exist. Here are five proofs that the universe is not eternal: (1\) The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else). (2\) The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding. (3\) The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965\. The radiation echo is thought to be the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe had a spectacularly dynamic beginning—easily associated with God’s creative act. (4\) Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992\. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” (5\) Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.” Further, it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind. In the end it is either matter before mind or mind before matter, and all scientific, philosophical, and reasonable evidence points to the latter. In conclusion, we find that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning, just as the Bible states, and that a Cause must exist that resembles all we know today. As Lord Kelvin, a British scientist once said, "If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God."
What is Holy Saturday?	Answer Holy Saturday is the name given to the day between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Some Christians recognize Holy Saturday, the seventh day of Holy Week, as the day on which Jesus “rested” from His work of providing salvation. As Jesus died, He called out, “It is finished!” There was no further price to pay; sin had been atoned for. After His crucifixion, Jesus was laid in a nearby tomb, and His body remained there the entirety of Holy Saturday (Matthew 27:59\-60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53\-54; John 19:39\-42\). Churches that celebrate Holy Saturday traditionally do so by observing a day of somber reflection as they contemplate the world of darkness that would exist without the hope of Christ’s resurrection. Indeed, without the resurrection of Christ, we would be in dire straits. If Christ had never been raised, “your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17\). The disciples had scattered when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:50\), and they spent the first Holy Saturday hiding for fear of also being arrested (John 20:19\). The day between Christ’s crucifixion and His resurrection would have been a time of grief and shock as the stunned disciples tried to understand the murder of Jesus, the betrayal of Judas, and the dashing of their hopes. The only biblical reference to what happened on Holy Saturday is found in Matthew 27:62\-66\. After sundown on Friday—the day of Preparation—the chief priests and Pharisees visited Pontius Pilate. This visit was on the Sabbath, since the Jews reckoned a day as starting at sundown. They asked Pilate for a guard for Jesus’ tomb. They remembered Jesus saying that He would rise again in three days (John 2:19\-21\) and wanted to do everything they could to prevent that. As we know, the Roman guards were inadequate to prevent the resurrection, and the women who returned to the tomb Sunday morning found it empty. The Lord had risen. Holy Saturday Calendar: 2024 — March 30 2025 — April 19
What does the Bible say about eating food/meat that has been sacrificed to idols?	Answer One of the struggles in the early church concerned meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Debates over what to eat might seem strange to most of us in modern society, but to the first\-century believers, it was a subject of great consequence. As the apostles dealt with the issue, they gave instructions on several broader topics with application for today: Unity within the church. In the early years of the church, as Gentile converts began joining Jewish believers in local fellowships, an issue arose concerning the eating of meat. Greco\-Roman society was saturated with idol worship, and it was common for meat sold in the marketplace to have been consecrated as a sacrifice to false gods prior to its sale. The Jews would have nothing to do with such meat, wary of “unclean” food\-handling practices and believing that to partake of consecrated meat was to give tacit approval of idol worship—kind of a “second\-hand” idolatry. The Gentiles rejected the notion that such meat was tainted and held that they could eat meat sacrificed to idols without endorsing idolatry—they had not actually offered the sacrifice, after all. The matter was becoming a point of contention within the church. The church in Syrian Antioch, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, struggled with this issue (Acts 15\). The Jerusalem Council settled the matter by urging Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29\). This decision was made not to promote legalism but to keep peace within the church. Since eating meat offered to idols was a divisive issue—carrying the possibility of scandalizing fellow believers—abstinence was expedient. Compliance with the council’s directive assured that, at the next church potluck, a Jewish believer could eat the brisket he was served with confidence, knowing it had never been part of a sacrificial cow. And the Gentile believer could not be accused of participating in idol worship. With its ruling, the Jerusalem Council affirmed the need for deference, or consideration for the scruples of others. The principle is one of self\-denial; we should be willing to lay down our personal rights for the sake of maintaining unity in the body of Christ. Spiritual growth takes priority over personal preferences. Causing a weaker brother to sin. In 1 Corinthians 8:4\-13, Paul clarifies the teaching on this subject. First, he says that eating meat offered to an idol is not immoral, because “an idol is nothing at all.” An idol is an inanimate object. “Food,” he says, “does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” The meat itself is amoral. However, there is more to consider, namely the brother with a weak conscience. Some believers, especially those with a background of idol worship, were still very sensitive concerning this issue and considered it morally wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Under no circumstances, Paul says, should a believer encourage another believer to violate his conscience. To the pure, all things are pure (Titus 1:15\), but to one with a weak conscience, meat taken from pagan temples was spiritually defiled. It would be better never to eat meat again than to cause a believer to sin against his conscience. The “weaker” brother is not someone who simply objects to a certain practice, but one who is in danger of falling into sin. To illustrate, let’s say there are two 1st\-century Christians named Demetrius and Clement. Both are former idolaters, now saved by faith in Christ. Demetrius shuns everything to do with his old way of life, including the meat sold in the marketplace, because, for him, eating such meat would constitute a return to paganism. Clement avoids the temple and refuses to participate in the pagan festivals, but he has no problem eating the meat from the market. Clement understands (correctly) that an idol has no power to corrupt good meat, and, for him, eating such meat is a non\-issue. Then one day, as both men are in the marketplace, Demetrius sees Clement eating meat that was sacrificed to idols. Demetrius is horrified, but Clement laughs it off and encourages Demetrius to eat some, too. When Demetrius hesitates, Clement cuts off a piece and hands it to him. Demetrius—emboldened by Clement’s confidence—eats the meat. Biblically, both believers have sinned. Clement sinned by violating the conscience of a fellow believer. Demetrius sinned in that he essentially returned to idolatry—at least, that’s what his conscience is telling him. More importantly, Demetrius is learning how to ignore his conscience—a very dangerous thing to learn. The principle here is that the conscience of a weaker Christian is more important than individual freedom. Doing something “permitted” should never hinder the spiritual health of someone else. Maintaining a pure testimony. In 1 Corinthians 10:25\-32, Paul again emphasizes the believer’s liberty and what should limit that liberty. If you buy meat for your own use, don’t inquire where it came from; it doesn’t really matter whether it was sacrificed to an idol or not. “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1\). However, if you are invited to dinner and someone there says, “This meat was offered to idols,” then graciously refrain from eating. Since your associate obviously considers the meat to be “tainted” by the idols, do not eat it for his conscience’s sake—even though your own conscience is fine. The Christian glorifies God when he limits his freedom for the spiritual benefit of others. Compromise with the world. In the letter to the church of Thyatira, Jesus rebukes them for tolerating a prophetess who “misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20\). This is a different situation from what Paul was dealing with in Corinth. It seems that members of the church of Thyatira were partaking of the pagan “love feasts,” celebrated with gross immorality and feasting. These believers were not simply buying meat in the marketplace; they were actually attending idolatrous festivals and joining in the sin of the idolaters. (See verse 14 for a similar rebuke of the church of Pergamos.) Here is a summary of the Bible’s teaching on eating meat sacrificed to idols: Eating meat offered to an idol is not inherently wrong. Meat is not “defiled” because it was taken from a pagan sacrifice. God “richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Timothy 6:17\). However, some Christians consider meat offered to an idol to be defiled, and for them it is, since they must follow their conscience. Their scruples should be respected by other Christians with a stronger conscience. Love dictates that all Christians make allowances for their weaker brothers. There are certain cultures today where idolatry is still practiced and where the specifics of the Bible’s teaching about sacrificial meat are still timely. For the rest of us, here are the principles which should govern our participation in the “gray areas” of life: 1\) Having the “right” to do something does not mean we are free to do it in every circumstance, regardless of its effects on others. 2\) The believer’s liberty in Christ can and should be voluntarily limited in order not to cause a weaker brother to sin by violating his conscience. Liberty is limited in love. 3\) Maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of love may require a believer to give up his personal “right” to a thing. “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (Psalm 133:1\). 4\) We should avoid anything that would make a weak Christian think less of his faith or that would make an unsaved person feel more at ease in his sin.
What is the guff?	Answer The guff is a term the Talmud uses to refer to the repository of all unborn souls. The Talmud is the Jewish commentary on the Torah, or the Old Testament, and especially the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. Jewish tradition states that the Talmud began as oral teachings handed down from Moses that were eventually completed sometime between the 4th and 2nd century B.C. Literally, the word guff means "body." The Talmud essentially says, "The Messiah will not arrive until there are no more souls in the guff.” The Talmud is saying that there are a certain number of souls in heaven waiting to be born. Until they are born, they wait in a heavenly repository called "the guff," and the Messiah will not arrive until every single one of these souls has been born into the physical world. Is the idea of the guff biblical? No, it is not. Neither the Hebrew Scriptures nor the New Testament teach that there is a storehouse of souls in heaven. The Bible does not teach that souls are waiting to be attached to bodies when people are born. The Bible is not explicitly clear on [when/how human souls are created](souls-created.html), but the concept of the guff does not agree with what the Bible does teach about the origin of the soul. It is far more biblical to hold that God creates each human soul at the moment of conception, or that the human soul is generated along with the body through the physical\-spiritual union of conception.
Who is authorized to oversee the Lord’s Supper?	Answer Christians universally agree that the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ and should be observed as an ordinance in the church by His followers. It was to the Corinthian church that Paul wrote instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23\-26\). Paul later wrote to Timothy about the qualifications for church leaders, bishops/elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1\-13\). In the original language, the word “deacon” comes from a verb that means "to serve," probably in the sense of waiting on tables, but it also came to be used to signify a broad range of service in the church. Because of the connotation of table service in the word “deacon” and the centrality of the Lord’s Supper in the worship of the early church, there is strong indication that serving the communion elements was an important function of deacons. From this we can conclude that designated church leadership conducted the Lord’s Supper in the early church; however, there is no Scripture specifically given with "how to" instructions. Therefore, it would seem reasonable for the leadership, if there were an insufficient number of deacons present, to appoint laymen to serve. More important than who serves communion is the attitude with which it is both served and received. First Corinthians 11:27 says that those who take the elements in an “unworthy manner” are guilty of sin against the body and blood of Christ. An “unworthy manner” can mean the taking of the elements by those who do not belong to Christ or taking them in a flippant or irreverent manner. It can also mean using the ceremony as a means to be seen before men to be exalted by them. Verse 28 gives the criteria for both serving and participating in the Lord’s Supper. We are to examine ourselves before we partake and be sure our hearts are right before the Lord. Then both the servers and the receivers can be sure of pleasing God when they participate in His communion.
Is religion opium for the masses?	Answer Labeling Christianity (and/or other religions) the “opium for the people” or the “opiate of the masses” is a fairly common tactic used by those dismissive of religion. Using phrases like this is a way to blow off religion without trying to counter or discuss it. Karl Marx was not the first to use this phrase, but he is the one most people are thinking of when they use this attack. Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society. Beginning primarily with Marx, the “opium for the masses” accusation is often used by atheists. Because they reject the existence of God, they have to somehow explain the continuing existence of religion. They see no need for religion, so they do not understand others’ need for it. Marx was not specifying Christianity in his rejection of religion. Rather, he was denouncing religion in general by using “people” in a demeaning sense to mean the poor, ignorant, and easily deceived. The essential argument of the “opium for the masses” saying is that religion is for weak\-minded and emotionally disturbed people who need a crutch to get through life. Atheists today make similar claims, such as the idea that “[God is an imaginary friend for adults](is-God-imaginary.html).” So, is religion nothing but “opium for the masses”? Does religion accomplish nothing but provide an emotional crutch for weak\-minded people? A few simple facts will answer the question with a resounding “no.” (1\) There are strong logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. (2\) The fact that humanity is damaged and in need of redemption/salvation (the core message of religion) is clearly seen throughout the world. (3\) In the history of humanity, the vast majority of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers have been theists. Do some use religion as a crutch? Yes. Does that mean the claims of religion are invalid? No. Religion is the natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that we are damaged and in need of repair. At the same time, we must differentiate between false religion which gives false security—just as opium gives a false sense of well\-being—and Christianity, which is the only true religion and the only true hope for mankind. False religion is based on the idea that man, through some kind of effort on his part (works) can make himself acceptable to God. Only Christianity recognizes that man is “dead in trespasses and sins” and is incapable of doing anything worthy of eternity in heaven. Only Christianity offers a solution to the total inability of man—the [substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross](substitutionary-atonement.html).
Why didn’t Adam and Eve find it strange that a serpent was talking to them?	Answer Interestingly, the serpent/snake speaking to [Adam](Adam-in-the-Bible.html) and [Eve](Eve-in-the-Bible.html) is not the only instance in the Bible where an animal speaks. The prophet Balaam was rebuked by his donkey (see Numbers 22:21\-35\). We have to remember that while animals are not capable of speaking, there are powerful beings out there (God, the angels, Satan, the demons) who are capable of the impossible, including enabling animals to speak. Most scholars hold that it was Satan in the Garden of Eden who was speaking through the snake, not the snake itself speaking on its own. Thus, the Genesis 3 account it is not suggesting that snakes were of an intellect that would have enabled them to speak coherently. Still, why didn’t Adam and Eve find it strange that an animal was speaking to them? It is unlikely that Adam and Eve had the same perspective we do on animals. In our era, we know from experience that animals are incapable of speech on the same level as humans. Adam and Eve did not have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. Given that Adam and Eve had probably only been alive a matter of days, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that animals were capable of speech. It is also possible that this was not the first talking animal Adam and Eve had encountered. Perhaps Satan or even God Himself had used animals to communicate with Adam and Eve before. There are so few details given in the account that much is left to speculation and presumption. Lastly, it was not unreasonable for Eve to answer the snake. After all, the snake was evidently speaking in a language that she understood and asking an intelligible question. It is also likely that Adam was nearby and could verify that she was not imagining things. It was not the serpent speaking that should have alarmed them. Rather, it was the fact that he was causing them to doubt God’s instructions (Genesis 3:1\), contradicting God (Genesis 3:4\), and calling God’s motives into question (Genesis 3:5\). That should have been enough to cause both Eve and Adam to stop talking to the serpent.
Is there a conclusive argument for the existence of God?	Answer The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that causes invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “[wish\-fulfillment](wish-fulfillment.html)” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher [Friedrich Nietzsche](Friedrich-Nietzsche.html) bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. An argument for the existence of God — something rather than nothing To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 1\. Reality is an illusion. 2\. Reality is/was self\-created. 3\. Reality is self\-existent (eternal). 4\. Reality was created by something that is self\-existent. So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher [Rene Descartes](Rene-Descartes.html) who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self\-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated. Next is the option of reality being self\-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self\-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist [David Hume](David-Hume.html) said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self\-created is ruled out. Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th\-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads: • Something exists. • Nothing cannot create something. • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists. Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter? To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal. Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self\-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: • Something exists. • You do not get something from nothing. • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non\-life produces life; randomness produces fine\-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non\-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.” An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self\-existent). • 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 cannot create personality). • 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). These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1\), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17\), eternal (Psalm 90:2\), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7\), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6\), immaterial (John 4:24\), personal (Genesis 3:9\), necessary (Colossians 1:17\), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4\), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19\), intelligent (Psalm 147:4\-5\), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11\), moral (Daniel 9:14\), and caring (1 Peter 5:6\-7\). An argument for the existence of God — the flaws of atheism One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.” An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish\-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish\-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20\). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12\-13\).
Should Christians try to evangelize atheists?	Answer As Christians who know the love of God and have the assurance of eternity in heaven, it’s hard to understand why anyone would want to be an atheist. But when we realize the sin nature and its strong influence on the mind and the heart, we begin to understand where the atheist is coming from. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as an atheist. Psalm 19:1\-2 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. We see His creative power in all that He has made. Romans 1:19\-20 follows up on this idea, telling us that what may be known about God has been made plain to us through the creation, and anyone who denies this is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18\). Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 declare that those who deny the existence of God are fools. So the atheist is either lying or he is a fool or both. So, what is it that causes someone to deny God? The main goal of those under the influence of the sin nature is to make himself a god, to have complete control over his life, or so he thinks. Then religion comes along with obligations, judgments, and restrictions, while atheists presume to define their own meaning and morality. They do not want to submit to God because their hearts are at “enmity against God,” and they have no desire to be subject to His Law. In fact they are incapable of doing so because their sin has blinded them to truth (Romans 8:6\-7\). This is why atheists spend most of their time complaining and arguing not about the scriptural proof texts, but about the “dos and don’ts.” Their natural rebelliousness detests the commandments of God. They simply hate the idea that anything—or any One—should have control over them. What they do not realize is that Satan himself is controlling them, blinding them, and preparing their souls for hell. In terms of evangelizing atheists, we should not hold back the gospel from someone just because he or she claims to be an atheist. Do not forget that an atheist is just as lost as a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. God certainly wants us to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:19\) and to defend the truths of His word (Romans 1:16\). On the other hand, we are not obligated to waste our time trying to convince the unwilling. In fact, we are warned not to expend excessive effort on those who are clearly disinterested in any honest discussions (Matthew 7:6\). Jesus told the apostles to go and preach the Word, but He did not expect them to stay anywhere until every last person had been converted (Matthew 10:14\). Perhaps the best tactic is to give each person the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. Every question, honestly and truthfully answered, gives that person a chance to hear the gospel. But if that person is just arguing, being hostile, or otherwise not listening, it’s probably time to go somewhere else. Some people are totally and absolutely hardened to the gospel (Proverbs 29:1\). They may be rational or irrational, but there are scriptural reasons to believe that some people are willingly immune to the influence of the Holy Spirit (Genesis 6:3\). When we have made a good\-faith effort to talk to someone, and he or she is unreachable, then we are commanded to “shake the dust off” of our shoes (Luke 9:5\) and spend our time talking to those who are more spiritually open. As in all things, the wisdom of God is crucial. God has promised that wisdom to us if we ask (James 1:5\), and we should pray for it and trust God’s prompting to know how and when to end the dialogue with a hostile atheist.
Should a Christian be patriotic?	Answer The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the word “patriotic.” As with many words, there are different nuances of meaning, and different people use the word in different ways. For example, at its simplest meaning being patriotic simply means “loving one’s country.” As long as that love for country does not supersede one’s love for God, and if it is kept in proper perspective, there is nothing wrong with a Christian being patriotic. However, another definition of “patriotic” implies that the individual should place the interests of the nation above his or her personal and group interests. Carried to this extreme, patriotism can become a form of idolatry, particularly if one’s love for his country is greater than his love for God and God’s plan of redeeming people from “every tribe, tongue and nation.” As far as a Christian’s responsibility towards government, we know from Romans 13:1\-7 that we are to be subject to the governing authorities and to honor them, even when they are not honorable, because it is ultimately God who has placed them in authority over us. So, as Christians, we are under obligation to God to be model citizens, subject to the governing authorities over us by obeying laws, paying taxes, etc. However, our responsibilities are first and foremost to be obedient to God. In America, a constitutional republic where individual citizens have the ability to change and influence government by voting or by being politically involved when appropriate and in appropriate ways, part of being a good citizen is voting and having whatever positive influence we can on government. In countries where Christians have no say in the decisions of their leaders, it is more difficult to be patriotic. It is very hard to love oppressive governments. However, as Christians we are still obligated to pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1\-4\). God will honor our obedience to this command, and in His perfect timing, He will judge leaders who turn away from Him. Should a Christian be patriotic? Within reason, yes. At the same time, a Christian’s ultimate faith, love, and obedience are to be reserved for God alone.
What is moral government theology?	Answer Moral government theology traces its roots back to a 16th\-century Dutch jurist named Hugo Grotius. Moral government theology cannot truthfully be called a Christian doctrine as it is based on the unbiblical and erroneous idea that both God and man have a form of freedom known as the “power of contrary choice.” For man, this power enables all men to act and make choices free from the tyranny of our sin nature. Moral government theology claims that man is born morally neutral and is always capable of choosing whether or not to sin, and his moral character is determined by his choices. For God, the power of contrary choice means He cannot know His own future choices for, if He did, He would in effect be restricted by those plans and no longer be able to make those choices freely. It also means His moral character is determined by His choices, meaning His will and His nature are changeable. Among its other detrimental effects, moral government theology is the basis of the “[open theism](open-theism.html)” heresy which is currently gaining popularity in evangelical circles. First, let’s examine the idea of the power of contrary choice in regard to mankind. The proponents of moral government theology claim that humans are able to fulfill the law, and we are not bound by a sin nature that continually wants to sin. Further, through our good choices and an iron will, mankind can turn away from sin, and we can achieve perfection if we work hard enough to make good choices. All these ideas directly contradict the Bible, which sets forth a completely different picture of man in his natural state. We are, by nature, objects of wrath (Ephesians 2:3\) and dead in our transgressions and sins (Ephesians 2:1\). A dead person cannot make choices of any kind, and a spiritually dead person most certainly cannot make a choice for God and His righteousness until he has been made a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\). While we are still in our old sin nature, we are at war with God and we can’t choose to stop warring. Romans 8:7\-8 tells us that “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God” (italics added). Further, even if we could make a choice to fulfill all of God’s laws—which we can’t—it still wouldn’t be enough to enable us to stand before Him because we are not justified by the law, but by faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16\). The law was given to mankind by God to prove to us that we cannot fulfill it so that we stand hopelessly before Him, devoid of any way to appease His wrath against our sin. At this point, God’s grace and mercy were manifested in the person of His Son, whose death on the cross fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17\) and exchanged His righteousness for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21\). So we see that the “power of contrary choice” does not exist. Until we are made new in Christ, we are slaves to sin (Romans 6:17\), and a slave has no choice but to obey his master. Once Christ has given us a new nature, we are no longer slaves to sin, but to righteousness, and we can then make good choices, but only because the Savior now indwells us in the form of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 1:14\). Second, the moral government theology impugns God’s character and recreates Him in the likeness of man. Contrary to moral government theology’s claims, the Bible declares that God does not change His mind, He is not surprised by anything that happens, and what He has foreordained will come to pass (Isaiah 14:24\). God is—by His very nature: omniscient (all\-knowing): “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33\); omnipotent (all\-powerful): "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you” (Jeremiah 32:17\); immutable (unchanging): “I am the Lord; I change not” (Malachi 3:6\); and sovereign (in complete control of every atom in the universe): “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! (Romans 11:36\). To suggest that God is as the moral government theology proponents describe Him is completely without biblical foundation. In fact, it contradicts God’s own description of Himself—revealed to us in His Word—which is tantamount to calling Him a liar or at least accusing Him of being out of touch with His own reality. Moral government theology also distorts the doctrines of sin, justification, and the atonement, which is the natural consequence of beginning with an incorrect view of the nature of man and the nature of God. Suffice it to say that when these two things are wrong, it follows that any doctrine involving man and/or God will also be wrong, and this is certainly the case with moral government theology.
Do Proverbs 26:4 and 26:5 contradict?	Answer Proverbs has much to say about fools. They despise wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 22, 10:21, 23:9\); they are right in their own eyes (Proverbs 12:15\); they are deceitful (Proverbs 14:8\) and scornful (Proverbs 10:23, 14:9\). The wise are also given instruction on how to deal with fools in Proverbs. Instructing a fool is pointless because his speech is full of foolishness (Proverbs 15:2, 14\) and he does not want wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 18:2\). The futility of trying to impart wisdom to a fool is the basis of Proverbs 26:4\-5, which tell us how to answer a fool. These seemingly contradictory verses are actually a common form of parallelism found in the Old Testament, where one idea builds upon another. Verse 4 warns against arguing with a fool on his own terms, lest we stoop to his level and become as foolish as he is. Because he despises wisdom and correction, the fool will not listen to wise reason and will try to draw us into his type of argument, whether it is by using deceit, scoffing at our wisdom, or becoming angry and abusive. If we allow him to draw us into this type of discourse, we are answering him “according to his folly” in the sense of becoming like him. The phrase “according to his folly” in verse 5, on the other hand, tells us that there are times when a fool has to be addressed so that his foolishness will not go unchallenged. In this sense answering him according to his folly means to expose the foolishness of his words, rebuking him on the basis of his folly so he will see the idiocy of his words and reasoning. Our “answer” in this case is to be one of reproof, showing him the truth so he might see the foolishness of his words in the light of reason. Even though he will most likely despise and reject the wisdom offered to him, we are to make the attempt, both for the sake of the truth which is always to be declared, and for the sake of those listening, that they may see the difference between wisdom and folly and be instructed. Whether we use the principle of verse 4 and deal with a fool by ignoring him, or obey verse 5 and reprove a fool depends on the situation. In matters of insignificance, it’s probably better to disregard him. In more important areas, such as when a fool denies the existence of God (Psalm 14:1\), verse 5 tells us to respond to his foolishness with words of rebuke and instruction. To let a fool speak his nonsense without reproof encourages him to remain wise in his own eyes and possibly gives credibility to his folly in the eyes of others. In short, in negligible issues we should just ignore fools, but in issues that matter, they must be dealt with so that credence will not be given to what they say.
How can we know what parts of the Bible apply to us today?	Answer Much misunderstanding about the Christian life occurs because we either assign commands and exhortations we should be following as "era\-specific" commands that only applied to the original audience, or we take commands and exhortations that are specific to a particular audience and make them timeless truths. How do we go about discerning the difference? The first thing to note is that the [canon of Scripture](canon-of-Scripture.html) was closed by the end of the 1st century A.D. This means that, while all of the Bible is truth we can apply to our lives, most, if not all, of the Bible was not originally written to us. The authors had in mind the hearers of that day. That should cause us to be very careful when interpreting the Bible for today’s Christians. It seems that much of contemporary evangelical preaching is so concerned with the practical application of Scripture that we treat the Bible as a lake from which to fish application for today’s Christians. All of this is done at the expense of proper [exegesis](Biblical-exegesis.html) and interpretation. The top three rules of [hermeneutics](Biblical-hermeneutics.html) (the art and science of biblical interpretation) are 1\) context; 2\) context; 3\) context. Before we can tell 21st\-century Christians how the Bible applies to them, we must first come to the best possible understanding of what the Bible meant to its original audience. If we come up with an application that would have been foreign to the original audience, there is a very strong possibility that we did not interpret the passage correctly. Once we are confident that we understand what the text meant to its original hearers, we then need to determine the width of the chasm between us and them. In other words, what are the differences in language, time, culture, geography, setting and situation? All of these must be taken into account before application can be made. Once the width of the chasm has been measured, we can then attempt to build the bridge over the chasm by finding the commonalities between the original audience and ourselves. Finally, we can then find application for ourselves in our time and situation. Another important thing to note is that each passage has only one correct interpretation. It can have a range of application, but only one interpretation. What this means is that some applications of biblical passages are better than others. If one application is closer to the correct interpretation than another, then it is a better application of that text. For example, many sermons have been preached on 1 Samuel 17 (the David and Goliath story) that center on "defeating the giants in your life." They lightly skim over the details of the narrative and go straight to application, and that application usually involves allegorizing Goliath into tough, difficult and intimidating situations in one’s life that must be overcome by faith. There is also an attempt to allegorize the five smooth stones David picked up to defeat his giant. These sermons usually conclude by exhorting us to be faithful like David. While these interpretations make engaging sermons, it is doubtful the original audience would have gotten that message from this story. Before we can apply the truth in 1 Samuel 17, we must know how the original audience understood it, and that means determining the overall purpose of 1 Samuel as a book. Without going into a detailed exegesis of 1 Samuel 17, let’s just say it’s not about defeating the giants in your life with faith. That may be a distant application, but as an interpretation of the passage, it’s alien to the text. God is the hero of the story, and David was His chosen vehicle to bring salvation to His people. The story contrasts the people’s king (Saul) with God’s king (David), and it also foreshadows what Christ (the Son of David) would do for us in providing our salvation. Another common example of interpreting with disregard of the context is John 14:13\-14\. Reading this verse out of context would seem to indicate that if we ask God anything (unqualified), we will receive it as long as we use the formula “in Jesus’ name.” Applying the rules of proper hermeneutics to this passage, we see Jesus speaking to His disciples in the upper room on the night of His eventual betrayal. The immediate audience is the disciples. This is essentially a promise to His disciples that God will provide the necessary resources for them to complete their task. It is a passage of comfort because Jesus would soon be leaving them. Is there an application for 21st\-century Christians? Of course! If we pray in Jesus’ name, we pray according to God’s will and God will give us what we need to accomplish His will in and through us. Furthermore, the response we get will always glorify God. Far from a "carte blanche" way of getting what we want, this passage teaches us that we must always submit to God’s will in prayer, and that God will always provide what we need to accomplish His will. Proper biblical interpretation is built on the following principles: 1\. Context. To understand fully, start small and extend outward: verse, passage, chapter, book, author and testament/covenant. 2\. Try to come to grips with how the original audience would have understood the text. 3\. Consider the width of the chasm between us and the original audience. 4\. It’s a safe bet that any moral command from the Old Testament that is repeated in the New Testament is an example of a "timeless truth." 5\. Remember that each passage has one and only one correct interpretation, but can have many applications (some better than others). 6\. Always be humble and don’t forget the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation. He has promised to lead us into all truth (John 16:13\). Biblical interpretation is as much an art as it is science. There are rules and principles, but some of the more difficult or controversial passages require more effort than others. We should always be open to changing an interpretation if the Spirit convicts and the evidence supports.
What is the Christian view of Tai Chi (TaiChi)?	Answer Tai Chi is more specifically called Tai Chi Chuan, which can be translated as “supreme ultimate fist.” Tai Chi is a martial art, though it’s often called a “moving meditation” since the movements are done slowly and deliberately, and it is taught more as a meditative and health\-enhancing practice than as a martial art. Though its origins are unclear, the foundation of Tai Chi is the Taoist belief in a universal energy called chi (also spelled [qi](Qi.html) or ki depending on the language of origin). Chi is believed to be the binding life force in the universe, existing both externally and internally, moving through invisible channels in the body called meridians. Taoism teaches that strengthening and reinforcing one’s inner chi will bring good health and long life as well as spiritual benefits. Certain breathing techniques, meditations, and bodily movements are taught to cultivate and enhance the chi. This belief is the basis of Tai Chi. There is no supreme God or Creator in Taoism; all originated from the Tao, which is an impersonal principle or source of creation. From the Tao came yin and yang, two forces that manifested in creation. These forces appear opposite but actually are in a state of constant flux, merging with each other. The chi flows more harmoniously when yin and yang are balanced; this balance is brought about through special diets, herbs, exercises, breathing techniques, and bodily movements. Tai Chi, therefore, has a worldview at odds with the Christian worldview. Tai Chi is based on a Taoist spiritual view of the body and the chi, and how to enhance the chi, a view incompatible with how the Bible tells us we were made—in God’s image (Genesis 1:27\). Jesus Christ created and holds the world together, not the Tao or an invisible force called chi: “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16\-17\). Doing Tai Chi, even for physical purposes, is paying homage to a spiritual belief system at odds with God’s Word.
Can an atheist be a good moral person?	Answer Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, he can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise. Even atheists react to this inherent knowledge of right and wrong, some even to the extent of living exemplary lives. [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html) described this well. He noted that if a man sees another in danger, the first instinct is to rush to help ([altruism](Bible-altruism.html)). But a second internal voice intervenes and says, “No, don’t endanger yourself,” which is in keeping with self\-preservation. But then a third internal voice says, “No, you ought to help.” Where does that third voice come from, asks Lewis? This is what is referred to as the “ought\-ness” of life. Morality is what people do, but ethics describe what people ought to do. And yes, people know what they ought to do, but that doesn’t mean that they always act according to that knowledge. The difference between the atheist and the Christian in this sense is that the atheist may act ethically for certain reasons (e.g., not wanting to go to jail, it disrupts social order, it makes them look good to others, etc.), but he has no ultimate reason for acting ethically because there is no ultimate moral authority that exists over each sphere of his life. Without this ultimate authority, each atheist defines morality on his own terms, although his morality is influenced by the remnants of morality from the image of God within, along with the strictures and constraints of the culture and society in which the atheist exists. The Christian, on the other hand, acts morally out of the knowledge of the moral law given by God in His Word and a love for the Law\-giver Himself. In addition, that knowledge is continually increased and personalized by the indwelling Spirit of God, whose task it is to bring the Christian “into all truth” (John 16:13\). From within believers, He directs, guides, comforts, and influences us, as well as producing in us the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). To the atheist who is without the Spirit, God’s truth is “foolishness,” because it is “spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14\), and the only fruit of righteousness is self\-righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ. When confronted with a situation that demands both the Christian and the atheist to make moral choices, a situation in which societal constraints are removed, the reaction of each will be vastly different. If a society deems it morally acceptable to kill unborn babies, for instance, the atheist sees no reason to oppose the practice. His own “moral law” even tells him it’s the compassionate thing to do in cases where the child is the result of rape or incest. The Christian, however, knows abortion is wrong because his moral choices are built upon the moral Law\-giver who has declared all human life to be sacred because it is created in the image of God. The Law\-giver has proclaimed, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13\) and, for the Christian, there’s the end of it. So can an atheist act ethically? Certainly, but he has no ultimate reason to do so and no ultimate authority to look to in order to ensure his line is indeed straight and unbendable.
Financial crisis - what’s a Christian to do?	Answer What are Christians supposed to do when we’re hit by a national or personal financial crisis? How we handle a financial storm depends mostly on our attitude about whom the money belongs to in the first place. Do we view our money as ours? Or do we view it as coming from and belonging to God? If we see our income as being from the Lord, it makes it much easier to navigate the turbulent waters of economic downturns and tough financial situations. Whether we lose or make money, it is all His and under His control, and that is a truly freeing concept. The Lord created all of us with certain talents and gifts which we are to use to not only make a living, but to also help us live our lives in such a way as to bring glory and honor to Him (Romans 12:1\-2; 1 Corinthians 6:20\). So while we grow up, follow our individual career paths into adulthood, and begin our lives as contributing members of society, making money and accumulating possessions along the way, we are also to serve and worship the Lord with every fiber of our being. We cannot do that if we consider it all ours and not His. We will always find ourselves serving what we treasure the most, whether it is wealth, power, fame, or the Lord. The Bible shows us that Jesus well knew the lure of money and possessions because during His earthly ministry He actually spoke more on the subject of finances than on heaven and hell combined. Luke 12:15\-34 is an excellent passage on the attitude we should have toward our money and possessions and is well worth taking some time to prayerfully read and study. Our sovereign God placed us on the earth at just this time in history, and these tough economic times come as no surprise to Him. Since He knows every single detail of our lives, down to the exact number of hairs we lost to our hairbrush this morning (Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7\), we can absolutely trust Him to help us through a time of financial crisis. Let us make sure we are living prudently to begin with, staying within our means and not accumulating too much debt, and every day prayerfully entrusting it all to the Lord. Then we can encourage each other with Paul’s words in Philippians 4:19, as he gives glory to God, trusting Him in every situation, “And my God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.”
What should I do with my life after graduation?	Answer The Bible is full of encouragement for us, helping us to understand how important we are to God and offering plain counsel on how we should live (e.g., John 3:16; Zephaniah 3:17; 1 Peter 5:6–7; Psalm 86:15; Philippians 2:1–11; Colossians 3:17, 23\). The Bible helps us understand and make sense of our relationships, our work, our school, and the like. When confronted with natural times of transition such as graduating from high school or college, changing jobs, or moving to a new community, we can have confidence that God cares and is attending to our needs. More importantly, we can have assurance that God draws near to us when we draw near to Him (James 4:8\). The short answer to the question of what you should do after graduation is “draw near to God,” but it takes a little context for that advice to make sense. It is okay to not have all the answers. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived (1 Kings 3:3–15; 4:30; 10:1–9\), raised many questions in the [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html), answered most of them, and then offered a final conclusion about life. He said that all people should “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (Ecclesiastes 12:13\). To fear God is to have great reverence for Him. It is to approach Him like the King that He is (Ecclesiastes 5:1\), but also to believe that He is a loving father (Luke 15\). When we draw near to God through reading the Word and prayer, He reveals to us who He is and what He does; then we can understand what His will is for the world and for us. By drawing near to God we can learn what we should do next. Jesus invites us to understand what it means to trust Him. He says to us all, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Mathew 11:28–30\). He wants us to come to Him. He knows we are tired and anxious. He knows well enough to give us what we need. He uses the imagery of a yoke, a large wooden harness that holds two animals side by side, to help us understand that He is with us. A yoke enables two animals, oxen or horses or cattle, to pull together in the same direction. It is normal to have an older and wiser animal paired with a younger, untested animal so that the older can carry the larger burden while teaching the younger how to succeed. This is how Jesus is with us. He makes our yoke light by pulling most of the weight Himself. Not only do we have this invitation to be with Jesus, but we also have been given freedom to live freely (Galatians 5:1; James 1:25\), we have been given the mind of Christ to help us make decisions (1 Corinthians 2:16\), and we have been given the Holy Spirit to guide us and teach us (John 16:13\). These provisions from God are intended to provide us with a knowledge of who He is and what He does and to guide us in how we can respond. If you want to know what you should do after graduation, consider the love of God revealed in His statements about who you are and who you are designed to be. You have been created by God with great care and wonder, all the days of your life are designed by God, and He thinks often and well of you (Psalm 139:13–18\). You have the fingerprints of God all over you, having been created as His workmanship, designed to do good works (Ephesians 2:10\). So go and do. You have been designed to do good works for God’s glory and to help other people. Consider this: Jesus and His adoptive earthly father were carpenters. Many followers of Jesus were fishermen. Others were tent makers, tax collectors, Roman soldiers, and Jewish leaders. There is no right profession, and, so long as it is not a question of morality, there is no wrong one. Thus, as you are considering what you might do after graduation—whether you should take this job or that one, move to a new city or stay in your home town, continue in school or start a small business—seek out the answer that positions you to best be able to love God by loving others. Practically speaking, take the following steps: first and most importantly, read the Bible and pray. Talk to God and receive His wise counsel. Draw near to Him. Second, seek the counsel of those who love God and love you. Their advice matters a great deal (Proverbs 15:22\). Third, reflect on the past and make a list of the times you have been invited to serve others, maybe to lead a Bible study or help someone with his schoolwork, or to be the captain of a sports team, sing at a wedding, or write for a blog. This will help you to learn what other people believe you are good at. Fourth, make a list of whom you love to love. Do you cry when you see a homeless man? Do you want to save high school students from peer pressure? Do you wish it were possible that ladies in nursing homes never felt lonely? These and similar questions about God and other people will help you discover that it is not necessarily about what you should do, but rather whom you could serve. Somewhere in there is the beginning of the road you are seeking. What should you do with your life after you graduate? Live your life before God with great reverence for who He is and what He does, and then go and love others. Give yourself permission to make mistakes, trusting that God works all things for the good of those who love Him, those who are called by Him (Romans 8:28\). And, whatever you do, be reminded of this: “Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain” (Psalm 127:1\).
Are faith healers for real?	Answer There is no doubt that God has the power to heal anyone at any time. The question is whether He chooses to do so through those who are called “faith healers.” These individuals typically convince their audiences that God wants them to be well and that through their faith—and usually a financial offering—God will reward their faith by healing them through the power of Jesus. By comparing the healing ministry of the Lord Jesus to that of the modern faith healers, we can determine whether their claims have any basis in Scripture. If, as they say, they heal through the same power and in the same way that Jesus healed, we should be able to see marked similarities between them. However, just the opposite is true. Mark 1:29\-34 gives us a description of just one day of Jesus’ healing ministry. His power to heal—and to do all kinds of miracles—was evidence that He had power over both the physical and spiritual effects of the curse of sin. He healed those afflicted with physical diseases, illnesses, and injuries, even raising the dead, and He cast demons out of those who were possessed by them. Only God can rescue us from the results of the Fall of man into sin—disease and death—and by His miracles, Jesus proved His deity. There are several distinctives in the way Jesus healed that are not characteristic of the modern faith healers. First, He healed instantly. Peter’s mother\-in\-law (Mark 1:31\), the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:13\), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41\-42\), and the paralytic (Luke 5:24\-25\) were all healed immediately. They did not have to go home and start to get better, as is the advice from many faith healers. Second, Jesus healed totally. Peter’s mother\-in\-law was fully functional after being healed from an illness so severe she was bedridden. When Jesus healed her, she rose immediately and prepared a meal for all who were in the house. The blind beggars in Matthew 20:34 were given instant sight. Third, Jesus healed everyone (Matthew 4:24; Luke 4:40\). They were not required to be pre\-screened by the disciples before coming to Jesus for healing, as is the standard procedure with the healers today. There was no healing line they had to qualify for. Jesus healed all the time in many places, not in a studio with carefully\-controlled circumstances. Fourth, Jesus healed actual organic diseases, not symptoms as the faith healers do. Jesus never healed anyone of a headache or back pain. He healed leprosy, blindness, and paralysis, miracles that were truly verifiable. Finally, Jesus healed the ultimate disease—death. He brought forth Lazarus after four days in the grave. No faith healer can duplicate that. In addition, His healings did not require faith as a precondition. In fact, most of those He healed were unbelievers. There have always been false healers who prey on the suffering and the desperate in order to pad their bank accounts. Such behavior is the worst kind of blasphemy because many whose money is wasted on false promises reject Christ outright because He does not do what the healer has promised. Why, if faith healers have the power to heal, do they not walk the halls of the hospitals healing everyone and releasing them all? Why do they not go to clinics and cure all the AIDS patients? They do not because they cannot. They do not have the power of healing that Jesus possessed.
What is the true gospel?	Answer The true gospel is the good news that God saves sinners. Man is by nature sinful and separated from God with no hope of remedying that situation. But God, by His power, provided the means of man’s redemption in the death, burial and resurrection of the Savior, Jesus Christ. The word “gospel” literally means “good news.” But to truly comprehend how good this news is, we must first understand the bad news. As a result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:6\), every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin. Because of man’s sinful nature, he does not and cannot seek God. He has no desire to come to God and, in fact, his mind is hostile toward God (Romans 8:7\). God has declared that man’s sin dooms him to an eternity in [hell](hell-real-eternal.html), separated from God. It is in hell that man pays the penalty of sin against a holy and righteous God. This would be bad news indeed if there were no remedy. But in the gospel, God, in His mercy, has provided that remedy, a substitute for us—Jesus Christ—who came to pay the penalty for our sin by His sacrifice on the cross. This is the essence of the gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:2\-4, he explains the three elements of the gospel—the death, burial and resurrection of Christ on our behalf. Our old nature died with Christ on the cross and was buried with Him. Then we were resurrected with Him to a new life (Romans 6:4\-8\). Paul tells us to “hold firmly” to this true gospel, the only one which saves. Believing in any other gospel is to believe in vain. In Romans 1:16\-17, Paul also declares that the true gospel is the “power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” by which he means that salvation is not achieved by man’s efforts, but by the grace of God through the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Because of the gospel, through the power of God, those who believe in Christ (Romans 10:9\) are not just saved from hell. We are, in fact, given a completely new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17\) with a changed heart and a new desire, will, and attitude that are manifested in good works. This is the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in us by His power. Works are never the means of salvation, but they are the proof of it (Ephesians 2:10\). Those who are saved by the power of God will always show the evidence of salvation by a changed life.
Who are the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 14-15?	Answer The exact origin of the Nicolaitans is unclear. Some Bible commentators believe they were a heretical sect who followed the teachings of Nicolas—whose name means “one who conquers the people”—who was possibly one of the deacons of the early church mentioned in Acts 6:5\. It is possible that Nicolas became an apostate, denying the true faith and became part of a group holding “the doctrine of Balaam,” who taught Israel “to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality” (Revelation 2:14\). Clement of Alexandria says, “They abandoned themselves to pleasure like goats, leading a life of self\-indulgence.” Their teaching perverted grace and replaced liberty with license. Other commentators believe that these Nicolaitans were not so called from any man, but from the Greek word Nicolah, meaning "let us eat," as they often encouraged each other to eat things offered to idols. Whichever theory is true, it is certain that the deeds of the Nicolaitans were an abomination to Christ. They, like the Gnostics and other false teachers, abused the doctrine of grace and tried to introduce licentiousness in its place (2 Peter 2:15, 19; Jude 1:4\). Jesus commends the church of Ephesus for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans as He does (Revelation 2:6\). No doubt the leaders of the Ephesian church protected their flock from these destructive heresies and kept their people from committing the same evil deeds. All sin is hateful to Christ, as it should be to His followers, as we hate men’s evil deeds, not the men themselves. For the church at Pergamos, Jesus had not commendation, but censure. Unlike the Ephesians, they actually embraced the teachings of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15\). Jesus warns them that unless they repent, they are in danger of the judgment that is sure to fall on those who teach false doctrine, attack His church, and destroy His people. The sword of judgment is poised over their heads, and His patience is not limitless (Revelation 2:16; 19:15\). The lesson for us is that the church of the Lord Jesus throughout the ages has been plagued by those of the Nicolaitan spirit. The only way to recognize false teaching is to be intimately familiar with truth through the diligent study of the Word of God.
Why did Jesus instruct us to pray “lead us not into temptation”?	Answer We know from James 1:13 that God does not tempt us to sin. If God did tempt us to sin, He would be acting contrary to His holy nature, against His desire for us to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16\), and against all other commandments in Scripture that tell us to avoid sin and flee temptation. In the Lord’s model prayer (Matthew 6:9–13\), Jesus says, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (verse 13\). The inclusion of a request for God not to lead us into temptation teaches us that [avoiding temptation](overcome-temptation.html) should be one of the primary concerns of the Christian life. The idea of God leading His people is a main theme of Scripture. The book of Psalms especially is filled with pleas for God to lead us in His ways (Psalm 5:8; 27:11\), by His truth and righteousness, and in “the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:24\). Along with leading us toward good, we understand that we are asking God to lead us away from evil. The petition in the [Lord’s Prayer](Lords-prayer.html) not to be led into temptation reflects the believer’s desire to avoid the dangers of sin altogether. This phrase, then, must be understood in the sense of “permitting.” Jesus taught us to pray, “Do not ‘allow’ us, or ‘permit’ us, to be tempted to sin.” This request implies that God has such control over the tempter as to save us from his power if we call upon our Heavenly Father. There is another sense in which we are to plead with God not to lead us into temptation. The word temptation can also refer to trials. We know from 1 Corinthians 10:13 that God will not test us beyond our ability in Christ to bear it and will always provide a way out. But God sometimes subjects us to trials that may expose us to Satan’s assaults for His own purposes, as in the cases of Job and Peter (Luke 22:31–32\). If the temptation in the Lord’s Prayer refers to trials, then the meaning of Matthew 6:13 is, “Do not afflict or try us.” It is not wrong to pray that we may be delivered from trials and suffering, as long as we submit ourselves to the will of God, no matter what it is. The believer can rightly ask to be delivered from testing as well as ask for the strength to endure it if it does come. We might illustrate Jesus’ words “Lead us not into temptation” like this: a mother takes her young children grocery shopping with her and comes to the candy aisle. She knows that taking her children down that aisle will only stir up greediness in their hearts and lead to bouts of whining and pouting. In wisdom, she takes another route—whatever she may have needed down the candy aisle will have to wait for another day. In this way the mother averts unpleasantness and spares her children a trial. Praying, “Lead us not into temptation,” is like praying, “God, don’t take me down the candy aisle today.” It’s recognizing that we naturally grasp for unprofitable things and that God’s wisdom can avert the unpleasantness of our bellyaching. Whether we are asking for God to lead us away from sin or from difficult trials, our goal is found in the second part of verse 13: “Deliver us from the evil one.” A petition similar to this is offered by David in Psalm 141:4: “Do not let my heart be drawn to what is evil so that I take part in wicked deeds along with those who are evildoers; do not let me eat their delicacies.” In all things, God is our deliverer, and we are wise to seek His power over sin.
Are the miracles in the Bible to be taken literally?	Answer Yes, the miracles of the Bible are to be taken [literally](Bible-literal.html), just as all Scripture is to be taken literally except those portions which are clearly intended to be symbolic. An example of symbolism is Psalm 17:8\. We are not literally apples in God’s eye, nor does God literally have wings. But the miracles are not symbolic happenings; they are real events that actually happened. Each of the miracles in the Bible served a purpose and accomplished something that couldn’t be accomplished in any other way. The earliest and most profound miracle of all was that of creation. God created everything ex nihilo—from nothing—and each succeeding miracle reinforced His incredible power. The book of Exodus is filled with miraculous events God used to bring about His will. The plagues on Egypt, beginning with the water of the Nile being turned to blood (Exodus 7:17\) through the death of the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12\), were literal events that eventually caused Pharaoh to free the Israelites from bondage. If the plagues did not happen, why did Pharaoh let the people go? And if the plague of the death of the firstborn was not real, then God did not move through Egypt that night killing the firstborn, nor was there any necessity for the Israelites to sprinkle blood on their doorposts. Then the foreshadowing of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross is voided, which puts the crucifixion itself into doubt. Once we begin to doubt the reality of any miracle, we have to discount everything the Bible says came about as a result of the miracle, which puts all of Scripture in doubt. Among the best\-known Old Testament miracles is the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14\), during which Pharaoh and much of his army were drowned. If the miracle is symbolic, then how do we know what parts of the rest of the story are literal? Did the Israelites really leave Egypt? Did Pharaoh’s army really follow them, and, if so, how did the Israelites escape? Psalm 78 is one of the many passages where God reminds the Israelites of the miracles He performed in releasing them from the Egyptian bondage. God’s mighty miracles proved to the surrounding nations that the Lord is the one, true God. The pagan idols of wood and stone were capable of no such things. Only the God of miracles deserves worship. In the New Testament, Jesus performed numerous miracles beginning with His first one at the wedding in Cana where He turned water into wine (John 2:1\-10\). One of His most spectacular miracles was the raising of Lazarus after he had been dead four days (John 11\). All the miracles He did were to prove that He was indeed who He said He was—the Son of God. When He calmed the storm in Matthew 8, even the disciples were astonished: "The men were amazed and asked, 'What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!'" (v. 27\). If Jesus’ miracles were not real, then the gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings were just nice stories, and those people remained afflicted by diseases, calling into doubt His compassion (Matthew 14:14; 10:34; Mark 1:41\). If He didn’t really feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes, those people remained hungry and Jesus’ words “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” (John 6:26\) have no meaning at all. But Jesus did heal, He did create food for thousands, He did turn water into wine, and He did raise Lazarus from the dead. John 2:23 tells us that many believed in Him because of the miracles. All the miracles had a purpose—to prove that God is like no one else, that He has complete control of creation because He is its source, and to convince us that if He can do all these miraculous things, nothing in our lives is too hard for Him to handle. He wants us to trust Him and know that He can do miracles in our lives as well. If the miracles did not occur, then how can we trust anything the Bible tells us, especially when it tells us eternal life is available through Christ? When we begin to call any part of Scripture into doubt, all of God’s marvelous plan is suspect, and we open the door for the lies and distortions which are Satan’s plan to destroy our faith (1 Peter 5:8\). The Bible is to be read and understood literally, including the miracles.
Does God hate?	Answer It might seem a contradiction that a God who is love can also hate. Yet that’s exactly what Bible says is true: God is love (1 John 4:8\), and God hates (Hosea 9:15\). God’s nature is love—He always does what is best for others—and He hates what is contrary to His nature—He hates what is contrary to love. No one should be surprised to learn that God does hate some things. He created us with the capacity to both love and hate, and we acknowledge that hatred is sometimes justified—we naturally hate things that destroy what we love. This is part of our being created in the image of God. The fact that we are all tainted with sin means that our love and hatred are sometimes misplaced, but the existence of the sin nature does not negate our God\-given ability to love and hate. It is no contradiction for a human being to be able to love and hate, and neither is it a contradiction for God to be able to love and hate. When the Bible does speak of God’s hatred, the object of His hatred is sin and wickedness. Among the things God hates are idolatry (Deuteronomy 12:31; 16:22\), child sacrifice, sexual perversion (Leviticus 20:1–23\), and those who do evil (Psalm 5:4–6; 11:5\). Proverbs 6:16–19 lists seven things the Lord hates: pride, lying, murder, evil plots, those who love evil, false witnesses, and troublemakers. Notice that this passage does not include just things that God hates; it includes people as well. The reason is simple: sin cannot be separated from the sinner except by the forgiveness available in Christ alone. God hates lying, yes, but lying always involves a person—a liar—who chooses to lie. God cannot judge the lie without also judging the liar. The Bible clearly teaches that God loves the people of the world (John 3:16\). God spared wicked Nineveh, bringing them to repentance (Jonah 3\). God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32\). He is patient to an extreme, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9\). This is all proof of love—God wants what is best for His creation. At the same time, Psalm 5:5 says about God, “You hate all evildoers” (ESV). Psalm 11:5 is even harsher: “The wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.” Before a person repents and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, he is the [enemy of God](enemy-of-God.html) (Colossians 1:21\). Yet, even before he is saved, he is loved by God (Romans 5:8\)—i.e., God sacrificed His only begotten Son on his behalf. The question then becomes, what happens to someone who spurns God’s love, refuses to repent, and stubbornly clings to his sin? Answer: God will judge him, because God must judge sin, and that means judging the sinner. These are the “wicked” whom God hates—those who persist in their sin and rebellion, even in the face of the grace and mercy of God in Christ. David writes, “You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you” (Psalm 5:4, ESV, emphasis added). By contrast, those who take refuge in God will “be glad” and “ever sing for joy” (verse 11\). In fact, both Psalm 5 and Psalm 11 draw a stark contrast between the righteous (those who take refuge in God) and the wicked (those who rebel against God). The righteous and the wicked make different choices and have different destinies—one will see the ultimate expression of God’s love, and the other will know the ultimate expression of God’s hatred. We cannot love with a perfect love, nor can we hate with a perfect hatred. But God can both love and hate perfectly, because He is God. God can hate without sinful intent. He can hate the sinner in a perfectly holy way and still lovingly forgive the sinner at the moment of repentance and faith (Malachi 1:3; Revelation 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9\). In His love for all, God has sent His Son to be the Savior. The wicked, who are still unforgiven, God hates “for their many sins, for they have rebelled” (Psalm 5:10\). But—and this is important to understand—God desires that the wicked repent of their sin and find refuge in Christ. At the moment of saving faith, the wicked sinner is removed from the kingdom of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of love (see Colossians 1:13\). All enmity is dissolved, all sin is removed, and all things are made new (see 2 Corinthians 5:17\).
What is the Jezebel spirit?	Answer There is a variety of opinions about what constitutes a Jezebel spirit, everything from sexual looseness in a woman to the teaching of false doctrine—by a man or a woman. The Bible does not mention a Jezebel spirit, although it has plenty to say about Jezebel herself. Jezebel’s story is found in 1 and 2 Kings. She was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre/Sidon and priest of the cult of Baal, a cruel, sensuous and revolting false god whose worship involved sexual degradation and lewdness. Ahab, king of Israel, married Jezebel and led the nation into Baal worship (1 Kings 16:31\). Ahab and Jezebel’s reign over Israel is one of the saddest chapters in the history of God’s people. There are two incidents in the life of Jezebel that characterize her and may define what is meant by the “Jezebel spirit.” One trait is her obsessive passion for domineering and controlling others, especially in the spiritual realm. When she became queen, she began a relentless campaign to rid Israel of all evidences of Yahweh worship. She ordered the extermination of all the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4, 13\) and replaced their altars with those of Baal. Her strongest enemy was Elijah, who demanded a contest on Mount Carmel between the powers of Israel’s God and the powers of Jezebel and the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18\). Of course, God won, but despite hearing of the miraculous powers of the Lord, Jezebel refused to repent and swore on her gods that she would pursue Elijah relentlessly and take his life. Her stubborn refusal to see and submit to the power of the living God would lead her to a hideous end (2 Kings 9:29–37\). The second incident involves a righteous man named Naboth who refused to sell to Ahab land adjoining the palace, rightly declaring that to sell his inheritance would be against the Lord’s command (1 Kings 21:3; Leviticus 25:23\). While Ahab sulked and fumed on his bed, Jezebel taunted and ridiculed him for his weakness, then proceeded to have the innocent Naboth framed and stoned to death. Naboth’s sons were also stoned to death, so there would be no heirs, and the land would revert to the possession of the king. Such a single\-minded determination to have one’s way, no matter who is destroyed in the process, is a characteristic of the Jezebel spirit. So infamous was Jezebel’s sexual immorality and idol worship that the Lord Jesus Himself refers to her in a warning to the church at Thyatira (Revelation 2:18\-29\). Most likely referring to a woman in the church who influenced it the same way Jezebel influenced Israel into idolatry and sexual immorality, Jesus declares to the Thyatirans that she is not to be tolerated. Whoever this woman was, like Jezebel, she refused to repent of her immorality and her false teaching, and her fate was sealed. The Lord Jesus cast her onto a sick bed, along with those who committed idolatry with her. The end for those who succumb to a Jezebel spirit is always death and destruction, both in the physical and the spiritual sense. Perhaps the best way to define the Jezebel spirit is to say it characterizes anyone who acts in the same manner as Jezebel did, engaging in immorality, idolatry, false teaching, and unrepentant sin. To go beyond that is to engage in conjecture and can possibly lead to false accusations and divisiveness within the body of Christ.
The missing link—has it been found?	Answer Every so often, news outlets irresponsibly report the sensational claim that someone somewhere has finally found “the missing link.” Such reports give people the false impression that science has, at long last, discovered the fossilized remains of a half\-human, half\-ape creature, thereby proving [Darwin’s theory of evolution](Darwinism-definition.html). In actual fact, no missing link has ever been found—it’s still missing. Plenty of fossilized remains of prosimians, monkeys, apes, and humans have turned up, but no intermediate fossil between ape and man. Eager as Darwinists are to find the ever\-missing missing link, they tend to zero in on any superficial aspect of a fossil that could possibly be interpreted as a mark of evolutionary transition from monkey to ape or ape to human. News organizations are then more than happy to publish sensational headlines, which are good for business. Darwinius massillae, for example, was presented as a missing link. This fossil, also known as “Ida” (after the daughter of the Norwegian scientist who led the research team), looks exactly like a modern lemur except that she lacks the grooming\-claw common to modern lemurs. Darwinists excitedly interpreted this to mean that Ida must have been an evolutionary transition from prosimian (the group to which lemurs belong) to monkey, since monkeys lack grooming\-claws. This is not the only possible interpretation of the data, as we shall see, but it suits Darwinists just fine. What happens if we find a man born with hands but no arms, so that his hands are attached directly to his shoulders? Should we believe that he represents a missing link between a human and a fish? That would be the same rationale used by Darwinists concerning Ida. The fact is there are people born with hands but no arms, and they are all still 100 percent human. They suffer from a condition known as phocomelia, which can either be inherited or caused by prenatal exposure to the drug thalidomide. Could it be that the fossilized lemur, instead of being a missing link, suffered from a deformity? It is entirely possible. But what is more sensational to report—the unearthing of a dead deformed lemur or the discovery of an exciting new species that fits somewhere within the presumed family tree of human evolution? If we go with the latter instead of the former, people could proclaim Ida as “the eighth wonder of the world.” Google could incorporate Ida’s image into their logo for a day. Headlines could proclaim that we’ve finally found the missing link. And eager Darwin devotees could claim victory once and for all. In fact, all of that happened in 2009—a lot of hype over one dead lemur with some missing body parts. The news reports, in their elation over a possible missing link, also made a big deal of the fact that Ida has opposable thumbs and nails instead of claws, which are human characteristics. They didn’t bother to mention that modern lemurs also have opposable thumbs and nails instead of claws, so those features have no evolutionary significance whatsoever. Unfortunately, the rush to declare a fossil a missing link happens with regularity. More examples could be given of mere fragments of bone and even pigs’ teeth that have been imagined into ape\-men, sold to the public, and photographed for use in textbooks. Bones of 100 percent humans have been wrongly thrown together with the bones of 100 percent apes to create fanciful ape\-men species. Diseased human skeletons have been distorted to look more ape\-like and put on display. Human anatomy has a wide range of potential variations, and these variations have been exploited and misinterpreted to suggest the existence of a missing link. Modern Australian Aborigines, for example, are known for their deep\-set eyes, short faces, heavy brow ridges, and large, jutting jaws. These so\-called ape\-like features, coupled with the traditional Aboriginal culture, led Darwinists in the 19th and 20th centuries to imagine that Aborigines were some kind of primitive ape\-men. The Pygmies of Africa fared no better. Many were rounded up and put on display in cages as “proof” of evolution. Some 19th\- and 20th\-century Darwinists thought that all non\-Caucasian people were ape\-like and therefore inferior to whites. Darwin himself wrote that “at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes \[apes that look human] . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 156, 1887\). Notice how Darwin states that the future, “more civilized” human will come from the Caucasian race and that the humans closest to apes are the Negroes and Australian Aborigines (despite the fact that Negroes, Aborigines, and Caucasians are all 100 percent human, while gorillas are 100 percent ape). Essentially, this is what modern Darwinists do with the Neanderthals. Neanderthals appear to have been just another race of humans with superficial, “ape\-like” characteristics like those of the Australian Aborigines. Many Neanderthals appear to have suffered from pathological conditions like rickets, scurvy, syphilis, and arthritis that exacerbated their superficially ape\-like characteristics. Everything we know about Neanderthals suggests that they were just as human as we are. They were skilled hunters, lived in complex societies, buried their dead, and practiced religion. The bottom line is that deformities and variations within genomes involve the duplication, misplacement, loss, and/or reshuffling of preexisting genetic information. The process can be observed in the natural world, and its mechanisms are identifiable and understood. But the evolution of prosimians into monkeys or monkeys into apes or apes into humans would involve the introduction of new genetic information into a genome, a process that has never been observed in nature and whose mechanisms have not been identified by scientists. It’s no wonder, then, that we cannot find any solid evidence that it ever happened in the past. It is no wonder that the missing link is still missing.
Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom?	Answer There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re\-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6\-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15\-18\. The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18\-46:24\. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40\. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the [temple](Ezekiel-temple.html) that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ. After giving details concerning the size and appearance of the temple and the altar, the Lord then begins to give detailed instruction as to the animal sacrifices that will be offered (Ezekiel 43:18\-27\). In chapter 44, the Lord gives instructions as to who will be offering sacrifices to the Lord. The Lord states that all of the Levites will not be offering blood and fat to the Lord due to previous sin; it will be those from the lineage of Zadok (verse 15\). Chapters 45 and 46 continue to mention that animal sacrifices will be made. The primary objection made to the idea of animal sacrifices returning during the millennial kingdom is that Christ has come and offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it must be remembered that animal sacrifice never removed the sin that spiritually separated a person from the Lord. Hebrews 10:1\-4 says, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (NASB). It is incorrect to think that animal sacrifices took away sins in the Old Testament, and it is incorrect to think they will do so in the millennial kingdom. Animal sacrifices served as object lessons for the sinner, that sin was and is a horrible offense against God, and that the result of sin is death. Romans 3:20 says, “Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom. To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson. During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God. Animal sacrifices will serve that purpose, "but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year" (Hebrews 10:3\).
Why is Bible memorization important?	Answer Bible memorization is of utmost importance in the Christian life. In fact, memorizing Scripture is perhaps the single most crucial element to spiritual growth and victory over sin. The Word of God is powerful because it is literally “God\-breathed” from the mind of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\), and when we fill our minds with His words by memorizing Scripture, we avail ourselves of the most powerful spiritual tool there is. When we memorize the Word of God, several things happen. Psalm 119:11 tells us the psalmist hid God’s Word in his heart so that he would not sin against Him. Not only did he hear and read the Word, but he internalized it and laid it up in his mind and memory for future use. The Word of God is the believer’s only truly potent weapon against sin, and when placed in the mind through Bible memorization, it is a strong influence for godliness and righteous living. Hebrews 4:12 tells us the Word of God is “living and active,” meaning that it has supernatural power to mold us into Christ\-likeness when we meditate upon it, and there is no better way to meditate on the Word than to have it in our minds and memories. Ephesians 6:13\-17 describes the believer’s armor in the battle for our souls and spiritual survival. All of the elements of the armor are defensive except one. The only offensive weapon is the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (v. 17\). Just as Jesus used God’s Word to fend off attacks of Satan (Matthew 4:1\-11\), so must we be able to use the same weapon. But rarely does Satan give us time to “look up” the correct passages when we are confronted with his lies and deception. Bible memorization ensures that we will have the appropriate truths and principles in mind and be able to recall them instantly to effectively respond to the evil one who seeks to destroy us (1 Peter 5:8\). Romans 12:1\-2 exhorts us to “renew” our minds so that we are no longer influenced by the thinking that conforms us to this world. The only way to renew the mind is to fill it with Scripture. Memorizing Scripture is the privilege and responsibility of every Christian. There are several excellent Scripture memory systems available, including the [Navigators Topical Memory System](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=839974). Even without a specific published method, anyone can start with the key verses of the Christian faith—such as John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8\-9—and continue to build verse upon verse. The key is to continually review the ones already memorized before adding any new ones. Whatever method is chosen, the benefits of Bible memorization are victory over sin, strengthened faith, and joy in the Christian life.
What is the intermediate state?	Answer The “intermediate state” is a theological concept that speculates regarding what kind of body, if any, believers in heaven have while they wait for their physical bodies to be resurrected. The Bible makes it clear that deceased believers are with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6\-8; Philippians 1:23\). The Bible also makes it clear that the resurrection of believers has not yet occurred, meaning that the bodies of deceased believers are still in the grave (1 Corinthians 15:50\-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:13\-17\). So, the question of the intermediate state is whether believers in heaven are given temporary physical bodies until the resurrection, or whether believers in heaven exist in spiritual/non\-corporeal form until the resurrection. The Bible does not give a great amount of detail regarding the intermediate state. The only Scripture that specifically, but indirectly, speaks to the issue is Revelation 6:9, “… I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.” In this verse John is given a vision of those who will be killed because of their faith during the end times. In this vision those believers who had been killed are under God’s altar in heaven and are described as “souls.” So, from this one verse, if there is a biblical answer for the intermediate state, it would seem that believers in heaven are in spiritual/non\-corporeal form until the resurrection. The heaven that ultimately awaits believers is the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21\-22\). Heaven will indeed be a physical place. Our physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified, made perfectly fit for eternity on the New Earth. Currently, heaven is a spiritual realm. It would seem, then, that there would be no need for temporary physical bodies if believers are in a spiritual heaven. Whatever the intermediate state is, we can rest assured that believers in heaven are perfectly content, enjoying the glories of heaven and worshiping the majesty of the Lord.
If Jesus was God, why did He say, “The Father is greater than I” in John 14:28?	Answer Jesus said, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28\) to His troubled disciples on the night of His arrest. Jesus had announced His imminent departure, and this puzzled them (John 13:33–38; 14:1; 16:16–18\). Jesus tells them, “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28\). So, if they truly loved Him, they would have rejoiced that He is going to the Father. Jesus had already promised that He would go and [prepare a place](I-go-to-prepare-a-place-for-you.html) for them in His Father’s house (John 14:2\). He also promised that He would come back and take them to be with Him forever (verse 3\). This should have been a cause for joy. Another cause for joy is that “the Father is greater than I” (verse 28\). John 14:28 is often taken out of context to allege that Jesus is not God: “If Jesus is God,” the critics say, “how is the Father greater than He?” The apostle John, however, insists that Jesus is God (John 1:1, 18; 5:16–18; 10:30; 20:28\). John also insists that Jesus was obedient to His Father (John 4:34; 5:19–30; 8:29; 12:48–49\). How do we resolve this perceived difficulty? [Arians](arianism.html) deny that Jesus is fully God, while [Gnostics](Christian-gnosticism.html) deny that Jesus is fully human. Both positions are unacceptable. Jesus is fully God and fully man. What, then, does Jesus mean when He says, “The Father is greater than I”? First, the doctrine of the [incarnation](incarnation-of-Christ.html) teaches that Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–7, ESV). Thus, “for a little while” (Hebrews 2:9\), the Father was greater in glory and exaltation. The Father was greater in that He was not subject to pain and illness and death—the Son was. The Father was greater in that He did not live in weariness and poverty and humilitation—the Son did. The “greatness” spoken of in this verse relates to role, not to essence. Second, the doctrine of [eternal Sonship](eternal-Sonship.html) teaches that the Father begat the Son. This is a difficult doctrine to grasp, but the Bible repeatedly affirms that Jesus had no beginning (John 1:1; 17:5\). In other words, there was never a time when Jesus was not. To claim otherwise is to fall into the heresy of Arianism. Jesus has always existed: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1–3, ESV). In John 1:14, John writes that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (ESV). Jesus did not cease being God; He simply took on human flesh, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15\). This is the most incredible moment in history! The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Son of God assumed a human nature and lived as one of us: He was God and man at the same time. Since Jesus always had a deep and intimate relationship with the Father, the disciples should have rejoiced that the Son was returning home (John 14:28\). Jesus would leave behind all the pain and sorrow of this world and regain the glory that He had with the Father before the creation of the world (John 17:5\). If the disciples loved Him, they would be glad for Him. But His going home was for the disciples’ benefit, too, because, once in heaven, Jesus would send the promised Holy Spirit to be with them forever (John 14:15–31\). We should praise God for the love that exists between the Father and Son, a love that was on full display when Jesus endured the shame of the cross for our sins (Hebrews 12:1–2\).
Are the writings of the Apostle Paul inspired (see 1 Corinthians 7:12)?	Answer The bulk of conservative evangelical Christianity believes in what is called the [verbal plenary inspiration](verbal-plenary-inspiration.html) of Scripture, meaning that every single word of the Bible is “breathed out” by God (2 Timothy 3:16\). If biblical critics can claim that 1 Corinthians 7:12 is not inspired, but rather Paul’s opinion, what other passages could they claim to be the opinion of the human author and not the commands of the divine Author? This strikes at the very heart of biblical authority. Paul wrote this first letter to a group of Christians dwelling in the [city of Corinth](church-in-Corinth.html), a very corrupt city. Part of that corruption was due to the temple of Aphrodite, which was home to over 1,000 temple prostitutes who plied their trade on behalf of their deity. It was in this setting that Paul founded the church at Corinth. In fact, many of the congregation came out of the immoral Corinthian lifestyle. The church of Corinth was made up of ex\-fornicators, ex\-idolaters, ex\-adulterers, ex\-homosexuals, ex\-thieves, and ex\-drunkards. With that as a backdrop, when Paul gets into chapter 7 of his letter, he is answering a question the church had regarding sexual relations between men and women. Given the social climate in Corinth, the Corinthians thought it would be a good thing for everyone to remain celibate. Paul agrees that celibacy is a good thing and even states that he wishes more people could be celibate as he was. Paul is not down on marriage. All he is doing is stating the obvious benefits that singleness affords for ministry opportunities. However, Paul mentions that singleness is a gift from God, and not all have the gift (v. 7\). For those who are currently married, Paul tells them to remain so, and in v. 10 Paul says “not I, but the Lord.” This means that what Paul is telling the Corinthians is a direct command from Jesus. This command comes from Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, in particular, Matthew 5:32\. Finally, in v. 12, Paul addresses “mixed marriages”—those between a Christian and a non\-Christian. Given the prevailing environment, Christians might be tempted to divorce their unbelieving spouses, thinking that somehow by doing so they are purifying themselves. Paul tells the believing spouse to remain with the unbeliever, with the comment that the command comes from him, not Jesus. But Paul is not offering his own opinion here. What he is saying is that Jesus never addressed this issue directly during His earthly ministry. If we search the Gospels, we will not see any direct teaching of Jesus that addresses the situation of a believing spouse married to an unbelieving spouse. But Jesus did give only one legitimate reason for divorce (Matthew 5:32; 19:19\), and being married to an unbeliever was not it. So the best answer is to see Paul as providing new revelation regarding an area that Jesus did not specifically address. That is why Paul says, “I, not the Lord.” In other words, I, not Jesus, am giving you this command, although it is based on the principles Jesus taught. As extensive as Jesus’ ministry was, He did not articulate everything regarding the Christian life. That is why He commissioned the apostles to carry on His ministry after His ascension, and that is why we have a God\-breathed Bible, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17\). Paul was responsible for much new revelation, although ultimately those revelations came from the Holy Spirit. In many of his epistles, Paul reveals to us “mystery.” The word “mystery” is a technical term that signifies some previously unrevealed truth that is now revealed, such as the church being made up of both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 11:25\) or the rapture (1 Corinthians 15:51\-52\). Paul is simply giving us additional revelation regarding marriage that Jesus didn’t elaborate on.
What is inductive Bible study?	Answer Inductive Bible study is an approach to God’s Word focusing on three basic steps that move from a focus on specific details to a more general, universal principle. Through these three steps, we apply inductive reasoning, which is defined as the attempt to use information about a specific situation to draw a conclusion. The steps are observation (what does it say?), interpretation (what does it mean?), and application (what does it mean for my life?). Inductive Bible study is a valuable tool in understanding and applying the principles of God’s Word. Inductive Bible study can be done on many different levels. The shorter version is good for a brief devotional. The more extensive study is wonderful for digging deeper into the mind and heart of God. A sample verse to illustrate the method is 2 Samuel 9:1: “David asked, ‘Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?’” As we observe this verse and ask ourselves "what does it say?", we see that David simply wants to know if there are any living relatives of Saul’s that he may be kind to for Jonathan’s sake. Whether or not there are any relatives or why David is asking are to be determined in the next step. The first step of observing the verse is generally confined to a simple understanding of what the verse is saying. At this first step, there may be words or phrases that are unfamiliar to us, in which case checking different Bible translations is helpful. The second step—interpretation (what does it mean?)—requires a more in\-depth examination than the first step. At this step, we want to be careful to find the meaning of the verse in its context. For our sample verse, as we look into the background of the incident we find that the relationship between David, God’s anointed future king of Israel, and Jonathan, son of King Saul, was very close. Jonathan had saved David’s life when Saul was pursuing him (1 Samuel 20\). David had described their relationship as “extraordinary” and he mourned Jonathan’s death greatly (2 Samuel 1:25\-27\). In this context, we see David wanting to do something nice for any of his relatives who might still be alive. His love and loyalty were still strong even though Jonathan had been out of his life for some time. David did not sit passively and wonder about this; he took action and searched for these people. The third step in inductive Bible study is the practical application of the principles (what does it mean to me?). Among the ways we can apply our sample verse to our own lives is to see David’s action as one of love and loyalty. We might ask ourselves: How loyal am I to my earthly friends and my heavenly Friend? Am I casual and passive about the relationships? Or am I willing to go out of my way to honor them? What can I do this week to let them know that I love them? Based on my detailed research, what did God communicate to me? Has He given me any commands, warnings, promises, or encouragement? Part of the application process is asking ourselves where we go from here. How can we use what we have learned from the passage in the future? A crucial part of any Bible study is asking God to implement the principles into our lives and praying for His wisdom as we go forward with this knowledge. It is important to note that, while inductive Bible study or any other method is helpful to Christians as we delve into God’s Word, ultimately it is the Spirit of God who opens the Scriptures to us because He has first opened our hearts to Truth. It is the Spirit who interprets spiritual truth to those who are spiritual. The natural man does not and cannot understand spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:12\-14\). So before attempting any Bible study method, we must be sure we have the Holy Spirit living in our hearts (1 Corinthians 6:19\) through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.
What does the Bible say about altar calls?	Answer The practice of altar calls—calling people forward after an evangelistic sermon to make a public confession of faith in Christ—has gained prominence in the 20th century primarily through “crusades” such as those of [Billy Graham](Billy-Graham.html). Also known as the “invitation system,” altar calls are regularly practiced as part of some church services, especially in many Baptist denominations and other evangelical churches where altar calls are an integral part of the services. While altar calls as practiced today are not found in the Bible, their advocates cite several biblical examples as support for using them. First, Christ called each of His disciples publicly, telling them, “Follow Me” (Matthew 4:19; 9:9\) and expecting them to respond immediately, which they did. Jesus was demanding an outward identification with Himself on the part of those who would be His disciples. Of course, the problem of Judas, who also responded publicly by leaving his life behind and following Jesus, is that Judas’s response was not synonymous with salvation. Proponents of the altar call also cite Matthew 10:32 as proof that a new believer must acknowledge Christ “before men” in order for Him to reciprocate. Calling people to the front of an arena or church is certainly acknowledging before men that a decision has been made. The question is whether that decision is genuinely motivated by a sincere repentance and faith or whether it is an emotional response to external stimuli such as swelling music, heartfelt pleas from the pulpit, or a desire to “go along with the crowd.” Romans 10:9 makes it clear that genuine salvation comes only from heartfelt belief, which will then result in a verbal confession of that faith. Just like the sinner’s prayer, altar calls can be an outward expression of genuine repentance and faith in Christ. The danger is in looking to the prayer or the response as evidence of salvation (Matthew 7:22\). True salvation results in a life of continual sanctification as the Holy Spirit within the true believer produces more and more of His fruit (Galatians 5:22\-23\) as evidence of the reality of saving faith.
How is the Christian religion different from all the other world religions?	Answer Religion is the practice of faith; that is, religion is the external or ceremonial observance of a set of beliefs. Technically, there is a difference between faith (the internal attitude) and religion (the external works), but for the sake of this article, we will define “Christian religion” broadly as “the faithful observance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.” James 1:27 says that religion that is “pure and faultless” before God is “to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” In other words, care for the needy and personal virtue are externals which are present when one has a true love for God. And, since James specifies that he is speaking of “pure and faultless” religion, there must exist an “unclean and imperfect” type of religion as well—a religion not based on love for God. Here are five reasons why the Christian religion is better than non\-Christian religions (why observing the teachings of Jesus Christ is better than not observing them): Christian religion \- Jesus Christ is the Way to God. The Christian religion is better than other religions because that which leads to God is better than that which leads away from God. We have sinfully wandered away from God (Isaiah 53:6\), and we need a Guide to lead us back. Jesus is that Way (John 14:6\), the One to seek the lost (Luke 19:10\). Jesus claims not to be one of many ways, but the one\-and\-only Way to God. He is, in fact, God Himself in human flesh (John 20:28\), so to find Jesus is to find God. “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father,” He said (John 14:9\). The Christian religion is unique in that it offers a close, intimate relationship with the personal God of the universe. Christian religion \- Jesus Christ is the Truth. The Christian religion is better than other religions because things that are true are better than things that are false. Jesus is “the Truth” (John 14:6\). He is the embodiment of truth, the revelation of God to humanity (Colossians 2:9\), and the conveyor of God’s words (John 17:8\). The Christian religion is grounded in truth, being based on a historical Person whose acts were verified by eyewitnesses and recorded by four different biographers. Parodies of Christianity often spring up through the work of “false prophets” (1 John 4:1\), but only Jesus is true. In following Christ, Christians have the utmost regard for truth, as opposed to hollow externals and the hypocrisy of false appearances. The Christian religion is unique in that it forces us to face the truth about ourselves and speak the truth with others. Christian religion \- Jesus Christ is the Life. The Christian religion is better than other religions because life is better than death and heaven is better than hell. Jesus is “the Life” (John 14:6\); He is the source of life, and without Him one cannot truly live (John 1:4; 3:36; 5:24; 10:10\). Jesus provides what we need: the Bread that satisfies forever (John 6:35\), the Water that gives eternal life (John 4:14; 7:37\-38\), and the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25\). These are more than empty claims; Jesus proved His ability to give life by raising from the dead Lazarus (John 11\), Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5\), and the boy from Nain (Luke 7\). Then, after His own death on the cross, [Jesus rose again](Jesus-rose-again.html) the third day, having conquered death forever (Matthew 28\). The Christian religion is unique in that it is based on the actual, physical resurrection of its Founder. Christian religion \- Jesus Christ transforms mankind. The Christian religion is better than other religions because righteousness is better than wickedness. Other religions may impose conformity to a certain code of behavior, but they have no power to change the heart. Christianity teaches that the believer is “dead to sin” and now lives “in newness of life” (Romans 6:2, 4\). The authenticating mark of a Christian is his transformation from practicing sin to having a zeal for good works (Titus 2:14; 2 Corinthians 5:17\). The Christian’s zeal for doing good has resulted in the founding of countless orphanages, hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, and emergency relief agencies—all in the name of Christ. The Christian religion is unique in that it does not force change from without but revolutionizes lives from within. Christian religion \- Jesus Christ is loving. The Christian religion is better than other religions because love is better than the absence of love. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16\). Love is the greatest of His gifts to us (1 Corinthians 13:13\)—not the fickle, so\-called love of the world, but the selfless, unconditional love which always seeks to benefit the one loved. God showed His love for us in sending His one\-and\-only Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10\). Jesus showed His love for us in providing for our salvation by dying on the cross (John 15:13\). Jesus gave His followers a new command: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34\-35\). Love, not duty or debt, is what motivates the believer and impels him to greater humility and greater service for the kingdom of heaven. Christianity is unique in that it is not a system of rules but a celebration of unselfish love. “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10\). Man, in his creativity, has invented innumerable religions in his attempt to reach God. God, in His love, has given us the truth: the one religion, Christianity, in which God attempts to reach man.
If God knew that Satan would rebel, why did He create him?	Answer This is a two\-part question. The first part is “Did God know Satan would rebel?” We know from Scripture that God is [omniscient](God-omniscient.html), which literally means “all\-knowing.” Job 37:16; Psalm 139:2–4, 147:5; Proverbs 5:21; Isaiah 46:9\-10; and 1 John 3:19–20 leave no doubt that God’s knowledge is infinite and that He knows everything that has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. Looking at some of the superlatives in these verses—“perfect in knowledge”; “his understanding has no limit”; “he knows everything”—it is clear that God’s knowledge is not merely greater than our own, but it is infinitely greater. He knows all things in totality. If God’s knowledge is not perfect, then there is a deficiency in His nature. Any deficiency in God’s nature means He cannot be God, for God’s very essence requires the perfection of all His attributes. Therefore, the answer to the first question is “yes, God knew that Satan would rebel.” Moving on to the second part of the question, “Why did God create Satan knowing ahead of time he was going to rebel?” This question is a little trickier because we are asking a “why” question to which the Bible does not usually provide comprehensive answers. Despite that, we should be able to come to a limited understanding. We have already seen that God is omniscient. So, if God knew that Satan would rebel and fall from heaven, yet He created him anyway, it must mean that the fall of Satan was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning. No other answer makes sense given what we’ve seen thus far. First, we should understand that knowing Satan would rebel is not the same thing as making Satan rebel. The angel Lucifer had a free will and made his own choices. God did not create Lucifer as the devil; He created him good (Genesis 1:31\). In trying to understand why God created Satan, knowing he would rebel, we should also consider the following facts: 1\) Lucifer had a good and perfect purpose before his fall. Lucifer’s rebellion does not change God’s original intent from something good to something bad. 2\) God’s sovereignty extends to Satan, even in his fallen condition. God is able to use Satan’s evil actions to ultimately bring about God’s holy plan (see 1 Timothy 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:5\). 3\) God’s plan of salvation was ordained from eternity past (Revelation 13:8\); salvation requires something to be saved from, and so God allowed Satan’s rebellion and the spread of sin. 4\) The suffering that Satan brought into the world actually became the means by which Jesus, in His humanity, was made the complete and perfect Savior of mankind: “In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered” (Hebrews 2:10\). 5\) From the very beginning, God’s plan in Christ included the destruction of Satan’s work (see 1 John 3:8\). Ultimately, we cannot know for sure why God created Satan, knowing he would rebel. It’s tempting to assume that things would be “better” if Satan had never been created or to declare that God should have done differently. But such assumptions and declarations are unwise. In fact, to claim we know better than God how to run the universe is to fall into the devil’s own sin of promoting himself above the Most High (Isaiah 14:13–14\).
Why are there two demon-possessed men in the Gerasene tombs in Matthew, but only one in Mark and Luke?	Answer The three passages that describe the incident with the demoniacs in the country of the Gerasenes, also called Gadarenes, are Matthew 8:28\-34, Mark 5:1\-20, and Luke 8:26\-39\. The Matthew account mentions two demon\-possessed men, while Mark and Luke only mention one. Is there a discrepancy in these accounts, and do the Gospel writers contradict one another? The first thing to determine is whether the three writers are describing the same event. The timing of the event in all three accounts—immediately following the calming of the storm on the [sea of Galilee](Sea-of-Galilee.html)—as well as other similarities (living in the tombs, the ferocity of the demoniac, the conversation with the demons, the driving of them into the pigs, the drowning of the herd, and the response of those who witnessed the scene) all give credence to Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describing the same event. The question remains, then, whether there was one demoniac or two. Matthew tells us there were two demoniacs, while Mark and Luke only mention one of the two. It is unclear why they chose to mention only one, but that does not negate the possibility of a second demoniac being present. Mark and Luke do not say there was “only one” demon\-possessed man. They simply state that one of the two met Jesus and spoke to Him. For whatever reason, Matthew simply gives us more information than Mark and Luke. In any case, no contradiction exists. A contradiction occurs only if one statement makes the other impossible and there is absolutely no way for them to be reconciled. For example, let’s say we put two apples on a table. Statement 1: There are two apples on the table. Statement 2: There is only one apple on the table. These two statements contradict each other. Now read these two statements: Statement 1: There are two apples on the table. Statement 2: There is an apple on the table. These two statements do not contradict each other. In the same way, the biblical accounts do not represent a contradiction. All three accounts describe demon possession and the power that Jesus has over the spirit world. All three tell us that He made a point to cross the sea to save someone from the demons. All three affirm that there was at least one man who was plagued by demons. The fact that the three accounts differ in some minor details only proves that they were written by three different authors, each of whom chose to focus on a different aspect of the account.
Is God a delusion?	Answer The idea of God being a delusion is promoted by Richard Dawkins, the world’s chief apostle for atheism. Dawkins has been Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University since 1996\. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins labels God and belief in God as “delusions.” Dawkins is a gifted writer, and his position at a leading university in the English\-speaking world gives him great prestige in intellectual, cultural, and political circles. His atheism is fierce. The jacket of The God Delusion calls the God of the Old Testament “a sex\-obsessed tyrant” and the deistic god of the 18th\-century Enlightenment a “more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker.” Belief in God, says Dawkins, subverts science and knowledge, breeds ignorance, foments bigotry, and abuses children. All this happens for the simple reason that God is a delusion. Not only are “fundamentalists” unintelligent for “know\[ing] they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book,” but even moderation in faith, says Dawkins, “fosters fanaticism.” There are plenty of intelligent answers to Dawkins’ contention that God is a delusion and to his crusade against all things religious. Dawkins firmly asserts that God is a delusion, but the Bible just as firmly states that God is not a delusion. Psalm 14:1–3, for example, says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Fools who deny the existence of God are corrupt, and so are their deeds. Because their understanding is also corrupt, “they do not seek after God.” Note that the Bible and Dawkins are directly opposed to one another. Dawkins says there is no God and that people who believe in God do terrible things. The Bible says there is a God, and it is rather the people who deny God who do terrible things. God is not the delusion; atheism is. The apostle Paul declares that the reason people who deny God are able to gain and maintain such large followings, as Dawkins has, is that the human race in general is lost in sin and [self\-delusion](Bible-self-deception.html). People naturally seek after those whose rhetoric reflects their own self\-delusion. Those who deny God follow eagerly after Dawkins and his ilk because they share a common hatred for God (2 Timothy 4:3\). The denial of God is the true delusion, a delusion that extends to the atheist’s view of humanity as “good,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. A sober assessment of human beings recognizes that we lie, cheat, steal, lust, complain, envy, hate, and forget and that we are careless, ruthless, disrespectful, resentful, and loveless. We are all these things naturally from birth. This is what God means when He says, “There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:3\). We are so obviously sinful that it is silly to call human beings “good.” Nobody teaches children to lie; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches teenage boys to lust; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches the employee to resent his boss or spread malicious gossip about the coworker with whom he is competing for a promotion; he does these things naturally. Nobody teaches the wife to unjustly criticize her husband or the husband to neglect his wife; both do these things naturally. Yet in the sixth chapter of The God Delusion, entitled “The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?” Dawkins explains why human beings are good—based on nothing more than his own opinion—despite the fact that there is no God who can define what is “good.” Dawkins not only directly opposes the Bible’s teaching but he denies what is obvious to even the most casual observer of human nature and behavior. The ninth chapter of The God Delusion is called “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion.” In this chapter Dawkins replies to a question about clergy sexual abuse: “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long\-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place” (page 317\). Human beings are good, says Dawkins, and even the sexual abuse they perpetrate is better than a religion that tells them they are not good. How he explains the desire for “good” men—priests or otherwise—to sexually abuse children is a mystery. The Bible, however, does explain it. Men do evil because their hearts are evil (Matthew 12:35\), and unless men are made new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\), they will continue to do evil because it is their natural inclination (Romans 3:5–6, 10–11\). Merriam\-Webster’s online dictionary defines delusion as “something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also, the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.” The last clause is significant: intellectual and moral delusion have permanent effects on the mind and heart. Believing lies causes the mind to begin to operate abnormally and to exist in a state that is not healthy and perhaps even dangerous, both for itself and for others. This is what the Bible calls “sin,” and a core element of our sin is our delusion that God does not exist. The God Delusion was written by a science professor, and it should be stated clearly here, given how often atheism presents itself under the banner of science, that science is not to blame for atheism or any other symptom of human sinfulness. In fact, many great scientists of the past were Christians, believing that God made the heavens and the earth and established the laws by which the natural world operates and which scientists investigate. Most of the “giants” of modern science were Christians. They pursued a rational understanding of the cosmos because they believed that God, who has a mind, had created the cosmos according to the principles of rational and mathematical operation that govern the human mind, which is fashioned according to the image of God (Genesis 1:27\). Belief in God is no delusion. It is inherently and fundamentally rational—a logical response to seeing God’s handiwork (Psalm 19:1\). Belief in God is the source of true wisdom regarding why human beings do evil things so often and so naturally, why we can work so hard to be good and still fail, and why Jesus Christ and only He is the spiritual hope for mankind.
Why are there so many tragedies among celebrities?	Answer Suicides, drug overdoses (whether by illicit or prescription drugs), divorces, alcoholism, financial disasters – why are celebrity tragedies like these so common? Why do many celebrities, some of whom are relatively intelligent and good people, make such complete disasters of their lives? There is no single answer that definitively applies to every celebrity tragedy, but if there is an explicit biblical answer, it is one word – pride. The most powerful biblical example of a “fall from grace” is Satan. Listen to Ezekiel’s description of Satan before his fall: “You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you. . . . Your settings and mountings were made of gold” (Ezekiel 28:14\-15\). What happened to Satan? “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor” (Ezekiel 28:17\). Isaiah expands on the cause of Satan’s fall: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’” (Isaiah 14:13\-14\). Rather than honoring and worshiping the God who created him and gave him beauty, Satan became proud, essentially worshiping himself. What is the end result? “All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more” (Ezekiel 28:19\). “But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate” (Isaiah 14:15\-16\). The messages of Isaiah and Ezekiel regarding the fate of Satan sound remarkably similar to some of the tragedies that have occurred among celebrities in recent years. Why is pride such a problem? Proverbs 16:18 declares, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” Pride causes people to forget God (Hosea 13:6\). Pride causes some celebrities to forget that God was the one who gave them the talents and skills they possess. Pride causes celebrities to have too high a view of themselves, to think they are worthy of all the adulation they receive. Arrogant pride results in celebrities thinking they cannot be deceived, and therefore they put trust in very untrustworthy people. Too high a view of self leads to some celebrities believing they are beyond the possibility of failure, and so they make extremely foolish decisions with their lives, careers, relationships, marriages, finances, etc. Ultimately, the issue is this – human beings are not spiritually, emotionally, or psychologically designed to receive worship. Only God is worthy of worship, and only God can receive worship without it perverting His “psyche.” When celebrities worship themselves or allow others to worship them, it results in arrogant pride and self\-centeredness, which leads to disaster and tragedy. It is important to remember that these sorts of tragedies are not limited to celebrities. "Average" and "ordinary" people experience the same tragedies. The difference is that the tragedies are not proclaimed in the tabloids and discussed in the news. You do not have to be a celebrity to be controlled by self\-centeredness, arrogance, and vanity. We are all subject to these temptations and failures (1 Corinthians 10:13\). Celebrities face an extra measure of temptation due to the adulation they receive, but, again, the same tragedies that beset celebrities also happen every day in the lives of "ordinary" people. What is the cure? The cure is to give God the glory He alone deserves. The fix is to have a biblical self\-image, recognizing that we are valuable because we are created in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26\-27\), not because of anything we have accomplished “on our own.” The solution is to refuse to be worshiped, as the holy angels do (Revelation 19:10; 22:9\), and instead to deflect any and all worship and adulation to God, who alone is worthy. The key is recognizing that we are who Romans 3:10\-23 says we are and praising God for being the merciful, gracious, and loving God that He is.
What is the Doxology?	Answer The dictionary defines doxology as “an expression of praise to God, especially a short hymn sung as part of a Christian worship service.” The word doxology comes from the Greek doxa, (“glory, splendor, grandeur”) and logos, (“word” or “speaking”). Most doxologies are short hymns of praise to God in various Christian worship services, often added to the end of [canticles](what-is-a-canticle.html), psalms, and hymns. The Gloria Patri, so named for its first two words in Latin, is commonly used as a doxology by Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Independent Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants including Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Reformed Baptists. It is called the "Lesser Doxology," thus distinguished from the "Great Doxology," Gloria in Excelsis Deo, and is often called simply "the Doxology." The Latin text of the Lesser Doxology is “Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.” Literally translated, it means “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.” As well as praising God, this doxology is also a short declaration of faith in the co\-equality of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Another commonly heard doxology is “Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow,” which was written in 1674 by Thomas Ken, a priest in the Church of England. The familiar words are “Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow; Praise Him, all creatures here below; Praise Him above, ye Heavenly Host; Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.” Although the word doxology is not found in the Bible, the themes expressed in doxologies are certainly scriptural. Praising God for His blessings (Ephesians 1:3\), ascribing to Him all glory (Romans 11:36; Ephesians 3:21\), and affirming the Trinity (Matthew 28:19\) have always been integral parts of true Christian worship.
What is the Year of Jubilee?	Answer The word “jubilee”—literally, “the blast of a horn” in Hebrew—is defined in Leviticus 25:9 as the sabbatical year after seven cycles of seven years (49 years). The fiftieth year was to be a time of celebration and rejoicing for the Israelites. The ram’s horn was blown on the tenth day of the seventh month to start the fiftieth year of universal redemption. The Year of the Jubilee involved a year of release from indebtedness (Leviticus 25:23\-38\) and all types of bondage (vv. 39\-55\). All prisoners and captives were set free, all slaves were released, all debts were forgiven, and all property was returned to its original owners. In addition, all labor was to cease for one year, and those bound by labor contracts were released from them. One of the benefits of the Jubilee was that both the land and the people were able to rest. The Jubilee presents a beautiful picture of the New Testament themes of redemption and forgiveness. Christ is the Redeemer who came to set free those who are slaves and prisoners to sin (Romans 8:2; Galatians 5:1; 3:22\). The debt of sin we owe to God was paid on the cross as Jesus died on our behalf (Colossians 2:13\-14\), and we are forgiven the debt forever. We are no longer in bondage, no longer slaves to sin, having been freed by Christ, and we can truly enter the rest God provides as we cease laboring to make ourselves acceptable to God by our own works (Hebrews 4:9\-10\).
What is the rhema word?	Answer There are two primary Greek words that describe Scripture which are translated “word” in the New Testament. The first, logos, refers principally to the total inspired Word of God and to Jesus, who is the living Word. Logos is found in John 1:1; Luke 8:11; Philippians 2:16; Hebrews 4:12; and other verses. The second Greek word translated “word” is rhema, which refers to the spoken word. Rhema literally means an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically). Examples are found in Luke 1:38; 3:2; 5:5; and Acts 11:16\. Charismatic and non\-charismatic Christians have different views regarding rhema and how it should be understood. Some charismatics view rhema as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to them at the present moment. They believe they should be guided by the Holy Spirit through inner feelings, impressions and experiences. Some believe that the direct words of God to the individual can also be imparted through the words of others, such as a preacher in a worship service or a friend who counsels them. Through these avenues, the Christian experiences God’s direct leading. There is also the belief that the spoken word has more power than the written word, but there is no biblical basis for such a belief. Evangelical Christians, however, have a much different understanding of rhema, believing that it is essentially synonymous with logos. In other words, the specific guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit at any given time can only be discerned by the general principles laid down in the Bible. Where the Bible is silent on specifics—such as where a young person should go to college—then the Christian applies biblical principles (good stewardship of God\-given resources, protecting one’s heart and mind from godless influences, etc.) to the situation and thereby arrives at a decision. The test of the authenticity of a rhema from God is how it compares to the whole of Scripture. Orthodoxy says that God will not speak a word that contradicts His written Word, the Scriptures, so there is a built\-in safeguard to prevent misinterpretation. The obvious danger is that one who is not familiar with the logos can misinterpret or misunderstand what he or she perceives to be a rhema.
What is the meaning of the Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price?	Answer Jesus had just finished explaining to the disciples the meaning of the [Parable of the Wheat and the Tares](parable-wheat-tares.html), and these two short parables are a continuance of His discussion of the “kingdom of heaven.” He expressed truths about the kingdom in three pairs of parables in Matthew 13: [the seed and the sower](parable-sower.html) (vv. 3\-23\) and the weeds in the field (vv. 24\-30\); [the mustard seed](parable-mustard-seed.html) (vv. 31\-32\) and the leaven (v. 33\); and the hidden treasure (v. 44\) and the pearl of great price (vv. 45\-46\). The similarities of these two short parables make it clear they teach the same lesson—the kingdom of heaven is of inestimable value. Both parables involve a man who sold all he had to possess the kingdom. The treasure and the pearl represent Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers. And while we cannot pay for salvation by selling all our worldly goods, once we have found the prize, we are willing to give up everything to possess it. But what is attained in exchange is so much more valuable that it is comparable to trading an ounce of trash for a ton of diamonds (Philippians 3:7\-9\). In both parables, the treasures are hidden, indicating that spiritual truth is missed by many and cannot be found by intelligence or power or worldly wisdom. Matthew 13:11\-17 and 1 Corinthians 2:7\-8, 14 make it clear that the mysteries of the kingdom are hidden from some who are unable to hear, see, and comprehend these truths. The disobedient reap the natural consequences of their unbelief—spiritual blindness. Those whose eyes are opened by the Spirit do discern spiritual truth, and they, like the men in the parable, understand its great value. Notice that the merchant stopped seeking pearls when he found the pearl of great price. Eternal life, the incorruptible inheritance, and the love of God through Christ constitute the pearl which, once found, makes further searching unnecessary. Christ fulfills our greatest needs, satisfies our longings, makes us whole and clean before God, calms and quiets our hearts, and gives us hope for the future. The “great price,” of course, is that which was paid by Christ for our redemption. He emptied Himself of His glory, came to earth in the form of a lowly man and shed His precious blood on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins.
What is the meaning of the Parable of the Persistent Neighbor?	Answer Immediately after teaching the disciples to pray the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus told the story of the neighbor who was in need of bread for a visitor (Luke 11:5\-10\). The disciples had just asked Him to teach them to pray (Luke 11:1\), and the lesson He is teaching through this parable is to be persistent in prayer. This is the first of two parables Jesus uses to drive this concept home—the second is the parable of the persistent widow and the unjust judge in Luke 18:1\-8\. Paul reiterates this same concept in 1 Thessalonians 5:17\. The characters in the story are a villager who is in bed with his family at midnight and a neighbor with a need. Hospitality was a strictly observed custom in the Middle East, and a man caught without bread for a visitor would be in a shameful and desperately needy position. Only such a need would drive a man to his neighbor’s house at midnight. And only such a need would drive the man to this level of persistence. The Greek word translated “boldness” in the NIV and “persistence” in the NASB implies impudence and audacity. This is what Jesus is saying should be our attitude as we approach the throne of grace—a confident boldness that persists in pursuing God until He grants us mercy and grace (Hebrews 4:16\). A word of caution is appropriate here. Never are we to approach God with impertinence or a demanding or disrespectful attitude. James tells us that we don’t have because we don’t ask, or we ask with the wrong motives (James 4:3\). That God allows us to approach Him at all is an indication of His mercy and graciousness toward sinners. But He is our Abba Father (Romans 8:15\), and we are His children. We come before Him as a child comes before his earthly father, in confidence that his father loves him and wants the best for him. And if this man would give his neighbor what he wanted not out of friendship, but just because of his shameless boldness, how much more will God, who loves us perfectly, give us when we come into His presence? Jesus tells us to ask and keep on asking (Matthew 7:7\), and whatever we ask in God’s will is assured to us. He had just taught the disciples to pray the Lord’s Prayer, which includes the phrase “Your will be done” (Luke 11:2\). So, putting it all together, we see that we are to be persistent in asking for God to work in our lives and answer our prayers according to His perfect will and timing, having confidence that He will do so. When we pray without ceasing and have confidence in God, the benefits are many. We experience the goodness of God as we commune with Him. We become eager participants in the purposes of God, yielding our lives and wills to Him. And we enter His presence with boldness and security, knowing that He will bless us with His fellowship and love.
What is the meaning of the parables of fasting at the wedding feast, the old cloth, and the wineskins?	Answer In Matthew 9, Jesus fields a question from [John the Baptist’s](life-John-Baptist.html) disciples: “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” (verse 14\). In response, Jesus tells three parables: the parable of the bridegroom and his guests, the parable of the old garment, and the parable of the wineskins (verses 15–17\). The same conversation is recorded in Mark 2:18–22 and Luke 5:33–39\. The question put forward by the disciples of John the Baptist reveals some puzzlement on their part. If Jesus was truly the Messiah whom John was preparing the way for, then why were Jesus’ teachings so different from John’s on the matter of [fasting](fasting-Christian.html)? John had taught the need for fasting (Luke’s account mentions prayer as well). The [Pharisees](Pharisees.html) followed a similar protocol. But Jesus’ disciples observed no such code of conduct. In fact, they were known to “eat with tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 9:11\). At this point, it’s good to review what the Mosaic Law said about fasting. Only one day of fasting was required of the Jews annually, on the [Day of Atonement](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html) (Leviticus 16:29, 31\). That’s it. All other fasting was voluntary, as far as the law was concerned. So, the fasting spoken of in Matthew 9:14 is not what was prescribed in the law; it was one of the many “traditions of the elders” (Mark 7:3\) added to the law. Note that John’s disciples mention that they fast “often” (Matthew 9:14\). The Pharisees at the time had adopted a rule of fasting twice a week, and it seems that John’s disciples had followed suit. The prayers mentioned in Luke 5:33 are those associated with these same ritualistic fasts—that is, public prayers to accompany the public fasts, done as a matter of course in following man\-made rules. Jesus spoke against such fasting and prayer in Matthew 6 as part of the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html). In His response, Jesus provides three short snapshots of everyday life to illustrate the need for change: 1\. The Parable of a Bridegroom with His Guests. Jesus says, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast” (Matthew 9:15\). A wedding feast is a time of joy. Fasting, conversely, is a sign of sorrow or distress. Fasting during a wedding feast would make no sense. In this metaphor, Jesus is the Bridegroom, and His disciples are the guests. The disciples don’t mourn while Jesus is present in this world. They rejoice in that their Messiah and Lord has come. Jesus said His disciples would fast on the day when He was “taken from them” (Mark 2:20\). With these words, Jesus was not instituting times of regulated fasting and prayer as an official part of church life; rather, He was alluding to the fact that He would be suddenly taken from His disciples (through arrest and crucifixion), and that would indeed be a day of mourning. At that traumatic time when Jesus’ disciples lost their Lord, they would fast. Believers under the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html) do fast and pray today. But there is no requirement to do so, especially in a ceremonial, ritualistic, or formal way (observing certain days of fasting, reciting certain prayers, etc.). Old religious rituals and traditions are passé under the New Covenant. When you come to Christ in faith, you leave behind the man\-made requirements to fast on certain days and pray in certain ways. 2\. The Parable of the Old Garment. Jesus continued: “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse” (Matthew 9:16\). Fabric naturally shrinks with washing. Jesus’ hearers knew that putting a new patch of material on an old garment would only exacerbate the problem. When the new patch inevitably shrinks in the wash, it will tear away from the older garment, making the tear even worse than before. In this metaphor, the old garment is the system of rules and traditions of men; the new patch is the way of Christ. Jesus was not concerned with “patching up” the old religious system as practiced by the Pharisees; He was establishing a new covenant, even as He fulfilled the law (see Matthew 5:17\). 3\. The Parable of the Wineskins. Finally, Jesus said, “Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved” (Matthew 9:17\). New wine expands during the fermentation process, pressurizing its container. If fresh wine was poured into a new wineskin, there was no problem—the skin was supple enough to stretch, thus accommodating the expansion of the liquid. But, if new wine was poured into an old wineskin that had lost its elasticity, the wineskin would burst at the seams under the pressure, and all the wine stored in it would be lost. In this parable, Jesus again emphasizes the fact that He is doing something new. The old expectations—such as the expectation that everyone must fast on certain days set by the religious leadership—were inadequate. It was time to adjust expectations. Jesus’ ministry was not going to fit neatly into preconceived ideas and tired rituals. An inflexible adherence to the old ways was going to result in spiritual loss. Luke’s Gospel provides an additional statement Jesus made concerning this parable: “And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better’” (Luke 5:39\). This is a commentary on the attitude shown by John’s disciples and the Pharisees. To paraphrase, we could say, “Those (such as the Pharisees) who love their old rituals and personalized traditions will find the new commandments of Christ to be distasteful. It’s natural to cling to the old ways, just as it is natural to prefer aged wine over new wine.” You just can’t mix old religious rituals with new faith in Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the law; therefore, there is no longer any need to continue in it. There is even less need to continue with old, man\-made rituals. Jesus cannot be added to a works\-based religion: “I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21, NKJV).
What does “maranatha” mean?	Answer Maranatha is an Aramaic word that means “the Lord is coming” or “come, O Lord.” The early church faced much persecution, and life for a Christian under Roman rule was not easy. The Romans required everyone to declare that Caesar was god. The early Christians knew that there is only one God and one Lord—Jesus Christ—and in all good conscience they could not call Caesar “Lord,” so the Romans looked upon them as traitors, persecuted them, and put them to death. Living under those adverse conditions, the believers’ morale was lifted by the hope of the coming of the Lord. “Maranatha!” became the common greeting of the oppressed believers, replacing the Jewish greeting shalom (“peace”). The followers of Jesus knew there would be no peace because Jesus had told them so (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51\). But they also knew the Lord would be returning to set up His kingdom, and from that truth they drew great comfort. They were constantly reminding and being reminded that the Lord is coming (Luke 21:28; Revelation 22:12\). Jesus taught several parables on this same theme of watching and waiting and being prepared for His return (Matthew 25:1\-13; Luke 12:35\-40\). Today, believers in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ live our lives in the light of the knowledge that He can come at any time. We are to be ready when the call comes. Every day we should expect Him to come, and every day we should long for Him to come. Maranatha reminds us to keep our eyes on the eternal things of the Spirit. To dwell on material things is to be in constant mental turmoil. Looking down, we see the earth; looking around, we see earthly things. But looking up, we see the hope of the soon coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. To those who are discouraged today, Maranatha! To those who are worried today, Maranatha! To those who are filled with anxiety over the problems they are facing, Maranatha! Our Lord is coming!
What is Socinianism?	Answer Socinianism is an unorthodox form of non\-trinitarianism that was developed around the same time as the Protestant Reformation (1517\-1648\) by Italian humanist Lelio Sozzini and later promulgated by his cousin, Fausto Sozzini. In modern times Socinianism has been referred to as psilanthropism, the view that Jesus was merely human (from the Greek psilo meaning “merely/only” and anthropos meaning “man/human being”), a view rejected by the First Council of Nicaea. The Socinians held to a rationalistic approach to Scripture and to faith. This philosophical approach, especially in regard to biblical doctrine, declares that all religious matters must be fully reconcilable with human reason, and that theological matters pertaining to the nature of God cannot be beyond the finite understanding of the human mind. This idea clearly contradicts the Bible, which affirms the supernatural essence of God and the impossibility of the finite mind fully comprehending the infinite (Job 9:10; Isaiah 55:8\-11; Romans 11:33\). The Socinians rejected the historic, orthodox beliefs concerning the nature of God, especially His omniscience. They rejected the doctrine of the Trinity in favor of [Unitarianism](unitarian-universalism.html), a belief system they promoted in their “Catechism of Unitarians” (1574\). They also rejected the orthodox belief of the divinity of Jesus Christ, as summarized in the Racovian Catechism of 1605, and held to the view that the Son of God did not exist until He was born a man. The Bible, however, makes it clear that Jesus is the pre\-existing second Person of the Trinity (John 1:1, 17:5; Hebrews 1:8\-12\). The Socinians also developed one of the earliest forms of the heterodox belief known today as [open theism](open-theism.html) as they believed God only knew necessary truths (what will come to pass) but not contingent truths (what might possibly come to pass) in order to explain how man could retain his free will in light of God being all\-knowing. Again, this is contrary to scriptural passages such as Psalm 33:11, Isaiah 14:24, and Isaiah 46:10, which affirm God’s sovereignty over all events from before time began. Lastly, the Socinians rejected the [propitiatory view of the atonement](propitiation.html) , the orthodox biblical doctrine stating that the sacrifice of Christ fully satisfied God’s wrath towards His people (Isaiah 53:10\-11\). Socinians favor what is called the “example theory” of the atonement, the theory that Christ bore the sins of His people on the cross only in the sense that His sacrifice served to incite us to abandon our sins. The Racovian Catechism, under the heading of “Refutation of the Vulgar Doctrine about the Satisfaction of Christ for Our Sins,” states, “And I affirm that he did not make satisfaction for our sins to the divine justice . . . nor was there any need that he should make satisfaction” (De Servatore, ch. 1\). In this unscriptural view, Christ only became sin (2 Corinthians 5:21\) and a curse (Galatians 3:13\) for His people in the sense that He sacrificed Himself merely to motivate people to repent and believe. The Scriptures teach that Christ’s sacrifice was a perfect guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10\) for the sins of His people through which God justified the ungodly (Romans 3:26\) and guaranteed the justification of the many who would believe (Isaiah 53:11; Romans 3:30\). In other words, Socinians believe Christ came not to save His people from their sins, but to make them savable, and the rest is up to them. This is nothing more than another works\-based salvation theory. Socinianism, as well as all heterodox Unitarian theological beliefs, is irreconcilable with what God has personally revealed to us in His Word. Socinianism rejects the clear, revealed teaching of the triune nature (Matthew 28:19 John 1:1, 14:26\) of the one, true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10, 44:6\). It rejects the clear, revealed teaching that the Son of God has existed since the foundation of the world (John 17:4; Hebrews 1:8\-12; Revelation 13:8\). It rejects the clear, revealed teaching that God is truly omniscient (all\-knowing), that He is an omnipresent being that knows every event that will ever occur (Job 37:16; Psalm 33:11, 147:5; Isaiah 14:24, 46:10; Acts 15:18\). Most erroneously, it rejects the clear, revealed teaching that the sacrifice of Christ fully satisfied the wrath of God and that Christ drank every last bit from the cup of God’s wrath against the sins of His people (Isaiah 53; Matthew 1:21\). As such, the teachings of Socinianism should be rejected, and those who hold to this theological viewpoint should be prayed for in the hope that God, if He is willing, will open their hearts and minds to understand the truth He has revealed to us in His Word and through the Holy Spirit.
How can I trust God when I am facing unemployment, foreclosure, or bankruptcy?	Answer The loss of employment and/or income is one of the most distressing events in life, especially for those supporting a family. Foreclosure on the family home or having to declare bankruptcy due to unemployment adds additional fear, uncertainty, and emotional turmoil. For the Christian man or woman facing unemployment, foreclosure or bankruptcy, there can be additional doubts about God’s goodness and His promises to provide for His children. How is the Christian to react to these catastrophic life events? What biblical principles can we apply to the loss of a home or a job and benefits (health/life insurance, retirement)? First, it’s important to understand that God has ordained work for mankind. Work is described in the Bible as beneficial in that it provides for our needs (Proverbs 14:23; Ecclesiastes 2:24, 3:13, 5:18\-19\) and gives us the resources to share with others in need (Ephesians 4:28\). Paul reminded the believers in Thessalonica that anyone who was not willing to work should not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10\) and that he himself worked at tent making so as not to be a burden on anyone (Acts 18:3; 2 Corinthians 11:9\). So, loss of employment should not be an excuse for laziness, and all due diligence should be exercised to find other employment as quickly as possible (Proverbs 6:9\-11\). At the same time, it may not be possible to find a position equal in pay and status to the one that was lost. In these cases, Christians should not allow pride to keep them from taking jobs in other fields, even if it means lowered status or less pay, at least temporarily. We should also be willing to accept help from other believers and our churches, perhaps in exchange for work that needs to be done in homes, yards, and church facilities. Extending and accepting a “helping hand” in these times is a blessing to those who give as well as to those who receive and exhibits the “law of Christ,” which is love for one another (Galatians 6:2; John 13:34\). Similarly, even the loss of the family home through foreclosure or bankruptcy can be a time of blessing for the family, a time when parents and children “close ranks” and become more keenly aware of their love for one another and the important things in life—faith, family and community—and less focused on material things that have no eternal value and can disappear in a moment. God can also use these circumstances to remind us of the truth spoken by Jesus in Matthew 6:19\-20 and refocus our hearts on heavenly treasure. Above all, renewing our faith and trust in God’s promises is of utmost importance during times of financial stress. Revisiting passages that speak of God’s faithfulness to His children will strengthen and encourage us when the future looks bleak. First Corinthians 10:13 reminds us that God is faithful and will not test us beyond our ability to bear it and will provide a way out of the trial. This “way out” may mean a new and better job that comes up right away. It may also mean a lengthy period of unemployment during which God’s faithfulness in providing our daily bread is shown to us. It may mean a new home, or it may mean living in reduced circumstances with relatives for a period of time. In each case, the way out is really the “way through” the trial, in which we learn of God’s faithful provision as He walks by our side through the entire ordeal. When the time of testing is over, our faith will be strengthened, and we will be able to strengthen others by bearing strong testimony to the faithfulness of our God.
What is the difference between Sheol, Hades, Hell, the lake of fire, Paradise, and Abraham’s bosom?	Answer The different terms used in the Bible for heaven and hell—sheol, hades, gehenna, [the lake of fire](lake-of-fire.html), paradise, and [Abraham’s bosom](Abrahams-bosom.html)—are the subject of much debate and can be confusing. The word paradise is used as a synonym for heaven (2 Corinthians 12:3–4; Revelation 2:7\). When Jesus was dying on the cross and one of the thieves being crucified with Him asked Him for mercy, Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43\). Jesus knew that His death was imminent and that He would soon be in heaven with His Father. In His words of comfort to the penitent thief, Jesus used paradise as a synonym for heaven, and the word has come to be associated with any place of ideal loveliness and delight. Abraham’s bosom is referred to only once in the Bible—in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31\). Abraham’s lap was used in the Talmud as a synonym for heaven (Seder Nashim, Kiddushin 72b). The image in the story is of Lazarus reclining at a table leaning on Abraham’s breast—as John leaned on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper—at the heavenly banquet. The point of the story is that wicked men will see the righteous in a happy state, while they themselves are in torment, and that a “great gulf” that can never be spanned exists between them (Luke 16:26\). Abraham’s bosom is obviously a place of peace, rest, and joy—in other words, paradise. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek equivalent to sheol is hades, which is also a general reference to “the place of the dead.” Sheol/hades is divided into a place of blessing (where Lazarus was in Luke 16\) and a place of torment (where the rich man was in Luke 16\). Sheol also seems to be a temporary place where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection. The souls of the righteous, at death, go directly into the presence of God—the part of sheol called “heaven,” “paradise,” or “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23\). The Greek word gehenna is used in the New Testament for “hell” (see Matthew 5:29; 23:33\). The word is derived from the Hebrew word ge\-hinnom, which designated a valley south of Jerusalem—a repulsive place where trash and refuse were burned. Jesus referenced Gehenna as a symbol of the place of judgment after death. The lake of fire, mentioned only in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, 14\-15, is the final hell, the place of eternal punishment for all unrepentant rebels, both angelic and human (Matthew 25:41\). It is described as a place of burning sulfur, and those in it experience eternal, unspeakable agony of an unrelenting nature (Luke 16:24; Mark 9:45\-46\). Those who have rejected Christ and are in the temporary abode of the dead in hades/sheol have the lake of fire as their final destination. But those whose names are written in the [Lamb’s book of life](book-of-life.html) should have no fear of this terrible fate. By faith in Christ and His blood shed on the cross for our sins, we are destined to live eternally in the presence of God.
What is compatibilism?	Answer Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with [fatalism](fatalism.html))—with the free will of man. Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and [David Hume](David-Hume.html), and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another. The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of [original sin](original-sin.html) and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23\), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16\-17\) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14\). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21\). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7\-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14\), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11\). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature. Here is where compatibilism makes the distinction between man having a free will and being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature. To illustrate, the laws of nature prohibit man from being able to fly, but this does not mean that man is not free. The agent, man, is only free to do that which his nature or the laws of nature allow him to do. Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7\-8\) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44\), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature. He freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18\) because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise (Job 15:14\-16; Psalm 14:1\-3; 53:1\-3; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10\-11\). Two good examples of Jesus’ confirmation of this concept can be found in Matthew 7:16\-27 and Matthew 12:34\-37\. With the distinction between free agency and free will defined, compatibilism then addresses the nature of the free agency of man in respect to the theological proposition known as determinism and/or the biblical truth of the omniscient nature of God. The foundational issue is how man can be held accountable for his actions if his actions were always going to occur (i.e., the future is not subject to change) and could not have been anything other than that which occurred. Although there are numerous passages of Scripture that address this issue, there are three primary passages to examine. The story of Joseph and his brothers The first is the story of Joseph and his brothers (Genesis 37\). Joseph was hated by his brothers because their father, Jacob, loved Joseph more than any of his other sons (Genesis 37:3\) and because of Joseph’s dreams and their interpretation (Genesis 37:5\-11\). At an opportune time, Joseph’s brothers sold him as a slave to traveling Midianite traders. Then they dipped his tunic in the blood of a slain goat in order to deceive their father into thinking Joseph had been mauled by a beast (Genesis 37:18\-33\). After many years, during which Joseph had been blessed by the Lord, Joseph’s brothers meet him in Egypt, and Joseph reveals himself to them (Genesis 45:3\-4\). It is Joseph’s discussion with his brothers that is most pertinent to the issue: “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt” (Genesis 45:8\). What makes this statement startling is that Joseph had previously said his brothers had, in fact, sold him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4\-5\). A few chapters later, the concept of compatibilism is presented: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20\). The Genesis story tells us that it was, in fact, the brothers who sold Joseph into Egypt. However, Joseph makes it clear that God had done so. Those who reject the concept of compatibilism would say that this verse is simply stating that God “used” Joseph’s brothers’ actions for good. However, this is not what the text says. From Genesis 45\-50, we are told that (1\) Joseph’s brothers had sent Joseph to Egypt, (2\) God had sent Joseph to Egypt, (3\) Joseph’s brothers had evil intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt, and (4\) God had good intentions in sending Joseph to Egypt. So, the question is, who sent Joseph to Egypt? The bewildering answer is that both Joseph’s brothers and God did. It was one action being carried out by two entities, the brothers and God doing it simultaneously. The commission of Assyria The second passage that reveals compatibilism is found in Isaiah 10, a prophetic warning passage for God’s people. As divinely promised in Deuteronomy 28\-29, God is sending a nation to punish His people for their sins. Isaiah 10:6 says that Assyria is the rod of God’s anger, “commissioned” against God’s people to “seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets.” Notice, however, what God says about Assyria: “Yet \[Assyria] does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations” (Isaiah 10:7, NASB). God’s intent in the Assyrian invasion is to inflict His righteous judgment against sin, and the intent of the Assyrians is to “destroy and cut off many nations.” Two different purposes, two different entities acting to bring about this purpose, in one, single action. As we read further, God reveals that, although this destruction is determined and decreed by Him (Isaiah 10:23\), He will still punish the Assyrians because of the “arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness” (Isaiah 10:12, cf. Isaiah 10:15\). Even though God Himself had infallibly determined the judgment of a disobedient people, He holds those who brought the judgment accountable for their own actions. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ The third passage of Scripture that speaks of compatibilism is found in Acts 4:23\-28\. As revealed in Acts 2:23\-25, Christ’s death on the cross was carried out by the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” Acts 4:27\-28 further reveals that the actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel had been determined and decreed by God Himself to occur as they “gathered together against” Jesus and did “what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Although God had determined that Christ should die, those responsible for His death were still held accountable for their actions. Christ was put to death by wicked men, “yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10\). Once again, the answer to the question "who put Jesus to death?" is both God and the wicked people—two purposes carried out by two entities within a single action. There are other passages of Scripture that pertain to the concept of compatibilism, such as God hardening the hearts of individuals (e.g., Exodus 4:21; Joshua 11:20; Isaiah 63:17\). While compatibilism seems bewildering to us (Job 9:10; Isaiah 55:8\-11; Romans 11:33\), this truth has been revealed by God Himself as the means by which His sovereign decree is reconciled with the will of man. God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:35, Matthew 10:29\-30\), God knows all things (Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:19\-20\), and man is held accountable for what he does (Genesis 18:25; Acts 17:31; Jude 1:15\). Truly, His ways are unfathomable (Job 9:10; Romans 11:33\), and so we should trust in the Lord with all our hearts and lean not on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5\-6\).
What does the Bible say about remarriage if a divorce occurred before salvation?	Answer This is a very difficult, interesting, and challenging question. Some would say that since believers in Christ are "new creations" with "all things made new" (2 Corinthians 5:17\), the sin and consequences of divorce are washed away, allowing a person who was divorced before becoming a believer to be remarried. Others would say that while the sin of the divorce was atoned for by Christ, the consequences of the sin are not, and therefore a person who was divorced before becoming a believer cannot remarry. Making this question even more difficult is the fact that there are varying viewpoints on whether Christians can remarry. Please read the following articles: [https://www.gotquestions.org/divorce\-remarriage.html](divorce-remarriage.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/divorced\-remarry.html](divorced-remarry.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage\-adultery.html](remarriage-adultery.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/abuse\-divorce.html](abuse-divorce.html) [https://www.gotquestions.org/grounds\-for\-divorce.html](grounds-for-divorce.html) When the Bible talks about marriage, it does not speak only to Christians/believers getting married. The biblical principles on marriage are universal. If an unsaved man and woman get married, they are just as married in God’s eyes as a Christian man and woman who get married. They are still one flesh (Genesis 2:24\). God still hates divorce (Malachi 2:16\). God has still joined them together, and He does not want them to be separated (Matthew 19\). While all of our sin—past, present, and future—is forgiven when we are saved, salvation does not wipe away all the consequences of the sins we committed before we came to faith in Christ or the sins we continue to commit. Jesus paid the penalty for our sin, but sin still has real and negative consequences. It is our belief, then, that, whether pre\-salvation or post\-salvation, if the divorce was for unbiblical reasons, there are no grounds for remarriage. However, as the articles listed above indicate, we believe in the exception clause. If a divorce occurred as a result of unrepentant, continual adultery, we believe the innocent party can remarry. This is equally true if the innocent party was a believer or unbeliever when the divorce occurred. So, the answer to this question would depend on the circumstances of the divorce. It is our contention that whether the divorce occurred before or after salvation is not the ultimate deciding factor. Whatever viewpoint a person takes on this particular issue, it is important to understand that salvation does not free us or excuse us from all the foolish and sinful decisions we made before coming to faith in Christ.
Is it biblically acceptable for a man to be a stay-at-home dad?	Answer The topic of stay\-at\-home dads can be a relatively heated one with some well\-known pastors teaching that it is a sin to be a stay\-at\-home dad and others teaching the opposite. So who’s right? What does the Bible really say about this subject? The main verse applicable to the issue of stay\-at\-home dads is 1 Timothy 5:8: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” As always, the number\-one rule in accurate Bible interpretation is to consider the context, and it is vitally important that we apply that rule here. Although 1 Timothy 5:8 does not specify stay\-at\-home dads, it expresses a relevant principle. Paul is stating negatively the truth he had just laid out in verse 4: “But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.” Children are to take care of their parents and grandparents. Those who fail to provide for their relatives are worse than unbelievers in that they are not living out their faith. Paul repeats this principle in verse 8 because, apparently, many in the church at Ephesus were violating this command. The phrase Anyone who does not provide in 1 Timothy 5:8 is a first\-class conditional statement in the original, which could be better translated as “When any of you does not provide” or “Since some of you are not providing.” The word provide is from the Greek pronoeo, which means “to plan before.” It indicates that forethought is necessary to provide care for one’s family. If a stay\-at\-home dad is shirking his duty to provide for his family, then he is sinning. Failing to provide or plan for the needs of his family makes a believer guilty of two things. First, “he has denied the faith.” This does not refer to the loss of personal salvation. Paul here is not judging the ultimate destination of the soul but current actions. A person who refuses to provide for his family is living contrary to what he says he believes and has denied the principle of compassionate love at the heart of the Christian faith (John 13:35; Romans 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:9\). In other words, the real command here, for stay\-at\-home dads and for everyone, is that there must be no contradiction between faith and conduct. Second, a believer’s failure to provide or plan for the care of his family makes him in practice “worse than an unbeliever.” Even the pagans knew the importance of providing for their parents. For believers to fail to measure up to that standard is inexcusable. We have a greater responsibility because we have the commandment of God to love and the power of God to enable us to do so. So, what are we to take from all this? First of all, Paul is not directing this command only to men or stay\-at\-home dads but to everyone. Second, 1 Timothy 5:8 has nothing directly to do with working outside the home. A man should have the foresight to do what is necessary to take care of the needs of his family. For some it may mean working outside the home; for others it may mean working from home, which many stay\-at\-home dads do. For others, providing for the family may mean supporting and enabling their wives, who bring in the primary source of income. There are many wives who earn more money than their husbands and are willing and happy to be the primary financial provider. There is no scriptural basis to rebuke such an arrangement. The bottom line is this: a man who dodges his natural duty to provide for his family or who lacks the foresight to take care of them is living contrary to his religion. This has nothing to do with whether or not he is a stay\-at\-home dad. Generally speaking, if one spouse is going to work while the other spouse stays at home, it is better for the husband to be the primary financial provider and the wife to be the primary homemaker, but in no sense is that a biblical mandate.
What is the canopy theory?	Answer The canopy theory seeks to explain the reference in Genesis 1:6 to “the waters above the firmament,” assuming that “firmament,” or “expanse,” as the Hebrew word is alternatively translated, refers to our atmosphere. According to the canopy theory, there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere until the cataclysm of Noah’s day, at which point it disappeared either by collapsing upon the earth or dissipating into space. It is presumed to have consisted of water vapor because a canopy of ice could not have survived the constant bombardment of celestial objects like meteoroids which perpetually barrage the earth’s atmosphere. While Genesis 1:20 (KJV) does say that birds fly in the firmament, suggesting the earth’s atmosphere, it also says that the sun, moon and stars reside there (Genesis 1:14\-17\), suggesting the entire sky from the earth’s surface outward, where birds fly and celestial objects reside. The Hebrew word alternatively translated “firmament” in some translations and “expanse” in others is raqiya. It appears nine times throughout the first chapter of Genesis (in verses 6\-8, 14\-18 and 20\) and eight more times throughout the rest of the Old Testament (in Psalms, Ezekiel and Daniel). According to Genesis, before there was air or land or any form of life, the earth was a formless mass of primordial water. On the second day of creation, God created the raqiya, placing it in the midst of the water, thereby separating it into two parts: “the waters above the firmament \[raqiya]” and the waters below it. The waters below the raqiya He named “sea” (yam in Hebrew) and the raqiya itself He named “heaven,” “air” or “sky,” depending on your translation of the Hebrew word shamayim. But Genesis does not provide a name for the waters above the raqiya, nor is there any water above our atmosphere today, assuming that raqiya does mean “atmosphere.” Advocates of the canopy theory once speculated that the collapse of such a vapor canopy might have provided the water for the heavy rains which inundated the earth during Noah’s flood. One problem with the canopy theory, however, is, the latent heat of water and the sheer quantities of water involved. If such a vapor canopy were to collapse into rain, it would literally cook the entire planet. This is because when water converts from vapor to liquid, energy or latent heat is released in the process, causing the surrounding area to heat up; this is known as an exothermic result. Conversely, when water converts from solid form—ice—to liquid or from liquid to vapor, energy is absorbed and the surrounding area is cooled—an endothermic result. The Genesis account calls for five\-and\-a\-half weeks of constant rain. If a canopy consisting of enough water vapor to provide that amount of rain were to collapse, it would cook the entire planet. This is not to say that there was no vapor canopy or that it did not collapse, only that, if it did, it could not have provided the amount of rain in question (the less water, the less heat). It is interesting to note that, if a frozen canopy were able to exist in the atmosphere despite cosmic bombardment, its collapse into liquid rain would have an extreme cooling effect and might be an explanation for the commencement of the Ice Age. Despite the fact that we know that it happened, the complex factors involved in getting an Ice Age started makes it seem impossible and baffles modern science to this day. Advocates of the canopy theory also cite the existence of a canopy as a possible cause for a variety of pre\-flood anomalies, including human longevity and the apparent lack of rain or rainbows. They claim that such a canopy would filter out much of the cosmic radiation that is harmful to humans and cause the lack of rain or rainbows. However, opponents dispute such a canopy’s ability to produce these results. In defense of the view that raqiya means “atmosphere,” the reference in Genesis 1:14\-17 to the sun, moon and stars residing there may have simply been a phenomenological statement, just as our modern terms “sunset” and “sunrise” are phenomenological descriptions. That is, we know full well that the sun is stationary and doesn’t really “rise” or “set,” despite our usage of terms implying its movement from our earth\-bound vantage point. Whatever the case may be, there is no canopy up there today and any suggestion that there was one in the past is speculation because there simply isn’t enough evidence one way or the other, except for the one enigmatic reference to waters above the firmament in Genesis 1:6, and no one claims to know for sure what that means.
Should a Christian go to a chiropractor?	Answer The Bible exhorts us to take care of our bodies and to do what we can to stay healthy. If chiropractic treatment can aid in this, there is no reason why we shouldn’t see a chiropractor. The Bible presents good health as a positive thing and something to be sought and appreciated. Common greetings in both the Old and New Testaments included wishes for good health and long life (1 Samuel 25:5\-6; 3 John 1:2\). Husbands are to love and care for their wives as they nurture and care for their own bodies (Ephesians 5:28\). Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and, as such, are to be cared for and kept in good health (1 Corinthians 6:19\-20\). Many people see chiropractic treatment as preferable to taking drugs—which can have negative side effects—and invasive procedures such as surgery. Others see chiropractic treatment as having dubious value and have concerns regarding the connections between chiropractors and practitioners of other “alternative” medical options. However, the goal of chiropractic care, namely, to keep the vertebrae loose and non\-compacted, is almost universally accepted as having some medical value. Some have found relief/healing from chiropractors when all other medical options have failed. As in all things, Christians should seek God’s wisdom and guidance regarding the type of medical treatment they choose for themselves and their families. God has promised to grant wisdom generously to His children (James 1:5\).
What does the Bible say about shyness/being shy?	Answer Shyness is a type of social anxiety that causes individuals to be overly self\-conscious and concerned about how other people might assess them. Webster’s Dictionary defines shyness as “the state of being timid, easily frightened, reserved, bashful, and shrinking from contact with others.” Those who suffer from extreme shyness typically experience debilitating effects such as relationship problems, difficulty making friends, meeting people, and enjoying new experiences. Shy people may feel isolated, anxious, depressed, embarrassed, awkward, and filled with self\-doubt and even self\-loathing. Most people experience shyness to differing degrees at one time or another or in certain situations. Children, for example, are more prone to shyness than adults (see Jeremiah 1:6\), and public speaking can frighten people who are confident in most other social settings. Several factors contribute to shyness. A timid disposition could be associated with sinful and selfish motivations, but there is usually more to the story. Personality type (introvert, extrovert, etc.) plays a role in shyness, along with one’s family history, childhood development, and early emotional trauma. Being shy is not a bad thing, per se. Shyness can carry inherently positive features that are viewed favorably in the Bible. Shy people are more likely to exhibit modesty (Romans 12:3\), humility (Ephesians 4:2; Proverbs 25:6–7; 1 Peter 5:5\), and quietness of spirit (Proverbs 29:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 1 Timothy 2:1–2; 1 Peter 3:1–4\), avoiding self\-adulation and attention\-seeking. They may also be more inclined to demonstrate discernment (Proverbs 10:19; 17:28; 21:23; Ecclesiastes 5:2\) and discretion (Amos 5:13; Psalm 39:1\). But there are cases in which being shy is detrimental. Shyness can at times be linked to pride, self\-focus, and fear. Worrying about what people think about us and undue concern for the approval of men (Ephesians 6:6–7; Proverbs 29:25\) might reflect an obsession with self. The Bible counsels believers not to seek the approval of humans or fear what people think or say about them if they are doing what they know is right before the Lord (Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:4\). If we are truly striving to live godly lives, we can expect not to be liked (2 Timothy 3:12\). Our primary concern should be pleasing God (Romans 12:1; Ephesians 5:8–10; Galatians 6:8\). If our timidity and bashfulness come from fear, then we must remember that fear is the opposite of faith. We overcome fear through faith and dependence on God (Hebrews 11:6\) and love from the Lord (1 John 4:18–19\). The virtues of faith and love grow from saturating our hearts, minds, and lives with the Scriptures (Colossians 3:16; Romans 10:17\). When it comes to growing in holiness (John 17:17\) and overcoming fear, doubt, and confusion, the power of God’s Word is unequaled (Psalm 19; 2 Timothy 3:16–17\). For many Christians, the problematic effects of extreme shyness can be managed or overcome through reliance on the Holy Spirit. The Bible explains this in 2 Timothy 1:7: “For the Holy Spirit, God’s gift, does not want you to be afraid of people, but to be wise and strong, and to love them and enjoy being with them” (TLB). God gives the Holy Spirit to those who place their faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as payment for their sin. As Christians, we need to be filled with the Holy Spirit and submitted to His control. Meditating on Ephesians 5:17–21, Ephesians 4:30, and Colossians 3:16 will help those struggling with shyness. Besides becoming a Christian, submitting to the control of the Holy Spirit, replacing fear and pride with faith and love from God, and saturating our minds with Scripture, we can add another ingredient to overcoming shyness. The world recommends nurturing “self\-esteem” or developing a better “self\-image.” But the Bible advises living out our identity in Jesus Christ. Meditating on Ephesians 1 reveals all that we are in Christ. Instead of focusing on self, we must realize that our true life is centered on Christ, “who is \[our] life” (see Colossians 3:4\). We don’t have to let fear and self\-consciousness paralyze us. We can step out in faith and reliance on God, show interest in others, start a conversation, and express the genuine love of Christ. When we’re filled with God’s power and motivated by His love, we’ll be able to minister to people in a way that makes them feel seen, heard, and appreciated. The emphasis shifts from self to others, and we begin to live in freedom (Galatians 5:13\), sacrifice (Philippians 3:8; John 12:24–25\), and unselfish love (1 John 3:16–18; 1 Corinthians 13:3\). When God called Corrie ten Boom to ministry, she was determined to overcome her shyness. She enrolled in a Dale Carnegie course to develop the skills to talk to people and become a more capable public speaker and minister of the gospel. One of the Bible’s most significant leaders, Moses, also struggled with shyness, but that did not hinder God from choosing him as a mouthpiece for deliverance (Exodus 4:10–15; 6:12, 30\). God often uses our deficiencies, like shyness and fear, to reveal our human inability and help us recognize the need to depend on Him. Being shy is not the end of the story. All Christians struggle with shortcomings and weaknesses of the flesh. We “are like fragile clay jars containing” a “great treasure,” that is, the life of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:7–10, NLT). Surrender your shyness to God and watch Him make something unexpectedly beautiful out of your life (see Isaiah 61:3; Romans 8:28\).
What does the Bible have to say about holistic medicine?	Answer Holistic medicine is defined as a system of health care which fosters a cooperative relationship among all those involved (patient, family, and healthcare professional), leading towards optimal attainment of the physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual aspects of health. According to the American Holistic Health Association, “Ancient healing traditions, as far back as 5,000 years ago in India and China, stressed living a healthy way of life in harmony with nature. Socrates (4th century B.C.) warned against treating only one part of the body ‘for the part can never be well unless the whole is well.’ Although the term holism was introduced by Jan Christiaan Smuts in 1926 as a way of viewing living things as ‘entities greater than and different from the sum of their parts,’ it wasn’t until the 1970s that holistic became a common adjective in our modern vocabulary.” Holistic medicine seeks to address all systems of the individual to improve health, heal disease, and maximize well\-being. The holistic belief is that health has more than just a physical component and is, in fact, also related to the mental, emotional, social, and spiritual state of the individual. To be healthy, all facets of a person must be addressed, and all must be treated for there to be true health. Healthcare professionals using the holistic approach work in partnership with their patients. They recommend treatments that support the body’s natural healing system and consider the whole person and the whole situation. Alternative methods of therapy included under the umbrella of holistic medicine include, but are not limited to, nutrition, herbal medicine, spinal manipulation, body work medicine, "energy medicine," spiritual attunement, relaxation training and stress management, biofeedback and acupuncture. The maximizing of health is certainly in line with the Scriptures. The Bible is clear that we are to take good care of our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19\-20\) as they are the temple of the Holy Spirit. There are many verses that speak of using “medical treatments” such as applying bandages (Isaiah 1:6\), oil (James 5:14\), oil and wine (Luke 10:34\), leaves (Ezekiel 47:12\), wine (1 Timothy 5:23\), and salves, particularly the “balm of Gilead” (Jeremiah 8:22\). Many of these treatments would be considered holistic today, as holistic medicine often shies away from drugs and surgery at least as first treatments. In addition, many Christians have benefitted from principles embodied in holistic medicine. That being said, specific practices within the holistic health field should be evaluated on an individual basis. Some of what is practiced as holistic medicine is in conflict with Scripture and may even become open doors for demonic activity. "Energy medicine" and "spiritual attunement" are particularly concerning. One obvious example of a problematic practice is transcendental meditation, a technique for emptying the mind and becoming “one with the universe.” It encourages participants to seek the answers to life's difficult questions within their own conscience instead of in the Word of God. It also leaves one open to deception from God’s enemy, who searches for victims that he can turn away from God (1 Peter 5:8\). For the Christian, meditation should center on the Word of God, His attributes, and the beauty of Jesus Christ, the Great Physician.
Is there supposed to be only one church?	Answer The word translated “church” in the New Testament is ekklesia, which literally means “those who are called out.” In one sense, the church is the group of people that God has called unto Himself from everywhere and from all time. In this sense, there is only one church—one body of believers that God has called unto Himself—believers both living and dead in any part of the world. The New Testament also uses the word churches (plural) as in “the churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house” (1 Corinthians 16:19\) and “he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (Acts 15:17\). Here the word refers to local bodies of believers meeting in a particular location. In this sense, there are many churches. One way to understand the two uses of the word church is that there is only one church—one body of people called unto God. However, there are local manifestations of that body in different places, and these are called “churches.” We are familiar with this concept through the modern business franchise model. On one hand, there is only one McDonald’s Corporation. However, in a slightly different sense, there are many McDonald’s all over the world. There is one company with many different locations or local manifestations. When speaking of the church, people often speak of the [universal church and the local church](universal-local-church.html), or sometimes the invisible church and the visible church. (The universal church is “invisible” in that it never meets all together and no one can observe it in the way that they can observe a local church.) In one sense, there is only one church, the [Body of Christ](body-of-Christ.html). In another sense, there are many local manifestations of that body, which are also called “churches.” Each local church may have unique features due to the part of the world it is in or the people who comprise it, just as each McDonald’s restaurant may have a different layout and seating arrangement, and a McDonald’s in Central America or Hong Kong will have some different menu items than the standard McDonald’s in the United States. This concept is relatively easy to understand and is not controversial. If all local churches were in complete agreement with each other, with only minor variations in style and emphasis, then there would probably be no confusion. As it is, there is much disparity in the practice and teachings of various churches (and local organizations that call themselves “churches”), so the question arises: isn’t there supposed to be only one church? Some local churches are independent, which means there is no human board or organization that regulates what they do. They follow the New Testament as they understand it and answer directly to Christ. Other local churches are part of a larger church (or [denomination](denominations-of-Christianity.html)) that exercises control over that individual, local church. The problem arises when one local church or denomination believes and/or practices something entirely different from another church, yet they both claim to be following the teaching of the New Testament and claim to be committed to the lordship of Christ. Obviously, this is a problem and has been from the earliest days of Christianity. When Jesus ascended into heaven, He left apostles who exercised authority in the church. These men spoke directly for God and were largely responsible for the production of the New Testament. However, even in the earliest days, others challenged the authority of the apostles. Paul was constantly struggling against men who followed him around trying to disrupt his work. After he established a church in a city and moved on to another city, these men would come in after him and say that his teaching was incorrect or incomplete or that Paul himself was inadequate. In some cases, the new teaching was so contrary to the truth of the gospel that Paul had to condemn it (and those who propagated it) in the strongest terms (see Galatians 1:6–9\). In other cases, where people in the churches began to identify with one leader over another, Paul cautions that there should be no divisions: “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:10–13\). Thus, even during the days of the apostles, there were divisions springing up in the church. After the apostles passed from the scene, church leaders were responsible for teaching the Bible and maintaining the integrity of the church. However, as in the days of the apostles, there will always be some who will pervert or distort the gospel and gather a following unto themselves, claiming to be teaching truth. Others may teach the truth but do it in such a way that they gather a following based on their own personality and leadership technique. Distortions of the gospel, though, are not the only reasons why different denominations or local churches exist. Churches have also formed because of stylistic, cultural and non\-doctrinal differences. All of the various reasons combined has given rise to the multitude of local churches and denominations that we have today. Most say they are following Jesus Christ and the teachings of the New Testament, but all of them cannot be right. And, unfortunately, some today have abandoned all but a pretense of following Christ or of conforming to the New Testament. Churches are made up of sinful people who change over time. Sometimes the people within a local church or several churches within a denomination will change their beliefs and want to exit the church or denomination and form a new one that will more accurately reflect their new beliefs. Sometimes a church or denomination will change their beliefs, and individual members or churches will want to exit because the church is no longer teaching what they feel to be true. Thus, new churches and/or denominations are formed. We saw this in the early twentieth century as many denominations abandoned a belief in the Bible as authoritative. Individual churches left these “liberal” or “modernist” denominations and started new “fundamentalist” ones. More recently, as many [mainline churches](mainline-denominations.html) have started to normalize homosexual behavior and ordain women, individuals and churches have withdrawn to join or form churches in line with more biblical beliefs. Because of the variety of beliefs and interpretations of the New Testament, it is inevitable that different churches and denominations will form. It may be impossible for an individual to find a church that perfectly aligns with his or her beliefs. Likewise, a church may be in a denomination that does not perfectly reflect the views of the membership. Each individual and each church must decide, based on their own study of God’s Word, which issues are of critical importance and which issues can be compromised for the sake of fellowship. Individual churches and even denominations will often cooperate with other churches and denominations when they have agreement on essential doctrine. For instance, well\-known pastors John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul were great friends. They ministered together at conferences and fought side by side in struggles regarding the authority of God’s Word and the integrity of the gospel. However, they had significant differences on secondary issues such as baptism and the end times. They even debated each other on some of these issues. While they would never think of combining their churches, they were still able to fellowship and cooperate with each other in the spirit of Christian love and unity. This is a good example of unity in diversity that should be common among true believers. All evangelical churches agree on certain core teachings such as the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and justification by grace through faith. Many evangelical Baptist, Independent, and Presbyterian churches cooperate with each other in various ministry endeavors. However, they could probably never combine and become one church because it would be impossible to accommodate the various secondary beliefs. Most Baptist churches believe in congregational rule, whereas Presbyterian churches believe that elders should make the final decisions. You cannot have both systems of church government in the same church. Likewise, Baptists believe that baptism is for believers who have consciously chosen to be baptized as a sign of their faith in Christ, whereas Presbyterians believe in infant baptism as a sign of the faith of the parents. You might have one church that says they will do either one, but you cannot have one church that says infants should be baptized and at the same time says they should not. So different churches are inevitable and even in a sense necessary to keep the peace. Ideally, there should only be one church; however, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a fallen world, and people are sinful. Some will purposefully try to distort the Word of God and mislead people yet still call their organizations a “church.” Some have abandoned the Word of God as their authority in favor of modern ideas about “human flourishing” but still maintain the word church in their names. Some are sincere but mistaken about their interpretation of God’s Word on secondary issues. No church is perfect. Yet, all churches that teach God’s Word and live out the gospel are part of His universal church. God uses the diversity found in local churches to reflect His character and the gospel to the world. It is important for individual Christians to join churches where the Bible is the authority, and it is important for individual evangelical churches or denominations to cooperate with other evangelical churches so that division over secondary issues remains truly secondary. All true believers in Jesus Christ and all churches that preach and teach the gospel are united by much more than divides them.
Why do we pray before eating meals?	Answer Christians frequently pray before meals, giving thanks to God for the food we are about to eat. Pre\-meal prayers can be a simple “thank you” to God for the meal or lengthier prayers of thanksgiving for all of His provisions in our lives. In praying before meals, we are following the example of the Lord Jesus, whose prayers on several occasions are our model. In the two instances where Jesus miraculously fed multitudes of people with a few loaves and fish, He “gave thanks” (Matthew 14:19\-21; 15:34\-36\). In the first instance, He fed 5,000 men, plus women and children, with five loaves of bread and two fish. In the second, He fed over 4,000 with seven loaves and a few fish. At the Last Supper, Jesus again set the example of thanksgiving. When He passed the cup and the bread to His disciples, telling them to eat and drink these elements which were symbols of His body and blood, He gave thanks. When He appeared to the two men on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection, He stopped briefly to eat with them, and “took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them” (Luke 24:30\). The apostle Paul continued this example of praying before eating, as recorded in Acts 27\. In this instance, Paul was on a ship with 276 other people when a hurricane battered the ship. After fourteen days of not eating, Paul exhorted the sailors and other passengers to eat something in order to survive. He “took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all” (Acts 27:35\). Even in spite of the danger and terrible circumstances, Paul paused to give thanks to God before the meal. When we thank God for providing our daily bread, we are acknowledging that all things come from Him (Ephesians 5:20; Romans 11:36\). He is the source of everything we have, and praying before meals as a habit helps to remind us of that truth. Praying before we eat with a thankful heart brings glory to God and centers our minds on His great love for His children and the blessings He bestows on those who belong to Him.
What is the biblical view on genetically modified food?	Answer The Bible doesn’t say anything specifically about genetically modified foods, but it does address the role we are to play in caring for the earth. Genesis 1:26\-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it, and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food. Genesis 2:15\-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. Adam and Eve’s God\-given roles were to be good stewards of the earth He created. Genesis 3:17\-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land. These passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals, and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought, and insects. Genetically modifying food sources is one way mankind is trying to offset the effects of the original curse. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals, or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature, or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population. These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals, and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run. Romans 8:18\-23 reminds us that today, along with all of mankind, creation groans and longs to be set free from death and decay, and only in the future when God physically redeems His children and all of His creation will that happen. At that time everything God created will be restored to its initial perfect state. Since the Bible doesn’t specifically mention genetically modified food, we need to be careful to not go outside of God’s Word on this issue. The best way to approach it is to understand mankind’s role on earth and the biblical guidelines God has given for our lives. That knowledge only comes when we spend time with the Lord in His Word and in prayer each day, growing and maturing in our walk with Him.
Monergism vs. synergism—which view is correct?	Answer [Monergism](monergism-and-salvation.html) and [synergism](synergism-and-salvation.html) have been debated within the church for centuries. It is no exaggeration to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel. First, let us define the two terms. Discussions about monergism vs. synergism are, theologically speaking, about who brings about our salvation. Monergism is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is usually associated with Calvinistic and Reformed traditions. Synergism is the view that God works together with us in some way to effect salvation. The term monergism comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work alone”; synergism is from another compound Greek word meaning “to work together.” As mentioned, monergism is often associated with [Calvinism](calvinism.html). Calvinists often accuse [Arminians](arminianism.html) of holding to synergism; however, many, if not most, Arminians would deny the accusation and place themselves in the monergism camp. Monergism says that God does the work of salvation, and the elect are the beneficiaries of that work. Even the faith needed to receive God’s salvation is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8–9\). Synergism says that God does part of the work of salvation, but mankind must still do something to reap the benefits: muster faith, be baptized, continue in good works, etc. Defined this way, synergism is clearly unbiblical. No human work or merit can be added to God’s grace without destroying grace (Romans 11:6\). Calvinists typically associate the term monergism with Calvinism: if you believe in monergism, you must be a Calvinist. It’s true that Calvinism is monergistic, but there are also many Arminians who consider their system of theology monergistic, in this way: faith must be present to receive God’s grace, but faith itself is not meritorious. Faith receives grace, but it does not cause grace. In fact, classical Arminianism teaches that the faith needed to receive divine grace is a response to God’s [prevenient grace](prevenient-grace.html). So, God still does the work of salvation, even though an act of human will (enabled by God) is seen as a necessary requirement to receive it. The essence of the monergistic argument is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them “savable.” Monergism starts with an enemy of God, seemingly unsavable, and, by the grace of God, brings that spiritually dead person into saving faith and union with Christ. Synergism, in all its forms (including [Pelagianism](Pelagianism.html)), starts with a person who has at least a spark of spiritual life. This person has the natural ability to take a step toward God apart from grace and thus meet God in the middle. God may do most of the saving work, but He must somehow also depend on the work of the individual being saved. Monergism claims that God all that is necessary for our salvation and that He is sufficient to save; synergism claims that God is necessary but insufficient. The synergistic system ultimately places the responsibility for salvation on us. Monergism places the responsibility for our salvation wholly on God. It is God who has “predestined . . . called . . . justified . . . glorified” us in Christ (Romans 8:30\). It is He who began and will complete the work of salvation in us (Philippians 1:6\). It is He who keeps the sheep secure in His hand (John 10:27–30\). In conclusion, the weight of the biblical evidence clearly supports the monergistic view of salvation—Jesus is the author and perfector of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2\). There is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to God our Savior!
Does Matthew 7:21-23 mean that believers can lose salvation?	Answer The two questions most frequently asked about Matthew 7:21\-23 come about because the verses seem to contradict two strongly held beliefs—one cannot lose his salvation and anyone who performs miracles must be from God. As we will see, one of these beliefs is based on scriptural truth and the other is not. While the true believer cannot [lose his salvation](Christian-lose-salvation.html), not all miracles are performed by true believers. Jesus is speaking here near the end of His [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html) (chapters 5—7\). Beginning in verse 13, Jesus discourses at length on the subject of true faith vs. false professions, using the technique of contrast and comparison. Verses 13\-14 describe two paths on which people walk through life, the broad road that leads to eternal destruction and the narrow path that leads to eternal life. He introduces here the concept of the “many” and the “few” that He will return to in verses 21\-23\. In Matthew 7:15–18, He again contrasts the two types of people by using imagery well known to those in an agrarian culture—sheep/wolves, grapes/figs, thorn bushes/thistles, good trees/bad trees, and good fruit/bad fruit. Having established the idea of dichotomy in the minds of His hearers, He goes on to apply these truths to the spiritual state of all within His hearing. Jesus presents the two types of people who will come to Him on “that day,” meaning the last day, the day of judgment, the great day fixed by God and unknown to angels and men and which will be terrible to some and joyful to others. All will be seeking to enter the kingdom of heaven, but some will be turned away and will react in utter confusion and disappointment as what they thought was their “ticket” to heaven turns out to be worthless. These are those who prophesied in the name of Jesus, meaning either foretelling things to come or preaching the Word in His name. They have even performed miraculous acts such as driving out demons and perhaps healings and other miracles, but all to no avail. Their works were done for their own glory, not His, and were nothing more than “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6\). In contrast, those who will enter heaven will not do so based on their miraculous achievements and accomplishments or works of any sort. They will have eternal life solely on the basis of obedience to the will of God (Matthew 7:21\)—which is to believe in God’s Son. But who are these unfortunate people and how can they do miracles unless they are doing them by God’s power? We know several things about them from the text. First, we know there are many of them, because it is many who are on the broad road to eternal death, as compared to the relative few who have found the narrow path to eternal life. Second, they claim the name of Christ. These are not Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists. These are those who would gladly say, “I am a Christian.” They work their works in Jesus’ name. They pray and heal in Jesus’ name. They preach and teach in Jesus’ name. They build huge churches and ministries in Jesus’ name. They claim a relationship with Him. But they are none of His. In fact, He sends them away, not with commendation for their good works in His name (and many good works are done in Jesus’ name by false professors), but by disowning their every deed and word. He “never” knew them, nor did they ever truly know Him. They weren’t Christians who lost their salvation. They were never part of the elect of God, chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4\), set apart and sanctified by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:21\), and justified by faith (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). The ones Christ puts away from Himself with harsh words of condemnation, calling them doers of evil, never came to Him in faith, despite their outward good works and miracles. Then if these do not belong to God and never did, how do we explain their ability to perform miracles? Can those who do not have the Spirit actually cast out demons and perform miraculous healings and spectacular signs and wonders? There are two possible explanations for the ability of the ungodly to perform such acts. One is that some miracles are done by the power of Satan and his demonic host. We know that Satan is very crafty. Could there be times when Satan “stages” an exorcism in which an unbeliever commands a demon to leave, and the demon pretends to comply, for the purpose of creating fear in onlookers and causing them to trust in herbs, incantations, talismans, holy water, and [relics](Christian-relics.html), rather than in God? Could it be that the doomed men in Matthew 7 had been convinced, in their own minds, that they were serving Christ based on the (satanically orchestrated) “successes”? that the demon they thought they had authority over were only playing a game with them? that they considered themselves demon slayers, when all the while they were nothing more than demons’ dupes? Not all miracles come from God, and not all who perform miracles in the name of Jesus are truly His. The Lord calls the men in Matthew 7 “evildoers” because the miracles they performed had evil as their source, and they had been too blind to see it. Jesus warns us to be on guard against deception as the end times draw near (Matthew 24:24\). Second, it’s possible that God, in His sovereign will and for His purposes, will empower unbelievers to perform miraculous deeds. An example is [Judas Iscariot](Judas-Iscariot.html) who, along with the other disciples, preached the gospel and we assume healed the sick and performed other miracles. There is nothing to indicate that Judas didn’t have the same power as the other eleven, although he was never a true disciple of Christ. He was a deceiver and the “son of perdition” (John 17:12\). If Judas did perform miracles, it was only because God saw fit to use him for His own glory, despite the condition of Judas’s heart. Jesus goes on to describe those who will be able to call upon His name on the day of judgment. It will be those who hear His words and put them into practice, the same ones referred to in verse 21 as those who obediently do the will of the Father in heaven. True believers are the good trees that produce good fruit (Galatians 5:22\-23\), the true sheep who look to Christ, depend on Him, commit themselves to Him, trust in Him, and believe on Him for righteousness, salvation, and eternal life. These are the ones who will enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I am a parent; how can I let go of my adult children?	Answer Letting go of adult children is a struggle for all parents, both Christian and non\-Christian. When we consider that nearly twenty years of our lives are invested in raising, nurturing, and caring for a child, it’s easy to see why letting go of that role is a daunting task. For most parents, child\-rearing consumes our time, energy, love, and concern for two decades. We invest our hearts, minds and spirits into their physical, emotional, social and spiritual well\-being, and it can be very difficult when that part of our lives comes to an end. Parents who find themselves in the “[empty nest](empty-nest-syndrome.html)” often struggle to find an appropriate balance of love and concern for their adult children while resisting the impulse to continue to control. Biblically, we know that God takes the role of the parent very seriously. Admonitions to good parenting abound in Scripture. Parents are to raise children in the “training and instruction of the Lord,” not frustrating or exasperating them (Ephesians 6:4\). We are to “train a child in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6\), giving him good gifts (Matthew 7:11\), loving and disciplining him for his sake (Proverbs 13:24\), and providing for his needs (1 Timothy 5:8\). Ironically, it’s often the parents who take their parenting roles most seriously and who do a great job at it who struggle most to let go. More mothers than fathers seem to experience difficulty, probably due to the strong maternal urge to nurture and care for children and the amount of time spent with them as they grow. At the heart of the difficulty of letting go of our children is a certain amount of fear. The world is a scary place, and the numerous stories of terrible things happening increase our fears. When our children are young, we can monitor their every moment, control their environment, and guard their safety. But as they grow and mature, they begin to move out into the world on their own. We are no longer in control of their every move, who they see, where they go, and what they do. For the Christian parent, this is where faith enters the picture. Perhaps nothing on earth is more testing of our faith than the time when our children begin to sever the bonds that have held them close to us. Letting go of children doesn’t mean simply turning them loose in the world to fend for themselves. It means turning them over to our heavenly Father who loves them more than we ever could, and who guides and guards them according to His perfect will. The reality is that they are His children; they belong to Him, not to us. He has loaned them to us for a while and given us instruction on how to care for them. But eventually, we have to give them back to Him and trust that He will love them and nurture their spirits in the same way we have nurtured them physically. The more faith we have in Him, the less fearful we are and the more we are willing to turn our children over to Him. As with so many things in the Christian life, the ability to do this depends on how well we know our God and how much time we spend in His Word. We cannot trust someone we don’t know, and we can’t know God except through Scripture. When God promises not to test us beyond our ability to bear it (1 Corinthians 10:13\), how can we believe that unless we know in our hearts that He is faithful? Deuteronomy 7:9 says, “Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.” Deuteronomy 32:4 concurs: “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” If we belong to Him, He will be faithful to us and to our children, and the more we know and trust Him, the more we are able to put our children in His capable hands. Lack of faith in Him and His purposes for our children will result in an inability or an unwillingness to let our children go. So what is the parents’ role as children become adults? Certainly we never ‘let go’ of them in the sense of abandoning them. We are still their parents and always will be. But while we no longer nurture and guard them physically, we are still concerned for their welfare. For the Christian family, they are no longer just our children; they are now our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we relate to them as we do our other friends in the Lord. Most importantly, we pray for them. We encourage them in their walk with God, offering advice when it is asked for. We offer help if it is needed and accept their decision to receive it or reject it. Finally, we respect their privacy just as we would any other adult’s. When parents finally do let go of adult children, they often find a stronger, deeper, and more fulfilling relationship than they ever could have imagined.
Is God evil?	Answer The web site evilbible.com endeavors to do two things: (1\) demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God, but instead is only a book written by “evil” men, and (2\) disprove the God of Christianity. The arsenal it attempts to use to prove its assertions is one common to many other atheist web sites and publications. Supposed Bible contradictions are put on display, atrocities and immoral practices that are recorded within the pages of the Bible are referenced, and various philosophical and moral arguments are used to assert that the God of the Bible is an impossibility or at best not a God to be worshiped. While a number of these specific arguments will be addressed in the sections that follow, certain topics on the evilbible.com web site that have already been thoroughly tackled on Gotquestions.org (e.g., slavery) will not be covered, but anyone wishing more information on those subjects is encouraged to review the material that already exists and which sufficiently answers evilbible.com’s charges in those areas. Instead, the focus of this article will be the three broad problems that cause nearly all (or perhaps all) of evilbible.com’s arguments to fail: • A misunderstanding of God’s Word • A misunderstanding of God’s character • A misunderstanding of God’s creation Let’s now review each of these issues and cite specific examples from evilbible.com’s web site that illustrate how and why their assertions against the Bible and God are false. Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Word The first problem area for evilbible.com is a misunderstanding of God’s Word. In its efforts to attack the Bible, the evilbible.com web site makes two key assertions: 1\) the Bible is full of horrible atrocities, and 2\) the Bible is full of contradictions. As to the first point, evilbible.com is absolutely correct—the Bible is indeed full of atrocities and immoral behavior. From start to finish, the Bible records many terrible things, with the worst being the premeditated murder of the innocent and perfect Son of God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area falls flat is that they fail to understand that the Bible does not approve of everything it records. This is absolutely crucial to understand. For example, in Judges chapters 19 and 20, the Bible records the brutal rape and murder of a young woman who was a Levite’s concubine. Moreover, the actions of the Levite are less than honorable, and the crime results in a vicious civil war within the nation of Israel. But a careful reading of the text will show no approval of the actions that took place, and no commendation from God for the Levite’s behavior. So evilbible.com’s argument that atrocities being recorded in Scripture prove that it isn’t God’s Word simply does not hold up. Another argument in this same vein on the evilbible.com web site focuses on the command of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Obviously, they claim, since God initiated this request, and human sacrifice is abhorrent, surely this proves the Bible is not anything produced by a loving and good God. But where evilbible.com’s argument in this area fails is that the web site’s writers don’t understand that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him; the story is a powerful narrative typology of God Himself sacrificing His own Son Jesus for the sins of mankind. And whereas Abraham was stopped by God from going through with his act, God Himself did not stay His own hand when it came to His Son, and the end result was salvation for all who would believe in Him. With regard to point number two above, evilbible.com lists a number of supposed contradictions in the Bible they use to assert that the Bible is not inerrant but is instead a fallibly written book. When it comes to assertions of biblical contradictions, it should be noted that a number of good books on this subject address nearly every one (if not all) of evilbible.com’s claims. Second, it should not come as a surprise that non\-Christians trip over the issues that evilbible.com brings to the table. The Bible is a spiritual book, and while it exhibits what is called perspicuity (clarity of expression) in regard to its core teachings, there are spiritual significance and lessons for much of what the Bible speaks about, and only those who have been quickened by God’s Spirit will arrive at their true meanings (1 Corinthians 2:14\). For example, Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Critics look at this obscure Old Testament passage, laugh, and reach the conclusion that God doesn’t want people to wear wool and polyester blends. However, in this case God was using physical things to act as reminders of spiritual principles. He was telling Israel not to mix their pure religion with the pagan religions that literally surrounded them; they were not to be syncretistic, but instead they were to be devoted to the one true God and not assimilate other pagan teachings. Spiritual lessons such as the above are found in a number of errors that evilbible.com makes. For example they argue for the following set of contradictions: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven... earth... \[or] water. \- Leviticus 26:11 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them. \- Exodus 25:18 First, it should be noted that evilbible.com does not reference the proper book/chapter/verse in the first quote – it is actually Exodus 20:4\. That error aside, their argument fails because they quote the verse out of context; if one continues reading the next verse, the true reason for the prohibition is given: “You shall not worship them or serve them.” The command of God to not make images concerned objects of worship, not objects used for decorative or educational purposes as Exodus 25:18 records. Another example of a supposed contradiction argued by evilbible.com in the New Testament is the following: For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works. \- Ephesians 2:8\-9 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. \- James 2:24 Again, evilbible.com should not really be faulted for not understanding these two verses clearly; they are spiritual two sides to one coin. The Bible makes it clear that Christians are saved by faith alone. But the Bible also makes it clear that faith in the life of a true Christian is always evidenced by good works. Good works are not the means of salvation; they are the evidence and the proof of salvation. So to put them together in one sentence: Christians are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8\-9\), but the faith that saves is not alone (James 2:24\). True faith will always manifest good works; faith which does not evidence good works is a dead faith which cannot save (James 2:26\). This principle is viewed elsewhere in Scripture, for example by Jesus, who referenced the fact that good trees bear good fruit, but bad trees yield bad fruit (Matthew 7:17\). To summarize, we can see that evilbible.com’s claims of atrocities and contradictions in God’s Word simply do not hold water. There have always been critics who claim the Bible is wrong. For example, many used to maintain that the reigns and times of the Israelite kings were recorded in error (e.g., Joram\-Jehoram), but then came Dr. Edwin Thiele’s book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, which proved that they are indeed correct. In the end, the Bible always survives the challenges leveled against it. Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Character The second problem is that evilbible.com suffers from a misunderstanding of God’s character. The web site routinely speaks of God as a tyrant and an unabashed killer. Evilbible.com takes the position of Socrates who once said that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it, better to be the victim than the perpetrator. Apparently the site’s writers would be more comfortable with God if He were a victim rather than a sovereign. In making such assertions, evilbible.com also follows the lead of atheist Robert Wilson who wrote, “The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer.” In addition, evilbible.com charges that God is the creator of evil and wickedness, and therefore asserts that God cannot be the holy and righteous deity described in the Bible. In theology, this is the problem of theodicy, which is the branch of theology that vindicates God’s divine attributes (particularly holiness and justice) in the face of the existence of physical and moral evil. With respect to the first assertion—that God is a tyrannical murderer of the innocent—evilbible.com displays a gross misunderstanding of history, which compounds their misunderstanding of God’s character. Referencing Old Testament accounts of God imposing judgment on various cultures and peoples, evilbible.com says: “The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.)” It is interesting to note that this absurd statement—that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality, a position straight out the homosexual activists’ handbook—is completely illogical. The statement asserts that God was justified in “slaughtering” the people of Sodom because they were inhospitable. Yet they go on to claim He was not justified in punishing cultures who practiced true wickedness. And when, incidentally, has anyone who displayed a lack of hospitality ever been referred to as a Sodomite? The sin of Sodom was gross immorality and violent homosexuality, as Genesis 19 accurately records. The claim that those God punished were “uniformly blameless” is completely without merit and historically inaccurate. The Bible records the exact opposite about the peoples whom God acted upon in judgment. A few examples include: “After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations* that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”* (Deuteronomy 9:4\-5, emphasis added). “Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations* before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God”* (Deuteronomy 18:12\-13, emphasis added). "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.* Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants"* (Leviticus 18:24\-25, emphasis added). Evilbible.com overlooks the historical evidences that these nations and cultures practiced the very things that evilbible.com decries as morally reprehensible. As just one example, the Assyrians who inhabited Nineveh during the time of Jonah were an incredibly barbaric and cruel people. When archaeologists uncovered Nineveh, the TV specials produced from their work had to be filtered because the evidence of brutality was so great. The discoveries unearthed facts such as how the Assyrians used to slowly impale their victims by sliding them down sharp poles, and that they also made handbags from their victim’s skins. In a stone pillar found at Nineveh, one Assyrian ruler boasted of “nobles I flayed” and “three thousand captives I burned with fire. I left not one hostage alive. I cut off the hands and feet of some. I cut off the noses, ears and fingers of others. The eyes of numerous soldiers I put out. Maidens I burned as a holocaust.” Such things certainly speak against evilbible.com’s claims that the people who fell under God’s judgment were innocent. Other examples include the inhabitants of Jericho who history has shown practiced child sacrifice, cultic prostitution, and much more. Evilbible.com also overlooks the patience of God in dealing with such people. God always waited for the nations who ultimately experienced judgment to turn from their despicable ways and always warned them of the judgment that was coming. The book of Jonah describes God’s patience with the Ninevites, who finally did turn from their evil ways and avoided destruction. Other peoples and cultures could have repented of their sins, but they chose not to. As an example, the people of Amalek (described in 1 Samuel) routinely attempted to commit genocide against Israel, but were given 400 years by God to repent. But Amalek continued to commit their atrocities against Israel and so God judged them via Saul and the Israeli army. Evilbible.com does not stop to consider that if one were to catapult the practices, genocide, and barbarism of these cultures/peoples into the 21st century and broadcast it around the world via CNN, there would most certainly be a global outcry for severe military action and punishment. And if modern, “enlightened” man would call for such severe judgment against such atrocities, why should evilbible.com criticize God for carrying out the same thing? Lastly, in regard to evilbible.com’s claim that God is creator of evil, they present the following rationale and verse from the King James Version to support their position: “God Is The Creator Of Evil: Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil. Please read verse Isaiah 45:7\. ‘I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.” The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?” In evilbible.com’s defense, the verse from Isaiah 45:7 has been misunderstood by many people, primarily because of a poor translation in the King James Bible (and ASV). Parts of the book of Isaiah are of the poetry genre, and there is a literary technique used at times in Hebrew poetry called antithetical parallelism which sets two thoughts in complete contrast to one another, which is exactly what is happening in Isaiah 45:7\. For example, if you were asked what the opposition of “light” is, you would likely respond “darkness,” which is what Isaiah 45:7 says. But if you were asked what the opposite of “peace” is, would you respond “evil”? No, you likely wouldn’t. This is why nearly all other translations of this verse (including the New King James Version) translate the word “calamity” or something similar, as that is what the antithetical structure of the verse mandates. God does not bring moral evil upon anyone, but He does bring about calamity and disaster upon those who oppose Him. Such a thing does not make Him evil; it makes Him a just and righteous God. So, in the end, the above examples (and others present on the web site) show how a misunderstanding of history and wrong biblical interpretation lead to the wrong conclusion about God’s character. Is God evil? – A Misunderstanding of God’s Creation The last broad issue found on the evilbible.com web site is a misunderstanding of God’s creation, which manifests itself most in the problem of evilbible.com borrowing from the Christian moral worldview to carry out its arguments against God and the Bible instead of using its own atheistic foundation. In essence, evilbible.com invokes a Christian framework to deny the Christian God, a technique that is irrational and disingenuous, to say the least. For example, evilbible.com declares: “It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer.” Here’s the problem with making such a statement: without God, evilbible.com has no real foundation for the morality it claims, no moral framework from which to attack God. Why is this the case? Because before a person can call something bad (as evilbible.com does God and the Bible), a person must know what good is. But before a person can call something good, he must have a moral framework to distinguish between good and bad. But before someone can have a moral framework to distinguish good and bad, he must have absolute moral laws to build that framework. But before a person can have absolute moral laws, he must have an absolute moral Lawgiver (laws don’t give themselves). Now the atheists have backed themselves into a corner, because the only absolute moral Lawgiver you can have is God. This is why intellectually honest atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, rightly understand that an atheist can’t ever call anything bad or good —the atheist foundation doesn’t support such a stance. In his book, River out of Eden, he writes, “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA . . . life has no design, no purpose, *no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” (emphasis added). Since, being atheists, the writers of evilbible.com cannot be intellectually honest and use the term “evil,” they should rename their web site to something that is not prefaced with the word “evil.” All evilbible.com can assert is what atheist evolutionist William Provine calls “approximate morals,” but they can never have ethics that are globally, eternally, and universally binding upon everyone, and thus cannot call anything evil. Another misunderstanding of God’s creation is exhibited in evilbible.com’s claim that God Himself is impossible. Evilbible.com puts forth a variety of common arguments against God, but the overall theme is that creation as we know it refutes the existence of the God described in the Bible. Here again the argument of the existence of evil is used to reject God. Evilbible.com wrongly rejects the argument of free will being the catalyst of evil (which it is/was) and mistakenly rejects the fact that, yes, there is evil in this world, but perhaps God has a good reason for permitting it. Jesus dying on the cross appeared on the surface to be the epitome of gratuitous evil, but out of that event, mankind was redeemed from the misery it finds itself in. God’s gift of freedom, and the misuse of that freedom, clearly explains the moral evil we experience. As Augustine said, “Such is the generosity of God’s goodness that He has not refrained from creating even that creature which He foreknew would not only sin, but remain in the will to sin. As a runaway horse is better than a stone which does not run away because it lacks self\-movement and sense perception, so the creature is more excellent which sins by free will than that which does not sin only because it has no free will.” Moreover, evilbible.com posits God as impossible because of supposed contradictions in His nature that do not match the world, yet they are perfectly happy to accept that an impersonal, amoral, meaningless, purposeless universe accidentally created personal beings who are obsessed with morality, meaning, and purpose in life. If, as they argue, a cause must resemble its effect, then what explanation do they give for this contradiction? Mindless matter has no way of producing mind or anything similar. The fact is, the Being who is the cause of everything in the universe perfectly mirrors the God described in the Bible. This is 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 a cognitive being can produce cognitive beings. • 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. Is God evil? – Conclusion* A misunderstanding of God’s Word, His character, and His creation all result in the argumentation errors found on evilbible.com. A fitting summation of their stance is this statement made on their web site: “I don’t think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible.” For certain, there are apparent difficulties that arise when one begins studying the Bible. But a person should not assume God doesn’t exist and/or the Bible is in error just because he encounters a problem in the Bible that he can’t immediately understand or explain. The scientist doesn’t throw out science just because he/she sees something in the physical world he can’t immediately explain. Neither should we do the same with theology or the study of Scripture. Misunderstandings like those committed by evilbible.com are the result of not thoroughly investigating matters or dismissing a belief based on a presupposition that is buried deep in a person’s heart or lifestyle (or both). And the danger in both cases is something Pascal warned about many years ago: “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” What self\-described atheists find attractive about denying God is that they think if they deny Him, they will never have to deal with Him in any way. Sadly, they couldn’t be more wrong.
Should the title of "reverend" be given to a church leader?	Answer Psalm 111:9 (KJV) states, referring to God, "Reverend is his name." Some interpret this as saying the title "reverend" is to be used of God alone and vehemently oppose any human church leader being referred to as “reverend.” The original Hebrew word, though, is not referring to a title. It is declaring that God’s name is to be "revered, highly respected." The NIV, NAS, NKJV, and ESV all render the Hebrew word “holy and awesome” instead of the KJV’s rendering of “reverend.” Whatever the case, if you are uncomfortable using the title "reverend" for a church leader, by all means, use some other title. In most churches/denominations, the title of “reverend” is given to a person who has undergone formal ministry training and has been examined by those in church leadership. This is commonly known as “[ordination](ordination.html).” A “reverend” is a person who has been formally “ordained” into the ministry. First Timothy 5:17 states, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." A godly man who exemplifies 1 Timothy 3:1\-13 and sets a godly example in word and deed is worthy of being "respected." Whether or not the title of “reverend” should be used is a matter of personal conviction and preference.
Should there be a church position of armor-bearer?	Answer In Scripture, an armor\-bearer (also spelled armorbearer and armor bearer) was a servant who carried additional weapons for commanders. Abimelech (Judges 9:54\), Saul (1 Samuel 16:21\), Jonathan (1 Samuel 14:6\-17\), and Joab (2 Samuel 18:15\) had armor\-bearers/armorbearers. Armor\-bearers were also responsible for killing enemies wounded by their masters. After enemy soldiers were wounded with javelins or arrows, armor\-bearers finished the job with clubs or swords. After the time of David, armor\-bearers are no longer mentioned, likely due to the fact that commanders began to fight from chariots (1 Kings 12:18; 20:33\). Some churches today have instituted a figurative position of armor\-bearer. The duties range widely, but generally speaking, a church armor\-bearer carries the “armor” of a church leader, such as the leader’s Bible, “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12\). In some instances, a church armor\-bearer essentially serves as a church leader’s bodyguard. Is the idea of a church armor\-bearer biblically based? No, it is not. Does the concept of a church armor\-bearer contradict anything in Scripture? Not necessarily. Any church considering such a position should prayerfully study God’s Word and make sure the responsibilities assigned in no way conflict with the New Testament’s teaching on the church. The fact that the New Testament nowhere mentions armor\-bearers and nowhere describes any of the apostles/prophets/elders having a person in that role should give pause to any church considering instituting the role of armor\-bearer.
What does the Bible say about bestiality?	Answer The Bible mentions bestiality in four different passages. Exodus 22:19 says, “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” Leviticus 18:23 declares, “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” Leviticus 20:15\-16 commands, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Deuteronomy 27:21 agrees, “Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.” From these verses, it is abundantly clear that, according to the Bible, bestiality is a horrible, unnatural, and abominable sin. Why is bestiality condemned so strongly? First, it is an unnatural perversion. Clearly, human beings were designed/intended to mate with other human beings, not animals. In the creation account, none of the animals were “suitable” for Adam (Genesis 2:20\). Second, bestiality represents the ultimate of sexual deviancy. The fact that the animal was to be put to death (Leviticus 20:15\-16\), despite the fact that it would be “innocent,” indicates how wickedly perverse bestiality is. Third, and perhaps most importantly, bestiality essentially denies the uniqueness of humanity which God created in His image (Genesis 1:27\). Bestiality lowers humanity to nothing more than an animal, a beast which is unable to distinguish right from wrong, natural from unnatural, love from lust. The New Testament nowhere mentions bestiality by name, but that should not be interpreted as an allowance for bestiality or a weakening of God’s moral standards. Bestiality is by definition included in Scripture’s many prohibitions against sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 13:4\).
Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?	Answer In order to argue against Protestantism and [Sola Scriptura](sola-scriptura.html), Roman Catholics will often ask, sarcastically, that if we are to only go by what the Bible says, not church tradition, which of the 30,000\-plus Protestant denominations has the correct interpretation? The argument is essentially that, since the Reformation has resulted in thousands of denominations/divisions within Christianity, which is clearly not God’s desire, Sola Scriptura must be invalid and God must have established an infallible interpreter of Scripture; namely, the Roman Catholic Church, the first church, the one true church of God. The “30,000 Protestant denominations” argument fails on several points. First, there are not 30,000 Protestant denominations. Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, there are nowhere close to 30,000 Protestant denominations. The only way to get even remotely close to the 30,000 figure is to count every minor separation as an entirely different denomination. Further, the vast majority of Protestant Christians belong to just a handful of the most common Protestant denominations; i.e., Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. Yes, it is undeniably sad that there are so many denominations, but the 30,000 Protestant denominations argument is an extreme exaggeration of the reality of the divisions within Protestantism. Second, even if there genuinely were 30,000 Protestant denominations, one thing *all* Protestant denominations agree on is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one true church of God. Protestant denominations are unanimous in rejecting the [papacy](pope-papacy.html), the supremacy of Rome, [prayer to saints/Mary](prayer-saints-Mary.html), [worship of saints/Mary](worship-saints-Mary.html), [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html), [purgatory](purgatory.html), and most other Roman Catholic dogmas. Sola Scriptura has led all Protestant denominations to the same conclusion – the Bible does not teach many of the things Roman Catholics practice/believe. Further, outside of disagreeing with Roman Catholicism, the Protestant denominations agree on far more issues than they disagree on. Most of the Protestant denominations were formed because of a non\-essential doctrine, a side issue, on which Christians can agree to disagree. As an example, Pentecostalism separated from the other denominations based primarily on the issue of speaking in tongues. While tongues can be an important issue in the Christian life, in no sense does it determine the genuineness of faith in Christ. Third, there is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. There is no infallible denomination or church. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue. The key is this – all the essentials of the faith are abundantly clear in God’s Word. We do not need an infallible interpreter or 2,000 years of church tradition to determine that there is one God who exists in three Persons, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, that Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, that salvation is received by grace through faith, that there is an eternal heaven awaiting those who trust in Christ and an eternal hell for those who reject Him. The core truths that a person needs to know and understand are absolutely and abundantly clear in Scripture. Even on the non\-essentials, if Sola Scriptura were consistently applied, there would be unanimity. The problem is that it is very difficult to perfectly and fully apply Sola Scriptura, as our own biases, faults, preferences, and traditions often get in the way. The fact that there are many different denominations is not an argument against Sola Scriptura. Rather, it is evidence that we all fail at truly allowing God’s Word to fully shape our beliefs, practices, and traditions.
What is the biblical method of evangelism?	Answer When trying to decide how to share Christ with someone, the starting point should be the same as that of John the Baptist and Jesus Himself. Matthew 3:2 tells us that John began his ministry with the words “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” Repentance refers to a “change of mind,” which implies sorrow for past offences (2 Corinthians 7:10\), a deep sense of the evil of sin as committed against God (Psalm 51:4\), and a conscious decision to turn from sin to God. The first words Jesus spoke when He began His public ministry were identical to John’s (Matthew 4:17\). Biblical evangelism – The good news and the bad news The word "gospel" means "good news." While many well\-meaning Christians begin their evangelistic efforts with the good news of God’s love for mankind, that message is lost on unbelievers who must first come to grips with the extent of the bad news. First, man is separated from a holy, righteous God by sin. Second, God hates sin and is “angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11\). Third, death and judgment are inevitable (Hebrews 9:27\). Fourth, man is wholly incapable of doing anything about the situation. Until the full extent of this bad news is presented, the good news cannot be effectively communicated. Biblical evangelism – The holiness of God What is missing from much modern evangelism is the holiness of God. In Isaiah’s vision of heaven, God’s holiness is being extolled by the seraphim around the throne. Of all the attributes of God they could have praised, it was His holiness—not His love—of which they sang. “And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory’" (Isaiah 6:3\). When we understand just how holy God is, we can begin to understand His hatred of sin and His righteous wrath against sinners. Zechariah 8:16\-17 and Proverbs 6:16\-19 outline the sins God hates—pride, lying, murder, false witness, those who stir up trouble, and those with evil in their hearts. We cringe at the idea of God actually hating, because we are more comfortable with Him as a God of love, which He certainly is. But His hatred is real and it burns against evil (Isaiah 5:25; Hosea 8:5; Zechariah 10:3\). The unsaved person stands in mortal peril of the wrath of holy God, as Hebrews 10:31 reminds us: “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” An unbeliever is separated from God by his sin, which God hates, and there is nothing he can do about it. His nature is corrupt and fallen and he is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1\) with no hope of redeeming himself. He cannot save himself, in spite of good intentions or good works (Romans 3:20\). Every good work that man thinks he can do is as “filthy rags” in God’s sight (Isaiah 64:6\). No amount of good living will make us acceptable in God’s eyes because the standard is holiness, without which no one will see God (Hebrews 12:14\). Biblical evangelism – Salvation through Jesus Christ But now comes the good news. What man could not do to save himself, God accomplished on the cross. Jesus exchanged His righteous, holy nature for our sinful nature so that we can stand before God completely clean and pure, new creations with the old sin nature gone forever (2 Corinthians 5:17\-21\). God provided the perfect sacrifice for our sin, not because we deserved it or earned it, but because of His love and grace and mercy (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Only those whose natures have been changed can escape the wrath of God and live in the light of His love and mercy. If we believe these things and commit our lives to following Christ by faith, we will live eternally with Him in the bliss and glory of heaven. This is good news indeed. Biblical evangelism begins with prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in witnessing, open doors of opportunity, and a clear understanding of the bad news of sin and wrath and the good news of love, grace, mercy, and faith.
What is Puritanism and what did the Puritans believe?	Answer The Puritans were a widespread and diverse group of people who took a stand for religious purity in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in Europe. Their rise was directly related to the increased knowledge that came to the common people in the Age of Enlightenment. As people learned to read and write, and as the Bible became more accessible to commoners, many began to read the Bible for themselves (a habit that was strongly discouraged in the established church). Some Puritans were connected with Anabaptist groups in continental Europe, but the majority were connected with the Church of England. The word Puritan was first coined in the 1560s as a derisive term for those who advocated more purity in worship and doctrine. The English Puritans, who are the most familiar to Americans, believed that the English Reformation had not gone far enough and that the Church of England was still tolerating too many practices that were associated with the Church of Rome (such as hierarchical leadership, clerical vestments, and the various rituals of the church). Many Puritans advocated separation from all other Christian groups, but most were “non\-separating” and desired to bring cleansing and change to the church from within. Holding a high view of Scripture, and deeming it as the only true law of God, Puritans believed that each individual, as well as each congregation, was directly responsible to God, rather than answering through a mediator such as a priest, bishop, etc. The Congregational Church in America is a descendant of the early Puritan settlers, and any group that advocates congregational rule and individual piety has been impacted in some way by Puritan teaching. Even today, theologians from many church backgrounds appreciate reading the works of the old Puritan divines, even if they differ in some points of doctrine. Throughout their history, the Puritans were viewed and treated in a variety of ways by both civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Often, they were grudgingly tolerated, and at other times they were severely persecuted. Charles I of England made efforts to purge all Puritan influences from England, which resulted in the Great Migration to Europe and the American Colonies. The Pilgrims who formed the Massachusetts Bay Colony were separatist Puritans who had been forced out of England and Holland. Non\-separatist Puritans who remained in England responded to this persecution with the English Civil War (1641\-51\), which led to the execution of Charles I, the exile of his son, Charles II, and the rise of Oliver Cromwell. Both America and Great Britain owe a great debt to the Puritans for the foundations they laid that gave us the framework for our freedoms today. Philosophies such as the “divine right” of kings gave way to individual liberties and the recognition of the rights of the common man. The “Yankee work ethic” came about because of the belief that a man’s work is done first for God’s approval. The belief in public education comes from the Puritans, who founded the first school in America (Roxbury, 1635\), as well as the first college (Harvard, 1639\), so that people would be able to read the Bible for themselves. The moral foundations of the early United States came from the emphasis on godly behavior by Puritan leaders. Even Alexis de Tocqueville, after studying America in the 1830s, declared that Puritanism was the primary foundation that gave rise to our democratic republic. Some well\-known Puritans are [John Bunyan](John-Bunyan.html) (The Pilgrim’s Progress), John Winthrop (“City upon a Hill” sermon), Cotton Mather, and [John Foxe](John-Foxe.html) (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs).
Who are the Wesleyans, and what are the beliefs of the Wesleyan Church?	Answer The Wesleyans are an evangelical Protestant church group who trace their heritage back to [John Wesley](John-Wesley.html). Wesley was the founder of the Methodist movement, which came out of the Church of England in the mid\-1700s. The name “Methodist” referred to the practice of several “methods” of personal discipline to live the Christian life. Generally speaking, the Wesleyan Church, as others of the Methodist movement, holds to an [Arminian](arminianism.html) doctrine which emphasizes man’s free will in spiritual matters, and teaches that a person can lose salvation. A key doctrine of the church is “prevenient grace,” which refers to God’s grace working in an individual before his or her decision to trust Christ, and enabling him or her to receive God’s gift of salvation. The modern American Wesleyan Church can be traced back to a split with the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1843 over the issue of slavery. The leaders of the new Wesleyan Church saw a need to spread scriptural holiness over the land and secure justice for their fellow human beings. In addition to social causes like slavery, the church emphasized a deepening experience with God, resulting in purity of heart and ultimately leading to “entire sanctification,” or sinless perfection in this life. In 1966, the Wesleyan Church merged with the Alliance of Reformed Baptists of Canada. In 1968, the Pilgrim Holiness Church merged with the Wesleyans. According to church headquarters (in Fishers, Indiana), the church currently has over 400,000 members in about 4,000 churches. In keeping with their heritage, the Wesleyan Church today emphasizes applying the Christian experience to social issues. Discrimination and prejudice are key topics of concern, whether applied to race, gender, age, or other areas of life. The foundation for their concern in this area is Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Wesleyans have been at the forefront of the egalitarian debate, insisting that women are fully equal with men with regards to their position and function in the church. John Maxwell and George Beverly Shea are two examples of Wesleyans who have attained national recognition.
Who are the Shriners?	Answer The Shriners organization is called the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, or A.A.O.N.M.S. It was established in New York City in 1870, and is an appendant body to [Freemasonry](free-masonry.html). From its inception, the focus was on camaraderie, and Shriners use the phrase "Pleasure without intemperance, hospitality without rudeness and jollity without coarseness." The Shriners are a fraternal organization, and its members are bound by oaths of loyalty. The membership is limited to men that are third degree, or master Masons. Apparently there is no direct connection to Islam, even though they have a Middle Eastern theme in their dress and logos. Freemasonry is shrouded in mystery, and many consider it to be a quasi\-religious body. Conservative, fundamental churches commonly do not allow oath\-bound members of such organizations to be members of their churches. Externally, Freemasonry exists as a social/fraternal organization and seems to exist primarily for social purposes. The belief system of the Shriners arises from their association with Freemasonry, but they do not seem to aggressively recruit members or actively propagate the teachings of the parent body. The Shriners have several socially beneficial projects. The most significant one is the Shriners Hospitals, which they control through the Imperial Council, their governing board. While the Shriners do some good and admirable things, due to their connection with Freemasonry, Christians should not be members of, or associated with, the Shriners. For more information, we strongly recommend [Ex\-Masons for Jesus](http://www.emfj.org/).
What is the doctrine of eternal generation and is it biblical?	Answer The doctrine of eternal generation harkens back to the early stages of the Christian church. This doctrine, along with the [eternal procession](eternal-procession.html) of the Holy Spirit, form the basis for the complete doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was codified in the Nicene Creed, which is universally accepted as an accurate statement of faith in both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Furthermore, this doctrine has also been included in such Reformation confessions of faith as the [Belgic Confession](Belgic-Confession.html) (Articles X \& XI) and the [Westminster Confession of Faith](Westminster-Confession-of-Faith.html) (Chapter II.3\). These two confessions stand as the doctrinal standard for many Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide. When discussing [the Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html), we are immediately confronted with the fact that it is a doctrine clouded in mystery. As finite, created beings, we will never be able to fully comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity; it is simply beyond our ability to fully comprehend. All human analogies used to explain the Trinity break down at some level. So, we need humility as we try to explain these things. We should not attempt to go further than the Scriptures warrant. Every heresy concerning the Trinity has arisen out of an attempt to explain the inexplicable. With that said, let’s review what is commonly believed within evangelical circles in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity makes four basic assertions: 1\. There is one and only one true and living God. 2\. This one God eternally exists in three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 3\. These three Persons are completely equal in attributes, each sharing the same divine nature. 4\. While each Person is fully and completely God, the Persons are not identical. These four claims are universally accepted by all professing Christians whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. Each of these four claims can be defended with Scripture. If we accept these as true, then we should be able to compare the doctrine of eternal generation against these and see if it holds up. The doctrine of eternal generation essentially teaches that God the Father eternally and by necessity generates or begets God the Son in such a way that the substance (the divine essence) of God is not divided. In other words, there is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the exact representation (or express image) of God the Father. There is still one divine essence that eternally exists in two persons through eternal generation. Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof states the doctrine of eternal generation in this way: It is that eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby He, within the divine Being, is the ground of a second personal subsistence like His own, and puts this second person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change (Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1938, p. 94\). So, we see that eternal generation is an act performed by the First Person of the Trinity. Furthermore, this act by the First Person is necessarily and eternally performed. Finally, the result of this act is the generation of the Second Person of the Trinity in such a way that the entire divine essence is communicated from the Father to the Son. Because of this act of eternal generation, the relational terms Father and Son are used to identify the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The Father eternally generates the Son, and the Son (having no beginning or end) is eternally generated by the Father. This is similar to human generation (which, we note, is neither eternal nor necessary) in that human fathers also “generate” or “beget” human sons in their own image. The doctrine of eternal generation is sometimes attacked on the basis that the idea of begetting implies a creation in time or that it suggests an ontological dependence. In response, we note that all human analogies regarding the Trinity eventually break down, so we can’t carry our analogies too far. Also, the qualifiers eternally and necessarily should remove any concerns of a temporal or subordinate relationship between the Father and the Son. The qualifier eternal removes this relationship from the constraints of time and space; there was no beginning, and will be no end to the generation of the Son from the Father. The qualifier necessarily removes any ontological dependence between the Father and the Son; the Son must be generated from the Father, and the Father must generate the Son. The terms Father and Son do more than analogize the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Trinity; they also help explain a theological truth. There is a hierarchical and functional order being described here—one that defines the activity of Father and Son in the economy of creation and salvation. The Father speaks the universe into existence, and the Son is the agent of that creation. The Father elects the chosen unto salvation, and the Son provides the necessary atonement. The Father sends the Son, and not the other way around. This hierarchy of role and function in no way diminishes the ontological equality between the Father and the Son; they are both essentially God, sharing equally in the full divine essence. So, the terms Father and Son, far from being a mere [anthropomorphism](anthropomorphism.html), go to the heart of defining this necessary and eternal relationship. As such, the doctrine of eternal generation is clearly in line with our four assertions concerning the Trinity, above. Is this doctrine supported in Scripture? Consider the following verses: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1\) “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14\) “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18\) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16\) “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26\) “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.” (John 14:11\) “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21\) “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3\) The thrust of these verses, as they apply to the Trinity, is to suggest that the relationship between Father and Son has existed for all eternity and is grounded in ontological equality. Also worth consideration are the words of the [Nicene Creed](Nicene-creed.html) and the Westminster Confession of Faith as they pertain to eternal generation: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only\-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed) In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (WCF, II.3\) Based on Scripture and the witness of the creeds and confessions, we can be sure that the doctrine of eternal generation is biblical. We should not expect every believer to have a fully mature grasp of this doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity—including the doctrine of eternal generation—is the centerpiece of orthodox theology and should be affirmed by every true believer, but it is not a requirement for a true confession of faith. In other words, salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8\). As one studies the Christian faith, one will come to a more mature understanding of this doctrine.
Can a Christian be a model?	Answer As Christians, our goal is to please the Lord. So, with that goal in mind, we should prepare ourselves for careers that are rewarding to ourselves, beneficial to others, and, most especially, pleasing to God. It could be possible that the Lord would allow a Christian to pursue a career in modeling, but, generally, He has a higher calling for His people. Romans 12:1\-2 says, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” The question for the Christian to decide is whether modeling is consistent with our command to offer our bodies to God and whether such a career is “holy and pleasing” to Him. The whole purpose of the book of Romans is for Christians to know the truth of how we should live, the truth about what God expects of us, the truth about God and His judgments of our way of life. The first eleven chapters are about righteousness—the unrighteousness of fallen sinners, our need for God’s righteousness, and His provision of that righteousness through Christ. When we get to chapter 12, the first word is “therefore.” Having built the case that we have been redeemed by God out of our hopeless, sinful state, it is obvious that our calling is to be different from the world and no longer to buy into the lies of image\-obsessed cultures. There are some sad realities in the world of modeling. Many aspiring models work at minimum\-wage jobs waiting for their big break, which, for most, never comes. The lifestyles of fashion models is also a reason for concern. There is a considerable amount of drugs and immoral behavior in the fashion industry. Young women are often used and abused by those in power. The highly competitive nature of the industry leads to greed, dishonesty, and cutthroat tactics. Those whose living is dependent upon the success of a designer, fashion house, or product line are at the mercy of these tactics. While it may be possible for a Christian to be in this world and not be affected by it, 1 Corinthians 15:33 warns us, “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’" God is very concerned about how we use or abuse our bodies. “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” (1 Corinthians 6:19\-20\). Christians are not to try to look like the world; rather, we are to be a special, purified people (Titus 2:14\), people who are set apart as belonging to the Lord. Christians should be well dressed and appropriately fashioned, not to bring the focus on ourselves, but so that we can go about the work God has for us without being overly concerned about our appearance. Women, especially, are exhorted to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9\), and, since only the most successful models are given the choice of which clothes to model (unless the model wants to remain unemployed), it is hard to see how the modeling industry is compatible with a Christian worldview and dressing modestly. Romans reminds us that Christians are to be set apart from the world, especially aspects of the world which are ungodly. Once we have accepted Christ and pledged our lives to Him, then we are ready to do some real modeling, because there is no greater calling in this world than to model Christ.
What is the Nazirite/Nazarite vow?	Answer The Nazirite/Nazarite vow is taken by individuals who have voluntarily dedicated themselves to God. The vow is a decision, action, and desire on the part of people whose desire is to yield themselves to God completely. By definition, the Hebrew word nazir, simply means “to be separated or consecrated.” The Nazirite vow, which appears in Numbers 6:1\-21, has five features. It is voluntary, can be done by either men or women, has a specific time frame, has specific requirements and restrictions, and at its conclusion a sacrifice is offered. First, the individual enters into this vow voluntarily. The Bible says, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite’” (Numbers 6:2\). This shows that it is individuals who take the initiative to consecrate themselves to the Lord. There is no divine command involved. While generally done by the individual by his own choice, two individuals in the Old Testament, and one in the New Testament, were presented to God by their parents. Samuel and Samson in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 2:8\-28; Judges 13:1\-5\), and John the Baptist in the New Testament received the Nazirite vow from birth (Luke 1:13\-17\). Second, both men and women could participate in this vow, as Numbers 6:2 indicates, “a man or woman.” The Nazirite vow was often taken by men and women alike purely for personal reasons, such as thanksgiving for recovery from illness or for the birth of a child. However, under the Mosaic law, the vow or oath of a single woman could be rescinded by her father, and that of a married woman by her husband (Numbers 30\). Third, the vow had a specific time frame, a beginning and an end as these two statements indicate: “Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD... Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over” (Numbers 6:8, 13a). So, the Nazirite vow usually had both a beginning and an end. Fourth, there were specific guidelines and restrictions involved with the Nazirite vow. Three guidelines are given to the Nazirite. Numbers 6:3\-7 tells us that he/she was to abstain from wine or any fermented drink, nor was the Nazirite to drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins, not even the seeds or skins. Next, the Nazirite was not to cut his hair for the length of the vow. Last, he was not to go near a dead body, because that would make him ceremonially unclean. Even if a member of his immediate family died, he was not to go near the corpse. Numbers 6:13\-20 shows the procedure to follow to complete the vow. A sacrifice was made (vv.13\-17\), the candidate’s hair was cut and put on the altar, and the priest did the final task of completing the sacrificial process, which ended the vow (v. 20\). This section concludes with the statement, “This is the law of the Nazirite who vows his offering to the LORD in accordance with his separation, in addition to whatever else he can afford. He must fulfill the vow he has made, according to the law of the Nazirite”(6:21\). Although the Nazirite vow is an Old Testament concept, there is a New Testament parallel to the Nazirite vow. In Romans 12:1\-2 Paul states, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” For Christians, the ancient Nazirite vow symbolizes the need to be separate from this world, a holy people consecrated to God (2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15\).
What is the serenity prayer?	Answer The serenity prayer is attributed to a Protestant theologian named Reinhold Niebuhr (1892\-1971\). There are various versions of the serenity prayer floating around with minor alterations. Niebuhr himself did not publish the serenity prayer until 1951, in one of his magazine columns, although it had previously appeared under his name in 1944, when it was included in a Federal Council of Churches book for army chaplains and servicemen. The text of the entire serenity prayer is as follows: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him Forever in the next. Amen. The first two lines are most familiar because of their association with Alcoholics Anonymous. The co\-founder of AA, William Griffith Wilson, and his staff liked the serenity prayer and had it printed out in modified form and handed around. It has been part of Alcoholics Anonymous ever since and has also been used in other twelve\-step programs. Biblically speaking, there are some excellent thoughts expressed in this prayer and may very well be something Christians can pray and meditate on. The serenity prayer speaks of a life lived in calm, courageous faith in God, reminiscent of Paul’s admonition to “be anxious for nothing” (Philippians 4:6\). Fretting and worrying our way through life indicates a lack of faith in our God and an unwillingness to surrender to His will and trust that He has all things under control. At the same time, the serenity prayer says God takes the sinful world as it is. If that were true, He would not have sent His Son to die for sin and reconcile the sinful world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19\). But He did send Jesus, and those who accept His sacrifice are the only ones who have a real hope of being “reasonably happy” in this life and supremely happy in the next.
What did Jesus mean when He said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold” (John 10:16)?	Answer John 10:16 states, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (NKJV). Jesus made this statement during an encounter with religious leaders after healing a blind man (see John 9\). In the discourse, Jesus refers to Himself as the [Good Shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html) and uses three separate analogies to convey essential truths to the leaders and those standing by. The first analogy is that His sheep will recognize His voice and follow Him (John 10:1–6\). In the second analogy, Jesus emphasizes His authority as the only way anyone can come in, in contrast to the leaders who are “thieves” and “robbers” (verses 7–9\). Then comes the third analogy where Jesus directly calls Himself the Good Shepherd (verses 10–14; cf. Psalm 23:1\). Although these analogies are slightly different, they all relate to one concept: Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (see John 14:6\). As if these analogies weren’t offensive enough to His Jewish listeners, Jesus had more to say. He declared that He had more followers besides those who were already with Him. There were other followers who had not yet believed, including Gentiles. God’s salvation plan was progressive, beginning from Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” The pronoun he refers to Jesus, and although Satan “struck his heel” at Golgotha, Jesus crushed him on behalf of humanity (1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14–15\). A series of events occurred after the fall, leading to the selection of Israel as God’s [chosen people](Gods-chosen-people.html) through whom Jesus came to earth (Deuteronomy 7:6; Romans 9:5\). The Jews viewed this selection as their national identity, so the inclusion of unclean Gentiles as “other sheep” must have come as an unpleasant surprise. After all, they expected the Messiah to deliver them from the Gentile Romans. However, Jesus was merely proclaiming what God had already revealed through the prophets (Joel 2:28; Zechariah 2:11; Isaiah 49:6\). Scripture also hinted at the salvation of the Gentiles when God promised Abraham that “all the people of the earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3; cf. Galatians 3:8\). Some of the “other sheep” came when 3,000 Jews were saved in Acts 2:41\. [Samaritans](Samaritans.html) and an Ethiopian eunuch joined the fold in Acts 8\. Then the Holy Spirit led Peter to [Cornelius](Cornelius-in-the-Bible.html), opening the door for Gentiles to come in (Acts 10\). Thereafter, the Spirit chose Paul and Barnabas to take the good news to the Gentiles, a mission that sparked the spread of Christianity worldwide. It has been over 2,000 years since then, and millions of the “other sheep” have come into the fold. In different continents, nations, tribes, and languages, many individuals have pledged their trust to Jesus and received His gift of salvation. Even in countries hostile to the gospel, believers still flourish. However, the work is not done yet. We are called to be witnesses of the gospel, and through our witness, Christ draws more of His sheep into His fold.
Did Jesus heal two blind men (Matthew 20:29-34) or one blind man (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)?	Answer In spite of apparent discrepancies, these three passages do refer to the same incident. The Matthew account cites two men healed as Jesus left Jericho. Mark and Luke refer to only one blind man healed, but Luke says it happened as Jesus was entering Jericho while Mark records it happening as He left Jericho. There are legitimate explanations for the apparent discrepancies. Let’s look at them rather than deciding this is a contradiction and the Bible is in error. That this is the same incident is seen in the similarity of the accounts, beginning with the two beggars sitting on the roadside. They call out to Jesus, referring to Him as “Son of David” (Matthew 20:30; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:38\), and in all three accounts, they are rebuked by those nearby and told to be quiet but continue to shout out to Jesus (Matthew 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39\). The three accounts describe nearly identical conversations between Jesus and the beggars and the conclusions of the stories are also identical. The beggars receive their sight immediately and follow Jesus. Only Mark choses to identify one of the beggars as Bartimaeus, perhaps because Bartimaeus was known to Mark’s readers, or they knew Bartimaeus’s father, Timaeus, whereas the other blind man was a stranger to them. In any case, the fact that Mark and Luke only mention one beggar does not contradict Matthew’s account. Mark and Luke never say there was only one beggar. They simply focus on the one, Bartimaeus, who was probably the more vocal of the two. Matthew refers to both of the blind men calling out to Jesus, clearly indicating there were two. The other issue in question is whether Jesus was entering Jericho or leaving it. Bible commentators cite the fact that at that time there were two Jerichos—one the mound of the ancient city (still existing today) and the other the inhabited city of Jericho. Therefore, Jesus could have healed the two men as He was leaving the ancient city of Jericho and entering the new city of Jericho. In any case, to focus on these minor details to the exclusion of all else is to miss the point of the story—Jesus healed the blind men, proving that He was indeed the Son of God with powers beyond anything a mortal man could have. Unlike the Pharisees who refused to see what was before their eyes, our response to Jesus should be the same as that of the blind men—call on Him to give us eyes to see spiritual truth, recognize Him for who He is, and follow Him.

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.