Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
Why should we pray for the peace of Jerusalem?	Answer God tells us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem in Psalm 122:6\-9: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: ‘May those who love you be secure. May there be peace within your walls and security within your citadels.’ For the sake of my brothers and friends, I will say, ‘Peace be within you.’ For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your prosperity.” God promised blessings on those who bless Israel and curses on those who curse her (Genesis 12:3\), and since Jerusalem is depicted as the center of Jewish life, it follows that those who pray for her peace and security will be granted peace themselves. Praying for the peace of Jerusalem is most appropriate for a city whose name literally means “peaceful” and which is the residence of the God of peace. The phrase “peace be upon Israel” is found also at the end of Psalm 125:5 and 128:6, indicating that it was a common farewell blessing. Further, Jerusalem will be the scene of Christ’s return (Acts 1:11; Zechariah 14:4\), and at that time He will establish permanent peace with its walls. All Christians should be eagerly awaiting His return and praying for the time when the Prince of Peace will reign in Jerusalem. Jesus also said that we should be peacemakers, which would include praying for peace. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9\). And we are commanded to do our best to live at peace with others. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men” (Romans 12:18\). So, God wants us to seek peace among all people, and that would include praying for peace in Jerusalem, especially because of its special place in His heart.
Did one third of the angels fall with Lucifer?	Answer There is no verse in the Bible that says, “A third of the angels fell from heaven.” The idea that, when Satan rebelled against God, one third of the angels went with him comes from certain other verses that, when put together, suggest that’s what happened. On the sixth day of creation, God declared everything to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31\). We assume the “everything” includes [angels](angels-Bible.html). Sometime after that, Satan rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. Jesus witnessed the event: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18\)—an event that the Lord uses to explain the exorcisms performed by [the 72](70-or-72-disciples.html) (verse 17\). Another passage that also seems to describe the fall of Satan from heaven is Isaiah 14:12–15\. The context is primarily about a human king, as judgment is pronounced against [Babylon](Babylonian-empire.html). The poetic language used by Isaiah is so grand, however, that many scholars have concluded that there is more to the passage. References to “the whole earth” (Isaiah 14:7\), the king’s “fall from heaven” (verse 12\), his desire to exalt himself “above the stars” (verse 13\), and the symbolic name [Lucifer](Lucifer-Satan.html) or Light\-bringer (verse 12\) are all expressions of hyperbolic greatness. If the intended subject is only the human king of Babylon, then everything is figurative (and greatly exaggerated); however, if there is a secondary spiritual character in view, then the descriptions could be quite literal. God is pronouncing judgment on both “kings of Babylon”—the human king and the spiritual potentate who empowers him (Babylon being a symbol of rebellion from Genesis to Revelation). The wonderment of 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!”) could indeed have a dual interpretation. Further, the book of the Revelation describes “a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth” (Revelation 9:1\). This “star” is given a key to the bottomless pit and proceeds to release a horde of tormenting “locusts” (Revelation 9:2–11\). While Revelation 9:1 is not a clear reference to Satan, it could be: the fact that the “star” that fell from heaven has a key (authority) is no problem, especially since he uses the key to unleash terror upon the earth. So, the Bible explicitly and implicitly teaches that Satan fell from his position in heaven. But how do we know that one third of the angels also fell with him? The passage that best supports the idea that Satan took one third of the angels with him in rebellion is Revelation 12:3–4\. John sees a sign in heaven: “An enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.” John then relates that the dragon was hurled down to the earth and positively identifies it as “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray” (Revelation 12:9\). The dragon is not thrown to earth alone, however: “His angels were cast out with him” (verse 9\). The angels that are ejected from heaven with Satan we associate with the “third of the stars” that the dragon’s tail swept from heaven to earth in verse 4\. If the “stars” of Revelation 12:4 are indeed a symbolic reference to Satan’s “angels” in verse 9, then what we have is a reference to the fall of a portion of the angels (the heavenly hosts) who followed Satan in his rebellion. Two thirds of the angels remained loyal to God and are called the “holy angels” in Scripture (e.g., Mark 8:38\); one third of the original angels joined Satan and are called “unclean spirits” or “[demons](where-do-demons-come-from.html)” today (e.g., Mark 9:25\).
How should a Christian respond to unanswered prayer?	Answer How many Christians have prayed for someone, only to see their prayers go seemingly unanswered? How many have prayed and perhaps have “given up” because they have become discouraged at how long it has taken to have their prayer answered? God hears our prayers and will respond, but He will do so in His timing which is for our good and His glory. How we deal with unanswered prayer is not just for our own benefit but for the benefit of others as well. When we pray, we are engaging in the most precious and God\-given act of communication with the One to whom we are accountable for all we do. Yet, when we pray or speak to the One in heaven, there are times when He seems not to answer. In one sense, God answers every prayer with a “yes,” a “no,” or a “wait.” In every case, though, Scripture suggests that our prayers are being dealt with. The Lord Jesus is tender and loving; He loves our communing with God the Father, for He, Himself, is our representative (Hebrews 4:15\). Often, but not always, prayer is unanswered because of unconfessed sin. God cannot be mocked or deceived, and He who sits enthroned above knows us intimately, down to our every thought (Psalm 139:1\-4\). If we are not walking in the Spirit or we harbor enmity in our hearts toward our brother or we ask for things with the wrong motives (such as from selfish desires), our prayers are negatively impacted (2 Chronicles 7:14; Psalm 66:18; James 4:3\). Sin hinders our ability to be in fellowship with God, and it hinders our prayers. Unbelief (Proverbs 15:8\) and hypocrisy (Mark 12:40\) also negatively impact our prayers. Another reason why prayer seems to go unanswered is that the Lord is drawing out of our faith a deeper reliance and trust in Him, which should bring out of us a deeper sense of gratitude, love and humility. In turn, this causes us to benefit spiritually, for He gives grace to the humble (James 4:6; Proverbs 3:34\). Oh, how one feels for that poor Canaanite woman, who cried out incessantly to our Lord for mercy when He was visiting the region of Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 15:21\-28\)! She was hardly the person a Jewish rabbi would pay attention to. She was not a Jew and she was a woman, two reasons that Jews ignored her. The Lord doesn’t seem to answer her petitions, but He knew all about her situation. He may not have answered her stated needs immediately, but still He heard and granted her request. God may seem silent to us, but He never sends us away empty\-handed. Even if prayer has not been answered, we must rely upon God to do so in His own time. Even the exercise of prayer is a blessing to us; it is because of our faith that we are stirred to persist in prayer. It is faith that pleases God (Hebrews 11:6\), and if our prayer life is wanting, does that not reflect our spiritual standing also? God hears our impoverished cries for mercy, and His silence inflames us with a sense of persistence in prayer. He loves us to reason with Him. Let us hunger for the things that are after God’s heart and let us walk in His ways and not our own. If we are faithful to pray without ceasing, then we are living in the will of God, and that can never be wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:17\-18\).
What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to turn the other cheek?	Answer In Matthew 5:38–39, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” The concept of “turning the other cheek” is a difficult one for us to grasp. Allowing a second slap after being slapped once does not come naturally. In the section of Jesus’ [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html) in which He commands us to turn the other cheek, He addresses the need for true transformation, versus mere rule\-keeping. It’s not enough to obey the letter of the law; we must conform to the spirit of the law as well. Much of the material surrounding Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek complements the nature of His coming, which was characterized by mercy, sacrificial love, and longsuffering toward sinners. At the same time, Jesus affirms the “last is first” principle upon which the kingdom of God is based. For instance, He tells us to go the extra mile for someone who abuses us (Matthew 5:41\) and to love and pray for our enemies instead of holding enmity against them (verse 44\). In summary, Jesus is saying we need to be pure inside and out and as accommodating as possible for the sake of a lost world. A word about the “slap” that Jesus says we should endure. Jesus here speaks of personal slights of any kind. The slap (or the “smiting,” as the KJV has it) does not have to involve literal, physical violence. Even in our day, a “slap in the face” is a metaphor for an unexpected insult or offense. Did someone insult you? Let him, Jesus says. Are you shocked and offended? Don’t be. And don’t return insult for insult. Turn the other cheek. Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is helpful: “Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort” (Concise Commentary, entry for Matthew 5:38\). Turning the other cheek does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in danger. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek is simply a command to forgo retaliation for personal offenses. He was not setting government foreign policy, and He was not throwing out the judicial system. Crimes can still be prosecuted, and wars can still be waged, but the follower of Christ need not defend his personal “rights” or [avenge](revenge-vengeance.html) his honor. There was a time in history when a man would feel compelled to protect his honor against one who slandered him or otherwise besmirched his character. The offended party would challenge the offender to a duel. Swords, firearms, or other weapons were chosen, and the two enemies would face off. In most cases, senseless bloodshed ensued. Samuel Johnson wrote in favor of the practice of dueling: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” The problem is that “invasions of character” are exactly what Jesus told us to tolerate in Matthew 5:38\. Turning the other cheek would have been a better option than dueling, and it would have saved lives. Retaliation is what most people expect and how worldly people act. Turning the other cheek requires help from on high. Responding to hatred with love and ignoring personal slights display the supernatural power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and may afford the chance to share the gospel. Jesus was, of course, the perfect example of turning the other cheek because He was silent before His accusers and did not call down revenge from heaven on those who crucified Him. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34\).
Will we be naked in Heaven?	Answer Since Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Genesis 3\), and since there will be no curse in the New Earth (Revelation 22:3\), some speculate that, in eternity, we will be naked as well. While there would be nothing wrong with glorified believers in heaven being naked (there will be no lust there), it does not seem to be the case that believers will spend eternity naked. Angelic beings and those who have been redeemed are described in the Bible as wearing some kind of garments. In Daniel’s vision, the messenger (either an angelic being or a [pre\-incarnate appearance of Christ](theophany-Christophany.html)) was dressed in linen with a belt of fine gold around his waist. Similarly, the angel guarding Jesus’ tomb is described as wearing garments: “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow” (Matthew 28:3\). In Revelation 4:4, the [twenty\-four elders](24-elders.html) around the throne of God wear white clothing and golden crowns. Revelation 3:5 tells us that those who belong to Christ will be “dressed in white.” In the Bible’s depictions of the residents of heaven, clothing is often mentioned. There is never a hint that anyone there is unclothed. In heaven, we will not be naked as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. Their nakedness was indicative of their innocence and sinlessness. We have never been in a sinless state, so, when we get to heaven, we are pictured as being covered by the “clothing” provided by the sacrifice of Christ (Revelation 3:18\).
What is historic premillennialism?	Answer Historic premillennialism and [dispensational premillennialism](dispensational-premillennialism.html) are two different systems of eschatology. Here are a few examples of the differences between the two: • Historic premillennialism teaches that the church was in the fore\-vision of Old Testament prophecy, while dispensationalism teaches that the church is hardly, if at all, mentioned by the Old Testament prophets. • Historic premillennialism teaches that the present age of grace was predicted in the Old Testament. Dispensationalism holds that the present age was unforeseen in the Old Testament and thus is a “great parenthesis” in history introduced because the Jews rejected the kingdom. • Historic premillennialism teaches a millennium after the second advent of Christ but is not much concerned with classifying other epochs of history. Usually, dispensationalism teaches seven divisions of time. The present age is the sixth such dispensation; the last one will be the millennial age after the second coming. • Historic premillennialism is posttribulational; dispensational premillennialism usually embraces the pretribulational view. The premillennial view of the end times is thus advanced in two different ways: historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. The Bible contains many prophecies about the future, with the New Testament speaking extensively about the return of Jesus to earth. Matthew 24, much of the book of Revelation, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16–18 are the more salient references to the second coming. Historic premillennialism was held by a large majority of Christians during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Many of the church fathers such as [Ireneaus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html), [Papias](Papias-of-Hierapolis.html), [Justin Martyr](Justin-Martyr.html), [Tertullian](Tertullian.html), [Hippolytus](Hippolytus-of-Rome.html), and others taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth after the return of Christ. Historic premillennialism taught that the Antichrist would appear on earth and the seven\-year tribulation would begin. Next would be the rapture, and then Jesus and His church would return to earth to rule for a thousand years. The faithful spend eternity in the New Jerusalem. When Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the fourth century, many things began to change, including acceptance of historic premillennialism. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the most influential historic premillennialists was George Eldon Ladd, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. It was through Ladd’s work that historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among evangelical and Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Other well\-known historic premillennialists include Walter Martin; John Warwick Montgomery; J. Barton Payne; Henry Alford, a noted Greek scholar; and Theodor Zahn, a German New Testament scholar. Historic premillennialism is one system of eschatology that has support in the Protestant community. Generally, all of the premillennialist beliefs teach that the tribulation is followed by 1,000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered. The placement of the rapture in relation to the other events is one of the main differences between historic premillennialism and premillennial dispensationalism.
Is religion the cause of most wars?	Answer To be sure, many conflicts throughout history have been ostensibly for religious reasons, with many different religions involved. For example, in Christianity, there occurred (just to name a few): • The Crusades — A series of campaigns from the 11th to the 13th centuries with the stated goal of reconquering the Holy Land from Muslim invaders and coming to the aid of the Byzantine Empire • The French Wars of Religion — A succession of wars in France during the 16th century between Catholics and the Protestant Huguenots • The Thirty Years' War — Another war between Catholics and Protestants during the 17th century in what is now Germany This list is by no means exhaustive. In addition to this, one could add the Taiping Rebellion and the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Christianity has certainly been a factor in many conflicts throughout its 2,000\-year history. In Islam, we see the concept of jihad, or “holy war.” The word jihad literally means “struggle,” but the concept has been used to describe warfare in the expansion and defense of Islamic territory. The almost continual warfare in the Middle East over the past half century certainly has contributed to the idea that religion is the cause of many wars. The September 11 attacks on the United States has been seen as a jihad against the “Great Satan” America, which in Muslim eyes is almost synonymous with Christianity. In Judaism, the wars of conquest chronicled in the OT (in particular the book of Joshua) at the command of God, conquered the Promised Land. The point should be obvious that religion has certainly played a part in much of the warfare in human history. However, does this prove the point made by the critics of religion that religion itself is the cause of war? The answer is “yes” and “no.” “Yes” in the sense that as a secondary cause, religion, on the surface at least, has been the impetus behind much conflict. However, the answer is “no” in the sense that religion is never the primary cause of war. To demonstrate this point, let’s look at the 20th century. By all accounts, the 20th century was one of the bloodiest centuries in human history. Two major world wars, which had nothing at all to do with religion, the Jewish Holocaust, and the Communist Revolutions in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Southeast Asia and Cuba, have accounted for anywhere between 50\-70 million deaths (some estimate upwards to 100 million). The one thing these conflicts and genocides have in common is the fact that they were ideological, not religious, in nature. We could easily make the case that more people have died throughout human history due to ideology than to religion. Communist ideology necessitates ruling over others. Nazi ideology necessitates elimination of “inferior” races. These two ideologies alone account for the death of millions, and religion had nothing to do with the cause of it. In fact, communism is by definition an atheistic ideology. Religion and ideology are both secondary causes for war. However, the primary cause for all war is sin. Consider the following Scriptures: “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:1\-3\). “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19\). “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9\). “The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5\). What is the testimony of Scripture as to the primary cause of war? It’s our wicked hearts. Religion and ideology are simply the means through which we exercise the wickedness in our hearts. To think, as many outspoken atheists do, that if we can somehow remove our “impractical need for religion,” we can somehow create a more peaceful society, is to have a mistaken view of human nature. The testimony of human history is that if we remove religion, something else will take its place, and that something is never positive. The reality is that true religion keeps fallen humanity in check; without it, wickedness and sin would reign supreme. Even with the influence of true religion, Christianity, we will never see peace in this current age. There is never a day without some conflict somewhere in the world. The only cure for war is the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ! When Christ returns as He has promised, He will close this current age and establish eternal peace: “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4\).
What did Jesus mean when He said the first will be last and the last will be first?	Answer Jesus made the statement “many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (Matthew 19:30\) in the context of His encounter with the [rich young ruler](rich-young-ruler.html) (Matthew 19:16–30\). After the young man turned away from Jesus, unable to give up his great wealth (verse 22\), Jesus’ disciples asked the Lord what reward they would have in heaven, since they had given up everything to follow Him (verses 27–30\). Jesus promised them “a hundred times as much,” plus eternal life (verse 29\). Then He said, “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (verse 30\). Jesus reiterated this truth in Matthew 20:16 at the end of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, a story designed to illustrate the last being first and the first being last. What exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first”? First, we should eliminate what He did not mean. Jesus was not teaching that the way to get to heaven is to live a life of poverty in this world. Scripture is clear that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works (Ephesians 2:8–9\)—and independent of one’s financial status. Also, Jesus was not teaching an automatic reversal of roles in heaven. There is no heavenly law wherein the poor and oppressed must rule over the rich and powerful. The rich aren’t always last in heaven, and the poor aren’t always first. Nor will believers who enjoy wealth and prestige on earth be required to somehow be abased in heaven. Earthly rank will not automatically translate into an inverse heavenly rank. When Jesus told the disciples they would be greatly rewarded in heaven for what they had given up on earth, He was contrasting their sacrifice with the rich young ruler’s lack thereof—the young man had been unwilling to give up much of anything for Christ’s sake (Matthew 19:16–22\). God, who sees the heart, will reward accordingly. The disciples are an example of those who may be first, and they happened to be poor (but their poverty was not what makes them first in heaven). The rich young ruler is an example of those who may be last, and he happened to be rich (but his wealth was not what makes him last). The Lord’s statement that the last would be first and the first last might also have held special meaning for Peter, who had just spoken of having “left all” (Matthew 19:27\). Perhaps Jesus detected in Peter’s statement a bit of boasting—Peter was on the verge of becoming spiritually complacent—as the rich young ruler was, but for a different reason. Jesus’ response in verse 30 may have been an indirect warning to Peter to always find his sufficiency in Christ, not in his own sacrifice. After all, without love, even the greatest sacrifice is worthless (1 Corinthians 13:3\). In the chapter following Jesus’ statement that the first will be last and the last will be first, Jesus tells a parable (Matthew 20\). The story concerns some [laborers](parable-laborers-vineyard.html) who complain that others, who did not work as long as they, were paid an equal amount. In other words, they saw their own labor as worthy of compensation but considered their companions’ labor to be inferior and less worthy of reward. Jesus ends the parable with the statement, “The last will be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:16\). The most direct interpretation, based on the content of the parable, is that all believers, no matter how long or how hard they work during this lifetime, will receive the same basic reward: eternal life. 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 did Timothy, who served God for years. Of course, Scripture also teaches that there are different rewards in heaven for different services, but the ultimate reward of eternal life will be given to all equally, on the basis of God’s grace in Christ Jesus. There are several ways in which “the first will be last and the last first” holds true. There are some who were first to follow Christ in time yet are not the first in the kingdom. Judas Iscariot was one of the first disciples and was honored to be the treasurer of the group, yet his greed led to his undoing; Paul was the last of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8–9\) yet the one who worked the hardest (2 Corinthians 11:23\). There are some who were first in privilege yet are not first in the kingdom. Based on the terms of the New Covenant, the Gentiles had equal access to the kingdom of heaven, although they had not served God under the Old Covenant. The Jews, who had labored long under the Old Covenant, were jealous of the grace extended to the Gentile “newcomers” (see Romans 11:11\). There are some who are first in prestige and rank yet might never enter the kingdom. Jesus told the Pharisees that the sinners they despised were being saved ahead of them: “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31–32\). What Jesus is teaching in Matthew 19:30 is this: there will be many surprises in heaven. Heaven’s value system is far different from earth’s value system. Those who are esteemed and respected in this world (like the rich young ruler) may be frowned upon by God. The opposite is also true: those who are despised and rejected in this world (like the disciples) may, in fact, be rewarded by God. Don’t get caught up in the world’s way of ranking things; it’s too prone to error. Those who are first in the opinion of others (or first in their own opinion!) may be surprised to learn, on Judgment Day, they are last in God’s opinion.
What is narrative theology?	Answer Narrative theology, or what is sometimes called “post\-liberal” theology, was developed during the last half of the twentieth century. It was inspired by a group of theologians at the Yale Divinity School. Its founders, George Lindbeck, Hans Wilhelm Frei, and other scholars were influenced by [Karl Barth](Karl-Barth.html), Thomas Aquinas and to some extent, the nouvelle théologie, a school of thought proposing reform in the Catholic Church, led by French Catholics such as Henri de Lubac. Narrative theology is the idea that Christian theology’s use of the Bible should focus on a narrative representation of the faith rather than the development of a set of propositions reasoned from the Scriptures themselves or what is commonly called a “systematic theology.” Basically, narrative theology is a fairly broad term, but oftentimes it is that approach to theology that primarily looks to the meaning in story. This then is typically joined by a rejection of the meaning derived from propositional truths or its systematic theology. At other times, narrative theology is associated with the idea that we are not primarily to learn principles, rules or laws from Scripture, but rather we are to learn to relate to God, and how to play our part in the greater panorama of our salvation. Other combinations of such a theology are also common. As such, there have been many debates and critics of the narrative or post\-liberal theology\-centered issues including that of incommensurability, sectarianism, fideism, relativism, and truth. Nonetheless, when used correctly, narrative theology can provide building blocks for systematic theology and for biblical theology (i.e., the progressive history of God revealing Himself to humanity). Narrative theology teaches that the Bible is seen as the story of God’s interaction with His people. Supporters of narrative theology maintain that this does not mean the Bible doesn’t make propositional truth assertions, but that the primary purpose of Scripture is to record the relationship between God and His people and how we today, in this post\-modern world, can continue in this story. This then is to take precedence over the more exacting analysis of systematic theology. Supporters of narrative theology go on to argue that narrative theology is less likely to pull verses out of context to support doctrinal positions. There are other aspects of narrative theology that are beneficial. For example, the Bible’s stories are there to teach us truth; we are supposed to learn from those truths, and to apply these lessons to our lives. As such, we should interpret and apply these stories according to the original intentions of the authors of Scripture—this is why the stories have been preserved for us (see Romans 15:4\). Another positive influence of narrative theology is that it strengthens the value of community. In modern times, people have often made Christianity into that of one’s individual faith, but the Bible’s story of God’s relationship to His people reminds us that community is essential. It is true that the Bible contains huge portions of narrative that are intended to convey truth to us, so it is important for us to adopt some form of narrative theology. However, narrative theology does have its problems, especially when it has been used irresponsibly. And, without question, this even occurs in conservative circles. This is especially true when its teachers and preachers are unconcerned with the Bible’s original meaning and are driven by their own intuitions or by their own responses to the Scriptures. As a result, narrative is often used in harmful ways. Narrative theology has also been misused when people determine that the narrative does not have an underlying systematic theology, or that its underlying theology cannot be known. In such cases, it is implied that the lessons of narratives can be understood apart from the worldviews of the original writers or authors of the text itself. Basically, this results in false teaching with some proponents of narrative theology moving straight from story to application and doing away with more reasoned analysis of the Scriptures. But in reality, this can’t be done. Perhaps the most obvious influence of narrative theology is found in the [emerging church](emerging-church-emergent.html) with its distrust and relatively low regard for systematic theology. Advocates of narrative theology, especially in the emerging church, claim that theology is not something that we can be dogmatic about. They say that “good” people have come to different conclusions over the years, so why bother to make conclusive statements about theology at all? Thus, from their perspective, theology is not something concrete, absolute, and authoritative. They maintain that in the past, people believed one way or another; somebody was right and somebody was wrong. As a result of all this, in some churches today, we have relativism gone rampant. Nobody seems to know who is right and who is wrong. And what’s worse is that it doesn’t seem to concern anyone. Consequently, the church falls prey to secular postmodernism, where what is true for one, may not be true for another. It’s where the church tolerates anything and everything and stands upon nothing. Some supporters of narrative theology, such as in the emerging church movement, do away with preaching altogether. Somebody might sit among a circle of peers and share what they think God is all about for them that particular day or week. They might even reference a Scripture which relates to their journey. But their experiences and feelings are the focal point, not the Word of God. They narrate a story or read a passage of Scripture and stop. There is no need to exhort, rebuke, or call to action. It is not about conforming to an authoritative statement of Scripture but rather using Scripture to reinforce fleshly desires of a journey that they take on their terms. The church is supposed to be the pillar and supporter of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15\), and truth is a body of doctrine as laid forth in the Bible through the Person of Jesus Christ. Though it has its benefits in other ways, as we’ve seen, narrative theology tends to appeal to postmodernists who like to shape their religion and their “God” based upon how they feel on a given day or about a certain passage of Scripture.
Did Balaam’s donkey really talk to him?	Answer The story of [Balaam](Balaam-in-the-Bible.html) and his talking donkey is found in Numbers 22\. Balaam was a pagan prophet who practiced divination and other magic arts, led Israel into apostasy, and was identified as a greedy, unscrupulous man by Peter and Jude (2 Peter 2:15 –16; Jude 1:11\). Fearing the encroaching Israelites, [King Balak](Balak-in-the-Bible.html) of Moab sent for Balaam and enlisted his aid in repelling the Israelites by cursing them. The Lord spoke to Balaam and told him to refuse to go to Balak, although the Lord relented under the condition that Balaam would speak only His words. So Balaam saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab back to Balak. But knowing Balaam’s heart, the Lord’s anger burned against Balaam for what He knew was Balaam’s rebelliousness, and He sent an angel with a drawn sword to bar his way. Although Balaam couldn’t see the angel, his donkey could, and she tried to discontinue the journey by going off the path, crushing Balaam’s foot against the wall and lying down on the path. Angered by her behavior, Balaam used his staff to beat the donkey three times. Then in Numbers 22:28, we learn that “the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?’” Then Balaam and the donkey proceeded to have a conversation about the situation, with Balaam angrily berating the donkey, after which the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes to see the angel and understand why his journey was stopped. There is no doubt that Balaam’s donkey spoke to him. The question that arises is whether the donkey was suddenly given the power of speech, which would also mean she was given the power to reason because she answered Balaam’s questions, asked some of her own, and carried on a rational conversation. While it is certainly possible that God granted human powers to the donkey, it’s more likely that He opened her mouth and spoke through her. The angel that barred his way is identified as the angel of the Lord, likely a manifestation of the presence of God Himself (Genesis 16:9\-16; Exodus 3:1\-6\). After the donkey “spoke” to Balaam, and Balaam’s eyes were opened, the angel proceeded to ask the identical questions that came from the mouth of the donkey, further evidence that God, not the donkey, was actually speaking both times. This is reiterated by Peter, who identifies the donkey as “a beast without speech” and who “spoke with a man’s voice” (2 Peter 2:16\). Whatever the method, the donkey was able to speak by a miraculous working of God’s power. Why was Balaam not shocked into silence by the donkey speaking to him? Surely, it must have come as a surprise to him, and under normal circumstances, the obvious reaction would be for him to at least ask how she came to be speaking. The Bible doesn’t tell us why he didn’t find it odd to be addressed by a donkey, but we do know something about his state of mind. First, he was in rebellion against the Lord, going to Balak for his own purposes and not those of the Lord. Second, the donkey’s refusal to continue down the path enraged him so that he beat her out of anger because she had mocked him and made a fool of him. Anger has a way of curtailing rational thought, and perhaps he was so intent on exerting his dominance over the animal that he lost the ability to think clearly. It wasn’t until the angel opened Balaam’s eyes to see reality that he relented in his anger against the donkey, listened to the angel, and repented. Verse 38 tells us that Balaam went to Balak and told the king, “I must speak only what God puts in my mouth," which just goes to show that God can use anyone, even a donkey and a rebellious prophet, to do His will and speak His truth.
	Answer The context of 1 Peter 3:7 is the Apostle Peter’s instructions concerning living as godly believers toward one another beginning in the home (1 Peter 3:1\-12\). The wife is addressed first and then the husband. This is the same order the Apostle Paul uses in Ephesians 5:22\-33\. Husbands are instructed to “live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel” (ESV). Other translations of 1 Peter 3:7 render the phrase “weaker partner” (NIV, CSB), “someone weaker” (NASB), or “weaker than you are” (NLT). What does it mean that the wife is a “weaker vessel”? The passage does not specifically say. There are many speculations. The most common proposal is that 1 Peter 3:7 is referring to physical weakness since the vast majority of husbands are significantly physically stronger than their wives. Some interpreters see other ways that women are, generally speaking, weaker than men, such as being less in control of their emotions. Others point to the idea that women are more easily deceived (based on 1 Timothy 2:14\). The primary problem with these theories is that this passage, and the Bible as a whole, nowhere specifically identifies ways that women are weaker than men. First Timothy 2:14 simply says that Eve was deceived. It does not say that women are more easily deceived than men. First Peter 3:7 is not about identifying weaknesses in wives. Rather, it is about how husbands are to treat their wives. According to 1 Peter 3:7, husbands are to live with their wives in an understanding way, show them honor, and recognize that their wives are heirs with them of the grace of life. The consequence of a husband not honoring his wife is hindered prayer, something every Christian husband should strive to avoid. While it is interesting to study what precisely Peter may have meant by “weaker vessel,” ultimately, it misses the point. Whatever “weaker vessel” means, the application is that husbands are to understand, honor, and value their wives. In context, “weaker vessel” likely carries the meaning of “worth protecting” and “something to cherish” far more than it is intended to identify specific weaknesses or in any way diminish the strength and value of wives.
What is narrative criticism?	Answer Narrative criticism is an attempt to understand a biblical text as part of a connected story with a coherent purpose. It seeks to understand how the writer arranged the “story” in order to elicit a certain response from the original audience. This method explains why certain ideas, words, or events are presented as they are and what their intended meaning is. The term criticism, in this case, implies “critique” or “examination,” not “condemnation” or “disapproval.” Narrative criticism assumes the writer of the text had a specific meaning in mind. So, to accurately understand any part or portion of that text, one must keep the “big idea”—the narrative—in mind. Narrative criticism is most easily understood through the parables of Jesus. We naturally read Jesus’ parables with an understanding that there is a “point” to the tale. Jesus is telling the story in order to teach a lesson or to explain an idea. When considering the meaning of Jesus’ words, it’s important to remember they’re part of that particular story. The intended meaning of the larger story should be crucial to how we interpret the meaning of specific words. In simple terms, narrative criticism applies the same mindset to studying Scripture in general. Narrative criticism shares common points with techniques such as [structuralism](structuralism.html). It also accepts the fact that Scripture demonstrates the use of literary techniques such as [chiasm](chiasm-chiastic.html), poetry, and [parallelism](search.php?zoom_query=parallelism), among others. Narrative criticism is considered a written\-text application of rhetorical criticism, which is more suited to speech, and presumes a speaker’s intent ought to matter in how one interprets his words. Narrative criticism is not meant to be applied haphazardly. Some parts of the Bible are clearly narratives: they describe actions and conversations in a “story” format. Other portions of Scripture are not narrative, such as the book of Proverbs, many of the psalms, and many writings of the prophets. Where the Bible is not structured in a narrative format, narrative criticism is not as useful for study purposes. A broader context of Scripture’s cohesive message is still useful but not as apparent in such cases. Likewise, narrative criticism also recognizes the existence of “nested narratives,” such as dreams, visions, or parables. These form their own individual narrative structure and should be interpreted accordingly. Narrative criticism can be helpful in accurately interpreting the Bible. For example, it provides an explanation of differences in the four gospels. Each gospel writer had a different audience and a subtly different intent, and so they chose their own vocabulary, style, and details (John 20:30–31\). Narrative criticism bypasses debates over revisions or sources: it deals with the text as it is, rather than speculating on what the text “might have been” or what it “should be.” Understanding [context](context-Bible.html) is vital; many misconceptions about Scripture are caused by dissecting a statement from the “big picture” and losing the writer’s intended meaning. As with any interpretive technique, narrative criticism is not without drawbacks. A common temptation in narrative criticism is to presume the text is “only” a story, implying the individual narrative elements are invented and not factual. Correctly applied, narrative criticism does not presume any part of a text must have been invented for the sake of the story. Some interpreters, however, attempt to dismiss portions of the Bible by claiming that the narrative—not the facts—are what the writer cared about. While some parts of the Bible are undoubtedly symbols or parables, Scripture also contains objective history and records of real\-world events (Luke 1:1–4\). Another danger is selecting a preferred narrative, rather than the writer’s intent, as the lens through which to view the Bible. One cannot simply declare belief in some position and then use it as the narrative framework to interpret Scripture. That error is a form of [eisegesis](exegesis-eisegesis.html), in which one imposes meaning on the text rather than reading meaning from the text. Legitimate narrative criticism is focused on the writer’s intentions, not the reader’s preferences. For those reasons, narrative criticism must also be kept in a context of its own. The original words of the Bible were “narrated” to a specific culture, which is not identical to every existing culture on earth. Part of properly interpreting the narrative context of Scripture is understanding how those words and events fit into the culture of the original readers. Fortunately, Christianity has never been intended as a “do\-it\-yourself” faith, where truth requires nothing more than a printed Bible and time. The [Great Commission’s](great-commission.html) focus is discipleship: a relationship between mature believers and those who need guidance (Matthew 28:19–20\). Proper study and discipleship allow that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writers, who spoke to an actual, historical audience, and deal with concepts that later cultures need to explain to less mature readers (Acts 8:27–31; 2 Peter 3:15–16\).
What is existentialism?	Answer Existentialism is not so much a formal system of philosophy as it is a general orientation to philosophical issues. It was most popular in Europe in the early twentieth century. It was a reaction to the Enlightenment’s overconfidence in human reason. Some of the influences that likely made it attractive include Kierkegaard’s insight that Christian faith cannot be reduced to a set of rational propositions but that it also includes wider emotional and relational implications. Even more significantly, historical events such as the devastation of World War I, the economic collapses of the 1920s and 1930s, and the horrors of World War II displayed the false hope of modernism that human reason can overcome all problems. Existentialism, accordingly, downplays the ability of human reason. It despairs of finding individual and communal significance in reference to one’s place in a rational, ordered cosmos. Rational order itself is suspect for existentialists. Therefore, rational explanation takes a back seat to other approaches for finding meaning. Some existentialists express meaning in terms of an individual’s achievements in transcending his or her circumstances. Others express it in terms of the meaning that comes from connecting and communicating with others about human experience. The experience of being is the focus. Rational explanation is put aside. How can a Christian helpfully respond to the claims of existentialism? On the one hand, a Christian can agree that modernism has a false hope in the ability of human reason to meet and overcome every challenge. Indeed, there are many things that, according to biblical teaching, are only overcome by the grace of God, including the problems of human sin and death itself. Also, Christians acknowledge that there are many things that human reason cannot discover and which are only found if God should choose to reveal them. On the other hand, a Christian disagrees with existentialism’s spirit of hopelessness. Christianity highly emphasizes two aspects of the future. First, Christianity affirms the final judgment at which all that is wrong, disordered, and broken will be finally put right, since Christ will return at the end of time to vanquish all evil from the cosmos and to reign over all. Second, Christianity affirms the ultimately hopeful future reality for all who trust in Christ, namely, the experience of resurrection, everlasting life, and absolute completion of sanctification, all these given freely by the grace of God. Multitudes of biblical passages could be cited concerning these two aspects of the future. Here is one of the many, Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
What does the Bible say about government?	Answer The Bible speaks very clearly about the relationship between the believer and the government. We are to obey governmental authorities, and the government is to treat us justly and fairly. Even when the government does not live up to its role, we are still to live up to ours. Finally, when the government asks us to do something that is in direct disobedience to God’s Word, we are to disobey the government in faithful confidence of the Lord’s power to protect us. Whether the Bible uses the terms “master,” “ruler,” “government,” or any other name for an established authority, the instruction is always the same – obey. We must remember that God created the authorities ruling over us just as He created us. As Paul wrote to the Romans, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1\-2\). Peter wrote, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13\-14\). Both Peter and Paul also remind slaves repeatedly to be obedient to their masters for the same reasons (Ephesians 6:5\-8; Colossians 3:22\-25; 1 Timothy 6:1\-2; 1 Peter 2:18\-20; Titus 2:9\-11\). The instructions to government “masters” are just as clear and just as numerous. Jesus modeled the behavior and attitude every leader or authority should take. “Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’” (Matthew 20:25\-28\). A government or authority exists to serve those governed. Many times, however, a government will stray from its purpose and become oppressive. When that happens, we are still to live in obedience. “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God” (1 Peter 2:18\-19\). Both Jesus and Paul used taxes as a way to illustrate this. The Roman government taxed the Jews unjustly and many of the tax collectors were thieves. When asked about this dilemma, Jesus took a coin and said, “‘Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. Then he said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’” (Matthew 22:20\-21\). Evidently, the believers in Rome were still asking the same question because Paul instructed them on the matter. “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing” (Romans 13:6\). In the Old Testament, Daniel is a model we should use when it comes to our relationship with government. The Babylonians were given authority over the Jews because of the Jews’ disobedience. Daniel worked himself into the highest levels of this pagan and unbelieving government. Although the rulers respected Daniel’s God, their lives and actions show they did not believe. Daniel served the king as a true servant when he requested the wise men not be executed for failing to interpret the king’s dream. Instead, he asked for the key to interpret the dream from God and saved those, including himself, who would have been executed. While Daniel was in the royal court, his three friends refused to bow to the idol erected by King Nebuchadnezzar and were sentenced to death in the furnace (Daniel 3:12\-15\). Their response was confident faith. They did not defend themselves, but instead told the king their God would save them, adding that even if He didn’t, they still would not worship or serve Nebuchadnezzar’s gods (Daniel 3:16\-18\). After the Medes conquered Babylon, Daniel continued to serve faithfully and to rise in power within the government. Here, Daniel faced the same dilemma when the governors and satraps tricked the king into signing a decree “…that whoever petitions any god or man for thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions” (Daniel 6:7\). Daniel responded by directly, and in full view of everyone, disobeying the order. “Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days” (Daniel 6:10\). Daniel was completely loyal to any ruler placed over him until that ruler ordered him to disobey God. At that moment, when a choice had to be made between the world and God, Daniel chose God. As should we all.
Is the idea of a spiritual marriage biblical?	Answer This is a difficult question to answer, as the Bible does not directly address the situation. The Bible does contain principles, though, which definitely apply to the situation. First, it should be said that a government should not "punish" marriage. It is strange and seems entirely unnecessary for the government to take away retirement benefits due to an elderly person getting married. If an elderly person needs the income while not being married, there is nothing about getting married that will suddenly cause the financial need to disappear. Whatever the case, though, the law exists, so the question arises: how should Christians respond to this law? There are two key principles which address this situation. First, the Bible instructs Christians to obey the laws of the government (Romans 13:1\-7\). The only situation in which civil disobedience is biblically allowable is when the government commands something that God specifically forbids (Acts 5:29\). The issue of retirement income for elderly couples is obviously not something the Bible has a command regarding. As foolish and unnecessary as this law might be, it does not contradict God’s Word. Therefore, a Christian should obey it. An elderly couple seeking a "spiritual marriage" while avoiding a legal marriage is seeking to escape the requirements of the law. It is essentially no different than cheating on taxes. We are to obey the law. We are not to seek loopholes that allow us to escape the demands of the law. Second, there is the issue of faith. If an elderly couple believes it is God’s will for them to marry, and if marriage will result in retirement income being lost, the elderly couple should trust that God will provide for them. It would not be God’s will for an elderly couple to live in poverty and destitution. How would God provide? There are many possible ways: through the extended families, through the church, through other government assistance programs, through a more conservative budget, and so forth. Again, though, the issue is faith. If an elderly couple believes it is God’s will for them to marry, the couple should also trust God that He will provide for their needs. As sad, strange, and unnecessary as the government laws regarding retirement benefits and marriage are, biblically there is no valid reason to try to circumvent the requirements of the law on this issue. There is absolutely nothing wrong with petitioning the government to get the laws changed, but it is unbiblical to disobey/avoid the governmental laws regarding retirement benefits and marriage. If an elderly couple truly and firmly believes it is God’s will for them to marry, they should do so, and trust that God will provide.
What is the Holy See?	Answer The term "Holy See" is from the Latin Sancta Sedes, meaning “holy chair.” It is said that the Holy See is the jurisdiction in Rome of the Catholic Church. In other words, it is similar to a government, which is not surprising considering that the Vatican is its own country and has its own money and its own laws. However, there is a difference between the Holy See, which dates back to early Christian times, and Vatican City, which came into existence in 1929 with the signing of the Lateran Treaty between the See and the Italian government. The Holy See is an episcopal designation, while Vatican City is primarily a political and diplomatic one. The government of the Holy See includes tribunals, congregations, pontifical counsels and numerous other bureaucratic entities. Of course the pope is the head of the See, as he is considered the head of the Catholic Church. The secretariat of state is the second in command of the See and oversees the 175 diplomatic worldwide relationships and offices. The See is a member of numerous international organizations, including the United Nations. From a biblical standpoint, the very existence of a Holy See is problematic on at least two points. First, the concept of a “holy chair” in which resides the head of the church is unscriptural. The true church is never to consider one man as its head, no matter his title. The exalted Head of the true Body of Christ is Jesus Christ, the living Head of the living church. How can the living church be headed by a mortal man who dies? Second, the Bible nowhere gives credence to the idea of the church forming its own city\-state or its own government. The church as a political or diplomatic kingdom is unknown in Scripture. In fact, Jesus made it clear that His kingdom is not of this world (John 8:23; 18:36\). The Bible never condones or encourages the establishment of earthly kingdoms or diplomatic entities because these things, by their very nature, focus attention on the world, which is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:31; 1 John 2:17\). Christians are to be focused on the heavenly kingdom and our only diplomatic efforts are to be spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and warning others of the wrath to come.
What is the Society of Jesus? Who are the Jesuits, and what do they believe?	Answer The Society of Jesus, more commonly known as the Jesuits, is a society within the Roman Catholic Church that was founded by Ignatius of Loyola and instituted by Pope Paul III. The Jesuit society demands four vows of its members: poverty, chastity, obedience to Christ, and obedience to the Pope. The purpose of the Jesuits is the propagation of the Catholic faith by any means possible. Ignatius of Loyola was a Spanish nobleman and intended to have a career as a professional soldier. A cannonball shattered his leg in 1521, and his career was shattered with it. During his long recovery at the castle of Loyola, he spent much time reading religious books, fasting and praying. As a result of these studies, Ignatius decided to become a soldier of Christ, and hung up his sword at the altar of Mary in Montserrat. From 1522 to 1534, Loyola traveled to monasteries and schools, studying and praying in preparation for a life consecrated to Christ. Toward the end of his graduate studies at the University of Paris, he and six friends who had been meeting for times of extended prayer and meditation vowed to continue their companionship after graduation by living in evangelical poverty and traveling as missionaries to Jerusalem. When war between the Turks and Venice prevented their passage to Jerusalem, they determined to work in the cities of northern Italy. Loyola presented his plan for service to the Vatican and received a papal commission from Pope Paul III in 1540, with Loyola receiving a lifetime appointment as General. With the threat of Islam spreading across the Mediterranean region, the Jesuits' first focus was the conversion of Muslims. Shortly after the founding of the [order](religious-order.html), their focus shifted to counteracting the spread of Protestantism. The [Counter\-Reformation](Counter-Reformation.html) in the 16th and 17th centuries was largely due to the Jesuits. With their vows of total obedience to the Pope and their strict, military\-style training, the Jesuits became feared across Europe as the “storm troopers” of the Catholic Church, and they led armies which recaptured large areas for the Roman Catholic Church. Along with the military actions, their work centered on education and missionary expansion, and by the end of Loyola’s life in 1556, there were Jesuits in Japan, Brazil, Ethiopia, and most parts of Europe. Many of the explorers of that period were accompanied by Jesuit priests, eager to bring Catholicism to new lands. The Jesuits are still active in the world today, though the military actions of those early years have been left behind. The goal of spreading the Catholic faith is still their primary objective, and they do it through missionary work and education. As for their beliefs, they hold to the historic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The practice of “Ignatian spirituality” follows the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola and forms the foundation of their daily lives. The goal of these practices is to conquer and regulate the inner personal life so as to be submissive to God. One of the key practices is separation from all friends and acquaintances, in order to attend Mass and Vespers daily without interference. Another practice is deep and constant meditation on the sins that have been committed, so as to rouse intense sorrow for sins. To address all of their exercises would take far more space than this article allows. As is the case with the Catholic Church in general, there is certainly an appearance of godliness and spirituality that is readily seen in the Society of Jesus / Jesuits. When we compare their beliefs and practices with the Bible, however, it would appear that they have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:5, KJV). The difference between Roman Catholic belief and the biblical presentation of the gospel has been well phrased in a question “do or done?” What must I do to get to heaven (Catholicism), or what has Christ done to get me to heaven (biblical Christianity)?
What is biblical stewardship?	Answer To discover what the Bible says about stewardship, we start with the very first verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1\). As the Creator, God has absolute rights of ownership over all things, and to miss starting here is like misaligning the top button on our shirt or blouse—nothing else will ever line up. Nothing else in the Bible, including the doctrine of stewardship, will make any sense or have any true relevance if we miss the fact that God is the Creator and has full rights of ownership. It is through our ability to fully grasp this and imbed it in our hearts that the doctrine of stewardship is understood. The biblical doctrine of stewardship defines a man’s relationship to God. It identifies God as owner and man as manager. God makes man His co\-worker in administering all aspects of our life. The apostle Paul explains it best by saying, “For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:9\). Starting with this concept, we are then able to accurately view and correctly value not only our possessions, but, more importantly, human life itself. In essence, stewardship defines our purpose in this world as assigned to us by God Himself. It is our divinely given opportunity to join with God in His worldwide and eternal redemptive movement (Matthew 28:19\-20\). Stewardship is not God taking something from us; it is His method of bestowing His richest gifts upon His people. In the New Testament, two Greek words embody the meaning of our English word “stewardship.” The first word is epitropos which means "manager, foreman, or steward." From the standpoint of government, it means “governor or procurator.” At times it was used in the New Testament to mean “guardian,” as in Galatians 4:1\-2: “What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.” The second word is oikonomos. It also means "steward, manager, or administrator" and occurs more frequently in the New Testament. Depending on the context, it is often translated “dispensation, stewardship, management, arrangement, administration, order, plan, or training.” It refers mostly to the law or management of a household or of household affairs. Notably, in the writings of Paul, the word oikonomos is given its fullest significance in that Paul sees his responsibility for preaching the gospel as a divine trust (1 Corinthians 9:17\). Paul refers to his call from God as the administration (stewardship) of the grace of God for a ministry of the divine mystery revealed in Christ (Ephesians 3:2\). In this context, Paul is portraying God as the master of a great household, wisely administering it through Paul himself as the obedient servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. Also significant in what Paul is saying is that once we’re called and placed into the body of Jesus Christ, the stewardship that is required of us is not a result of our own power or abilities. The strength, inspiration and growth in the management of our lives must come from God through the Holy Spirit in us; otherwise, our labor is in vain and the growth in stewardship is self\-righteous, human growth. Accordingly, we must always remember the sole source of our strength in pleasing God: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13 NJKV). Paul also said, “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10\). More often than not, when we think of good stewardship, we think of how we manage our finances and our faithfulness in paying God’s tithes and offerings. But as we’re beginning to see, it’s much more than that. In fact, it’s more than just the management of our time, our possessions, our environment, or our health. Stewardship is our obedient witness to God’s sovereignty. It’s what motivates the follower of Christ to move into action, doing deeds that manifest his belief in Him. Paul’s stewardship involved proclaiming that which was entrusted to him—the gospel truth. Stewardship defines our practical obedience in the administration of everything under our control, everything entrusted to us. It is the consecration of one’s self and possessions to God’s service. Stewardship acknowledges in practice that we do not have the right of control over ourselves or our property—God has that control. It means as stewards of God we are managers of that which belongs to God, and we are under His constant authority as we administer His affairs. Faithful stewardship means that we fully acknowledge we are not our own but belong to Christ, the Lord, who gave Himself for us. The ultimate question, then, is this: Am I the lord of my life, or is Christ the Lord of my life? In essence, stewardship expresses our total obedience to God and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Why is it important to study the Bible in context?	Answer It’s important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context." To illustrate, it is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house. Taking phrases and verses out of context always leads to misunderstanding. For instance, taking the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:7\-16\) out of its context, we might come away thinking that our God loves everything and everyone at all times with a gushing, romantic love. But in its literal and grammatical context, “love” here refers to agape love, the essence of which is sacrifice for the benefit of another, not a sentimental, romantic love. The historical context is also crucial, because John was addressing believers in the first century church and instructing them not on God’s love per se, but on how to identify true believers from false professors. True love—the sacrificial, beneficial kind—is the mark of the true believer (v. 7\), those who do not love do not belong to God (v. 8\), God loved us before we loved Him (vv. 9\-10\), and all of this is why we should love one another and thereby prove that we are His (v. 11\-12\). Furthermore, considering the phrase "God is love" in the context of all of Scripture (synthesis) will keep us from coming to the false, and all\-too\-common, conclusion that God is only love or that His love is greater than all His other attributes, which is simply not the case. We know from many other passages that God is also holy and righteous, faithful and trustworthy, graceful and merciful, kind and compassionate, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, and many, many other things. We also know from other passages that God not only loves, [but He also hates.](does-God-hate.html) The Bible is the Word of God, literally "God\-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16\), and we are commanded to read, study, and understand it through the use of good Bible study methods and always with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide us (1 Corinthians 2:14\). Our study is greatly enhanced by maintaining diligence in the use of context because it is quite easy to come to wrong conclusions by taking phrases and verses out of context. It is not difficult to point out places that seemingly contradict other portions of Scripture, but if we carefully look at their context and use the entirety of Scripture as a reference, we can understand the meaning of a passage. “Context is king” means that the context often drives the meaning of a phrase. To ignore context is to put ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage.
What is Christian fanaticism?	Answer Fanaticism is typically defined as “excessive, irrational zeal.” Fanaticism can develop within a variety of different traditions, but this does not mean these traditions are in their very nature fanatical. Non\-fanatical forms of various traditions do indeed exist, including non\-fanatical Christianity, non\-fanatical Islam, and non\-fanatical secularism. For the purposes of this article, “Christian fanaticism” will be defined as “excessive, irrational zeal by professing Christians about their faith.” It may be helpful at this point to reflect first on non\-Christian fanaticism, which at times has led to persecution of Christians, and then to reflect on Christian fanaticism. First, if there is fanaticism that leads to the persecution of Christians, what should be a Christian’s response? Peter directs Christians enduring persecution of some sort (indicated in 1 Peter 1:7; 2:20; 3:14, 16, and other verses, but especially 4:1, 19; and 5:8–9\) to respond in several ways. Space does not allow a full exposition of 1 Peter, but Peter’s direction in this letter to his persecuted brothers and sisters includes committing themselves into God’s care (4:19\); enduring in hope in light of the culmination of salvation of God’s people at Jesus’ return (1:1–13\); laying aside one’s own evil (2:1, 11–12\); submitting to civil government, which is indeed given by God to rule society and to establish order and justice in it (2:13–15; Romans 13:3; Titus 3:1\); living in purity and not taking vengeance (chapter 3\). As far as Christian fanaticism is concerned, we must first ask whether it is biblical. Despite the confident claims of some, it is not. We are not speaking here of [zeal](zealous-zeal.html) itself, only of irrational zeal. Proper biblical zeal is indeed highly commendable. As Galatians 4:18 states, “It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good.” It is the irrational zeal which is unbiblical and sinful. We see this very clearly in what Jesus identified as the greatest commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37\). When we read “with all your heart,” we think “with all your emotion,” since present\-day Western culture thinks of the heart as the seat of the emotions. But to read it this way is to misinterpret it, since the ancient Israelites considered the heart to be the seat of one’s emotions, will, and intellect. In fact, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew word for “strength” in Matthew 22:35 is “mind,” and it means literally “deep thought or understanding.” So this greatest of Old Testament commandments demands loving God not only with emotions and zeal, but also with one’s mind and intellect. Therefore, any irrational zeal, according to Jesus’ own words about the greatest commandment, is actually sin. One cannot love with all one’s mind, with deep thought and understanding, and also love irrationally. A Christian is called to love God with all of his or her mind. Thus, political, economic, moral, legal, and scientific issues must be fairly depicted and intelligently and thoughtfully pondered. Unfairly depicting opponents and their arguments is prohibited, as is neglecting to do the hard intellectual work of deep study and arrogantly refusing the insights of trained, knowledgeable experts in various fields. Christians are sometimes guilty of this kind of indiscretion. And even worse, they can be proud of their anti\-intellectualism when they ought to be ashamed. It truly is wicked, since it involves intentional rejection of one third of the greatest commandment. The increasing frequency of both non\-Christian and Christian forms of fanaticism is alarming, for although we live in a technologically and scientifically advanced age, we also live in an age of widespread ignorance. But whatever the cultural norms, fanaticism by Christians about Christianity is unbiblical, unwarranted, and has no place in our lives.
What does it mean that God is the Ancient of Days?	Answer The title “Ancient of Days” first appears in Daniel 7:9, where Daniel is describing his vision of heaven. There an ancient, or venerable, Person sits on a flaming throne with wheels of fire, His hair and clothing white as snow. The flaming throne is symbolic of judgment, while the white hair and title “Ancient” indicate that God existed before time began. In Isaiah 43:13, we find that God refers to Himself existing from ancient of days (literally, “before days were”). That means God existed before days were even created. We read in Genesis 1 that God created time, days and nights, so God existed from before the beginning of time. God is often represented as ancient, as He that is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2\) and as “the first and the last” in Isaiah 44:6\. There can also be no doubt that the reference in Daniel 7 is to God as Judge. A similar description occurs in Revelation 1:14\-15, wherein Christ is described as having snow\-white hair and blazing eyes. In Revelation, God the Son is depicted with the same power of judgment over His church as the Ancient of Days is described as having in judging Israel. In fact, His sharp gaze judges all seven of the churches in Revelation 1–3 with complete clarity of the reality of all there is to know. The title "Ancient of Days" is found only three times in Scripture, all three in prophetic passages in Daniel 7:9, 13, and 22\. Verse 22 refers specifically to Jesus whose judgment will be part of the end\-times events. In Daniel 7:13, the term “ancient of days” refers to God the Father, and we see Him on His throne as Jesus, the “Son of Man” approaches the throne on clouds. God is a triune God, meaning three Persons in One, and at different times “Ancient of Days” refers to Jesus Christ and at other times, to God the Father. But in the prophetic sense, it clearly refers to Jesus, the Ancient of Days returning to pronounce judgment on the world (Daniel 7:22\).
Do Christians have the authority to command angels?	Answer People today are fascinated by the concept and study of angels, called "angelology." Angels are depicted in everything from jewelry and Christmas decorations to movies and television programs. Many Christians also believe they have the authority to command angels to do their bidding, while others believe they can command angels (and even demons) in the name of Jesus. There are no instances in Scripture where humans were able to give angels commands, either in their own name or in Jesus’ name. There are no passages where man has control over the work of the angels. We do know that they are beings of higher rank, since Jesus had to make Himself “lower than the angels” in order to be born and suffer as a man (Hebrews 2:7\-9; Psalm 8:4\-5\). The teaching that believers have control over angels is false. The following biblical principles show that angels do not obey the commands of men: • Moses spoke of when the children of Israel “cried out to the LORD, he heard our cry, and sent an angel, and brought us out of Egypt” (Numbers 20:16\). The Israelites did not command an angel to come to them. They appealed to God, under whose command the angels function. • Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Daniel 3:17\-18\). God in His mercy “sent his angel and rescued his servants!” (Daniel 3:28\). The three Hebrews did not summon the angel of the Lord. God sent him. God later “sent his angel” to deliver Daniel from the mouths of the lions in their den (Daniel 6:22\). • The church in Jerusalem prayed for Peter when he was in prison (Acts 12:5\). When Peter was delivered, he testified, “Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod’s clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating” (Acts 12:11\). The Christians praying for Peter were so surprised when he came to their door that they almost did not let him in. Certainly, they had not commanded any angel to rescue him. Angels are called God’s “holy angels,” who do His bidding, not ours (Mark 8:38; Revelation 14:10\).
How should a Christian respond to beggars?	Answer There are many opinions on the question of how to respond to beggars and panhandlers, which admittedly is a difficult one. Some people feel comfortable handing out money, believing it is then up to the beggar to determine how to use it, whether to buy food or alcohol/drugs. Others give food/water instead of money, understanding that some beggars would not use the money for the uses the giver intended. What is the right thing to do? Biblically speaking, we are to help the poor. But, does our responsibility end with the giving, or should we give and make sure our gifts are used for the right purposes? Rather than giving money or food/water, some prefer to offer transportation to a local shelter and/or provide financial support directly to the shelter. By supporting rescue missions financially, we help the poor who would otherwise be begging on the street. If the local church has a food bank, contributing to it and then directing the beggar there for help may be the best way to address the need without enabling the sin. Church food banks also provide an excellent opportunity to share the gospel with the [homeless](Bible-homeless.html) and needy. Other ways to help include giving food or gift cards to local restaurants, handing out energy bars or other non\-perishables to the people on the street corners, or if the situation allows, taking the needy person(s) to a restaurant/grocery store and buying him/her a meal. God wants us to help the poor and blesses us when we do. In the words of the psalmist David, we are told, “Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes” (Psalm 41:1\-2\). It is indeed a worthy cause to help the poor, including the sign\-holders on our street corners. Each of us must respond to these people as the Lord guides, not forgetting at the same time to offer prayers for these needy people.
What is the Community of Christ (RLDS)?	Answer In 2001, the delegates of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints voted to change the common name of their church to “Community of Christ.” Besides being shorter and easier to say, the new name changes the focus from their past to their present and future. The group was formed in 1860 when many Mormons refused to follow [Brigham Young’s](Brigham-Young.html) vision of moving west, among other differences. After the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, several men made claims on the leadership of the Mormon Church, resulting in several offshoot groups being formed. One group was led by Jason Briggs, Zenos Gurley, and William Marks. These men disagreed with the revelation authorizing polygamy, and believed that Joseph Smith III, rather than Brigham Young, should be the new prophet of the church. After several years of struggle, Joseph Smith III agreed to lead the newly formed “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” with 300 members. The Community of Christ upholds the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants to be sacred texts and uses Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible. Their beliefs are similar to those originally taught by Joseph Smith, including the belief that all of Christianity had fallen into apostasy (1 Nephi 13:28\), and that Joseph Smith had restored the truth to God’s church (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670\). According to the Community of Christ, Jesus is a separate being from God the Father, as stated in Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version, John 1:1 “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.” In the King James Version, and most other English versions, that verse reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” These two versions present two diametrically opposing views of Jesus. In Smith’s version, Jesus is “of God,” but not the same as God. In the KJV (and all other reliable versions), the whole point of the section (John 1:1\-14\) is to show that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but is Himself fully God, and the One by whom all things were made in Genesis 1\. The theology of the Community of Christ today is somewhat difficult to pin down. In the past, the RLDS primarily identified their beliefs based on what they disagreed with in LDS theology (e.g., polygamy, marriage for eternity, Adam\-God theory, closed temple services). In 1992, Graceland College, owned by the church, hosted a symposium examining their beliefs. Paul Edwards, then dean of Park College Graduate School of Religion, said, "One of the most important needs for RLDS people today is to look existentially at primary experiences as the starting point for their theological activity." In other words, he was advocating for each believer to start with his own experiences to determine truth, rather than start with scriptures or church statements. Current statements of faith on the Community of Christ website sound quite similar to traditional Christian statements, but use sufficiently vague language as to fit within a wide variety of meanings. When it comes to the doctrine of baptism/salvation, it is clear that the Community of Christ does not hold a biblical position. The following statements come from the official church website: "Disciples are people whose lives are transformed as they continually seek to pattern their lives after the example and teachings of Jesus Christ. Becoming a disciple in the Community of Christ begins with these steps: 1\. Listen within yourself for the call of Jesus Christ in your life. 2\. Be involved with a congregation, participating in activities that help you learn, grow, and serve others." In contrast, the Bible says: “Then Peter said unto them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’” (Acts 2:38\). “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel...by which ye are saved...how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1\-4\). The teaching of the RLDS focuses on good works and intentions and redefines Jesus Christ. Their brand of religion fits well with Paul’s description in Romans 10:2\-4, “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” The RLDS shares the two beliefs common to all false religions: they encourage their members to “seek their own righteousness” (a works\-based salvation), and they promote a false view of Jesus Christ. (Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)
Is it acceptable to have communion outside of the church?	Answer [Communion](communion-Christian.html) services, also known as the Lord’s Supper, are usually held in churches during the worship services. For the early church, however, worship services were in homes. The church in Jerusalem met in the home of Mary (Acts 12:12\), in Philippi in the home of Lydia (Acts 16:40\), and in Ephesus in the home of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Corinthians 16:19\). In Colossae the church met in the home of Philemon (Philemon 2\). As we learn from Acts 2, the early church met regularly for the apostles’ teaching, prayer, fellowship and “the breaking of bread,” commonly understood to be communion (Acts 2:42\). However, Scripture does not designate where the communion service must be held. It has been served in hospitals and nursing homes for ill patients. Missionaries on the field have served communion to believers where no churches have yet been established. Some families perform their own communion service on special occasions such as Christmas Eve. Our Lord, in commemorating the Passover with the disciples in the upper room, instituted the first communion service. The only instructions we have regarding the process of the rite come from Jesus’ own words to “do this in remembrance of me” until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:24\-26\). This passage gives all the instructions we need to perform the rite of communion and to understand the significance of what we are doing. It was after Pentecost when the church was established that communion was regularly served in church settings and considered to be an ordinance of the church. As such, the recognized church leadership administered the service. But there is no biblical reason why the Lord’s Supper cannot be administered in homes among friends and family, in a home church setting, or anywhere else. The important thing is not location, but the remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, whereby we are saved.
Christian martyrdom - what does the Bible say?	Answer The dictionary defines a martyr as “a person who is killed because of his religious or other beliefs.” Interestingly enough, the English word martyr is really a word transliterated from the original Greek martur, which simply means “witness.” The reason why this word became synonymous with dying for one’s religious beliefs is that the early Christian witnesses were often persecuted and/or killed for their witness. As evidence of this, consider the story of the first Christian martyr, Stephen, recorded in Acts 6:8–7:53\. After being anointed as one of the first deacons in the church, Stephen immediately began doing mighty works among the people. As is usually the case when the Holy Spirit is mightily at work and the gospel is going forth, the forces of darkness arise to hinder the work of the kingdom. In this case, several men came to dispute what Stephen was saying, but Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, was able to refute their criticisms. Rather than accept what Stephen was teaching, these men brought false charges against him to the Jewish leaders (Acts 6:11\-14\). Most of Acts 7 consists of Stephen’s speech to the Jewish leaders in which he essentially summarized the history of Israel up to their rejection of their Messiah. At the end of the speech, Stephen utters these words, which seal his fate: “You stiff\-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it” (Acts 7:51\-53\). Now, there was nothing untrue in Stephen’s words. The Jewish leaders were indeed responsible for turning Jesus over to the Romans for execution. Despite Jesus’ miracles and authoritative teaching, the hardness of the Jewish leaders’ hearts kept them from seeing the truth about Jesus. The Jewish leaders, upon hearing Stephen’s words, were enraged and immediately arranged for Stephen’s execution by stoning (v. 58\). Stephen was, therefore, the first Christian martyr recorded in Scripture. The Bible places a premium on faithful believers who pay the ultimate price for their witness. Stephen was granted a glorious vision of heaven before he died, and in this vision, he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:56\) as though waiting for Stephen in an attitude of honor for Stephen’s faithful service. As further evidence that martyrs are considered precious in God’s sight, the apostle John saw in his vision of the millennium those martyred for their faith reigning with Christ for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4\). The apostle Peter, who wrote the most about martyrdom and suffering for one’s faith, said, “If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you... However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name” (1 Peter 4:14, 16\). There is also the word of our Lord who pronounced a blessing upon those who are persecuted for His name: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me” (Matthew 5:11\). Clearly, the biblical evidence points to the fact that those who are persecuted and suffer for their witness to Christ (up to and including death) are pleasing in God’s sight. Given that, two additional questions arise. First, what if I’m not asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of Christ? God doesn’t call everyone to make the ultimate sacrifice, but the Bible calls all Christians to be prepared to give a defense of the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15\). The key to this passage lies in preparedness. Consider this analogy: those enlisting in the armed services should do so with the understanding that they may be called into battle and may be called upon to die in the service of their country. This is (or should be) the mindset of everyone who joins the military. Clearly, not all enlisted men and women die in the service of their country, and not all are even called into battle. Despite this, they are trained daily to be prepared for battle. The same goes for the Christian. We are in a state of “warfare” (Ephesians 6:12\-20\), and our Lord may call upon any of us to witness and even be martyred for our faith. Thus, we must be prepared! The second question that can be asked is, given martyrdom’s “special” status in God’s eyes, should we actually seek martyrdom? Biblically, we can’t make a case for seeking to be martyrs for the cause of Christ. Martyrdom is a great privilege if it is inevitable, but it is not to be sought. Jesus said, “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next” (Matthew 10:23\). Furthermore, reading through the book of Acts, we see that the early church continually fled from intense persecution (Acts 8:1; 9:25, 30; 14:6; 17:10, 14\). In each of these biblical examples, we see the early Christians fleeing persecution and taking all necessary precautions for survival. When Jesus says, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39\), He is not calling for people to make an attempt to lose their lives. Rather, He is calling us to be willing to lose our lives for His sake. Those who actively seek the path of martyrdom are not seeking it for the glory of God, but for their own glory. As the old saying goes, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. God’s purpose in martyrdom is the glorification of His name and the building up of His church.
What is the Charismatic movement?	Answer The Charismatic movement is an interdenominational Christian renewal movement and is one of the most popular and fastest\-growing forces within the Christian world today. The movement traces its roots to 1906, at the [Azusa Street](Azusa-Street-Revival.html) mission in Los Angeles, California, a Methodist\-sponsored revival. It was there that people claimed to have been “baptized by the Holy Spirit” in the manner recorded in Acts chapter 2 during the celebration of Pentecost. People speaking in tongues and miracles of healing roused people to a spiritual frenzy. The people who attended those meetings spread their enthusiasm throughout the United States, and the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement began. By the early 1970s, the movement had spread to Europe, and during the 1980s the movement expanded, with a number of new denominations evolving from it. It is not unusual to see its influence in many other denominations such as Baptists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans, as well as non\-denominational churches. The movement takes its name from the Greek words [charis](charis-in-the-Bible.html), which is the English transliteration of the Greek word for “grace,” and mata, which is the Greek word meaning “gifts.” Charismata, then, means “grace gifts.” It emphasizes the manifestations of the gifts of the Holy Spirit as a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. These gifts are also known as the biblical “charisms,” or spiritual gifts which supposedly give an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people. The prominent gifts among these “charisms” are speaking in tongues and prophesying. Charismatics hold that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit given to those in the first\-century church may still be experienced and practiced today. The Charismatic movement is most known for its acceptance of speaking in tongues (also known as glossolalia), divine healing, and prophecies as evidence of the Holy Spirit. Most meetings are for praying and spirited singing, dancing, shouting “in the spirit,” and raising hands and arms in prayer. Also, anointing the sick with oil is often part of the worship service. These are the primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth. The question remains: is the Charismatic movement scriptural? We can best answer that question this way: we know that since the creation of mankind Satan’s insidious master plan has been simply to put a veil between God’s children and God’s inerrant Word. It began in the Garden of Eden when the serpent asked Eve, “Did God really say . . .?” (Genesis 3:1\), thereby raising doubt as to the authority and authenticity of what God had said. Ever since that day, he continues to attack the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible. Without question, we know that Satan has stepped up the pace of this strategy (1 Peter 5:8\). Where Satan does not succeed in taking the Bible from us, he works hard at taking us from the Bible. One way he can do this is simply to get Christians to focus their attention on the claims of some men and women concerning supernatural experiences. Those who seek after sensational experiences or new words from God have neither time nor interest in searching the Scriptures for God’s truth. There is no denying that God performs miracles. Some of what occurs in the Charismatic movement may well be a true work of the Holy Spirit. However, the truth is that the Body of Christ has already been given the all\-sufficient, eternal Word of God. Do we need new apostles, new faith healers, or self\-styled miracle workers? Or is the greater need to return to the Bible and proclaim the whole counsel of God in the power and love of the Holy Spirit?
Would the discovery of Noah’s Ark be important?	Answer There have been numerous claimed discoveries of Noah’s ark in recent years. The discoveries have been in various locations, ranging from [Mount Ararat in Turkey](https://www.foxnews.com/science/has-noahs-ark-been-found-on-turkish-mountaintop), to a mountain range in Iran, to an entirely different location on Mount Ararat (with a visitors’ center). It is not the purpose of this article to evaluate whether or not the Noah’s ark discovery claims are legitimate. Rather, the question at hand is, if Noah’s ark was discovered, would that be significant? Would a Noah’s ark discovery cause people to turn to God in faith? The discovery of a boat\-like structure in the mountains of the Middle East, dated to approximately the time of the biblical account of Noah’s ark (2500 BC), with evidence of animal life once having been aboard, would surely be a tremendous discovery. For those who believe in God and trust in the Bible as His inspired Word, it would be powerful confirmation that the Bible is true and that early human history occurred precisely as the Bible describes it. A verified Noah’s ark discovery would likely cause many seekers and open\-minded skeptics to at least re\-evaluate their beliefs. For the close\-minded critic and hardened atheist, however, the discovery of Noah’s ark would not make one bit of a difference. A Noah’s ark discovery, as significant as that would be, would not be enough to overcome [spiritual blindness](spiritual-blindness.html). Romans 1:19–20 says, “What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (ESV). If a person is rejecting the clear evidence of God in the universe, no biblically related discovery, including a Noah’s ark discovery, would change his or her mind. Not even a confirmed resurrection would dint a lack of faith: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31\). No discovery, no argument, and no miracle will change the mind of a person who has been blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4\) and who is, with a hard heart and closed mind, rejecting the light of the gospel. What if Noah’s ark is never discovered? Would it matter to the believer? No, the lack of a Noah’s ark discovery makes no difference because the Christian faith is not dependent on every biblical account being explicitly or conclusively “proved.” The events in the Bible were actual, historical events involving real people and, for the most part, recorded by eyewitnesses, but we don’t expect to find ancient artifacts tracing back to everything mentioned in Scripture. The Christian faith is built on faith, after all. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29\). There are two primary reasons why Noah’s ark might never be discovered. First, the wood of the ark would have been very valuable after the [flood](Noah-flood.html). Noah and his family would have needed wood for any number of projects. It is possible that Noah and his family or their descendants deconstructed the ark and used its wood for other purposes. Second, even if Noah and his family left the ark intact, approximately 4,500 years have passed since that time. A wooden structure exposed to harsh natural elements for 4,500 years would likely decompose or decay into virtual nothingness. While a Noah’s ark discovery would be a tremendous archaeological find, it will never be something Christians should place their faith in. The discovery of Noah’s ark or the ark of the covenant or the Holy Grail or any other biblical artifact will not “prove” the Christian faith, and it will not change the mind of anyone whom God is not drawing to Himself (John 6:44\). “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1\).
Why are Christians homophobic?	Answer By definition, homophobia is fear of homosexuals, but its meaning has been broadened to include hate for homosexuals. Correspondingly, being homophobic tends to manifest itself through an outward demonstration or behavior based on such a feeling. This, in turn, sometimes leads to acts of violence or expressions of hostility. The truth is that homophobia is not just confined to any one segment of society. It can be found in people from all walks of life. Such hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate homosexuals. More often than not, Christians are said to be homophobic simply because they condemn homosexual behavior as sin. But the fact is that the term homophobic is merely a word used by homosexual activists and supporters in their attempts to deflect a genuine criticism of an immoral and unhealthy practice. Without question, there are people and organizations who have developed an irrational hate of homosexuals and who are prepared to use violent actions to inflict suffering upon homosexuals. However, the problem is that the homosexual\-rights activists have accused anyone who opposes homosexuality of harboring similar hatred. Therefore, Christians who rightly discern that homosexuality is an unnatural sin are equated with violent lunatics who hate for hatred’s sake. While the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality, it never instructs that homosexuals are to be hated. As Christians, we are to speak out against the perversion of homosexual activity. The Bible is explicit in its condemnation of it, as well as God’s wrath towards those who practice such behavior. As Christians, we are called to clearly and lovingly call sin for what it is. Using the term homophobia to refer to anyone who opposes homosexuality is a distraction, not a valid argument or accurate representation. A Christian should have only one fear regarding homosexuals, the fear that they will suffer eternally because of their decision to reject the only means of salvation—the Lord Jesus Christ who offers the only hope for escape from a degrading and destructive lifestyle.
What is the meaning of Jacob wrestling with God?	Answer Genesis 32:22–32 recounts the puzzling story of [Jacob](life-Jacob.html) in an all\-night wrestling match. His opponent is a man who refers to himself as “God” (verse 28\). Later, Jacob also refers to the man he struggled with as “God” (verse 30\). To know Jacob’s story is to know his life was a never\-ending struggle. Jacob’s family was characterized by deep\-seated hostility. Jacob was a con artist who had been conned, a liar who had been lied to, and a manipulator who had been manipulated. In many ways, he lived up to his name Jacob, which literally means “heel\-catcher” and carries the sense of “one who follows after to supplant or deceive.” God had promised Jacob that through him would come a great nation through whom the whole world would be blessed (Genesis 28:10–15\). Still, Jacob was a man full of fears and anxieties. His brother, [Esau](Esau-in-the-Bible.html), had vowed to kill him. His uncle, [Laban](Laban-in-the-Bible.html), had cheated him for years. His two wives had an adversarial relationship with each other. After he fled Laban’s ill\-treatment, Jacob and his family camped in a spot chosen for him by angels (Genesis 32:1–2\). From there, he sent messengers with a gift to his estranged brother, Esau, and they returned with the news that Esau was on his way with 400 men (Genesis 32:3–6\). Fearing the worst, Jacob divided his family and herds so that, in case one group fell victim to Esau’s men, the other group might escape. Jacob prayed for the Lord’s help and then sent several caravans of lavish gifts ahead of him in hopes of pacifying Esau. Finally, Jacob sent his wives and children across the River Jabbok with all the rest of his possessions (Genesis 32:22–23\). Alone in the desert wilderness, Jacob had the ultimate restless night. A stranger visited Jacob, and they wrestled throughout the night until daybreak, at which point the stranger crippled Jacob with a blow to his hip. Even then, Jacob held on. He must have known there was something supernatural about this stranger, because he demanded a blessing from him (Genesis 32:26\). The stranger then gave Jacob a new name: Israel, which likely means “he struggles with God” (Genesis 32:28\). The stranger gave the reason for Jacob’s new name: “Because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome” (Genesis 32:28\). Jacob asks for the stranger’s name, but the man declines to give it—Jacob knew with whom he wrestled. And then Jacob receives what he wanted: a blessing (Genesis 32:29\). Jacob limped for the rest of his life, but he “saw God face to face” (Genesis 32:30\) and received God’s blessing. In his weakness, he was strong. The next morning, God’s blessing of Jacob was evident. Esau, the brother Jacob had feared, received him gladly (Genesis 33\). In Western culture and even in our churches, we celebrate wealth, power, strength, confidence, prestige, and victory. We avoid weakness, failure, and doubt. Though we know that a measure of vulnerability, fear, and discouragement comes with life, we tend to view these as signs of failure or even a lack of faith. However, we also know that, in real life, naïve optimism and the glowing accolades of glamour and success are a recipe for discontent and despair. Sooner or later, the cold, hard realism of life catches up with most of us. The story of Jacob pulls us back to reality. Frederick Buechner characterized Jacob’s divine encounter at the Jabbok River as the “magnificent defeat of the human soul at the hands of God” (The Magnificent Defeat, HarperOne, 1985, p. 18\). It’s in Jacob’s story we can easily recognize our own elements of struggle: fear, darkness, loneliness, vulnerability, emptiness, exhaustion, and pain. Even the apostle Paul experienced discouragement and fear: “We were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within” (2 Corinthians 7:5\). But, in truth, God does not want to leave us with our trials, our fears, our battles in life. What we come to learn in our conflicts is that God proffers us a corresponding divine gift. He comes to us and manifests Himself to us in our struggles. It is through Him that we can receive the power of conversion and transformation, the gifts of freedom, endurance, faith, and courage. In the end, Jacob does what we all must do. In his weakness and fear, he faces God. Jacob was separated from all others and from his worldly possessions, and that’s when he grapples all night for what is truly important. It was an exhausting struggle that left him crippled. It was only after he wrestled with God and ceased his struggling, realizing that he could not go on without Him, that he received God’s blessing (Genesis 32:29\).
What does the Bible say about friends?	Answer Human beings were created to be relational, and friendships are an important part of our lives. We need friends—people we bond with in mutual affection. But not just any friend will do; having the right friends is key, and discernment is required: “The righteous choose their friends carefully” (Proverbs 12:26\). In Scripture, we see what a [true friend](true-friendship.html) should be: A true friend shows love, no matter what (Proverbs 17:17\). A true friend gives heartfelt advice, bringing joy to the heart (Proverbs 27:9\). A true friend rebukes when necessary, but the correction is done in love (Proverbs 27:5–6\). A true friend influences, enlivens, and sharpens (Proverbs 27:17\). A true friend avoid gossip (Proverbs 16:28\). A true friend forgives and does not hold grudges (Proverbs 17:9\). A true friend is loyal (Proverbs 18:24\). A true friend helps in time of need (Ecclesiastes 4:9–12\). Friends can console and help us when we are in trouble, as when Barzillai the Gileadite consoled David when he was being hunted by Saul (2 Samuel 19:25–26\) or when Jephthah’s daughter’s friends consoled her in her sorrow (Judges 11:37–38\). A friend may also rebuke in love, proving more faithful than a hypocritical flatterer (Proverbs 27:6\). One of the greatest biblical examples of friendship is [David and Jonathan](David-and-Jonathan.html), son of King Saul. Jonathan’s loyalty to his friend, David, exceeded that to his own father and his own ambitions (1 Samuel 18:1–4; 20:14–17\). So attached was David to his loyal friend that, after Jonathan’s death, David wrote a song to him, a tribute filled with heart\-wrenching pathos (2 Samuel 1:19–27\). Theirs was a friendship closer than brotherhood. In the New Testament, many of Paul’s letters begin and end with tributes to his friends, those who ministered to him, supported him, prayed for him, and loved him. Friendship can have its negative aspects as well. Supposed friends can lead us into sin, as when Jonadab counseled Amnon to rape his half\-sister, Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1–6\). A friend can lead us astray spiritually, as Israel was warned about (Deuteronomy 13:6–11\). Even well\-intentioned friends can provide false comfort and give bad advice, as Job’s friends did, making his suffering worse and displeasing the Lord (Job 2:11–13; 6:14–27; 42:7–9\). People we thought were friends can prove false, deserting us when our friendship no longer benefits them (Psalm 55:12–14; Proverbs 19:4, 6–7\). For all these reasons and more, friends should be chosen carefully. As Paul taught, “Bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33\). The Bible gives warnings about the wrong types of friends. We are not to be friends with a hot\-tempered person, for example (Proverbs 22:24–25\). And Proverbs 1:10–19 and 4:14–19 warn against those who entice us to do wrong. We should not associate with evildoers, no matter how great the promised reward or how appealing their “friendship” seems to be. Those whose “feet rush to sin” should be avoided at all costs. The path they choose is no place for a Christian whose choice should be to follow the “path of the righteous.” Only that path leads to friendship with God. The greatest friend anyone could possibly have is Jesus Christ. He gladly calls us friends (John 15:15\), and He proved His commitment and affection for us in a convincing way: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13\).
What is evidential apologetics?	Answer Evidential apologetics is a method of Christian apologetics that emphasizes positive evidences in favor of the truth of Christianity. The distinctive feature of evidential apologetics is its one\-step approach to establishing Christian theism. Evidentialists will utilize evidence and arguments from several areas including archeology, fulfilled messianic prophecy, and especially from miracles. In distinction from classical apologetics, the evidential apologist believes that the occurrence of miracles acts as an evidence for God’s very existence. In this way, the evidential apologist does not believe that the philosophical and scientific arguments for God’s existence must logically precede arguments from miracles to establish biblical Christianity. However, the evidential apologist is not opposed to the use of natural theology to help to confirm God’s existence. These arguments are an important weapon in the arsenal of the evidentialist as they help to undergird the case for Christianity by giving further confirmation that God exists and has created and designed our universe. Evidentialists simply do not believe such arguments must be presented prior to moving on to evidence from miracles. In this way, the evidential apologist can argue for theism and Christian theism at the same time without having to first establish God’s existence. Such an approach can be beneficial in personal evangelism where time can be at a minimum. Evidential apologists characteristically place a heavy emphasis on evidence from miracles, especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Evidentialists will appeal to numerous lines of evidence to establish the historicity of the post\-mortem appearances of the risen Jesus, as well as the discovery of His empty tomb. Additional emphasis is often placed on refuting naturalistic theories that attempt to explain away the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Once the resurrection has been established, Jesus’ (and His apostles’) own understanding of this event then becomes the proper interpretive framework through which we understand its significance. Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus said that His forthcoming resurrection would validate His claims (Matthew 12:38\-40, 16:1\-4\). The Apostle Paul declared that the resurrection of Christ was God’s vindication of Christ’s deity (Romans 1:3\-4\). In the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter claimed that Jesus’ bodily resurrection was God’s endorsement of Jesus’ public ministry (Acts 2:23\-32\). When taken in this context, the bodily resurrection becomes the primary validation of Jesus’ own radical claims about Himself and the vindication of Jesus’ message of salvation.
Should Christians celebrate Mother’s Day?	Answer Mother’s Day—called Mothering Day in the U.K.—can be traced back to ancient pagan practices, but it has gone through a lot of changes and names to get to what we know today. The history of Mother’s Day can be traced back to celebrations of ancient Greece in honor of Rhea, the mother of the gods. During the 1600s, the early Christians in England celebrated a day to honor Mary, the mother of Christ. By a religious order, the holiday was later expanded to include all mothers. Mother’s Day occurs in the U.S. once a year on the second Sunday of May, while Mothering Day in the U.K. is celebrated the fourth Sunday of Lent. Traditional ways to celebrate Mother’s Day are to take mothers out to dinner and/or honor them with cards, flowers, or candy. Biblically, honoring mothers (and fathers) is commanded by God in both the Old and New Testaments (Deuteronomy 5:16: Ephesians 6:2\). The Bible does not command us to dedicate a special day to honor our mothers, nor is there anything in the Bible to condemn it. So the question is whether, considering the pagan roots of the holiday, Christians should celebrate Mother’s Day. The key is found in Romans 14:5\-8: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.” As Christians, we should be fully convinced that we are doing what God wants us to do. If we choose to celebrate Mother’s Day and we see nothing wrong with it, then we should celebrate with a clear conscience. If, however, celebrating is against one’s conscience, then celebrating is not appropriate. On the other hand, if one does not celebrate Mother’s Day or any other holiday for reasons of conscience, that is fine, as long as he/she does not become prideful, looking down on those who do celebrate. As with all issues not specifically addressed in Scripture, we have the freedom to celebrate or not celebrate Mother’s Day, according to personal preference.
What is classical apologetics?	Answer Classical apologetics is a method of apologetics that begins by first employing various theistic arguments to establish the existence of God. Classical apologists will often utilize various forms of the cosmological, teleological (Design), ontological, and moral arguments to prove God’s existence. Once God’s existence has been established, the classical apologist will then move on to present evidence from fulfilled prophecy, the historical reliability of Scripture, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus to distinguish Christianity from all other competing forms of theism. Classical apologetics (also known as traditional apologetics) has as its distinctive feature a two\-step approach to establishing a Christian worldview. Classical apologists are often hesitant to make an argument directly from miracles to the biblical God. Rather, they prefer to appeal to miracles after having already established a theistic context. Modern proponents of classical apologetics include [R.C. Sproul](R-C-Sproul.html), William Lane Craig, and [Norman Geisler](Norman-Geisler.html). Christian philosopher Norman Geisler summarized the difference between classical and evidential apologetics in this way: "The difference between the classical apologists and the evidentialists on the use of historical evidences is that the classical see the need to first establish that this is a theistic universe...The basic argument of the classical apologist is that it makes no sense to speak about the resurrection as an act of God unless, as a logical prerequisite, it is first established that there is a God who can act" (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics).
What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism?	Answer Amyraldism (sometimes spelled Amyraldianism) is an off\-shoot of Calvinism that holds to four of Calvinism’s five points—limited atonement being the only point to be rejected. For this reason, Amyraldism is sometimes called “four\-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism.” Amyraldism is named after Moses Amyraut (Moyses Amyraldus), a 16th\-century French theologian who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” Some Calvinists see Amyraldism as a “liberal” form of Calvinism; others see it as an unnecessary compromise with [Arminianism](arminianism.html); still others see it as inconsistent with itself and therefore illogical. In order to better understand Amyraldism, it is beneficial to recap what [Calvinism](calvinism.html) is. Classic Calvinism centers on the so\-called [five points of Calvinism](doctrines-of-grace.html), which are summarized below: 1\. Total Depravity – Man, in his fallen state, is completely incapable of doing any good that is acceptable to God. 2\. Unconditional Election – As a result of man’s total depravity, he is unable (and unwilling) to come to God for salvation. Therefore, God must sovereignly choose those who will be saved. His decision to elect individuals for salvation is unconditional. It is not based on anything that man is or does but solely on God’s grace. 3\. Limited Atonement – In order to save those whom God has unconditionally elected, atonement for their sin had to be made. God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the elect and secure their pardon by His death on the cross. 4\. Irresistible Grace – The Holy Spirit applies the finished work of salvation to the elect by irresistibly drawing them to faith and repentance. This saving call of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted and is referred to as an efficacious call. 5\. Perseverance of the Saints – Those whom God has elected, atoned for, and efficaciously called are preserved in faith until the last day. They will never fall away because God has secured them with the seal of the Holy Spirit. The saints persevere because God preserves them. As mentioned above, the particular point that Amyraldism denies is the third point, [limited atonement](limited-atonement.html). Amyraldism replaces it with unlimited atonement, or the concept of “hypothetical universalism,” which asserts that Christ died for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Amyraldism preserves the doctrine of unconditional election even while teaching unlimited atonement this way: because God knew that not all would respond in faith to Christ’s atonement (due to man’s total depravity), He elected some to whom He would impart saving faith. Amyraldism is somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to the extent of the atonement. Calvinism teaches that the atonement is limited to the elect; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation a reality for the elect. Arminianism teaches that the atonement is unlimited and available to all; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation possible to all, and man must exercise faith to make salvation actual. Amyraldism teaches that Christ died for all men, but God only applies this salvation to those whom He has chosen. This is related to a view held in some Calvinistic circles called “unlimited/limited atonement.” Amyraldism seems to resolve a problem that a belief in limited atonement presents—namely, the difficulty of reconciling Calvinism with passages that teach Christ died for everyone (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2\). But Amyraldism is not without its own difficulty: if Christ died for all men, then, logically, there are people in hell right now whose sins have been atoned for. Those in hell are not the elect, according to Amyraldism, so did God pass over people for whom Christ died? This is the main theological question facing Amyraldians, who respond by saying God’s salvation (through the unlimited sacrifice of Christ) is offered to everyone equally. But this salvation has a condition: faith. In one sense, God’s grace is universal—He desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9\)—but, in another sense, His grace is narrowed down and applied (through election) only to those who do not reject salvation. Amyraldism, or four\-point Calvinism, is popular today among many evangelicals, including independent Bible churches, Baptists, and some Presbyterians. Four\-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the [atonement was unlimited](unlimited-atonement.html).
What is the Green Bible?	Answer The Green Bible, published in 2008 by Harper Collins Publishers, is not a new translation. The publishers use the [New Revised Standard Version](New-Revised-Standard-Version-NRSV.html) as their text. The whole premise of this version is similar to the “red\-letter” editions of the Bible where the words of Christ are printed in red ink. Following this approach, the Green Bible prints in green ink verses and passages which, according to the publisher, deal with environmental topics or creation care. They break this down into four categories: 1\. How God and Jesus are involved in creation; 2\. How all elements (land, water, plants, humans, animals) are interdependent; 3\. How nature responds to God; 4\. How we are called to care for creation. The Bible itself is printed on recycled paper using soy\-based ink with a cotton/linen cover. There is also a foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as well as several essays by various people including Brian McLaren, of emergent church fame, and Pope John Paul II. Other features include a topical index, a personal “trail study guide,” and an appendix with information on further reading, how to get involved, and practical steps to take. The idea of a “green” Bible may have merits. The Green Bible can serve as a reminder to believers who are overly critical of today’s modern “green” movement that the Scriptures do speak on the subject of the environment. The heavens, air, oceans, rivers, seas, plants, and animals are all wonderfully created by God. Some need to be reminded that God’s magnificent creation is something to behold, appreciate, respect, and preserve (Genesis 1:26\-28\). Of course, God’s command to mankind to rule over and subdue the earth does not mean we can abuse it. Rather, God has given care of the environment to mankind to nurture and use with respect, always mindful of our great God as the force behind its creation. At the same time, there are negative aspects of the Green Bible. A statement by Eugene H. Peterson, author of The Message, explains the whole purpose of the Green Bible: “The Green Bible sets out an urgent agenda for the Christian community.” It seems clear that the main goal and purpose is to promote the “green” agenda and implies that God in His Word confirms this as a primary theme. However, the “urgent agenda” for the Christian community is not the reclamation of the earth, but the reclamation of souls destined for an eternity in hell. Anything that distracts Christians from this most basic reason for our existence is antithetical to God’s plan for His people. Interestingly, the Green Bible does not seem to be prominently used as a tool by those who support today’s “green” movement, no doubt because there are too many other truths in God’s Word that contradict the basic philosophies of the “green” agenda. The Green Bible in reality is a perfect example of what the Apostle Paul speaks about in Romans: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen” (Romans 1:25\). The Green Bible goes beyond just advocating an agenda and actually is teaching false doctrines. This becomes evident in the “Green Bible Quiz,” which has seven questions with three multiple\-choice answers for each question. Question \#2 asks, “Which verse praising creation is from the Psalms?” and gives Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands,” as the correct answer. The problem here is that this verse does exactly opposite of what the question asks. The verse is not “praising creation” at all; rather, it speaks of the creation praising the Creator, God. Question \#4 in the Green Bible Quiz asks, “Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?” The “correct” answer given is Matthew 4:23, but apparently this was a typo and no doubt should have been Matthew 14:23, “After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone.” This verse definitely does not say that Christ went up to the mountain “to commune with nature.” He went up to pray, literally to commune with His Father, God. This goes far beyond stretching the meaning of a verse and actually amounts to deifying nature, which is nothing short of idolatry. There is nothing wrong with Christians being involved in a conscious effort to appreciate and even preserve God’s wonderful creation. But any effort directed at preserving the planet forever runs counter to God’s revealed plan. He tells us in 2 Peter 3:10 that at the end of the age, the earth and all He has created will be destroyed with fire. The physical, natural earth in its present form, along with the entire universe, will be consumed, and God will create a "new heaven and a new earth" (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1\). As believers, our focus has to be living for the Savior and, in what the Scriptures call the “last days,” to be about the business of sharing the good news of the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ with as many people as possible.
What is human nature?	Answer Human nature is that which makes us distinctly human. Our nature is distinct from that of the animals and the rest of creation in that we can think and feel. One of the chief distinctions between human beings and the rest of creation is our ability to reason. No other creature has this ability, and there’s no question that this is a unique gift bestowed by God. Our reason enables us to reflect on our own nature and the nature of God and to derive knowledge of God’s will for His creation. No other part of God’s creation has a nature capable of reason. The Bible teaches that God created human beings in His image. This means that He enables us to have some understanding of Him and of His vast and complex design. Our human nature reflects some of God’s attributes, although in a limited way. We love because we are made in the image of the God who is love (1 John 4:16\). Because we are created in His image, we can be compassionate, faithful, truthful, kind, patient, and just. In us, these attributes are distorted by sin, which also resides in our nature. Originally, human nature was perfect by virtue of having been created so by God. The Bible teaches that human beings were created “very good” by a loving God (Genesis 1:31\), but that goodness was marred by the sin of Adam and Eve. Subsequently, the entire human race fell victim to the sin nature. The good news is that at the moment a person trusts in Christ, he receives a new nature. Second Corinthians 5:17 tells us, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” Sanctification is the process by which God develops our new nature, enabling us to grow into more holiness through time. This is a continuous process with many victories and defeats as the new nature battles with the “tent” (2 Corinthians 5:4\) in which it resides—the old man, the old nature, the flesh. Not until we are glorified in heaven will our new nature be set free to live for eternity in the presence of the God in whose image we are created.
What is cross theology / theology of the cross?	Answer The theology of the cross, or theologia crucis, is a term coined by the German theologian [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html) to refer to the belief that the cross is the only source of spiritual knowledge concerning who God is and how God saves. Only at the cross does a fallen human being gain the understanding that is the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at conversion (1 Corinthians 12:13; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13\-14\). Cross theology is contrasted with the theology of glory, or theologia gloriae, which places greater emphasis on human abilities and human reason. Luther first used the term theologia crucis in the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518, where he defended the Reformation doctrines of the [depravity of man](total-depravity.html) and the bondage of the will to sin. The primary difference between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory is the ability or inability of man to justify himself before a holy God. The theologian of the cross sees as inviolate the biblical truths of man’s inability to earn righteousness, the inability for humans to add to or increase the righteousness attained by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and the only source of man’s righteousness coming from outside of ourselves. The cross theologian agrees wholeheartedly with the Apostle Paul’s assessment of the human condition: “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature” (Romans 7:18\). The cross theologian rejects the idea that man can attain righteousness in any degree by keeping the works of the law, but is saved and sanctified solely by grace (Romans 3:20; Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Theologians of glory, on the other hand, see good in humans and ascribe to them the ability to do the good that lies within them. They believe that there remains, after the fall, some ability to prefer good over evil and to choose the good. Most significantly, glory theology posits that humans cannot be saved without participating in or cooperating with the righteousness given by God. This is the classic works vs. faith debate which has long been fueled by a misunderstanding of certain passages in the book of James. James 2:17\-18 is interpreted to mean that we are justified by our works, while James is actually saying that those who have been justified by faith in the work of Christ on the cross will produce good works as evidence of true conversion, not that conversion is obtained by good works. It should be noted that theology of the cross is not the sentimental idea that Jesus is made more attractive to us by His identifying with our trials and tribulations. While Jesus certainly does identify with our suffering, our suffering is not somehow made nobler because of it. Our suffering is the byproduct of the fall of mankind into sin, whereas Jesus’ suffering was that of an innocent Lamb slaughtered for the sake of others’ sin, not His own. Nor is cross theology our identification with His suffering through our own, which pales in comparison to what He went through. In the end, Jesus suffered and died because nobody identified with Him. The people cried, "Crucify him!" One of His disciples betrayed Him, another denied Him three times, and the rest abandoned Him and fled. He died alone, forsaken even by God. So to attempt to unite ourselves with Him in His suffering is to diminish His sacrifice and exalt our own sufferings to a level never intended by the theology of the cross which Luther posited.
What is contextual theology?	Answer Also known as “enculturation,” contextual theology refers to the manner in which the church in every age tends to adapt its teachings to the culture in which it finds itself. There are many examples of this, but perhaps the best is found in 1 Corinthians 11:4–7\. Paul’s teaching here has to do with head coverings. For a woman in that culture not to cover her head was quite unthinkable. The veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore under submission to God. In the Corinthian culture, women normally wore a head covering as a symbol of their submission to their husbands. Paul affirms the rightness of following that cultural protocol—to dispense with the head coverings on women would send the entirely wrong signal to the culture at large. In fact, Paul says that, if a Christian woman refuses her head covering, she might as well shave her hair off, too—an act that would bring shame (verse 6\). A woman who refused to wear a covering in that culture was basically saying, “I refuse to submit to God’s order.” The apostle Paul’s teaching was that the wearing of a “covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority. To adapt that teaching to various other cultures falls under the realm of contextual theology. Clearly, teachings from the Bible have to sometimes be interpreted in the context of the culture. Nevertheless, the underlying principles of God’s Word are still the same today as they were when they were written. The principle in the 1 Corinthians passage is that Christ is head over the body and the husband is head over the wife, who should be in submission to him and show her submission in culturally appropriate ways. Contextual theology uses principles from the Bible but filters it through the lens of contemporary reference points. In forming such a theological system, one must consider linguistic, socio\-political, cultural, and ideological factors. The result is sometimes a syncretic hodge\-podge of beliefs. “Following Jesus” in one culture and context may look very different from “following Jesus” in another culture on the other side of the world—and it may look nothing like Christianity at all. Obviously, contextual theology has to be applied carefully. There is always a danger that, in accommodating the truth to a culture, the truth is compromised and the gospel is lost in translation.
What are the ingredients to a truly biblical worship service?	Answer Humans are instinctively worshiping creatures. The psalmist expressed this when he wrote, “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God” (Psalm 42:1\). Cicero in the first century BC observed that religion, regardless of its form, was a universal trait of man. Seeing that people are going to worship something or someone, we should ask what is worship? Whom and how shall we worship? What constitutes a biblical worship service, and, most importantly, will we be “true worshipers” (John 4:23\) or false worshipers? Christ commanded that true worshipers worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24\). The apostle Paul explained that we worship by the Spirit of God (Philippians 3:3\), meaning that [true worship](true-worship.html) comes only from those who have been saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit living in their hearts. Worshiping in spirit also refers to having the proper heart attitude, not simply adhering to rites and rituals. To worship in truth means to worship according to what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture. In order for our worship to be biblical, it must abide within the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9; see also Deuteronomy 4:12; 12:32; Revelation 22:18–19\). True worship relies on the instructions given in the Bible and can be offered with or without a Book of Confessions, Rules of Order, or other manmade book of instructions or guidance. The first\-century church engaged in several devotional acts in their worship services, from which we can determine what comprises a truly biblical worship service: the communion supper was observed (Acts 20:7\), prayers were offered up (1 Corinthians 14:15–16\), songs were sung to the glory of God (Ephesians 5:19\), a collection was taken (1 Corinthians 16:2\), the Scriptures were read (Colossians 4:16\), and the Word of God was proclaimed (Acts 20:7\). Communion and prayer were also essential elements of the early church service. The [communion supper](communion-Christian.html) commemorates Jesus’ death until He returns (1 Corinthians 11:25–26\). Prayer should be directed only to God (Nehemiah 4:9; Matthew 6:9\) and in harmony with the will of God (1 John 5:14\). Corporate prayer is important because it creates unity (John 17:22\-23\) and is a key aspect of believers’ encouraging one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11\) and spurring one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24\). In our worship, we should sing. The apostle Paul commands us to “speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:19–20\). Singing to the Lord and to one another conveys truth set to music (Colossians 3:16\). Part of true biblical worship is [giving an offering](Christian-giving.html), as Paul instructed the Corinthian church: “Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made” (1 Corinthians 16:1–2\). Our regular giving for the support of the Lord’s work is a serious responsibility. The opportunity to give should be viewed as a thrilling blessing, not as a burdensome matter for grumbling (2 Corinthians 9:7\). Additionally, freewill giving is the only explicitly biblical method for financing the work of the church. Finally, preaching and teaching are major ingredients of true biblical worship. Our teaching must be the Scriptures alone, the only means of equipping believers for life and godliness (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). The godly preacher or teacher will teach only from the Word and rely on the Spirit of God do His work in the minds and hearts of his listeners. As Paul reminded Timothy, “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Timothy 4:2\). A church gathering that does not include the Word of God as a major component is not a biblical worship service. As we follow the pattern of true worship in Scripture, let us worship God with great passion. We must not convey to the world the impression that the worship of our God is a boring, lifeless ritual. We have been redeemed from sin. Let us therefore praise our Creator as His children who are grateful for His bountiful blessings. “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe” (Hebrews 12:28–29\).
What does the Bible say about capitalism?	Answer The dictionary defines capitalism as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” While the Bible doesn’t mention capitalism by name, it does speak a great deal about economic issues. For example, whole sections of the book of Proverbs and many of the parables of Jesus deal with economic matters. As such, we learn what our [attitude should be toward wealth](wealth-Christian.html) and how a [Christian should handle his finances](managing-finances.html). The Bible also provides us with a description of our [human nature](human-nature.html) which helps us to evaluate the possible success of and failure of an economic system in society. Because economics is an area where much of our everyday life takes place, we should evaluate it from a biblical perspective. When we use the Bible as our framework, we can begin to construct the model for a government and an economy that liberates human potential and limits human sinfulness. In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. One aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion. Since we have both volition and private property rights, we can assume that we should have the freedom to exchange these private property rights in a free market where goods and services can be exchanged. However, due to the ravages of sin, many parts of the world have become places of decay and scarcity. And, though God has given us dominion over His creation, we must be good stewards of the resources at our disposal. Historically, the free enterprise system has provided the greatest amount of freedom and the most effective economic gains of any economic system ever devised. Even so, Christians often wonder if they can support capitalism. In essence, self\-interest is rewarded in a free capitalist system. But even the gospel appeals to our self\-interest, because it is in our self\-interest to accept Jesus Christ as our savior so that our eternal destiny will be assured. From a Christian perspective, the basis of private property rests in our [being created in God’s image](image-of-God.html). We can make choices over property that we can exchange in a market system. But sometimes the desire for private property grows out of our sinfulness. Correspondingly, our sinful nature also produces laziness, neglect, and slothfulness. The fact is that economic justice can best be achieved if each person is accountable for his own productivity. Historically, capitalism has had a number of advantages. It has liberated economic potential. It has also provided the foundation for a great deal of political and economic freedom. When government is not controlling markets, then there is economic freedom to be involved in an array of entrepreneurial activities. Capitalism has also led to a great deal of political freedom, because once we limit the role of government in economics, we limit the scope of government in other areas. It is no accident that most of the countries with the greatest political freedom usually have a great deal of economic freedom. However, Christians cannot and should not endorse every aspect of capitalism. For example, many proponents of capitalism hold a view known as [utilitarianism](utilitarianism.html), which is opposed to the notion of biblical absolutes. Certainly, we must reject this philosophy. Also, there are certain economic and moral issues that must be addressed. Though there are some valid economic criticisms of capitalism such as monopolies and the byproduct of pollution, these can be controlled by limited governmental control. And when capitalism is wisely controlled, it generates significant economic prosperity and economic freedom for its people. One of the major moral arguments against capitalism is [greed](Bible-greed.html), which is why many Christians feel unsure about the free enterprise system. Critics of capitalism contend that this system makes people greedy. But then we must ask whether capitalism makes people greedy or do we already have greedy people who use the economic freedom of the capitalistic system to achieve their ends? In light of the biblical description of human nature (Jeremiah 17:9\), the latter seems more likely. Because people are sinful and selfish, some are going to use the capitalist system to satisfy their greed. But that is not so much a criticism of capitalism as it is a realization of the human condition. The goal of capitalism is not to change bad people but to protect us from them. Capitalism is a system in which bad people can do the least harm and good people have the freedom to do good works. Capitalism works best with moral individuals. But it also functions adequately with selfish and greedy people. It’s important to realize that there is a difference between self\-interest and selfishness. All people have self\-interests which can operate in ways that are not selfish. For example, it is in our self\-interest to get a job and earn an income so that we can support our family. We can do that in ways that are not selfish. By contrast, other economic systems such as [socialism](socialism-Christian.html) ignore the biblical definitions of human nature. As a result, they allow economic power to be centralized and concentrate power in the hands of a few greedy people. Those who complain of the influence major corporations have on our lives should consider the socialist alternative where a few governmental bureaucrats control every aspect of our lives. Though greed is sometimes evident in the capitalist system, we have to understand it’s not because of the system—it’s because greed is part of man’s sinful nature. The solution lies not in changing the economic system but in changing the heart of man through the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
What is iconoclasm?	Answer Iconoclasm literally means “icon\-breaking,” which includes the religious as well as political destruction of images or monuments, usually—though not always—those of another religious group. Iconoclasm is frequently a component of major domestic political or religious changes. Iconoclasm is the belief that there should not be religious pictures or sacred images or religious monuments because they are seen as a form of idolatry. People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called “iconoclasts,” a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogma or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are called “iconolaters.” In a [Byzantine](Byzantine-Period.html) context they are known as “iconodules” or “iconophiles.” Though iconoclasm may be carried out by people of different religions, it is often the result of sectarian disputes between factions of the same religion. For example, the making of portraits of Christ and the saints was opposed in the early Christian church, but [icons](religious-iconography.html) had grown to become a very popular form of worship by the end of the 6th century. The defenders of icon worship emphasized the symbolic nature of the images. There was opposition to this worship which led to the “iconoclastic controversy” by the Byzantine emperor Leo II in A.D. 726\. This controversy continued in the Eastern Church for more than a century before icons were once again accepted. The iconoclastic controversy stimulated the Byzantine artists to strive for spiritual revelation in religious art rather than for naturalistic representation. The churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church are generally decorated only with flat pictures, bas\-reliefs, and mosaics. Iconoclasm was also a feature of the Protestant Reformation. The Puritans were especially hostile to the use of religious images, and some Protestants still consider their use idolatrous. In Christianity, iconoclasm has generally been motivated by a literal interpretation of the Ten Commandments, which forbid the making and worshiping of “graven images” (see Exodus 20:4\). Statues and portraits of saints and religious figures were also common in the Western church, though some Protestant sects eventually rejected them. Islam still bans all icons, and iconoclasm has played a role in the conflicts between Muslims and Hindus in India.
What is the significance of the folded napkin in Christ’s tomb after the resurrection?	Answer The detail of the folded napkin is found in the account of Jesus’ resurrection in John 20:7, “And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (KJV). Different respected translations of the Bible handle this verse differently. Three of them translate the verse with the word napkin (KJV, AS, RSV). Others translate it with “burial cloth” (NIV), “handkerchief” (NKJV), or “face\-cloth” (NASB). The Greek word is saudarion, which comes from a Latin word for “sweat.” It can refer to a towel for wiping sweat from one’s face. It is used in the Greek to denote a towel or cloth, but not specifically a table napkin. The other key word is folded. Was the burial cloth or napkin left folded in the tomb? Two of the translations use the word folded (NIV, NKJV). Others translate the word as “rolled up” (NASB, ASV, RSV) or “wrapped together” (KJV). The Greek word is entulisso, which is from words that may mean “to twist” or “to entwine.” The bottom line is that there is no agreement that it was a table napkin and no agreement that it was neatly folded in any meaningful way. The primary meaning of John 20:7 is that the cloth, which was placed over Jesus’ head or face at burial, was separate from the rest of His grave clothes. The significance of that, if there is any, is unknown. It has been rumored that folding the napkin at the table is a Jewish custom that means the person folding the napkin intends to return. Numerous Bible study sources have been checked, but there is nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. The only references to this story seem to be from internet postings and emails that appear to have originated in 2007\. Many Bible commentators and authors have used this creative illustration to make specific application to the resurrection and return of Jesus Christ. The truth is that table napkins, such as we use today, were not used in Jesus’ day. Jews would do an after\-meal hand washing as part of the eating ritual. Washing of the hands before a meal was mandatory according to rabbinic injunction, but after washing their hands, did people dry them with a cloth? Apparently, there is no early rabbinic source that discusses how the hands were dried after washing them. The folding of the napkin as a sign that a dinner guest is not finished may be good European custom, but it appears this custom was unknown in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus.
What are the seven dispensations?	Answer [Dispensationalism](dispensationalism.html) is a method of interpreting history that divides God’s work and purposes toward mankind into different periods of time. Usually, there are seven dispensations identified, although some theologians believe there are nine. Others count as few as three or as many as thirty\-seven dispensations. In this article, we will limit ourselves to the seven basic dispensations found in Scripture. The first dispensation is called the [Dispensation of Innocence](dispensation-of-Innocence.html) (Genesis 1:28\-30 and 2:15\-17\). This dispensation covered the period of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In this dispensation God’s commands were to (1\) fill the earth with children, (2\) subdue the earth, (3\) have dominion over the animals, (4\) care for the garden, and (5\) abstain from eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God warned of the punishment of physical and spiritual death for disobedience. This dispensation came to an end when Adam and Eve disobeyed in eating the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the garden. The second dispensation is called the [Dispensation of Conscience](dispensation-of-Conscience.html), and it lasted about 1,656 years from the time of Adam and Eve’s eviction from the garden until the flood (Genesis 3:8–8:22\). This dispensation demonstrates what mankind will do if left to his own will and conscience, which have been tainted by the inherited sin nature. The five major aspects of this dispensation are 1\) a curse on the serpent, 2\) a change in womanhood and childbearing, 3\) a curse on nature, 4\) the imposing of difficult work on mankind to produce food, and 5\) the promise of Christ as the seed who will bruise the serpent’s head (Satan). The third dispensation is the Dispensation of [Human Government](dispensation-of-Human-Government.html), which began in Genesis 8\. God had destroyed life on earth with a flood, saving just one family to restart the human race. God made the following promises and commands to Noah and his family: 1\. God will not curse the earth again. 2\. Noah and family are to replenish the earth with people. 3\. They shall have dominion over the animal creation. 4\. They are allowed to eat meat. 5\. The law of capital punishment is established. 6\. There never will be another worldwide flood. 7\. The sign of God’s promise will be the rainbow. Noah’s descendants did not scatter and fill the earth as God had commanded, thus failing in their responsibility in this dispensation. About 325 years after the flood, the earth’s inhabitants began building a tower, a great monument to their solidarity and pride (Genesis 11:7\-9\). God brought the construction to a halt, creating different languages and enforcing His command to fill the earth. The result was the rise of different nations and cultures. From that point on, human governments have been a reality. The fourth dispensation, called the [Dispensation of Promise](dispensation-of-Promise.html), started with the call of Abraham, continued through the lives of the patriarchs, and ended with the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt, a period of about 430 years. During this dispensation God developed a great nation that He had chosen as His people (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25\). The basic promise during the Dispensation of Promise was the Abrahamic Covenant. Here are some of the key points of that unconditional covenant: 1\. From Abraham would come a great nation that God would bless with natural and spiritual prosperity. 2\. God would make Abraham’s name great. 3\. God would bless those that blessed Abraham’s descendants and curse those that cursed them. 4\. In Abraham all the families of the earth will be blessed. This is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His work of salvation. 5\. The sign of the covenant is circumcision. 6\. This covenant, which was repeated to Isaac and Jacob, is confined to the Hebrew people and the 12 tribes of Israel. The fifth dispensation is called the [Dispensation of Law](dispensation-of-Law.html). It lasted almost 1,500 years, from the Exodus until it was suspended after Jesus Christ’s death. This dispensation will continue during the Millennium, with some modifications. During the Dispensation of Law, God dealt specifically with the Jewish nation through the Mosaic Covenant, or the Law, found in Exodus 19–23\. The dispensation involved temple worship directed by priests, with further direction spoken through God’s mouthpieces, the prophets. Eventually, due to the people’s disobedience to the covenant, the tribes of Israel lost the Promised Land and were subjected to bondage. The sixth dispensation, the one in which we now live, is the [Dispensation of Grace](dispensation-of-Grace.html). It began with the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20\). This “Age of Grace” or “Church Age” occurs between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9:24\. It starts with the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and ends with the Rapture of the church (1 Thessalonians 4\). This dispensation is worldwide and includes both Jews and the Gentiles. Man’s responsibility during the Dispensation of Grace is to believe in Jesus, the Son of God (John 3:18\). In this dispensation the Holy Spirit indwells believers as the Comforter (John 14:16\-26\). This dispensation has lasted for almost 2,000 years, and no one knows when it will end. We do know that it will end with the Rapture of all born\-again believers from the earth to go to heaven with Christ. Following the Rapture will be the judgments of God lasting for seven years. The seventh dispensation is called the [Millennial Kingdom of Christ](dispensation-of-Millennial-Kingdom.html) and will last for 1,000 years as Christ Himself rules on earth. This Kingdom will fulfill the prophecy to the Jewish nation that Christ will return and be their King. The only people allowed to enter the Kingdom are the born\-again believers from the Age of Grace, righteous survivors of the seven years of tribulation, and the resurrected Old Testament saints. No unsaved person is allowed access into this kingdom. Satan is bound during the 1,000 years. This period ends with the final judgment (Revelation 20:11\-14\). The old world is destroyed by fire, and the New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21 and 22 will begin.
How should a Christian respond to persecution?	Answer There is no doubt that persecution is a stark reality of living the Christian life. Christian persecution is to be expected: the apostle Paul warned that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12\). Jesus said that, if they persecuted Him, they will also persecute His followers (John 15:20\). Jesus made it clear that those of the world will hate Christians because the world hates Christ. If Christians were like the world—vain, earthly, sensual, and given to pleasure, wealth, and ambition—the world would not oppose us. But Christians do not belong to the world, which is why the world engages in Christian persecution (see John 15:18–19\). Christians are influenced by different principles from those of the world. We are motivated by the love of God and holiness, while the world is driven by the love of sin. It is our very [separation from the world](Biblical-separation.html) that arouses the world’s animosity (1 Peter 4:3–4\). Christians must learn to recognize the value of persecution and even to rejoice in it, not in an ostentatious way but quietly and humbly because persecution has great spiritual value. First, the persecution of Christians allows them to share in a unique fellowship with the Lord. Paul outlined a number of things he had surrendered for the cause of Christ. Such losses, however, he viewed as “rubbish” (Philippians 3:8\) or “dung” (KJV) that he might share in the “fellowship of \[Christ’s] sufferings” (Philippians 3:10\). The noble apostle even counted his chains as a grace (favor) that God had bestowed upon him (Philippians 1:7\). Second, in all truth, Christian persecution is good for believers. James argues that trials test the Christian’s faith, develop endurance in his life, and help develop maturity (James 1:2–4\). As steel is tempered in the forge, trials and persecution serve to strengthen the character of believers. A Christian yielding graciously to persecution demonstrates that he is of superior quality as compared to his adversaries (see Hebrews 11:38\). It’s easy to be hateful, but Christlikeness produces kindness and blessing in the face of evil opposition. Peter says of Jesus, “When they hurled their insults at Him, He did not retaliate; when He suffered, He made no threats. Instead, He entrusted Himself to Him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23\). Third, Christian persecution enables believers to better value the support of true friends. Conflict can bring faithful children of God together in an encouraging and supportive way they might not have known otherwise. Hardship can stimulate the Lord’s people toward a greater resolve to love and comfort one another and lift one another to the throne of grace in prayer. There’s nothing like an unpleasant incident to help us reach a greater level of [brotherly love](phileo-love.html). Even in the face of Christian persecution, we can press on. We can thank God for His grace and patience with us. We can express gratitude for those whom we love in the Lord and who stand with us in times of distress. And we can pray for those who would accuse, misuse, or abuse us (2 Corinthians 11:24; Romans 10:1\).
What is the Book of Jasher and should it be in the Bible?	Answer Also known as the “Book of the Upright One” in the Greek Septuagint and the “Book of the Just Ones” in the Latin Vulgate, the Book of Jasher was probably a collection or compilation of ancient Hebrew songs and poems praising the heroes of Israel and their exploits in battle. The Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua 10:12\-13 when the Lord stopped the sun in the middle of the day during the battle of Beth Horon. It is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18\-27 as containing the Song or Lament of the Bow, that mournful funeral song which David composed at the time of the death of Saul and Jonathan. The question is, if the Book of Jasher is mentioned in the Bible, why was it left out of the canon of Scripture? We know that God directed the authors of the Scriptures to use passages from many and various extra\-biblical sources in composing His Word. The passage recorded in Joshua 10:13 is a good example. In recording this battle, Joshua included passages from the Book of Jasher not because it was his only source of what occurred; rather, he was stating, in effect, “If you don’t believe what I’m saying, then go read it in the Book of Jasher. Even that book has a record of this event.” There are other Hebrew works that are mentioned in the Bible that God directed the authors to use. Some of these include the [Book of the Wars of the Lord](book-of-the-Wars-of-the-Lord.html) (Numbers 21:14\), the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of [Gad the Seer](Gad-the-seer.html) (1 Chronicles 29:29\). Also, there are the Acts of Rehoboam and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29\). We also know that Solomon composed more than a thousand songs (1 Kings 4:32\), yet only two are preserved in the book of Psalms (72 and 127\). Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, Paul included a quotation from the Cretan poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12\) and quoted from the poets Epimenides and Aratus in his speech at Athens (Acts 17:28\). The point is that the divine Author of the Bible used materials chosen from many different sources, fitting them into His grand design for the Scriptures. We must understand that history as recorded in the Bible did not occur in isolation. The people mentioned in the Bible interacted with other people. For example, though the Bible is clear that there is only one God, the Bible mentions a number of the gods people worshiped both within Israel and in the nations around. Similarly, as in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12, we sometimes find secular writers being quoted. This doesn’t mean that these quoted writers were inspired. It simply means they happened to say something that was useful in making a point. There is a book called “The Book of Jasher” today, although it is not the same book as mentioned in the Old Testament. It is an eighteenth\-century forgery that alleges to be a translation of the “lost” Book of Jasher by Alcuin, an eighth\-century English scholar. There is also a more recent book titled “The Book of Jashar” by science fiction and fantasy writer Benjamin Rosenbaum. This book is a complete work of fiction. Another book by this same name, called by many “Pseudo\-Jasher,” while written in Hebrew, is also not the “Book of Jasher” mentioned in Scripture. It is a book of Jewish legends from the creation to the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, but scholars hold that it did not exist before A.D. 1625\. In addition, there are several other theological works by Jewish rabbis and scholars called “Sefer ha Yashar,” but none of these claim to be the original Book of Jasher. In the end, we must conclude that the Book of Jasher mentioned in the Bible was lost and has not survived to modern times. All we really know about it is found in the two Scripture quotations mentioned earlier. The other books by that title are mere fictions or Jewish moral treatises.
Is speeding a sin?	Answer Paul is very clear when he tells us, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1\-2 NIV). In spite of how we might try to twist the Scriptures, as Christians we have a God\-directed responsibility to obey the laws that our government has established (unless the laws contradict God’s Word). We also need to ask ourselves what kind of example we are to the people who know we are Christians and who we are trying to reach with the gospel of Christ. How many times have we seen someone speeding by us, only to notice the fish or some other Christian symbol on their bumper? This definitely sends the wrong message. It is interesting how we try to justify our actions, even knowing they are not in compliance with the will of God or with established laws. As for exceeding the posted speed limit, we often tell ourselves that it’s not nearly as bad as the so\-called “bigger” sins such as lying or adultery or murder. But Solomon, the wisest man to ever have lived, put it this way: “Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding” (Proverbs 10:23 ESV). Though some will think nothing of breaking the law, we know assuredly that some will be quick to point out our hypocrisy. As followers of Christ, we need to carefully consider our manner of life in all things before the Lord, and this includes our driving habits. It was the prophets of old who declared, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight” (Isaiah 5:20\-21\). Malachi goes on to tell us God’s weariness with Israel when they, oblivious to their sin, said to Him, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord, and he is pleased with them" (Malachi 2:17\). May we not follow the example of the ancients who wearied God with their lame excuses and justifications for their evil deeds. Yes, speeding is a sin (as we’ve learned from Romans 13:1\-2\). Again, we must always consider our manner of living not only before the [eyes of the Lord](eyes-of-the-Lord.html), but also before the eyes of our fellow man. The reason we don’t break the law by speeding is that we love God and respect His authority. It was Peter who commanded, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:13\-15\).
How do beliefs about creation impact the rest of theology?	Answer The creation/evolution debate has been raging for years. To many, it seems like two opponents yelling at each other with no one really listening. The vitriol has increased to the point where each side reflexively dismisses the other—evolutionists dismiss creationists as completely ignoring science, and creationists accuse evolutionists of engaging in all sorts of Machiavellian conspiracies to silence their side. This is not to dismiss the arguments of either side as being hyperbolic but simply to point out that there is precious little honest dialogue going on in this verbal war. Because of the difficulty of sorting out the truth, many Christians relegate the creation/evolution debate to the status of a secondary issue that does not relate to how one becomes right with God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. For the most part, this line of thinking is correct. We can get so caught up in this debate that we lose our focus from the main issue: the spread of the gospel. However, as with many other “secondary” issues, what one believes regarding creation plays a role in how one views theology in general and the gospel in particular. More to the point, how one views creation has a major impact on the rest of their theological views. Regarding the doctrine of creation, there are several views within Christianity: 1\. Literal 24x6 creation – God created all there is in six 24\-hour days. 2\. Day\-Age view – The creation events occurred as depicted in Genesis 1, but instead of six 24\-hour days, the “days” of creation represent indeterminate, finite periods of time. 3\. The Framework view – The days of Genesis 1 represent a theological framework within which to narrate the creation of all things. Throughout most of church history, up until the last 150 years, the 24x6 view of creation was the most commonly held view within the church. Not all Christians held to this view, and not all who did were committed to it. However, there is no question that this has been the dominant interpretation of Genesis for most of Christian history. We don’t want to believe something simply because it’s traditional and historical, including the 24x6 view of creation; rather, we want to believe a doctrine because it’s supported by the text of Scripture. In this particular case, many conservative theologians believe that the 24x6 view also has the strongest exegetical support from the text. First and foremost, it’s the natural view one gets from simply reading the text. Additionally, there are other points, such as the way the seven\-day pattern set forth during creation week is the pattern for our calendar week (Exodus 20:8–11\). Since the advent of modern science, the 24x6 view of creation has been increasingly abandoned by Christians. The primary reason for this rejection is the fact that the 24x6 view of creation necessitates a “young earth” age of the universe (anywhere from 6,000 to 30,000 years), and the prevailing scientific view is that the universe is billions of years old. The Day\-Age view (sometimes called progressive creationism) is an attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account with an “old earth” view of the age of the universe. Please note that the Day\-Age view still posits that God created all things and it still rejects atheistic (naturalistic) evolution. Nor should the Day\-Age view be confused with “theistic evolution,” the view that macroevolution is true but, instead of being guided by blind chance, was guided by the hand of God. Day\-Age proponents see themselves as reconciling the biblical account with science. Its opponents see this view as a slippery slope to rejecting the veracity of God’s Word. Because many Christians view the creation/evolution debate as of secondary importance, there is usually little or no concern over the theological implications of how one interprets the Bible’s view of creation. In truth, however, what one believes regarding creation is crucial because it goes to the issue of the inerrancy, trustworthiness, and authority of Scripture. Of primary importance is why a person chooses a particular view, in light of the Word of God. Believing that the Bible is inspired and inerrant but not literal in the first two chapters of Genesis is one thing. Believing that the Bible is simply wrong or cannot be trusted is another. In other words, the key issue when it comes to one’s view of creation is how that view relates to the authority and reliability of the Bible. If the Bible can’t be trusted in the first two chapters, what makes it trustworthy throughout the rest of the book? Typically, critics of the Bible focus their attacks on the first eleven chapters of Genesis, in particular the creation account. The question is, why do they target this part of Scripture? The first eleven chapters of Genesis set the stage for the rest of the biblical story. You can’t understand the unfolding narrative of Scripture without Genesis 1–11\. There is so much foundational material in these chapters for the rest of the Bible—e.g., creation, the fall, sin, the certainty of judgment, the necessity of a Savior, and the introduction of the gospel. To ignore these foundational doctrines would render the rest of the Bible as unintelligible and irrelevant. Yet critics of the Bible want to treat these opening chapters of Genesis as ancient Hebrew myth rather than primeval history. The truth of the matter is that, compared to the creation stories of other cultures, the Genesis account—even in its most literal interpretation—reads more like history than myth. In most ancient literature, creation is seen as a struggle between the gods. Most creation myths portray the culture in question as the center of the religious universe. The Genesis account, while sharing many similarities with other creation stories, differs in that it portrays God as the sole Sovereign over creation (not one among many gods) and mankind as the pinnacle of His creation, serving as His stewards over creation. To be sure, there are unanswered questions with the Genesis account, such as the exact date of creation. Nor are there many details about the specific means or methods God might have used. This, of course, is why there are debates about the different biblically compatible creation accounts. The purpose of the Genesis account isn’t to give a complete historical account that would pass muster with modern\-day historians. The Genesis account was a pre\-history of the Jewish people as they were preparing to enter the Promised Land; they needed to know who they were and from where they came. Another thing to note is that much of Christian theology is based on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account. The concept of marriage comes right out of the creation account (Genesis 2:24\) and is referenced by Jesus in all three Synoptic Gospels. Our Lord Himself acknowledges that man was created male and female “from the beginning of creation” (Matthew 19:4\). These statements, to be comprehendible, rely on the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account. Most importantly, the doctrine of salvation depends on the existence of a literal person named Adam. Twice in the Pauline Epistles (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15\), Paul links our salvation in Christ with our identification in Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, we read, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” The entire human race is in a fallen state by virtue of being “in Adam” through natural birth. In similar manner, those whom God has chosen for salvation are saved by virtue of being “in Christ” through spiritual birth. The in Adam/in Christ distinction is crucial to a proper understanding of Christian soteriology, and this distinction makes no sense if there were no literal Adam from whom all humanity descended. Paul argues in a similar vein in Romans 5:12–21\. But what makes this passage unique is that it explicitly says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12\). This verse is the linchpin in the argument for total depravity (the “first plank” in the Calvinist platform), and, like the 1 Corinthians passage, it depends on a literal Adam for it to make any kind of sense. Without a literal Adam, there is no literal sin and no need for a literal Savior. Despite what position one takes on the doctrine of creation, at least one point is clear and not open to debate within Christianity: God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1\). While we at Got Questions believe the 24x6 view possesses the strongest biblical argument, there are other views offering valid interpretations within the sphere of Christian orthodoxy. We need to stress that the Bible does not (either explicitly or implicitly) teach an atheistic or “Darwinian” view of our origins. Therefore, to state that the creation/evolution debate is not important is to have a low view of Scripture. It does matter, particularly because how we approach the Bible with respect to origins speaks to how we will approach it everywhere else. If we cannot trust the Bible when it speaks on the matter of creation, why should we trust it to speak on salvation? Logically, what we believe regarding creation is important to the rest of our theology.
Is it wrong for a husband and wife to have separate bank accounts?	Answer For various reasons, some couples want separate bank accounts. Money is the number\-one cause of problems in marriage, and because the issue of finances is the most common source of arguments in marriage, engaged couples would do well to take the time to decide how these things will be settled prior to entering into marriage. The Bible speaks very clearly about the joining of a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:25\-33\), and those verses all show that the two shall become one entity, with the man as the spiritual leader and the woman in submission to him. This is the principle which should be brought to bear upon the issue of finances in general and separate bank accounts in particular. A couple who is truly “one” will be one in all areas of their marriage. Most importantly, they will be of one mind regarding spiritual matters. But this unity of spirit is to be present in temporal matters as well, where husband and wife are again to be of one mind and one heart. This means that money and possessions are seen as belonging to both partners equally. There should be no distinction between “my money and your money.” All is shared equally in a true partnership, and no partnership is more equal than two people united in Christ. Therefore, there is really no reason to have separate bank accounts. Usually the situation of separate bank accounts occurs when there is a severe issue with trust, and in such a case there are greater problems in the marriage than just where the money resides. Lack of trust is deadly to a marriage, and if it exists, prayer is crucial to seek the wisdom of the Lord (James 1:5\) on how to resolve this. The Bible says that we are one with our spouses, and so we should be resolved to show this unity to our children, our friends, our church, and the watching world. Where conflict over money exists, there is an opportunity to grow in love and most importantly in trust to bring together the entire family for God’s purpose.
What does the Bible say about sex addiction?	Answer In recent years, sex addiction is seen as a psychological disorder similar to other obsessive\-compulsive disorders or to other addictions such as alcoholism or illicit drug use. Previously, a man (or woman) who was [promiscuous](Bible-promiscuity.html) was said to be immoral and filled with lust. Now, something the Bible says is a sin, promiscuous sex outside of marriage, is being labeled as a psychological disorder. For some, the label is nothing more than a rationalization of sin. Is there such a thing as sex addiction, and, if so, what does the Bible say about it? First, Scripture is clear that sex outside of marriage is always a sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7\). There is never a time when it is right to have sex outside of marriage. With that said, it is important to note that sex is indeed addicting. A person who engages in sexual intercourse regularly will almost always become psychologically and physiologically addicted to it. Sex between a husband and wife is “pure” (Hebrews 13:4\) and has the effect of mitigating the possibility of a sex addiction. Of course, a married person can still become obsessed with sex, to the hindrance of other aspects of life. Such addiction to sex is wrong, even in a marriage. But it is not wrong for a husband and wife to desire regular sex with each other. A husband and his wife are biblically allowed to have sex as often as they want and in whatever way they want, as long as their [sexual expressions](sex-in-marriage.html) are God\-honoring, exclusive, loving, other\-oriented, unifying, and mutually agreed upon (1 Corinthians 7:5\). Most, if not all, sins are addictive if engaged in regularly. Lying, drinking in excess, smoking, gluttony, rage, pornography, etc., can all become habitual. Ultimately, all of us, in our fallen bodies, have a sin addiction of some type. Immorality, as other sins, can lead to “ever\-increasing wickedness” and addiction (Romans 6:19\). Sex addiction does indeed exist. This does not change the fact that immorality is sin. It is important to recognize sex addiction as a sin and not excuse it away as a psychological disorder. At the same time, we should not minimize the powerful hold sex addiction can have on a person. Those who are addicted to sex should seek spiritual guidance and counseling from a trustworthy therapist. As with all sins, the only true cure for sex addiction is Jesus Christ. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23\). Because of our sin, we all deserve the judgment of eternal death (Romans 6:23\). Jesus paid the penalty of sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21\). If we trust His sacrifice on our behalf as the full payment for our sin, receiving Him as our Savior by faith, He promises to forgive our sin. God then makes us a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17\) and begins the process of conforming us to His will (Romans 12:1–2\). This process includes enabling us to overcome sin and break any sin addictions we may have. “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” Paul asked, and then answered his own question: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24–25\).
What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to hate our father and mother (Luke 14:26)?	Answer First, we must take this verse in the context of the chapter. Jesus is teaching His disciples, and, like any good teacher, He gets His students thinking. In this case, He begins with a truth statement that is hard to understand. Then He clarifies it with a metaphor. The truth statement is Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” It seems that, if we don’t hate our family, we can’t be Jesus’ disciple. Or is there more to this issue? Following the statement that we must “hate” our father and mother, Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without first counting the cost (Luke 14:28–30\). The man finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do. He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required. Jesus’ illustration helps explain His difficult statement about hating our mother and father—namely, we must count the cost of being a disciple. There is a cost, and that is the point of the passage. In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. [Following Jesus](follow-Christ.html) requires commitment and faithfulness, even if our parents choose not to follow the Lord. If and when we are faced with the painful choice of loyalty to family versus loyalty to Jesus, we must choose Jesus. Even if our family members disown us—or worse—for being Christians, we must follow Christ. It is in this sense that we are “hating” our family. Jesus’ command to “hate father and mother” requires us to prioritize our relationship with Jesus over our relationship with parents, siblings, and other family members. Of course, it is right to love our family members, and we want them to love and follow God. Elsewhere, Jesus confirmed the [fifth commandment](honor-father-mother.html) that we honor our fathers and mothers (Mark 7:9–13\). And Paul sternly warned that “anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8\). Jesus’ statement that we “hate” father and mother must be seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. His point is not that we are to be heartless toward our families, only that we must love Him more. We must not forget that included in Jesus’ condition that a follower must “hate” his father and mother is the condition that he likewise hate “even his own life” (Luke 14:26, NAS). Jesus is not teaching an emotional hatred of one’s parents any more than He is teaching self\-hatred. The emphasis is on self\-denial and absolute surrender. Immediately following is Jesus’ instruction to “[carry your own cross](take-up-your-cross.html)” (verse 27, NLT). Some other translations make Jesus’ meaning a little clearer: “If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison” (Luke 14:26, NLT, emphasis added), and the Amplified Bible says that a follower of Christ must “hate” his family members “in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God.” It is a “hatred” by comparison, not an absolute hatred. The word hate in Luke 14:26 deserves a closer look. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the contrast between “love” and “hatred” is sometimes used to communicate preference. For example, in dealing with inheritances in polygamous marriages, the Mosaic Law referred to “two wives, one beloved, and another hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15, KJV). This is a good, literal translation. There was a “loved” wife and a “hated” wife. Other translations usually soften the “hated” wife to be “unloved” (CSB) or “less loved” (NET). The law was not indicating emotional hatred on the part of the husband, only preference. One wife was preferred over the other. We have a similar use of the love/hate idiom in Malachi 1:2–3 (cf. Romans 9:13\). Many Christians will never have to make the painful choice of turning their backs on their family in order to follow Christ. But, around the world, there are many other Christians who face shunning, disowning, or persecution from their families. These believers, if they are to be true to Christ, are forced to live in a way perceived as “hateful” toward their “father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters” (Luke 14:26\). All believers are called to acknowledge the lordship of Christ and show Him preference over all earthly ties. Those who must sacrifice earthly relationships have this promise: “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29–30\).
Should we raise our hands/clap our hands during worship?	Answer Scripture commands that we worship God, that we exalt His name and offer Him our praise. There is biblical precedent for both the lifting of hands and the clapping of hands as an act of worship. Psalms 47:1 says, “Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.” In this instance, both clapping and shouting out joyful worship to God are urged. In 1 Timothy 2:8, we read, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.” The emphasis of this verse is the attitude of the heart; however, we see that lifting hands is an appropriate posture for prayer and worship. Having these biblical precedents, we can safely conclude that both of those expressions can be an act of worship. What we need to ascertain is if those expressions, or indeed if any specified expression, is an actual requirement for worship. In examining specific acts of worship in the Scriptures, we see there are a variety of expressions and postures. We’ve already seen the command to clap our hands and shout to the Lord. “The trumpeters and singers joined in unison, as with one voice, to give praise and thanks to the LORD. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the LORD and sang: ‘He is good; his love endures forever.’ Then the temple of the LORD was filled with a cloud” (2 Chronicles 5:13\). So we see that singing praises and playing instruments were also appropriate expressions of worship. Singing as worship is also found in Ephesians 5:19, “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord.” The postures of worship include standing, kneeling, prostrating ourselves, eyes lifted up, eyes cast down, and hands raised. We do not see one specific posture universally required in worship, and neither do we see one specific “authorized” expression of worship. We can conclude, therefore, that the raising of hands and/or the clapping of hands during worship is an appropriate expression of worship, although neither is required for worship. John 4:24 says, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." Worship is a spiritual event, and true worship comes from the heart. If our worship is not heartfelt, it doesn’t matter what posture or expression of worship we use. If our worship is from the heart, God accepts our worship.
Is there any value to a spiritual gifts test/inventory/assessment?	Answer It is definitely commendable for God’s children to desire to know the spiritual gifts given to them by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of serving and glorifying God (2 Timothy 1:6\). At the same time, the Bible does not indicate that one’s spiritual gift(s) can be determined by taking a test. The many spiritual gifts assessments primarily work the same way. The person taking the test simply responds to a list of statements or questions. After all the questions are answered, a number value is assigned to the response choices, calculated, and that number determines the spiritual gift(s). In contrast, the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit grants spiritual gifts according to His will, according to how He has chosen to use the believer to minister to others. One of the problems with the spiritual gift test approach is that, among Christians today, there are many different opinions on the whole subject of spiritual gifts, such as how many there are, exactly what they mean, whether some gifts are inactive, and whether to include Christ’s gifts to His church (Ephesians 4:11\) in the list of spiritual gifts. Seldom are these issues addressed in these assessments. Another consideration is that, more often than not, people tend to see themselves differently than others see them, which can mean a false outcome in the assessment of one’s spiritual gifts. A third problem with using this approach to determine spiritual gifts is that these gifts come from God via the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit gives these gifts to whom He chooses (1 Corinthians 12:7\-11\). In John 16:13, believers are promised by Jesus that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth. It stands to reason that, since it is the Holy Spirit who decides who gets which gifts, He is even more interested in us finding out what our gifts are than we are. In truth, our own curiosity of how “gifted” we are many times is motivated by vain thoughts of our own importance. Conversely, the Holy Spirit’s desire that we know our spiritual gifts is always for the best, in order for us to function in the body in such a way that brings glory and honor to the Father. If we are genuinely seeking God’s leading through prayer, fellowship, studying God’s Word, and the teaching of God’s servants, our gifts will become obvious. God gives us the desires of our heart (Psalm 37:4\). This does not necessarily mean that God gives us whatever we desire \- rather, that He can and will give us the desires themselves. He can place within our hearts the desire to teach, the desire to give, the desire to pray, the desire to serve, etc. When we act on those desires, and we are truly committed to His glory in the use of our gifts, positive outcomes will result—the body of Christ will be edified and God will be glorified.
Should Christians celebrate Father’s Day?	Answer Father’s Day is a day set apart to celebrate fatherhood, recognize the influence of fathers in our homes and society, and foster paternal bonds. It is also celebrated to honor and commemorate our fathers and forefathers. While it is celebrated in the U.S. on the third Sunday of June, in many other countries the officially recognized date of Father’s Day varies. It is believed that Father’s Day was first observed on June 19, 1910, in Spokane, Washington, through the efforts of Sonora Smart Dodd, a Christian woman and the daughter of American Civil War veteran William Jackson Smart. Sonora’s mother died when she was age 16, and she wanted a day that would commemorate and honor fathers like her own, who had raised her and five other children. Once she began soliciting the idea of an official Father’s Day, she met some opposition and even derision, but she persevered. A bill was introduced in Congress in 1913, and in 1916, President Woodrow Wilson spoke at a Father’s Day celebration in Spokane, Washington, wanting to make it an official holiday, but Congress still resisted. In 1924, Calvin Coolidge became involved, and in 1930 a national committee was formed by various trade groups in an effort to legitimize the holiday. The battle continued, and in 1966 President Lyndon Johnson made a proclamation for the third Sunday of June to be Father’s Day. Finally, it was made an official national holiday when President Nixon signed a similar proclamation in 1972\. While God’s Word is silent about any day being set aside specifically to honor fathers, the Bible does recognize a special place of honor for men who were leaders or examples of excellence in certain skills, such as Jabal, who was “the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” and his brother Jubal, who was “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Genesis 4:20\-21\). Also, when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, God told him, “I have made you a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5\), clearly indicating fatherhood as a place of honor in His eyes. Thus, even though the Bible does not mention a Father’s Day, we can clearly see that God does recognize the importance of fathers and even gave them special honor throughout history. Furthermore, we can follow this theme of fatherhood in the very person of God Himself through countless scriptures (Matthew 5:45; 6:9,32; Romans 1:7; 15:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6\). There are many instances that speak of Jesus Christ, the Son, honoring His Father and honoring the will of His Father (e.g., John 17:1 and John 17:5\). The apostle Paul taught that to honor one’s earthly father is not only a commandment but the first commandment that, when obeyed, has a promise of things going well and living long on the earth. “Honor your father and mother—which is the first commandment with a promise—that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth” (Ephesians 6:2\-3\). In light of these verses, and many others, it would seem to be perfectly God\-honoring to celebrate a day in which fathers, the God\-given spiritual head of the family, could and should be honored. Ultimately, whether or not to celebrate a specific day or holiday is a matter of personal preference. We have the freedom to celebrate and the freedom not to celebrate if we so choose.
Is it biblical for a church to seek 501(c)(3) incorporation?	Answer There certainly are many people and groups which argue against incorporating churches, but is there a biblical argument for incorporation? Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 22:21, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s." This answer was given specifically to the question of whether it was lawful to pay tribute, or taxes, to Caesar. In Jesus’ response, He asked whose image and name was on the money, and, since it was Caesar’s, it was therefore proper to give it back to him. If we apply this principle to the church, it will help us determine the answer to the question of incorporation. The church is a body of believers in Jesus Christ. As a body of believers, we are answerable to God for everything we do. We are also answerable directly to God as individual believers, for we "are bought for a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20\). In Matthew 17:27, Jesus taught the disciples that, though they were not compelled to pay taxes, it was proper to do so to avoid offense. But the state only has secondary authority over the church and the individuals who comprise it, although certainly not over the direction or purpose of ministry, for that is God’s realm. Most churches own property, which is administered under the state, and while it may not be absolutely necessary to incorporate in order to hold that property, it is a proper way to do so. Gordon Johnson, in his book My Church (1957\) wrote, "In our day most of our states in this country demand trustees for the legal procedure of the church." This is still the case today, and incorporation not only serves as a way to honor the state’s realm of authority, but also serves as a legal protection for the individuals in the body. When property is held and actions are taken in the name of a recognized corporate entity, the individual members of that entity are safeguarded from being held personally liable in court actions that may be brought against the incorporated church. One passage that is sometimes used against incorporation is worthy of mention here. First Corinthians 7:23 says, "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." This verse is irrelevant as an argument against incorporation for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is in the context of human slavery, not church organization. Also, verse 24 states that we are to abide in whatever state God calls us, even if that is slavery. Second, it does give us a warning worth considering in our discussion. Some have argued that when a church incorporates, it places itself under the control of the state (being the servants of men). As the various legal battles over church tax exemption in recent years have shown, there is a possibility of a struggle here, even if it is a remote one. The majority of cases that have come up were because key leaders chose to push the limits of the law (sometimes in order to show that the law was being misinterpreted). Certainly, if the state tries to control the ministries of any individual or church, we are obligated to answer as the apostles did in Acts 5:29, "We must obey God rather than men!" The underlying question of incorporation is not whether we can or can’t incorporate, but in what way we can best serve God and still honor the God\-ordained authority of the state. Yes, there are benefits that we can reap from incorporation, but we have to recognize that there are at least potential costs to those benefits. In most cases, we will have no trouble honoring the state’s God\-given authority while also giving supreme allegiance to God’s higher authority. Note \- some advocate that churches seek tax\-exempt non\-profit status through 508(c)(1\)(a) instead of through 501(c)(3\). If you are concerned about any of the potential problems mentioned above, 508(c)(1\)(a) might be worth looking into.
Is the concept of Lucifer’s Flood biblical?	Answer There have been attempts by Christians to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the theories of modern geology and evolution. Of these attempts, three are most popular: theistic evolution, progressive creation, and the gap theory. It is from the [gap theory](gap-theory.html) that the idea of “Lucifer’s flood,” also known as the Luciferian flood, is derived. Basically, the gap theory, which for some incorporates the so\-called Lucifer’s flood, teaches that many millions of years ago God created a perfect heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1\). At that time, Satan was the ruler of the earth, which was inhabited by a race of men with no souls. Satan rebelled, and sin entered the universe after Satan’s rebellion and fall from heaven. Satan’s fall also brought God’s judgment in the form of a flood named for him: Lucifer’s flood. All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today were caused by this flood and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and humans living today. This Luciferian flood is said to have occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and it was this event that explains the “waters” and that reduced the world to the “without form and void” state in Genesis 1:2 (KJV). The gap theory claims that the earth is very old, possibly millions of years, based on the observation that rock layers form very slowly today. For the most part, gap theorists claim belief in a six\-day creation and are opposed to evolution. However, looking at the same geologic evidence, gap theorists must propose that God literally reshaped the earth and re\-created all life in six literal days, but not until after a Luciferian flood that produced the fossils we see today. In our view, there are some serious problems with this interpretation of Scripture. First of all, the gap theory forces millions of years into the “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 but attempts to maintain a literal Genesis. This, in turn, prompts the question of the meaning of the term literal (“word\-for\-word accuracy”). Since there are, of course, no words between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, the gap theory and the Luciferan flood cannot truly be part of a “literal” interpretation of Genesis. If God created a perfect heaven and earth, then all life on Earth must also be perfect. If this “perfect life” was the source of the fossils buried by Lucifer’s flood, and sin entered this world by Satan’s rebellion, why do these same fossils show abundant evidence for disease and deformities? The presence of disease and deformities in fossils proves that all things could not have been perfect and that sin was already present before the flood that buried them. If sin was present before God’s judgment of Satan, then either the Bible is wrong or the gap theory is flawed. If Lucifer’s flood was God’s judgment against Satan, and the earth was razed to become “without form and void,” then why did this flood not destroy the fossil record as well? What about Noah’s flood? Noah’s flood was also a judgment on the earth, and it is used throughout the Bible as an example of God’s judgment on man. Lucifer’s flood is never mentioned once. How can someone believe that Noah’s flood was somehow less impactful, geologically speaking, than an un\-mentioned flood, while claiming a literal interpretation of Genesis? Does it really matter whether we accept a “literal” interpretation of the Creation? The answer is “yes!” For example, most gap theorists, using the concept of the Luciferian flood, believe that there was human death before Adam, which presents major theological problems. Romans 5:12 states that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin,” so to accept the concept of death before the time of Adam is to destroy the foundational message of the cross: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man \[Adam] the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man \[Jesus Christ] the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19\). Genesis records a catastrophe responsible for destroying everything that had the “breath of life” in it, except for the people and [animals](Noahs-ark-animals.html) preserved in the ark. Christ refers to the global flood in Noah’s day in Matthew 24:37–39, and Peter writes that, just as there was once a worldwide judgment of mankind by water, so there will be another worldwide judgment by fire (2 Peter 3\). But this same passage has nothing specific to say supportive of Lucifer’s flood. For that and other reasons, the theory should be rejected.
What is dispensational premillennialism?	Answer Premillennialism as a system is primarily based on a literal method of biblical interpretation. The main premise of premillennialism is that Jesus will literally return to the earth before (pre) the [millennium](millennium.html) begins and that He himself will inaugurate and rule over it. Premillennialists can be divided into two groups with respect to their central approach to the prophetic Scriptures, historic premillennialists and dispensational premillennialists. The basic difference between the two is the emphasis that each gives to the nation of Israel during the millennium, the period of a thousand years during which Christ will reign on earth (see Revelation 20:1\-7\). Historic premillennialists believe that scriptural prophecy, especially the passages in Daniel and Revelation, give the entire history of the Church in symbolic form. Thus, they look into the Church’s past and present to find prophetic fulfillment and to see where they are in God’s prophetic timetable. Most historic premillennialists hold that the nation of Israel will undergo a national salvation immediately before the millennium is established, but there will be no national restoration of Israel. Thus, the nation of Israel will not have a special role or function that is distinct from the Church. In contrast to historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism has gained popularity among modern evangelicals. Dispensational premillennialists hold that the second coming of Christ, and subsequent establishment of the millennial kingdom, is to be preceded by a seven\-year\-long period known as the “Tribulation,” the earthly activity of the Antichrist as well as the outpouring of God’s wrath on mankind. Dispensational premillennialists hold that the nation of Israel will be saved and restored to a place of preeminence in the millennium. Thus, Israel will have a special function of service in the millennium that is different from that of the Church. Another difference is that most dispensational premillennialists hold that the millennium is for a literal 1,000 years, while some historic premillennialists assert that the 1,000 years is figurative for a long period of time. Basically, the fundamental difference between historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism consists in the latter’s insistence on maintaining a distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church. According to dispensationalists, the millennium will be a period of history in which God reverts back to fulfilling His Old Testament promises made to ethnic Israel, after this modern “Church Age” in which we live today is concluded. As such, the millennium will be a state of Jewish dominion over all the world, along with a newly restored Jewish temple and priesthood. The Christians who reign with Christ will all have been given eternal, glorified bodies, and will reign spiritually, while the Jews will own the world physically, and will live, marry, and die (although evincing incredible longevity), just as people have throughout the history of the world. It is only after this thousand\-year period, in which God fulfills His promises to ethnic Israel, that Christ will put down a final rebellion and usher in the eternal state with its New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21\-22\). Historic premillennialism, conversely, requires none of this strict dichotomy between God’s spiritual people, the Church, and His physical people, ethnic Israel; it merely looks ahead to a time when Christ will reign visibly on the earth, before He brings in the eternal state.
How much of a priority should worship be in the church?	Answer If someone were to save our life, gratitude would be the response. When we are given a gift that we could never afford, we make our appreciation known. Worship is the expression of that gratitude and appreciation. God came as Jesus to save us. His love is without condition. Our worship recognizes His authority as the Creator of our universe as well as the Savior of our souls. Worship, therefore, is of the highest priority for the believer as well as the corporate church. Christianity is unique among religions in that it is based upon a personal relationship with God. Exodus 34:14 says, “Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” The core of our faith is our personal interaction with our Creator. Worship is an act celebrating that personal relationship. Through worship, we communicate with our God. Through worship, we acknowledge His lordship and divinity. Whether expressed through music, shouting, prayer or other means, worship is, at its core, the expression of intimacy with God. While we are to live in obedience to God’s commands, it is not a cold, mindless obedience that He desires. Deuteronomy 6:5 says, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” The church is the collection of all who call on the name of God, taking advantage of the grace offered to us through the death of Jesus on the cross. We are told to make disciples and live in obedience to the commands of God. First John 3:24 says, “Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them.” Each member of the church is called to worship God. Each of us is to spend time in prayer, speaking to God from the heart. We are to read His words in the Scriptures and meditate on them in our hearts. Private time of worship is essential to our personal spiritual maturity. As a body of believers, we are to be consistently involved in worship through singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, through prayer, through gaining knowledge of the Word, and through the exercise of our spiritual gifts for the benefit of the church and the Kingdom of God. Worship is of the highest priority for the church.
What is God’s relationship to time?	Answer We live in a physical world with its four known space\-time dimensions of length, width, height (or depth) and time. However, God dwells in a different realm—the spirit realm—beyond the perception of our physical senses. It’s not that God isn’t real; it’s a matter of His not being limited by the physical laws and dimensions that govern our world (Isaiah 57:15\). Knowing that “God is spirit” (John 4:24\), what is His relationship to time? In Psalm 90:4, Moses used a simple yet profound analogy in describing the timelessness of God: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” The eternity of God is contrasted with the temporality of man. Our lives are but short and frail, but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time. In a sense, the marking of time is irrelevant to God because He transcends it. Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8, cautioned his readers not to let this one critical fact escape their notice—that God’s perspective on time is far different from mankind’s (Psalm 102:12, 24\-27\). The Lord does not count time as we do. He is above and outside of the sphere of time. God sees all of eternity’s past and eternity’s future. The time that passes on earth is of no consequence from God’s timeless perspective. A second is no different from an eon; a billion years pass like seconds to the eternal God. Though we cannot possibly comprehend this idea of eternity or the timelessness of God, we in our finite minds try to confine an infinite God to our time schedule. Those who foolishly demand that God operate according to their time frame ignore the fact that He is the “High and Lofty One . . . who lives forever” (Isaiah 57:15\). This description of God is far removed from man’s condition: “The length of our days is seventy years—or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10\). Again, because of our finite minds, we can only grasp the concept of God’s timeless existence in part. And in so doing, we describe Him as a God without a beginning or end, eternal, infinite, everlasting, etc. Psalm 90:2 declares, “From everlasting to everlasting You are God” (see also Psalm 93:2\). He always was and always will be. So, what is time? To put it simply, time is duration. Our clocks mark change or, more precisely, our timepieces are benchmarks of change that indicate the passage of time. We could say, then, that time is a necessary precondition for change and change is a sufficient condition to establish the passage of time. In other words, whenever there’s change of any kind we know that time has passed. We see this as we go through life, as we age. And we cannot recover the minutes that have passed by. Additionally, the science of physics tells us that time is a property resulting from the existence of matter. As such, time exists when matter exists. But God is not matter; God, in fact, created matter. The bottom line is this: time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing. Since there was no matter, and because God does not change, time had no existence and therefore no meaning, no relation to Him. And this brings us to the meaning of the word eternity. Eternity is a term used to express the concept of something that has no end and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end, but He cannot be wholly defined by eternity, especially as a measure of time. (God is eternal, but eternity does not equal God. Similarly, God is all\-powerful, but power does not equal God.) Eternity is one of God’s attributes, but, having created time, He is greater than time and exists outside of it. Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it. Our destiny was planned “before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2\) and “before the creation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20\). “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3\). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive. “God is spirit” (John 4:24\), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10\-12\). Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31\). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time. As believers, we have a deep sense of comfort knowing that God, though timeless and eternal, is in time with us right now; He is not unreachably transcendent, but right here in this moment with us. And because He’s in this moment, He can respond to our needs and prayers.
How should a Christian view socialism?	Answer Socialism is a societal system in which property, natural resources, and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state rather than by individuals or private companies. A basic belief of socialism is that society as a whole should share in all goods produced, as everyone lives in cooperation with one another. Various theories of socialism have been put forward from ancient times, including a form of [Christian socialism](Christian-socialism.html). The most prominent philosopher to argue in favor of socialism was [Karl Marx](Marxism-Christian.html), who taught that the driving factor behind all of human history is economics. Marx was born to German Jewish parents in 1818 and received his doctorate at age 23\. He then embarked on a mission to prove that human identity is bound up in a person’s work and that economic systems totally control a person. Arguing that mankind survives by labor, Marx believed that human communities are created by the division of labor. Marx saw the Industrial Revolution as changing the basic lifestyle of humanity, because, in Marx’s mind, those who had freely worked for themselves were now forced by economics to work in factories instead. This, Marx felt, stripped away their dignity and identity, and now they were reduced to mere slaves controlled by a powerful taskmaster. This perspective made the economics of capitalism the natural enemy of Marx’s brand of socialism. Socialism seeks to do away with private property. Karl Marx surmised that capitalism emphasizes private property and, therefore, reduced ownership to the privileged few. Two separate “communities” emerged in Marx’s mind: the business owners, or the bourgeoisie; and the working class, or the proletariat. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie use and exploit the proletariat with the result that one person’s gain is another person’s loss. Moreover, Marx believed that the business owners influence lawmakers to ensure their interests are defended over the workers’ loss of dignity and rights. Last, Marx felt that religion is the “opiate of the masses,” which the rich use to manipulate the working class; the proletariat is promised rewards in heaven one day if they keep working diligently where God has placed them (subservient to the bourgeoisie). In the socialism Marx envisioned, the people own everything collectively, and all work for the common good of mankind. Marx’s goal was to end the ownership of private property through the state’s ownership of all means of economic production. Once private property was abolished, Marx felt that a person’s identity would be elevated and the wall that capitalism supposedly constructed between the owners and working class would be shattered. Everyone would value one another and work together for a shared purpose. Government would no longer be necessary, as people would become less selfish. There are at least four errors in Marx’s thinking, revealing some flaws in socialism. First, his assertion that another person’s gain must come at another person’s expense is a myth; the structure of capitalism leaves plenty of room for all to raise their standard of living through innovation and competition. It is perfectly feasible for multiple parties to compete and do well in a market of consumers who want their goods and services. Second, Marx was wrong in his socialist belief that the value of a product is based on the amount of labor that is put into it. The quality of a good or service simply cannot be determined by the amount of effort a laborer expends. For example, a master carpenter can more quickly and beautifully make a piece of furniture than an unskilled craftsmen can, and therefore his work will be valued far more (and correctly so) in an economic system such as capitalism. Third, Marx’s theory of socialism necessitates a government that is free from corruption and negates the possibility of elitism within its ranks. If history has shown anything, it is that power corrupts fallen mankind, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People do not naturally become less selfish. A nation or government may kill the idea of God, but someone will take God’s place in that government. That someone is most often an individual or group who begins to rule over the population and seeks to maintain their privileged position at all costs. This is why socialism has led to dictatorships so often in world history. Fourth and most importantly, socialism is wrong in teaching that a person’s identity is bound up in the work that he does. Although secular society certainly promotes this belief, the Bible says that all have equal worth because all are created in the image of the eternal God. True, intrinsic human value lies in God’s creation of us. Was Marx right in saying that economics is the catalyst that drives human history? No, what directs human history is the Creator of the universe who controls everything, including the rise and fall of every nation. God also controls who is put in charge of each nation: “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Daniel 4:17\). Further, it is God who gives a person skill at labor and the wealth that comes from it, not the government: “Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:18–19\). Socialism, for all its popularity in some circles, is not a biblical model for society. In opposition to socialism, the Bible promotes the idea of private property and issues commands to respect it: commands such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19\) are meaningless without private property. Unlike what we see in failed experiments in socialism, the Bible honors work and teaches that individuals are responsible to support themselves: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10\). The redistribution of wealth foundational to socialism destroys accountability and the [biblical work ethic](Christian-work-ethic.html). Jesus’ parable in Matthew 25:14–30 clearly teaches our responsibility to serve God with our (private) resources.
How can I know how to properly worship God?	Answer Worship can be defined as the act of honoring and loving a deity, idol or person in a “selfless” manner. The act of worship involves the total self in giving praise, thanksgiving and reverence to that deity, person or material object. It is not a half\-hearted affair, and it is only after we distinguish between that which is and isn’t worship, with regards to the divine objective, that we can begin to answer the above question more fully. True, biblical worship, as defined by the scholar A. W. Pink (1886 – 1952\) in his exposition of the gospel of John, says this: “It is a redeemed heart, occupied with God, expressing itself in adoration and thanksgiving.” Likewise, A. W. Tozer said, “True worship is to be so personally and hopelessly in love with God, that the idea of a transfer of affection never even remotely exists.” So, the true worship of God is distinguished by the following criteria: first, it comes from the redeemed heart of a man or woman who has been justified before God by faith and who is trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for forgiveness of sins. How can one worship the God of heaven if his sin has not been dealt with? Never can that worship be acceptable that proceeds from an unregenerate heart where Satan, self and the world hold sway (2 Timothy 2:26; 1 John 2:15\). Any worship, other than that from a “washed” heart, is vain. Second, true worship of God comes from a heart that desires Him alone. This was precisely where the Samaritan people erred; they sought to worship both God and idols (2 Kings 17:28\-41\), and this is reaffirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ when He discourses on the subject of true worship with the Samaritan woman who came to fetch water from the well. “You Samaritans worship what you do not know” (John 4:22\). These people worshiped God “half\-heartedly” because their total affection was not set on God. It is possible for even true believers to fall into this second error. We might not assent to having physical idols, like the Samaritans did, but what absorbs our will, our time, our resources most of all? Is it careers, material possessions, money, health, even our families? Let us cry out, like King David in Psalm 63:5, “My soul will be satisfied as with the richest of foods; with singing lips, my mouth will praise you.” Nothing less than God should satisfy the heart of the regenerate man, and his response to that divine satisfaction, comparable to the best food ever, is the fruit of lips that sing God’s praise (Hebrews 13:15\). Third, true worship of God is the desire to continue to build up our knowledge of God. How we have lost that desire in these days! Apart from the Bible, which we should be reading daily, we need to supplement our knowledge by reading other good books, too. We need to fill our minds constantly with the things of God; God should always be on our mind, and everything we do should be done with reference to Him (Colossians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 10:31\). It is interesting that the Greek word for “worship” in Romans 12:1 can also mean “service.” So, our daily lives should also be considered as worship. Every day we are to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God. The church is supposed to be impacting the world by its worship of God. Far too often, it’s the other way around. Let us purify our hearts if we really want to worship the triune God in spirit and in truth. Our God is holy; He is altogether “Other,” a God who cannot share us with other objects of our affection. Indeed, a God who WILL not share us, for the sake of His holiness. We were made to be creatures who worship, but the Fall has crippled and ruined us. Worship is the most natural thing for man, but until we are restored to God through the sacrifice of His dear Son, then all our worship is but a vain thing. It is as “strange fire” before the altar (Leviticus 10:1\).
What is glorification?	Answer The short answer is that “glorification” is God’s final removal of sin from the life of the saints (i.e., everyone who is saved) in the eternal state (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17\). At Christ’s coming, the glory of God (Romans 5:2\)—His honor, praise, majesty, and holiness—will be realized in us; instead of being mortals burdened with sin nature, we will be changed into holy immortals with direct and unhindered access to God’s presence, and we will enjoy holy communion with Him throughout eternity. In considering glorification, we should focus on Christ, for He is every Christian’s “blessed hope”; also, we may consider final glorification as the culmination of sanctification. Final glorification must await the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13; 1 Timothy 6:14\). Until He returns, we are burdened with sin, and our spiritual vision is distorted because of the curse. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12\). Every day, we should be diligent by the Spirit to put to death what is “fleshly” (sinful) in us (Romans 8:13\). How and when will we be finally glorified? At the last trumpet, when Jesus comes, the saints will undergo a fundamental, instant transformation (“we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” – 1 Corinthians 15:51\); then the “perishable” will put on the “imperishable” (1 Corinthians 15:53\). Yet 2 Corinthians 3:18 clearly indicates that, in a mysterious sense, “we all,” in the present, “with unveiled face” are “beholding the glory of the Lord” and are being transformed into His image “from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18\). Lest anyone imagine that this beholding and transformation (as part of sanctification) is the work of especially saintly people, the Scripture adds the following bit of information: “For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” In other words, it is a blessing bestowed on every believer. This does not refer to our final glorification but to an aspect of sanctification by which the Spirit is transfiguring us right now. To Him be the praise for His work in sanctifying us in the Spirit and in truth (Jude 24\-25; John 17:17; 4:23\). We should understand what Scripture teaches about the nature of glory—both God’s unsurpassed glory and our share in it at His coming. God’s glory refers not merely to the unapproachable light that the Lord inhabits (1 Timothy 6:15\-16\), but also to His honor (Luke 2:13\) and holiness. The “You” referred to in Psalm 104:2 is the same God referenced in 1 Timothy 6:15\-16; He is “clothed with splendor and majesty,” covering Himself “with light as with a garment” (Psalm 104:2; cf. 93:1; Job 37:22; 40:10\). When the Lord Jesus returns in His great glory to execute judgment (Matthew 24:29\-31; 25:31\-35\), He will do so as the only Sovereign, who alone has eternal dominion (1 Timothy 6:14\-16\). Created beings dare not gaze upon God’s awesome glory; like Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4\-29\) and Simon Peter (Luke 5:8\), Isaiah was devastated by self\-loathing in the presence of the all\-holy God. After the seraphim proclaimed, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” Isaiah said, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Isaiah 6:4\). Even the seraphim showed that they were unworthy to gaze upon the divine glory, covering their faces with their wings. God’s glory may be said to be “heavy” or “weighty”; the Hebrew word kabod literally means “heavy or burdensome”; Most often, the Scriptural usage of kabod is figurative (e.g., “heavy with sin”), from which we get the idea of the “weightiness” of a person who is honorable, impressive, or worthy of respect. When the Lord Jesus became incarnate, He revealed both the “weighty” holiness of God and the fullness of His grace and truth (“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; cf. 17:1–5]). The glory revealed by the incarnate Christ accompanies the ministry of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:7\); it is unchanging and permanent (Isaiah 4:6\-7; cf. Job 14:2; Psalm 102:11; 103:15; James 1:10\). The previous manifestations of God’s glory were temporary, like the fading effluence of God’s glory from Moses’ face. Moses veiled his face so that the hard\-hearted Israelites might not see that the glory was fading (2 Corinthians 3:12–14\), but in our case the veil has been removed through Christ, and we reflect the glory of the Lord and seek by the Spirit to be like Him. In His high priestly prayer, the Lord Jesus requested that God would sanctify us by His truth (i.e., make us holy; John 17:17\); sanctification is necessary if we are to see Jesus’ glory and be with Him in eternal fellowship (John 17:21\-24\). “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24\). If the glorification of the saints follows the pattern revealed in Scripture, it must entail our sharing in the glory (i.e., the holiness) of God. According to Philippians 3:20–21, our citizenship is in heaven, and when our Savior returns He will transform our lowly bodies “to be like His glorious body.” Although it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, we know that, when He returns in great glory, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is (1 John 3:2\). We will be perfectly conformed to the image of our Lord Jesus and be like Him in that our humanity will be free from sin and its consequences. Our blessed hope should spur us on to holiness, the Spirit enabling us. “Everyone who thus hopes in Him purifies himself as He is pure” (1 John 3:3\).
What does the Bible say about greed?	Answer Greed is a strong and selfish desire to have more of something, most often money or power. There are many warnings in the Bible about giving in to greed and longing for riches. Jesus warned, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15\). “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal… You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:19, 24b). Did Jesus pursue the acquisition of money? No. On the contrary, He became poor for our sake (2 Corinthians 8:9\) and had “no place to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20\). Neither did Jesus pursue power. Rather, He instructed, "Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:43–45\). Greed and a desire for riches are traps that bring ruin and destruction. “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,” and Christians are warned, “Do not put your trust in wealth” (see 1 Timothy 6:9\-10, 17\-18\). Covetousness, or having an excessive or greedy desire for more, is idolatry. Ephesians 5:5 says, “For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person – such a man is an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” The principle to remember is contained in Hebrews 13:5: “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’” It is the love of money, and not money itself, that is the problem. The love of money is a sin because it gets in the way of worshiping God. Jesus said it was very hard for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. “When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth” (see Matthew 19:16\-22\). By instructing him to give up his money, Jesus pointed out the young man’s main problem: greed or a love of money. The man could not follow Christ because he was following money. His love of this world interfered with his love for God. Greed refuses to be satisfied. More often than not, the more we get, the more we want. Material possessions will not protect us—in this life or eternally. Jesus’ parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:13–21 illustrates this point well. Again, money or wealth is not a problem. The problem is our attitude toward it. When we place our confidence in wealth or are consumed by an insatiable desire for more, we are failing to give God the glory and worship He deserves. We are to serve God, not waste our time trying to become rich (Proverbs 23:4\). Our heart’s desire should be to store up riches in heaven and not worry about what we will eat or drink or wear. “But seek first \[God’s] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (see Matthew 6:25\-34\).
Was the American Revolution a violation of Romans 13:1-7?	Answer The American Revolutionary War was a pivotal event in world history, and the constitutional republic that followed has produced the freest, most productive society ever. No one can deny that most of the Founding Fathers were religious men or that the liberty they fought for has benefited millions of people, but was their revolt against England biblically justified? Specifically, was the American Revolution a violation of Romans 13:1\-7? During the years before the Revolutionary War, the issue of justified rebellion was widely debated, with good men on both sides of the issue. Not surprisingly, most English preachers, such as John Wesley, urged restraint and [pacifism](Bible-pacifism.html) on the part of the colonists; while most Colonial preachers, such as John Witherspoon and Jonathan Mayhew, fanned the flames of revolution. Before we weigh the actions of the colonists, we must take a look at the Scripture they struggled with. Here’s a verse\-by\-verse summary of Romans 13:1\-7: The passage starts with a clear\-cut command to submit to “the governing authorities” (v1a). Immediately following the command is the reason for it: namely, authorities are God\-ordained (v1b). Therefore, resisting earthly authority is the same as resisting God (v2\). Rulers are a deterrent to evil in society (v3\); in fact, a ruler is “God’s servant,” bringing retribution to the wrongdoer (v4\). Christians should submit to human authority not only to avoid punishment but also to maintain a clear conscience before God (v5\). Specifically, Christians should pay their taxes (v6\) and pay the proper respect and honor to “God’s servants” (v7\). The commands in Romans 13 are quite broad, aimed at “everyone,” with no exceptions listed. In fact, when Paul wrote these words, Nero was on the throne. If Romans 13 applies to the cruel and capricious Nero, it applies to all kings. The early church followed the principles of Romans 13 even during the wicked and oppressive reigns of Claudius, Caligula, and Tacitus. No qualifications or “outs” are given in the passage. Paul does not say “be subject to the king UNLESS he is oppressive” or “you must obey all rulers EXCEPT usurpers.” The plain teaching of Romans 13 is that all governments in all places are to be honored and obeyed. Every ruler holds power by the sovereign will of God (Psalm 75:7; Daniel 2:21\). New Testament examples of believers paying proper obedience and respect towards government authority include Luke 2:1\-5; 20:22\-25; and Acts 24:10 (see also 1 Peter 2:13\-17\). This is not to say that God approves of everything governments do or that kings are always right. On the contrary, Scripture has many examples of kings being held to account by God (e.g., Daniel 4\). Furthermore, Romans 13 does not teach that Christians must always obey the governing authorities, no matter what. The one exception to the general rule of obedience is when man’s laws are in direct conflict with the plainly revealed law of God. Examples of God’s people practicing civil disobedience include Peter and John defying the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:19; 5:29\), the Hebrew midwives refusing to practice infanticide (Exodus 1:15\-17\), Daniel ignoring the Persian law concerning prayer (Daniel 6:10\), and Daniel’s friends refusing to bow to the king’s image (Daniel 3:14\-18\). So, as a general rule, we are to obey the government; the lone exception is when obeying man’s law would force us to directly disobey God’s law. Now, what about Romans 13 as it pertains to the American Revolutionary War? Was the war justified? First, it is important to understand that many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were deeply religious men who felt that they were biblically justified in rebelling against England. Here are some of the reasons for their perspective: 1\) The colonists saw themselves not as anti\-government but as anti\-tyranny. That is, they were not promoting [anarchy](Bible-anarchy.html) or the casting off of all restraint. They believed Romans 13 taught honor for the institution of government, but not necessarily for the individuals who ruled government. Therefore, since they supported God’s institution of government, the colonists believed that their actions against a specific oppressive regime were not a violation of the general principle of Romans 13\. 2\) The colonists pointed out that it was the king of England himself who was in violation of Scripture. No king who behaved so wickedly, they said, could be considered “God’s servant.” Therefore, it was a Christian’s duty to resist him. As Mayhew said in 1750, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” 3\) The colonists saw the war as a defensive action, not as an offensive war. And it is true that, in 1775 and 1776, the Americans had presented the king with formal appeals for reconciliation. These peaceful pleas were met with armed military force and several violations of British Common Law and the English Bill of Rights. In 1770, the British fired upon unarmed citizens in the Boston Massacre. At Lexington, the command was “Don’t fire unless fired upon.” The colonists, therefore, saw themselves as defending themselves after the conflict had been initiated by the British. 4\) The colonists read 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority . . .,” and saw the phrase “for the Lord’s sake” as a condition for obedience. The reasoning ran thus: if the authority was unrighteous and passed unrighteous laws, then following them could not be a righteous thing. In other words, one cannot obey a wicked law “for the Lord’s sake.” 5\) The colonists saw Hebrews 11 as justification for resisting tyrants. Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah are all listed as “heroes of faith,” and they were all involved in overthrowing oppressive governments. It is safe to say that the American patriots who fought against England were fully convinced that they had biblical precedent and scriptural justification for their rebellion. Although their view of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 is a faulty interpretation (there are no provisos concerning obedience in those passages), it was the popular preaching of the day. At the same time, the self\-defense argument (number 3, above) is a convincing and substantial rationale for war. Even if the American Revolution was a violation of Romans 13, we know that the patriots acted in good faith in the name of Christian freedom, and we know that, in the ensuing years, God has brought about much good from the freedom that was won as a result.
What is the Aquarian gospel?	Answer The Aquarian Gospel is a false teaching by Levi H. Dowling. It does not give an accurate account of the life and true teachings of Jesus Christ. There are several books that claim to tell about the parts of Jesus’ life that are “missing” from the Bible. None of these are credible as only the Word of God is infallible and accurately portrays Jesus’ life and teachings. Many people try to take the truth of the Bible and distort it. This is the work of the enemy. The Aquarian Gospel is a contradictory mixture of Christian Science, New Age spirituality, and occult beliefs. Some of the material in the Aquarian Gospel is borrowed from the ancient Gospel of James, a well\-known forgery from the early years of the church. There are many contradictions and inaccuracies in the Aquarian Gospel. The book begins with an historical inaccuracy: "Augustus Caesar reigned and Herod Antipas was ruler in Jerusalem." Antipas actually ruled in Galilee, never in Jerusalem. A crucial problem with the Aquarian Gospel concerns its idea as to the source of Jesus’ teachings. If Jesus obtained His wisdom from the masters of India, Greece, and other countries, then why don’t His teachings reflect it? The teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the biblical Gospels, are in direct conflict with every central belief of Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other religions with which He supposedly came into contact according to the Aquarian Gospel. The biblical Gospels give us a firsthand account of the life and ministry of Jesus, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16\). The Aquarian Gospel is a false portrait of the life of Christ. It is not based upon any historical records or eyewitness testimony but rather upon the recollections of an ancient forgery and the imagination of a nineteenth\-century writer. It has no value whatsoever in providing new or accurate information on the life of Christ. It has no historical basis and should not be taken seriously. The Bible warns us many times about false prophets and false teachings. “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies…” (2 Peter 2:1\). Satan is a deceiver and will try all sorts of things to bring people away from the true message of the cross. We must compare every teaching with Scripture, and if it does not agree, then we reject it for what we know it is—false teaching.
What does it mean that God is eternal?	Answer The word eternal means "everlasting, having no beginning and no end." Psalm 90:2 tells us about God’s eternality: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Since humans measure everything in time, it is very hard for us to conceive of something that had no beginning, but has always been, and will continue forever. However, the Bible does not try to prove God’s existence or His eternality, but simply begins with the statement “In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1\), indicating that at the beginning of recorded time, God was already in existence. From duration stretching backward without limit to duration stretching forward without limit, from eternal ages to eternal ages, God was and is forever. When Moses was commissioned by God to go to the Israelites with a message from Him, Moses wondered what he would tell them if they asked him what God’s name was. God’s reply is most revealing: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:14\). This signifies the real being of God, His self\-existence, and that He is the Being of beings. It also describes His eternality and immutability, as well as His constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling His promises, because it includes all time, past, present, and future. The sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. God’s own words about His eternality speak to us from the pages of Scripture. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, also verified His deity and His eternality to the people of His day by declaring to them, “Before Abraham was born, I AM” (John 8:58\). It is clear that Jesus was claiming to be God in flesh because the Jews, upon hearing this statement, tried to stone Him to death. To the Jews, declaring oneself to be the eternal God was blasphemy and worthy of death (Leviticus 24:16\). Jesus was claiming to be eternal, just as His Father is eternal. The apostle John also declared this truth regarding the nature of Christ: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1\). Jesus and His Father are one in essence, they exist sans time, and they share equally in the attribute of eternality. Romans 1:20 tells us that God’s eternal nature and His eternal power are revealed to us through His creation. All men see and understand this aspect of God’s nature by the witness of the various aspects of the created order. The sun and heavenly bodies continue in their orbits century after century. The seasons come and go in their appointed time; the trees produce leaves in spring and drop them in the fall. Year after year these things continue, and no one can stop them or alter God’s plan. All of this attests to God’s eternal power and plan for the earth. One day, He will create a new heaven and new earth and they, like Him, will continue into eternity. We who belong to Christ through faith will continue through eternity as well, sharing the eternality of our God in whose image we are created.
What was the leviathan?	Answer The leviathan is a large aquatic creature of some kind. The Bible refers to it as a fearsome beast having monstrous ferocity and great power. The Hebrew word for “Leviathan” has the root meaning of “coiled” or “twisted.” Isaiah 27:1 speaks of “Leviathan the fast\-moving serpent, Leviathan the squirming serpent; . . . the sea monster” (NET). Whatever this monster of the sea is (or was), its strength and wild nature were well known. There are a handful of references to the leviathan in the Old Testament. Most passages describe the leviathan as a real creature, familiar to people (who, of course, kept their distance) by reputation if not by sight. In Psalm 104:25–26 God is praised as the One who created the habitat for the leviathan: “There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number—living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.” Only a great God could have created Leviathan and then made a place big enough for it to “frolic” safely. In Isaiah 27:1 the leviathan is used as a symbol for the wicked kings of the earth who withstand God’s people. The great power that wicked nations wield can be terrifying, but God assures His children that evil, no matter how monstrous, will be defeated: “In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword—his fierce, great and powerful sword—Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.” Psalm 74:14 contains a similar reference to God’s victory over Leviathan; in that psalm, the pharaoh of Egypt is most likely meant. Job 41 gives the most detail about Leviathan as an actual sea creature. In that chapter, God describes Leviathan, emphasizing the animal’s size, strength, and viciousness. The leviathan cannot be tied down or tamed (Job 41:1, 5\); it is frightening to even look at (verse 9\); it is best left alone (verses 8, 10\). The leviathan has a graceful form (verse 12\) but is incredibly well protected with scales (verses 13, 15–17\). Its chest is as impenetrable as its back (verses 15, 24\). It has fearsome teeth (verse 14\), and death awaits anyone who approaches its mouth (verses 18–21\). Even mighty men are terrified of the leviathan (verse 25\). No sword, spear, dart, javelin, arrow, stone, club, or lance can defeat it (verses 26, 28–29\). It cannot be caged, because it breaks iron like straw (verse 27\). On land, the leviathan leaves a trail of ruts; in the water, it produces a deep, churning wake (verses 30–32\). God’s description of the leviathan concludes with a statement that it is the true king of the beasts: “Nothing on earth is its equal—a creature without fear” (verse 33\). So, what animal is Job 41 describing? Some commentators believe Leviathan is a crocodile. Others believe it is a whale or a shark. Based on the biblical description, it seems more likely that Leviathan is a large sea reptile, possibly a species of [dinosaur](dinosaurs-Bible.html) such as the plesiosaurus. Job’s acquaintance with a dinosaur is not far\-fetched at all, given that the [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) is set in a very early time of history. The point God makes in Job 41 is that Leviathan is under God’s sovereign control. Job had been questioning God (Job 26—31\), but God turns the tables and uses the leviathan’s might to emphasize Job’s weakness and frailty. If God created Leviathan (an animal Job cannot stand before), then how great is God? Why is Job even trying to grapple with the Almighty? Leviathan was a dangerous creature that caused seasoned warriors to turn and run. Leviathan is no myth, but rather a real creature of the sea, subject only to its Creator. As God says in His description of Leviathan, “Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me” (Job 41:10–11\).
What does the Bible say about the position of worship leader?	Answer Because the term “worship leader” means so many different things to so many people, it is always best to see what Scripture has to say about the role of worship and those who lead corporate worship. [True worship](true-worship.html), whether corporate or individual, has several major components, as described in Romans 12:1\-2\. First, the motivation to worship is “the mercies of God” which embodies all He has given us, none of which we deserve. Second, the manner of worship is the presentation of our bodies, including our hearts, minds, hands, thoughts, and attitudes to God. Third, our worship involves renewing our minds through the Word of God. To know the truth, to believe the truth, to hold convictions about the truth, and to love the truth will naturally result in true spiritual worship. Fourth, true worship is God\-centered, not man\-centered. The purpose of worship is not to produce an emotional experience, but to acknowledge God’s singular worthiness to be worshiped. So the first duty and responsibility of those who desire to lead others in worship must be to first understand the nature of worship itself. Although the New Testament does not name “worship leader” as one of Christ’s gifts for the edification of the church (Ephesians 4:11\-12\), worship leaders are common in the modern church. If the worship leader is to lead, he must lead by example, and his life, therefore, must exemplify that of the true worshiper. As with all leaders in the body of Christ, his must first be spiritual leadership. He must be the first to bow before God in humility and obedience. Just as the high priest had to sacrifice for his own sins first, so must the worship leader ensure he has scraped away the hardness from his heart and loosened the stiffness of his neck before he can begin to lead others. It is the primary duty of a worship leader, therefore, to be aligned with God’s will and to be humble before the great and awesome God. He must lead in humility and genuine concern for those under his care. Because worship leader is not a biblical office for the church, his role is somewhat indistinct. Most worship leaders are musicians of some kind, whether vocal or instrumental, and their primary role is to lead the other musicians/singers that are involved in the service. It is the responsibility of the worship leader to ensure that it is not the music, nor the instruments, nor the presentation, nor the voices which are the focus of the worship service. Worship is bowing humbly before God and exalting Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords. The responsibility of the worship leader is to become less, that Jesus Christ can become more. And when all of this is done, when hearts are humble before Him, His people are ready to receive, and be changed by, the focal point of the worship service—His glorious and living Word.
What happens at the final judgment?	Answer The first thing to understand about the final judgment is that it cannot be avoided. Regardless of how we may choose to interpret prophecy on the end times, we are told that “it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27\). We all have a divine appointment with our Creator. The apostle John recorded some details of the final judgment: “And I saw a great white throne, and Him sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And a place was not found for them. And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death. And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire” (Revelation 20:11\-15\). This remarkable passage introduces to us the final judgment—the end of human history and the beginning of the eternal state. We can be sure of this: no mistakes will be made in our hearings because we will be judged by a perfect God (Matthew 5:48; 1 John 1:5\). This will manifest itself in many undeniable proofs. First, God will be perfectly just and fair (Acts 10:34; Galatians 3:28\). Second, God cannot be deceived (Galatians 6:7\). Third, God cannot be swayed by any prejudices, excuses or lies (Luke 14:16\-24\). As God the Son, Jesus Christ will be the judge (John 5:22\). All unbelievers will be judged by Christ at the “great white throne,” and they will be punished according to the works they have done. The Bible is very clear that unbelievers are storing up wrath against themselves (Romans 2:5\) and that God will “give to each person according to what he has done” (Romans 2:6\). (Believers will also be judged, at a different judgment called the “judgment seat of Christ” (Romans 14:10\), but since Christ’s righteousness has been imputed to us and our names are written in the Book of Life, we will be rewarded, not punished, according to our deeds.) At the final judgment the fate of the unsaved will be in the hands of the omniscient God who will judge everyone according to his soul’s condition. For now, our fate is in our own hands. The end of our soul’s journey will be either in an eternal heaven or in an eternal hell (Matthew 25:46\). We must choose where we will be by accepting or rejecting the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and we must make that choice before our physical lives on this earth come to an end. After death, there is no longer a choice, and our fate is to stand before the throne of God, where everything will be open and naked before Him (Hebrews 4:13\). Romans 2:6 declares that God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”
Why were Michael and Satan disputing over the body of Moses (Jude 9)?	Answer Jude verse 9 refers to an event which is found nowhere else in Scripture. Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described. Another angelic struggle is related by Daniel, who describes an angel coming to him in a vision. This angel, named Gabriel in Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, tells Daniel that he was “resisted” by a demon called “the prince of Persia” until the archangel Michael came to his assistance (Daniel 10:13\). So we learn from Daniel that angels and demons fight spiritual battles over the souls of men and nations, and that the demons resist angels and try to prevent them from doing God’s bidding. Jude tells us that Michael was sent by God to deal in some way with the body of Moses, which God Himself had buried after Moses’ death (Deuteronomy 34:5\-6\). Various theories have been put forth as to what this struggle over Moses’ body was about. One is that Satan, ever the accuser of God’s people (Revelation 12:10\), may have resisted the raising of Moses to eternal life on the grounds of Moses’ sin at [Meribah](Meribah-in-the-Bible.html) (Deuteronomy 32:51\) and his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12\). Some have supposed that the reference in Jude is the same as the passage in Zechariah 3:1\-2, “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’” But the objections to this being the same incident are obvious: (1\) The only similarity between the two passages is the expression, “the Lord rebuke you.” (2\) The name “Michael” does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. (3\) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” in Zechariah, and no allusion to it whatever. It has also been supposed that Jude is quoting an apocryphal book that contained this account, and that Jude means to confirm that the account is true. Origen (c. 185–254\), an early Christian scholar and theologian, mentions the book “The Assumption of Moses” as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That book, now lost, was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account in Jude. The only material question, then, is whether the story is “true.” Whatever the origin of the account, Jude does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses or of his smiting the rock. And who can prove that it is not true? What evidence is there that it is not? There are many allusions in the Bible to angels. We know that the archangel Michael is real; there is frequent mention of the devil; and there are numerous affirmations that both bad and good angels are employed in important transactions on the earth. As the nature of this particular dispute over Moses’ body is wholly unknown, conjecture is useless. We do not know whether there was an argument over possession of the body, burial of the body, or anything else. These two things we do know, however: first, Scripture is inerrant. The inerrancy of Scripture is one of the pillars of the Christian faith. As Christians, our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we do not understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God. Second, Jude 9 is the supreme illustration of how Christians are to deal with Satan and demons. The example of Michael refusing to pronounce a curse upon Satan should be a lesson to Christians in how to relate to demonic forces. Believers are not to address them, but rather to seek the Lord’s intervening power against them. If as powerful a being as Michael deferred to the Lord in dealing with Satan, who are we to attempt to reproach, cast out, or command demons in our own strength?
What is the significance of unleavened bread?	Answer The Bible tells us that the Israelites were to eat only unleavened bread every year during Passover as a commemoration of the Exodus from Egyptian bondage. Since the children of Israel left Egypt hastily, they did not have time for the bread to rise, so it was made on that very first Passover without leaven, also known as yeast. In describing this bread and why it was eaten, the Bible informs us of the following: "Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste—so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt" (Deuteronomy 16:3\). Further commands regarding the eating of unleavened bread are found in Exodus 12:8; 29:2; and Numbers 9:11\. To this day, in Jewish homes, the Passover celebration includes unleavened bread. According to the Hebrew lexicon, the term unleavened bread is derived from the word matzoh, which means "bread or cake without leaven." The lexicon also states that matzoh is in turn derived from a word which means "to drain out or suck." In referring to this second Hebrew word, the lexicon states, "In the sense of greedily devouring for sweetness." So it is quite possible that unleavened bread, while it may have been heavy and flat, may also have been sweet to the taste. In the Bible, leaven is almost always symbolic of sin. Like leaven that permeates the whole lump of dough, sin will spread in a person, a church, or a nation, eventually overwhelming and bringing its participants into its bondage and eventually to death (Galatians 5:9\). Romans 6:23 tell us that “the wages of sin is death,” which is God’s judgment for sin, and this is the reason that Christ died—to provide a way out of this judgment for sin if man will repent of his sins, accept Christ as his Passover sacrifice, and have his heart changed so that he can conform his life to what God commands.
Is there a difference between the book of life and the Lamb’s book of life?	Answer There are eight references in New Testament to the “[book of life](book-of-life.html),” and two of them refer specifically to the book of life that belongs to the Lamb, Jesus Christ. Seven of the references appear in the book of Revelation. Those whose names are written in the book of life are those who belong to God, those who have attained eternal life. Paul refers to those who have labored alongside him as those whose names are in the book of life (Philippians 4:3\), again identifying the book of life as a record of the names of those who have eternal salvation. In the same way, Revelation 3:5 refers to the book of life in which the names of believers in the Lord are found. These are those who overcome the trials of earthly life, proving that their salvation is genuine. This verse also makes it clear that once a name is written in the book of life, Jesus promises that He will never blot it out, proving once more the doctrine of [eternal security](eternal-security.html). The Lord Jesus, who is speaking to the churches in this part of Revelation, promises to acknowledge his own before His Father. Conversely, Revelation 20:15 reveals the fate of those whose names are not written in the book of life—eternity in the lake of fire. Revelation 17:8 clarifies when the names of the redeemed are written in the book of life: “The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast” (emphasis added). The names of those who approve of the Antichrist are not found in the book of life, and the names that are in the book of life were written there before the world was created. Thus, Revelation 17:8 teaches both eternal security and [election](elect-of-God.html). In Revelation 13:8 and 21:27, we find the references to the "Lamb’s book of life," in which also are the names of all those who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. The Lamb who has been “slain from the creation of the world” has a book in which are written all those who have been redeemed by His sacrifice. They are the ones who will enter the Holy City, the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:10\) and who will live forever in heaven with God. Since the book of life is that which records all who have eternal life through the Lamb, it’s clear that the book of life and the Lamb’s book of life are one and the same.
What will be the purpose of the walls around the New Jerusalem?	Answer Beginning with Revelation 21:9, John records his final vision picturing the city of God, the New Jerusalem where believers in Christ will spend their eternal lives. The New Jerusalem is the ultimate fulfillment of all of God’s promises. It exemplifies the total goodness of God, its infinite brilliance “like that of a very precious jewel, like as jasper, clear as crystal” (Revelation 21:11\). It is here that Scripture gives us a description so magnificent that we are able to get a glimpse of the glories of eternal heaven. In this passage, an angel of God has taken John to the top of a great and high mountain. From there John looks down upon this Holy City and tries to describe the indescribable. The city is like a massive, crystal\-clear diamond with the glory of God shining from its center over all the new heavens and the new earth. All of eternity is bathed in its splendor. Then in verse 12, John moves from describing its general appearance to its exterior design beginning with the walls. Human words are incapable of describing what John is trying to convey, which is why he continually uses similes, saying often “it is like” something else. But he gives us just enough to excite our hearts and stir our souls. God, through John, gets us as close to the understanding of this place as our finite minds can comprehend. The walls of the city, described as “great and high,” are an obvious symbol of exclusion of all that are unworthy to enter the city. Though innumerable believers will enjoy its glory, there is the chilling reminder that only the redeemed may enter. In the wall itself are twelve gates guarded by twelve angels and inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. In keeping with the square shape of the city, the gates are located on each of the four sides as specified in verse 13\. It is noteworthy, however, that not only are the twelve tribes of Israel represented but also the twelve apostles. This should settle beyond any question the matter of the inclusion of Old Testament saints. It apparently is the divine intent to represent that the New Jerusalem will have among its citizens not only believers of the present age, but also Israel and the saints of other ages. But a final question remains: if those within the walls of the New Jerusalem are the saved, who then are those outside its walls? The last three verses of chapter 21 gives us the answer: “On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:25\-27\). The city’s gates in the wall will never be shut. It is not that outside of the New Jerusalem, unsaved people are still roaming around, but this pictures a city with open gates on a new earth where believers will dwell throughout eternity. Ancient cities shut their gates at night for security purposes. However, since there will be no night there, and since all evil will have been eradicated, these gates will stay open constantly. Revelation seems to picture a great amount of activity coming and going from the city, but all who go in and out are those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. The unredeemed are a long way outside the city’s walls—in the “outer darkness” of hell (Matthew 8:12\), consigned to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14\-15\)—and can never come near the Holy City. Jesus Himself, as well as John, specifies the “impure” as those who will not enter the city: “Outside are the dogs who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” as well as the “cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, and all liars” (Revelation 22:15\). By contrast, those people whose names are recorded in the Lamb’s book of life are free to enter the Holy City; they possess life eternal and belong to their faithful Savior Jesus Christ. The Lamb, who bought them with His blood (Rev. 5:9\), will never blot out their names from His book (Revelation 3:5\) and will grant them the right to the tree of life and entrance into the city (Revelation 22:14\). Though the description of the city does not answer all our questions concerning the eternal state, the revelation given to John describes a beautiful and glorious future for all who put their trust in the living God. Conversely, it reveals to us that when the end does come, no opportunity will remain for one’s repentance and acceptance into heaven. The truth is this: spiritual renewal takes place in this present life, not in the afterlife.
What is the difference between ordinances and sacraments?	Answer [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html), [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), and a few Protestant denominations use the term sacrament to refer to a rite through which God’s grace is conveyed to an individual. Many evangelical churches prefer the word ordinance, which can be defined as a “God\-ordained ceremony.” A sacrament is often thought of as being a means of God’s grace—as a worshiper performs a certain religious rite, he or she receives divine blessing, either for salvation or for sanctification. An ordinance is usually not considered a conduit of grace but simply a practice commanded to be performed by the Lord. In other words, a sacrament, at some level, involves a supernatural work of God. An ordinance is simply an act of man in obedience to God. Complicating the issue somewhat is the fact that some churches do see the ordinances as means of grace; other churches consider the sacraments as symbols of spiritual reality and not the reality itself. In those cases, the words ordinance and sacrament are virtually synonymous. The Roman Catholic Church teaches there are [seven sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html): baptism, confirmation, holy communion, confession, marriage, holy orders, and the anointing of the sick. According to the Catholic Church, these sacraments “are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, p. 293\). Also, “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (Ibid., p. 292\). This teaching reveals a works\-based system of salvation and a [sacerdotal](sacerdotalism.html) approach to worship. The Bible, in contrast, tells us that grace is not given through outward symbols, and no ritual is “necessary for salvation.” Grace is the blessing of God, freely given to the undeserving. “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:4–7, NKJV). [Protestants](what-is-a-Protestant.html) and [evangelicals](evangelical-Christian.html) reject the notion that sacraments can offer salvation. Rather, most see them as signs and signifiers (and sometimes seals) of grace already received. To help avoid communicating the idea that their religious activities are channels of grace, most evangelicals prefer to call them “ordinances.” They see the ordinances as symbolic reenactments of the gospel message. Rather than being requirements for salvation, ordinances are visual aids to help us better understand and appreciate what Jesus Christ accomplished for us in His redemptive work, and they are testimonies that we indeed believe in Christ. Ordinances are determined by three factors: they were instituted by Christ, they were taught by the apostles, and they were practiced by the early church. [Baptism](Christian-baptism.html) and [communion](communion-Christian.html) (or the Lord’s table) are the two rites that most evangelicals consider ordinances, and neither of them is a requirement for salvation. Scriptural support for baptism is found in Matthew 28:18–20, and support for communion in Luke 22:19\.
What is the Ark of the Covenant?	Answer God made a conditional [covenant](Mosaic-covenant.html) with the children of Israel through His servant Moses. He promised good to them and their children for generations if they obeyed Him and His laws, but He always warned of despair, punishment, and dispersion if they were to disobey. As a reminder of His covenant, the Lord had the Israelites make a box, according to His design, to house the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments. This box, or ark, was to be kept in the inner sanctum of the wilderness tabernacle and eventually in the temple when it was built in Jerusalem. This chest is known as the ark of the covenant. Moses instructed [Bezalel](Bezalel-and-Oholiab.html), God’s anointed craftsman, to build the ark of the covenant (see Exodus 37:1–9; 25:10–22\). The “sacred chest” was to be a rectangular wooden box made from acacia wood, overlaid “inside and out with pure gold,” measuring approximately “45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high” (Exodus 37:1–2, NLT). The chest was fitted with two pairs of gold rings on either side in which permanent poles were inserted for transporting the ark. No one was allowed to touch the ark out of reverence for God’s holiness. The poles were also fashioned with acacia wood and overlaid with gold. The ark of the covenant was built to contain the two tablets of the law given to Moses by God (Exodus 25:16, 21\). These tablets were also known as “the testimony,” and thus, the ark was also called “the ark of the testimony” (see Numbers 4:5, Joshua 4:16, ESV). In the original Hebrew, the word translated as “testimony” refers both to the terms of God’s covenant with Israel as written on the tablets of stone and to the covenant itself. Later, Moses had Aaron place [inside the ark](inside-the-ark-of-the-covenant.html) a jar of manna to remember God’s faithfulness in providing miraculous bread from heaven (Exodus 16:4, 33\) and Aaron’s staff that had budded as a warning against rebellion (Numbers 17:1–13; Hebrews 9:4\). A lid called the “[mercy seat](mercy-seat.html)” or “the place of atonement” was constructed for the box (see Exodus 25:17\). The mercy seat was made of pure gold and covered the entire length and width of the chest. Bezalel crafted two cherubim from hammered gold and molded them atop each end of the mercy seat so that the whole lid was one solid piece of gold. The cherubim faced each other and looked down on the mercy seat with their wings spread wide, overshadowing and protecting it. The real significance of the ark of the covenant involved the mercy seat. The Hebrew word for “mercy seat” meant “cover, appeasement, or place of atonement.” Once a year, the high priest entered the holy of holies where the ark of the covenant was kept, and here he atoned for his sins and the sins of the Israelite people (Leviticus 16:2–16\). Seven times, the priest sprinkled the blood of sacrificed bulls and goats onto the mercy seat. This atonement on [Yom Kippur](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html) appeased God’s wrath and anger for past sins committed. The lid of the ark of the covenant was termed a “seat” because this sacred place was considered God’s holy throne (see Psalm 99:1\). Here, the Lord spoke to Moses from between the winged cherubim (Numbers 7:89\). Here, where the sacrificial blood was sprinkled and God’s mercy was dispensed, was the only place in the world where atonement could take place. The mercy seat on the ark was a symbolic foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice for all sin—the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the remission of sins (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12–14; 1 Peter 1:18–19\). The apostle Paul, a former Pharisee and one familiar with the Old Testament, knew this concept quite well when he wrote about Christ being our covering for sin in Romans 3:24–25: “And all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.” Just as there was only one place for atonement of sins in the Old Testament—the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant—so there is also only one place for atonement in the New Testament—the cross of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 3:18\). As Christians, we no longer look to the ark but to the Lord Jesus Himself as the One who covers, cleanses, cancels, and atones for our sins (1 John 4:10\). As the Israelites traveled from Mount Sinai to Canaan, the ark of the covenant was to be carried before them through the wilderness as a constant reminder of God’s holy, living presence (Numbers 10:33–36\). The ark played a central role in Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land (Joshua 3:3, 6, 15–16; 4:9; 6:4–16\) and the life of God’s people there (Joshua 8:33; Judges 20:26–28\). Eventually, Israel lost sight of the ark’s true significance. In 1 Samuel 4, the nation was battling the [Philistines](Philistines.html). When the Israelites suffered a loss, rather than deal with the real problem—sin—they fetched the ark and took it into battle. They viewed the ark as little more than a talisman or ceremonial token that would ensure God’s help. As a result, they suffered another defeat, and God allowed the ark to be captured by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:1–11, 17–22; 5:1–12\). But the hand of the Lord was heavy on the Philistines, so they returned the ark (1 Samuel 6:1–3, 10–15, 19; 7:1–2\). Much later, King David had the ark brought to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1–12, 17\), and when his son Solomon completed the temple, the ark and all the tabernacle furnishings were placed inside the temple (1 Kings 8:1–12\). The Bible doesn’t say precisely when the ark of the covenant was lost to history. Some speculate it was destroyed or potentially removed during various raids (see 1 Kings 14:25–28; 2 Kings 14:8–14\). The last time the location of the ark is mentioned in Scripture is when King Josiah ordered the caretakers of the ark to return it to the Jerusalem temple (2 Chronicles 35:1–6; cf. 2 Kings 23:21–23\). The ark is not cited in the list of temple spoils that Nebuchadrezzar took to Babylon when Jerusalem was sacked (2 Kings 25:13–17; Jeremiah 52:17–23\). The origins of Israel’s ark of the covenant are as mysterious and fascinating as its current whereabouts and final destiny. Archeologists and treasure hunters have sought to find it for centuries. In Revelation 11:19, John sees the ark of the covenant as part of the future heavenly temple. However, this is probably not the same ark Moses built; instead, the heavenly ark is more likely a symbolic representation of God’s holy presence.
What does the Bible say about church-hopping?	Answer Technically, the Bible does not address the issue of church\-hopping. The early church consisted of small groups of Christians meeting in homes or in public places. There is no indication in Scripture that towns or cities had more than one group of believers meeting there. So church\-hopping is relatively new. However, the author of Hebrews does address the issue of church attendance. In Hebrews 10:25 we read, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." Sometimes people church\-hop to avoid getting too deeply involved with any one congregation, but that defeats the purpose of the body of Christ which is, as Hebrews notes, to “encourage one another.” We can’t encourage those we don’t spend time getting to know, nor can we be encouraged by other Christians if they are essentially strangers to us. In addition, the church is where the members of the body of Christ exercise their spiritual gifts (Romans 12:6\-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4\-11; 1 Peter 4:10\-11\), given by the Spirit “for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7\). When Christians spend only minimal time with other Christians, as is the inevitable result of church\-hopping, there is little or no opportunity to exercise their gifts. As the writer to the Hebrews notes, meeting together provides the opportunity for us to “consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24\), a practice that is nearly impossible for the church\-hopper. Conversely, attending a different church each week limits our accountability to the leadership of any one church and our ability to confess our sins to one another and seek prayer for our spiritual edification (James 5:16\). Sadly, this is the very reason many people do church\-hop—to avoid being held accountable for their lifestyle. There is no doubt that it is wise to be selective in which church body we choose to attend. This may require attending different churches for a while so that we can best decide which church home God may be calling us to. The goal is to find a church that teaches that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and affirms all of the [essentials of the Christian faith](essentials-Christian-faith.html). This may take some time and might technically be called church\-hopping. However, after having found a solid church, we must commit to remaining there.
What is the Noahic Covenant?	Answer The Noahic Covenant, found in Genesis 9:8\-17, is the promise that God made to Noah and his descendants after the flood which destroyed the world. The Noahic Covenant has several distinguishing features. First, it is an unconditional covenant. Second, it was made to Noah and all his descendants as well as “every living creature” and the earth in general (Genesis 9:8\-10\). Third, it was sealed with a sign, the [rainbow](meaning-of-the-rainbow.html). The Noahic Covenant is an unconditional covenant because it does not depend upon anything Noah or his descendants had to do to fulfill the covenant. The promise is based upon God’s faithfulness alone. Because of God’s faithfulness to always do what He says He will do, we can know today with certainty that there will never be another worldwide flood as there was in the days of Noah, no matter how wicked mankind becomes. Neither the wickedness nor the righteousness of mankind affects this unconditional covenant. There is no "condition" under which God will renege on His promise. This does not mean that God will never again destroy the earth, however. He has promised to one day destroy the earth by fire (2 Peter 3:10, 11; Revelation 20:9, 21:1 ) in the terrible events known as the “day of the Lord.” After the flood God promised that He would never again send a worldwide flood to destroy the earth as an act of His divine judgment for sin. As a sign to remind Noah and his descendants of His covenantal promise, God “set the rainbow in the cloud” (Genesis 9:12\-13\). Just as circumcision was the sign of the [Abrahamic Covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html), the rainbow is the sign of the Noahic Covenant. The lesson to us is that when we see a rainbow we should always be reminded of God’s faithfulness and His amazing grace. We should also be reminded that our God is a holy and righteous God who has a holy hatred for sin and who will not allow sin to go unpunished forever. Also, just as God provided a way for Noah and his family to be saved in the ark, He also has provided a way for us to be saved through Jesus Christ. Noah and his family were saved from the wrath of God that came in the flood, just as those who are in Christ are saved from the “wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10\).
What is a covenant marriage?	Answer A covenant marriage is an alternative marriage license. The laws covering covenant marriage vary from state to state. Covenant marriage differs from a standard marriage contract in that the covenant partners are required to attend pre\-marital counseling and would have to wait two years before a divorce can be filed. In addition, a covenant marriage license could not be absolved with a “no fault” cause. The conditions for divorce would be abuse, adultery, long\-term separation, or a felony conviction. Again, the laws for covenant marriages vary because they are legislated by the states. Covenant marriage legislation supporters believe that this type of marriage would decrease the divorce rate; thus, the family unit would once again be a strong foundation for our society. Proponents claim a marriage that discourages easy divorces would hold the individuals more accountable to their partners and lead to fewer broken homes. Opponents of covenant marriage contend it is based on religion and therefore is a violation of separation of church and state. Furthermore, there have been reports from people in covenant marriages that it was almost impossible to get a divorce because they could not prove grounds with evidence of abuse or adultery. While the legislation for covenant marriage was originally to decrease divorce rates, the word covenant describes a contract made not only with man but with God. From a biblical perspective, marriage is a union of man and woman before God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6\). This is true of any marriage, whether or not the marriage certificate mentions it. The Bible says that divorce is sin unless there is adultery (Matthew 5:32\) or an unbelieving spouse leaves the believing spouse (1 Corinthians 7:10\-15\). Society’s definition of marriage and divorce is not the cause for the high divorce rate. That is caused by people rejecting the truth of Scripture and choosing to follow their own way rather than follow God. A law most likely won’t change how people value marriage. We value what God values when our hearts are changed, and this only occurs when we place our trust in God so we are in agreement with Him (Hebrews 4:12\).
What is black liberation theology?	Answer Black liberation theology is an offshoot of the South American [liberation theology](liberation-theology.html), which is largely humanistic, attempting to apply Christian theology to the plight of the poor. Black liberation theology focuses on Africans in general and African\-Americans in particular being liberated from all forms of bondage and injustice, whether real or perceived, whether social, political, economic, or religious. The goal of black liberation theology is to “make Christianity real for blacks.” The primary error in black liberation theology is its focus. Black liberation theology attempts to focus Christianity on liberation from social injustice in the here and now, rather than in the afterlife. Jesus taught the exact opposite: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36\). Have blacks/Africans and especially African\-Americans been treated unfairly, unjustly, and evilly in recent history? Absolutely! Should one of the results of the gospel be the end of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and inequality? Again, yes, absolutely (Galatians 3:28\)! Is deliverance from social injustice a core principle of the gospel? No. The message of the gospel is this: we are all infected with sin (Romans 3:23\). We are all worthy of eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23\). Jesus died on the cross, taking the punishment that we deserve (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:2\), providing for our salvation. Jesus was then resurrected, demonstrating that His death was indeed a sufficient payment for the sin penalty (1 Corinthians 15:1\-4\). If we place our trust in Jesus as Savior, all of our sins are forgiven, and we will be granted entrance into heaven after death (John 3:16\). That is the gospel. That is to be our focus. That is the cure for what is truly plaguing humanity. When a person receives Jesus as Savior, he/she is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17\), and the indwelling Holy Spirit begins the process of conforming him/her to the image of Christ (Romans 12:1\-2\). Only through this spiritual transformation can racism truly be conquered. Black liberation theology fails because it attacks the symptoms without truly addressing the disease. Sin/fallenness is the disease; racism is just one of the many symptoms. The message of the gospel is Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for our sins and the salvation that is therefore available through faith. The end of racism would be a result of people truly receiving Jesus as Savior, but racism is not specifically addressed in the gospel itself. Because of its extreme over\-emphasis of racial issues, a negative result of black liberation theology is that it tends to separate the black and white Christian communities, and this is completely unbiblical. Christ came to earth to unite all who believe in Him in one universal Church, His body, of which He is the head (Ephesians 1:22\-23\). Members of the Body of Christ share a common bond with all other Christians, regardless of background, race, or nationality. “There should be no division in the body, but . . . its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1 Corinthians 12:25\). We are to be of one mind, having the mind of Christ, and have one goal, glorifying God by fulfilling Christ’s command to “go into all the world,” telling others about Him, preaching the good news of the gospel, and teaching others to observe His commandments (Matthew 28:19\-20\). Jesus reminds us that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love others as ourselves, regardless of race (Matthew 22:36\-40\).
Is it important for a Christian to have daily devotions?	Answer Daily devotions is a phrase used to denote the discipline of Bible reading and prayer with which Christians start or end their day. Bible reading in daily devotions can take the form of a structured [study](Bible-study-methods.html) using a devotional book or a simple reading of certain passages. Some people like to read through the Bible in a year. [Prayer](what-is-prayer.html) in daily devotions can include any or all of the different types of prayer—praise, confession, thanksgiving, petition, and intercession. Some people use prayer lists for their daily devotions. Others prefer to pray as they read the Word in an interactive manner, listening for God speaking to them through the Bible passages and responding in prayer. Whatever the format of daily devotions, the important thing is that our daily devotions, as the name implies, be truly devoted to God and occur daily. It is important to spend time with God in daily devotions. Why? Paul explains: “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6\). The experience of having God’s light shine in our hearts comes in our times spent in the presence of God. Of course, this light comes only from knowing God through Christ. The marvelous treasure of the Holy Spirit is given to each Christian, and we need faith to believe and act upon that truth. In all reality, if we truly yearn to experience the light of our Lord, we will need to be with God every day. Someone once said, “The gospel brings man to God; devotions keep him close to God.” The apostle James wrote, “Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double\-minded” (James 4:8\). As the children of God seek a closer relationship with God, they will find God is closer than ever. In their daily devotions, Christians seek to draw [close to God’s heart](closer-relationship-with-God.html), understand more about Him, obey His commands, and hold on to His promises. The impure and [double\-minded](double-minded.html) will have no such yearning in their hearts. In fact, they will seek to separate themselves from God as much as possible. In daily devotions, we want to draw near to God. The expression “draw near” was originally associated with the priesthood in Israel. Under the regulations of the Old Covenant, the priests represented the people before God. However, prior to approaching God’s presence, the priest had to be washed physically and be ceremonially clean. This meant he had to bathe, wear the proper garments, and offer the proper sacrifices. His own heart had to be right with God. Then he could “draw near” to God on the people’s behalf. In time, the concept of “drawing near” was applied to anyone who approached God’s presence in worship and prayer. The sincere believer knows that God wants His people to draw near to Him with true and pure hearts, and that’s what daily devotions are all about. “Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22\). This verse applies the language of the Old Testament ceremonial system to us today. Just as those ancient priests prepared themselves to be near God, we also should prepare ourselves spiritually to worship Him, whether in formal worship or in our personal devotional times. After salvation, the [spiritual growth](spiritual-growth.html) begins. The believer will, like Enoch, naturally want to walk with God (Genesis 5:22\). He will, like Asaph, desire to be near God (Psalm 73:28\). He will, like the disciples, yearn to pray effectively (Luke 11:1\). In short, the child of God will want to find time for daily devotions.
Does the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply to the entire Bible or just the Book of Revelation?	Answer Revelation 22:18\-19 contains a warning to anyone who tampers with the biblical text: “For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.” The question is whether these verses refer to the whole Bible or just the Book of Revelation. This warning is given specifically to those who distort the message of the Book of Revelation. Jesus Himself is the Author of Revelation and the giver of the vision to the apostle John (Revelation 1:1\). As such, He concludes the book with a confirmation of His testimony to the finality of the prophecies contained in Revelation. These are His words, and He warns against distorting them in any way, whether through additions, subtractions, falsifications, alterations, or intentional misinterpretations. The warning is explicit and dire. The plagues of Revelation will be visited upon anyone guilty of tampering in any way with the revelations in the book, and those who dare to do so will have no part in eternal life in heaven. Although the warning in Revelation 22:18\-19 is specific to the Book of Revelation, the principle applies to anyone who seeks to intentionally distort God’s Word. Moses gave a similar warning in Deuteronomy 4:1\-2, where he cautioned the Israelites that they must listen to and obey the commandments of the Lord, neither adding to nor taking away from His revealed Word. Proverbs 30:5\-6 contains a similar admonition to anyone who would add to God’s words: he will be rebuked and proven to be a liar. Although the warning in Revelation 22:18\-19 applies specifically to the Book of Revelation, its principle must be applied to the entire revealed Word of God. We must be careful to handle the Bible with care and reverence so as to not distort its message.
Are mission boards biblical?	Answer Mission boards are groups of people who oversee, to a lesser or greater degree, the activities of missionaries on the mission field. Mission boards can be as simple as a few people in the local church who choose, pray for, and support one or more people from their own church who feel led by God to the mission field. Or a mission board can be as large and complex as a parachurch agency that facilitates large numbers of missionaries with such things as fund raising, Bible translations, seminaries, aviation, broadcasting, publishing, camping, hospitals, and schools for the children of missionaries in appropriate locations. Whether the mission board is small and oriented to the local church, or large and world\-wide in scope, the objective is the same—to fulfill the Great Commission of Mark 16:15: “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” There are those who believe missions to be the responsibility of the local church only and that parachurch missions agencies are usurping the work and direction of the local church. Because there is no biblical precedent for a parachurch organization of any kind, they believe, no such organization should exist. They cite the example in Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit worked through and with the local church in Antioch to send forth missionaries. The example of Acts 14 is also cited, wherein Paul and Barnabas reported back to the local church following the first missionary journey. Those they reported to were simply God’s chosen servants in the local church at Antioch. While these things are true, those “chosen servants” in effect made up a mission board. Whether missionaries are sent and supported by the local church, a denominational mission board, or a formal, parachurch organization, certain principles do apply. For one thing, finances must be handled in an appropriate manner. If a large missionary organization is draining funds from the local churches to be used primarily for operating costs including salaries, the local churches that support such an organization are not practicing good stewardship. But the same can be said for local churches supporting just a few missionaries completely on their own. There must be accountability from those on the field to ensure that funds are being used wisely. This is a difficult and delicate situation for most local churches to navigate, and many are more comfortable with an outside mission board that can handle such things objectively and impersonally. Although there is no biblical model for the modern mission board or agency, neither is there a biblical prohibition against them. Christians trying to decide how to fund and support missionaries should begin with prayer for God’s wisdom, which He has promised to grant “without finding fault” (James 1:5\).
What is the meaning of wormwood in Revelation?	Answer "Wormwood" is the name of a star in Revelation 8:10\-11: “The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water—the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.” This is the third of the “trumpet judgments” described in Revelation. The [seven trumpets](seven-seals-trumpets.html) are the judgments of the seventh seal (Revelation 8:1\-5\). The first trumpet causes hail and fire that destroy much of the plant life in the world (Revelation 8:7\). The second trumpet brings about what seems to be a meteor, comet, or other heavenly body hitting the oceans and causing the death of one\-third of the world’s sea life (Revelation 8:8\-9\). The third trumpet is similar to the second, except it affects the world’s lakes and rivers instead of the oceans (Revelation 8:10\-11\). It will cause a third part of all fresh water on earth to turn bitter and many people will die from drinking it. The word wormwood is mentioned only here in the New Testament, but it appears eight times in the Old Testament, each time associated with bitterness, poison and death. The Revelation passage may not be saying that the star falling to the earth will actually be called Wormwood by the inhabitants of the earth. Rather, wormwood was a well\-known bitter herb in the Bible times, so by naming the star Wormwood, we are told that its effect will be to embitter the waters of the earth, so much so that the water is undrinkable. It won’t be a matter of simply a bitter taste to the water; it will literally be poisonous. If drinking water is unavailable to one third of the earth’s population, it’s easy to see how chaos and terror will result. Humans can only survive about three days without water, and the inhabitants of the affected areas will be so desperate as to actually drink the poisoned water, causing the death of thousands, if not millions of people. This is a prophecy that is yet to come in the last seven years of this age, also known as the 70th week of Daniel. This is only one of the natural disasters in the seven trumpets that will usher in the rise of the Antichrist to world power very quickly (see Revelation, chapter 13\). Since one\-third of the earth is destroyed by these trumpet judgments, this is only a partial judgment from God. His full wrath is yet to be unleashed.
Why did God send an evil spirit to torment King Saul?	Answer First Samuel 16:14 says, “The Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.” This is also mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:15–16, 23; 18:10; and 19:9\. Why did God let an evil spirit torment Saul? In what way was the evil spirit “from” the Lord? First, the evil spirit was “from” the Lord in that it was allowed by God to harass Saul. Ultimately, all created things are under God’s control. It is likely that this evil spirit was part of God’s judgment upon Saul for his disobedience. Saul had directly disobeyed God on two occasions (1 Samuel 13:1–14; 15:1–35\). Therefore, God removed His Spirit from Saul and allowed an evil spirit to torment him. Likely, Satan and the demons had always wanted to attack Saul; God was now simply giving them permission to do so. Second, the evil spirit was used to bring David into the life of Saul. This account is recorded immediately following David’s anointing as the future king of Israel. The reader would be wondering how a shepherd boy would become king. First Samuel 16 reveals the first step in this journey. When the king’s servants saw the torment Saul was enduring, they suggested, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better” (1 Samuel 16:15–16\). One of the king’s servants referred David to the king, describing the youth as a great harp player, among other things (verse 18\). Saul called David to come and found him to be a great comfort: “David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor\-bearers. Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, ‘Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.’ Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him” (1 Samuel 16:21–23\). It is important to note that this evil spirit that troubled Saul was only temporary. The final verse notes that the evil spirit came on multiple occasions to bother Saul, but also it departed from him. A related question is, does God send evil spirits to torment people today? There are examples of individuals in the New Testament being turned over to Satan or demons for punishment. God allowed Ananias and Sapphira to be filled with the spirit of Satan as a warning and example to the early church (Acts 5:1–11\). A man in the Corinthian church was committing incest and adultery, and God commanded the leaders to “hand him over to Satan” to destroy his sinful nature and save his soul (1 Corinthians 5:1–5\). God allowed a messenger of Satan to torment the apostle Paul in order to teach him to rely on God’s grace and power and not become conceited because of the tremendous abundance of spiritual truth he was given (2 Corinthians 12:7\). The New Testament reveals how God can use the presence of evil spirits to reveal His power. Jesus showed His power over demons on multiple occasions; every time Jesus cast out a demon, it was an affirmation of the Lord’s authority. The account of Jesus’ casting out the demons who entered a herd of pigs indicates that perhaps as many as 2,000 evil spirits were present, yet they all feared the power of Christ (Mark 5:1–13\). If God does allow evil spirits to torment people today, He does so with the goal of our good and His glory (Romans 8:28\). And, just as in Job’s case, Satan and his minions can do only what God allows them to do (Job 1:12; 2:6\). They never act independently of God’s sovereign and perfect will and purpose. If believers suspect they are being tormented by demonic forces, the first response is to repent of any known sin. Then we should ask for wisdom to understand what we are to learn from the situation. Then we are to submit to whatever God has allowed in our lives, trusting that it will result in the building up of our faith and the glory of God. Evil spirits are no match for the power of God. As Ephesians 6:10–12 commands, “Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Is burial the only option a Christian can consider?	Answer Most Christians through the centuries have wanted to be buried after death with a ceremony that proclaims the message of resurrection; that ceremony, containing various rites and traditions, has come to be known as “Christian burial.” There are other options besides burial for Christians to consider; cremation, though not considered as “traditional” as burial, is becoming more popular. Christian burial is not an explicitly biblical term. The Bible doesn’t give instructions on how a body should be handled after death. In the cultures of Bible times, burial in a tomb, cave, or in the ground was the common way to dispose of a human body (Genesis 23:19; 35:8, 19; 2 Chronicles 16:14; Matthew 27:60–66\). The most common mode of burial in the Bible was to place the dead in above\-ground tombs, for those who could afford it. For those who could not afford it, bodies were buried in the ground. In the New Testament, above\-ground tombs were still reserved as burial places for the wealthy. This is why Jesus, who had no earthly wealth at all, was buried in a borrowed tomb (Matthew 27:57–60\). Today, obeying the laws of the land regarding corpses is a significant consideration. Laws vary from country to country and, in the U.S., from state to state. Because Christians are to obey the government authorities, laws regarding the disposing of a body must be followed. Then there is the question of Christian burial vs. [cremation](cremation-Bible.html). Neither is commanded in the Bible, but neither is prohibited. The fact that Jews and early Christians practiced burial exclusively is enough to persuade some people to choose burial today. And the fact that the only times the Bible mentions the dead being burned are in the context of the wicked being punished for their offenses (Leviticus 20:14; Joshua 7:25\) also prompts some to reject cremation. But, again, Christians today have no explicit biblical command for or against cremation. In the end, it is best to leave that decision to the family of the deceased. The method used to dispose of a body is not nearly as important as the truth behind the concept of Christian burial: that the body is no longer housing the person who has died. Paul describes our bodies as “tents,” that is, temporary abodes. “Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands” (2 Corinthians 5:1\). When Jesus returns, Christians will be raised to life, and our bodies will be transformed to glorified, eternal bodies. “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” (1 Corinthians 15:42–43\).
What is the multiverse theory?	Answer In summary, the multiverse theory was invented to explain away the clear evidence of design in the universe along with the fact that the universe is finely\-tuned to support life (the [anthropic principle](https://www.gotquestions.org/anthropic-principle.html)). The multiverse theory essentially states that there are multitudes of universes, each formed entirely randomly, with our universe being the only one (or one of a few) that randomly developed in such a way that it supports life. According to the multiverse theory, the appearance of “[intelligent design](https://www.gotquestions.org/intelligent-design.html)” in our universe is the result of the pieces coming together just right, with no guidance/oversight from any Being. Rather, in this theory, our universe being fine\-tuned for life is simply a matter of chance – with millions or billions of universes, it was bound to happen. The multiverse theory is based on the supposition that what we have to this point considered to be “the universe” is but a small component of a vast, possibly infinite, assemblage of universes. The multiverse principle is an attempt to evade evidence for the apparent [fine\-tuning](fine-tuning-argument.html) of cosmic laws, values and constants such that the universe would be conducive to bio\-habitability. The core thesis of the multiverse concept attempts to expand one’s probabilistic resources beyond that which is available in the observable universe such that the likelihood of attaining a single bio\-habitable universe by chance is rendered more plausible. There are several fundamental problems with this proposition, the key problem being that it is both unnecessary and ad hoc. There is no good scientific reason to think that we reside in one universe within a multitude of parallel universes. There is also no reason to think that there should be a mechanism for generating such universes, each with its own fundamental constants and values. The proposition thus only succeeds in throwing the paradox back one step, as one could then easily ask who built the generator to give rise to this cosmic lottery. A second difficulty with this hypothesis is that a universe which is in a state of continuous expansion cannot be eternal. It stands to reason, therefore, that it is possible only a finite number of universes could have been generated, and there is no guarantee that a finely tuned bio\-habitable universe would have emerged. In conclusion, in the absence of independent philosophical and/or scientific evidence for the existence of a universe\-ensemble, the concept remains nothing more than radical metaphysical conjecture. The exquisite fine\-tuning of the contingent laws and constants of the universe for the emergence of complex life remains best explained by an intelligent Being outside of space and time. The popular worldview has, for decades, been that the universe did not have us in mind – that we exist as an infinite cosmic speck within a vast cosmic arena. In recent years, however, new insights have turned this paradigm on its head. Now we see evidence that life was planned, that it was intended (Psalm 19\).
What is the Judeo-Christian ethic?	Answer The term “Judeo\-Christian” refers to something that has its source in the common foundations of Judaism and Christianity. The Bible includes the Jewish Scriptures of the Old Testament, so the moral foundations laid down in Judaism are upheld in Christianity. The first use of the term "Judeo\-Christian ethic" was apparently by the German philosopher [Friedrich Nietzsche](Friedrich-Nietzsche.html) in his 1888 book The Antichrist: Curse on Christianity. The early uses of the term "Judeo\-Christian ethic" referred to the Jewish roots and identity of the early Christian church, but it wasn’t used to speak of a common set of morals until much later. In 1952, President\-elect Dwight Eisenhower, speaking to the Freedoms Foundation in New York, said, "Our sense of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo\-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal." This began the modern use of the term in American political and social circles. From Eisenhower’s day to the present, the term has become particularly associated with political conservatives in America, though there are much broader applications. In our American military schools, it is commonly taught that the modern rules for war, like the protection of captives and non\-combatants, are based on biblical themes. American jurisprudence is firmly based in Judeo\-Christian ethics and celebrates that fact with a variety of artwork throughout Washington, D.C. In the House of Representatives there are 23 marble relief portraits of great lawgivers, including Moses, who is given the central point of focus. The sculptures over the main entrance to the Supreme Court building are centered on Moses with the Ten Commandments, and there are several other representations of Moses and the Ten Commandments in various places throughout the building. Though there are many aspects to the Judeo\-Christian ethic, some of the more common ones are the sanctity of human life, personal responsibility, a high regard for marriage, and compassion for others. Much of what is best in Western civilization can be directly attributed to the Judeo\-Christian ethic. Historian Thomas Cahill, in pointing out the common themes of Christianity and Judaism, said, “The heart of the Torah is not obedience to regulations about such things as diet—what one may eat, whom one may eat with, how one must prepare oneself beforehand—but to tzedakka, justice like God’s Justice, justice toward the downtrodden.” The foundations of the Judeo\-Christian ethic can be summarized in the “Golden Rule” which Jesus taught His disciples in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
What does the Bible say about praying for the dead?	Answer Praying for the dead is not a biblical concept. Our prayers have no bearing on someone once he or she has died. The reality is that, at the point of death, one’s eternal destiny is confirmed. Either he is saved through faith in Christ and is in heaven where he is experiencing rest and joy in God’s presence, or he is in torment in hell. The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar provides us with a vivid illustration of this truth. Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied (Luke 16:19\-31\). Often, people who have lost a loved one are encouraged to pray for those who have passed away and for their families. Of course, we should pray for those grieving, but for the dead, no. No one should ever believe that someone may be able to pray for him, thereby effecting some kind of favorable outcome, after he has died. The Bible teaches that the eternal state of mankind is determined by our actions during our lives on earth. “The soul who sins is the one who will die. . . . The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him” (Ezekiel 18:20\). The writer to the Hebrews tells us, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27\). Here we understand that no change in one’s spiritual condition can be made following his death—either by himself or through the efforts of others. If it is useless to pray for the living, who are committing “a sin that leads to death” (1 John 5:16\), i.e., continual sin without seeking God’s forgiveness, how could prayer for those who are already dead benefit them, since there is no post\-mortem plan of salvation? The point is that each of us has but one life, and we are responsible for how we live that life. Others may influence our choices, but ultimately we must give an account for the choices we make. Once life is over, there are no more choices to be made; we have no choice but to face judgment. The prayers of others may express their desires, but they won’t change the outcome. The time to pray for a person is while he or she lives and there is still the possibility of his or her heart, attitudes, and behavior being changed (Romans 2:3\-9\). It is natural to have a desire to pray in times of pain, suffering, and loss of loved ones and friends, but we know the boundaries of valid prayer as revealed in the Bible. The Bible is the only official prayer manual, and it teaches that prayers for the dead are futile. Yet we find the practice of praying for the dead observed in certain areas of “Christendom.” Roman Catholic theology, for example, allows for prayers both to the dead and on behalf of them. But even Catholic authorities admit that there is no explicit authorization for prayers on behalf of the dead in the sixty\-six books of canonical Scripture. Instead, they appeal to the [Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html) (2 Maccabees 12:45\), church tradition, the decree of the Council of Trent, etc., to defend the practice. The Bible teaches that those who have yielded to the Savior’s will (Hebrews 5:8\-9\) enter directly and immediately into the presence of the Lord after death (Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8\). What need, then, do they have for the prayers of people on the earth? While we sympathize with those who have lost dear ones, we must bear in mind that “now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2\). While the context refers to the gospel age as a whole, the verse is fitting for any individual who is unprepared to face the inevitable—death and the judgment that follows (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Hebrews 9:27\). Death is final, and after that, no amount of praying will avail a person of the salvation he has rejected in life.
Is there biblical support for parachurch ministries?	Answer The concept of the parachurch ministry was unknown to the first century church and is therefore not mentioned in Scripture. The definition of a Christian parachurch ministry is “a Christian faith\-based organization which carries out its mission usually independent of church oversight.” The prefix para\- is Greek for “beside” or “alongside.” Therefore, the parachurch ministry is one that seeks to come alongside the local church, providing in many cases that which the church is less able to provide on its own. Most parachurch ministries are centered on one special area of need within the local church or the worldwide church, such as family, military, publishing, education, missionary support, prison outreach, medical, communications, and transportation. These organizations can be small and local or vast and worldwide in scope. Some are staffed by a small group of volunteers while others have hundreds of paid employees. Some have small budgets and rely on volunteer giving; others have whole departments dedicated primarily to fund\-raising and advertising. As with most things, there are both pros and cons to parachurch ministries. On the pro side, parachurch ministries can accomplish some things the local church simply can’t. Considering that the average local church has 100 or fewer members, it’s easy to see how each individual church can’t possibly do everything the parachurch ministries as a whole can do. For example, Christian publishers provide access to the great writers and preachers of the past—Edwards, Spurgeon, Bunyan—in a unique way, making the vast store of wisdom from these great men of the faith available to believers everywhere. No local church, no matter how large, can duplicate the efforts of a publishing company in this regard. Before the advent of the internet, the only access we had to these great writers was through the Christian publishers. In addition, parachurch ministries that send the gospel message throughout the world via radio and the internet can reach areas that are inaccessible to church missionaries, including the closed Communist and Islamic countries. On the negative side is what was stated above in the definition: parachurch ministries are usually independent of church oversight. These organizations don’t have the same structure as the local church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15\). The local church is God’s plan for the building up of the saints to do the work of the ministry, and He has gifted believers to accomplish that goal (Ephesians 4:11\-12\). He has also designed for the church a structure that includes godly leadership who oversee the members, feeding them spiritual truth, ensuring that they are built up in the faith, and protecting them from false teachers and doctrine. There is no such structure in a parachurch ministry. In fact, in some of the larger ministries, workers come from all branches of Christianity and all denominations, which can lead to a tendency to water down the message to the lowest level of agreement among the ministry leadership. While most parachurch ministries have some sort of board of directors that establish and oversee the direction of the ministry, these most often follow business models, not the biblical model for church leadership and accountability. So, while the Bible doesn’t speak to the issue of parachurch ministries, they do exist. As such, biblical principles can and should be applied in all areas of the ministry, most especially to financial accountability and adherence to biblical doctrine.
What should be the focus of a Christian funeral?	Answer There should be a vast difference between a Christian funeral and that of a non\-believer. It is the difference between light and darkness, joy and sorrow, hope and despair, heaven and hell. A Christian funeral should, first and foremost, reflect the words of the Apostle Paul: “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13\). Paul uses the euphemism “fall asleep” to refer to those who have died in Christ. The grief of the relatives of an unsaved person is not to be compared with that of those whose loved one died knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We grieve in a completely different way because we know we will see them again. The unsaved have no such hope, so their despair is complete and unrelenting. Perhaps no other event in life brings us as close to the reality of eternity as death. One moment our loved one is here—breathing, communicating, heart beating—and the next moment he is gone. Even though the body remains, anyone who has been present at the moment of death knows that body is empty and the person who once inhabited it has left. If the deceased was a Christian, it is the knowledge of his destination that gives us the hope that unbelievers simply cannot experience. That hope should be the focus of a Christian funeral. The message of that hope should be clearly proclaimed, whether by formal preaching of the gospel of Christ or by memorials by those who knew the deceased and can testify that he/she lived in the light of the hope of eternal life available in Christ. If music is to be part of the funeral, it too should reflect the joy and hope being experienced at that very moment by the departed soul. Above all, a Christian funeral should provide a glimpse into that brighter world, a world where all Christians will be reunited, where the bonds of love shall be made stronger than they were here, never again to be severed. It is only this hope that can soothe the pains of grief at parting. It is only when we can look forward to a better world, knowing we will see our loved ones again, love them again, and enjoy worshiping God with them forever that our tears are made dry. A Christian funeral should be a celebration of the joy of these glorious truths.
Should we worship the Holy Spirit?	Answer We know that only God should be worshiped (see Exodus 34:14 and Revelation 22:9\). Only God deserves worship. The question of whether we should worship the Holy Spirit is answered simply by determining whether the Spirit is God. If the [Holy Spirit](who-Holy-Spirit.html) is God, then He can and should be worshiped. Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as not merely a “force” but as a [Person](Holy-Spirit-person.html). The Spirit is referred to in personal terms (John 15:26; 16:7–8, 13–14\). He speaks (1 Timothy 4:1\), He loves (Romans 15:30\), He chooses (Acts 13:2\), He teaches (John 14:26\), and He guides (Acts 16:7\). He can be lied to (Acts 5:3–4\) and grieved (Ephesians 4:30\). The Holy Spirit possesses the nature of deity—He shares the attributes of God. He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14\). He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10\) and omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10–11\). He was involved in the creation of the world (Genesis 1:2\). The Holy Spirit enjoys intimate association with both the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16\). When we compare Exodus 16:7 with Hebrews 3:7–9, we see that the Holy Spirit and Yahweh are the same (see also Isaiah 6:8 as compared to Acts 28:25\). Since the Holy Spirit is God, and God is “worthy of praise” (Psalm 18:3\), then the Spirit is worthy of worship. And, since there is one God who exists in three Persons, when we worship God, we naturally worship all three members of the Godhead. At the same time, we recognize that the focus of our worship is generally the Son, our Savior. The Spirit lifts up Jesus Christ and directs our attention to Him. Jesus said, “When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will . . . glorify me” (John 16:13–14\). So, the Spirit assumes an auxiliary role in that He empowers believers to worship the Father and the Son. We “worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:3, ESV)—the focus here is glorying in Christ, which we do by the Spirit. Christian worship is spiritual, flowing from the inward workings of the Holy Spirit to which we respond by offering our lives to God (Romans 12:1\). We worship the Spirit by obeying Christ’s commands. Referring to the Lord, the apostle John explains that “those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us” (1 John 3:24\). We see here the link between obeying Christ and the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. The Spirit assures us that Christ is with us and prompts our worship of and obedience to Christ.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the pretribulational view of the rapture (pretribulationism)?	Answer In eschatology, it is important to remember that almost all Christians agree on these three things: 1\) there is coming a time of great tribulation such as the world has never seen, 2\) after the Tribulation, Christ will return to establish His kingdom on earth, and, 3\) there will be a Rapture—a translation from mortality to immortality—for believers (John 14:1\-3;1 Corinthians 15:51\-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16\-17\). The question is when does the Rapture occur in relation to the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ? Through the years three main theories have emerged concerning the timing of the Rapture: pretribulationism (the belief that the Rapture will occur before the Tribulation begins), midtribulationism (the belief that the Rapture will occur at the midpoint of the Tribulation), and posttribulationism (the belief that the Rapture will occur at the end of the Tribulation). This article deals specifically with the pretribulational view. Pretribulationism teaches that the Rapture occurs before the Tribulation starts. At that time, the church will meet Christ in the air, and then sometime after that the Antichrist is revealed and the Tribulation begins. In other words, the Rapture and Christ’s Second Coming (to set up His kingdom) are separated by at least seven years. According to this view, the church does not experience any of the Tribulation. Scripturally, the pretribulational view has much to commend it. For example, the church is not appointed to wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:9\-10, 5:9\), and believers will not be overtaken by the Day of the Lord (1 Thessalonians 5:1\-9\). The church of Philadelphia was promised to be kept from “the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world” (Revelation 3:10\). Note that the promise is not preservation through the trial but deliverance from the hour, that is, from the time period of the trial. Pretribulationism also finds support in what is not found in Scripture. The word “church” appears nineteen times in the first three chapters of Revelation, but, significantly, the word is not used again until chapter 22\. In other words, in the entire lengthy description of the Tribulation in Revelation, the word church is noticeably absent. In fact, the Bible never uses the word "church" in a passage relating to the Tribulation. Pretribulationism is the only theory which clearly maintains the distinction between Israel and the church and God’s separate plans for each. The seventy “sevens” of Daniel 9:24 are decreed upon Daniel’s people (the Jews) and Daniel’s holy city (Jerusalem). This prophecy makes it plain that the seventieth week (the Tribulation) is a time of purging and restoration for Israel and Jerusalem, not for the church. Also, pretribulationism has historical support. From John 21:22\-23, it would seem that the early church viewed Christ’s return as imminent, that He could return at any moment. Otherwise, the rumor would not have persisted that Jesus would return within John’s lifetime. Imminence, which is incompatible with the other two Rapture theories, is a key tenet of pretribulationism. And the pretribulational view seems to be the most in keeping with God’s character and His desire to deliver the righteous from the judgment of the world. Biblical examples of God’s salvation include Noah, who was delivered from the worldwide flood; Lot, who was delivered from Sodom; and Rahab, who was delivered from Jericho (2 Peter 2:6\-9\). One perceived weakness of pretribulationism is its relatively recent development as a church doctrine, not having been formulated in detail until the early 1800s. Another weakness is that pretribulationism splits the return of Jesus Christ into two “phases”—the Rapture and the Second Coming—whereas the Bible does not clearly delineate any such phases. Another difficulty facing the pretribulational view is the fact that there will obviously be saints in the Tribulation (Revelation 13:7, 20:9\). Pretribulationists answer this by distinguishing the saints of the Old Testament and the saints of the Tribulation from the church of the New Testament. Believers alive at the Rapture will be removed before the Tribulation, but there will be those who will come to Christ during the Tribulation. Some point to Jesus’ statement in John 6:40 as posing a difficulty to pretribulationism: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” Jesus promises believers a resurrection “at the last day,” but the pretribulational model has believers being raised at the rapture, at least seven years before the Christ’s second coming. The answer to this involves a general use of the word day—the end times, called “the last day,” will span the entire time from the rapture to the second coming. Also, the rapture will mark the end of the church age and thus is “the last day” of this dispensation. And a final weakness of the pretribulational view is shared by the other two theories: namely, the Bible does not give an explicit time line concerning future events. Scripture does not expressly teach one view over another, and that is why we have diversity of opinion concerning the end times and some variety on how the related prophecies should be harmonized.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the midtribulational view of the rapture (midtribulationism)?	Answer Midtribulationism teaches that the rapture occurs at the midpoint of the tribulation. At that time, the seventh trumpet sounds (Revelation 11:15\), the church will meet Christ in the air, and then the bowl judgments are poured upon the earth (Revelation 15—16\) in a time known as the great tribulation. In other words, the rapture and Christ’s second coming (to set up His kingdom) are separated by a period of three and a half years. According to this view, the church goes through the first half of the tribulation but is spared the worst of the tribulation in the last three and a half years. Very close to midtribulationism is the belief in a “pre\-wrath” rapture, i.e., a belief that the church is caught up to heaven before the “great day of … wrath” comes (Revelation 6:17\). In support of their view, midtribulationists point to the chronology given in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3\. The order of events is as follows: 1\) apostasy, 2\) the revelation of the Antichrist, and 3\) the day of Christ. The midtribulational view teaches that the Antichrist will not be decisively revealed until “the abomination that causes desolation” (Matthew 24:15\), which occurs at the midpoint of the tribulation (Daniel 9:27\). Midtribulationists use Daniel 7:25, which says the Antichrist will have power over the “saints” for three and a half years, to bolster their point—they assume this is the first half of the tribulation and that the saints spoken of are the church. Also, they interpret “the day of Christ” as the rapture; therefore, the church will not be caught up to heaven until after the Antichrist is revealed. Another foundational teaching of midtribulationism is that the trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52 is the same trumpet mentioned in Revelation 11:15\. The trumpet of Revelation 11 is the final in a series of trumpets; therefore, it makes sense that it would be “the last trumpet” of 1 Corinthians 15\. This logic fails, however, in view of the trumpets’ objectives. The trumpet that sounds at the rapture is “the trumpet call of God” (1 Thessalonians 4:16\), but the one in Revelation 11 is a harbinger of judgment. One trumpet is a call of grace to God’s elect; the other is a pronouncement of doom on the wicked. Further, the seventh trumpet in Revelation is not the “last” trumpet chronologically—Matthew 24:31 speaks of a later trumpet that sounds at the commencement of Christ’s kingdom. First Thessalonians 5:9 says that the church has not been appointed “to suffer wrath but to receive salvation.” This would seem to indicate that believers will not experience the tribulation. However, midtribulationism interprets “wrath” as only referring to the second half of the tribulation—specifically, the bowl judgments. Limiting the word in such a way seems unwarranted, however. Surely the terrible judgments contained in the seals and trumpets—including famine, poisoned rivers, a darkened moon, bloodshed, earthquakes, and torment—could also be considered the wrath of God. Midtribulationism places the rapture in Revelation 11, prior to the start of the great tribulation. There are two problems with this placement in the chronology of Revelation. First, the only occurrence of the term “great tribulation” in the entire book of Revelation is in 7:14, before the opening of the seventh seal. Second, the only reference to a “great day of wrath” is in Revelation 6:17, during the events of the sixth seal. Both of these references come too early for a midtribulational rapture, which is timed according to the seventh trumpet. And a final weakness of the midtribulational view is shared by the other two theories: namely, the Bible does not give an explicit timeline concerning future events. Scripture does not expressly teach one view over another, and that is why we have diversity of opinion concerning the end times and some variety on how the related prophecies should be harmonized.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the posttribulational view of the rapture (posttribulationism)?	Answer When considering any question involving eschatology (the study of end times), it is important to remember that almost all Christians agree on these three things: 1\) There is coming a time of great tribulation such as the world has never seen, 2\) After the Tribulation, Christ will return to establish His kingdom on earth, 3\) There will be a Rapture—a “catching away” from mortality to immortality—for believers as described in John 14:1\-3, 1 Corinthians 15:51\-52, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16\-17\. The only question regards the timing of the Rapture: when will it occur in relation to the Tribulation and the Second Coming? There are primarily three theories about the timing of the Rapture: the belief that the Rapture will occur before the Tribulation begins (pretribulationism), the belief that the Rapture will occur at the midpoint of the Tribulation (midtribulationism), and the belief that the Rapture will occur at the end of the Tribulation (posttribulationism). This article deals specifically with the posttribulational view. Posttribulationism teaches that the Rapture occurs at the end, or near the end, of the Tribulation. At that time, the church will meet Christ in the air and then return to earth for the commencement of Christ’s Kingdom on earth. In other words, the Rapture and Christ’s Second Coming (to set up His Kingdom) happen almost simultaneously. According to this view, the church goes through the entire seven\-year Tribulation. Roman Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and many Protestant denominations espouse a posttribulational view of the Rapture. One strength of posttribulationism is that Jesus, in His extended discourse on the end times, says He will return after a “great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21, 29\). Also, the book of Revelation, with all its various prophecies, mentions only one coming of the Lord—and that occurs after the Tribulation (Revelation 19\-20\). Passages such as Revelation 13:7 also lend support to posttribulationism in that there will obviously be saints in the Tribulation. Also, the resurrection of the dead in Revelation 20:5 is called “the first resurrection.” Posttribulationists assert that, since this “first” resurrection takes place after the Tribulation, the resurrection associated with the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 cannot occur until then. Posttribulationists also point out that, historically, God’s people have experienced times of intense persecution and trial. Therefore, they say, it should not be surprising that the church also experiences the Great Tribulation of the end times. In relation to this, the posttribulational view distinguishes “Satan’s wrath” (or “man’s wrath”) from “God’s wrath” in the book of Revelation. Satan’s wrath is directed against the saints, and God allows it as a means of purifying His faithful. On the other hand, God’s wrath is poured out on the Antichrist and his godless kingdom, and God will protect His people from that punishment. One weakness of posttribulationism is the clear teaching of Scripture that those who are in Christ are not under condemnation and will never experience the wrath of God (Romans 8:1\). While some judgments during the Tribulation specifically target the unsaved, many other judgments, such as the earthquakes, falling stars, and famines, will affect the saved and unsaved equally. Thus, if believers go through the Tribulation, they will experience the wrath of God, in contradiction of Romans 8:1\. Posttribulationists also face a difficulty in explaining the absence of the word church in all biblical passages related to the tribulation. Even in Revelation 4 — 21, the lengthiest description of the tribulation in all of Scripture, the word church never appears. Posttribulationists must assume that the word saints in Revelation 4 — 21 means the church, although a different Greek word is used. And a final weakness of the posttribulational view is shared by the other two theories: namely, the Bible does not give an explicit time line concerning future events. Scripture does not expressly teach one view over another, and that is why we have diversity of opinion concerning the end times and some variety on how the related prophecies should be harmonized.
Why did Jesus speak so strongly against lukewarm faith?	Answer In Revelation 3:14–21, the Lord is describing the “lukewarm” heart attitude of those in the Laodicean church, an attitude manifested by their deeds. The Laodiceans were neither cold nor hot in relation to God, just lukewarm. Hot water can cleanse and purify; cold water can refresh and enliven. But lukewarm water carries no similar value. The Laodiceans understood the Lord’s analogy because their city drinking water came over an aqueduct from a spring six miles to the south, and it arrived disgustingly lukewarm. Laodicean water was not hot like the nearby hot springs that people bathed in, nor was it refreshingly cold for drinking. It was lukewarm, good for nothing. In fact, it was nauseating, and that was the Lord’s response to the Laodiceans—they sickened Him, and He said, “I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (verse 16\). The letter to the church at Laodicea is the harshest of the [seven letters to the churches](seven-churches-Revelation.html) in Asia Minor. By His indictment of their “deeds” (Revelation 3:15\), Jesus makes it clear that this is a dead church. The members of this church see themselves as “rich” and self\-sufficient, but the Lord sees them as “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (verse 17\). Their lukewarm faith was [hypocritical](Bible-hypocrisy.html); their church was full of unconverted, pretend Christians. Jesus frequently equates deeds with a person’s true spiritual state: “By their fruit you will recognize them,” and “Every good tree bears good fruit” (Matthew 7:16–17\). Clearly, the lukewarm deeds of the Laodiceans were not in keeping with true salvation. The deeds of the true believer will be “hot” or “cold”—that is, they will benefit the world in some way and reflect the spiritual passion of a life transformed. Lukewarm deeds, however—those done without joy, without love, and without the fire of the Spirit—do harm to the watching world. The lukewarm are those who claim to know God but live as though He doesn’t exist. They may go to church and practice a form of religion, but their inner state is one of self\-righteous complacency. They claim to be Christians, but their hearts are unchanged, and their hypocrisy is sickening to God. The fact that the lukewarm individuals to whom Christ speaks are not saved is seen in the picture of Jesus standing outside of the church (Revelation 3:20\). He has not yet been welcomed into their midst. In love, the Lord rebukes and disciplines them, commanding them to repent (verse 19\). He sees their lukewarm attitudes as “shameful nakedness” that needs to be clothed in the white garments of true righteousness (verse 18\). He urges them to be earnest, or zealous, and commit themselves totally to Him. Our Lord is gracious and long\-suffering and gives the lukewarm time to repent. The Laodiceans enjoyed material prosperity that, coupled with a semblance of true religion, led them to a false sense of security and independence (see Mark 10:23\). The expression “I am rich; I have acquired wealth” (Revelation 3:17\) stresses that the wealth attained came though self\-exertion. Spiritually, they had great needs. A self\-sufficient attitude and lukewarm faith are constant dangers when people live lives of ease and prosperity.
What does it mean that Jesus is the second Adam / last Adam?	Answer The Apostle Paul tells us in his first letter to the church in Corinth, “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life\-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:45\-49\). Paul is here pointing out the difference between two kinds of bodies, i.e., the natural and the spiritual. Genesis 2:7 speaks of the first man, Adam, becoming a living person. Adam was made from the dust of the ground and given the breath of life from God. Every human being since that time shares the same characteristics. However, the last Adam or the “second Adam”—that is, Christ—is a life\-giving Spirit. Just as Adam was the first of the human race, so Christ is the first of those who will be raised from the dead to eternal life. Because Christ rose from the dead, He is “a life\-giving spirit” who entered into a new form of existence. He is the source of the spiritual life that will result in believers' resurrection. Christ’s new glorified human body now suits His new, glorified, spiritual life—just as Adam’s human body was suitable to his natural life. When believers are resurrected, God will give them transformed, eternal bodies suited to eternal life. Paul tells us in verse 46 that the natural came first and after that the spiritual. People have natural life first; that is, they are born into this earth and live here. Only from there do they then obtain spiritual life. Paul is telling us that the natural man, Adam, came first on this earth and was made from the dust of the earth. While it is true that Christ has existed from eternity past, He is here called the second man or second Adam because He came from heaven to earth many years after Adam. Christ came as a human baby with a body like all other humans, but He did not originate from the dust of the earth as had Adam. He “came from heaven.” Then Paul goes on: “As was the earthly man \[Adam], so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven \[Christ], so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:48\-49\). Because all humanity is bound up with Adam, so every human being has an earthly body just like Adam’s. Earthly bodies are fitted for life on this earth, yet they are limited by death, disease, and weakness because of sin which we’ve seen was first brought into the world by Adam. However, the good news is that believers can know with certainty that their heavenly bodies will be just like Christ’s—imperishable, eternal, glorious, and filled with power. At this time, all are like Adam; one day, all believers will be like Christ (Philippians 3:21\). The Apostle John wrote to the believers, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2\).
Should a Christian be involved in mentoring?	Answer The word “mentor” is defined as “a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.” Although “mentoring” doesn’t appear in the Bible, Scripture does give us numerous examples of mentoring. Moses was mentored by his father\-in\-law Jethro, first as son\-in\-law and then as a leader (Exodus 18\). The mentoring relationship between Eli and Samuel prepared Samuel for the tasks and responsibilities that were his after Eli’s death (1 Samuel 1–4\). Jesus mentored His disciples (Luke 9\), and both Barnabas and Paul excelled in mentoring (Acts 9–15\). Jesus made His style of mentoring clear: He led so that we can follow. He said, “If anyone will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24\). Because He is our leader and we are to follow Him, Christian mentoring is a process dependent upon submission to Christ. Neither the mentor nor the candidate controls the relationship. As such, the process is best characterized by mutual sharing, trust, and enrichment as the life and work of both participants is changed. The mentor serves as a model and a trusted listener. The mentor relies on the Holy Spirit to provide insight, change lives, and teach through the modeling process. The Apostle Paul spelled out mentoring as his leadership model very simply. “Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1\). “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice” (Philippians 4:9a). In essence, he is saying, “Let me mentor you. Let me be your [role model](good-role-models.html).” He reminds the new Christians at Thessalonica to “follow our example” (2 Thessalonians 3:7\). Example. Teach. Model. These are all facets of mentoring which are indispensable in developing fully devoted followers of Jesus and in transmitting the faith from one generation to the next. It goes without saying that if mentors expect others to follow their example, they must be wholeheartedly committed to following Christ. Any hint of hypocrisy—“do what I say, not what I do”—will be detrimental to both the mentor and his charge. Not only Jesus and the apostles, but elders in the local church also do their work by mentoring. Peter commands, “Be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3\), and Paul explains to the elders at Ephesus, “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you” (Acts 20:17\). In other words, Paul is telling the elders, “I showed you, now you show them.” In all truth, if a Christian leader is not mentoring someone, to that degree he or she is not living up to his or her calling. Of course, God has filled the body of Christ with many potential mentors besides those who are named as elders or shepherds. The official church leaders cannot personally meet all the mentoring needs of everyone. While it may not be possible for shepherds to personally, intentionally, hands\-on mentor each sheep that needs mentoring, they are to help these needy sheep find godly mentors. To provide for the mentoring needs of their local community of faith, the leaders must be intentional, continually expanding the circle of mentors by “equipping others” to mentor.
What does the Bible say about social justice?	Answer Before discussing the Christian view of social justice, we need to define terms. Social justice is such a politically charged concept that it can’t really be divorced from its modern\-day context. Social justice is often used as a rallying cry for many on the left side of the political spectrum. This excerpt from the “Social Justice” entry on Wikipedia is a good definition of this concept: “Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.” The key word in this definition is the word “egalitarianism.” This word, coupled with the phrases “income redistribution,” “property redistribution,” and “equality of outcome,” says a great deal about social justice. Egalitarianism as a political doctrine essentially promotes the idea that all people should have the same (equal) political, social, economic and civil rights. This idea is based on the foundation of inalienable human rights enshrined in such documents as the Declaration of Independence. However, as an economic doctrine, egalitarianism is the driving force behind [socialism](socialism-Christian.html) and [communism](communism-Bible.html). It is economic egalitarianism that seeks to remove the barriers of economic inequality by means of redistribution of wealth. We see this implemented in social [welfare](Christian-welfare.html) programs where progressive tax policies take proportionately more money from wealthy individuals in order to raise the standard of living for people who lack the same means. In other words, the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor. The problem with this doctrine is twofold: first, there is a mistaken premise in economic egalitarianism that the rich have become wealthy by exploiting the poor. Much of the socialist literature of the past 150 years promotes this premise. This may have been primarily the case back when Karl Marx first wrote his Communist Manifesto, and even today it may be the case some of the time, but certainly not all of the time. Second, socialist programs tend to create more problems than they solve; in other words, they don’t work. Welfare, which uses public tax revenue to supplement the income of the underemployed or unemployed, typically has the effect of recipients becoming dependent on the government handout rather than trying to improve their situation. Every place where socialism/communism has been tried on a national scale, it has failed to remove the class distinctions in society. Instead, all it does is replace the nobility/common man distinction with a working class/political class distinction. What, then, is the Christian view of social justice? The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice. In fact, “all his ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4\). Furthermore, the Bible supports the notion of social justice in which concern and care are shown to the plight of the poor and afflicted (Deuteronomy 10:18; 24:17; 27:19\). The Bible often refers to the fatherless, the widow and the [sojourner](sojourner-in-the-Bible.html) – that is, people who were not able to fend for themselves or had no support system. The nation of Israel was commanded by God to care for society’s less fortunate, and their eventual failure to do so was partly the reason for their judgment and expulsion from the land. In Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, He mentions caring for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40\), and in James’ epistle he expounds on the nature of “true religion” (James 1:27\). So, if by “social justice” we mean that society has a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate, then that is correct. God knows that, due to the fall, there will be widows, fatherless and sojourners in society, and He made provisions in the old and new covenants to care for these outcasts of society. The model of such behavior is Jesus Himself, who reflected God’s sense of justice by bringing the gospel message to even the outcasts of society. However, the Christian notion of social justice is different from the contemporary, secular notion of social justice. The biblical exhortations to care for the poor are more individual than societal. In other words, each Christian is encouraged to do what he can to help the “least of these.” The basis for such biblical commands is found in the second of the greatest commandments—love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39\). Today’s politicized notion of social justice replaces the individual with the government, which, through taxation and other means, redistributes wealth. This policy doesn’t encourage giving out of love, but resentment from those who see their hard\-earned wealth being taken away. Another difference is that the Christian worldview of social justice doesn’t assume the wealthy are the beneficiaries of ill\-gotten gain. Wealth is not evil in a Christian worldview, but there is a responsibility and an expectation to be a good steward of one’s wealth (because all wealth comes from God). Today’s social justice operates under the assumption that the wealthy exploit the poor. A third difference is that, under the Christian concept of stewardship, the Christian can give to the charities he/she wants to support. For example, if a Christian has a heart for the unborn, he can support pro\-life agencies with his time, talent and treasure. Under the contemporary form of social justice, it is those in power within the government who decide who receives the redistributed wealth. We have no control over what the government does with our tax money, and, more often than not, that money goes to charities we might not deem worthy. Basically, there is a tension between a God\-centered approach to social justice and a man\-centered approach to social justice. The man\-centered approach sees the government in the role of savior, bringing in a utopia through government policies. The God\-centered approach sees Christ as Savior, bringing heaven to earth when He returns. At His return, Christ will restore all things and execute perfect justice. Until then, Christians express God’s love and justice by showing kindness and mercy to those less fortunate.
What does it mean that God draws us to salvation?	Answer The clearest verse on God’s drawing to salvation is John 6:44 where Jesus declares that “no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Greek word translated “draw” is helkuo, which means “to drag” (literally or figuratively). Clearly, this drawing is a one\-sided affair. God does the drawing to salvation; we who are drawn have a passive role in the process. There is no doubt that we respond to His drawing us, but the drawing itself is all on His part. Helkuo is used in John 21:6 to refer to a heavy net full of fish being dragged to the shore. In John 18:10 we see Peter drawing his sword, and in Acts 16:19 helkuo is used to describe Paul and Silas being dragged into the marketplace before the rulers. Clearly, the net had no part in its being drawn to the shore, Peter’s sword had no part in being drawn, and Paul and Silas did not drag themselves to the marketplace. The same can be said of God’s drawing of some to salvation. Some come willingly, and some are dragged unwillingly, but all eventually come, although we have no part in the drawing. Why does God need to draw us to salvation? Simply put, if He didn’t, we would never come. Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him (John 6:65\). The natural man has no ability to come to God, nor does he even have the desire to come. Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened, the unregenerate person doesn’t desire God and is actually an enemy of God (Romans 5:10\). When Jesus says that no man can come without God’s drawing him, He is making a statement about the total depravity of the sinner and the universality of that condition. So darkened is the unsaved person’s heart that he doesn’t even realize it: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9\). Therefore, it is only by the merciful and gracious drawing of God that we are saved. In the conversion of the sinner, God enlightens the mind (Ephesians 1:18\), inclines the will toward Himself, and influences the soul, without which influence the soul remains darkened and rebellious against God. All of this is involved in the drawing process. There is a sense in which God draws all men. This is known as the “general call” and is distinguished from the “effectual call” of God’s elect. Passages such as Psalm 19:1\-4 and Romans 1:20 attest to the fact that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly seen” and “understood” from what has been made, “so that people are without excuse.” But men still do deny God, and those who acknowledge His existence still do not come to a saving knowledge of Him outside of His drawing them. Only those who have been drawn through special revelation—by the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God—will come to Christ. There are tangible ways in which those who are being drawn to salvation experience that drawing. First, the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sinful state and our need for a Savior (John 16:8\). Second, He awakens in us a previously unknown interest in spiritual things and creates a desire for them that was never there before. Suddenly our ears are open, our hearts are inclined toward Him, and His Word begins to hold a new and exciting fascination for us. Our spirits begin to discern spiritual truth that never made sense to us before: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14\). Finally, we begin to have new desires. He places within us a new heart that inclines toward Him, a heart that desires to know Him, obey Him, and walk in the “newness of life” (Romans 6:4\) that He has promised.
Faith vs. fear - what does the Bible say?	Answer Faith and fear cannot exist together. Faith is described in Hebrews 11:1 as being "certain of what we do not see." It is an absolute belief that God is constantly working behind the scenes in every area of our lives, even when there is no tangible evidence to support that fact. On the other hand, fear, simply stated, is unbelief or weak belief. As unbelief gains the upper hand in our thoughts, fear takes hold of our emotions. Our deliverance from fear and worry is based on faith, which is the very opposite of unbelief. We need to understand that faith is not something that we can produce in ourselves. Faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8\-9\), and faithfulness is described as a fruit (or characteristic) that is produced in our lives by the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23\). The Christian’s faith is a confident assurance in a God who loves us, who knows our thoughts, and who cares about our deepest needs. That faith continues to grow as we study the Bible and learn the attributes of His amazing character. The more we learn about God, the more we can see Him working in our lives and the stronger our faith grows. A growing faith is what we desire to have and what God desires to produce in us. But how, in day\-to\-day life, can we develop a faith that conquers our fears? The Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Romans 10:17\). The careful study of God’s Word is of primary importance in developing a strong faith. God wants us to know Him and completely rely on His direction in our lives. It’s through the hearing, reading, and meditation in the Scriptures that we begin to experience a strong, confident faith that excludes worry and fear. Spending time in prayer and quiet worship develops a relationship with our heavenly Father that sees us through even the darkest of nights. In the Psalms we see a picture of David, who, like us, experienced times of fear. Psalm 56:3 reveals his faith with these words: "When I am afraid, I will trust in you." Psalm 119 is filled with verses expressing the way in which David treasured God’s Word: "I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands" (verse 10\); "I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways" (verse 15\); "I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you" (verse 11\). These are revealing words which speak wisdom to us today. God is kind and understanding toward our weaknesses, but He requires us to go forward in faith, and the Bible is clear that faith does not mature and strengthen without trials. Adversity is God’s most effective tool to develop a strong faith. That pattern is evident in Scripture. God takes each one of us through fearful situations, and, as we learn to obey God’s Word and allow it to saturate our thoughts, we find each trial becomes a stepping stone to a stronger and deeper faith. It gives us that ability to say, "He sustained me in the past, he’ll carry me through today and he’ll uphold me in the future!" God worked this way in David’s life. When David volunteered to fight against Goliath, he said, "The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine" (1 Samuel 17:37\). David knew the God who had sustained him through dangerous situations in the past. He had seen and experienced God’s power and protection in his life, and this developed within him a fearless faith. The Word of God is rich with promises for us to take hold of and claim for ourselves. When we face financial trouble, Philippians 4:19 tells us, "And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus." If we are anxious about a future decision, Psalm 32:8 reminds us that God will "instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you." In sickness we can remember that Romans 5:3–5 says, "Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." If someone turns against us, we can be comforted by the words in Romans 8:31, "If God is for us who can be against us!" Throughout life we will continue to face various trials that would cause us fear, but God assures us that we can know a calm peace through every situation: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:7\).

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.