prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
What does it mean that hell is referred to as a lake of fire?
|
Answer
*The lake of fire* is a term used in only a few verses near the end in the book of Revelation (Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8\). Jesus refers to Gehenna/hell several times (Matthew 10:28; Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5\), as well as an “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12; 22:13\). These all seem to be different references to the same thing. *Hell*, *the lake of fire*, and *outer darkness* are all terms describing the final destination of those who reject Christ. This is a state of complete separation from God, never\-ending and inescapable.
According to the Bible, the lake of fire is the “second death.” This is the ultimate consequence of sin, which is to be totally cut off from God. The lake of fire will be a place of perpetual suffering and misery. Scripture indicates that every person whose name is not in the [Book of Life](book-of-life.html) will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15\). The lake of fire will also be the fate of the beast and false prophet from the end times (Revelation 19:20\), as well as Satan himself (Revelation 20:10\). The Bible indicates that both death and [Hades](sheol-hades-hell.html)—the temporary destination of the unsaved dead—will also be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14\).
Even though hell is described using terminology such as fire and flame, it is not meant to be thought of as only a physical place. Hell is described as a place of “torment,” not “torture,” initially intended for purely spiritual beings (Matthew 25:41\). In fact, the worst aspect of hell is an eternity of conscious, guilty, shameful separation from God and all forms of goodness. In that sense, hell is far worse than a literal inferno; a purely physical hell is actually not as terrible as what the Bible describes.
In other words, the Bible tells us what hell is “like,” using symbols such as the lake of fire. But Scripture does not tell us too much about what hell “is,” in direct terms.
Fire is often used as a symbol of God’s judgment. The symbolism stems from real\-life examples of God’s use of fire to punish the wicked—the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24\), for example, and the destruction of Elijah’s enemies (2 Kings 1:12\). Prophets often described God with a stream of fire coming from His throne, a symbol of His holy punishment of sin (e.g., Daniel 7:10; Isaiah 30:33\). The fact that the destiny of those who reject God is described as a “lake of fire” speaks to how serious the judgment is. When God finally abolishes sin and death, all sinners will be condemned to the worst possible fate, described in the Bible using the most horrific terms.
|
What is the concept of the vicarious atonement?
|
Answer
Vicarious atonement is the idea that Jesus Christ took the place of mankind, suffering the penalty for sin. *Atonement* is a term meaning “reconciliation” or “amends.” *Vicarious* means “done in place of or instead of someone else.” So, in literal terms, the Christian concept of “vicarious atonement” is that Jesus was substituted for humanity and punished for our faults in order to pay for the sins we had committed and reconcile us to God. Vicarious atonement is also referred to as “[substitutionary atonement](substitutionary-atonement.html)” or “[penal substitution.](penal-substitution.html)”
According to the Bible, vicarious atonement is an accurate description of Jesus Christ’s role in our salvation. First Peter 3:18 refers to Jesus’ death as “the righteous \[suffering] for the unrighteous.” Mark 10:45 indicates that He came to “give His life as a ransom for many.” The fact that believers “were bought with a price” by Jesus, according to 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, should motivate us to give God glory in the things we say and do.
Second Corinthians 5:21 clearly says that God the Father “made him to be sin who knew no sin,” meaning there was an exchange that took place at the cross. Our sin was transferred to Jesus, and our suffering became Jesus’ suffering. His death was vicarious—Jesus was our Substitute. His death atoned for us—Jesus made amends between us and God. Jesus was condemned instead of us. Even in the Old Testament, prophets such as Isaiah spoke of the Messiah’s taking the penalty for sin on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5\).
In broad terms, human beings are hopelessly lost and unable to be reconciled to God on their own. This is because of our sin, which no amount of good works can undo. Since God is perfect and holy, we can never hope to pay for our own sins in order to be with Him. So Jesus Christ was offered as our substitute. Instead of our trying—and failing—to cover the penalty for our own sins, Jesus became the vicarious object of God’s justice. With this exchange our sin was paid for, and we can be [declared righteous](justification.html) in Christ (Romans 4:5; 8:1\).
|
What does the Bible say about backbiting?
|
Answer
The definition of *backbiting* is “talking maliciously about someone who is not present.” To backbite is to [gossip](gossip-Bible.html) about someone behind his or her back. Secret slander is the essence of backbiting, and it is strongly condemned in the Bible.
The word *backbiting* appears in the Bible in the ESV: “The north wind brings forth rain, and a backbiting tongue, angry looks” (Proverbs 25:23\). Malicious talk or gossip is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, listed along with sins like murder and envy (Romans 1:29\), things that should not be practiced or approved (verse 32\).
Proverbs 25:23, the verse that specifically uses the word *backbiting*, paints a vivid picture of how people respond to a gossip. Just as a cold north wind brings rain, so a [tongue](taming-the-tongue.html) given to backbiting will bring angry looks from the victims of the gossip. In other words, if you want to make people angry, just spread rumors about them secretly. The source of the gossip will eventually be known, and the ones you’ve slandered will not be happy.
Negative or malicious talk may feel good for a moment, while you get something off your chest, but ultimately it does no good and can actually do great harm, even separating close friends (Proverbs 16:28\). Backbiting is contrary to love, which is a reconciling force (1 Peter 4:8\). Jesus said the [peacemakers](blessed-are-the-peacemakers.html) will be blessed, not the backbiters (Matthew 5:9\). God’s children are to “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19\), and “peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness” (James 3:18\). There is no place in the Christian life for backbiting.
|
What is the Haggadah / Aggadah?
|
Answer
The *Haggadah* is a book containing the liturgy that Jews read during [the Seder](Passover-Seder.html) on the first night of Passover. The word *Haggadah* means “telling,” which comes from this biblical command: “On that day tell your son, ‘I do this because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt’” (Exodus 13:8\).
The [festival of Passover](what-is-Passover.html), also known as Pesach, begins at sunset on the 14th of Nisan (usually in March or April) and marks the beginning of a seven\-day celebration that includes the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The *Haggadah* is the printed order of service, readings, and songs used by those attending the Seder. There are minor differences in the *Haggadah* when the Passover Seder is observed by Sephardic (Spanish\-Portuguese), Ashkenazi (Eastern European) and Misrahi (North African/Middle Eastern) Jews.
*Haggadah* is sometimes confused with *Aggadah*, which is the name of a collection of texts from [the Talmud](Talmud.html) or other rabbinical literature. The texts of the *Aggadah* include folklore, parables, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and practical advice that illustrate the meaning or purpose of laws, customs, or biblical passages. Some use the terms *Haggadah* and *Aggadah* interchangeably.
Unlike most Christian holy days, which are observed in churches, Passover, since the destruction of the temple, has been celebrated in individual homes with family and friends. It is customary to invite guests, especially newcomers to the community, to share the Seder meal. In most Jewish homes, the Seder meal is an elaborate feast, with games for the children and plenty of time to tell the story of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. A Seder meal can last three to four hours.
The order of the Seder, as presented in the *Haggadah* begins with the *Kiddush* (or *Kadesh* or *Kadeish*), the benediction that proclaims the holiness of the holiday. This is done over a cup of wine, the first of the four cups drunk while reclining at the Seder table. When drinking the four cups and eating the *matzah* (“unleavened bread”), Jews recline at the table to accentuate the fact that they are free people. In ancient times only free people had the luxury of reclining while eating. The *Kiddush* is traditionally led by the father of the house, but all Seder participants participate by reciting the *Kiddush* and drinking at least a majority of a cup of wine.
The benediction is followed by the *Ur'chatz*, the washing of hands to symbolize purification. The Seder leader calls out, “*Ur'chatz*,” and each one presents his or her hands for ritual cleansing. Hands are washed in the usual, ritually prescribed manner before any meal, but without the customary blessing.
Following the *Haggadah*, the next step in the Seder is the dipping of the *Karpas*, the appetizer. A small piece of onion or boiled potato is dipped into saltwater and eaten, after the leader recites the blessing over the vegetables. The salt water is said to represent the tears of the Jews in bondage in Egypt.
Succeeding the *Karpas* is the breaking of the *Yachatz*. Three matzahs are stacked on the Seder table, and the middle of the three is broken in half. The larger piece is hidden, to be used later as the *afikoman*, the “dessert” after the meal. The smaller piece is returned to its place between the other two matzahs. This broken middle matzah symbolizes humility and will be eaten later as the “bread of poverty.”
Now, according to the *Haggadah*, is the time for the *Magid*. This begins with the *Ha Lachma Anya*, an invitation of the poor to join the Seder. Then the story of Passover and the deliverance from slavery to freedom is told. The matzahs are uncovered and referred to as the “bread of affliction.” At this point, the four questions (*Mah Nishtanah*) are asked. It is customary for the youngest child present to recite the four questions: Why do we eat only matzah? Why do we eat only bitter herbs? Why do we dip our herbs twice? Why are we relaxing and leaning on cushions as if we were kings? The answers include a brief review of history, a description of the suffering imposed upon the Israelites, a listing of the plagues visited on the Egyptians, and an enumeration of the miracles performed by the Almighty for the redemption of His people.
At this part in the Seder, the *Haggadah* states that songs of praise are to be sung, including the song “*Dayenu*,” which proclaims that, had God performed only one of His many deeds on behalf of His people, it would have been enough to obligate us to give thanks. A long blessing is recited, followed by the drinking of the second cup of wine.
Next is the *Rohtzah*. The hands are washed again, this time with the customary blessings, as is usually done before eating bread. This is followed by the *Motzi Matzah* (“blessings over the matzah”). Two blessings are recited: the standard blessing before eating bread, which includes the words *who brings forth* (*motzi* in Hebrew), and then the blessing regarding the commandment to eat *matzah*.
Following the *Motzi Matzah*, the *Maror* (bitter herbs) are eaten. The blessing for the eating of the *Maror* is recited, and then it is dipped into the *charoset* and eaten. The *charoset* is a paste made of apples, nuts, and wine. At this point, according to the *Haggadah*, a sandwich (*Koreich*) is made of two pieces of the bottom matzah and the bitter herbs dipped in the *charoset*, and the sandwich is eaten. This is followed by the *Shulchan Orech*, the full Seder meal. Traditionally, the meal begins with the charred egg dipped in salt water.
After the meal, the *Tzafun* occurs. The *afikoman*, which was hidden earlier in the Seder, is taken out and eaten. This symbolizes the Paschal lamb, which in ancient times was eaten at the end of the meal. After the consumption of the *afikoman*, the *Haggadah* forbids any other food to be eaten for the rest of the night—and no more intoxicating beverages, except for the remaining two cups of wine.
Next in the order of the *Haggadah* comes the *Bareich*, the blessings after the meal. These include the *Kos Shlishi* (“the third cup of wine”) and the *Kos shel Eliyahu ha\-Navi* (“the cup of Elijah the Prophet”). In many traditions, the front door of the house is opened at this point, which is an invitation to the prophet Elijah, the harbinger of the coming of *Moshiach*, the righteous Messiah. At this point, the *Hallel* (“songs of praise”) is recited, recognizing the Almighty and His unique guidance of the Jewish people. After reciting the *Hallel*, a blessing over wine is recited, and the fourth cup is drunk.
The *Haggadah* has the Seder conclude with a prayer (the *Nirtzah*). This prayer expresses a desire that the service be accepted by God and a hope for the coming of the Messiah: “*L’shanah haba'ah b'Yerushalayim*!” (“next year in Jerusalem!”). Jews in Israel, and especially those in Jerusalem, change the wording slightly: “*L’shanah haba'ah b'Yerushalayim hab'nuyah!*” (“next year in the rebuilt Jerusalem!”)
|
What is a vice?
|
Answer
A vice is an immoral or wicked behavior. Some synonyms for *vice* are *wrongdoing*, *wickedness*, *evil*, *iniquity*, *villainy*, *corruption*, *misconduct*, *misdeeds*, and *sin*. *Vice crime*, as a legal term, is used to denote immoral activities involving prostitution, pornography, drugs, or gambling. Although vices, by definition, are quite bad, people often refer to their “vices” as lesser evils. [Bad habits](habitual-sin.html), such as drinking too much coffee or watching too much TV, are sometimes called “vices.” In common usage, a vice is often nothing more than a flaw or imperfection, something to be shrugged off as no big deal. In Roman Catholicism, a vice is regarded as a “habit inclining one to sin.“
The word *vice* appears once in the New King James Version of the Bible: “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God” (1 Peter 2:15–16\). The New English Translation also has an occurrence of the word, contrasting “the yeast of vice and evil” with “the bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:8\). Synonyms for *vice* are found frequently in Scripture, though. In fact, the vice of human beings, beginning in the Garden of Eden, made necessary a Savior who could save us from the curse we brought upon ourselves.
While a vice may be seen by some as less serious than outright sin (there is even a popular youth\-oriented magazine and media conglomerate called *Vice*), the Bible makes no such distinction. God hates all sin equally, even those sins we refer to as vices. All sin is ultimately sin against God Himself and is an affront to His holy nature (Psalm 51:4\). The Bible teaches that all of us sin (Romans 3:23\) and that the wages we earn for sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23\). The Bible makes no distinction between vices and other sins. All sin renders the sinner worthy of eternal separation from God.
The apostle James states that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10\). Even one small vice, even when unintentionally committed, makes us guilty of transgressing the entire Law of God. If we had committed only one vice in a lifetime (an impossibility), that one vice would make us guilty of the entire Law and merit eternal punishment. God does not distinguish between lesser and greater sins as regarding guilt. To break the Law in one point is to become a lawbreaker. All sins are equally offensive to Him, and all result in punishment.
The Bible also teaches that all sin must be punished. Either the sinner pays for his own sins in hell, or Jesus Christ pays for them by shedding His blood on the cross. When Jesus said, “It is finished” on the cross (John 19:30\), He was saying that the sin debt was paid in full. He had fulfilled all that was necessary to grant forgiveness and eternal life to those who would believe in Him. This is why Jesus says in John 3:18 that “whoever believes in him \[Jesus] is not condemned.” When we trust Christ as our Savior and accept His sacrifice on our behalf, all our sins—all our vices—are wiped clean, and we never have to pay the penalty for transgressing God’s Law (Romans 8:1\).
|
What is a Holy Roller?
|
Answer
In slang terminology, a Holy Roller is a [Charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html), a [Pentecostal](Pentecostals.html), or some other church attender who worships in an ecstatic, frenetic, or out\-of\-control manner. The idea behind the epithet is that believers of certain denominations engage in bizarre behaviors during their worship services, including falling down on the floor and rolling around in the aisles. The term *Holy Roller* has always been considered derogatory and is meant to be offensive.
The term *Holy Roller* was specifically coined to describe those in the Charismatic branch of Christianity. Holy Rollerism is the set of beliefs behind the ecstatic worship experience. Sometimes the word *Holy Roller* is used more loosely today to refer to anyone who believes the Bible is true, who claims to be an [evangelical](evangelical-Christian.html), or who talks about God in public.
While it is true that some practices within the Charismatic movement are unbiblical (e.g, [holy laughter](holy-laughter.html), [slaying in the Spirit](Spirit-slain.html), being [drunk in the Spirit](drunk-in-the-Spirit.html), etc.), and there is a definite emphasis on emotionalism and subjective personal experience in Pentecostal churches, there is no place in the church for the use of disparaging names. Let the unsaved world do the name\-calling—the term *Christian* was most likely a term of contempt when coined—but let not the people of God stoop to such tactics.
|
What is a Bible commentary?
|
Answer
A Bible commentary is a series of notes explaining the meaning of passages of Scripture. A commentary may explain the language used in a section of text. Or it may discuss the historical background. Almost all commentaries attempt to explain the passage in terms of some system of theology. In other words, the commentary is an explanation of how the Bible fits together and what it means. Since a Bible commentary is written by human authors, it will reflect the beliefs and perspective of those writers.
Some Bible commentaries are arranged like a book, with long sections of text. Others are arranged like an outline, where each individual section is distinct from the rest. A few Bible commentaries are centered on some particular theme. Some study Bibles, such as the John MacArthur Study Bible or the [Ryrie Study Bible](Ryrie-Study-Bible.html), come with extensive notes; such editions of the Bible are essentially a commentary printed side\-by\-side with the text.
Commentaries are widely used in [personal Bible study](study-the-Bible.html). The advantage of a Bible commentary is that one can quickly gain perspective on the text’s meaning, as understood by the commentary’s author. One caution concerning Bible commentaries is that they should not be used *instead of* personal study; rather, they are designed for use *in addition to* personal study. Since the commentary itself is not Scripture, it’s important for a reader to weigh what he reads against other sources, as well as his own Spirit\-led analysis. As the products of fallible people, commentaries are not necessarily correct in every word.
Got Questions Ministries is in the process of building a comprehensive, free, searchable online Bible commentary. You can find this at [www.BibleRef.com](https://www.bibleref.com/). The emphasis of BibleRef is [context](context-Bible.html): the importance of understanding each verse of the Bible in terms of its overall setting, related verses, history, and so forth.
|
What does it mean that the heavens declare the glory of God?
|
Answer
Psalm 19:1 states, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork.” This is one of the clearest biblical statements that nature itself is meant to show the greatness of God. These words are in the present tense. That is, the heavens “are declaring,” and the sky “is proclaiming” the creative work of God. It’s a continual display. What we see in nature is meant to constantly show us that God exists and tell us how amazing a Creator He truly is.
One of the strongest arguments in favor of the existence of God is the [teleological argument](teleological-argument.html), or the “argument from design.” This approach claims that observations of design in nature are best explained by a deliberate, intelligent act of creation rather than by randomness or luck. The conveyance of information is a key aspect of this. Information is *always* seen as the product of intelligence. Some patterns are complex but random. Others may be well\-defined but carry no information. But whenever we see a specific, complex arrangement that displays information, we recognize that it was the work of a mind, not mere chance.
Psalm 19:1 connects this idea to Scripture. The more we learn about the universe, the more clearly we can see the work of God. A perfect example of this is modern “[Big Bang](big-bang-theory.html)” cosmology. Prior to this theory, scientists and atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. The combination of Einstein’s theories and advances in physics made it clear that, in fact, the universe did have a “beginning.” At first, this idea was rejected by scientists as being theology, not science. Over time, however, it became impossible to deny. The fact that the universe “began” is something we can see purely by observing the heavens and the sky—just as Psalm 19:1 says.
Romans 1 also ties into this idea. God has revealed enough of Himself in nature that nobody has an excuse for rejecting Him or for doing what is wrong. “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20\). The heavens declare the glory of God.
Because “the heavens declare the glory of God,” we can be confident in using science to explore. The more we know about the world around us, the more glory we give to God. The more we discover, the more evidence we have that He is the One responsible for nature and its laws. A person needs the Bible and personal faith in Christ in order to have a proper relationship with God. However, a person needs only to look honestly at the world around him in order to realize that God exists.
|
What is Islamism?
|
Answer
Islamism is different from [Islam](Islam.html). Islam is a religion with [several branches](Shia-Sunni-Islam.html), while Islamism is a religious and political movement within Islam, based on certain literal interpretations of the Quran. In particular, Islamism seeks to conform society to Sharia, the moral and religious system of law that comes from the Quran. Sharia defines a strict moral code for almost every aspect of societal and personal life—everything from trade regulations to personal hygiene—and it interprets the word *islam* (which means “submission”) quite literally, requiring that every person either submit to Sharia or die.
Not every Muslim is an Islamist, in the same way that not every Christian is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Islamism is largely political in nature—Islamists are interested in conquering. Some Islamists believe that the best way to do this is by revolution or invasion, conforming the world to Islamism through terror and state power. Others believe it is better to achieve their goals through reformation of society from the ground up.
Because of the [terrorism](Bible-terrorism.html) that Islamism has spawned, there is a great deal of fear directed toward Muslims. Some of this fear is deserved. Conversion or death is a very real and terrifying aspect of Islamism. But Christians should try to remember that, while every Islamist is a Muslim, not every Muslim is an Islamist. In fact, many Muslim people are persecuted by Islamists because they do not want to conform to Sharia law or because they come from the wrong sect of Islam or live in the wrong community.
What is a biblical response to Islamism? Believers in Jesus Christ should think of their enemies as people who are lost and facing a Christless eternity. Islamists are trapped by a dark and desperate religion, doing Satan’s will while they think they’re doing God’s will. Jesus foretold of people like the Islamists: “The time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God” (John 16:2\).
Christians should take comfort in the fact that this world is not our ultimate home. Whether or not we “win” the war against terrorism and Islamism is not the Christian’s ultimate concern. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36\). When faced with death at the hand of His enemies, Jesus reminded everyone that His people are not here as conquerors but as rescuers—we are ambassadors of Christ’s love and forgiveness (2 Corinthians 5:20\).
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, [love your enemies](love-enemies.html) and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:43–45\). The Islamists, following the Quran literally, are filled with hatred and ruthlessness toward those who do not submit to Sharia; they know nothing of the love and forgiveness of God. We must pray for those trapped in Islamism, that they would see the truth about Jesus Christ. It was while Paul “was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1\) that he encountered the Lord and was born again. May the same happen to the leaders of Islamism.
|
What is situationism?
|
Answer
Situationism is a theory used in psychology that assumes that a person’s behavior is dictated largely by his situation rather than by his personal attributes. For a situationist, external factors, rather than internal motivations, define behavior. For example, a situationist would say that a violent criminal’s environment is chiefly to blame; if the criminal had been raised on a farm in Nebraska instead of the inner city, he would not have had a tendency to commit crimes.
Situationism has been tempered by other theories like interactionism, which favor both internal and external factors as contributing to the behavioral outcome of a person. If, for instance, a man grows up on a farm in Nebraska, it does not mean that he has no criminal impulses, only that he may never have reason or motivation to explore those impulses to the degree he would have living in the inner city. Conversely, a man living in rural Mongolia may have an amazing talent for theoretical physics, but, because of his geographical location, he may never be exposed to the subject.
Situationism is a weak theory logically, as it downplays the role of human volition. In real life, there are many examples of people who did not allow their situations to dictate their behavior. An individual may be immersed in negativity yet still make positive choices. And vice versa. While it is obvious that our circumstances do help shape us, we always have a choice in how we respond. If situationism were valid, then Ben Carson would never have been a neurosurgeon, and Judas Iscariot would never have betrayed the Lord Jesus.
Similarly, situationism is incompatible with biblical truth. The Bible teaches that we have choices to make. [Job](life-Job.html) is a good example. The Bible describes Job as “blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1\). Then Satan came before God and accused Job of shallowness: “Does Job fear God for nothing? . . . Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 1:9–11\). In attributing Job’s good behavior to the circumstances that surrounded him, Satan was espousing situationism. But, even after God took away all that Job had, “Job did not sin in what he said” (Job 2:10\). Satan the situationist was proved wrong by Job’s choice.
We know that God is omniscient and omnipotent (1 John 3:20; Psalm 139:4; Matthew 10:29–30; Job 42:2\) and that He is present in the life of each person He created (1 Timothy 2:4\). We must then assume that He allows all the situations that we find ourselves in. In fact, God uses situations to help mold us: “The testing of your faith produces perseverance” (James 1:3; see also 1 Peter 1:7\). But God’s [providence](divine-providence.html) in prompting our spiritual growth is a far cry from situationism with its fatalistic approach.
Every person’s situation contains both the tragedy of living in a fallen world and the [grace of God](grace-of-God.html) as He offers forgiveness and an eternal home in heaven (John 3:16–19\). No person’s situation, external or internal, is too much for God to overcome. He sees our situation and gives us hope for the future: “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (Luke 6:21\). First Peter 4:19 is the reverse of situationism: “Those who suffer according to God’s will should . . . continue to do good.” In His mercy, God makes the believer “alive together with Christ” so that He can show him “the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6–7\).
There is no situation in the world, however terrible, that will last forever. Those who trust Christ have the assurance of a home with God. That place is beyond the reach of human tragedy, and it is eternal (Revelation 22:1–5\).
|
What is a free will offering?
|
Answer
The free will (or freewill) offering was a sacrifice regulated by God’s standards in the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html), but it was completely voluntary (Leviticus 23:38\). In the Law, the free will offering was to be of a male bull, sheep, or goat with no physical deformities or blemishes, and it was not to have been purchased from a foreigner (Leviticus 22:17–25\). The offering was to include flour mixed with oil and wine; the amounts varied on whether the sacrifice was a lamb, bull, or ram (Numbers 15:1–10\). As with all sacrifices, the free will offering was to be made in a place of God’s choosing, not in an area formerly used by other religions or at home (Deuteronomy 12\). Although it was appropriate to give the sacrifice during formal feast\-days, it could be given any time (Deuteronomy 16:10\). Unlike other offerings governed by stricter rules, the priests could eat the free will offering on the day it was sacrificed or the day after (Leviticus 7:16–18\).
Free will offerings did not always have to be animals or grain or drink offerings. The first time a free will offering is mentioned in the Bible is in Exodus 35:10–29\. God had given instructions on how to build the tabernacle, and Moses relayed what supplies were needed for its construction. The people responded as their hearts stirred them, bringing jewelry, fine yarn, tanned skins, silver, bronze, acacia wood, onyx stones, spices, and oil. These items were all donated “as a freewill offering to the Lord” (Exodus 35:29\). Centuries later, the people made similar offerings for David to pass on to Solomon to build the temple (1 Chronicles 29:6–9\). In the book of Ezra, the people gave traditional animal offerings (Ezra 3:5\) as well as supplies to rebuild the temple after the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 2:68; 7:16; 8:28\). The people also made animal offerings in 2 Chronicles 31 when King Hezekiah, one of Judah’s best kings, led the nation in returning to God and reinstituting His ceremonies. In Ezekiel 46:12, free will offerings are mentioned as being offered in the [millennial kingdom](millennium.html).
Whether it was the sacrifice of an animal or donated supplies for a place of worship, the free will offering was to be given freely, as the Lord moved the Israelites’ hearts. It was not to be used to gain prestige (Amos 4:5\) or because of guilt, inducement, or force. Today, the free will offering is the only offering we have. There is no [tithe](tithing-Christian.html) demanded on the church. We rely on the sacrifice of Jesus and not the sacrifice of animals for our atonement. All the money, time, and resources we give are to be freely given, as the Spirit leads. The trick for many is noticing and obeying “when the Spirit leads.” God has given us everything we have; if He moves our hearts (Exodus 35:29\), then we should cheerfully give (2 Corinthians 9:7\).
|
What are coherentism, contextualism, and foundationalism?
|
Answer
Coherentism (or contextualism) and foundationalism are opposing approaches to determining if a certain belief is warranted. In general philosophy, this analysis is referred to as [justification](justification.html), which is entirely separate from the biblical concept of justification as related to salvation. Philosophical justification deals with whether a person has an acceptable confidence in some belief. Foundationalism takes an approach that is more objective but also more abstract. Coherentism is more practical but suffers from logical weaknesses.
Philosophical discussions of knowledge, or [epistemology](epistemology.html), broadly divide into three independent ideas: a statement may be true or false; a person may accept that statement or reject it; and that opinion may be supportable or unreasonable. These three concepts, respectively, are “truth,” “belief,” and “justification.” These are truly independent: a person can believe something true for irrational reasons, or he can (according to some views) reasonably believe something that turns out to be false.
Ideas such as coherentism and foundationalism are differing views of justification. Rather than dealing directly with what is true or false, these views seek to define what makes a belief justified: *at what point is it reasonable to assume some belief is true?*
This distinction is especially relevant because there is a “coherence theory of truth,” which is not the same thing as coherentism or contextualism with respect to justification. When comparing foundationalism and coherentism, we must remember that these are not discussions of what is *actually* true but varied opinions on what makes a belief *justified*, or reasonable for a person to hold.
Foundationalism can be visualized as a tree or a pyramid or a brick wall. To be justified, a belief needs to be supported by some other belief, which is itself justified, and so on until the ultimate basis for those beliefs, the foundation, is reached. According to foundationalism, all justified beliefs are ultimately grounded in certain other beliefs that cannot be derived from or verified by other beliefs. These axioms are foundational and necessary. They “must be believed” in order to have any knowledge at all. In order for a belief to be properly justified, foundationalism demands that it be traced to one or more of these [fundamental maxims](absolute-truth.html).
Coherentism (contextualism) can be visualized as a massively complex web or a cloud or a tangle of cords. To be justified, a belief must be supported by other beliefs. The more contact the belief has with other ideas—the more it coheres with the surrounding structure—the more justified it is. Like looking at a cobweb from the center out, there might not be a perceivable end point. Connections may branch off in many directions without having any self\-anchored end point. According to coherentism, justified beliefs are those that have “good enough” support from other beliefs, and they do not require the chain of support to be verified until it stops—if it ever does. For a belief to be properly justified, coherentism demands it be connected to a subjectively sufficient number of supporting beliefs.
Foundationalism is supported primarily by force of logic. The existence of foundational truths is demonstrated in the theories of basic mathematics, such as “a number is equal to itself.” That statement can’t be deduced from other ideas, but neither can it be denied without obliterating logic and mathematics themselves. Foundationalism allows the strongest possible ties between truth and belief by creating a direct link between the two. It also avoids the problem of an argument eventually being used to support itself. However, foundationalism is also abstract. While it might be logically possible to trace all facts and ideas to basic maxims, it is not practical to do so, and such tracing is virtually never done in the real world.
Coherentism’s main advantage is practicality. Tracing a belief all the way to fundamental axioms is beyond most people, even if they were inclined to pursue such a discovery. It’s also true that, in some cases, the chain of justification becomes unclear: not all steps in the process are simple and easy to determine. That means most people in the real world approach justification through a practical form of coherentism, even if they believe there “ought to be” an objective end point for their reasoning. The danger is that coherentism easily becomes [relativism](is-truth-relative.html). It can even lead to [solipsism](solipsism.html), since what constitutes a “good enough” connection is deeply subjective.
Ultimately, both foundationalism and coherentism can be consistent with a biblical worldview. This is because neither is a statement about what “is true” or what one “should believe,” but only the process by which one determines if there is a justified link between a belief and truth (see 1 John 4:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Acts 17:11\). While foundationalism seems more robust, human fallibility must be taken into account, leaving room for coherentism in some applications.
|
What does it mean that today is the day of salvation?
|
Answer
God has told the sinful world, in no uncertain terms, to repent (Mark 6:12; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 17:30\). To repent means to change your mind from embrace of sin and rejection of Christ to rejection of sin and embrace of Christ. Those who refuse to repent and turn to Christ in faith will suffer eternal consequences. Given the fact of hell, mankind in his sin is in a dire situation. Why would anyone delay repentance? Yet many do, even while admitting their sin and claiming to see their need for salvation.
There are several reasons not to delay [repentance](repentance.html). First, the Bible’s command to repent is accompanied by an urgent appeal to do it now: Paul quotes Isaiah 49:8, which speaks of “the day of salvation.” Then he says not to delay: “I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2\). Repentance should take place as soon as God the Holy Spirit [convicts us of our sins](convict-world-sin-righteousness-judgment.html) (see John 16:8\). In other words, ***today is the day of salvation***. “Today, if only you would hear his voice, Do not harden your hearts” (Psalm 95:7–8\).
Another problem with delaying repentance is that no one knows the day he will die. And after death comes the judgment (Hebrews 9:27\). The [rich fool](parable-rich-fool.html) in Jesus’ parable (Luke 12:16–20\) thought he had plenty of time to enjoy life, but God had news for him: “This very night your life will be demanded from you” (verse 20\). We have today—we have the present moment—and we should use it wisely.
Another reason to not delay repentance is that, every time we refuse to repent, we continue to sin and our hearts get harder (see Hebrews 3:7–8\). Every time a person says “no” to what’s right, it becomes a little easier to say “no” the next time, too. There’s a gradual hardening of the heart, a [searing](seared-conscience.html) of the conscience (1 Timothy 4:2\), that can numb an unsaved person to the point of being past feeling. This is a dangerous spiritual condition to be in.
Also, the harder a person’s heart becomes, the more “force” God will have to apply to bring him to repentance. This is illustrated in the increasingly severe [plagues in Egypt](ten-plagues-Egypt.html). As Pharaoh continued to harden his heart, the plagues continued and worsened until culminating in a loss of life in every Egyptian household (Exodus 7–11\). “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 26:14\).
Tragically, there is a point of no return. God may eventually stop trying to bring the chronically rebellious to repentance and give them over to their own ways (Romans 1:28\). We never know when this point of no return is, so the better part of wisdom is timely repentance.
By delaying repentance, we are delaying certain blessings from God. At least three verses bring this to light: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” (Acts 3:19\). “He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy” (Proverbs 28:13\). “Your wrongdoings have kept these \[showers of blessing] away; your sins have deprived you of good” (Jeremiah 5:25\). So, in delaying repentance, we miss out on God’s refreshment, we may not prosper (in God’s eyes), and we may be deprived of God’s goodness.
It is true that God is gracious to us and that a person may be able to repent up until the day he dies. But we should not live presumptuously. We are not guaranteed tomorrow. Commentator Charles John Ellicott put it rightly: “For each church and nation, for each individual soul, there is a golden present which may never again recur” (*Commentary for English Readers*, entry for 2 Corinthians 6:2\).
James 4:17 says, “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” Once we know what is right, we are responsible to do it. And once we know something is sin, we are responsible to repent of it and forsake it. We dare not delay repentance. There was a time when the Lord shut the door of the ark, and the flood swept everyone outside the ark away (Genesis 7:16\). There came a time when the [wedding party](parable-ten-virgins.html) began, and those who were not ready for the coming of the bridegroom were locked out (Matthew 25:1–13\).
|
What is the meaning of Jehovah-Nissi?
|
Answer
*Jehovah\-Nissi* (more properly *Yahweh\-Nissi*) means “[the Lord is our banner](Lord-is-my-banner.html)” in Hebrew. The name Jehovah\-Nissi appears only once in the Bible, in Exodus 17:15\. Moses, after the children of Israel defeated the [Amalekites](Amalekites.html), built an altar and named it Jehovah\-Nissi.
The background of the name Jehovah\-Nissi involves the Israelites’ wandering in the desert after leaving their bondage in Egypt. Along the way, they were attacked by the Amalekites, a powerful and warlike group of [nomads](what-is-a-nomad.html). As the battle commenced, Moses stood on the top of a hill where he could see the armies below him. He held in his hand the “rod of God”—the same rod with which he had struck a rock to bring forth water for the people in the desert (Exodus 17:5–6\).
The battle was an unusual one: “As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning” (Exodus 17:11\). As Moses’ arms grew weary, they had to be supported by his brother, Aaron, and a man named [Hur](Hur-in-the-Bible.html). At sunset, Israel defeated the Amalekites (verses 12–13\). After the battle, Moses built an altar and named it Jehovah\-Nissi, “the Lord is my banner.”
The strange way in which the battle was won left no doubt as to who was responsible for the victory. Only as the rod of God was held aloft did the Israelites prevail. The battle was not won by military might or superior battle plans; it was won by the power of God. “The battle is the Lord’s” (1 Samuel 17:47\).
The hands and rod of Moses were held up in the same way that soldiers hold up their flags in the time of battle. As these flags bear the insignia of their country, the soldiers are said to fight under that banner. The Israelites fought under the direction of God, Jehovah\-Nissi. It was under the Lord’s banner and with His aid they fought, and in His name and strength they conquered.
It is safe to assume that, as Moses held up the rod of God, he was praying for the success of the Israelite troops below him. Moses’ lifting up of the rod can thus be seen as a picture of [intercessory prayer](intercessory-prayer.html). “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16\). Moses’ weariness, evidenced by the lowering of his hands, illustrates the truth that “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mark 14:38\). The naming of the altar Jehovah\-Nissi is a reminder to believers of every era that we can only be victorious as we honor the name of the Lord and rally to Him as our Banner.
|
What does the Bible say about impiety?
|
Answer
The words *impiety* and *impious* appear in the Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible in many of the New Testament Epistles. Other translations render the word for “impiety” as “ungodliness” or “wickedness.” To be pious is to have reverence for God and be devoted to spiritual things, so the opposite of that—to be impious—is to be irreverent or faithless concerning the things of God. When the Bible speaks of ungodliness or wickedness, it is referring to impiety.
Left to himself, man is naturally impious due to his sin nature. From the moment of the fall in the Garden of Eden, mankind has continued to descend into wickedness. Soon after Eden, Cain showed impiety by bringing an unacceptable offering to the Lord and demanding that it be accepted (Genesis 4:5\). A few generations later, Lamech showed impiety by killing a man and boasting about it (Genesis 4:23\). By Noah’s day, impiety was so extensive that “every intention of the thoughts of \[man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5\). This is the nature of impiety. Unchecked, it continues to increase until it permeates a society.
Every time that God told the Israelites to keep the [Sabbath](Sabbath-day-rest.html) holy (e.g., Exodus 20:8\), He was warning them against impiety. God required piety concerning His name, too: “Do not profane my holy name, for I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites” (Leviticus 22:32\). Psalm 45:7 says that God hates impiety because He loves righteousness. God’s nature is one of perfect holiness; therefore, He cannot abide sin or impious behavior. David describes God’s hatred of sin this way: “You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with You” (Psalm 5:4\).
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18\). The Greek word translated “ungodliness” in this verse literally means “impiety,” and it includes all crimes men commit against God and against one another. Impiety is bound up in the violation of all the commands of God, summarized in the greatest commandments, to love God and others (Matthew 22:37–40\). As we are all sinners, we are all guilty before God of impiety and deserve His wrath.
Fortunately for impious mankind, God is not just the God of justice and wrath; He is also the God of love and grace. God so loved the world that He provided the means to escape His wrath. Jesus Christ, the Holy One of God, died on the cross to pay the penalty for our impiety. Jesus suffered the wrath of the Father, even though He was perfect and had committed no sin. Christ the pious died for the impious (Romans 5:6\), demonstrating God’s love and inviting us to enjoy God’s presence throughout eternity, with no fear of wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9\). Those who accept this sacrifice by faith are declared righteous because God exchanges our sin for the righteousness (piety) of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21\).
Saved by grace, we are enabled to deny impiety and to “live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11–12\). The lives of those who have escaped God’s wrath through faith in Christ are to be characterized by true piety—reverence and devotion to God. Believers should reject all impiety and anything that is against God’s nature. Christians have the Spirit of God living within them, and His power enables us to live in a godly manner (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\).
|
Is intinction the correct way to do communion?
|
Answer
Intinction is the practice of taking the [Lord’s Supper](communion-Christian.html) by somehow combining the two elements, bread and juice/wine. In many [Eastern Orthodox](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) traditions, this is done by mixing the bread and wine and then delivering both on a spoon to each congregant. In [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) and [Protestant](Protestantism.html) traditions, intinction is usually accomplished by dipping the bread into the wine and immediately taking it. The practice is sometimes found in [Baptist](Baptists.html), [Congregational](congregationalism.html), [non\-denominational](non-denominational-church.html), [Presbyterian](Presbyterians.html), [Lutheran](Lutherans.html), [Anglican](Anglicans.html), [Methodist](United-Methodist-Church.html), and some other Protestant churches. However, the vast majority of Protestant churches prefer presenting the bread and juice/wine separately.
The issue of intinction raises some controversy. Some are concerned that intinction simply does not fulfill the command to “eat this bread and drink this cup” (1 Corinthians 11:26\), as it combines the two elements into one. Where Scripture mentions two actions (eat and drink), intinction has just one. Some point to John 13:26 as an example of intinction in the Bible: “Dipping the piece of bread, \[Jesus] gave it to Judas.” However, this verse can hardly be used as the foundation for a church sacrament; the same verse specifies that Jesus was dipping the bread into a dish (probably of charoset), not a cup. And Judas the betrayer is the only one to receive it.
Proponents of intinction often suggest that the imagery of the wine\-soaked bread is valuable in remembering the graphic violence inflicted upon Jesus. Intinction is also more practical, they say, as it dispenses with the need to share a chalice or to clean or dispose of hundreds of individual cups. Historically, intinction has been associated with giving communion to the sick.
It is clear that, at the Last Supper, Jesus gave the apostles the bread and wine separately, with individual instructions concerning each element. Churches wanting to stay as close as possible to Jesus’ model reject intinction and keep communion as two definite actions. While we should always be careful about modifying any biblical instruction, Scripture neither prohibits nor endorses intinction. The issue of precisely how to serve the Lord’s Supper is not one that should occupy much of our time. What is more important is that we apply the correct meaning and value to the Supper itself, not the particular manner of its presentation.
|
What is the Bruderhof (Church Communities UK)?
|
Answer
The Bruderhof (“Place of Brothers”) is a communal sect within Christianity. It was founded in Germany in 1920 by Eberhard Arnold, who wanted his movement to follow the Sermon on the Mount and the example of the early church in Jerusalem. The Bruderhof follows an [Anabaptist](Anabaptists.html) and [Hutterite](Hutterites.html) tradition. They claim almost 3,000 members in 23 colonies in Germany, Paraguay, Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. In the United Kingdom, the Bruderhof is known as the Church Communities UK.
From the Bruderhof’s website: “Inspired by the example of the first church in Jerusalem as described in the New Testament, we seek to put into action Christ’s command to love God and neighbor.” The Bruderhof commitment to share all things in common is based on the early church’s example in Acts 2:44–47 and 4:32–35\. The communal living means that no member lays claim to any private property, no one has a bank account, and no one draws a salary—all money is pooled for the benefit of the whole group. The Bruderhof also promotes pacifism, seeing warfare as the antithesis of loving one’s neighbor. Members of the Bruderhof wear plain clothing as a denunciation of vanity and worldliness and as a symbol of purity of heart.
Some points of concern regarding the Bruderhof include the following: the call to communal living goes beyond what the Bible commands. Also, the Bruderhof places a heavy emphasis on good works, whereas their website hardly mentions the death or resurrection of Christ or the need for faith. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9\). The New Testament’s emphasis is on the cross of Christ and Jesus’ resurrection (see Acts 2:23–24; 1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14\). Jesus’ death was not just an example to us of selflessness; it was the one\-and\-only payment for our sins.
Also, the Bruderhof makes a definite attempt to broaden the source of truth, saying on their website, “Glimpses of \[God’s] divine truth have been caught throughout history by sages, philosophers, and poets; from early peoples in their reverence for the Creator; to Socrates, Buddha, and Zoroaster.” Looking for truth from Buddha or Zoroaster is a dangerous spiritual practice. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17\).
|
What is the Diatessaron?
|
Answer
The Diatessaron is an ancient literary work that combined the [four Gospels](four-Gospels.html) of the New Testament into a single narrative. The word *Diatessaron* can be taken to mean “Harmony of Four”; it is a transliteration of the Greek *dia tessaron* (“through the four Gospels”). The Roman historian Eusebius first came up with the name *Diatessaron*.
The Diatessaron was compiled around AD 170 by [Tatian](Tatian-of-Adiabene.html), an Assyrian Christian apologist and pupil of Justin Martyr. Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels was not the first of its kind, but it was most influential. Fragments of the Diatessaron have been discovered in Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Latin, and many other languages—even Old English. Tatian would have written in either Greek or Syriac, but no one is sure which is the original language of the Diatessaron. No full copy of the Diatessaron has survived intact today, although we can piece together the full text from various sources.
In composing the Diatessaron, Tatian followed the wording of the Gospels closely, but he used a different sequence for arranging verses. He also removed duplicate information—he kept only one of each parallel passage. Thus, the feeding of the five thousand only appears once in the Diatessaron, instead of four times. Tatian also excised some of what were supposed to be contradictions in the Gospels. For example, he omitted the differing genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3\. Also left out of the Diatessaron is the [pericope adulterae](John-7-53-8-11.html) (the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1–11\). The end result is a single, shortened narrative of the life of Christ—about three\-quarters the size of the four canonical Gospels. The Diatessaron accounts for all but 56 verses of the canonical Gospels.
In the early church, the four Gospels at first circulated independently. Tatian’s Diatessaron brought them all together in one convenient package. Twenty years after Tatian completed his work, Irenaeus, one of the [early church fathers](early-church-fathers.html), proclaimed the Diatessaron to be authoritative. The Diatessaron became one of the most popular editions of the Gospels ever produced. Through the years it was used by Catholic Christians, Judaic Christians, Syriac Christians, Manicheans, and missionaries. Its greatest impact was in Syria, where for centuries it was the standard text of the gospel before finally being replaced by the [Peshitta](Peshitta.html).
The Diatessaron isn’t without its problems. It seems that Tatian added some material not found in the original four Gospels, such as the extra\-biblical story of a light that illuminated the Jordan River at Jesus’ baptism. Some readings in the Diatessaron are attributed by church fathers to the [Gospel of the Hebrews](Gospel-of-the-Hebrews.html), the Gospel of the Ebionites, and other non\-canonical works.
As a result of Tatian’s changes to Scripture, some church leaders were opposed to the Diatessaron. Some opposed the man as well—Tatian was a prominent Encratite, a vegetarian ascetic who abstained from all sexual activity. By the fifth century the Diatessaron had fallen out of favor with church leaders.
The chief value of the Diatessaron today is that it provides an early witness to the original Gospels. The four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were accepted by the early church as God’s Word, and great care was obviously taken to preserve the texts and make them widely available. As evidence of the early church’s acknowledgement of the Gospels, the Diatessaron holds a prominent position in modern New Testament studies.
|
What does it mean that the name of the demon was Legion?
|
Answer
In Mark 5, Jesus visits the region of the Gerasenes and is immediately confronted by a demon\-possessed man who lived among the tombs, cut himself with stones, and could not be kept in captivity (Mark 5:1–5\). When Jesus asked the demon what its name was, the demon replied, “My name is Legion . . . for we are many” (verse 9\).
In common usage, a legion was the largest unit in the Roman army. At that time, a legion averaged about 5,000 fighting men, though it could have thousands more or fewer. So the term *legion* refers to any large number of beings; a multitude. When the demon in Mark 5 said that its name was Legion, it meant that the demoniac of the Gerasenes was possessed by a large number of unclean spirits.
Scripture does not say exactly how many demons comprised the Legion within the man. However, when Jesus cast them out, they entered a [herd of pigs](Jesus-demons-pigs.html) feeding nearby. Legion caused the pigs to rush down a hillside and into the sea, where they were all drowned (Mark 5:13\). The number of pigs killed was “about two thousand.” That detail suggests that Legion was composed of about two thousand demons. The large number of demons may account for the afflicted man’s untamable nature and great strength—strength that was no match for God, of course.
There is one other mention of a “legion” in the context of spirit beings, this time of good angels. When Jesus was being arrested, Peter pulled out a sword and wounded a nearby member of the mob. Jesus healed the wound (Matthew 26:51\) and told Peter to put away his sword. The Lord reminded Peter that, if He needed help, He could have God send “more than twelve legions of angels” (verse 53\). That might total 60,000 angels, but the exact number wasn’t the point Jesus was making. Rather, it was to remind the terrified disciples that God is always in control of all circumstances, even during the horrible injustice of the murder of His own Son.
It is interesting that the Bible refers to both holy angels and demons as forming legions. *Legion* is a military term, one that fits the Bible’s descriptions of [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html) in several places (Daniel 10:13; Ephesians 6:12; Revelation 12:7\).
How can we stand against such numerous and powerful foes? God completely equips believers for battle against satanic forces: “Put on the [full armor of God](full-armor-of-God.html), so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground” (Ephesians 6:13\). As Christians, we are “more than conquerors” through Christ (Romans 8:37\). Jesus is our Commander. He is the One who dispatched the demons named Legion with just a word. He it is who will some day throw Legion and all the other demons “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41; cf. Revelation 20:10\).
|
What is antinomy?
|
Answer
*Antinomy* is a compound Greek word made of *anti*, which means “against or in opposition to,” and *nomos*, which means “law.” In philosophy, the word *antinomy* is used to designate the conflict of two laws that are mutually exclusive or that oppose one another. When two carefully drawn, logical conclusions contradict each other, the result is antinomy.
A simple example of antinomy is the statement: “This sentence is false.” The basic statement (that the sentence is false) is canceled out by the speaker’s assertion (that it is true that the sentence is false). This may seem trivial, but, when applied to other issues, antinomy takes on more meaning. For example, the statement “There is no absolute truth” contains antinomy. The statement is self\-contradictory. To say that a truth can never be absolute is opposed by the fact that the speaker is claiming to speak the truth. Does the assertion that there is no [absolute truth](absolute-truth.html) apply to the assertion itself? Thus, the antinomy.
Antinomy was used famously by philosopher [Immanuel Kant](Immanuel-Kant.html). Kant described the conflict between rational thought and sensory perception. He believed that empirical thought could not be used to prove rational truth. Kant established four antinomies where a thesis and an antithesis cancel each other out. In the first of his antinomies, Kant points out that time must have had a beginning. Infinity is timelessness, and timelessness cannot exist upon a timeline, and yet here we are—moving through time; therefore, infinity does not exist. But then Kant “proves” the exact opposite by pointing out that, if time had a beginning, there must have been some kind of “pretemporal void” that existed before time began. A pretemporal void would by necessity be a timeless place, a place that never changes. And how could time come to be created if nothing ever changes? This apparent paradox, along with a few others, shows that pure reason does not always lead us to truth.
The mind of man is limited; our intellect is fallible. This is not something we like to hear or accept, but it is the truth of the matter. As Kant pointed out, you can take two equally and obviously true rational statements, compare them to one another, and disprove them both. This should tell us something. The very existence of antinomy says that there are things in the universe that we do not have the equipment to fathom.
The Bible presents humility as an important virtue (see James 4:6\). When God allowed Satan to attack [Job](life-Job.html), Job was confused. There was not any reason, that he could see, for God to allow this. Job did not see the big picture—that God was showing Satan that nothing could shake Job’s faith, because God had created that faith. But Job didn’t know that, and he came to some wrong conclusions trying to figure out what God was up to. His [three friends](Jobs-friends.html) were even farther off base. When God responded, not with an answer to Job’s confusion, but with a general display of His power and glory, Job said, “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know” (Job 42:3\).
The existence of antinomy reminds us that we must “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5\). Is this command because God does not want to tell us the truth? Is He hiding something from us? No, it’s only that our understanding is limited—and affected by the fall. In fact, it’s quite possible that God is giving us all the information our fallen mortal minds can handle. As created beings, we simply do not have the capacity to grasp the inner workings of the universe and the mind of the God who created it.
Antinomy is the result of a finite being trying to grasp the infinite, and failing. Paul points out that, since the world does not know God through wisdom, it pleased God to give us a “foolish” message, the message of the cross of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:18–25\). The [gospel](gospel-message.html) was “folly to Greeks” who relied on the rational mind to acquire truth. The philosophers of Mars Hill scoffed at Paul when he mentioned the resurrection (Acts 17:32\). Without a knowledge of Jesus Christ, who is the truth (John 14:6\) and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24\), mankind can never truly know truth.
Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3–4\). Children do not need to know everything their parents know to feel (and be) protected and loved. They don’t need to understand the ins and outs of tax law to know that Daddy will take care of them and put food on the table. This is the kind of humility and trust that believers have toward our Heavenly Father.
|
How can a loving God send someone to hell?
|
Answer
In order to address the question of a loving God sending someone to [hell](hell-real-eternal.html), we need to define a few terms and correct a few wrong assumptions. Our definitions must be biblical, and our assumptions must be correct.
We must first define the term *loving God*. This phrase assumes some things about God, and answering the question at hand according to flawed assumptions leads to wrong conclusions. Our culture defines a “loving God” as a completely non\-confrontational being who tolerates anything we want to do. But that is not a biblical definition. First John 4:16 says that [God *is* love](God-is-love.html). That means that He does not *possess* love as we do; He is the very definition of love and therefore cannot do anything that is unloving. The law of non\-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. So, if God IS love, then He cannot be at the same time unloving.
So the first fallacy present in the question “how can a loving God send someone to hell?” is the idea that allowing people to go to hell is an unloving act on God’s part. If we humans decide that God is somehow wrong to allow unrepentant sinners to pay their deserved penalty, then we have declared that we are more loving than God is. We have set ourselves up as God’s judge and jury and in doing so have closed the door to deeper understanding. Therefore, the first step in answering this question is to agree with Scripture that God IS love; therefore, everything He does is an expression of that perfect love.
The second fallacy presented by the question “how can a loving God send someone to hell?” concerns the word *send*, which denotes an action only on the part of the sender. If a man sends a letter, sends a request, or sends a gift, all action was done by that man. No action was taken on the part of the letter, request, or gift. However, this understanding of the word *send* cannot be applied to the question at hand because God has given human beings freedom to participate in their life choices and eternal destinations (John 3:16–18\). The way this question is worded implies that, if anyone goes to hell, it is the result of God’s unilateral action, and the person being sent to hell is a passive victim. Such an idea completely disregards the personal responsibility God has entrusted to each of us.
“How can a loving God send someone to hell?” The entire question is wrong. A better wording is “If God is love, then why do some people go to hell?” Romans 1:18–20 lays the foundation for the answer: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that **people are without excuse**” (emphasis added).
There are several key points in this passage that give us glimpses into the heart of God. First is the fact that people actively “suppress the truth.” People have been given enough truth to know and surrender to God, but they refuse it. Self\-will wants to deny God’s right to tell us what to do. So, with the truth in front of them, many people turn away and refuse to see it. Atheist Thomas Nagel has said, “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
Second, Romans 1 states that God has “made \[God’s nature] plain to them.” In other words, God has taken the initiative to make His truth known to everyone. History has proved this since time began, as every people group has sought some understanding of a Creator to whom they owe allegiance. Such knowledge is an integral part of what it means to be created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27\). Romans 1:20 then says that “people are without excuse.” And to whom would they give such an excuse? The very One who says He has made Himself known to them, if they would only humble themselves and accept such revelations. God judges each of us according to the truth He has given us, and Romans 1 states that we each have enough truth to turn toward rather than away from Him.
When answering the question “how can a loving God send someone to hell?” another facet of God’s nature comes into play. God is not only love, but He is perfect justice as well. Justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. The only just punishment for high treason against our perfect Creator is eternal separation from Him. That separation means the absence of goodness, light, relationship, and joy, which are all facets of God’s nature. To excuse our sin would require God to be less than just, and to allow sin\-tainted humans into His perfect heaven would render that place less than perfect. That’s why only the perfect Son of God could go to the cross in our place. Only His perfect blood was an acceptable payment for the debt we each owe God (Colossians 2:14\). When we refuse Jesus as our substitute, we must pay the price ourselves (Romans 6:23\).
God gave us the freedom to choose how we respond to Him. If He forced us to love Him, we would be robots. To give us no option but obedience would be a violation of our [free will](free-will.html). Love is only love when it is voluntary. We cannot love God unless we have the option of not loving Him. Because God honors our autonomy, He will never force surrender or loyalty. However, there are consequences for either choice. C. S. Lewis summarizes this truth in his classic work, *The Great Divorce*: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”
|
Why did Jesus rebuke the scribes and Pharisees so harshly in Matthew 23:13–36?
|
Answer
In Matthew 23 Jesus pronounces “woes” on the [scribes](scribes-Jesus.html) and [Pharisees](Pharisees.html), the religious elite of the day. The word *woe* is an exclamation of grief, denunciation, or distress. This was not the first time Jesus had some harsh words for the religious leaders of His day. Why did Jesus rebuke them so harshly here? Looking at each woe gives some insight.
Before pronouncing the woes, Jesus told His listeners to respect the scribes and Pharisees due to their position of authority but not to emulate them, “for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for people to see” (Matthew 23:3–5\). The scribes and Pharisees were supposed to know God and help others know Him and follow His ways. Instead, the religious leaders added to God’s Law, making it a cumbersome and onerous burden. And they did not follow God with a pure heart. Their religion was not true worship of God; rather, it was rooted in a prideful heart. Jesus’ [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html) emphasizes the true intent of the Law over the letter of the Law. The scribes and Pharisees emphasized the letter, completely missing its spirit.
The first woe is, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to” (Matthew 23:13\). Jesus cares for people. He desires for them to know Him and to enter into His kingdom (John 3:16–17; 10:10, 17; 2 Peter 3:9\). After rebuking the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus lamented over rebellious Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37–39\). Clearly, His heart is for people to find life in Him. It stands to reason, then, that He would have harsh words for those who prevented people from finding salvation. The teachers of the Law and Pharisees were not truly seeking after God, though they acted as if they were. Their religion was empty, and it was preventing others from following the Messiah.
In the second woe, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for making strenuous efforts to win converts and then leading those converts to be “twice as much” children of hell as the scribes and Pharisees were (Matthew 13:15\). In other words, they were more intent on spreading their religion than on maintaining the truth.
The third woe Jesus pronounces against the scribes and Pharisees calls the religious leaders “blind guides” and “blind fools” (Matthew 23:16–17\). Specifically, Jesus points out, they nit\-picked about which oaths were binding and which were not, ignoring the sacred nature of all oaths and significance of the temple and God’s holiness (verses 15–22\).
The fourth woe calls out the scribes and Pharisees for their practice of diligently paying the tithe while neglecting to actually care for people. While they were counting their mint leaves to make sure they gave one tenth to the temple, they “neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23\). Once again, they focused on the letter of the Law and obeyed it with pride, but they missed the weightier things of God. Their religion was external; their hearts were not transformed.
Jesus elaborates on their hypocrisy in the fifth woe. He tells the religious leaders they appear clean on the outside, but they have neglected the inside. They perform religious acts but do not have God\-honoring hearts. It does no good, Jesus says, to clean up the outside when the inside is “full of greed and self\-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25\). The Pharisees and scribes are blind and do not recognize that, when the inside is changed, the outside, too, will be transformed.
In the sixth woe, Jesus claims the scribes and Pharisees are “like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean” (Matthew 23:27\). The deadness inside of tombs is likened to the “hypocrisy and wickedness” inside the religious leaders (verse 28\). Once again, they appear to obey God, but their hearts are far from Him (see Matthew 15:7–9 and Isaiah 29:13\).
Jesus concludes His seven\-fold rebuke by telling the religious leaders that they are just like their fathers, who persecuted the prophets of old. In building monuments to the prophets, they testify against themselves, openly admitting that it was their ancestors who killed the prophets (Matthew 23:29–31\). Although they arrogantly claim that they would not have done so, they are the ones who will soon plot the murder of the Son of God Himself (Matthew 26:4\).
Jesus’ words are harsh because there was so much at stake. Those who followed the Pharisees and scribes were being kept from following God. So much of the teaching in Jesus’ day was in direct contradiction of God’s Word (see Matthew 15:6\). The religious leaders made a mockery out of following God. They did not truly understand God’s ways, and they led others away from God. Jesus’ desire was that people would come to know God and be reconciled with Him. In Matthew 11:28–30 Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Unlike the burdens the scribes and Pharisees laid on the people in a human effort to gain reconciliation with God, Jesus gives [true rest](Jesus-Sabbath.html). The religious leaders spread lies covered in a veneer of godliness (John 8:44\); Jesus spoke harshly against them because He came to bring life (John 10:10\).
Also, the word *woe* carries with it a tinge of sorrow. There is an element of imprecation, to be sure, but with it an element of compassionate sadness. The [seven woes](seven-woes.html) that Jesus pronounces on the religious leaders are solemn declarations of future misery. The stubbornness of the sinners to whom He speaks is bringing a judgment to be feared. The scribes and Pharisees are calling down God’s wrath upon themselves, and they are to be pitied.
Immediately after Jesus’ rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, we see Jesus’ compassion. He asks, “How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23:33\). Jesus then expresses His desire to gather the people of Israel to Himself for safety, if only they were willing (verse 37\). God longs for His people to come to Him and find forgiveness. Jesus was not harsh to be mean. He was not having a temper tantrum. Rather, love guided His actions. Jesus spoke firmly against the deception of Satan out of a desire for people to know truth and find life in Him.
|
What is a bar mitzvah? What is a bat mitzvah?
|
Answer
The term *bar mitzvah* means “son of the commandment.” The term *bat mitzvah* means “daughter of the commandment.” Within Judaism the idea of a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah ceremony is relatively new. At the age of 13, a Jewish boy is considered to become mature enough to fulfill the obligation of mitzvah (the commandments), and a Jewish girl is considered capable of fulfilling the obligations of mitzvah. The ceremony of bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah is a recognition of adulthood; a boy becomes a man, and a girl becomes a woman. As an adult he or she shares the responsibilities and privileges of a full member of the Jewish community. The boy becomes a “bar mitzvah,” a son of the commandment.
For the past hundred years or so, the bar mitzvah ceremony has become more important. In the past, the new bar mitzvah was eligible to wear *tefillin* ([phylacteries](phylacteries.html)) during prayer. *Tefillin* are small wooden boxes containing Scripture attached by leather straps to the forehead and one forearm. In addition, the bar mitzvah is allowed to read publicly from the [Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html) in the synagogue on the Sabbath. The more conservative movements within Judaism only allow bar mitzvah for boys, but no corresponding bat mitzvah for girls. The more liberal movements within Judaism observe both bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah.
The bar mitzvah ceremony usually involves the child’s leading prayers or reading portions of the Torah during a Sabbath service. Generally, he also makes a speech, traditionally beginning with the words “Today I am a man.” The father and grandfather may also have a part to play in reciting a blessing or passing the Torah to the child. Leading up to the bar mitzvah service is the completion of a charity project.
Not all Jewish people are religiously active. A great number within the Jewish community are secular and do not observe the religious components of [Judaism](Judaism.html). However, even secular Jewish families enjoy the bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah as rites of passage as their sons and daughters become adults within the community.
|
What is astrotheology?
|
Answer
The word *astrotheology* (or *astro\-theology*) comes from the Greek word *astron*, which means “star,” and the word *theology*, which means “the study of God.” Since ancient times, man has worshiped deities associated with the heavenly bodies—the stars, moon, and sun (Zephaniah 1:5\)—and this practice is called “astrolatry.” The term *astrotheology* is more specifically applied to a religious system based on the observation of the heavens. Astrolatry is usually polytheistic, while astrotheology allows for monotheism. In fact, some people attempt to combine astrotheology with Christianity.
Astrolatry and star\-worship were common in Old Testament times, and it was forbidden in the Mosaic Law. The first and second of the Ten Commandments address idolatry in general, including the worship of images of celestial bodies: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above” (Exodus 20:3–4; cf. Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3\).
True theology looks up at the stars, moon, and sun; sees proof of God’s glory; and worships Him for what He has made (Psalm 19:1\); it does not worship the creation (which astrolatry does), and it does not view the creation as a symbol of God (which astrotheology does).
Astrotheology attempts to twist Scripture so that Jesus Christ, instead of being [God’s SON](Jesus-Son-of-God.html), is actually God’s SUN. Astrotheology ties the gospel to ancient god myths and mystery religions. The idea is that the story of Jesus Christ is simply the story of man’s relationship with the sun and the seasons. Early man was afraid of darkness and realized his dependence on the sun, waiting for the sun to come again day after day. Darkness became a symbol of evil (the devil), and God, who gave us the sun for light and warmth and growing food, was good. Eventually, says astrotheology, these ideas were expressed in the Bible as the story of Jesus Christ.
Astrotheology teaches that Bible verses that say Jesus is the light of the world (e.g., John 8:12\) are really referring to the physical sun. The twelve months of the year are represented by Christ’s twelve apostles, and the four Gospels represent the four seasons. Astrotheology attempts to show that the [mythologies](Jesus-myth.html) of ancient gods such as Osiris, Horus, Adonis, and [Mithras](Jesus-Mithra-Christianity-Zoroastrianism.html) were based on seasonal cycles, and that the story of Jesus Christ is just a retelling of those ancient tales. Several books and two recent films, *The God Who Wasn’t There* and [*Zeitgeist*](zeitgeist-movie.html), are making these claims popular. The problem with such claims is twofold: 1\) astrotheology and similar beliefs dismiss the evidence for the historical Jesus Christ, and 2\) the so\-called parallels between the Gospels and the mythical religions are invalid, as honest research will show. The claims made by the historical Jesus are unique and do not match the stories of the pagan gods.
Any attempt to allegorize the Word of God, pervert its plain sense, or deny Jesus Christ is abominable. The Bible warns us against “ignorant and unstable people” who distort Scripture “to their own destruction. . . . Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position” (2 Peter 3:16–17\). Instead of being led astray by the claims of astrotheology, we should “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen” (verse 18\).
|
Who were the Nethinim?
|
Answer
*Nethinim* means “given ones” or “those set apart.” The Nethinim were a group of servants tasked with assisting the [Levites](Levitical-priesthood.html) in service of the temple. The Nethanim did the menial work required in temple operations, such as wood\-cutting and water\-carrying. Most translations of the Bible refer to this group as “temple servants.” Older translations such as the KJV transliterate the word as “Nethinims.”
The precise origin of the Nethinim is a bit unclear. Ezra 8:20 mentions the Nethinim as a group set apart by David to assist the Levites. Some theorize that the Nethinim originated with the [Midianites](Midianites.html); after Israel conquered the Midianites in battle, God told Moses to select certain “people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle” (Numbers 31:30\). This group was later augmented by the [Gibeonites](Gibeonites.html), whom Joshua enslaved after they deceived him into making a treaty with them. Joshua 9:26–27 says, “So Joshua saved \[the Gibeonites] from the Israelites, and they did not kill them. That day he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the assembly, to provide for the needs of the altar of the Lord at the place the Lord would choose. And that is what they are to this day.” Whatever their origin, it seems the Nethinim ultimately became a diverse group.
Nethinim are mentioned in 1 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah in relation to the Jews’ return from exile. The temple servants were granted the same protection from taxes by King Artaxerxes as the priests, Levites, musicians, [gatekeepers](gatekeepers-in-the-Bible.html), and other workers at the temple (Ezra 7:24\). These servants were also involved in the rebuilding of the wall, making repairs in the area where they lived (Nehemiah 3:26\). Nehemiah 10:28–29 includes the Nethinim among those who vowed to follow God. Nehemiah 11:21 says, “The temple servants lived on the hill of Ophel, and Ziha and Gishpa were in charge of them.”
The Nethinim are not mentioned in the New Testament. Most scholars believe the Nethinim were absorbed into the general Jewish population or possibly were assimilated within the Levitical tribe. Some Talmudic writers spoke of Nethinim with contempt, treating the group as social outcasts and restricting whom they could marry. This distaste for a group involved in sacred service to the Lord was likely due to concerns about the group’s Gentile ancestry. Today, [Jehovah’s Witnesses](Jehovahs-Witnesses.html) use the term *Nethinim* to refer to elders serving immediately under the Governing Body.
|
What does it mean that my cup runneth over?
|
Answer
The phrase *my cup runneth over* is the King James Version’s wording of Psalm 23:5\. Other versions say “my cup overflows.” A cup runs over when it cannot hold all that is being poured into it. The emphasis of Psalm 23 is the [Good Shepherd’s](Lord-is-my-Shepherd.html) loving care for His sheep (cf. John 10:11, 14\). The Lord not only gives His people what they need (Psalm 23:1–2\), but He supplies abundance in the midst of difficult times (verse 5\). This abundance is not limited to material blessings under the Old Covenant, but it also includes the Holy Spirit’s future outpouring upon all who ask (Luke 11:13; Acts 2:1–4\).
The Bible emphasizes the excessive love, blessing, and power that God desires to pour out on those who love Him (Malachi 3:10; Lamentations 3:22; Psalm 108:4\). Jesus reflected God’s generosity when He said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10\). Paul continues that theme in Ephesians 3:20 and describes God as the One “who is able to do [immeasurably more](immeasurably-more.html) than all we ask or imagine.” Romans 8:37 promises that we are “more than conquerors through Him who loves us.” The message echoed in each passage is that of God’s excessive grace and provision for every area of our lives. He is not stingy, nor are His blessings confined to temporal things. In Christ we can have overflowing joy, overflowing love, and overflowing peace. We can bear everlasting fruit for God’s kingdom, and we can overcome impossible challenges when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts until our “cup runneth over.”
The Bible records many mighty things done when people were filled with (i.e., controlled by) the Holy Spirit (Exodus 31:2–3; Ezekiel 43:5; Luke 1:67; Acts 4:31\). We are urged to be [filled with the Spirit](Spirit-filled.html) as well (Ephesians 5:18; Galatians 5:16, 25\). However, as a glass cannot be filled with milk if it is already filled with mud, we cannot be filled with the Spirit when we are already filled with sin, pride, or self\-will. Before we can be filled to overflowing, we must be willing to empty ourselves of everything that would hinder the Spirit’s working in our lives. It is only when our hearts are filled with God that we can accomplish all He desires to do in and through us. His grace knows no limits for those whose hearts are wholly His (2 Chronicles 16:9a). He desires to fill us with His Spirit until our cup runneth over.
|
Who were the daughters of Zelophehad?
|
Answer
The daughters of Zelophehad were five sisters named Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and [Tirzah](Tirzah-in-the-Bible.html) (Numbers 27:1\) who came to Moses with a concern over how the Promised Land was to be divided in relation to their family. In Numbers 26:52–56, Moses was given instructions from the Lord on how to divide up the land for inheritance, but these sisters had a unique situation.
The daughters of Zelophehad came to the door of the tent of meeting, where judgments were issued, to talk to Moses, [Eleazar](Eleazar-in-the-Bible.html), the leaders, and the congregation. Their father had died in the wilderness, and he had no sons (Numbers 27:2–3\). Since only males had been counted in the census of Numbers 26, the daughters of Zelophehad saw a problem—with no father and no brothers to inherit a portion of the land, they would be left destitute. The daughters proposed to Moses that they be allowed to inherit their father’s portion of the land. They asked, “Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives” (verse 4\).
Since this situation was unprecedented, Moses asked God for direction (Numbers 27:5\). The Lord’s response was just: “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them” (Numbers 27:7\). In other words, God ruled in favor of the daughters. They could inherit their father’s portion of the land as a way to provide for themselves and preserve the memory of their father.
The case of Zelophehad’s daughters set a precedent and expanded the legal rights of women. Due to the ruling regarding the daughters of Zelophehad, women were included in the list of eligible heirs of property. The following became the inheritance order: son, daughter, brother, paternal uncle, and nearest clan kin. Property was not to be transferred outside of one’s tribe.
In Numbers 36, we once again hear about the daughters of Zelophehad. This time it is in relation to whom they could marry. A potential problem loomed: if the daughters, who were now landowners, married men outside their tribe, they would join their husbands’ tribes and take their father’s property with them. This would diminish the property allotted to Manasseh, the tribe of Zelophehad (Numbers 36:1–3\). Further, the land would not revert back to Manasseh during the [Year of Jubilee](Jubilee.html) (verse 4\). The land allotment for each tribe could change significantly, due to intermarriage with other tribes.
God gave a simple solution to the potential problem. God instructed that the daughters of Zelophehad could marry anyone they wanted *within* their father’s tribal clan (Numbers 36:7\). No inheritance was to pass from tribe to tribe. The five sisters complied with this ruling and married their cousins on their father’s side (verses 10–11\). This kept the land allotment intact. Again, a case involving the daughters of Zelophehad set a legal precedent for the rest of Israel to follow.
Throughout the Bible, God shows special concern for the widow and the orphan. We read over and over how God makes special provisions for them, as He did for the daughters of Zelophehad.
|
Is Marxism compatible with the Christian faith?
|
Answer
Marxism is a political philosophy developed by Prussian (German) philosopher Karl Marx that focuses on class struggle and various ways to ensure equality of outcome for all people. Marxism and Marxian analysis have various schools of thought, but the basic idea is that the ruling class in any nation has historically oppressed the lower classes, and thus social revolution is needed to create a classless, homogeneous society. Marxism teaches that the best system of government is one in which wealth is distributed equally, there is no private property (ownership of productive entities is shared by everyone), and every citizen gives selflessly to the collective. The purported goal of Marxism is a government\-run utopia in which the needs of each individual are always provided for. Ideally, the strong work hard, the inventive create technological marvels, the doctors heal, the artists delight the community with beauty, and anyone who is weak or poor or in need can draw on society’s combined resources as their needs demand. When this idealistic model is attempted in the real world, it is called “socialism,” “communism,” “[statism](statism.html),” “liberalism,” or “progressivism,” depending on the degree to which the model is explored and implemented.
Thus far, Marxism has never worked in real life—and, without exception, in the places where Marxism has been the governmental model, Christians have been persecuted. That’s because there’s a foundational difference between Marxism and Christianity, a deep divide that cannot be bridged. There are several aspects of Marxism, as a philosophy, that put it at odds with the Christian faith. Here are a few:
Marxism is, at heart, an atheistic philosophy with no room for belief in God. Karl Marx himself was clear on this point: “The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” (“A Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right,” 1844\). Christianity, of course, is rooted in theism and is all about God. In the Marxist model, the state becomes the provider, sustainer, protector, and lawgiver for every citizen; in short, the state is viewed as God. Christians always appeal to a higher authority—the God of the universe—and Marxist governments don’t like the idea of there being any authority higher than themselves.
One of the basic tenets of Marxism is that the idea of private property must be abolished. Where Marxism has taken root, land owners see their property confiscated by the state, and private ownership of just about anything is outlawed. In abolishing private property, Marxism directly contradicts several biblical principles. The Bible assumes the existence of private property and issues commands to respect it: injunctions such as “You shall not steal” (Deuteronomy 5:19\) are meaningless without private property. 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 mandated by Marxism 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. There is no way to reconcile Marxism with the [parable of the talents](parable-talents.html).
Marxism is ultimately about material things; Christianity is ultimately about spiritual things. Frederick Engels, a close associate of Karl Marx, said that Marx’s greatest insight was that “men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion and the like” (“Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx,” Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883, transcribed by Mike Lepore). In other words, Marxism seeks to meet the *physical* needs of man and posits that, until those needs are met, man is incapable of any aspirations higher than an animal\-like existence. Jesus taught, “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? . . . Seek first \[God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:26, 33\). Marx taught, “Seek first man’s kingdom and the stuff of this world.” Jesus’ words are the antithesis of communism and Marxism, and it’s one reason why Karl Marx reviled Christianity.
The utopia that Marxism seeks to develop is earthly and man\-made; Christians look to the Lord Jesus to establish a heavenly, perfect kingdom some day. Believers understand that, given man’s sinful nature, there is no perfect system in this world. Greed and abuse of power and selfishness and laziness will taint even the purest motives.
Some people attempt to combine Christianity with Marxist philosophy. Their attempts may be well\-meaning, but they are impractical. The Puritans in the New World tried communal living for a while. When the Plymouth Colony was founded, there was no private property, and all food was distributed equally amongst all, regardless of one’s job (or work ethic). But that system, lacking any incentive to hard work, was soon abandoned as a complete failure. See “Of Plymouth Plantation” by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford for the full story.
Attempting to combine Christianity with Marxism also ignores their widely divergent views on sin, God, equality, responsibility, and the value of human life. Of course, some people point to Acts 2:44–45 as proof that Christianity is compatible with communism: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” Two things must be said here: first, this passage, as with much of Acts, is *descriptive*, not *prescriptive*; that is, this passage contains no command for the church to function this way; it is simply a description of what the early church in Jerusalem did to meet some unique and urgent needs. There is no indication that such extensive sharing was ever copied by other New Testament churches. Second, the communal arrangements in Acts were completely *voluntary* and motivated by the love of Christ. Any attempt to apply this to *involuntary*, secular (godless) communism really makes no sense.
When Frederick Engels heard that some Christians were using Acts 2 to promote socialism, he wrote against melding his philosophy with Christianity: “These good people are not the best Christians, although they style themselves so; because if they were, they would know the bible better, and find that, if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it” (“Progress of Social Reform on the Continent,” in *The New Moral World*, 3rd Series, Nos. 19, Nov. 4, 1843, transcribed by Andy Blunden). According to Engles, the Bible and Marxism are “totally opposed.”
In short, the Bible promotes freedom and [personal responsibility](personal-responsibility.html), and neither of those concepts lasts long under Marxism. There’s a reason why, in Marxist states such as Communist China and Vietnam and the old Soviet Union, Christians are always persecuted—the ideas espoused by Marxism are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The differences are irreconcilable.
|
What does the Bible mean when it refers to the end of the age?
|
Answer
The end of the age (“end of the world” in the KJV) refers to the end of this present era and the commencement of the next dispensation. It is the period that precedes the second coming of the Son of Man as the Righteous Judge. The end of the age includes the [rapture](rapture-of-the-church.html), the [tribulation](tribulation.html), the [second coming](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html), and the [judgment of the nations](parable-sheep-goats.html), all of which help usher in the age to come.
Jesus refers to “the end of the age” a couple times in Matthew 13, as He explains the meaning of some parables. In the [parable of the wheat and the tares](parable-wheat-tares.html), Jesus warns of a judgment to come in which “the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire” (Matthew 13:40\). This will happen, Jesus says, “at the end of the age” (verses 39–40\). Later, Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to a [dragnet](parable-dragnet.html) that brings up all sorts of fish. Then the sorting comes: “They sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age” (verses 48–49\). In both parables, the end of the age is associated with a separation, a sorting, and a burning fire (verses 40 and 50\). Jesus used the phrase *the end of the age* to refer to that time in the future when the kingdom of God is established, true justice reigns, and the wicked are judged.
In Matthew 24, Jesus’ disciples come to Him with a question about the end of the age: “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3\). What follows is the [Olivet Discourse](Olivet-discourse.html), Jesus’ summary of end times’ events as they relate to Israel. The disciples thus understood *the end of the age* to mean “the final judgment that accompanies Jesus’ second coming.” The end of the age will be a great calamity for those who persist in their rejection of Christ. Judgment will fall swiftly and with finality. For the children of God alive during that time, the end of the age will be a time of salvation and fulfilled hope.
One “age” or era leads to another. Jesus spoke of both “this age” and “the age to come” (Matthew 12:32\). The current age, the one in which we live, is the [age of grace](Age-of-Grace.html), which we also call the [church age](church-age.html). In this dispensation, all mankind is called to repent of their sin and turn to Christ for salvation. This age has lasted for 2,000 years because God “is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9\). But this age must eventually come to an end. At the end of the age (literally, the consummation of the age), the age of grace will be complete, and a far more glorious age will be ushered in. Until then, “now is the time of God’s favor, [now is the day of salvation](today-is-the-day-of-salvation.html)” (2 Corinthians 6:2\)—repentance should not be delayed.
Christians have the Lord’s promise that He will never forsake us in this world, no matter what happens: “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20\).
|
Who are the children of Israel in the Bible?
|
Answer
The children of Israel in the Bible are simply the descendants of Jacob. The term *children of Israel* emphasizes the lineage of the [Hebrew](who-Hebrews.html) people as being through the patriarch Jacob. The children of Israel are also called [Israelites](who-Israelites.html).
It all started with God’s promise of a family—a big family—to a childless couple, Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 11:30; 12:1–3\). God miraculously provided a son, Isaac, to fulfill the promise (Genesis 21:3\), and He repeated the father’s promise to the son (Genesis 21:12; 26:3–4\). Isaac married Rebekah, and they were childless, too, until God intervened and provided a son, Jacob, to continue the promise (Genesis 25:26\). God then reaffirmed the [Abrahamic Covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html) with Jacob (Genesis 28:14–15\). Later, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 35:10\). Jacob/Israel had twelve sons who carried on the family line; each son’s descendants formed a particular tribe of Israel, and all the descendants of Jacob were collectively called the children of Israel.
*Children of Israel* became the most common term for the Israelites in the Bible. Its use is a constant reminder of the faithfulness and power of God. The Lord who formed the nation of Israel has been faithful to keep His promises to the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and His great power has been on display throughout their history.
|
What is ungodliness?
|
Answer
The Bible talks of “the ungodly” as those who are separated from God. Ungodliness is the condition of being polluted with [sin](definition-sin.html). To be ungodly is to act in a way that is contrary to the nature of God, to actively oppose God in disobedience, or to have an irreverent disregard for God. The Bible often speaks of “the flesh” in reference to things that emanate from our sinful natures. The acts of the flesh and the desires of the world fall under the category of ungodliness.
Second Peter 3:7 says that the ungodly will face judgment. Revelation 20:14–15 says, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” Ultimately, those who reject God—the ungodly—will be separated from Him forever.
Jude refers to false teachers as ungodly. His description contains these characteristics of ungodliness: they pervert the grace of God into a license for immorality, and they deny Jesus Christ as the only Sovereign and Lord (Jude 1:4\). Later, Jude mentions the “ungodly acts” of the wicked and “defiant words” that the ungodly speak against God (verse 15\). The ungodly are also characterized as “grumblers and faultfinders” who selfishly follow “their own evil desires,” boast and flatter (verse 16\). The ungodly scoff at the truth of God and attempt to divide churches (verses 18–19\).
Amazingly, Jesus sacrificed Himself for the ungodly. Romans 5:6 and 8 says, “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. . . . God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5\), clothing them with the righteousness of Christ and enabling them to “live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way” (Colossians 1:10\).
Our [sanctification is progressive](progressive-sanctification.html). That is, even though we are saved and justified in Christ, we sometimes still act in ungodly ways. We are still in the process of being transformed into His image (Romans 8:29–30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 1:6\). We are declared righteous before God but are still being made holy in practical terms. In short, we still sin. Scripture says we should confess our sin and trust God’s forgiveness (1 John 1:8–9\). Nothing can separate us from God’s love for us in Christ (Romans 8:31–39\). We are no longer numbered among the ungodly, even though we still fight our fleshly urges and sometimes act in ungodly ways.
Generally speaking, the ungodly are those who do not know God through Jesus Christ. They have rejected God’s Son and remain in their sins. Those who are in Christ have their sins forgiven and are becoming more godly. Believers naturally seek to remove all ungodliness from their lives (1 John 3:9\).
|
Is God a moral monster?
|
Answer
When a person rejects the God of the Bible, he often chooses to label Him as immoral. Non\-believers have been known to accuse God of being hypocritical, selfish, arrogant, judgmental, hateful, and even homicidal—a moral monster. Part of the problem with responding to these kinds of claims is that they require extensive answers. It takes only seconds to ask certain questions but quite some time to give a reasonable answer. This single question, “Is God a moral monster?” is, in fact, the subject of a book by Christian theologian Paul Copan: *Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God*. And that work is focused on only part of the Bible.
It’s important to realize how deep this topic can be, since a single article could never really do the subject justice. It’s simpler to look at common accusations against God and see how they fail. More specific details are available for those interested in doing further research, and we’ve included links to relevant articles.
**Is God Evil?**
The first problem with any “moral monster” accusation against God is that it requires a standard of morality separate from God. In other words, in order to say, “God is morally wrong,” one has to define morality in a way that justifies that claim. But what meaningful standard can exist, other than God, for moral principles?
Apart from God, it’s not possible to have truly objective morality. Opinion is not enough—for the claim “God is a moral monster” to be meaningful, it has to be based on some unchanging standard. Ideas such as “suffering” or “human flourishing” are not objective. There is no rational reason for opinions or subjective ideas to be the source of moral reasoning.
So, the first problem with claiming that God is immoral is that meaningful moral claims require God to exist in the first place. Labelling anything “good” or “evil” requires assumptions that lead inevitably to God. This fact is related to the next common objection about divine morality.
[Moral relativism](http://www.blogos.org/compellingtruth/moral-relativism.php)
[What is the source of morality?](Bible-morality.html)
[The moral argument for God](moral-argument.html)
**Problem of Good**
Non\-believers often accuse God of being evil. Just as often, however, they indirectly attack God’s morality by questioning the existence of evil. A truly good God, they claim, would not allow evil. More on this later; for now, consider that this approach creates a much larger problem for the non\-believer than for the believer. In short, Christians can appeal to concepts such as free will when explaining why a good God might allow for evil. However, the non\-believer finds a much more difficult issue when faced with the inverse of the question: why is there such a thing as “good” if there is no God? Why would human beings believe in concepts like “ought,” if everything that exists is the product of blind, purposeless physics? If things either “are” or “are not,” and there is no actual “ought,” then speaking of good and evil is gibberish.
This follows into a stickier problem: why “ought” a person be good, if there is no God or if God is truly a “moral monster”? Remember, if the ultimate measure of morality is some human opinion, then there can always be different ways to interpret that opinion. “Human flourishing” sounds like a great basis for morality until someone conveniently defines certain people as less than human.
This leads to a major instance of hypocrisy. In claiming that God is morally wrong, people are claiming more than a knowledge of a better moral system; they are claiming to be the standard of morality. That claim not only makes their criticism of God’s morals less impactful, but it makes it meaningless.
[Atheism and the problem of good](problem-of-good.html)
**You’re Not the Boss of Me!**
Another common accusation is that God is arrogant, selfish, or [egomaniacal](God-egomaniac.html). God demands worship, He punishes those who disagree, and He even condemns those who insult Him. According to the common line of complaint, a truly “good” God would let people do as they please, without necessarily obeying His rules, and He certainly would not care how they think or speak of Him.
The quickest response to this particular objection is based on the concept of parenting. Good parents don’t let their children insult or disobey them. This is not because the parents are egomaniacs; it’s because they love their children. Even if the kids don’t grasp why, the parents’ rules are for the kids’ good. There are going to be circumstances when a child cannot understand all of the details; he simply needs to know that “Mom and Dad said no.” There’s nothing unreasonable about God’s expectation of obedience, given that He is a loving Father who wants the best for His children and who knows far more than they do. God cannot be fairly labeled a “moral monster” simply because He has established rules that some particular person does not like, does not understand, or refuses to obey.
The accusations of divine arrogance and selfishness also have to be put into perspective. The reason people have a problem with human arrogance and egotism is simple: we know the egotist isn’t perfect. A person’s arrogance grates on our nerves because of our basic knowledge that the egomaniac isn’t actually perfect—he doesn’t have that much to be arrogant about. God, however, *is* perfect. If He speaks, acts, and rules as though He is perfect, it’s simply because He is. There’s no arrogance or selfishness involved, as there would be in a lesser being. God’s claims of glory match reality.
Further, according to the Bible, God has demonstrated great patience, love, and sacrifice on behalf of humanity (Romans 5:8\). The core concept of the gospel is that God was willing to become a human being, suffer and struggle, then be killed by His own creations. He did all of this in order to provide the means to allow mankind to live forever with Him. That’s hardly selfish, arrogant, or egotistic.
[Blasphemy is a critical moral concept](http://www.blogos.org/theologyapologetics/blasphemy.php)
**Life, Death, and War**
Many who accuse God of being a moral monster mention the wars described in the Old Testament. Or they point to the use of capital punishment for certain acts under the Mosaic Law.
The simplest response to these arguments has the advantage of logical strength, although it means little to the average unbeliever. Simply put, if God exists and created life, then He has the authority to decide what happens to that life. He can set the rules, and He can determine the punishments for breaking those rules. If the entire universe is His creation, then “morality,” including life and death, is by definition under His control.
Another response to the charge that events in the Old Testament are morally reprehensible is to place all of those events in their historical and scriptural context. When God commanded war against the Canaanites, for instance, it was not some random act of genocide. This was a culture that had been warned about their pervasive evil for centuries, and the time for God to punish that evil had finally come (see Genesis 15:16\).
When God commanded the death penalty in Israel for certain offenses, it was not in the context of a stable, free, modern environment. It was during a time of great danger, instability, and uncertainty. This same principle applies even in modern societies: we punish crimes in proportion to their damage to the culture. In that day and time, what today would be considered “minor crimes,” if crimes at all, were profoundly damaging to the survival of the culture.
Again, the context of God’s commands is important. If God’s plan was to bring the Messiah, the one and only hope of mankind, through Israel, then it’s reasonable that He would take serious measures to protect the survival of that nation.
[What does the Bible say about war?](war-Bible.html)
[What about when God kills?](God-killing.html)
[What about Old Testament violence?](Old-Testament-violence.html)
**Free Will vs. Suffering and Evil**
Easily the most common attack on God’s morality is the reality of evil. According to this accusation, God is a “moral monster” since He “created” evil—or because He neglects to do anything about evil. Both claims are contrary to reason and evidence, as well as the biblical understanding of God’s nature.
In the simplest terms, evil is anything that contradicts the will of God. There is a tremendous difference, then, between something that God *does not will* (but that He *allows*) and that which He directly and purposefully causes to occur. If it’s logically possible for a fallible human being to allow certain things—which he could theoretically prevent—in order to obtain some greater goal, then God can obviously do the same. This is where the concept of free will enters the equation.
The overwhelming majority of human suffering is the result of human activity. More to the point, it’s the result of human sin—either our own or someone else’s. But without the ability to choose selfishness, cowardice, and revenge, there would be no such thing as generosity, bravery, or forgiveness. Love, expressed by a being given no choice but to love, is hollow. Worship from such a being is meaningless.
It’s also untrue to suggest that God has done nothing about evil. Scripturally, there are many reasons to think that God has limited the level of evil we are capable of experiencing on earth (see Job 1:12; 2:6; and 2 Thessalonians 2:7\). No matter what boundary God sets for evil, there will always be a “worst possible thing.” The error is in assuming that God hasn’t set the bar for suffering lower than He could have.
Likewise, according to the Bible, God has gone to great lengths to enact a plan to end all evil and suffering. The fact that God’s plan has not been completed—yet—is not logically a sign that God has done nothing. The end result has not yet occurred, but everything is in motion toward that end.
Though the subject of human free will is complex, even a brief examination shows that there are reasons—at least in theory—why God would allow us freedom and choice in this life. That’s especially true when one considers that, according to Christianity, this life is not all there is. What we struggle with and suffer under in this life is not all we are or all we are meant for.
[Why does God allow evil?](God-allow-evil.html)
[Theodicy](theodicy.html)
**Conclusion**
While this is hardly an in\-depth look at the claim that God is a “moral monster,” it should be enough to demonstrate that the claim is much harder to prove than some might think. There are severe factual, philosophical, and logical flaws in making such an accusation against God.
|
What are the most common denominations of Christianity?
|
Answer
First, we should clarify that this article does not address the *branches* of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant). Rather, this article focuses on the [*denominations*](what-is-a-denomination.html) within the Protestant tradition. In our view, the three branches of Christianity have enough rudimental differences to warrant their identification as something other than simply “denominations.”
The other branches of Christianity also have sub\-categories. Within the Catholic branch are different *rites* (Latin Rite, Byzantine Rite, etc.). Within the Orthodox branch are various *communions* (the Greek Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, etc.). But, properly speaking, *denominations* are groups united by similar doctrine and practice within Protestantism. Those denominations are often further divided into synods, sects, movements, or fellowships.
Some claim that there are over 30,000 denominations within Christianity. That might be true if every non\-denominational church is counted individually. Also, many groups we might think of as “denominations” are actually fellowships or associations and not denominations per se. In general, a church belonging to a convention, conference, or association has less external oversight than a church in a denomination.
In considering the Protestant groups, we can broadly categorize them in a couple different ways:
*Worship Style and Theological Groupings*
Charismatic — 584 million. [Charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html) churches can be evangelical, fundamental, or liberal. They are characterized by an emphasis of experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit, often manifested by the use of tongues and belief in faith healing.
Evangelical — 285 million. At its root, [*evangelical*](evangelicalism.html) just means “having an emphasis on sharing the gospel.” The term usually refers to theologically conservative churches that affirm biblical inspiration and salvation as a personal faith experience. Evangelicals can be found in about any denomination.
Mainline Protestant — 220–305 million. [Mainline churches](mainline-denominations.html) are generally more formal and more theologically liberal than evangelicals. The mainline denominations include Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, American Baptist, and United Church of Christ.
Fundamental — unknown. In its most basic form, a [fundamentalist church](fundamentalism.html) holds to the “fundamentals” of the faith. Such churches believe in biblical inerrancy and reject theological liberalism and cultural modernism. There is overlap, as some mainline and evangelical churches can also be classified as fundamentalist.
Liberal — unknown. [Liberal Christianity](liberal-Christian-theology.html) teaches a way of interpreting the Bible that is less literal. The emphasis is on the social gospel, and Jesus’ miracles and other supernatural events are de\-emphasized or allegorized. Liberal theology is more common among the mainline denominations.
*General Categories*
Baptist — 300–400 million. [Baptists](Baptists.html) can be evangelical, fundamental, or liberal. The name *Baptist* comes from the belief that only believers should be baptized—not infants. There are over 218 Baptist conventions, associations, and unions.
Pentecostal — 280 million. [Pentecostalism](Pentecostals.html) began in the early 1900s and emphasizes the experience of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals are known for their belief that the signs gifts seen in the book of Acts have continued to this day, as well as their enthusiastic worship. Pentecostalism is comprised of over 700 denominations.
Anglican — 90 million. The [Anglican Church](Anglicans.html) started pulling away from Roman Catholicism as early as the days of St. Patrick in 432, but it became fully autonomous during the reign of King Henry VIII when the Catholic Church refused to let the king divorce Catherine of Aragon. There are various Anglican communions around the world. The Episcopal Church is the main American branch of Anglicanism.
Non\-denominational Evangelical — 80 million. While many [non\-denominational](non-denominational-church.html) churches are truly independent, there are a few that were planted from a single church and still maintain some affiliation. Examples are Calvary Chapel and Vineyard churches.
Lutheran — 77 million. The [Lutheran Church](Lutherans.html) is organized in autonomous regional or national churches, such as the Church of Norway or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. There are about 150 such bodies around the world. Lutherans generally follow the teaching of Reformer Martin Luther.
African Protestant — 60 million. African\-initiated churches were started by local pastors and not missionaries from European denominations. Some sects developed because of cultural differences between native Africans and European missionaries, and some have theological differences and heresies that reflect this.
Presbyterian — 40–50 million. Although [Presbyterianism](Presbyterians.html) started in Great Britain and has a long history in the United States, it is far more popular in Africa, where it was introduced in 1898\.
Methodist — 40 million. [Methodism](United-Methodist-Church.html) is an offshoot of the Church of England, an Anglican church. Methodists are primarily Arminian and emphasize good works. Their reliance on liturgy varies among the different congregations.
Continental Reformed — 20–30 million. Less known in the US, the Continental Reformed churches are Calvinistic churches with roots in the European continent, as opposed to Presbyterian and Congregational churches, which began in Great Britain.
Congregational — 5 million. [Congregational churches](congregationalism.html) are governed by the congregation, as opposed to the polity of a Presbyterian church, which is governed by a group of elders; or an Episcopal church, which is governed by an episcopate or a single person. There are three main groups within Congregationalism, but none claim more than 2 million members.
*Protestant Denominations*
Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) — 69 million. As a fellowship, the Assemblies of God (AoG) is comprised of over 140 autonomous groupings. To make things more interesting, there are at least three other fellowships that include “Assemblies of God” in their name.
Church of England (Anglican) — 26 million (1\.9 million active members). The church sees itself as a hybrid of Catholicism and the Reformed tradition. It is the primary state church in Great Britain; the American branch is the Episcopal Church.
Calvary Chapel (non\-denominational) — 25 million (an estimate, as Calvary Chapel churches do not have formal membership). There are about 1,800 independent churches associated with the movement. Their humble beginnings in Southern California took off when, in 1965, Chuck Smith broke away from the Foursquare Church and ministered to hippies and surfers.
Evangelical Church in Germany (interdenominational) — 24\.5 million. The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) is a federation encompassing nearly all the other Protestant denominations in Germany, including Lutheran, Calvinist, and United. Churches are restricted to regions in Germany that reflect borders from 1848\. These churches do not infringe on each other’s territories, so if a Lutheran parishioner moved from one region to another, he would go to the church in that region, even if it is Calvinist or United. In addition, any pastor is welcome to preach at any other church within the federation.
Church of Nigeria (Anglican) — 18 million. Anglicanism was brought to Nigeria in 1842 and 22 years later saw its first local bishop. It broke from the Church of England in 1919\. They oppose the ordination of homosexuals and stand in communion with other Anglican and Episcopal churches that do the same.
Apostolic Church (Pentecostal) — 15 million. The Apostolic Church began in Wales. They emphasize missions and the teachings of the New Testament apostles. The largest national church is in Nigeria and has 4\.5 million members. They believe in the continuation of the offices of apostle and prophet.
Southern Baptist Convention (Baptist) — 14 million. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Baptist body in the world and the second largest church body in the US after the Roman Catholic Church. Southern Baptists are evangelical and generally conservative in their theology.
United Methodist Church (mainline) — 12 million, although membership may be lower today, given the recent split in the denomination. Formed by the partnership of the Methodist Church (USA) and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, the UMC is Wesleyan/Arminian in theology. It is the largest mainline Protestant denomination in the US. Worship style is a mix of liturgical and evangelical.
International Circle of Faith Apostolic Churches (Pentecostal) — 11 million. International Circle of Faith Apostolic Churches (ICOF) emphasize repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit, and racial equality.
Fang Cheng Fellowship (Pentecostal) — 10 million. Fang Cheng is one of the largest house church networks in the world. In the early 2000s, they experienced persecution by the Chinese government; in 2000, 130 members were arrested, and one leader was imprisoned from 2004 to 2011\.
Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim (African Protestant) — 10 million. Like many African\-originating denominations, this one started out of a desire for signs and wonders. Where the European missionaries saw voodoo, the Africans saw Bible\-based sign gifts—particularly healing. Ambiguity abounds as they claim to fight witchcraft and demon possession but prophesy and perform strange miracles.
China Gospel Fellowship (Pentecostal) — 5 million. Also known as the Tanghe Fellowship, the China Gospel Fellowship is a house church network and the second largest Protestant denomination in China. Devoted to reaching minority groups, they are targeted by the government and suffer persecution from other religious groups as well.
Zion Christian Church (African Protestant) — 2–6 million. The Zion Christian Church (ZCC) is the largest church in Southern Africa that originated in Africa and not Europe. Engenas Lekganyane, the founder, had a background in Anglicanism, Apostolicism, and Catholicism. In 1948, Lekganyane’s son moved the church’s emphasis away from signs and toward more Bible teaching. Their practices still include prophecy and healing, and they believe that their church’s leader is their mediator to God.
The size of a denomination does not necessarily reflect how biblical its teachings are. There are many good denominations, and each one has good and bad churches in its ranks. It’s best to study an individual church’s statement of faith, meet with the pastor, and ask about its practices rather than exercising blind loyalty to a particular denomination.
|
What was Solomon’s Porch?
|
Answer
Solomon’s Porch was the name of two porches associated with the temple in Jerusalem. The [original temple](Solomon-first-temple.html), constructed by King Solomon, is described in 1 Kings: “As for the house which King Solomon built for the LORD, its length was sixty cubits \[90 feet] and its width twenty cubits \[30 feet] and its height thirty cubits \[45 feet]. The porch in front of the nave of the house was twenty cubits \[30 feet] in length, corresponding to the width of the house, and its depth along the front of the house was ten cubits \[15 feet]” (1 Kings 6:2–3, NASB).
The reconstructed [temple](Herod-third-temple.html) was later modified by King Herod, and it included an area also known as Solomon’s Porch (Acts 5:12, KJV), Solomon’s Portico (ESV), or Solomon’s Colonnade (NIV). This structure was on the east side of the temple and was covered with a roof, thus providing more protection from the weather than the temple courtyards. Passing west through Solomon’s Porch (toward the temple) would place one in the [Court of the Gentiles](Court-of-the-Gentiles.html).
The Jewish historian [Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html) describes Solomon’s Porch this way: “There was a porch without the temple, overlooking a deep valley, supported by walls of four hundred cubits, made of four square stone, very white; the length of each stone was twenty cubits, and the breadth six; the work of king Solomon, who first founded the whole temple” (*Antiquities* l. 20\. c. 8\. sect. 7\).
One winter, at the Festival of Dedication (or Hanukkah), Jesus was in Jerusalem, and John describes Him as “in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade” (John 10:23\). The KJV says, “Solomon’s porch.” In Acts 5:12, Solomon’s Porch was the gathering place for believers in Jerusalem before the [Diaspora](diaspora.html). Earlier, in Acts 3:11, Peter and John had healed a lame man at Solomon’s Porch and preached to a large crowd that had gathered there.
Solomon’s Porch, along with the rest of Herod’s temple, was destroyed by the Romans in [A.D. 70](AD-70.html).
|
What should a Christ-centered life look like?
|
Answer
A Christ\-centered (or Christocentric) life is one that is focused upon a commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord. At the core of every human decision is a motivation. Some people are motivated by the quest for pleasure or money. Some center their entire lives on a goal, a job, or even their families. These things are not wrong in themselves; however, that which we center our lives on can become our god.
The human heart was designed for worship, and if it does not worship God, it will worship something else. If we are not Christ\-centered, we will be centered on something else. Worship is measured by the amount of time, money, and emotional energy expended. Our gods can be identified by the level of passionate commitment they evoke in us, and, after a while, we begin to resemble them. We talk about them, think about them, dream about them, and scheme to spend more time with them. People who know us best usually know where our deepest passions lie because worship is hard to hide.
Followers of Christ who center their lives on Him start to become more like Him. They talk about Him, think about Him, dream about Him, and scheme to spend more time with Him. They choose to obey His commands out of love and honor for their Lord, not from fear of being caught in sin. The greatest desire of Christ\-centered believers is to please Him and grow to be more like Him. Their lives echo Paul’s words in Philippians 3:10: “I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.” The chief aim of a Christ\-centered life is to glorify God.
But a Christ\-centered life is not to be confused with a religion\-centered life. The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were religion\-centered. They ate, drank, and slept the Law. They could spout rules, codes, and judgments as fast as a child can recite the ABCs, but Jesus had harsh rebuke for them. They were Law\-centered but not love\-centered, and it made all the difference (Matthew 23:25; Luke 11:42\). A religion\-centered life strives for supremacy, attention, and glory based upon performance. It keeps score and judges itself and others by self\-made standards. Christ\-centered lives rest in the finished work of Jesus on their behalf and yearn for holiness as a means of staying close to Him (Hebrews 12:14\).
The secret to living a Christ\-centered life is understanding the “fear of the Lord” (Psalm 19:9; Proverbs 16:6\). The fear of the Lord is the continual awareness that our loving heavenly Father is watching and evaluating everything we think, say, or do. Those who live Christ\-centered lives have developed a tangible awareness of the presence of Jesus (Matthew 28:20\). They make decisions based upon the question “Would this please the Lord?” They avoid Satan’s traps and worldly entanglements because they evaluate their choices: “If Jesus was spending the day with me, would I do that? Watch that? Say that?” (1 Timothy 3:7; Ephesians 6:11\). Every lifestyle decision is weighed on heaven’s scales and evaluated for its eternal significance. Lesser loves fall by the wayside because they steal time, resources, and energy away from the real passion of life—pleasing Jesus. However, living with the fear of the Lord requires a conscious, ongoing commitment to it, and even the most devoted will fail at times.
No person has ever lived a perfect life except Jesus (Hebrews 4:15\). Even those who deeply desire a Christ\-centered life will stumble, fall, sin, and make fleshly decisions in moments of weakness (1 John 1:8–10\). But a Christ\-centered person cannot endure living in disharmony with God and will quickly confess sin and be restored to fellowship with Him. This process of living in continual harmony with God is called [sanctification](sanctification.html). It is a lifelong process by which God makes us more like Jesus (Romans 8:29; Hebrews 12:14\). When we first center our hearts on Him, our lives quickly follow.
|
Why did John Calvin have Michael Servetus burned at the stake for heresy?
|
Answer
[John Calvin](John-Calvin.html) was a highly influential leader in the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). Born in France and educated in civil law, Calvin eventually fled Catholic France and moved to Geneva, Switzerland, where he instituted many reforms. Under Calvin’s leadership, the city of Geneva became a haven for other Reformers who fled persecution in their own countries; also, by 1540 the city began moving toward a theocracy—moral law and civil law were one and the same. In 1553 came a confrontation with a heretic named Michael Servetus, who was eventually executed in Geneva for his heresy; this incident has been a source of controversy ever since.
Michael Servetus was a Spanish physician and theologian who rejected orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. According to Servetus, God is one single person. He contended that the persons of the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html) are actually “forms” in which God has chosen to manifest Himself. According to Servetus, Christ was made a man by God, and His human nature prevents Him from being God. Servetus concluded God is eternal, but Jesus Christ is not. In his denial of the Trinity, Servetus was seen as a heretic by Catholics and Protestants alike. John Calvin briefly corresponded with Servetus, but broke off all communication after the first few letters, as it was apparent that Servetus was unyielding in his denial of the Trinity.
In 1552 the Spanish Inquisition took action against Servetus, but he escaped their hands. Later, the French Inquisition declared Servetus worthy of death but had to burn him in effigy, due to his escape. In August 1553, Servetus traveled to Geneva where he was recognized and at Calvin’s request was imprisoned by the city magistrates. The trial of Michael Servetus lasted through October, at which time the Council of Geneva condemned him to death. Servetus was burned at the stake on October 27, 1553\. The Calvinists and the Catholics both wanted him dead, but the Calvinists got to him first.
The condemnation and death of Michael Servetus has been a black mark on John Calvin’s record for centuries. Was the burning of Servetus justified, or was it cold\-blooded murder? God will judge. In contemplating the history of Calvin and Servetus, it is good to remember the following facts:
– The laws in Switzerland made heresy punishable by death; Servetus’ death was thus justified in the eyes of the Geneva Council. Plus, the councils of Berne, Zurich, Basle, and Schaffhausen were consulted, and they all encouraged the verdict and punishment.
– Calvin agreed with the sentence of death passed on Servetus; however, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning. The council rejected his suggestion.
– Michael Servetus was the only heretic ever executed in Geneva in Calvin’s lifetime. In comparison, between 3,000 and 10,000 people were executed by Catholics in Spain alone during the [Inquisition](inquisitions.html). As tragic as Servetus’ death was, it should be kept in perspective.
The wretched matter of Calvin and Servetus should teach us at least two things: 1\) the Reformers were not perfect—even great men such as John Calvin can make serious mistakes; and 2\) the New Testament church was never designed to double as a civil government.
|
What is the Jesus Prayer?
|
Answer
The Jesus Prayer is a short mental prayer or chant used repetitively to help one “[pray without ceasing](pray-without-ceasing.html)” (1 Thessalonians 5:17\), to focus one’s thoughts on Jesus, to tap into divine power, or (in [Hesychasm](Hesychasm.html)) to attain union with God. The Jesus Prayer is particularly popular in Eastern Orthodoxy, although Roman Catholics use it, too.
Generally, the Jesus Prayer follows, with some variation, the prayer of the publican in Jesus’ [parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector](parable-Pharisee-tax-collector.html) (Luke 18:13\). The Jesus Prayer in Greek is *Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν*, which translates to “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
As a quick and concise prayer that cries out to the Lord for grace, there is nothing wrong with the Jesus Prayer. The prayer can be a convenient way to remind ourselves that we need God’s help throughout the day. The prayer concludes with an acknowledgement that we are sinners. We don’t deserve mercy, but we ask Jesus to provide it for us. All of this is biblical.
However, as with any [liturgical](liturgy-liturgical.html) prayer, the Jesus Prayer can easily become a mantra, a vain repetition (see Matthew 6:7\), or a meaningless set of words. Orthodox writers speak of praying the Jesus Prayer as an “inner asceticism” and a “hidden martyrdom,” emphasizing the mystical aspect of repetitive prayer. In Hesychasm (a mystical movement within Eastern Orthodoxy), the Jesus Prayer is used to attain a complete emptying of the mind—an unbiblical practice. Praying the Jesus Prayer is often accompanied by the use of prayer ropes (*komboskini* in Greek and *chotki* in Russian) or prayer beads in a way similar to praying the Rosary, adding ritual and tradition to what should be a spiritual practice.
Another danger of the repetitive use of the Jesus Prayer is that the practitioner can become confused as to the source of divine power. Is the power in the words being spoken over and over? Is this chant a true prayer, or is it becoming a magical incantation? Scripture is clear that the Lord of glory is the source of power; our prayers only have [power](power-of-prayer.html) as they are prayed in the will of God.
Scripture’s admonition to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17\) is not a requirement to murmur the same words over and over all day long. Rather, to pray without ceasing is to have an attitude of God\-consciousness that we carry with us all the time, allowing us to take our burdens directly to the Lord the instant we feel them. We have been called to, “in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God” (Philippians 4:6\). We have not been called to monk\-like asceticism or mantra\-making. Even though the Jesus Prayer contains biblical truth, no amount of chanting will draw one closer to God.
|
What does it mean that God is sovereign?
|
Answer
God’s sovereignty is one of the most important principles in Christian theology, as well as one of its most hotly debated. Whether or not God is actually sovereign is usually not a topic of debate; all mainstream Christian sects agree that God is preeminent in power and authority. God’s sovereignty is a natural consequence of His [omniscience](God-omniscient.html), [omnipotence](God-omnipotent.html), and [omnipresence](God-omnipresent.html). What’s subject to disagreement is to what extent God applies His sovereignty—specifically, how much control He exerts over the wills of men. When we speak of the sovereignty of God, we mean He rules the universe, but then the debate begins over when and where His control is direct and when it is indirect.
God is described in the Bible as all\-powerful and all\-knowing (Psalm 147:5\), outside of time (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 90:2\), and responsible for the creation of everything (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1\). These divine traits set the minimum boundary for God’s sovereign control in the universe, which is to say that nothing in the universe occurs without God’s permission. God has the power and knowledge to prevent anything He chooses to prevent, so anything that does happen must, at the very least, be “allowed” by God.
At the same time, the Bible describes God as offering humanity choices (Deuteronomy 30:15–19\), holding them personally responsible for their sins (Exodus 20:5\), and being unhappy with some of their actions (Numbers 25:3\). The fact that sin exists at all proves that not all things that occur are the direct actions of God, who is holy. The reality of human volition (and human accountability) sets the maximum boundary for God’s sovereign control over the universe, which is to say there is a point at which God chooses to allow things that He does not directly cause.
The fact that God is sovereign essentially means that He has the power, wisdom, and authority to do anything He chooses within His creation. Whether or not He actually exerts that level of control in any given circumstance is actually a completely different question. Often, the concept of divine sovereignty is oversimplified. We tend to assume that, if God is not directly, overtly, purposefully driving some event, then He is somehow not sovereign. The cartoon version of sovereignty depicts a God who *must* do anything that He *can* do, or else He is not truly sovereign.
Of course, such a cartoonish view of God’s sovereignty is logically false. If a man were to put an ant in a bowl, the “sovereignty” of the man over the ant is not in doubt. The ant may try to crawl out, and the man may not want this to happen. But the man is not *forced* to crush the ant, drown it, or pick it up. The man, for reasons of his own, may choose to let the ant crawl away, but the man is still in control. There is a difference between *allowing* the ant to leave the bowl and helplessly watching as it escapes. The cartoon version of God’s sovereignty implies that, if the man is not actively holding the ant inside the bowl, then he must be unable to keep it in there at all.
The illustration of the man and the ant is at least a vague parallel to God’s sovereignty over mankind. God has the ability to do anything, to take action and intervene in any situation, but He often chooses to act indirectly or to allow certain things for reasons of His own. His will is furthered in any case. God’s “sovereignty” means that He is absolute in authority and unrestricted in His supremacy. Everything that happens is, at the very least, the result of God’s [permissive will](Gods-will.html). This holds true even if certain specific things are not what He would prefer. The right of God to allow mankind’s free choices is just as necessary for true sovereignty as His ability to enact His will, wherever and however He chooses.
|
What is Hesychasm?
|
Answer
Hesychasm is a form of [Christian mysticism](Christian-mysticism.html) found almost exclusively in [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), rising to popularity in Greece in the 1300s. Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations have no meaningful equivalents to it. Hesychasm has many similarities to Buddhist concepts of meditation, but it maintains a Judeo\-Christian framework, rather than a pantheistic one. The general idea in Hesychasm is to use contemplative prayer, particularly the repetition of “[the Jesus Prayer](Jesus-Prayer.html),” as a means to experience union with God. This requires the Hesychast to block out all his senses and eliminate all his thoughts.
Hesychasm is, supposedly, grounded in Jesus’ command in Matthew 6:6\. There, Jesus refutes the ostentatious prayers of hypocrites who want to be seen praying in public. Instead, Jesus says, “Go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Hesychasts take Jesus’ reference to secret praying in an extreme and absolute sense. In particular, they believe that Jesus intended His followers to separate themselves from all sensory and intellectual inputs. In other words, “go into your room,” really means “go into yourself.”
This withdrawal into oneself is accomplished by a form of repetitive [contemplative prayer](contemplative-prayer.html). The Jesus Prayer is a short, liturgical chant very popular in Eastern Orthodoxy: *Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν* (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”). Hesychasts will repeat this prayer over and over, seeking to invoke the power of the name of God. As they do so, practitioners gradually cut off their perception of external stimuli and eliminate all stray thoughts. The ultimate goal of this process is [theosis](theosis.html), a personal unity with God.
Hesychasm considers prayers in four categories of ascending value: verbal prayer, mental prayer, heart prayer, and contemplation. Each type of prayer is successively more internal, more separated from external stimuli. The ultimate expression of contemplation is a total absence of sensory awareness, a complete lack of personal thought, and a pure connection to God.
Hesychastic methods are similar, in many ways, to Eastern meditation practices. Repetitive words or thoughts in a quest to banish independent thought, reject external stimulus, and shed desires are essential aspects of pantheistic meditation practices. The goal of separating oneself from the outside world is also a common component of Eastern mysticism.
Hesychasm, however, is neither pantheistic nor truly compatible with such worldviews. Unlike a Buddhist or Hindu, the Hesychast is not trying to achieve a state of non\-being. Rather, the desired theosis is a “unity” with God similar to what is experienced between the members of the Trinity. Another difference is in the use of the Jesus Prayer. In Hesychasm, the meaning of the words, not the syllables, is important. So the phrase can be prayed in any language, as long as the practitioner focuses on the intended meaning of the sentence.
Mysticism is based on the quest to “experience” God through the use of rituals or other techniques. All forms of mysticism are rooted in an assumption that God can only truly be “known” in some subjective or personal way. Contrary to mysticism in general, and Hesychasm in particular, the Bible commands us to pray with a purpose and intent, not with a goal of washing out our own thoughts (Philippians 4:6; John 16:23–24\). Scripture also indicates that God can be known objectively—or else it would not be possible to “examine” or “test” our own faith (1 John 4:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5\).
Jesus’ comment in Matthew 6:6 was never meant to be taken as a command to go “within ourselves.” It was and is simply a refutation of hypocritical and showy religious antics. While Hesychasm is not quite the same as Eastern meditative practices, it is neither biblical nor beneficial.
|
What is a Missionary Baptist Church?
|
Answer
The [Baptist](Baptists.html) movement has become significantly fragmented over the years, and there are various types of churches that use the label “Missionary Baptist” as part of their name. This article deals with the Missionary Baptist movement within the African\-American community; it does not address other groups that may happen to use the name “Missionary Baptist.”
Most Baptist churches, including Missionary Baptists, believe and follow the essential tenets of Christianity. They hold to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus. Also, Missionary Baptists, like other Baptists, teach the autonomy of the local church and practice believer’s baptism by immersion. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the two ordinances of the church. Most Missionary Baptist churches view Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, in which no work or secular activities should be done. Many Missionary Baptist churches also call their pastor’s wife the [“first lady”](First-Lady-church.html) of the church.
Two of the largest groups of Missionary Baptists are the National Baptist Convention USA, with about 8 million members; and the National Baptist Convention of America, with a membership of about 5 million. Other African\-American Baptist groups using the name “Missionary Baptist” include the Progressive National Baptist Convention and the National Missionary Baptist Convention.
The Missionary Baptist movement began in 1880, soon after the Civil War. At that time, there were many freed slaves in Baptist churches, and they felt the need to come together in worship and to fulfill the Great Commission. The former slaves formed the Foreign Mission Baptist Convention of the United States in 1880, the American National Baptist Convention in 1886, and the Baptist National Educational Convention in 1893\. These three organizations united to form the National Baptist Convention in 1895\. About 24 years later, a disagreement within the convention led to a split, and the National Baptist Convention of America separated from the National Baptist Convention USA.
Generally speaking, Missionary Baptist churches place an emphasis on Christian evangelism, promoting missions efforts at home and abroad; encourage Christian education; seek social justice and community involvement; and publish and distribute Sunday school material and other Christian literature. Missionary Baptists embrace their history and maintain a strong connection to the needs in their surrounding communities. As conventions (not denominations), Missionary Baptist groups do not have administrative or doctrinal control over their member churches; such matters are left up to each local church.
|
Is the KKK a Christian organization?
|
Answer
On a recent national radio program, the host interviewed several Muslims about Islam and terrorism. He asked, “What is it about Islam that seems to attract or instigate violence?” One of the guests immediately responded, “We could ask the same thing about Christianity. After all, the KKK is a Christian organization.”
The issue of the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) and Christianity is somewhat complicated by the fact that the KKK has changed and evolved over the years. There are no KKK groups today that have direct ties to the KKK of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
It is generally recognized that the KKK has had three or four different manifestations. The original Klan was organized after the Civil War during Reconstruction. Many Confederate veterans and other Southerners saw their way of life evaporating before their eyes with “Yankee carpetbaggers” and former slaves taking what they felt to be rightfully theirs. They organized to try to prevent the decline of their culture. Some in the KKK sought to reestablish and/or preserve slavery. That specific incarnation of the Klan faded after Reconstruction.
The second incarnation of the Klan started around the time of World War I. Jobs were scarce in some areas, and many whites felt “their” jobs were being taken by black workers. The Klan was reborn as an organization of intimidation—trying to scare off black workers so that white workers could have the jobs. The intimidation often took the form of violence, including lynchings. The federal government began to focus on and prosecute Klan crimes, and once again the organization faded.
The third incarnation of the Klan came about in the 1950s and ʼ60s as a response to integration and civil rights legislation, seen by many white Southerners as federal intervention. Today’s Klan, which may or may not be directly traceable to the Klan of the ʼ50s and ʼ60s, operates much more like a political party.
*KKK* is not a trademarked term. Any group can call themselves “KKK” and hold a wide variety of beliefs and practices—just as many divergent groups today would call themselves “Christian.”
The largest KKK\-affiliated group today, the Knight’s Party, clearly promotes some themes that would seem to be in line with evangelical Christianity. Their Annual Faith and Freedom Conference is held at Soldiers of the Cross Bible Camp and is billed as “3 Family\-Friendly Days.” Activities include Bible studies and gospel music concerts. Guests at the camp are expected to exhibit “Christian behavior.”
The Knights Party website also states that they want to extend the blessings of Christianity to all, regardless of color or race. The Knights require all members to “profess a belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.” The group is pro\-life, supports traditional marriage, and promotes home schooling.
The group states that they do not hate other races or religions but emphasizes that the United States was founded as a white Christian (Protestant) nation. They want to restore the foundation that is, in their eyes, being eroded by the increase in the non\-white, non\-Christian population. Unlike the KKK groups of the past, they disavow hatred and violence. They also disavow [white supremacy](racism-Bible.html). They feel that all people and all races in the U.S. will benefit by a return to the foundation—however, they make it clear that the foundation should include a majority white population firmly in control of all aspects of government, society, and culture.
Yes, the Knights Party (and most other KKK groups) claims to be Christian. However, *claiming* to be Christian is a far different thing from *being* Christian. Jesus said in Matthew 7:22–23, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Simply claiming the name of Christ does not mean an individual or an organization is truly Christian.
If the KKK were still involved in lynching, bombing, and blatant white supremacy, it would be easier to answer questions about whether the KKK is a Christian organization. Since most modern KKK groups disavow these things, the answer has to be more carefully nuanced.
Can a group that is truly practicing biblical Christianity exclude people based on their ethnic or racial background? The answer is a definitive “NO.” Central to the truth of the gospel is the acceptance of all races based on faith in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions an incident in which Peter had separated himself from Gentile believers. Paul confronted him, pointing out that Peter’s conduct was contrary to the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14\). The central issue is that God accepts all people based on faith in Christ, regardless of race or ethnic background. To indicate anything different is essentially a denial of the efficacy of the gospel. The New Testament envisions a church made up of people from every ethnic group joining in praise: “I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: ‘Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb’” (Revelation 7:9–10\). If this heavenly diversity is God’s goal, no truly Christian organization can make distinctions based on ethnicity.
Christians are admonished to have the same humility and generosity as Jesus: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3–4\). If there is anything that comes through loud and clear from today’s Ku Klux Klan groups, it is that they are fighting for the rights of “their people—white people.” A focus on one’s own rights to the neglect or exclusion of the rights of others is inherently unchristian.
To summarize, the KKK of the 19th and 20th centuries was decidedly anti\-Christian in its beliefs and actions. While it disavows violence, the modern/current KKK still holds some blatantly unbiblical/unchristian beliefs, and is soundly rejected by every significant Christian denomination.
|
What does it mean that God collects our tears in a bottle?
|
Answer
While in the custody of his enemies, David wrote, “You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle” (Psalm 56:8, ESV). David was going through a difficult time. He begins this [sad psalm](psalms-of-David.html) with the words “Be gracious to me, O God, for man tramples on me; all day long an attacker oppresses me” (Psalm 56:1, ESV). The Philistines had captured David in Gath—David was, at the time he wrote this psalm, a prisoner of war, and he had reason to cry and be sorrowful. David says that his struggles are recorded in God’s book (verse 8\), and he asks God to put his tears in His bottle. What does this poetic language mean? Does God really have a bottle where all our tears go? Are the events of our lives really written in a book?
The idea behind the keeping of “tears in a bottle” is remembrance. David is expressing a deep trust in God—God will remember his sorrow and tears and will not forget about him. David is confident that God is on his side. He says, in the midst of this troubling time, “This I know, God is for me” (Psalm 56:9, ESV) and “In God I trust; I shall not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (verse 11, ESV). God may not have an actual bottle where our tears are kept or a literal book where sorrows are recorded, but He nonetheless remembers all the things that happen in our lives, including the suffering endured for His sake. In fact, there are many instances in Scripture of God’s recognition of man’s suffering. God is a tender\-hearted Father to us, a God who feels with us and weeps with us (Exodus 3:7; John 11:33–35\).
The fact that God remembers us and our sufferings should be very comforting. Often, obedience and following Jesus create suffering in our lives. This should not be a surprise. Jesus spoke on multiple occasions of the suffering that accompanies discipleship. Jesus warned, “Everyone will hate you because of me” (Luke 21:17; cf. Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:13; Matthew 10:22\). The Lord said that Paul would be shown “how much he must suffer for my name” (Acts 9:16\). Loss—even when that loss is a result of obedience to God—creates real suffering and real tears. But God remembers our sufferings and has promised to more than compensate (Matthew 19:29\).
Our tears are not futile. God knows each of His children intimately, and every tear we shed has meaning to Him. He remembers our sorrow as if He kept each tear in a bottle. In the end, He will share His joy with us when “‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4\).
|
What does it mean that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills?
|
Answer
A popular song by John W. Peterson starts out with the words, “He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, / The wealth in every mine.” The song lyric comes from Psalm 50, which says, “Every animal of the forest is mine, / and the cattle on a thousand hills. / I know every bird in the mountains, / and the insects in the fields are mine” (Psalm 50:10–11\). Saying that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills is another way of saying that everything belongs to God.
The context of Psalm 50 sheds some light on the meaning of the statement of God’s ownership of cattle. Beginning in verse 7, God is “testifying” against Israel. He says, “I bring no charges against you concerning your sacrifices,” which means that the Israelites were carrying out their duties regarding the [sacrifices](animal-sacrifices.html) according to the Law; they were doing things right, externally. But then God puts the sacrifices in perspective, saying, “I have no need of a bull from your stall / or of goats from your pens” (verse 9\), and He reminds them that “every animal of the forest is mine, / and the cattle on a thousand hills” (verse 10\). God can get animals anywhere; they are already His. He doesn’t need to be offered them by man. Why is God telling the people He doesn’t need their animals?
The answer is in the message of this psalm, which includes these points:
1\) God requires more than *external* compliance to commands; He desires *internal* righteousness. Even though the people were procedurally blameless in regard to the sacrifices, they were lacking in true worship. In Psalm 50:14–15, God says, “Sacrifice thank offerings to God, / fulfill your vows to the Most High, / and call on me in the day of trouble; / I will deliver you, and you will honor me.”
2\) God does not *need* sacrifices for “food.” God does not need anything; He is the Self\-existent One. He is the Creator and Sustainer; nothing creates or sustains Him. This is in direct contrast to the pagan gods, whose mythologies taught their need to eat. Sacrifices brought to the idols were considered the food of the gods. The One True God of Israel makes a clear distinction between Himself and the false deities (Psalm 50:12–13\).
3\) God rebukes “worship” based solely on obligation; thanksgiving is an important part of true worship (Psalm 50:14\), as is a relationship grounded in salvation: “I will deliver you, and you will honor me” (verse 15\).
4\) God defies the notion that what people give to Him is “theirs” and that they are being magnanimous in parting with their property for God’s sake. Many people today harbor the false perception that they own stuff and then give some of it to God. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills—is it really generous of us to give God a cow every now and then? If everything we have is the Lord’s, how magnanimous is it to give God ten percent?
God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He owns every animal and every bird and every beast. He owns us. For His greatness and goodness, we “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name” (Hebrews 13:15\).
|
What is Christian humanism?
|
Answer
The term *Christian humanism* has been used to refer to a wide range of views, some of which are more biblical than others. In general, humanism is a system of thought that centers on human values, potential, and worth; humanism is concerned with the needs and welfare of humanity, emphasizes the intrinsic worth of the individual, and sees human beings as autonomous, rational, and moral agents. The extent to which this broad viewpoint is integrated with Christian beliefs determines exactly how biblical Christian humanism is.
There are various types of humanism, and it is good to know the differences among them. *Classical* humanism, which is associated with the [Renaissance](Renaissance-Christianity.html), emphasized aesthetics, liberty, and the study of the “humanities” (literature, art, philosophy, and the classical languages of Greek and Latin). [*Secular* humanism](secular-humanism.html) emphasizes human potential and self\-fulfillment to the point of excluding all need for God; it is a naturalistic philosophy based on reason, science, and end\-justifies\-the\-means thinking. *Christian* humanism teaches that liberty, individual conscience, and intellectual freedom are compatible with Christian principles and that the Bible itself promotes human fulfillment—based on God’s salvation in Christ and subject to God’s sovereign control of the universe.
Christian humanism represents the philosophical union of Christianity and classical humanist principles. While classical humanists studied Greek and Latin writings, Christian humanists turned to Hebrew and biblical Greek, along with the writings of the early church fathers. Christian humanism, like classical humanism, pursues reason, free inquiry, the separation of church and state, and the ideal of freedom. Christian humanists are committed to [scholasticism](Scholasticism.html) and the development and use of science and technology. Christian humanism says that all advances in knowledge, science, and individual freedom should be used to serve humanity for the glory of God. Unlike their secular counterparts, Christian humanists stress the need to apply Christian principles to every area of life, public and private.
Christian humanism maintains that humans have dignity and value due to the fact that mankind was created in the [image of God](image-of-God.html) (Genesis 1:27\). The extent to which human beings are autonomous, rational, and moral agents is itself a reflection of their having been created with the *imago dei*. Human worth is assumed in many places in Scripture: in Jesus’ incarnation (John 1:14\), His compassion for people (Matthew 9:36\), His command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31\), and His [parable of the good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html) (Luke 10:30–37\). Paul’s allusions to secular writings (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12\) show the value of a classical education in presenting truth. The second\-century writings of Justin Martyr also demonstrate the usefulness of classical learning in bringing the gospel to a pagan audience.
Christian humanists understand that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3\) and seek to grow into the full knowledge of every good thing for Christ’s service (Philippians 1:9; 4:6; cf. Colossians 1:9\). Unlike secular humanists who reject the notion of revealed truth, Christian humanists adhere to the Word of God as the standard against which they test the quality of all things. The Christian humanist values human culture but acknowledges the noetic (i.e., intellectual) effects of man’s fallen nature (1 Corinthians 1:18–25\) and the presence of the sin nature in every human heart (Jeremiah 17:9\). Christian humanism says that man reaches his full potential only as he comes into a right relationship with Christ. At salvation, he becomes a new creation and can experience growth in every area of life (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
Christian humanism says that every human endeavor and achievement should be [Christ\-centered](Christ-centered-life.html). Everything should be done to God’s glory and not in pride or self\-promotion (1 Corinthians 10:31\). We should strive to do our best physically, mentally, and spiritually in all that God desires us to do and be. Christian humanists believe this includes intellectual life, artistic life, domestic life, economic life, politics, race relations, and environmental work.
Christian humanism believes the church should be actively involved in the culture and that Christians should be a voice affirming the worth and dignity of humanity while denouncing, protesting, and defending against all dehumanizing influences in the world.
Christian scholars such as [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html), [Anselm](Anselm-of-Canterbury.html), [Aquinas](Saint-Thomas-Aquinas.html), and Calvin were advocates of Christian humanism, although they did not call it that. Today, the term *Christian humanism* is used to describe the viewpoints of writers as varied as Fyodor Dostoevsky, [G. K. Chesterton](G-K-Chesterton.html), [C. S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html), J. R. R. Tolkien, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Christian humanism is biblical insofar as it holds to the biblical view of man—a responsible moral agent created in God’s image but fallen into sin. Christian humanism becomes less Christian the more it compromises with secular humanism, which promotes humanity to godlike status.
|
What is the seal of God?
|
Answer
There are five verses in the Bible that refer to a “seal of God” or an object or person sealed by God (John 6:27; 2 Timothy 2:19; Revelation 6:9; 7:2; and 9:4\). The word *sealed* in the New Testament comes from a Greek word that means “to stamp with a private mark” in the interest of keeping something secret or protecting or preserving the sealed object. Seals were used for official business: a Roman centurion, for instance, might have sealed a document that was meant only for the eyes of his superior. If the seal were broken, the one receiving the document would know that the letter had been tampered with or read by someone other than the sealer.
Revelation 7:3–4 and 9:4 refer to groups of people who have the seal of God, and thus His protection, during the tribulation. During the fifth [trumpet judgment](seven-seals-trumpets.html), locusts from the Abyss attack the people of the earth with “power like that of scorpions” (Revelation 9:3\). However, these demonic locusts are limited in what they can harm: “They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads” (Revelation 9:4\). The individuals who are marked by God are preserved. The seal of God during the tribulation is the direct opposite of the mark of the beast, which identifies people as followers of Satan (Revelation 13:16–18\).
Paul speaks of the seal of God in the context of foundational truth. He tells Timothy that false doctrines are circulating and some people are trying to destroy the faith of believers. Then he offers this encouragement: “Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’ and, ‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness’” (2 Timothy 2:19\). The picture is of a building’s foundation that has been inscribed with two statements giving the purpose of the building. The church’s foundation has been laid (Ephesians 2:20\), and the eternal “seal” or inscription sums up the two aspects of faith—trust in God and departure from sin (see Mark 1:15\). The passage goes on to describe the contents of the great house so inscribed: vessels for honorable use and those for dishonorable use. “If anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:21, ESV).
Jesus Christ bore the seal of God: “On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval” (John 6:27\). Those who trust in Jesus also possess the seal of God, which is the [Holy Spirit](Holy-Spirit-seal.html): “You also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession” (Ephesians 1:13–14\). It is good to know that God’s children are sealed, secure, and sustained amid the wickedness of this transitory world.
|
What is an offertory?
|
Answer
In evangelical circles, an offertory is usually the musical selection played during the “passing of the plate” as offerings are received in church. The word *offertory* can also refer to the time during the service in which the donations are given or to the donations themselves. In Catholicism, the offertory is part of the service of the [Eucharist](Holy-Eucharist.html). The time during the ceremony when the bread and wine are brought and placed on the altar is called the offertory. The offertory is often paired with alms\-giving.
Different churches have different procedures for the offertory. Often, the receiving of the offering is accompanied by music or prayer or both. Some denominations hold the offertory at the end of the service, and some in the middle. There is no instruction in the Bible to govern the offertory ceremony, so churches are free to receive gifts in the manner of their choosing. Tithing is commanded in the Old Testament, and the court of the temple in Jesus’ day had containers set up to receive [tithes](tithes-and-offerings.html) and voluntary offerings (Mark 12:41\). Under the New Covenant, the command is to give generously. In the early church in Jerusalem, worshipers brought their voluntary gifts to the apostles and laid them at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:35, 37\). Churches in Macedonia and Achaia took up collections for their brethren in Jerusalem (Romans 15:26\). It seems, from 1 Corinthians 16:2, that offerings were normally collected “on the first day of every week.” The formal procedure of the offertory, however, is not mentioned in Scripture.
God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7\), and, when we give with glad and generous hearts, whether the money goes into an offertory plate, a bag on a pole, a box in the back, or the hand of someone in need, it is pleasing in God’s sight.
|
What is the Diwali festival in Hinduism?
|
Answer
The word *diwali* comes from a Sanskrit word *dipavali* (or *deepavali*), literally meaning “row of clay lamps.” Diwali is the Festival of Lights, celebrated in India, Fiji, Malaysia, Nepal, Singapore, and other Eastern nations. The festival is the biggest and most important festival in [Hinduism](hinduism.html), but it is also observed by [Buddhists](buddhism.html), [Sikhs](Sikhism.html), and [Jains](Jainism.html). Diwali occurs on the night of the new moon during the month of Kartika, according to the Hindu lunisolar calendar. It falls between mid\-October and mid\-November on the Gregorian calendar. The festival signifies a triumph of light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, and good over evil.
Worship of the goddess Lakshmi—the goddess of fertility and wealth—is common during the Diwali festival season. People also decorate and clean their homes, buy gifts for their family members and friends, share sweets, and place lights on their rooftops and around their homes. Many people open their doors as an invitation to Lakshmi to enter their houses. Women often create beautiful patterns on their floors and walkways in preparation for Diwali, and on Diwali night fireworks are set off. Children listen to legends about goodness triumphing over evil and hope triumphing over despair.
The spiritual significance of Diwali is rooted in the [Atman](atman-Hinduism.html), which is the Hindu concept of that which is beyond the physical body and mind, the pure and immortal aspect of all that exists. Atman is the light of higher knowledge that dispels ignorance and awakes compassion and unity, and it is something that Hindus and Buddhists strive to achieve. Though, cross\-culturally, there are many different interpretations of the Atman and differing practices associated with this belief, the main idea is the same: the triumph of inner light over inner darkness.
The Diwali festival shows the universal desire for goodness to triumph over evil and for knowledge to extinguish ignorance. However, the false gods of Hinduism are not the source of goodness and light. Lakshmi is a false goddess; Vishnu and Krishna are not the heroes they are portrayed to be. We cannot find enlightenment by looking within the Self.
The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6\). “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind” (John 1:4\). Jesus warns that there is a “light” that is actually darkness (Matthew 6:23\) and admonishes us to take care: “See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness” (Luke 11:35\). In the Garden of Eden, the serpent came with a lie and proffered knowledge (Genesis 3:4–5\), and he deceived Eve into disobeying God, who is the true source of light. “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14\). The point is that good things are often used by evil spirits to deceive well\-meaning people. Light and hope and knowledge are wonderful things—things God wants us to have. But Diwali represents a search for those things in the wrong place.
Those who follow Jesus will be like the blind man in John 9 whose eyes were opened. He had lived in the dark, but now he lives in the light. When the Diwali festival ends, the lights go out, and people resume their lives, but Jesus Christ offers a continual light in the soul that is never extinguished. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5\).
|
What is the meaning of adiaphora?
|
Answer
*Adiaphora* is the plural of the word *adiaphoron*, which, in philosophy, refers to a thing that exists outside of moral law. An adiaphoron is an action that is neither condemned nor approved by morality. Adiaphora means “indifferent things,” that is, things that are neither right nor wrong, spiritually neutral things.
The concept of adiaphora originated in [Stoicism](Stoicism-Stoic.html). The Stoics maintained that, if one’s reason was flawed, one’s emotions would become destructive and overwhelming. They taught that happiness comes from living in line with what is logical, rational, or “natural.” In Stoicism, there are three classes of human behavior. The pursuit of things like virtue and justice is good, displaying their opposites is bad, and the rest is adiaphora—moral neutral ground or things to which nature is indifferent.
Adiaphora, in biblical terms, would be the “disputable matters” mentioned in Romans 14:1 (the ESV calls them “opinions”). We are not to quarrel over them. Some things are right, because the Bible says they are right; other things are wrong, because the Bible says they are wrong. But some things the Bible neither condemns nor approves. We often refer to these issues as “gray areas” or matters of conscience. We could also call them adiaphora. For example, the Bible clearly promotes truth\-telling and condemns lying. But what about writing fiction? As long as everyone knows it’s fiction, that’s adiaphora.
We can also think of the “non\-essentials” of the faith as adiaphora. Teachings on the timing of the rapture, the number of angels, or the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 are non\-essential to the faith; they are adiaphora. On the other hand, doctrines such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the bodily resurrection are [essential](essentials-Christian-faith.html) and non\-negotiable.
In one sense, there is no such thing as adiaphora in human behavior. Paul says, “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17\). Everything we do—even things that seem morally neutral—fall under the banner of goodness if we do them for God’s glory. And even things good in themselves can be done with impure [motives](Bible-motives.html) and thus be dishonoring to God (Isaiah 1:10–15\). Succeeding in our work, going for a run, playing games with friends, and all the other things we do that don’t seem either good or bad, can fall squarely under the banner of goodness when we do them in a way that glorifies Christ with thanksgiving.
|
What is the Cursillo movement?
|
Answer
The Cursillo movement is a [Catholic\-based](Roman-Catholicism.html) training program that started in Majorca, Spain, in the 1940s. A group of men put together a week\-long training event for Catholics preparing to make a pilgrimage to the Shrine of St. James at Compostela. Later, the training was shortened to three days and adapted to target change in community life rather than prepare for pilgrimage. The full title of the event was *Cursillos de Christiandad*, which means “little courses in Christianity” or “short course of Christianity.” The Cursillo movement spread from Spain to Mexico and South America, then to French\-speaking Canada, and then around the world. Today, Cursillo weekends are held in more than 60 countries.
Over the course of three days (Thursday evening to Sunday), participants (called “cursillistas”) listen to fifteen different spiritual talks about the Christian life. Leaders of Cursillo emphasize the non\-academic nature of the course: the talks relate real\-life experiences, which become the basis for small\-group discussions. Along with the testimonies are times of music, prayer, Christian service, and contemplation.
After a Cursillo event, participants are encouraged to take what they learned that weekend and apply it to their daily lives. Life after the Cursillo weekend is referred to as the “fourth day.” Participants are then invited to group reunions and larger gatherings called *Ultreya* (“to go further”).
From the beginning, Cursillo has sought to be [ecumenical](ecumenism-ecumenical.html), and the program has been adapted for use in several other churches. Some offshoots of the Cursillo movement include Tres Dias, [Walk to Emmaus](Walk-to-Emmaus.html) (Cursillo for Methodists), Journey to Damascus, Great Banquet, Diaspora, Jubilee Journey, Discipleship Walk, Faith Walk, Journey Through Faith, DeColores Ministries, Awakening, Chrysalis (for teens), and Kairos (a prison ministry). All these variations of Cursillo fall under the umbrella of the “three\-day movement.” The movement is promoted by the World Body of Cursillos in Christianity.
There are a few aspects of the Cursillo movement and its offshoots that should cause believers to be wary. First is the movement’s origin in Roman Catholicism. Cursillo proper is unabashedly Catholic, although it is open to non\-Catholics as well. Websites for Cursillo are fond of quoting Pope John Paul II. Second, the Cursillo movement promotes ecumenism, which can be problematic for many Bible\-believers. Third, participants in Cursillo seek subjective, mystical experiences. They may or may not be encountering God, but the subjectivity is such that a major Cursillo website declines to fully describe what it’s all about: “The Cursillo experience is fundamentally mysterious because it deals with the most fundamental of all mysteries, which is God” ([http://cursillos.ca/en/faq/f02\-description.htm](http://cursillos.ca/en/faq/f02-description.htm), May 5, 2016\).
Finally, as in most ecumenical movements, the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) is in danger of being watered down in Cursillo\-related programs. Again from a Cursillo website: “The Cursillo Movement (CM) has as its goal to share with the community the essence of Christianity and Christian values and in this way gradually transform the community from within” ([http://cursillos.ca/en/faq/f01\-but.htm](http://cursillos.ca/en/faq/f01-but.htm), May 5, 2016\). Note there is no mention of the gospel here—the “essence of Christianity” could be the gospel, but that’s not clear—leaving only “Christian values” to transform a community. Also on the same site: “The CM invites christians \[sic] to build a world, founded on the rock of love and friendship. But evangelization has to come from within, based on the strength and energy of personal conversion.” The Bible speaks of Christ building His church and of the Spirit empowering believers to evangelize. The Cursillo movement speaks of other things.
In the Protestant adaptations of Cursillo, there is probably much good that takes place. Christians gathering to pray, fellowship, and challenge each other to a deeper spiritual walk is biblical (2 Corinthians 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:11; Hebrews 3:13\). Much depends on the organizers of the individual events and the leaders present. Believers invited to attend a Cursillo\-based event should use discernment and carefully investigate the group and its leaders beforehand.
|
How should a Christian view psychotherapy?
|
Answer
Psychotherapy, or psychological counseling, is the practice of attempting to heal a person’s emotional and mental problems. The therapeutic practice often centers on regular conversations between a counselor and a client, known as “talk\-therapy.” These sessions may include exploring troubling thoughts, fears, and personal history. They might also include exercises to help adjust troublesome thoughts or behavior. Often clients are assigned “homework” in between sessions that may consist of things like observing and noting emotions or behaviors, attempting thought and behavioral modifications, and the like. Sometimes psychotherapists work in collaboration with medical doctors as well. The general aim of psychotherapy is to increase a person’s awareness and understanding of the possible causes of unwanted feelings and behaviors so as to achieve a decrease in unhealthy emotions and behaviors.
Different psychotherapists base their practices on different psychological theories and employ different treatment modalities and techniques. Psychotherapy also covers a broad range of emotional and behavioral issues. These can include things like relationship issues, [depression](depression-Christian.html), anxiety, [bipolar disorder](bipolar-manic-depression.html), schizophrenia, [post\-traumatic stress disorder](Bible-PTSD.html), anger management, addiction recovery, learning disabilities, and more. Thus, it is extremely difficult to give a Christian view of psychotherapy as a whole. That being said, sometimes Christians have concerns with psychotherapy. We will explore a few of the reasons why.
Some Christians believe that psychotherapy disregards the reality of sin and instead labels issues of sin as mental disorders. They claim that psychotherapy mitigates personal responsibility by excusing problem thoughts and behaviors as illness rather than as things to overcome. It seems this claim is made only for certain mental health diagnoses and not for everything classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or for non\-diagnosable issues. It is true that some psychotherapists disregard sin and personal responsibility. However, since the goal of psychotherapy is usually to overcome the illness, having a diagnosis is not usually seen as a “free pass” to behave in any way a person wants.
Other Christians recognize both mental disorders and sin as being real. Not all classifiable mental disorders are related to sin, other than being a general result of the fall and the reality of death and decay our world now endures. Not all sins are classifiable as mental disorders by the psychological community. These Christians view psychotherapy as one tool in helping overcome problematic issues. They would claim that having a mental health diagnosis does not mitigate personal responsibility for managing one’s emotions and behaviors; rather, it helps explain why a person might be particularly prone to a specific emotional or behavioral response. Such Christians would say that psychotherapy might help with practical tools in recognizing and overcoming the issue.
Some Christians find it impossible to detach the practice of psychotherapy from the humanistic worldview on which many psychological theories are founded. They might also see how psychotherapy is used as a quasi\-religion or purported savior in the minds of some, and thus discard it altogether. Other Christians disregard the worldview foundation of specific theories and instead integrate what they see as the helpful portions of psychological practice into the biblical worldview that governs their lives. These Christians would not disregard what the Bible says about our need for salvation, the healing available in Jesus Christ, or how we are to live as a result of knowing Him. But they would also see psychotherapy as a possible tool that could be helpful to some in that healing process. They would not see things like exploring one’s past, acknowledging and expressing one’s emotions, and using behavioral modifications techniques as contradictory to the Bible. Neither would they see them as a replacement for spiritual growth.
Perhaps one of the most complicating factors in psychotherapy is that so much is dependent upon the therapist and the client. The American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics (2014\) calls upon therapists to be neutral: “Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature” (Section A.4\.b; www.counseling.org/docs/default\-source/ethics/2014\-code\-of\-ethics.pdf?sfvrsn\=2d58522c\_4, accessed 10/20/2020\). While this ethical code is well\-intentioned, counseling by its very nature is value\-laden. A therapist who does not have a biblical worldview might be able to accept a client’s biblical worldview and support it. But that therapist might also think that the client’s belief in God and His Word is part of whatever problem brought the client into therapy. This can also be a struggle for Christian therapists trying to act within the ethical bounds of their profession and who believe a [biblical worldview](Christian-worldview.html) is what will be most helpful to their clients.
Whether avoiding all psychotherapy or making use of it as a tool, we all need to be careful to study God’s Word and rely on Him to be our source of truth. Second Timothy 3:16–17 says, “All Scripture is God\-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Hebrews 4:12 talks about how God’s Word can discern even our motives and intentions. Psalm 119:105 says that God’s Word is a light for our path. We are wise to examine anything we might be taught in psychotherapy through the lens of what the Bible actually says.
We also need to follow the instructions God gives us for how to live, not only in our personal lives but in community. This includes our behaviors. But it also involves our personal relationship with God. Not only should we regularly read His Word to better know Him, we should regularly go to God in prayer (Hebrews 4:14–16; 10:19–23\). A psychotherapist cannot replace God in our lives. The Bible also encourages us to regularly engage in Christian fellowship. We should weep and rejoice with one another (Romans 12:15\); we are to encourage and exhort one another (Hebrews 3:12–13; 10:24–25\). Psychotherapy is not a replacement for the church.
No matter how a particular Christian views psychotherapy, we can all agree that ultimate healing and transformation come only from God. Our primary problem as humans is separation from God due to sin (Romans 3:23; 6:23\). Only by God’s grace through faith in Jesus can we be reconciled to Him (Ephesians 2:1–10\). When we are, we enter into a process of transformation in which we learn to put sin to death and to live as God would have us live (2 Corinthians 5:17–21; Romans 12:2; Philippians 2:12–13\). We still endure struggles and hardships in life, but God is with us (James 1:2–18; Romans 8:28–30\). We can lean on Him for our needs and trust in Him to transform us (1 Peter 5:6–9; Philippians 1:6; 4:6–9\).
|
What are the origins of the various branches of Christianity?
|
Answer
The church started with a supernatural work of God in Jerusalem. About fifty days after Jesus’ resurrection, the Holy Spirit filled the disciples, and they were empowered to preach the gospel. Acts 2 records the results of the Spirit’s coming—three thousand people were saved that day, and the church had begun (verse 41\). Since that time of unity and simplicity, Christianity has separated into various branches. Today, most scholars identify three major branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, which are subdivided into other branches. Sometimes Anglicanism is listed as a fourth branch; sometimes it is listed as part of Protestantism.
**[Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html).** Catholicism is the largest and most visible branch of Christianity, and it is what many people automatically think of when they think of Christianity. Catholicism began around the fourth or fifth century AD. Before that time, Christianity had been a persecuted sect in the Roman world, but then Emperor Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313\. After Christians received religious freedom, there began a consolidation of church power in Rome, a tendency on the part of the Roman bishop to call himself “Pope” (“Father”), and an influx of new church members who brought with them elements of their pagan religions. By the time the fifth century rolled around, several extra\-biblical Roman Catholic practices had been established, including celibacy for priests. Although the church always had dissenters to the authority wielded by Rome, Catholicism remained the dominant branch of Christianity for six hundred years.
The Roman Catholic Church can be divided into the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic churches, such as the Armenian Catholic Church, the Macedonian Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Eritrean Catholic Church. There are other Catholic churches that remain independent of the Roman Church, such as the Celtic Catholic Church, the Free Catholic Church in Germany, and the Polish National Catholic Church.
**[Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html).** The Eastern Orthodox Church officially began in 1054 with the Great Schism. That event was precipitated by the dual excommunications of Pope Leo IX (of the Western or Roman Church) and Patriarch Michael I (of the Eastern Church). Leading up to the Schism was a long history of disagreements over papal authority, the wording of the Nicene Creed, and who had spiritual jurisdiction over the Balkans.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a single church but rather a family of thirteen self\-governing bodies, denominated by the nation in which they are located. These include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Finnish Orthodox Church.
**[Protestantism](what-is-a-Protestant.html).** The Protestant movement began in 1517 with the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) led by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin, who attempted to reform the Roman Catholic Church. The list of needed reforms was long—abuses of power and unbiblical doctrines were commonplace in the Roman Church. When it became apparent that church leaders were going to resist reform at all costs, various groups began to splinter away from Catholicism: the Lutheran Church took its name from Martin Luther, the German leader of the Reformation. The [Presbyterians](Presbyterians.html) in Scotland followed the leadership of [John Knox](John-Knox.html). The [Anabaptists](Anabaptists.html) distinguished themselves by practicing believer’s baptism, rather than infant baptism. [Anglicanism](Anglicans.html) began in England due to a non\-theological dispute between the Pope and King Henry VIII.
Other churches grouped under the Protestant movement include the [Methodist Church](United-Methodist-Church.html) (founded by John Wesley, who came out of Anglicanism), [Amish](Amish-beliefs.html) and [Mennonite](Mennonite-beliefs.html) churches (the spiritual heirs of the Anabaptists), [Baptist](Baptists.html) churches, [non\-denominational](non-denominational-church.html) churches, and [Pentecostal](Pentecostals.html) churches.
The doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are serious enough to have kept those two branches of Christianity separate for almost 1,000 years. The crucial differences between those two groups and Protestants are likewise substantial and far\-reaching. Ultimately, there is only one church; the Body of Christ is made up of all those who by faith in Christ are born again and have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4–6\).
|
What is misotheism?
|
Answer
Misotheists are those who express misotheism, a dislike/hatred of God. The prefix *mis\-* often refers to hatred or loathing. So, a misotheist despises God or religion in general, as a misanthropist (or misanthrope) hates mankind and a misogynist loathes women. The term *misotheist* is slightly out\-of\-date. The more common expression today would be *antitheist*, though *misotheism* technically implies a more emotional, personal level of disgust.
Part of what makes the term *misotheism* interesting is that it denotes an attitude more than any particular belief. It’s possible to be an [atheist](atheism.html) or [agnostic](agnosticism.html) and not be considered a misotheist. One can deny God’s existence without harboring an active loathing of God. Once someone gets to the point of feeling that theism is harmful and needs to be actively countered, he could be considered an antitheist. And those who are characterized by a particular hatred, condescension, or animosity toward religion would more properly be considered misotheists.
After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, antitheism experienced a brief (and currently fading) swell of support. This [“New Atheism,”](new-atheism.html) as it is called, has been criticized, even by non\-believers, for being intellectually and philosophically shallow. New Atheism is an example of a philosophy fueled by misotheism rather than by reason. Popular voices such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett have expressed more than mere disagreement with religion. Their approach is characterized by a visceral, emotional, and spiteful hate for all things religious. They are misotheists.
Today, misotheism is frequently seen in the work of comedians such as Bill Maher and Ricky Gervais and lesser\-known scientists such as Lawrence Krauss. The public work of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, including the recent *Cosmos* television series, is misotheistic in that it presents religion in error\-filled, unfair, and misleading ways. Not all unbelievers are antitheists or misotheists, of course. But misotheism is well\-illustrated by the bigoted approach taken by these figures.
Scripturally, there is a difference between error and ignorance (Luke 23:24; John 9:41\). But misotheists are not doubting God or relying on faulty reasoning to conclude that He does not exist. The misotheist is expressing willful, deliberate hatred toward God (Psalm 10:4; 14:1\). He is the “[scoffer](Bible-scoffers.html)” or “mocker” of Psalm 1:1 and 2 Peter 3:3\. His spiteful rejection of God is warned against in the Bible in the strongest of terms (Proverbs 29:1; Romans 1:24–25\).
Misotheism is an attitude immune to reason and to dialogue. “Mockers resent correction” (Proverbs 15:12\). Jesus makes this point in Matthew 7:6, warning His followers not to bother arguing with those who despise the truth. Unfortunately, this means that the misotheist is best left to the consequences of his own choices. Those who actively hate God are not inclined to listen to the gospel or anything that disagrees with their prejudice.
|
What is a prayer circle?
|
Answer
The term *prayer circle* has changed in meaning through the years. In days gone by, when believers would gather in a circle to pray, they would call that a prayer circle. Today, a prayer circle can also refer to a method of “claiming” certain things in prayer: a circle literally drawn around things a person wants or the circuit taken by people who walk in circles around areas as way of “claiming” them in Jesus’ name.
The concept of prayer circles has become popular, in part, from the bestselling book *The Circle Maker* by Mark Batterson. The author says, “Drawing prayer circles around our dreams isn’t just a mechanism whereby we accomplish great things for God. It’s a mechanism whereby God accomplishes great things in us.” Batterson uses the legend of Honi the Circle Maker as the basis of his prayer method.
Honi Ha\-Ma’agel was a Jewish scholar from the first century BC. According to the story, Honi drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and told God he would not move until it rained. When it started to sprinkle, Honi informed God that he wanted more rain. It then began to pour. Then he wanted a calm rain, so he told God, and the rain calmed. In the book, Batterson uses Honi’s example to encourage his readers to draw prayer circles around their dreams, family, job, problems, goals, and so on. This article is not a review of the book. There are plenty of those online. Instead, it is a critique of the concept of prayer circles in general.
Is the concept of prayer circles biblical? Does this “new way to pray” have support in the Bible?
• The prayer circle method of prayer is based on an extra\-biblical Jewish story. Honi is not a biblical prophet, and the Bible does not mention him. Many proponents of prayer circles equate (or at the very least, compare) Honi’s authority to that of [Elijah](life-Elijah.html). There is a stark contrast between Honi and Elijah, though. Biblical prophets were instructed to wait for God’s voice and then pass along God’s directions to others. Honi did not wait. Instead, he devised a plan of drawing circles and demanded the Lord comply with his wishes.
• Prayer circles are not mentioned in the Bible. If prayer circles were important and provided authority, Jesus would have included the idea in His prayer tutorial to His disciples (Luke 11:1–4\). At the very least, if prayer circles were helpful in our prayers, they would have been mentioned somewhere in Scripture.
• Biblical prayer comes from a humble heart, submitted to God’s will and desirous of God’s glory. The Bible never mentions marching in circles during prayer, drawing circles around objects, or demanding what we want to receive from God. The prayer circle system has undertones of the “name it, claim it” philosophy that exalts man and his “faith” above God. While many proponents of prayer circles deny an association with “[name it, claim it](name-it-claim-it.html)” ideology, there are connections. God does not need us to release Him or give Him permission before He blesses us.
• The Bible instructs us to pray boldly and to be persistent, but we should never attempt to manipulate God through a specific formula or ritual. We should be wary of any teacher who says that certain physical actions give prayer more power or authority. We are nowhere in Scripture called to “claim” what we deem as rightfully ours.
• The Bible does not attribute power to proximity or visualization. For example, a prayer for a person to find employment is no more or less powerful offered sitting in one’s home than offered while walking around the office building. To believe that prayers offered in one setting or position are more effective than those offered at another time or in another manner is more superstitious than scriptural. While we may feel the need to be close to a location or situation to pray more clearly, we must remember that our heavenly Father is omnipotent and omnipresent. God knows exactly what needs are present and will respond to our prayers in His own perfect will and timing.
Likewise, visualizing one’s prayer with a prayer circle does not give it more authority. The human mind has no power to create reality or reshape the world to one’s liking, no matter how focused the thoughts or clear the visualization. God alone creates, and every good and perfect gift comes from Him (James 1:17\). Visualizing the answer to prayer will not make it more likely to be answered.
God’s Word gives us specific instruction about [prayer](effective-prayer.html). We don’t need to add to those instructions in an attempt to manipulate God’s power or receive answers to our prayers.
|
Why did Jesus mention Tyre and Sidon in Luke 10:14?
|
Answer
[Tyre](Tyre-in-the-Bible.html) and [Sidon](Sidon-in-the-Bible.html), ancient cities of Phoenicia, are mentioned several times in both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus mentions Tyre and Sidon in Luke 10 in the context of judgments He was pronouncing against the cities of [Chorazin](Chorazin-in-the-Bible.html) and [Bethsaida](Bethsaida-in-the-Bible.html).
Tyre and Sidon are port cities located in modern [Lebanon](Lebanon-in-the-Bible.html) on the Mediterranean coast. Sidon is believed to have existed prior to 2000 BC, with Tyre being just a little younger. The Old Testament mentions Israel’s dealings with these cities, including the Israelites’ failure to conquer Sidon in the conquest of the Promised Land (Judges 1:31\), their worship of Sidonian gods on several occasions (Judges 10:6–16; 1 Kings 11\), and their obtaining materials from Sidon and Tyre for the building of the temple (1 Chronicles 22:4\). King Hiram of Tyre provided many of the temple furnishings for Solomon (1 Kings 7:13–51\). Tyrians and Sidonians are also mentioned in helping rebuild the temple in Ezra’s time (Ezra 3:7\). [Queen Jezebel](life-Jezebel.html) was a Sidonian (1 Kings 16:31\). The Sidonian city of Zarephath was where a [widow](Elijah-widow.html) took care of Elijah and the Lord provided oil and flour for her through the famine; later, the widow’s son became ill, and Elijah raised him from the dead (1 Kings 17:8–24\).
The Old Testament also has several prophecies against Tyre and Sidon that predicted a complete overthrow (Isaiah 23; Jeremiah 25; 27; 47; Ezekiel 26–28; Joel 3; Amos 1:9–10; Zechariah 9:1–4\). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre from 585–572 BC. Alexander the Great conquered Tyre in 322 BC, completely destroying the city. The Persian king Artaxerxes conquered Sidon. In short, God’s prophesied judgment came to pass. Later, both cities became prosperous provinces of Rome.
Tyre and Sidon were Gentile cities north of Israel, and Jesus had been sent to the Jews (Matthew 15:24\). But Jesus still ministered to them: crowds from Tyre and Sidon came to see and listen to Him (Mark 3:7–8\). Jesus helped a [Syrophoenician woman](Canaanite-woman-dog.html) and commended her faith (Matthew 15:21–28\).
Jesus mentions Tyre and Sidon in Luke 10:13–14 (see also Matthew 11:20–24\), comparing them to several cities in which He had performed miracles. These cities of Israel had been blessed with Jesus’ presence, preaching, and power, yet they had not repented. Jesus pronounces woes on them, stating that Tyre and Sidon, given the same opportunity, would have turned from their wickedness and been saved: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.” Jesus also says [Capernaum](Capernaum-in-the-Bible.html) is under God’s judgment for their rejection of Christ (verse 15\), because “whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (verse 16\).
Jesus used the pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon to highlight the way God’s chosen people refused Him. The Israelites of Jesus’ day believed themselves to be righteously following God, yet they did not recognize God in their midst. Jesus, in essence, shamed Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum—they, who were supposed to be God’s representatives on earth, refused to listen; yet pagan cities would have quickly repented. Jesus’ comments demonstrate the importance of responsibility and stewardship. “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48\).
God’s desire is for His Word to be known and believed, with the result that people are transformed (see Luke 6:46\). To reject the light we’ve been given is to remain in darkness. To spurn the grace of God and reject the Savior is to receive the due penalty for our sin.
|
Does the pineal gland have any spiritual significance?
|
Answer
The pineal gland is a (relatively) tiny organ, part of the overall composition of the brain. In vertebrates such as humans, it sits directly in between the two hemispheres, within the epithalamus. Biologically, the pineal gland has a fairly straightforward purpose: to produce a hormone (melatonin) that signals the body when it is time to sleep or awaken. The pineal gland works in conjunction with light signals received from the eyes. In many reptiles, there is a small spot on the top of the skull that is sensitive to light; this spot is called the pineal eye or parietal eye, and it sends similar signals to the reptilian brain to the trigger wake/sleep cycles.
Because of its unique characteristics, the pineal gland is a popular subject in mysticism and the occult. The organ is concealed within the brain but not divided into halves as are most brain structures. Certain religions believe in a non\-physical “[third eye](sixth-sense-third-eye.html)” located roughly between the eyes. This happens to coincide, vaguely, with the placement of the pineal gland. And, since the gland is related to the parietal eyes (light\-sensitive skull sensors) of reptiles, it has been commonly linked to the concept of having a “sixth sense.”
Perhaps the strongest influence on the pineal gland’s mystical reputation is the work of René Descartes, who proposed that the pineal gland was the physical location of the soul. More recent suggestions are that the pineal gland secretes a hormone that causes an altered state of mind that doubles as a “religious” experience. Such was the contention of Rick Strassman’s *Spirit Molecule* book. Neither the pineal gland’s link to mystical experience nor its association with the soul has been verified or accepted by the scientific community at large.
Biblically, there is no reason to think of the pineal gland as anything other than a physical organ. The Bible does not give an explanation for how the body, soul, and spirit are connected. There certainly are no scriptural passages supporting the wilder claims about the pineal gland’s purpose. Attempts to connect this organ to spirituality come from pseudoscience, mysticism, and various versions of the occult. There are no scientific or scriptural reasons to make any such a link.
|
What is Christian atheism?
|
Answer
Christian atheism, also called non\-realistic Christianity, is a bizarre form of quasi\-spiritual philosophy that keeps the forms and practices of Christianity while denying God’s existence. Christian atheists attempt to “de\-mythologize” Christianity, doing away with all belief in the supernatural yet maintaining liturgies and corporate worship experiences as meeting humanity’s need for socialization and the communication of lofty ideas.
Christian atheism has roots in the 1960s’ “Death of God” movement, which claimed God actually did exist at one point, but [died](is-God-dead.html). According to “Death of God” proponents, when God became incarnate and died on the cross, God ceased to exist as a being independent of the universe. This was the position of Thomas Alitzer, one of the earlier proponents of Christian atheism. Modern adherents of Christian atheism generally believe in a more literal atheism in the sense that they disbelieve that God has ever existed. Of course, in Christian atheism, Jesus is not divine.
Christian atheism, like most esoteric spiritual approaches, can be difficult to explain in brief terms. There are multiple interpretations and no particular definition to bind them all together. In broad strokes, Christian atheism is a spiritual approach using the teachings and example of Jesus while denying the existence of a literal God. As a result, Christian atheism is entirely focused on earthly concerns and earthly justifications. Religion is a purely human endeavor, and God is simply a projection of a person’s mind. Belief in an afterlife is incoherent within a Christian atheist framework. In fact, Christian atheism generally holds that Christianity, like all religions, is nothing more than a “benevolent lie,” a fiction that makes life easier to understand and control.
All of this is interesting in theory, but, in practice, Christian atheism is really just [atheism](atheism.html). Christian atheism is a non\-religious, non\-spiritual, and non\-Christian worldview that borrows biblical terminology and ideas without actually believing in them. Non\-realistic Christianity is not really Christianity at all.
What is concerning is the surprising number of people who identify as orthodox Christians yet hold beliefs similar to Christian atheism. It is easy to find clergy who do not believe that Jesus was actually God. Many churches teach that Jesus was merely a good example. Some churchgoers participate in religious practice while openly doubting that [God exists](proof-of-God.html). It seems that Christian atheism is not an uncommon approach today, and non\-realistic Christianity has made inroads into the church.
The Bible warns against those who, in the last days, possess “a form of godliness but deny its power. Have nothing to do with such people” (2 Timothy 3:5\). Christian atheism denies the Father and the Son, a rejection of truth that brings a stern scriptural rebuke: “Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22; cf. 1 John 4:2–3\).
Christian atheists see themselves as intellectual sophisticates who are smarter than your average churchgoer, who might actually believe that God is real and that the miracles in the Bible happened. But what Christian atheism rejects as “fairy tales” the Bible calls “many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3\). And what the Christian atheist considers an intellectually superior position the Bible calls foolish (Psalm 14:1\).
|
What is the mystery of iniquity?
|
Answer
The phrase *the mystery of iniquity* occurs in the KJV of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” Other translations render the phrase as “the secret power of lawlessness” (NIV) or “the mystery of lawlessness” (ESV and NASB). Before we attempt to interpret the meaning of this phrase, let’s look at the context of the passage in question:
*Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For **the secret power of lawlessness** is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness* (2 Thessalonians 2:1–12, emphasis added).
Paul’s intent in this passage is to correct a false teaching that was being propagated, namely, that the [Day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html) (the end times’ judgment) had already come and the Christians of Thessalonica had been left behind to endure it. Paul wants to set the record straight about Christ’s return and our gathering together to Him—the [rapture](rapture-of-the-church.html). Paul states that the two events that go before the Day of the Lord are the apostasy (or “the rebellion”) and the revelation of the man of lawlessness (the Antichrist). The “mystery of iniquity” that will one day culminate in the appearance of the Antichrist is already at work in the world, but it is being restrained for now so that the world is not as evil as it could be (but will be, once the Restrainer is removed from the world).
What is the apostasy? The Greek word *apostasia* in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 means “departure, falling away, defection, revolt.” This end times’ [apostasy](great-apostasy.html) is the mass “falling away” of people from God as the world prepares to receive the lawless one who claims to be God (verse 4\). It is an unprecedented, worldwide revolt against all things godly, and even many who claim to be Christians will be caught up in it. Another possibility, espoused by a small minority of scholars, is that the “apostasy” is the “departure” of the church from the world, that is, the rapture that Paul alludes to in verse 1 and which he had previously discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18\. It is important to note that a [pre\-trib](pretribulationism.html) interpretation does not require equating *apostasia* with the rapture.
Who is this man of lawlessness? He is a literal person, often referred to as the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html). He will be Satan’s henchman, a pseudo\-Christ who will perform miracles, signs, and wonders by the power of Satan and ultimately deceive the world. John wrote that many antichrists will precede the coming of the ultimate Antichrist (1 John 2:18\), referred to as “the beast” in Revelation 13:1–10, “the little horn” in Daniel 7:8, and “the king who does as he pleases” in Daniel 11:36\.
The mystery of iniquity is already at work in the world. The forces that would bring the Antichrist to power are eager to establish his unholy kingdom, but they are currently being restrained (2 Thessalonians 2:6–7\). What or who is the [Restrainer](restrainer.html)? Possibilities include the Holy Spirit, the church, human governments, and angels. The Thessalonians knew the identity of the Restrainer, so Paul did not elaborate (verse 6\). We believe the best answer is that the Holy Spirit is the Restrainer. The Spirit convicts the world and indwells the church, enabling God’s people to be a limiting influence on the world’s evil. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the world is right now thwarting the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Wickedness gets no traction in seizing global power—but this will change. Upon the departure of the church from this earth (at which time the Holy Spirit’s indwelling presence will depart), the mystery of iniquity will have free rein, and the tribulation on earth will begin (Matthew 24\).
What exactly is the mystery of iniquity (KJV) or the secret power of lawlessness (NIV) that is being restrained by the Holy Spirit? The word *mystery* denotes something hidden for a time before God chooses to reveal it. Some “mysteries” revealed in the New Testament include the doctrine of the Gentile church (Romans 16:25–27; Ephesians 3:4–12; Colossians 1:25–27\) and the rapture (1 Corinthians 15:51–52\). This particular “mystery” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 concerns the working of lawlessness in the world, leading to a worldwide rebellion against God. It works in secret right now, but it is working. The revelation of this lawlessness will coincide with the revelation of the Antichrist, mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:8\. The man of sin’s rise to power will represent a climax of lawlessness, a satanic movement against the administration of God. This secret, behind\-the\-scenes movement is as yet restrained but waiting to be revealed.
The mystery of iniquity has been at work for a long time—since Paul’s day—and, when it finally erupts in all its hideousness, the world will be shaken to its core. The Antichrist, who leads the descent into lawlessness, will set a new standard of depravity. The enormity of the acts of moral monsters such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Robespierre, and Caligula will pale in comparison to the evil of the Antichrist.
Believers have the privilege of helping restrain the mystery of iniquity even as they look for their blessed hope, the Savior, Jesus Christ. At His second coming, Jesus will reign as the [King of kings and the Lord of lords](King-of-kings-Lord-of-lords.html). By the breath of His mouth, He will destroy the works of the enemy. The Antichrist will have “his power . . . taken away and completely destroyed forever” (Daniel 7:26\).
|
What is the meaning of “Physician, heal thyself” in Luke 4:23?
|
Answer
Early in His ministry, Jesus was in Nazareth speaking in the synagogue. Nazareth was His [hometown](Jesus-of-Nazareth.html), and the people there were familiar with His family and had watched Him grow up (Luke 4:16\). When Jesus read a [messianic prophecy](messianic-prophecies.html) from Isaiah and claimed to be the fulfillment of it, the crowd in the synagogue immediately balked (verses 17–22\). It was then that Jesus made reference to a proverb of the day: “Physician, heal thyself” (verse 23, KJV).
Jesus’ audience in Nazareth reacted in amazement to His words in the synagogue, and they began to remind themselves of His personal history: “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22\). They could point to no sin in Jesus’ past, but they definitely brought up the fact that He was a local boy—as if that disqualified Him from being the Messiah. In essence, they were saying, “Jesus is the son of the local carpenter; He’s common, like us. Where does He get the idea that He’s something special? The Messiah will not be a tradesman!”
Jesus’ response to their reluctance to believe was to make Himself the point of a proverb: “And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country” (Luke 4:23, KJV).
In the proverb “Physician, heal thyself,” Jesus is the physician, and the Nazarenes are demanding that He heal Himself. It’s another way of saying, “We won’t believe a word you say until you take care of what ails you”—except, being a proverb, it’s much less wordy. The basic idea is that no one wants to visit a feverish doctor who is hacking up phlegm. The advice of a dermatologist whose face is covered with an itchy, scaly rash carries little weight. “Hey, Jesus,” the crowd is saying, “before you can help us, you have to take care of your own problems!”
“Physician, heal thyself” also carries the idea of needing proof. The attitude to the synagogue\-goers in Luke 4 is that a real doctor should be able to prove his credentials by correctly diagnosing and treating whatever ailment he suffers from personally. To apply the point of the proverb more specifically to Jesus’ situation, “It will take more than words to convince us. If you’re truly the Messiah, prove it by working a miracle or doing something else equally messianic.” As Jesus expounds on the proverb, He mentions the miracles He had done in nearby Capernaum—miracles that the Nazarenes had heard about and wanted to see duplicated in their own city.
“Physician, heal thyself” also communicates a demand that the Miracle\-worker work some of His miracles at home. The doctor in the proverb should heal *himself*; that is, he should practice his medicine *at home*. In the same way, Jesus should display His power at home, in Nazareth, and not just in other places. In this way, the proverb “Physician, heal thyself” is similar to our modern proverb “Charity begins at home.”
The challenge was clear. The people of Jesus’ hometown demanded signs and wonders before they would accept Him as the [Messiah](is-Jesus-the-Messiah.html). Jesus gave them no miracles. Rather, He used the examples of Elijah and Elisha to show how unbelief in Israel had caused those prophets to work “away from home” with Gentiles (Luke 4:25–27\). The Sabbath crowd listening to Jesus grew irate at the comparison, and they attempted to kill Jesus (verses 28–29\). So much for a homecoming party.
Jesus should have been given the keys to the city of Nazareth; instead, He was given skepticism, rejection, and a terse proverb: “Physician, heal thyself.” As Jesus told the crowd just before their attempted murder, “No prophet is accepted in his hometown” (Luke 4:24\).
|
What does it mean that the house of prayer had been turned into a den of thieves?
|
Answer
About a week before His arrest and crucifixion, Jesus went into the [temple and cleared it](temple-cleanse.html) out of “all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves” (Matthew 21:12\). Jesus then spoke to the startled crowds: “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (verse 22, KJV). The same incident is recorded in Mark 11 and Luke 19\. John 2 records similar actions of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry.
In speaking of a “house of prayer” and a “den of thieves” (the NIV has “den of robbers”), Jesus cited two passages from the [Tanakh](Jewish-Bible.html). In Isaiah 56:7 God says, “These \[faithful foreigners] I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Twice in this verse, God’s temple is called “a house of prayer.” God’s design was for His house in Jerusalem to be a gathering place for worshipers from all nations, a place where prayers would rise like incense from the hearts of the faithful to the presence of the living God.
The phrase *den of thieves* comes from Jeremiah 7:11, where God says, “Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD.” The prophet Jeremiah was rebuking the temple leaders for their abuses. Even as they continued going through the motions of their religion, they were oppressing the needy and violently taking what was not theirs. God saw through their pretense, however, and promised to deal with the thieves in His sanctified house.
Jesus takes these two verses from the Old Testament and applies them to His day. One verse was full of purity and promise: God’s temple would be an inviting house of prayer. The other verse was full of conviction and warning: people had perverted God’s right purposes for their own gain. In the courts of the temple, people were being taken financial advantage of, being cheated through exorbitant exchange rates and being compelled to buy “temple\-approved” animals for sacrifice, on the pretext that their own animals were unworthy. Jesus denounced such greedy goings\-on and physically put a stop to the corruption. In His righteous indignation, He quoted Isaiah and Jeremiah to show that He had biblical warrant for His actions. What should have been a sanctuary for the righteous had become a refuge for the wicked, and the Son of God was not going to put up with it. God’s design for the temple was that it be a house of prayer, a place to meet with God and worship Him. But when Jesus stepped into its courts, He found not prayer but avarice, extortion, and oppression.
It’s always good to remember the Lord’s purpose for what He makes. Whether it’s the temple, the church, marriage, the family, or life itself, we should follow God’s design and seek to honor Him. Any twisting or perverting of God’s design for selfish purposes will draw the Lord’s righteous anger.
|
What is young earth creationism?
|
Answer
Young earth creationism (YEC) is the belief that God directly created the universe in [six literal days](Genesis-days.html) and that the earth is relatively young. Young earth creationists usually place the age of the earth at 6,000 years (10,000 years being an upper limit). Other points held by young earth creationists include the occurrence of a [global flood](global-flood.html) during Noah’s day, God’s creation of the world with apparent age, and (often) the existence of a [single continent](pangea-theory.html) before the flood. Young earth creationism is the official position of Got Questions Ministries.
Young earth creationism is the counterpart of [old earth creationism](old-earth-creationism.html) (OEC), which says that the earth is about 4\.5 billion years old, based on the geologic timescale, carbon dating, and other common dating methods. Variations of old earth creationism include [progressive creationism](progressive-creationism.html), the [day\-age theory](Day-Age-Theory.html), the [gap theory](gap-theory.html), and [theistic evolution](theistic-evolution.html).
Skeptics, both secular and Christian, often portray young earth creationism as an unsophisticated, ignorant theory espoused only by a few religious (and therefore unscientific) zealots. Much of the bias comes from the fact that the old\-earth perspective has held a monopoly in schools, major universities, and the media for generations; it’s no surprise that most scientists have an old\-earth worldview. It is all they were ever taught. It is what most, if not all, of their colleagues profess.
Young earth creationists often call themselves biblical creationists because their position takes a direct, literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Young earth creationism views Genesis as a historical record of what actually happened, not an allegory or metaphor. Young earth creationism interprets the words *day*, *evening*, and *morning* without symbolism, as plain terms meant to be understood literally. Young earth creationism keeps the creation of the plants, sun, and animals in the biblical sequence, whereas old earth creationism usually rearranges the order listed in Genesis. Young earth creationists believe that when Romans 5:12 says “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin,” it is saying that death did not exist prior to Adam, while old earth creationists believe that Romans 5:12 only refers to human death and insist that a lot of dying happened (billions of years’ worth) before Adam appeared.
Young earth creationists see no need to be in harmony with uniformitarian models of the earth’s beginnings, especially when such models are usually rooted in a naturalistic (and atheistic) worldview. Science demands that evidence be examined, and young earth creationism does not shy away from geology, astronomy, biology, or any other field of study. It is the *interpretation* of the evidence that makes the difference. Proofs for young earth creationism are published by organizations such as the [Institute for Creation Research](http://www.icr.org/) and we have a brief article listing some of the evidences [here](young-earth-evidence.html).
|
Who is the one true God?
|
Answer
This is a profoundly important question. Because we live in a world with many competing truth claims—and many so\-called gods—the identity of the one true God matters. The one true God is distinguished from all the false gods that have been foisted upon mankind by evil spirits and deluded men. Gods that are fashioned by the imaginations and hands of men are absolutely worthless (Isaiah 44:9–10\), but the one true God is full of glory, grace, and truth (John 1:14\).
The Bible says that the one true God is the sovereign, self\-existent Creator of the universe (Isaiah 42:5; Ephesians 1:11\). He is spirit (John 4:24\), He is eternal (Psalm 90:2\), and He is personal (Deuteronomy 34:10\). The one true God possesses all knowledge (Isaiah 46:10\) and all power (Matthew 19:26\), is present in all places (Psalm 139:7–10\), and is unchanging (James 1:17\). There are many false gods—[Hinduism](hinduism.html) alone supposedly recognizes as many as 330 million gods—but none of them possess the attributes of the one true God.
The Bible says that God is just (Acts 17:31\), loving (Ephesians 2:4–5\), truthful (Numbers 23:19\), and holy (Isaiah 6:3\). God shows compassion (2 Corinthians 1:3\), mercy (Romans 9:15\), and grace (Romans 5:17\). God judges sin (Psalm 5:5\), but He also offers forgiveness (Psalm 130:4\). Any god that is not just, loving, truthful, holy, compassionate, merciful, gracious, and forgiving is not the one true God.
The one true God exists in [tri\-unity](Trinity-Bible.html). The Bible speaks of three divine Persons who share the same nature and essence in one God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in one (Matthew 3:16–17; 28:19\). This characteristic of the one true God separates Him from all other gods of monotheistic religions: Islam, for example, teaches one god ([Allah](same-God.html)), but it is a false god, since Allah is not triune. Any concept of God that excludes Jesus Christ is faulty. As Scripture says, “No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:23\).
The one true God wants to be known. He has revealed His power and glory in creation (Romans 1:20\). He revealed Himself to Abram in Mesopotamia, calling him to a new life of faith and making of him a new nation (Genesis 12:1–3\). The one true God later identified Himself as the “[the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob](God-of-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob.html)” (Exodus 3:6\) and revealed Himself to Moses in Midian (verses 1–5\). Using Moses, the one true God began to reveal Himself more clearly through His written Word, the Bible. And, finally, the one true God has given us the ultimate revelation of Himself in the Lord Jesus: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2\). Jesus is “the exact representation of \[God’s] being” (verse 3\). Jesus is the Word of God made flesh who “made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14\).
We all have a choice of whom to worship. Joshua told the Israelites it was time for them to choose the one true God over the gods of the Amorites (Joshua 24:15\). Elijah told the people on top of Mt. Carmel that they could no longer stay ambivalent concerning God: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him” (1 Kings 18:21\). Today, people worship some of the same pagan gods mentioned in the Old Testament; or they worship more recent false gods such as Mami Wata and Cernunnos; or they worship themselves. But the worship of false deities leads only to death in the end. “This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3\). May we be like Ruth, who chose the one true God over the idols of Moab (Ruth 1:16\).
|
Are there any doctrinal problems with Jesus Calling?
|
Answer
*Jesus Calling*, written by Sarah Young, has become an exceedingly popular book since its first release in 2004\. Readers have been encouraged to live in God’s presence and listen for His voice. The devotionals are based on messages the author claims to have received from Jesus and are passed along to the reader as if God is talking.
GotQuestions.org cautions readers of *Jesus Calling*. Young’s writings should not be seen as new revelation from God. The Bible is complete and contains [everything we need](sufficiency-of-Scripture.html) “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16\). While Young admits that her work is different from God’s Word, some readers equate her devotions as Jesus’ words to them personally. This conclusion is understandable, since Young tells the reader that the words are from God Himself. In the mind of the reader, how can words from God be any less authoritative than the Bible? If the words are from God, how are they not inspired?
In earlier editions of the book, Young describes her inspiration for *Jesus Calling*. She discovered a little booklet called *God Calling*, written by two anonymous “listeners.” Young may not have known that the authors of *God Calling* used the occult practice of automatic writing to receive their messages. Even so, Young said, “These women practiced waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and paper in hand, recording the messages they received from \[God]. This little paperback became a treasure to me. It dove\-tailed remarkably well with my longing to live in Jesus’ Presence.” The references to the controversial book *God Calling* have been removed from recent editions of *Jesus Calling*.
Young may be sincere in her desire to encourage believers, but putting words in Jesus’ mouth is always dangerous. Claiming to speak for God is the same as taking the mantle of prophetess. God has already spoken. He designed that we hear Him in His Word, the Bible, which is the [only authoritative book](sola-scriptura.html). Young yearned for something more than God’s inspired Word, and that yearning is the faulty premise for the book *Jesus Calling*.
A more detailed review of *Jesus Calling* can be found [here](http://www.challies.com/articles/10-serious-problems-with-jesus-calling).
|
What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
|
Answer
The term *Christianity* seems to imply a religious system in the same way that Islam and Buddhism are religious systems. Within religious systems are core beliefs, along with codes, rules, and standards that must be mastered in order to achieve a desired end. Christianity does not fit that definition and therefore the term can be slightly misleading.
Jesus did not come into the world to start another religion. There were already plenty of religions (see Acts 17:22–23\), including Judaism, which had begun as a relationship with Almighty God (Leviticus 20:12\) but had deteriorated into another religious system on par with idol worship (Matthew 15:8\). Jesus came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37\), to seek and to save the lost—those separated from God by their sin (Luke 19:10\)—and to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:32\). With that said, those who follow Christ do share some core beliefs.
Biblically speaking, [Christians](what-is-a-Christian.html) are those who are forgiven of their sins and who have entered a personal relationship with Almighty God through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10\). In order to become a Christian, a person must fully accept as part of his or her own personal worldview the following core beliefs:
• Jesus is the Son of God and is equal with God (John 1:1, 49; Luke 22:70; Mark 3:11; Philippians 2:5–11\)
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15; John 8:29\)
• Jesus was crucified to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:2–4\)
• Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:46; Mark 16:6\)
• We are saved by the grace of God; that is, we cannot add to or take away from Christ’s finished work on the cross as full payment for our sin (Ephesians 2:8–9\)
It could be argued that belief in the [inerrancy of God’s Word](Biblical-inerrancy.html) is also a core belief of Christianity because, if the Bible’s veracity is suspect, then all we know about God is in doubt. Saving faith is inextricably linked to the Word of God: “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17\).
But the mental acceptance of the above points of doctrine is only the framework around which salvation occurs. [Faith](definition-of-faith.html) is more than intellectual assent, and mentally agreeing with the core beliefs of Christianity does not equal entrance into God’s kingdom. Even Satan and the demons know certain things about God (James 2:19\). We can mentally agree with facts without making those facts the centerpiece of our lives.
Can a person be saved without holding to the core beliefs of Christianity? No. But along with accepting as true those core beliefs must be a spiritual transformation. Jesus said that in order to inherit eternal life one must be “born again” (John 3:3\). To be [born again](born-again.html) is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a repentant sinner. Just as a mother in labor does all the work in bringing forth a new life, so the Holy Spirit does the work in transforming a sinner into a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17\). This process begins when God draws a heart through conviction of sin and hope of forgiveness (John 6:44\). When we surrender to God and repent of our sin (Acts 2:38\), God applies the blood of His own Son to our account and cancels the debt we owe Him (Colossians 2:14\). By this act of transference, God pronounces us “not guilty”; that is, He [justifies](justification.html) us (Romans 4:5\). Salvation is a divine exchange: Jesus becomes our sin so that we can become His perfection (2 Corinthians 5:21\). This is [the gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) at the very core of Christianity.
|
Why are there Christian sects?
|
Answer
First, we should define what we mean by a Christian sect. The word *sect* itself is very broad and can mean anything from “religious denomination” to “destructive cult.” For the purposes of this article, we will define *Christian sect* as “a small church faction that has separated from a larger group to follow a specific practice or interpretation of the Bible.” Often, a Christian sect is held together by one teacher who promotes the unique doctrine. Thus, this article will distinguish a *sect* from a *denomination* (“a large group of churches sharing general beliefs”) and a *cult* (“a heretical group that departs from orthodox Christian teachings”).
For example, in England in the 1600s, the Baptist denomination had two major branches: the General Baptists (Arminian) and the Particular Baptists (Calvinistic), but there was a smaller group that had splintered off, the Seventh Day Baptists (who worshiped on Saturdays). As another example, in Prussia in 1817, a Lutheran deacon named John Scheibel formed a sect called the Old Lutherans in opposition to the Lutheran Church’s recent union with the Reformed Church. These Baptist and Lutheran groups are examples of Christian sects.
The reasons for the formation of Christian sects are numerous. Offshoots from Christian denominations can begin with a point of doctrine (e.g., [predestination](predestination.html)), a particular practice (e.g., foot\-washing), a human rights issue (e.g., slavery in the 1800s), [church government](church-government.html) (e.g., whether or not to pay pastors), [biblical separation](Biblical-separation.html) (e.g., teetotaling), evangelism (e.g., the value of missionary work), music (e.g., the use of instruments), an interpretation of prophecy (e.g., pre\-wrath teaching), an experience (e.g., continuationism)—and the list could go on.
The existence of Christian sects shows the diversity and range (and sometimes the fractiousness) of followers of Christ. As long as a splinter group is not slipping into heresy, and as long as there is no animosity or spiritual pride involved in the separation, the formation of a Christian sect is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is possible to be divided into sects without being overly [sectarian](sectarianism.html). One day, John came to Jesus and said, “Master . . . we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” Jesus’ reply allows for followers of Christ to belong to different groups yet still be used by God: “Do not stop him . . . for whoever is not against you is for you” (Luke 9:49–50\).
|
What is a good process for preparing a sermon?
|
Answer
As all pastors know, preparing a sermon is hard work. According to research compiled by Thom S. Rainer in 2012, pastors spend plenty of time in sermon preparation each week: 69 percent of pastors surveyed spend over 8 hours a week preparing their sermons. Only 8 percent spend less than 5 hours a week.
Different pastors have different methods for preparing their sermons, and there is no single process that will be best for everyone, but there are some good steps that can aid the formulating of a biblical sermon. Before we consider some of those steps, here’s some groundwork that has to be laid:
*Pray.* The power of a sermon does not lie in educational background, oratorical skill, or rhetorical prowess; the power is in the Word of God and in the Holy Spirit: “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:4\). Pray for yourself; pray for your congregation, remembering their needs and particular concerns.
*Commit yourself to the authority of the Word.* The content of preaching should be the Word of God. One of Paul’s last instructions to Timothy was simply “Preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2\). Preaching the Bible is a high calling, and your messages should be Christocentric and thoroughly biblical (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2\).
*Plan to start early.* Don’t procrastinate. Get started on next Sunday’s sermon as early in the week as possible. The truths you present to others need time to percolate in your own heart and mind first. Devote enough time to develop the sermon properly.
Now, here is a process of the actual preparing of the sermon:
1\) Read the passage prayerfully and humbly and allow it to speak to your own heart.
2\) Read the passage again, taking notes on impressions that it gives you. Write down the overall theme or lesson of the passage.
3\) Research the background, setting, and [context](context-Bible.html) of the passage. To whom was it written? What was the occasion of the writing? What leads up to and follows the passage, and how does that affect one’s understanding of the passage?
4\) Read the passage again, outlining it into main points and sub\-points. Double\-check to see that you’re being true to the text. [Exegesis](Biblical-exegesis.html) is the goal, not [eisegesis](exegesis-eisegesis.html).
5\) Using a [concordance](Bible-concordance.html) or cyclopedic reference, cross\-reference the themes developed in the passage with other parts of Scripture. If your passage deals with intercessory prayer, study other passages that address intercessory prayer or that give examples of it. Keep the whole counsel of Scripture in mind as you prepare your notes.
6\) Read the passage again, using a word\-study help or Hebrew and Greek dictionary to bring out further meaning in the original language.
7\) Flesh out your outline with details of how you will communicate the meaning of each section of the passage. Do this with your audience in mind. How do I best relate God’s truth to this group of people? How does this passage impact their lives?
8\) Consult various [commentaries](Bible-commentary.html) and sermons to see what other students of the Bible have said about the passage. What insights do they have? Is there something you can glean from their work that will enhance your sermon?
9\) Add illustrations or examples that will resonate with your audience and clarify the meaning of various points of the sermon.
10\) Revise and polish your outline, paying special attention to logical flow, transitions between points, focus on the theme, and overall clarity. Cut out anything that does not contribute to the overall purpose of your sermon.
11\) Prayerfully draft an introduction and conclusion. Write out these portions. Pay special attention to application—what is the follow\-through? What’s the action that should follow the message? (Of course, application can be sprinkled throughout the sermon, not just drawn at the end. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7 is a good example of continuous points of application made within a sermon.)
12\) Practice. And continue to pray. Pray for clarity, for intensity, for honesty, for practicality, and for wisdom (James 1:5\). Pray for God to be glorified and for the Lord Jesus to be magnified.
Charles Spurgeon, the “Prince of Preachers,” stressed the necessity of having a Christ\-centered focus in preaching: “Whatever subject I preach, I do not stop until I reach the Savior, the Lord Jesus, for in Him are all things.”
|
What is a jot? What is a tittle?
|
Answer
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus assures His audience [on the mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html) that He had not come to [abolish the Law](abolish-fulfill-law.html) and the Prophets; rather, He had come to fulfill them. Then, in verse 18, Jesus emphasizes the eternal nature of God’s Word: “For [verily](verily-verily.html) I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (KJV). His statement naturally prompts the question of what’s a jot? And what’s a tittle?
Most of us are unfamiliar with jots and tittles because most of us do not read the Hebrew language. Jots and tittles have to do with letters and pen strokes in Hebrew writing.
A jot is the tenth letter in the Hebrew alphabet and the smallest. It was written above the line and looks to us rather like an apostrophe:
*Jot* is related to our modern English word *iota*, meaning “a very small amount.” The Hebrew spelling is *yod* or *yodh*. Many Bibles have a picture of a yod in Psalm 119\. Check out the section title coming just before verse 73\.
A tittle is even smaller than a jot. A tittle is a letter extension, a pen stroke that can differentiate one Hebrew letter from another. An example can be seen in the comparison between the Hebrew letters resh and daleth (or dalet):
 
The resh (on the left) is made with one smooth stroke. The daleth (on the right) is made with two strokes of the pen. The letters are very similar to each other, but the distinguishing mark of the daleth is the small extension of the roof of the letter:
That extension is a tittle. See Psalm 119:25 and 153 for pictures of the daleth and resh, respectively.
When Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18, He was stating emphatically that God’s Word is [true](is-the-Bible-true.html) and trustworthy. God has spoken, His words have been written down accurately, and what God has said will surely come to pass. Fulfillment is inevitable. Even the smallest letter of the Law will be fulfilled. Even the smallest pen stroke of the Prophets will be accomplished. The NLT translates the verse this way: “Until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.”
Doubters will doubt, and mockers will mock, but God’s Word will not change: “Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89\). The gospel changes lives: “‘The word of the Lord endures forever.’ And this is the word that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25\). God is reliable, and so is His Word—every jot and tittle of it.
|
Old earth vs. young earth—what are the core issues in the debate?
|
Answer
Both [old earth creationism](old-earth-creationism.html) and [young earth creationism](young-earth-creationism.html) seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6,000 years old. In contrast, various scientific [dating methods](radiometric-dating.html) place the age of the earth around 4\.5 billion years and the age of the universe around 14\.6 billion years.
The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted incorrectly.
Neither old earth creationism nor young earth creationism teaches that the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking, both old earth and young earth creationists believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of God’s Word. What differs between these approaches is one’s view on what the Bible is, in fact, saying. It’s a matter of interpretation.
Old earth creationists believe a strictly literal approach is not the correct way to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. They view Genesis 1–2 as being primarily symbolic and/or poetic. Young earth creationists interpret Genesis 1–2 as a literal, historical account of how God created the universe. Young earth creationists question why, if the rest of Genesis is historical, should the first two chapters be interpreted differently? Old earth creationists question why, if the Bible uses symbolism in many other books, can’t metaphor be used in Genesis?
Young earth creationists contend that the scientific data supporting a billions\-of\-years\-old universe is being interpreted incorrectly. They view old\-earth arguments developed by naturalistic scientists as primarily being a defense for Darwinian evolution. They contend that the dating methods are flawed, at best, and are implemented by scientists with bias, presuppositions, and agendas. Old earth creationists view the scientific dating methods as being reasonably accurate and therefore accept that the earth and the universe are truly old. Also, a great number of old earth creationists reject Darwinian evolution.
So, in the old earth vs. young earth debate, who is correct? As a ministry, GotQuestions.org definitely leans toward the young earth perspective. We believe that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be read literally, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents. At the same time, we do not view old earth creationism as heresy. We are not going to question the faith or motives of our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on this issue. Ultimately, one can hold to views other than young earth creationism and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.
As we interpret it, the Bible indicates that the earth is relatively young. According to secular scientists and those who accept an old\-earth reading of Scripture, the earth is very old. Since neither viewpoint can be explicitly proved, we choose to side with a plain/literal interpretation of the Bible.
|
What does it mean that heaven and earth will pass away?
|
Answer
The Bible consistently warns us that this world will not last forever. “Heaven and earth will pass away,” Jesus said in Matthew 24:35\. His statement was in the context of end times’ prophecies and the eternal nature of Jesus’ words: “My words will never pass away.” This means that trusting Jesus is wiser than trusting anything in this world.
Jesus also refers to the passing away of heaven and earth in Matthew 5:18\. In Revelation 21:1, John writes of a new heaven and a new earth in the eternal state, having seen that “the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (cf. Isaiah 65:17 and 2 Peter 3:13\). To “pass away” is to disappear or be no more. This refers to the *physical* heaven and earth—the material world and all it contains—but not to the spirits/souls of the inhabitants of those places. Scripture is clear that people will outlast the current material universe, some in a state of [eternal bliss](eternal-state.html) and some in a state of [eternal misery](hell-real-eternal.html), and that the current universe will be replaced by another that will never know the contamination of sin.
The method of this world’s destruction is revealed in 2 Peter 3:10–12: “The day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire. . . . That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.” In Noah’s day, the world was destroyed with water, but God promised to send no more global floods (Genesis 9:11\). In the [Day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html), the universe will be destroyed by fire.
The prophet Isaiah foretold the passing away of heaven and earth, too. “All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree” (Isaiah 34:4\). The Lord assures His people that, even as the heaven and earth are passing away, His salvation is secure: “The heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail” (Isaiah 51:6\).
Knowing that heaven and earth will pass away gives us perspective in life. This world is not our home. “We are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13\). Jesus tells us to have the proper priorities: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. . . . But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19–20\). And Peter, after reminding us of the temporary nature of this world, says, “Dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him” (2 Peter 3:14\).
|
What is a spirit of infirmity?
|
Answer
The term *spirit of infirmity* occurs in Luke 13:11 specifically in the KJV. Here a woman who had been crippled for eighteen years is healed by Jesus on the Sabbath day. Luke says she has a “spirit of infirmity” or a “disabling spirit” (ESV) or a “sickness caused by a spirit” (NASB) or is “crippled by a spirit” (NIV). Quite simply then, this “spirit of infirmity” is a [demon](do-demons-exist.html) who caused the woman to be crippled for eighteen years.
The Bible is clear that [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html) exists. Ephesians 6:12 says, “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.” And, from Luke 13, it is clear that evil spirits can sometimes cause physical maladies. However, it is not clear that there are specific spirits whose “specialty” is such things as sickness or poverty or anger. Luke’s reference to the “spirit of infirmity” indicates that, at least in that one case, a demon had been granted power to inflict a disability. Extrapolating a doctrine that categorizes demons according to the afflictions they cause goes beyond what the Bible teaches.
We need to be careful not to overemphasize the power of demons. Many human ailments are simply caused by living in a fallen world, and there are many instances in Luke’s gospel of people being healed of diseases with no mention of a demonic cause. In Luke 13 Jesus specifically speaks of Satan having bound this woman (verse 16\). But, in many other cases of healing, He simply heals with no mention of evil spirits involved.
Today, there are some people who refer to “spirits of infirmity” as being the cause for sickness. Or they may talk about “spirits of” particular emotions or sins, such as anger or lust. Certainly, Satan and his demons can attack our bodies, emotions, and thinking patterns. But we cannot blame every illness or every difficult emotion or every sin on Satan’s influence. There is a variety of reasons a person may be struggling with such things.
No matter the specific cause of an infirmity, we can bring the problem to God in [prayer](power-of-prayer.html). James 4:7–8 talks about resisting the devil and submitting to God. Prayer is one way to do this. James 5:16 says we should confess our sins to one another so that we can pray for healing.
The major thing to observe from Luke 13:10–17 is the power and compassion of Jesus. In an instant, He overcame the disability this woman had been struggling with for eighteen years. He healed her on the Sabbath day, to the indignation of the Pharisees. He responded to her need with compassion, calling the woman a “daughter of Abraham” (verse 16\) and highlighting how much God loved her and was willing to free her.
|
What is neurotheology?
|
Answer
Neurotheology is a relatively new science that explores the relationship between the body and religious experiences. These “experiences” can include [meditation](Christian-meditation.html), [near\-death experiences](near-death-experiences.html), trance states, the feeling of being one with the universe, or encounters with supernatural beings. There is no determination if these experiences are imaginary or real, and it’s unknown if the experience causes changes in the brain or if the brain creates the experience. The word *neurotheology* was first coined by Aldous Huxley in his 1962 novel *Island,* and has come up in various publications since. Until recently, neurotheology has struggled to receive respect from the scientific community, especially in the fields of medicine and psychology.
Research into neurotheology began much earlier than Huxley, in 1842, and for a long while centered on documenting experiences induced by hallucinogenic drugs. Occultist Aleister Crowley studied the effects of combining meditation with the use of hashish and peyote—he believed hashish was useful only to show the less\-experienced meditators what they would eventually experience without the drug. Later, in the 1980s, slightly more scientific tests were performed wherein subjects were exposed to a weak magnetic field and asked to describe what they felt. Some said they sensed another presence, but, since many subjects were told beforehand what the experiment was for, the results are not considered valid.
The refinement of neuroimaging delivered a more quantitative method of research. Those who study a person’s neurological response to religious experiences use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to measure blood flow to various parts of the brain. Researchers then compare brains at rest or engaged in a neutral, non\-religious activity with brains experiencing some kind of transcendence. Using fMRI, scientists have discovered that reciting Scripture (from whatever religion) correlates with distinct activity in certain sections of the brains; subjects who have a more intense religious experience show even more activity, as do those who practice such things as prayer or meditation on a regular basis. If an agnostic or atheist recites Scripture, the corresponding brain activity does not occur.
Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene d’Aquili, and their co\-authors wrote in *Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief*,
> “The sensation that Buddhists call ‘oneness with the universe’ and the Franciscans attribute to the palpable presence of God is not a delusion or a manifestation of wishful thinking but rather a chain of neurological events that can be objectively observed, recorded, and actually photographed. The inescapable conclusion is that God is hard\-wired into the human brain.”
Neurotheology reveals that those in a deep spiritual state have less activity in the part of their brains that distinguishes between the self and the non\-self. Researchers have also discovered that practicing meditation or [prayer](what-is-prayer.html) strengthens parts of the brain, and an exercise showed that a moderate amount of meditation improved the memory of people with dementia after only eight weeks.
What does it mean? The scientists have a long road of research ahead before they can say with any certainty. Could religious experiences alter the neural pathways of the brain? Certainly, if addiction can alter the brain, then continued exposure to mental stimuli can. Does the supernatural have a direct influence? Considering that there seems to be no difference between the scans performed on Christians and those performed on practitioners of other faiths, this question is more ambiguous. Certainly, God made our brains to respond to the spiritual world. *How* and to what degree that happens is unknown.
Neurotheology is an interesting look into how God made the human brain. Much more research needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. Until then, we can take away this: having a habit of prayer increases memory function in those with brain disorders. Yet another reason to talk to God (see 1 Thessalonians 5:17\).
|
Who was John Calvin?
|
Answer
John Calvin (1509–1564\) was a French theologian who was instrumental in the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) and who continues to hold wide influence today in theology, education, and even politics. Anglican author J. I. Packer wrote about Calvin, “It is doubtful whether any other theologian has ever played so significant a part in world history” (“Calvin the Theologian,” *Churchman* 073/3, 1959\). Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon said, “The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system \[of theology] is the nearest to perfection” (cited in *Christian History*, Vol. 5, No. 4\). American historian John Fiske wrote, “It would be hard to overrate the debt which mankind owes to Calvin. The spiritual father of Coligny, of William the Silent, and of Cromwell, must occupy a foremost rank among the champions of modern democracy. . . . The promulgation of this theology was one of the longest steps that mankind has ever taken toward personal freedom” (*Beginnings of New England*, p. 58\).
John Calvin was a pastor in the last half of the Renaissance. Political and church intrigues were coming to a head. Wealthy tradesmen, tired of financial exploitation, were shifting the political power away from both the feudal lords and the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html), and the result was a growing nationalism. Economically, socially, and numerically, Europe was still recovering from the Black Death 150 years earlier. The authority of the papacy had been split between as many as three different popes the century before, and the popes since then had been amazingly corrupt and publicly hypocritical.
Most concerning to the general populace was the Roman Church’s tendency to fund wars, works of art and architecture, and lavish lifestyles by convincing congregants of their need to buy [indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html). If you want your loved ones to get out of purgatory, said the pope, it will cost you. Or, what might be more appealing, you can get away with some sins yourself, *if you buy an indulgence*. Such ecclesiastical abuses led to the outcry of the Reformers—Luther in Germany, Zwingli in Switzerland, and Calvin in France (and later in Switzerland).
Forefathers of the Protestant Reformation such as Wyclif, Hus, and [Tyndale](William-Tyndale.html) focused more on having a Bible in the vernacular and combatting ecclesiastical abuse than theological matters such as *Sola Scriptura* (needed because the papal infallibility proved to be very fallible) or the nature of the Eucharist. But in a theocratic world based on the total authority of the popes and church councils, dissention from the Catholic interpretation of Scripture was tantamount to treason. The climate was somewhat chaotic with Rome trying to wrest control back from various factions who championed autonomy of rule and religion, promoted adherence to the Scriptures, and tried to prevent the church from taking their money. John Calvin’s contribution was to organize and consolidate the theological and biblical reasons for rejecting the Roman Church, and he brilliantly developed his concepts into a complete theological viewpoint.
John Calvin’s father originally meant for him to be a priest, but when the elder’s fortunes changed, he decided his son would be more stable as a lawyer. The training John received both in law and the humanities served him well in theology. The invasion of Constantinople pushed Eastern scholars—and their literature—west; the printing press made those records available to Western scholars. When Western scholars realized how the originals differed from their copies, they developed the practice of textual criticism, which we still use to validate documents and determine when they were written and by whom. (And it’s the reason the Apocrypha was rejected by so many Protestants.)
The details of Calvin’s conversion from Catholicism to nascent [Protestantism](Protestantism.html) are a mystery. Calvin wrote of his spiritual conversion as taking place in 1532\. In 1536, Calvin solidified what he had learned into the *Institutes of the Christian Religion*—a defense of the Reformers from a theological standpoint. As the Roman Catholic Church’s authority continued to be threatened, Catholic authorities struck back. Calvin fled France. On a detour through Geneva, a friend, William Farel, persuaded Calvin to stay and teach, although John was a lawyer, not a minister. The rich bourgeoisie of Geneva wanted to break with Rome for financial reasons and declared the city Protestant, but they had inadequate church leadership. They welcomed Calvin up to the point where he started actual reforms to match his theology. Calvin and Farel set out to rewrite church polity and policies and wound up causing a riot over the use of unleavened bread in communion. They were removed from Geneva, and Calvin went to pastor a French congregation in Strasbourg.
While pastoring, Calvin found time to write in Strasbourg. He rewrote his apologetics book in the format of a catechism and wrote most of a commentary series based on the Greek Septuagint instead of the Latin Vulgate. He eventually expanded his little treatise, *Institutes of the Christian Religion* from six short chapters to four books (see below).
The political scene in Geneva changed. Three years into Calvin’s exile, a popular Catholic cardinal wrote an open letter inviting Geneva to return to Catholicism and giving several arguments for why they should. The city council asked Calvin to respond, and he wrote a masterful letter in reply, answering the religious arguments and defending the Protestant leaders. Geneva stayed Protestant, and they brought Calvin back and agreed to his reforms.
The city council alternatingly supported Calvin and abandoned him depending on the political climate of the moment—until the unfortunate incident of [Michael Servetus](Calvin-Michael-Servetus.html). Michael Servetus was a Spanish doctor and outspoken heretic who came to Basel and then Strasbourg to escape ecclesiastical authorities. He denounced the Trinity and denied the deity of Christ, putting him at odds with both Catholics and Protestants. The Inquisitions of both Spain and France condemned him to death. He was finally caught and held in Geneva. Calvin’s secretary provided a list of accusations of heresy, which were confirmed by several other theologians, both Protestant and Catholic. The consensus was strong on both sides: Servetus was a heretic and should be burned at the stake—the standard and widespread punishment for heresy—although Calvin requested a more humane beheading. Finally, the court had no choice but to convict and execute Servetus. The Calvinists and the Catholics both wanted him dead, but the Calvinists got to him first. Although the matter of Servetus—the sole execution of a heretic in Calvin’s lifetime—besmirched Calvin’s reputation, Calvin became the unchallenged defender of the faith, and his polity was soon after accepted in Geneva.
Both Calvin and Luther valued unity in the church, their main disagreement being over [communion](communion-Christian.html). Luther asserted that the body and blood of Christ dwells with the bread and wine without changing the physical properties of the elements; Zwingli believed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial. Calvin took a middle\-of\-the\-road approach, teaching that communion is indeed a memorial yet also a way to “feed” (spiritually) on Christ. Calvin wrote that communion is an “aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel . . . an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his goodwill toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety towards him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men” (*Institutes* IV.xiv.1\). In other words, taking communion aids our faith, helps preach the gospel, seals God’s promises, bolsters our weaknesses, and allows us to attest to our fidelity to God.
Luther and Calvin actually agreed on predestination. It was their followers who widened the rift between their teachers, making more of a divide between Lutheranism and Reformed theology. Even [Jacobus Arminius](Jacobus-Arminius.html), after whom [Arminianism](arminianism.html), the anti\-Calvinism sect, is named, praised Calvin’s commentaries and recommended them to his students, saying that Calvin was “incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture” (cited by Thomas Smyth in *Calvin and His Enemies: A Memoir of the Life, Character, and Principles of Calvin*, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009, p. 24–25\). Calvin’s writings had a wide influence, as his system of theology was taken up by the Puritans in England, the Presbyterians in Scotland, the Dutch Reformed movement, the Huguenots in France, and the Pilgrims in America.
John Calvin is also remembered today for the school he established in Geneva and the advances in education he promoted. Calvin’s innovations in education include the formation of the first public school. During the Middle Ages, education was limited to the elite; only the aristocracy were schooled. Calvin changed that, ensuring that the general populace received a tuition\-free, classical, liberal arts education. To that end, Calvin established an academy with seven grades and a seminary beyond that. Both schools became models for similar institutions across Europe and are now considered forerunners of the modern public school movement.
**John Calvin’s Theology**
Calvin’s theological magnum opus, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, was originally intended to explain biblical doctrine in a systematic way: “Seeing, then, how necessary it was in this manner to aid those who desire to be instructed in the doctrine of salvation, I have endeavoured, according to the ability which God has given me, to employ myself in so doing, and with this view have composed the present book” (preface, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, 1545 French edition). The final product is a brilliant presentation of biblical Christianity and a recognized classic of world literature. The four books comprising the *Institutes* cover the four main subjects of the Apostles’ Creed: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and the Church. Calvin wrote his *Institutes* in Latin and revised the book several times, but he also translated it into French: “First I wrote it in Latin, that it might be serviceable to all studious persons, of what nation soever they might be; afterwards, desiring to communicate any fruit which might be in it to my French countrymen, I translated it into our own tongue.” The work has since been translated into many more languages. You can find a copy of the *Institutes* [here](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes/) or a chapter summary [here](http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-reformation/an-overview-of-calvin%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cinstitutes-of-the-christian-religion%E2%80%9D-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/).
*Book First: Of the Knowledge of God the Creator*
The first eighteen chapters of Calvin’s *Institutes of the Christian Religion* cover how mankind can know God the Father. Although we have within us “eternity in our hearts” (Ecclesiastes 3:11\), our judgment is corrupted. And, although we can see aspects of God in the nature and order of creation, it is only the Scriptures that we can fully rely on. “New revelation” is a subversion of piety by fanatics, and the worship of idols is ridiculous, not least because God has no physical form. As for mankind, we were the pinnacle of God’s creation, made in His image in a spiritual sense, but we have lost that splendor and, therefore, the ability to truly know God. The existence of God’s providence is proof that He maintains the world and has active sovereignty over what happens in it. We have free will, but His ultimate will prevails. Even the wicked are directed by God to use their evil for His purposes. Our inability to reconcile the responsibility of the sinner while acting on God’s direction is a result of our own inability to understand God’s nature.
*Book Second: Of the Knowledge of God the Redeemer, in Christ, as First Manifested to the Fathers Under the Law, and Thereafter to Us Under the Gospel.*
The next seventeen chapters of Calvin’s *Institutes* explain Christ’s role in history in the context of the fall of Adam and Eve and the resulting enslavement of the human race to sin. Our free will and reason are corrupted, and our spiritual discernment is lost until we are regenerated. God’s providence provides restraining grace and uses agents such as shame, fear of the law, and societal pressures to moderate men’s actions; men do not choose to do good—only God’s grace incites good in men. No matter what we can learn about God from His creation, it is useless without the faith that comes only through Christ, our mediator. The Mosaic Law shows us the righteousness of God and our own unrighteousness, and it is a tool of God’s restraining grace. The gospel did not replace the Law but completed it and allowed us to be forgiven of our transgressions. Although the Old and New Testaments ultimately have the same message, there are differences. One is that the temporal, earthly blessings to the Jews became spiritual blessings to the church, and another is that the Jews relied on images and ceremonies whereas we have Christ, the substance of that imagery. Jesus as Mediator had to be fully God and fully man. Jesus is prophet, priest, and king: as King, His kingdom is spiritual and gives us hope of eternal preservation; as Priest, He is our reconciliation and intercession.
*Book Third: The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ. The Benefits It Confers, and the Effects Resulting from It.*
These twenty\-five chapters of Calvin’s *Institutes* delve into the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives. It is the Holy Spirit who unites us to Christ and causes us to receive God’s benefits. Our faith is in God the Son (not the church) and rests on the Word of God. Repentance is a result of faith, which is a result of recognition of God’s grace, and repentance continues throughout the believer’s life in conjunction with sanctification. Confession is a biblical practice, but not to a priest and not for absolution; only Christ’s sacrifice forgives. Indulgences deny the gospel of Christ, and purgatory is a “deadly fiction of Satan.” The purpose of regeneration is a changed heart that leads to denial of ourselves and a love of righteousness that leads to righteous action. When faced with trials and chastisement, we are not to necessarily expect deliverance, but call out to God for deliverance and remember there is a better world to come. A correct understanding of our place before God will educate our ideas of material blessings and how unrighteous we are on our own. Justification does not mean we are righteous in and of ourselves and, therefore, do good works through our own effort. Neither does it mean that, if a man realizes he is justified by faith, he will neglect good works and live in sin. The freedom we have from the Law is not carnal but spiritual, as we are released from the effects of our sin. In fact, good works can only be credited to us when our sins have been pardoned; it is only with freedom from the Law that we can obey it with our hearts. Prayer is our submission to God and should be done with all humility. God’s predestination is sovereign and independent of foreknowledge, and His election is eternal. Men’s claim that predestination is unfair merely exposes their inability to understand God. All those who are predestined will be called by God and will have faith. The final resurrection will be physical for both the elect and the reprobate. Hell is real and eternal.
*Book Fourth: Of the Eternal Means or Helps by Which God Allures Us into Fellowship with Christ, and Keeps Us in It.*
The final twenty chapters of Calvin’s *Institutes* mainly deal with the true nature of the Church and how the Roman Catholic Church is a corruption. The church has a physical aspect, but it is also comprised of the invisible fellowship of all believers. Membership in this spiritual church (the invisible Body of Christ) is necessary for forgiveness and salvation. The church is not perfect, and minor impurities should not discourage attendance, although serious doctrinal departures would justify leaving; i.e., Christians should break with the Roman Church as the false teaching of Catholicism proves it is not a true church. The highest role in a church is the role of teacher of the Word. The government of the Roman Church is corrupt. Jesus did not place Peter in charge of the church, and the “keys of the gospel” are a metaphor for teaching the gospel. There are distinct similarities between the history of the power\-grabbing popes and Paul’s description of the Antichrist. God’s revelation was given to multiple men who all had the same message; it was never given only to the leader or council of the Roman Church. All prophets, teachers, leaders, and councils are under the primacy of Scripture. God gave the church authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate members; the church has no other authority to make laws or govern kingdoms. Monastic vows are unbiblical and should be broken. Sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are outward signs of God’s covenants; they confirm Christ’s covenants to our feeble sense, but they do not make us worthy of them. Baptism is a sign of our burial and resurrection with Christ and does not impart righteousness. Infant baptism is the Christian’s circumcision and is an outward sign that infants are joined to the faith they will grow to understand. In communion, Jesus is [spiritually present](spiritual-presence.html) in the elements and passes life into us, but Jesus is not sacrificed again for every communion. Any sacrament besides baptism and the Lord’s Supper is an unbiblical law written by man. Christians are to respect civil government as society’s and the church’s protector, and we should obey civil authorities even when they are unjust.
One of history’s great thinkers and teachers, John Calvin was hugely influential in his lifetime, and his writings continue to impact our world five hundred years later. We are indebted to Calvin for his clarity of thought, his biblical approach to issues, and his faithfulness to promote the glory of God over all that would glorify man.
|
Who was Naboth in the Bible?
|
Answer
Naboth’s story in the Bible (1 Kings 21\) involves the downfall of the wicked king [Ahab](Ahab-and-Jezebel.html) of Israel and his infamous wife, Jezebel. Because of their mistreatment of Naboth, Ahab and Jezebel were each promised an untimely and violent demise.
Naboth was a Jezreelite. He had a vineyard in close proximity to Ahab’s palace in Jezreel. Ahab wanted to turn Naboth’s vineyard into a vegetable garden, since it was so near the palace (1 Kings 21:2\). So the king offered to pay Naboth for his vineyard or give him a better vineyard someplace else. Naboth, however, was unwilling to give up the land he had inherited from his fathers; it was not for sale at any price (verse 3\). Ahab was upset and went home “sullen and angry” because he could not have Naboth’s vineyard. The sulking king refused to eat (1 Kings 21:4\).
It may seem strange that Naboth would refuse the king’s offer, but Naboth was doing the right thing. God had commanded that a family’s inheritance not be sold: “The land must not be sold permanently” (Leviticus 25:23\); and “No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors” (Numbers 36:7\). Naboth was simply following the Law; it was King Ahab who wanted to ignore the Law, and then he pouted when the righteous Naboth would not agree.
In the palace, Queen Jezebel noticed that her husband was unhappy, so she asked him what was wrong. Ahab told her about his encounter with Naboth. Jezebel told him that, since he was the king, he could have anything he wanted. Then she promised to take action herself: “Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite” (1 Kings 21:7\). Jezebel proceeded to make arrangements to have Naboth disposed of. First, she forged letters from the king (verse 8\), directing the noblemen and elders of the city to “proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people” (verse 9\). Near Naboth were to be placed two “scoundrels” who would falsely accuse Naboth of cursing both God and the king. On these trumped up charges, Naboth was to be taken outside the city and stoned to death (verse 10\).
The evil plan against Naboth worked. Jezebel had been careful to plant two false witnesses, since a death sentence could not be carried out on the basis of only one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6\). So she followed the Law when it suited her; that is, when she could twist it to facilitate her ability to lie, steal, and murder. An especially heinous part of Jezebel’s plan was her proclamation of a day of fasting—using a religious ceremony to cover her murderous intent and ensure Naboth’s presence was depraved in the extreme. When the queen received word that Naboth was dead, she told Ahab that he could now take possession of Naboth’s vineyard, which Ahab was all too happy to do (1 Kings 21:15\).
Because of Ahab and Jezebel’s shocking murder of Naboth, God condemned them both. [Elijah the prophet](life-Elijah.html) came to the king with a message from God. In fact, Elijah met Ahab while the king was touring his ill\-gotten vineyard. The prophet said, “Have you not murdered a man and seized his property? . . . This is what the Lord says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” (1 Kings 21:19\). Next, Elijah prophesied that the Lord would bring disaster on the house of Ahab, so that every male in Ahab’s household would die and, rather than receive an honorable burial, they would be eaten by wild animals (verse 21 and 24\). Then the prophet foretold the queen’s fate: “Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel” (1 Kings 21:23\).
After hearing this terrible pronouncement, Ahab repented of his actions toward Naboth; he [tore his clothes](tear-clothes-Bible.html), put on [sackcloth](sackcloth-and-ashes.html), and humbled himself before God (1 Kings 21:27\). Because of Ahab’s response, the Lord chose not to bring the promised disaster on Ahab during his lifetime but during his son’s days instead (verse 28\). Ahab was indeed an evil man. In fact, he “sold himself to do evil” (1 Kings 21:25\), and he “did more evil in the eyes of the LORD than any of those before him” (1 Kings 16:30\). One of the things the Lord hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17\), and Ahab and Jezebel were certainly stained with the innocent blood of Naboth. Yet, even in God’s judgment of Ahab, He showed mercy in response to a humbled heart.
The Lord was true to His word. Ahab was killed in battle; his blood was washed out of the chariot in the same place where Naboth had been stoned to death, and the dogs were there, just as Elijah had said (1 Kings 22:34–38\). Jezebel was killed, and her body was eaten by dogs (2 Kings 9:30–37\). And Ahab’s family were all killed (2 Kings 10:1–17\). Thus Naboth was avenged.
|
What is a sin offering?
|
Answer
A sin offering was a sacrifice, made according to the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html), which provided atonement for sin. The Hebrew phrase for “sin offering” literally means “fault offering.” The sin offering was made for sins committed in ignorance, or unintentional sins. The ritualistic method of the sin offering and the animal to be offered varied depending on the status of the sinner. For example, a high priest who sinned unintentionally would offer a young bull. A king or a prince would offer a young male goat. People in the private sector would sacrifice a young female goat or lamb, unless they were too poor, in which case they were only required to offer two turtledoves or pigeons. Full details of the sin offering and the requirements associated with it are enumerated in Leviticus 4 and Numbers 15\.
Again, the sin offering was sacrificed when a person sinned unintentionally by breaking one of the Lord’s commandments and later realized his guilt (Leviticus 4:27\). Sin offerings were also part of the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement, as the high priest made two sin offerings: a bull for himself and a young male goat for the congregation (Leviticus 16:11, 15\). In a sin offering, the live animal was brought to the altar, and the sinner was required to lay his hand on the head of the animal (Leviticus 4:29\). Then the animal was killed, at which point the priest would take some of the blood and put it on the horns of the altar (verse 30\). In some cases, some of the blood was also sprinkled inside the tabernacle (verses 6 and 17\). Then all the rest of the blood was poured at the base of the altar (verse 34\). The fat of the sin offering was removed and burned on the altar. In some cases, the body of the animal was burned outside the camp (verse 12\); in other cases, the meat of the sin offering could be eaten by the priests. “In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven” (verse 35\).
The sin offering was a poignant picture of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. He was a “[lamb](Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html) without blemish” (1 Peter 1:19; cf. Leviticus 4:32\) whose precious blood was spilled after being publicly slain. Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem, just as the sin offering was to be burnt outside the camp (Hebrews 13:12; cf. Leviticus 4:12\). Just as the sacrificial lamb makes atonement for unintentional sins, Jesus’ blood made atonement for the sin of any person who realizes his guilt before God and asks for that atonement to be applied to him (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:7\). “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22\).
Every person has broken the Law of God in one way or another, whether we realize it or not. Humanity is sinful, and we are all guilty before God (Romans 3:23\). It must have been painful for sinners under the Mosaic Law to slaughter an innocent animal when they knew they were the ones who had done wrong. In the same way, it is painful for us to admit our guilt and to know that the innocent and holy Son of God took the punishment for our sin. But this salvation God has provided, and it is the only way. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6\). Praise the Lord that sin offerings are no longer required, because we have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19\).
|
What is the ragamuffin gospel?
|
Answer
The ragamuffin gospel is a concept made popular by the best\-selling and influential book of the same name, originally published in 1990\. Author Brennan Manning, a former Catholic priest, wrote the book “for the bedraggled, beat\-up, and burnt\-out” (page 14\), not for the “superspiritual” (page 13\). *The Ragamuffin Gospel* proved popular with several Christian songwriters and musicians, including Michael W. Smith and Rich Mullins, who formed the Ragamuffin Band in 1993\.
Manning’s books, including *The Ragamuffin Gospel*, emphasize the grace of Jesus in ministering to the “ragamuffins”—the ragged, disreputable people of His day—the sick, the tax collectors and sinners, the woman caught in adultery. Jesus often served these “ragamuffins,” while the religious leaders of the day opposed Him and refused to dirty their hands with society’s problems.
This article is not a review of Manning’s book—or a critique of his ecumenical, mystical approach to spirituality— but rather a discussion on how an understanding of [God’s grace](grace-of-God.html) plays out in the lives of believers. Manning says, “We can’t earn God’s acceptance, any more than we can earn our salvation. Yet \[He] gives it to us, willingly—no matter who we are or what we’ve done. We are all ragamuffins. Each of us come beat\-up, burnt\-out, ragged and dirty to sit at our Father’s feet. And there he smiles upon us—the chosen objects of his ‘furious love.’” In other words, Jesus accepts the broken. He accepts those people who know they will never be perfect. The ragamuffin gospel says that we can come to God in our sin and ask for forgiveness. In Isaiah 1:18, God offers the invitation to come, though our sins are as scarlet, and He will make them white as snow. God desires sinners to come to Him as they are so He can cleanse them.
Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15\). “Jesus comes not for the super\-spiritual but for the wobbly and the weak\-kneed who know they don’t have it all together, and who are not too proud to accept the handout of amazing grace” (*The Ragamuffin Gospel*, page 27\). As with many themes in the Bible, it is important to understand the delicate balance that God presents—His grace to take us “as we are” and our willing response to not *stay* “as we are.”
To fully understand grace and the balance God’s Word presents, we need to consider who we were without Christ and who we become with Christ. We were born in sin (Psalm 51:5\), and we were guilty of breaking God’s law (Romans 3:9–20, 23; 1 John 1:8–10\). We were enemies of God (Romans 5:6, 10; 8:7; Colossians 1:21\), deserving of death (Romans 6:23a). We had no way to save ourselves (Romans 3:20\). Spiritually, we were destitute, blind, unclean, and dead. Our souls deserve eternal punishment. To say that we are all ragamuffins is an understatement.
But then came grace. God extended His favor to us. Grace is what saves us (Ephesians 2:8\). Grace is the essence of the gospel (Acts 20:24\). Grace gives us victory over sin (James 4:6\). Grace gives us “eternal encouragement and good hope” (2 Thessalonians 2:16\).
The Bible repeatedly calls grace a “gift” (e.g., Ephesians 4:7\). Grace is the ongoing, benevolent act of God working in us, without which we can do nothing (John 15:5\). Grace is greater than our sin (Romans 5:20\), more abundant than we expect (1 Timothy 1:14\), and too wonderful for words (2 Corinthians 9:15\).
So how do we keep that grace from becoming “[cheap grace](cheap-grace.html)”—a “grace” that promises all the benefits of Christianity without repentance or obedience? Cheap grace seeks to hide the cost of discipleship, to nullify our willing response to God’s gift of grace. While we believe that God’s grace covers all our sins, we can also accept that faith manifests itself in repentance, obedience, and a transformed heart. Believers are new creations.
We come to God as ragamuffins and accept His grace, and God calls us to renewal. As we accept God’s grace throughout lives, we do not stay in sin. We seek to be transformed to the image of Christ. He receives us just as we are and then begins to change us as we submit to Him in obedience. Yes, the gospel is for ragamuffins. No, God does not leave people as ragamuffins.
|
What does the Bible say about predetermination?
|
Answer
In theology, predetermination is the act of God by which He [foreordained](foreordained.html) every event throughout eternity. Everything, from the flight of a sparrow to path of a hurricane, was destined to occur by God in eternity past in the exact manner in which it occurs. As a leaf falls off a tree, it follows the exact course God planned for it to take from branch to ground when He created the universe; when a duck glides across the surface of a pond, the height and spacing of the ripples it makes were all foreordained by God. The One who holds the universe together (Colossians 1:17\) has a plan, and His plan is being accomplished.
Predetermination is also called causal determination; when God is the determiner, it can also be called theological determination. Predetermination is related to [predestination](predestination.html), although the latter term is usually specific to God’s choice of who would be saved (see Romans 8:30\).
All prophecy reveals the fact of predetermination. Daniel 11, for example, contains dozens of detailed prophecies concerning future events in Persia, Greece, Egypt, and other nations. Three times, the phrase *at the appointed time* is used (Daniel 11:27, 29, 35\). So, all these things *will* happen (it’s a certainty), and they will happen at the *appointed* time—appointed by whom? By God in His predetermination.
Also in Daniel 11 we have the “willful king” prophecy about the Antichrist: “The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard\-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place” (verse 36\). Note the last clause: *what has been determined must take place*. The events that Daniel sees *must* happen. Why must they happen? They have been determined (by God) to take place.
Some argue that prophecy simply reveals the foreknowledge of an omniscient God without implying His determination. In other words, God can see the future without choosing it. The counter\-argument is that, if God sees a future event and states that it will happen, then that event has essentially been predetermined because, if it fails to happen or if something else happens instead, then God is either unknowlegeable or a liar. If God prophesies it, it will occur; the course is set; the destiny is sealed. Also, Daniel 11:36 clearly speaks of predetermination concerning the “time of wrath.”
An obvious problem that arises regarding predetermination is the idea of [man’s free will](free-will.html). If God has predetermined all things, then are humans nothing but passive game pieces moved about by the Divine Hand? No, the Bible also teaches human responsibility, which implies free will. Jesus said, “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!” (Matthew 18:7\). When Jesus says that sins “must come,” He speaks of predetermination. When He pronounces a woe on those through whom sins come, He speaks of personal responsibility. In some incomprehensible way, God’s predetermination does not negate our accountability in the choices we make. [God is sovereign](God-is-sovereign.html), yet our choices are real.
Acts 4:27–28 is another passage that reflects the predetermination of God. The early church in Jerusalem prays, “Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” There are several remarkable statements in this prayer: God’s “power” and “will” were involved in “deciding beforehand” what would happen. That’s predetermination. Jesus is the “anointed” or “chosen” one. That’s predetermination. Even more mind\-boggling is what was predetermined: the wicked conspiracy of Herod and Pilate and the mob to murder Jesus. The Son of God was crucified, yet that wicked act is covered by God’s predetermination. It’s no wonder that the prayer begins with “Sovereign Lord” (verse 24\).
Joseph acknowledged the predetermination of God in Egypt when he forgave his brothers of their wickedness toward him: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20\). Man’s intention is directly contrasted with God’s intention regarding the same event.
A belief in predetermination lets God be God:
“I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?”
(Isaiah 44:6–8\)
Part of what identifies God as the Sovereign Ruler is the fact that He proclaimed “long ago” what will happen.
Scripture teaches that God’s predetermination results in God’s glory. God predetermined the crucifixion of Christ, with the result that salvation is possible and God is glorified. God predetermined the abuse of Joseph, with the result that many lives were saved (and God was glorified). God predetermined that Jonah preach in Nineveh, and, despite Jonah’s ideas to the contrary, he preached there, with the result that the whole city repented (and God was glorified). God has predetermined the events of your life, too, and He will be glorified in you.
|
What does it mean to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy?
|
Answer
The fourth of the ten commandments is “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8, ESV). Following the command are statements defining the [Sabbath](Sabbath-day-rest.html) as “the seventh day” (verse 10\), dedicating it to “the Lord your God” (verse 10\), forbidding all work in it, applying it to everyone in Israel, and citing the basis for it: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (verse 11\).
The Israelites under the Mosaic Law were to keep in mind that no work could be done on the seventh day of the week. If we parse the command, we can get a better picture of what it says:
*Remember*. This is the only command of the ten that starts with the word *remember*. This could mean that the Sabbath command had been given earlier—in fact, God had decreed a Sabbath rest in Exodus 16:22–30\. Or the word *remember* could simply mean “keep this command in mind” with no reference to an earlier directive. Regardless, the word is emphatic; the children of Israel were not to grow lax in their observation of this command.
*The Sabbath day*. The word *Sabbath* comes from a Hebrew word meaning “day of rest.” The Bible specifies that this day of rest is the seventh day of the week, what we would call “Saturday,” or in the Israelite mindset, sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. God set the pattern for the Sabbath rest in Genesis 2:2, ceasing from His work of creation on the seventh day. God’s action (or, rather, His inaction) in Genesis 2 foreshadowed the Law’s command in Exodus 20:8\.
*To keep it holy*. This four\-word phrase in English is only one word in Hebrew. It means “consecrate,” “set apart,” or “[sanctify](sanctified.html).” The Israelites were to make a distinction between the seventh day and the rest of the week. The Sabbath was different. It was to be dedicated to the Lord. The priests were to double the daily sacrifices on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9–10\), marking the day with increased sacred activity. The rest of the Israelites were to mark the day with decreased activity—no work at all—in honor of the Lord. The penalty for desecrating the Sabbath with work was death (Exodus 31:14; Numbers 15:32–36\).
Keeping of the Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between Israel and the Lord: “You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come” (Exodus 31:13\). As Israel kept the Sabbath set apart, they were reminded that they were also being set apart: “So you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy” (verse 13\). Believers today, being under the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html), are not bound to keep the sign of the Old Covenant.
|
What does the Bible teach about church structure?
|
Answer
There are four basic forms of [church government](church-government.html) in existence today. They are episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, and non\-governmental, but it should be noted that those terms are by no means restricted to their corresponding denominational name (e.g., some Baptist churches use a presbyterian form of government). Although these forms are not specifically laid out in the Bible, we do have some guidelines that we can apply.
**Church Structure \- Head of the church**
If we were to create an organizational chart, Jesus Christ would fill the positions of Founder, President, CEO, CFO, and Chairman of the Board. In biblical language, Christ is “head over everything for the [church](what-is-the-church.html)” (Ephesians 1:22; cf. Colossians 1:18\). The church is “his body, of which he is the Savior” (Ephesians 5:23\). Jesus’ relationship with the church is very close and loving, for “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25\). He desires “to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:27\).
**Church Structure \- Church offices**
The pastor (literally, “shepherd”) is the human head of a church. In the early church, it seems there was a plurality of [elders](duties-elder-church.html), also called “bishops” or “overseers.” It is the elders who lead the church and are responsible for teaching the Word and guiding, admonishing, and exhorting the people of God. (See 1 Timothy 3:1\-7 and Acts 14:23\.) The [man](women-pastors.html) who fills the duties of a pastor/teacher is actually one of the elders.
The other office in the church is that of [deacon](deacons-church.html). Deacons are [men](women-deacons.html) who handle the practical concerns of the church, such as caring for the sick, elderly or widowed and maintaining buildings or other property. (See Acts 6:1\-6 and 1 Timothy 3:8\-12\.)
**Church Structure \- Relationship between the offices**
Deacons were first chosen by the church in Jerusalem (see Acts 6\). The apostles, who functioned as elders there, appointed the deacons and set out their duties. Thus, deacons have always been under the authority of the elders.
While the teaching pastor shares responsibility for spiritual oversight with the other elders of a church, Paul indicates the position carries an added obligation. “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17\). Thus, the pastor and other elders are equal in authority but not in duty.
The average Protestant church in America has a paid pastor who preaches and shepherds and often a paid assistant pastor who can “direct the affairs of the church well.”
**Church Structure \- Relationships between churches**
Paul was concerned with how various churches supported each other, especially since each church is “the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” (1 Corinthians 12:27\). Paul praised the Philippians for sharing with him “in the matter of giving and receiving” (Philippians 4:15\), which means they supported him financially so he could strengthen other churches. Paul also facilitated the collection of aid for the beleaguered church in Jerusalem (Acts 24:17; Romans 15:26\-27; 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8\-9\). Throughout the New Testament, churches sent each other greetings (1 Corinthians 16:19\), sent members to visit and help other churches (Acts 11:22, 25\-26; 14:27\), and cooperated to reach agreements on right doctrine (Acts 15:1\-35\).
|
What is Yahwism?
|
Answer
*Yahwism* can refer to a couple different things. One use of the term relates to the JEDP theory—Yahwism, in that context, is the use of the name Yahweh in the Pentateuch. The Yahwist (or Jawist) is the *J* of JEDP—the supposed earliest contributor to the Pentateuch. The JEDP theory has no basis in reality and is an attempt by liberal scholars to disprove the authority of the Bible.
The other use of the term *Yahwism*, and the focus of this article, is as the name of the [Tanakh\-based](Jewish-Bible.html) monotheism of the Israelites, as distinct from the polytheism of the surrounding nations. The name comes from the covenant name for God, Yahweh ([*YHWH*](YHWH-tetragrammaton.html)), and it is the only name for God that modern Yahwism accepts as biblical. Yahwists reject the names God, Jehovah, and Lord as being pagan in origin. They call Jesus “Yahshua.”
Modern Yahwism holds the Hebrew Bible to be the sole authoritative book. Yahwism also accepts the [Synoptic Gospels](Synoptic-Gospels.html) and the epistle of James (since they see those books as supporting the Hebrew Bible). Yahwists reject the Gospel of John and the writings of Paul (a Pharisee who was not included in the original twelve disciples), believing that those books represent human attempts to add to Yahweh’s Word. They also reject the [Talmud](Talmud.html) and all rabbinical additions to the Tanakh.
Yahwists sometimes refer to Yahwism as “Israelism” and to themselves as “True Israelites.” Anyone who calls God by a name other than “Yahweh” (such as “God”) or who accepts the oral tradition of the Jews is not a True Israelite and has bought into a false religion. According to Yahwism, Christianity and most versions of Judaism are false religions.
Yahwism rejects the doctrine of the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html), teaching that Yahweh cannot be “divided” into different persons or beings. Of course, saying that God is “divided” into Father, Son, and Spirit misrepresents Trinitarian doctrine, but that is the wording used by Yahwists. Yahwism teaches that Yahshua (Jesus) honored the Torah and was a true teacher of Yahwism, but He was not divine in any way and did not die for anyone’s sins. Yahwism teaches that salvation only comes through keeping Yahweh’s covenant in the Torah faithfully.
Yahwism relies on a works\-based salvation: if one returns to a proper keeping of Yahweh’s commandments, he can enter into the covenant with Israel, become a “True Israelite,” and be made an heir of eternal life. Even then, Yahwists do no keep the whole Law—they only observe four of the seven feasts of the Lord, they do not offer sacrifices, etc. They deny the fact of [progressive revelation](progressive-revelation.html) and that Jesus is both Lord and Savior: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” (Hebrews 1:1–3\).
|
What are cloven tongues?
|
Answer
When people hear of “cloven tongues,” they almost immediately think of Acts 2:3\. As the Holy Spirit filled the 120 disciples in the upper room on the [Day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html), “there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them” (KJV). Other translations refer to “divided tongues as of fire” (ESV) or “tongues as of fire distributing themselves” (NASB).
The word *cloven* means “divided” or “separated.” The picture is of something like a large fire appearing in the room then dividing into “tongues” that rested momentarily upon each person in the room. Luke is careful to say that this was not actual fire, only “what seemed to be . . . fire” (Acts 2:3\). The dividing of the “fire” into small, tongue\-shaped flames signifies several things: John the Baptist’s prophecy of Jesus’ baptizing people “with the Holy Spirit and fire” was possibly being fulfilled (see Matthew 3:11\), there is one Spirit who gives many gifts (see 1 Corinthians 12:11\), there was a great [variety of languages](gift-of-tongues.html) that the disciples were being enabled to speak (see Acts 2:6–11\), and the disciples were being granted “fiery” eloquence to preach the gospel to all nations (see Acts 4:13\).
Before His ascension, Jesus had told His disciples not to leave Jerusalem but to stay there and “wait for the gift my Father promised. . . . In a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:4–5\). The gift of God came with an audible sign—the sound like a “rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2, KJV)—and with a visible sign—the “cloven tongues like as of fire” (verse 3, KJV). The Lord was true to His word, and the followers of Christ were changed forever. The presence of God Himself had come to indwell us, and the world was turned upside down (Acts 17:6\).
|
What is excommunication in the Bible?
|
Answer
First, we should note that the Bible never uses the word *excommunication*. It’s a word that has been adopted by some religious groups, especially by the Catholic Church, to denote the formal process of removing someone from membership and participation in the church, from relationship with the church community, or, in the Catholic view, even from the family of God.
While the Bible does not teach that a Christian can lose his salvation, it does describe the process of [church discipline](church-discipline.html) in several passages. The final step of church discipline is excommunication—a removal from the local church.
In Matthew 18:15–17, Jesus teaches His disciples about excommunication. The Lord details a multi\-step approach for responding to sinful offenses in the church community:
Step 1: Go to the person privately, tell him how he has sinned against you, and be reconciled if he is willing. If the offending person repents, no more action is required.
Step 2: If he won’t listen, go back with two or three witnesses to have the conversation again, establishing the facts and the evidence.
Step 3: If he still refuses to listen and repent from his sinfulness, bring him before the full church body and make the case against him.
Step 4: If there is still no repentance, the church is to excommunicate the sinner. Jesus’ words are “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17, ESV).
The Jews saw both groups Jesus mentions—[Gentiles](what-is-a-Gentile.html) and [tax collectors](Bible-tax-collectors.html)—as outsiders. Gentiles were pagan idolaters, and tax collectors were in collusion with Rome. In Jesus’ day, religious Israelites would not associate beyond what was strictly necessary with Gentiles or tax collectors. They would not have meals with them, for instance, or invite them to social gatherings. So, when Jesus says to view the [unrepentant](unrepentance-unrepentant.html) sinner in the church as “a Gentile and a tax collector,” He is instructing the church to officially and with clear communication stop having close fellowship with the unrepentant sinner; the sinner is to be put out of the close\-knit community of Christians. This is excommunication.
What is the purpose of excommunication? The dismissal of an unrepentant, defiant sinner from the community of believers is not about public shaming or judgment. It’s about loving that person enough to do what is best for him or her and about doing what is best for the church as a whole.
We have an example of excommunication and its aftermath in two passages from Paul. A man in the church in Corinth was having sex with his step\-mother, a sin so egregious “that even pagans do not tolerate \[it]” (1 Corinthians 5:1\). Paul rebukes the Christians in Corinth for accepting this man’s incest. Apparently, the Corinthians had misunderstood the grace of God so badly that they had come to believe all sin should be tolerated, maybe even celebrated proudly, as evidence of God’s grace and forgiveness (verse 2\).
Paul says, “No way.” Sin in the church must be dealt with. He instructs the Corinthians to come together for the purpose of excommunication. The local body of believers was, under [apostolic authority](what-is-an-apostle.html), to turn this man over to Satan for “the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5:4–5\). Evidently, in this particular case, there was a physical affliction of supernatural origin associated with the excommunication; it was excommunication with an added apostolic curse.
Scripture does not indicate that every excommunication is followed by physical consequences. The general principle, however, is that excommunication lets the sinner experience the full, painful consequences of his sinful choices so that he will repent, submit to God, and be saved from spiritual ruin. The motive for excommunication is not punishment or vengeance but reformation and spiritual health.
Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians deals with the follow\-up to excommunication. In 2 Corinthians 2:5–11, Paul seems to be talking about the very same person he had instructed the church to excommunicate. The sinner had repented, and Paul writes, “The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him” (verses 6–8\). As soon as the excommunicated believer repents, he should be welcomed back into warm relationship with the church community. Once repentance has been established, the excommunication should be fully reversed. The goal has been accomplished.
So, who is eligible for excommunication? The Bible is clear that excommunication is only for church members (not unbelievers) and only in response to obvious and ongoing sin from which a person refuses to repent despite multiple exhortations: “I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” (1 Corinthians 5:11\).
Five important things to remember about excommunication:
1\. The Bible never instructs individual Christians to decide on their own or even in a small group to “excommunicate” another believer. Excommunication is meant to be a formal action taken by the local church as a whole.
2\. Excommunication is primarily about relationship. Those in the church are specifically instructed to stop sharing meals with the unrepentant person (1 Corinthians 5:11\), to limit their contact with him.
3\. This process of excommunication is for believers, for those who declare themselves to have sincerely trusted in Christ for their salvation. Excommunication is the church’s response to one who says, “Yes, I’m a Christian, and, no, I will not turn from this sin.”
4\. The process of excommunication is not meant for someone who admits his sin and is repentant but continues to struggle to break free of it. If a believer sins and, when confronted, says, “Yes, that was wrong. I’m sorry. I want to start again,” he is to be [forgiven](seventy-times-seven.html)—even if he has sinned in the same way repeatedly (Matthew 18:21–22\). In such a case, Scripture doesn’t suggest that person’s sin should be exposed to the full church as a kind of penalty, unless he chooses to reveal it himself.
5\. The goal of excommunication is restoration. According to Jesus, the whole process of removing a member from the church is to be gradual, deliberate, and cautious. If at any point in the process the sinning person repents, then “you have gained your brother” (Matthew 18:15\), and the fellowship is restored.
|
Who were Hymenaeus and Alexander, and what does it mean that their faith was shipwrecked?
|
Answer
Hymenaeus and Alexander were men in the early church in Ephesus who had “suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith” and so were “handed over to Satan” by the apostle Paul (1 Timothy 1:19–20\). Hymenaeus and Alexander are thus examples of those who reject the true doctrine and follow the false. Later, Hymenaeus is mentioned with Philetus, another false teacher (2 Timothy 2:17\). An opponent of Paul named Alexander the metalworker is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:15–16, but whether or not this is the same Alexander mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:19 is unknown.
Paul writes to his apprentice, [Timothy](life-Timothy.html), for the express purpose of exhorting him to “fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience” (1 Timothy 1:18–19\) while pastoring a church. Paul begins his epistle with a warning against false doctrine and myths (verses 3–4\) and a charge to remain true to “[sound doctrine](sound-doctrine.html) that conforms to the gospel” (verses 10–11\). Paul then provides the names of Hymaneaus and Alexander as examples of what can happen when someone does not fight the good fight and keep the faith and a clear conscience.
Here is the passage that mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander: “Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:18–20\).
Paul does not expound on the error of Hymenaeus and Alexander. Timothy obviously knew who they were and knew their situation well. Second Timothy 2:18 gives a little more detail, saying that Hymanaeus and his new partner in sin, Philetus, “have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” Paul likens their false doctrine to a gangrene that spreads corruption and destroys life (verse 17\).
The idea of the “shipwrecked” faith of Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:19 is that they had veered off course, away from good teaching, and drifted into the dangerous rocks of false teaching. They had wrecked their faith. Paul clearly links faith with a [good conscience](clear-conscience.html) (and the righteous behavior that comes with good conscience) in 1 Timothy 1:5 and 19\. Interestingly, the word translated “rejected” in verse 19 is a nautical term meaning “thrown overboard.” Hymenaeus and Alexander had tossed out the good conscience that comes with proper belief—in other words, they loved sin. The “ship” of their faith, not having the ballast it needed, went out of control and wrecked. So those who accept false teachings and ignore their conscience will suffer spiritual damage, like a ship that hits the rocks and is broken up.
It seems that Hymenaeus and Alexander must have professed faith in Christ at one point, since it is their “faith” that was shipwrecked. But they refused to follow the dictates of their conscience. They walked according to the flesh and not the Spirit (see Romans 8:5–9\), claiming the name of Christ while behaving like unbelievers. As commentator Albert Barnes wrote, “People become infidels because they wish to indulge in sin. No man can be a sensualist, and yet love that gospel which enjoins purity of life. If people would keep a good conscience, the way to a steady belief in the gospel would be easy. If people will not, they must expect sooner or later to be landed in infidelity” (*Notes on the Bible*, commentary on 1 Timothy 1:19\). Hymenaeus and Alexander did not lose their salvation; either they were pretenders exposed for what they were or they were straying believers disciplined by a loving God (see Hebrews 12:6\).
Paul says that he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander “to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:19\). There is one other time when Paul had delivered a person to Satan: a man who professed to believe in Jesus but simultaneously living an immoral lifestyle was delivered “over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5:5\). Note that the reason Paul metes out such a harsh [apostolic](what-is-an-apostle.html) judgment is the benefit of all those involved. The church would be purified, and the erring individuals would be brought to repentance. The goal for the man in Corinth was that he would submit to God and be saved from spiritual ruin. The goal for Hymenaeus and Alexander was that they “be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20\).
Paul himself had been a [blasphemer](blasphemy-blaspheme.html) at one time (1 Timothy 1:13\), but, praise God, he testified that “the grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (verse 14\). Paul’s desire for the shipwrecked Hymenaeus and Alexander is that they would also learn not to blaspheme and come to know the grace and mercy of the Lord.
|
Is it possible to make a deal with the devil?
|
Answer
What if [Satan](who-Satan.html) or one of his demons offered you a deal? He will give you anything your heart desires—wealth, power, beauty, great skill, etc.—in this life. In exchange, he owns your soul for all eternity.
The idea of making a deal with the devil was made popular by the classic legend of Faust, a scholar who made a bargain with a demon named Mephistopheles. Many similar stories have been told around the same theme. In some of the legends, the person tricks the devil in some way, escaping the contract and getting his soul back. In others, the devil wins with deception or a double\-cross.
In any case, the idea of [forfeiting one’s soul](sell-soul-devil.html) in a deal with the devil is much more cultural and literary than it is biblical. The Bible never records an account of a human being bargaining with Satan or demons.
The Bible does depict the devil as a deal\-maker, however. It’s just that he is shown attempting to make deals with God Himself as opposed to mere mortals. In the book of Job, for instance, Satan proposes a kind of wager with God. If God would allow Satan to cause great suffering for Job, Satan argues, Job would surely curse God to His face (Job 1:9–11\). God allows that to play out with surprising results.
Much later in human history, the devil attempts to make a deal with Jesus at the end of His forty days of fasting in the wilderness. After showing Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” (Matthew 4:9\), Satan offers them all to Jesus if the Lord will bow down and worship him. Jesus sends Satan away with a rebuke from God’s Word (verse 10\).
The Bible gives no support to the notion that people can make a deal with the devil, but some people have attempted to make such a bargain unilaterally, pledging themselves to Satan in hopes of receiving some special favors back from him. In a sense, that’s the nature of [idolatry](idolatry-definition.html) and genuine [witchcraft](Bible-witchcraft.html) as described in the Bible. When a pagan worshiper dedicated a sacrifice to his gods, he hoped for something in return—fruitful crops, victory in battle, etc. (see 2 Chronicles 28:23\). When a sorcerer or witch practiced her craft, she hoped to gain special knowledge or power.
From the Bible’s perspective, making a deal with the devil would not make any sense for several reasons:
First, the Bible reveals Satan to be a liar. His greatest weapon is deception. From Eve’s conversation with the serpent (Genesis 3\) to Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees as children of “the father of lies” (John 8:44\), the devil is always shown taking what is true and twisting it to corrupt and destroy human beings. Anyone who would attempt a deal with such a being is a fool.
Second, while Satan may have some power as the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2\) to manipulate the circumstances of a person’s life, the Bible never shows that power as absolute—only God has absolute power. Also, the Bible always presents the devil’s power as bringing pain and destruction and corruption and death along with any fleeting success. The pleasures of sin endure only “for a season” (Hebrews 11:25, KJV), and any theoretical pact made with Satan would end in misery.
Finally, Satan cannot own human souls. All souls belong to the God who created them (Ezekiel 18:4\). Hell is not Satan’s kingdom. In spite of a million jokes and stories to the contrary, Satan will not reign as master of hell, relishing his power over human souls; no, he will be sentenced to the lake of fire as a prisoner himself (Revelation 20:10\).
The truth is far worse than the legend of Faust would imply. According to God’s Word, every human soul is already bound for hell. No deal with the devil has to be struck to ensure that fate. Because of our sin, our rebellion against God, we are “by nature deserving of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3\). We stand “condemned already” (John 3:18\). Without some change of course, our souls will end up in hell without ever having to trade them away to Satan.
We don’t need a deal with the devil—we’re already on his side—we need a deal with God Himself. We need for Him to save our souls, to change our destination. The problem is that we have nothing to offer Him in trade. He needs nothing from us (Romans 11:33–36\), and all our attempts to appease His wrath through religious observance are futile (Isaiah 1:11\). But the good news—[the gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html)—is that God loves us and has offered us a unilateral “bargain” of His own. He will save our souls, giving us everything our hearts truly desire for eternity, in exchange for nothing but our faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. In a great exchange, Jesus has [appeased God’s wrath](propitiation.html) for us, taking our sin and its penalty upon Himself (1 John 4:10; 1 Peter 2:24\). In Christ, God will make us alive when we were dead. He will fill our futile lives on this side of eternity with meaningful work and joyful anticipation. See Ephesians 2:1–10 to read more about this pact that God offers.
|
Is there any truth to the Bermuda Triangle conspiracy theories?
|
Answer
The triangle\-shaped area between Miami, Bermuda, and Puerto Rico has been called the “Bermuda Triangle” or the “Devil’s Triangle” by conspiracy theorists because of many unexplained events that have occurred in that area. The phrase was first used by author Vincent Gaddis in a magazine article published in 1964, and the “Bermuda Triangle” has since become a popular label. It should be said that area of the ocean is not actually called the Bermuda Triangle in any official sense.
The Bermuda Triangle’s pop culture appeal is based on many sensationalistic stories associated with it. A number of bizarre and high\-profile accidents have taken place in that area of the ocean. Most famous are incidents involving the USS *Cyclops*, a Navy cargo ship carrying 300 men and many tons of ore in 1918; two other ships similar to the *Cyclops*; and “Flight 19” in which five Navy bombers and a rescue ship all disappeared within the “Devil’s Triangle” in 1945\. In all of these cases, no wreckage was found. It was as if the vessels and the men aboard simply vanished.
Many theories have been proposed as to why these ships and planes disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle. Some say the disappearances could be the result of human error, [terrorism](Bible-terrorism.html), or magnetic abnormalities (affecting compasses) inherent to the area. Others have postulated gigantic underwater methane eruptions that could cause ships to be sucked downward into the sea. Other theories are more outlandish: the [lost city of Atlantis](lost-city-Atlantis.html) has come into the conversation as have sea monsters, time warps, gravity fields, and [alien abduction](aliens-UFOs.html)—the last was fueled by a Navy report about Flight 19, stating that it was as if the planes had “flown to Mars.”
Perhaps the most telling data about the Bermuda Triangle comes from Lloyd’s of London, an insurance company that insures ships and sea vessels. A policy from Lloyd’s of London for sea\-faring vessels that travel often through the Bermuda Triangle is no more expensive than policies for other areas of the ocean. In fact, statistics show the Bermuda Triangle is no more or less dangerous than any other similar\-sized part of the sea. The U.S. Coast Guard says, “The Coast Guard does not recognize the existence of the so\-called Bermuda Triangle as a geographic area of specific hazard to ships or planes. In a review of many aircraft and vessel losses in the area over the years, there has been nothing discovered that would indicate that casualties were the result of anything other than physical causes. No extraordinary factors have ever been identified” (Coast Guard History: “Does the Bermuda Triangle really exist?” <http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/triangle.asp>, accessed June 1, 2016\).
We have no reason to believe the disappearances in the so\-called Bermuda Triangle are connected to each other. We reject any theory that assigns a malevolent supernatural power to a particular area of the globe—the name “Devil’s Triangle” suggests that Satan is lurking in the water off the Florida coast, ready to snatch any boat or plane that trespasses his domain—such theories cannot be supported biblically. It is best to view the disappearances as tragic, highly publicized events shrouded in mystery, but no more mysterious or frequent than other events elsewhere.
By their very nature, conspiracy theories cast doubt on official channels of information. Bermuda Triangle theorists set up new, supposedly more trustworthy sources of information to promulgate their stories. The biggest conspiracy of all is the belief that there is a small group of individuals lying to the larger populace about pretty much everything. If one accepts this belief, there is literally no end to the conspiracies one can see in the news, the government, and the annals of history. This is not to say that hidden agendas and propaganda don’t exist—it is quite clear that the general public does not get all the facts. How far down that rabbit hole goes is hard to say. How do we really know what is true and what is a lie—about the Bermuda Triangle or anything else?
Ever since the Garden of Eden, there have been two sources of information: God’s trustworthy Word and the devil’s lies (John 8:44; Revelation 12:9\). It isn’t surprising that we’re a bit suspicious—after all, a lie was the original reason for man’s fall into sin and his ensuing death (Genesis 3:1–13\). The only way to survive spiritually is by trusting God (Proverbs 3:5–6\). God does not lie (Numbers 23:19\), and He has provided us with His [inspired Word](Bible-inspired.html) (2 Timothy 3:16\). This world is full of liars, and it is ruled by Satan. But Jesus said that rule would not last (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11\). Truth will triumph (John 14:6; Revelation 19:11–16\).
|
What does it mean to be theocentric?
|
Answer
To be theocentric means to live in a way that puts God at the center of life or makes Him the main focus of life. To be theocentric is to be “God\-centered.” A theocentric life is lived in the understanding that all things flow “from Him, and through Him and to Him” (Romans 11:36\). By contrast, an anthropocentric life puts man at the center. [Existentialism](existentialism.html) puts existence at the center—just living is meaning enough—but theocentrism points to God as the meaning and ultimate motivation for what we do; God gives us our identity and purpose. As the [Westminster Confession](Westminster-Confession-of-Faith.html) states, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” This is a theocentric viewpoint.
It is rational to believe that finite, limited beings can find the most satisfaction when focused on the infinite, unlimited God. In times of our weakness, we find strength (2 Corinthians 12:9\); in times of spiritual lack, we find fulfillment (Matthew 5:6\). And the fountain never runs dry because God Himself is eternal. Putting God at the center of our lives—living theocentrically—naturally gives a finite human existence eternal meaning. Theocentrism has what existentialism and anthropocentrism do not: a focus that goes beyond the life we see around us. Living a life with God in the center encourages virtues like mercy, peace, humility, selflessness, and environmental stewardship. If, however, one is convinced that experiencing this life is all there is, the goal becomes gaining and experiencing as much as possible, as soon as possible. Unfortunately, living for the moment often leads to misery in the form of addiction, unwanted pregnancies, broken relationships, and other regrets. Living for humanistic, anthropocentric goals also has its problems—if the advancement of man is the highest good, ambitious leaders can justify almost anything to ensure the progress of humanity—even, ironically, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
No doubt, a theocentric life is promoted in Scripture. God, the Author of life, deserves to be the focal point of our existence. And God assures us that happiness is found by keeping Him central. A man who delights in God’s law and meditates on it is blessed “like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither” (Psalm 1:3\). The man who believes in Christ will have “rivers of living water” flowing from his heart (John 7:38\). Like branches on a vine, loaded down with grapes, those who “abide” in God bear much fruit (John 15:5\). In God’s presence there is “fullness of joy” and “pleasures forevermore” (Psalm 16:11\). When we walk by God’s Spirit, being led by Him, we naturally exhibit the [fruit of His Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html), which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self\-control (Galatians 5:22–23\). A believer living a theocentric life is portrayed as cleansed from all that is dishonorable, like a beautiful silver vessel, useful to the master of a great house (2 Timothy 2:21\). By any measure, a theocentric life is a good existence.
|
What can we learn from the account of Potiphar’s wife?
|
Answer
The story of [Joseph](life-Joseph.html) and Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39 contains some obvious lessons about fidelity in the face of sexual temptation, and there are also some subtler points to be found about the loyal character of God. The story is dramatic: Jacob’s son Joseph is in Egypt, where he is Potiphar’s servant and the most trusted overseer in his household. Potiphar’s wife sees that Joseph “was well\-built and handsome, and after a while . . . said, ‘Come to bed with me!’” (Genesis 39:6–7\).
Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce Joseph, but he staunchly refuses her advances: “My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9\). Joseph is loyal both to Potiphar and to God. Potiphar’s wife doesn’t give up; she “spoke to Joseph day after day, \[but] he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her” (verse 10\). Note the wise course Joseph takes, choosing not to be alone with Potiphar’s wife if he could help it.
But then came a turning point in Joseph’s life: “One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. \[Potiphar’s wife] caught him by his cloak and said, ‘Come to bed with me!’ But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house” (Genesis 39:11–12\). Potiphar’s wife, spurned again, stands there with Joseph’s cloak in her hand, and she chooses an angry, vindictive plan: “She called her household servants. ‘Look,’ she said to them, ‘this Hebrew . . . came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house’” (verses 14–15\).
When Potiphar came home, his wife showed him Joseph’s cloak and repeated the lie: “As soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house. . . . This is how your slave treated me” (Genesis 39:18–19\). Potiphar, outraged at Joseph’s supposed betrayal, put him in prison (verse 20\).
There is much in the story of Potiphar’s wife about resisting [sexual temptation](sexual-sin.html). A brash woman overtly tempts a man, pulling on his clothes and saying, “Lie with me.” The man flees from her so suddenly that he actually leaves his garment in her hand. Joseph doesn’t stand there, gazing at the woman, considering whether or not he should sleep with her. He immediately gets out of there (see 1 Corinthians 6:18\).
Joseph’s wise handling of the situation with Potiphar’s wife directly contrasts the foolhardy actions of the simple man in Proverbs. Solomon sees a fool walking toward the house of an [adulterous](you-shall-not-commit-adultery.html) woman (Proverbs 7:8\). When the fool drew near, “she took hold of him and kissed him . . . with a brazen face” (verse 13\). Rather than run away like Joseph, the foolish man stayed to listen to her: “With persuasive words she led him astray; she seduced him with her smooth talk” (verse 21\). And he paid a high price for his foolishness: “All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter” (verse 22\). One could argue the Joseph, too, paid a high price—his virtue landed him in prison—but one has only to read the rest of Genesis to see the blessings God had in store for Joseph.
It is interesting to note that Genesis 39 does not say anything about Joseph’s feelings for Potiphar’s wife: was he attracted to her? Did he find her beautiful or interesting? How long did they have a perfectly normal and friendly relationship—servant and mistress—before she chose to attempt a seduction? None of this is enumerated. The heart of the issue is this: Potiphar’s wife promised happiness and sensual satisfaction, but Joseph saw sin for what it is, refusing to do “this great wickedness” (Genesis 39:9, ESV). Joseph feared God, knowing that all sin is ultimately against Him (see Psalm 51:4\). In saying “no” to Potiphar’s wife, Joseph showed himself to be wise: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding” (Psalm 111:10\).
The incident with Potiphar’s wife is bookended by two passages that speak of God’s love and blessing to Joseph. Joseph found favor in the eyes of the Egyptians among whom he lived and rose to a position of prominence in the house of Potiphar (Genesis 39:1–6\). Joseph’s success and position was the direct result of God’s blessing (verses 2–3\). When Joseph was wrongly accused and sent to prison, God remained faithful. God “showed \[Joseph] kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison warden” (verse 21\). Soon, the keeper of the prison had put Joseph in charge of the other prisoners and trusted him so fully that he no longer paid attention to anything that was under Joseph’s control (verses 22–23\). Everything Joseph did succeeded because “the Lord was with Joseph” (verse 23\).
The story of Potiphar’s wife is about loyalty as much as it is about resisting temptation. Potiphar’s wife was disloyal to her husband, but Joseph was loyal both to Potiphar and to God. God shows us amazing loyalty and [faithfulness](faithfulness-of-God.html). It is part of His character. He is “compassionate and gracious . . . slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6\). “For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does” (Psalm 33:4\). Joseph’s desire to be faithful and loyal to Potiphar was in response to God’s faithfulness to Him; Joseph was reflecting God’s character, which is what the godly do. “Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did” (1 John 2:6\).
When Potiphar’s wife stirred her husband’s jealousy and made him throw Joseph in prison unjustly, God was still there, comforting and blessing Joseph. From this we can learn that, even if we are treated unfairly in this life, God will never forsake His servants (Hebrews 13:5\).
|
Who was Ellen G. White?
|
Answer
Ellen G. White became a leader of a segment of the [Millerites](Millerites.html) (who called themselves Adventists) in May of 1863\. Her many visions and writings influenced the formation of [Seventh\-Day Adventism](Seventh-Day-Adventism.html) and greatly shaped its doctrine. Today, most Seventh\-Day Adventists still consider Ellen White to be a [prophetess](prophets-today.html) of God.
Ellen G. White was formerly a Methodist but later converted to Adventism through the preaching of William Miller, a false prophet who had predicted Christ would return in 1843 or 1844\. When Miller’s prediction of Christ’s second advent failed to come true, the Millerites disbanded in dismay; however, a couple of Miller’s followers claimed to have visions to account for the failed prophecy. One of these seers was 17\-year\-old Ellen G. Harmon, who had the first of her 2,000 purported visions in a prayer meeting shortly after Miller’s disgrace. In her vision, Ellen claimed to have seen the Adventists on a journey to the city of God. Ellen G. Harmon soon became the beacon of hope for disappointed Millerites, the unifier of Adventist factions, and the spiritual guide for a new religious group.
In 1846, Ellen married James White, an Adventist preacher. Together, they began to study the teachings of Joseph Bates, who promoted [Sabbath\-keeping](Sabbath-keeping.html) for all Christians. Convinced that Bates was correct, James and Ellen White began observing the Saturday Sabbath. Soon thereafter, in 1847, Ellen G. White had another vision, this one confirming her new belief: she claimed to have been shown the law of God in a heavenly sanctuary, and the fourth commandment (concerning the Sabbath) was surrounded by a halo of light. The Whites began to uphold Sabbath\-keeping as a primary doctrine.
Ellen G. White was a prolific writer. Her first book, *A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White*, appeared in 1851\. She would go on to write about 60 books total. The Whites travelled extensively, and Ellen wrote constantly to tell people what God was supposedly telling her. In 1855, James and Ellen G. White settled in Battle Creek, Michigan. In the next 55 years, Ellen G. White wrote nearly 10,000 pages of prophetic material, much of it published in the nine\-volume *Testimonies for the Church*.
During a funeral service in Ohio in 1858, Ellen G. White had yet another vision, which she later detailed in her 219\-page book *Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1: The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels and Satan and His Angels*. In this vision, Mrs. White saw a cosmic war being waged throughout the ages between Jesus and His angelic army and Satan and his. The Great Controversy, said Mrs. White, will be won as Christians help Jesus.
In May 1863, the General Conference of Seventh\-day Adventists was officially incorporated. Ellen G. White never considered herself the head of the new group, but her visions were definitely instrumental in its founding and early guidance. The Seventh\-Day Adventists considered Mrs. White to be a true prophetess of God. Modern Adventists still lift her up as having the gift of prophecy. Seventh\-Day Adventists interpret “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” in Revelation 19:10 as a reference to Ellen G. White’s writings. The following statement was approved by the General Conference session in the Netherlands in June 1995: “We consider the biblical canon closed. However, we also believe, as did Ellen G. White’s contemporaries, that her writings carry divine authority, both for godly living and for doctrine. Therefore, we recommend . . . that as a church we seek the power of the Holy Spirit to apply to our lives more fully the inspired counsel contained in the writings of Ellen G. White” (cited in http://www.apologeticsindex.org/3100\-seventh\-day\-adventism\#return\-note\-3100\-17, accessed June 2, 2016\).
Ellen G. White continued to have visions that she attributed to divine inspiration. Some of these visions dealt with the need for healthy eating habits, which Mrs. White called “the gospel of health” (*Testimonies for the Church*, Vol. 6, p. 327\). Her health requirements included placing restrictions on consuming meat, or “flesh food,” as Adventists call it. “Flesh food is injurious to health, and whatever affects the body has a corresponding effect on the mind and the soul” (*The Ministry of Healing*, Chapter 24: “Flesh as Food,” p. 316\). It is not surprising that, having required Sabbath\-keeping, Adventist theology began to allow other elements of Law\-keeping to creep in as well. Interestingly, corn flakes were the creation of John Harvey Kellogg, a Seventh\-Day Adventist doctor in Battle Creek who sought to provide a “healthy” vegetarian alternative to meat\-laden breakfasts. In other visions, Mrs. White received the unorthodox doctrines of [soul sleep](soul-sleep.html) and [annihilationism](annihilationism.html).
After her husband’s death in 1881, Ellen G. White pledged to continue to promote Adventism and [Sabbatarianism](Sabbatarianism-Sabbatarian.html). She traveled to Europe and Australia, encouraging Seventh\-Day Adventists, organizing schools, and establishing medical works. She continued to speak at Adventist meetings and to write down her prophecies until her death in 1915\.
Ellen G. White was a false prophetess. Her promotion of Sabbath\-keeping as a primary doctrine in the church goes against the clear teaching of the New Testament on the matter (Romans 14:5\). Her “revelation” that hell is not eternal contradicts Jesus’ words concerning “eternal punishment” in Matthew 25:46\. Her teaching that the sins of believers will be placed on Satan, the “scapegoat” (*The Great Controversy*, p. 422, 485\), is the opposite of what the Bible says about who bore our sins (see 1 Peter 2:24\). Her identification of Jesus as Michael the archangel (Jude 1:9, *Clear Word Bible*, published by Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1994\) is a denial of the true nature of Christ. Her repudiation of the [verbal inspiration](Bible-inspired.html) of the Bible (*Selected Messages, Book 1*, p. 21 Manuscript 24, 1886\) is at variance with passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and Psalm 12:6\.
More basically, followers of Ellen G. White face a very real question concerning the sufficiency of Scripture. Is the Bible [sufficient](sufficiency-of-Scripture.html) for our faith and practice, or do we need further revelation in the form of 2,000 visions from a self\-proclaimed prophetess? Seventh\-Day Adventists’ official stance is that “the Holy Scriptures are the supreme, authoritative, and the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the definitive revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history” (https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/god/holy\-scriptures/, accessed June 2, 2016\). Yet, at the same time, most Seventh\-Day Adventists accept the works of Ellen G. White as authoritative and binding. From the same official website: “Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church” (https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/church/the\-gift\-of\-prophecy/, accessed June 2, 2016\). What is “prophetic authority” if not the right to mandate belief based on divine words given through a human? How do the utterances of Ellen G. White differ from the Bible’s declarations of truth?
Seventh\-Day Adventism is a diverse movement, and not all SDA groups hold to all the teachings of Ellen G. White. But two facts should give Seventh\-Day Adventists pause: Mrs. White, a teacher of aberrant doctrine, is a co\-founder of their church; and their church has its roots in the failed prophecies of William Miller.
|
What does it mean that there will be false christs in the end times?
|
Answer
A false christ or a false [messiah](what-does-Messiah-mean.html) is a pretender who claims to be the One sent from God to save humanity. In Matthew 24:23–24, Jesus says, “And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.” This is part of a larger teaching about what to expect in the end times. In Matthew 24, Jesus repeats this teaching, adding, “So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (verses 26–27\).
The “end times” means several things in the Bible. According to Hebrews 1:2, the “last days” is the New Testament era, starting with the first coming of Jesus Christ. This is also the sense in Acts 2:16–17, 1 John 2:18, and 1 Peter 1:20\. In this sense, we are living in the “end times”; that is, we are in the final dispensation before the second coming of Christ. In Matthew 13:49, the “end of the age” refers to the time of judgment at the Lord’s second coming. The Lord’s return and the events leading up to it (see Revelation 6–16\) are commonly referred to as the “end times” today. Although the “end times” may have begun 2,000 years ago, there will be a rapid escalation of the signs Jesus gave as time draws nearer to His return. We believe the “end times,” as commonly understood, will begin with the [rapture of the church](rapture-of-the-church.html).
False christs have come and gone since the first century (Mark 13:22; 2 Peter 2:1\). They arise when someone claims to be the Messiah or when a branch of Christianity veers from the clear teaching of God’s Word and tries to define Jesus as other than He is. The apostles dealt with false doctrine in many of their letters to the churches, warning believers about the false christs and false prophets in their midst (2 Corinthians 11:13\). John gave a clear definition of accurate Christology: “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (I John 4:2–3\).
False christs have continued to make their appearance. Even within the last century, certain men such as Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, and David Koresh have risen to prominence by claiming to be God or His right\-hand man. They often started with the Bible but then seized one verse or idea and built their own theology around it, turning their group into a self\-affirming cult. Cult leaders often attract their victims by presenting themselves as Bible\-believing Christians. Groups such as the Mormons, the Church of Christ, Scientist, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses all claim to be Christian, but they all deny the deity and work of Jesus, the Son of God, as our only path to forgiveness and eternal life (see John 14:6\).
Closer to home, a proliferation of false christs has arisen in unexpected places: Christian church pulpits. When a teaching reinvents Jesus as someone other than He is or intentionally minimizes the more difficult truths of His gospel, it presents a false christ. With the surge of hyper\-grace teaching and *Your Best Life Now* theology, the glory of Jesus Christ has been minimized in favor of self\-worship. Jesus, when mentioned at all, is often presented as merely the ticket to receiving God’s blessings. In this generation of biblical illiteracy, many hearers eagerly swallow this man\-made version of Christ, never challenging the twisted doctrine that conceived it. Even when people are given an opportunity to “make a decision” for Jesus, one must wonder: to what Christ are they committing themselves?
Second Timothy 4:3–4 warned us that a time was coming when people would not tolerate sound doctrine. As the days grow darker and sin escalates, a more palatable christ becomes attractive to those who “loved the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19\). Second Thessalonians 2:11–12 explains why so many are attracted to false christs. Verse 10 says, “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” When people refuse to love the truth, the real Jesus, or God’s holy Word, God gives them over to their own ideas and their false christs, none of which have any power to save (Romans 1:21–23\).
|
What does the Bible say about teaching?
|
Answer
[Teaching](pedagogy.html) is a necessary and valuable part of life. We come into this world ignorant, and we must be taught: language proficiency, motor skills, cultural norms, social customs, manners, moral values—all these and more are the product of the learning process of childhood. Since teaching is a key element in acquiring information and developing knowledge, it is not surprising that the Bible has much to say about teaching.
[Teaching is one of the gifts](gift-of-teaching.html) of the Holy Spirit. “We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift . . . is teaching, then teach” (Romans 12:6–7\). In this context, *teaching* refers to the God\-given ability to explain God’s Word; the teacher has the supernatural ability to clearly instruct and communicate knowledge, specifically the doctrines of the faith and truths of the Bible (1 Corinthians 12:27–29\).
Teaching is a [requirement for pastors](qualifications-elders-deacons.html): “Now the overseer is to be . . . able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2; cf. 2 Timothy 2:24\). The Bible instructs the pastor to teach sound doctrine based on the written Word of God: “Command and teach these things” (1 Timothy 4:11\). Those who are taught by the pastor are then to continue the process of disseminating information: “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2\). Note here that the gospel is “entrusted” to us, and that teachers of the gospel must be “qualified”—part of the qualification is that we be “reliable.”
Teaching, like preaching, was an integral part of the work of an apostle (Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 4:1\). Paul knew that he was a teacher of the gospel according to God’s will: “And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher” (2 Timothy 1:11\).
Jesus, of course, was the greatest teacher, and He is often referred to as “[Rabbi](was-Jesus-a-rabbi.html)” or “Teacher” (e.g., Luke 13:10; John 1:38; 3:2\). In His teaching, our Lord used illustrations (Luke 7:31–32\), object lessons (Matthew 6:28\), current events (Luke 13:4–5\), and many stories (Matthew 13; Mark 4:2\). He utilized lecture (Matthew 24\), dialogue (John 3\), rhetorical questions (Luke 18:8\), and proverbs (Luke 7:45\). He gave “homework” and followed up on it (Matthew 9:13; 12:7\). He used hyperbole (Matthew 5:29\), metaphor (John 9:5\), and provocative language (Luke 13:32\). Always, Jesus the teacher had the best interests of His students at heart; always, the subject of His teaching was the absolute and unchanging truth of God.
Other people whom Scripture identifies as teachers include the Levitical priests (Leviticus 10:11\), Moses (Deuteronomy 4:14; 6:1\), the apostles (Mark 6:30\), fathers of children (Deuteronomy 4:9; 6:7; Proverbs 1:8; 4:4; Ephesians 6:4\), fellow believers (Romans 15:14\), Nicodemus (John 3:10\), Gamaliel (Acts 22:3\), and God Himself (Nehemiah 9:20; Psalm 25:12; 32:8; 71:17\).
Jesus said that the logical end of effective teaching is that the pupil becomes like his teacher: “The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher” (Luke 6:40\). He said this in the context of a warning to be careful whom you choose as your teacher, because if “the blind lead the blind . . . they \[will] both fall into a pit” (verse 39\). So, if you want to be godly, find teachers who are themselves godly.
The Bible also has warnings about hypocritical teaching (Matthew 23:3; Romans 2:21\) and false teaching (Acts 20:28–31; 1 Timothy 6:3–4\). In fact, whole books of the Bible are devoted to countering [false teaching](false-teachers.html) in the early church (2 Peter and Jude). “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1\). The test for any teaching is whether or not it aligns with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
The day is coming when teaching will be unnecessary: “No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Hebrews 8:11; cf. Jeremiah 31:34\). In the day when we see Jesus face to face, we will know even as we are known (1 Corinthians 13:12\).
|
What is evangelical Catholicism?
|
Answer
An evangelical Catholic is, quite simply, a Catholic who is evangelical. That is, an evangelical Catholic is a member of the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html) who is loyal to the pope, faithful to Catholic doctrine, observant of the sacraments, and possessing a desire to spread Catholicism into new areas.
George Weigel, author of *Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st\-Century Church*, gives a more detailed definition: “An evangelical Catholic is a Catholic who has absorbed the deep reform of the Church that was begun in the late 19th century under Pope Leo XIII, a reform that was accelerated at the Second Vatican Council (1962–65\) and given its authoritative interpretation for the 21st century by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Evangelical Catholics understand themselves as members of a communion of disciples, formed by friendship with Jesus, by Word, and by sacrament, for the fulfillment of the Great Commission” (“Pope Francis Is an Evangelical Catholic, Catholic Theologian Says,” an interview with George Weigel in the *Christian Post* by Napp Nazworth, [http://www.christianpost.com/news/pope\-francis\-is\-an\-evangelical\-catholic\-catholic\-theologian\-says\-92247/\#ThsKIgerKzRLLPDS.99](http://www.christianpost.com/news/pope-francis-is-an-evangelical-catholic-catholic-theologian-says-92247/#ThsKIgerKzRLLPDS.99), accessed June 6, 2016\).
Many people see the word [*evangelical*](evangelicalism.html) and assume that evangelical Catholicism represents a doctrinal shift that brings Catholic creeds into closer alignment with the catechisms of evangelical Protestantism. But it’s a false assumption. As Weigel writes, “Evangelical Catholicism is not a substitute for *Roman* Catholicism” (Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st\-Century Church, George Weigel, Basic Books, 2013, emphasis his). Evangelical Catholics still equate oral tradition with the Bible, still obey the magisterium, and still mix works with grace in seeking salvation. What makes them “evangelical” is their goal of re\-packaging the Catholic faith and presenting it in a modern context, taking into account the world’s changing conditions. [Ecumenism](ecumenism-ecumenical.html) is a major priority for evangelical Catholics.
A recent pope promoted evangelical Catholicism as a way to open people up “to a full sense of human existence.” Pope John Paul II wrote, “Great riches are waiting to be discovered through an intensification of the missionary effort of each of the lay faithful. Such an individual form of apostolate can contribute greatly to a more extensive spreading of the Gospel” (*Christifideles Laici*, 28\).
The Vatican II Council did not change Catholic doctrine. Evangelical Catholicism is still Catholicism. The serious doctrinal disagreements between Catholics and biblical Christians remain.
|
Is _____ in heaven or hell?
|
Answer
At GotQuestions.org, we often receive questions about whether some particular person is in heaven or hell. Such questions are especially common right after a celebrity or other famous figure passes away, but we also get similar questions from those wondering about a deceased friend or relative. Scripture gives good reason for us to be careful when making assertions about a specific person’s eternal destiny.
In truth, it’s impossible to say for certain what relationship another person has with God. We cannot see the heart, but God can (1 Samuel 16:7\). Neither do we possess the ability to peer into heaven or hell. Human beings simply aren’t equipped to come to an infallible conclusion about whether someone is in heaven or hell. For this reason, Got Questions typically refers such questions back to a basic understanding of the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html). What we know for sure is that there are only two destinations for the dead: heaven and hell. Those who have accepted Christ will be with God after death. Those who have rejected Him will be separated from Him.
A better question than “is so\-and\-so in heaven or hell?” is “was so\-and\-so’s life consistent with saving faith in Christ?” Some lives clearly fall on one side or the other of that criterion. Yet, according to the Bible, it’s possible to “put on a show” and still be lost (Matthew 7:21–23\). And it’s possible to struggle to apply one’s faith and still be saved (Matthew 21:31\). Only God truly knows what goes on in the heart, even when that person seems beyond hope.
Rather than make a definitive claim with respect to an individual’s eternal destiny, our preference is to point to what the Bible says about those who trust in Christ and allow others to form an opinion of their own. Realistically, the best we can do is say that someone who has passed away is “probably saved” or “probably not saved.”
Those who publicly profess faith in Christ and whose lives seem consistent with that profession would be on the “probably saved” side of the spectrum. When a person’s words and actions give evidence of faith in Christ, then it’s reasonable to assume that he will be with God when he passes. This conclusion is tempered by the fact that externals are not what actually matter; it’s possible for pious behavior to mask a lost soul (Matthew 23:26–28\).
Those who overtly reject Christ would be on the “probably unsaved” end of the scale. Those who make it clear by their words and actions that they reject the gospel give others reason to think they’ll be lost when they pass. At the same time, God can save anyone, no matter how close to death they are (Matthew 20:1–16; Luke 23:43\), and we don’t know what may happen in the secrecy of a person’s heart in the last moments before his death. Also, there are those who may struggle with habitual sin despite having legitimate faith.
One’s public persona, especially for celebrities, is often not the same as one’s private life. This dichotomy can make it virtually impossible to say what a public figure’s real views on faith and spirituality were. Even if we can make an educated guess, that assumption has to be kept in perspective.
Ultimately, the gospel is the only hope for any of us after this life. Regardless of whether some particular deceased person is in heaven, our personal need for Christ remains. We can confidently say that in Christ there is salvation (John 6:27\). If a person accepts the gospel and is [born again](born-again.html), he will be with God after death. Our focus should be on our own spiritual needs and the needs of those still living.
|
What is the Serbian Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
The Serbian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous (self\-governing) church within [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html). Being independent, the Serbian Orthodox Church has its own patriarchate, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Serbian Orthodox Church is strongest in southeastern Europe, and its churches are located primarily in the former Yugoslavia, including Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Croatia. As Serbs have emigrated to other countries, Serbian churches have spread to the U.S., Australia, South Africa, and western Europe. The Serbian Orthodox Church has been a member of the World Council of Churches since 1965\. According to the WCC, the Serbian Orthodox Church has 8 million members worldwide.
The history of the Serbian Orthodox Church has been one of persecution and turmoil for the past five hundred years. The church flourished in Serbia until the arrival of the Muslim Turks, and by 1459 most of Serbia was under Turkish control. For one hundred years, the Serbian Orthodox Church was placed under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as the Serbian church, as an independent church body, disappeared. The Turkish sultan Suleiman the Magnificent restored the Serbian Patriarchate in 1557, but the church in Serbia was abolished by the Muslims again in 1766\. It wasn’t until 1859 that the Serbian Orthodox Church regained its autonomy, but the patriarchate was not re\-established until 1920, after World War I. During World War II, the fascists persecuted the Serbian Orthodox Church, killing 1\.7 million church members. After the war, the persecution continued, as the communists attacked the Serbian Orthodox Church: religious education in schools was banned under Stalin, and church property was confiscated. The persecution eased somewhat after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., but then civil war in ex\-Yugoslavia in the 1990s killed about 10,000 Serbs and caused a million others to flee the country. The unrest in that area of the world continues to this day.
The Serbian Orthodox Church claims to possess many Christian [relics](Christian-relics.html), such as John the Baptist’s right hand, Saint George’s hand and skull parts, and pieces of Jesus’ cross. The doctrine and practice of the Serbian Orthodox Church follow those of other churches within Eastern Orthodoxy. The Serbian Orthodox Church observes seven sacraments; venerates [icons](religious-iconography.html); prays to Mary, the “[Mother of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html),” and other saints; prays for the dead; and teaches a works\-based salvation. The Bible is clear that salvation is all of grace, apart from human works (Ephesians 2:8–9\), making the Orthodox doctrine “another” gospel to be avoided (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
What is the worst sin?
|
Answer
As far as it compares to the [holiness of God](holy-holy-holy.html), all sin is the same. Every sin, from anger to murder, from white lies to adultery, will lead to eternal condemnation (James 4:17; Romans 6:23\). All sin, no matter how “small,” goes against the nature and will of an infinite and eternal God and is therefore deserving of an infinite and eternal punishment (Isaiah 13:11\). In this sense, there is no “worst” sin.
So, there is no “worst” sin in that all sins are, by nature, sinful. All sinners fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23\). But, considered another way, sins are unequal in at least two respects:
First, not all sins are equal in their earthly consequences. Although both lust and adultery are sinful, one (adultery) will have worse consequences than the other. The consequences of having lust in one’s heart will not be as severe as committing the physical act of adultery. The same is true with entertaining a covetous thought versus committing theft. All sin is bad, but not all sin carries the same penalty in this world. In that sense, some sins are worse than others.
Scripture singles out [sexual sin](sexual-sin.html) as having a unique impact on the sinner: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18\). In this passage, immorality is placed in a category apart from other sins as having a direct effect on one’s body. Does this mean sexual sin is the “worst” sin? Maybe. It certainly means that sins involving sexual immorality have worse consequences in this world.
Second, not all sins are equal in the degree of eternal penalty. Illustrating the need to be ready for His return, Jesus spoke of different degrees of punishment: “A servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly” (Luke 12:47– 48, NLT). So, sins of presumption and negligence warrant a heftier penalty in the final judgment than sins committed in ignorance. Hell is hot, but it might be hotter for some. In that sense, some sins are worse than others.
We should guard ourselves against three wrong ideas about the “worst” sin:
First, if there is a “worst” sin, that doesn’t mean that other, “lesser” sins are excusable. Sin is sin, and it is all unrighteous.
Second, we must not fall into the trap of comparing our sins with others’. When we compare, we will invariably conclude that other people are committing “worse” sins than we are; our sins are somehow “better.” Our first concern should be our own sin, whatever it is, and not the sins of those around us (Matthew 7:4–5\). God’s standard is not how well we measure up to other people but how we measure up to Christ.
Third, even if there is a “worst” sin, God can still forgive it. Just as there is no sin too small to be worthy of punishment, there is no sin too big that God cannot [forgive](got-forgiveness.html) it. When a repentant prostitute came to Jesus, she found grace; Jesus then said to the onlookers, “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven” (Luke 7:47, NLT). And God has already forgiven the man who considered himself to be “the worst of them all” (1 Timothy 1:15, NLT). Jesus died to pay the penalty for all sin (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2\). “God made \[Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21\). For the believer, there is no sin Jesus’ sacrifice does not cover (see Romans 8:1\).
[God hates sin](God-hate-sin.html). Thankfully, He has provided a way to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–10\) through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:17\). Our Heavenly Father “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4\).
In the final analysis, we might say that the “worst” sin is unbelief. Faith in Christ is how people rightly respond to God’s offer of salvation. “How shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” (Hebrews 2:3\). To reject the Savior is to accept the penalty for one’s own sin.
|
What is the Syriac/Syrian Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
The Syriac Orthodox Church, also called the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, is a self\-governing branch of [Oriental Orthodoxy](Oriental-Orthodox-Church.html). The Syrian Orthodox Church is based in Damascus, [Syria](Syria-Aram-in-the-Bible.html), and has vicariates in Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the U.S., Turkey, Israel, and other countries. The Syriac Orthodox Church is in communion with the other five branches of the Oriental Orthodox Church but not with the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. The Syriac Orthodox Church joined the [World Council of Churches](World-Council-of-Churches-WCC.html) in 1960; according to the WCC, the Syriac Orthodox Church has about 1\.4 million members worldwide.
The Oriental Orthodox Church, of which the Syriac Orthodox Church is a part, differs from the Eastern Orthodox Church in that the Oriental Church recognizes only the first three ecumenical councils ([Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html), [Constantinople](Council-of-Constantinople.html), and [Ephesus](Council-of-Ephesus.html)), whereas the Eastern Church recognizes all seven of the ecumenical church councils. Besides the Syriac Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy includes five other autonomous churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Egypt), the [Ethiopian Orthodox Church](Ethiopian-Orthodox-Church.html), the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the [Armenian Apostolic Church](Armenian-Orthodox-Church.html), and the Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Syrian Church.
The Syriac Orthodox Church traces its history all the way back to Acts 11:26: “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” The city of Antioch in this verse is Syrian Antioch, which later became the center of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The Syriac Orthodox Church claims that the apostle Peter founded the church and was its first bishop. At various times in history, the Syriac Orthodox Church was decimated by invasion of Mongols and Muslims.
The Syriac Orthodox Church, along with other Oriental Orthodox groups, separated from the rest of Christianity in AD 451 after the [Council of Chalcedon](council-of-Chalcedon.html). The sticking point for these groups was the nature of Christ. The Syriac Orthodox Church saw Chalcedon’s statement concerning Christ’s two unified natures (human and divine) as conceding too much to Nestorianism. The Syriac Orthodox Church and other non\-Chalcedonian churches hold to the error of [monophysitism](monophysitism.html) (or miaphysitism), which views Christ as only having one nature.
The Syriac Orthodox Church holds a liturgical worship service and uses the [Peshitta](Peshitta.html) as its text. The faithful pray seven times a day (based on Psalm 119:164\), facing east, at specific times of the day. They observe seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Holy Eucharist, repentance, the priesthood, anointing of the sick, and marriage. Of these seven, they teach that four are essential for salvation: baptism, confirmation, repentance and the Eucharist.
Doctrinally, the Syriac Orthodox Church is off base. The Syrian Orthodox Church prays to Mary, the “[Bearer of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html)”; venerates saints; prays for the dead; and teaches a salvation based on religious works. The Bible is clear that salvation is all of grace, apart from human works (Romans 11:6\). God forgives our sin debt freely, for the sake of Christ (Luke 7:41–42; Romans 3:24\). The Syriac Orthodox requirement of keeping the sacraments is “another” gospel to be avoided (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
Should a Christian participate in Zumba?
|
Answer
Zumba is a popular fitness and dance program that is held in gyms, community centers, and even some churches. How should a Christian react to Zumba? Should we participate?
First, it is important to understand that [exercise](Christian-exercise.html) is beneficial to the body (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\). There is nothing wrong with exercise programs, in and of themselves, and the Bible encourages fitness. God made the body to move, so get out and move. Find a type of fitness you enjoy and then be a good steward of the body God gave you.
Second, understand that there are many different types of Zumba classes, including various levels based on age and the amount of exertion required. The fitness classes are intended to be led by licensed Zumba instructors. These instructors have varying standards, so Zumba classes can be quite different, depending on the instructor.
Third, understand the following cautions:
• Beware of inappropriate sensuality – Zumba instructors plan the choreography for their sessions. Some of the moves they teach may be sensual or sexually provocative. Any type of dancing that stirs up lustful, sinful desires should be avoided.
• Consider the musical influence – Zumba instructors select the music playlists for their classes, so musical selections vary widely, depending on the instructor. Investigate and ask questions. Lyrics that dishonor God or provoke sinful thoughts should be avoided.
Dance is not wrong, per se. The Bible indicates that [worshipful dance](dance-in-worship.html) can bring glory to God (Exodus 15:20; Psalm 30:11; 149:3; 150:4\). At the same time, Zumba is not designed to enhance worship. We encourage believers seeking the benefits of exercise to investigate any prospective Zumba program before participating.
|
What is the meaning of the Hebrew word adamah?
|
Answer
The Hebrew word *adamah* means “land,” “ground,” or “soil.” The New American Standard Bible translates *adamah* as “ground” 64 times and “land” or “lands” 114 times. Related to *adamah* is the word *adam*, which means “man” or “mankind.” Of course, *adam* is also used as the proper name of the first man, Adam.
Most scholars believe that the words *adamah*, *Adam*, and *Edom* stem from a root word with the basic meaning of “red.” The word *adamah* could then be more literally translated “red ground,” and the name *Adam* could be said to mean “red man” or “man from the red dirt.”
Reading from Genesis 2, we notice several plays on the word *adamah*:
“There was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground \[*adamah*]. Then the Lord God formed a man \[*adam*] from the dust of the ground \[*adamah*] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man \[*adam*] became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man \[*adam*] he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground \[*adamah*]” (verses 5–14\).
Then in Genesis 2:15, we read this:
“The Lord God took the man \[*adam*] and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.”
So, not only is Adam formed from *adamah* and named after *adamah*, but he is now assigned with working the *adamah* and cultivating the plants that come from it.
After Adam’s sin, God curses both Adam and *adamah*:
“To Adam \[*adam*] he said . . . ‘Cursed is the ground \[*adamah*] because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life’” (Genesis 3:17\).
Then God said that the curse on Adam will result in his return to *adamah*:
“By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground \[*adamah*], since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19\).
The Bible teaches that mankind has an intimate relationship with the earth (see Genesis 2:5\). Adam was formed from the earth, was responsible for the curse brought upon the earth, is tasked with cultivating the earth, eats the produce of the earth, and at death returns to the earth. As children of Adam, we are earthly—we have a connection with *adamah*. And that is why we must be born again (John 3:3\). Only a relationship with Jesus Christ can break us free from the Adamic curse and the Adamic fate. The first Adam subjected us to a curse; but Jesus, the “[Last Adam](Jesus-second-Adam.html)” (1 Corinthians 15:45\), gives us a blessing. Contrasting Adam with Christ, Paul writes, “The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:47\).
|
How should Christians react to persecution against the LGBTQ community?
|
Answer
The most insidious temptation related to seeing others being persecuted is apathy. As Christians, when we see members of the LGBTQ\+ community being persecuted, we have a responsibility to act. Jesus said, “Love your neighbor” (Luke 10:27\). It doesn’t matter what our neighbor’s opinion is on moral or sexual ethics, the command applies. Loving those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community means, in part, we do not condone acts of persecution against them—we do not excuse violence, injustice, or any behavior that brings harm. Doing good to those in the LGBTQ community means we are proactive in aiding them in times of trouble.
In considering a response to persecution against the LGBTQ community, we must consider Jesus’ [parable of the Good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html) (Luke 10:29–37\). In the story, the Samaritan passes by a man, a Jew, who had experienced severe “persecution” in the form of being beaten and robbed. Rather than ignoring him as others had done, the Samaritan generously tends to the man’s wounds and cares for him, expecting nothing in return.
Jesus tells this parable to a lawyer, a devout and well\-studied Jew who was likely a Pharisee. To the Jews of Jesus’ day, [Samaritans](Samaritans.html) were unclean, despised, despicable people. Samaritans were half\-breeds by race and heretics in religion, and they were avoided at all costs (John 4:9\). By and large, Samaritans returned those sentiments. As far as the Samaritan in the parable knew, the Jew he rescued might well have cursed and insulted him the day before. The man lying beaten and bloody in the ditch would have expected no help from the Samaritan, separated as they were socially, politically, and religiously.
The point of the parable cannot be overstated. The Samaritan had every reason to think the Jewish man hated him, yet he showed love, and Jesus explicitly said that we are to “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37\). Mere charity is not the point; it is charity *even to those with whom we disagree*. Jesus’ message in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that, when someone is hurting, our responsibility as followers of Christ is to pour out love, compassion, healing, relief, and resources to aid him. When members of the LGBTQ community are hurting, our responsibility is to give help and comfort. Agreement or disagreement in religion, morals, or opinions is quite irrelevant in the time of need.
Whether or not sin is involved is likewise immaterial. Jesus rescued an adulterous woman from the persecution of a mob without condoning her sin (John 8:10–11\). To show compassion is not the same as endorsing a person’s lifestyle. Compassion does not require agreement or approval. Our response to persecution against the LGBTQ community should involve prayer, a rebuke of the persecutors, and charitable action. We are to love and overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21\).
When the LGBTQ community is the victim of persecution, violence, or other harms, Christians have a clear mandate from our Lord. Just as the Good Samaritan bound the wounds of a social and religious antagonist, we are to love our neighbors, whoever they are. For the Christian, there is only one proper response when those in the LGBTQ community are suffering persecution. We should come along beside them, show them mercy, and demonstrate the love of Christ.
“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35–36\).
|
What is the Scofield Reference Bible?
|
Answer
The Scofield Reference Bible is an influential study Bible with notes written by [Cyrus I. Scofield](C-I-Scofield.html), a Civil War veteran, U.S. state attorney, Kansas legislator, and [Congregational](congregationalism.html) preacher. The Scofield Reference Bible was the first of its kind—an annotated Bible designed to aid the reader in understanding the text. The Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909, was immensely popular among conservative Protestants in the twentieth century and is still in print today and available in eight languages. Today it is called the Scofield Study Bible.
Scofield’s purpose in writing the Scofield Reference Bible was to help new readers of Scripture understand what the text was saying. Scofield included a summary of the whole Bible, wrote a simple introduction to each book, and traced key subjects through the Bible with cross references. Paragraph headings were introduced as well. In 1917 the Scofield Reference Bible was revised; the publisher, Oxford University Press, sold it as the New and Improved Edition. The updates in the Scofield Reference Bible included an essay, “A Panoramic View of the Bible”; and a chronology based on the works of James Ussher: dates were added to the center column of each page, and the introduction to each book was expanded to include the dating of events.
Scofield died in 1921, but the Scofield Reference Bible lived on. In 1967 an eight\-member committee revised the notes, updating some archaic wording and adding about 700 new footnotes and 15,000 cross references. The 1967 edition is now called the New Scofield Study Bible (or the Scofield Study Bible III). The 1917 edition is referred to as the Old Scofield Study Bible. The New Scofield Study Bible is available in four versions: the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and the NASB.
Scofield intended his notes in the Scofield Reference Bible to be informative, not polemic or controversial. He wanted to explain the text rather than provide commentary on it. In the first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield included a preface that listed eleven distinctive features of his work. Among those features were 1\) “a chain of references . . . for each important Biblical concept, starting from its first appearance in the Biblical story and continuing to each important link in succession until a final summary is reached”; 2\) “Helps . . . covering such things as weights and measures, dates, explanations of names, and the like”; 3\) “Analytical summaries of the whole teaching of Scripture on that subject, thus guarding the reader against hasty generalizations from a few passages or proof texts”; 4\) Twenty\-seven “great words of Scripture . . . defined in simple, non\-technical terms” (“Introduction to the First Edition,” 1909, p. iii).
The Scofield Reference Bible is also noted for its [dispensational](dispensationalism.html) approach, its promotion of the [gap theory](gap-theory.html), and its non\-allegorical interpretation of prophecy. Scofield defined a dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God” (note on Genesis 1:28\). Taken together, the dispensations exhibit “the majestic, progressive order of the divine dealings of God with humanity, ‘the increasing purpose’ which runs through and links together the ages, from the beginning of the life of man to the end in eternity” (from the Introduction).
The Scofield Reference Bible is consistently Christological in its emphasis. The notes present Jesus Christ as the theme of the whole revelation of God: the Old Testament is the Preparation for Christ; the Gospels are the Manifestation of Christ; the book of Acts is the Propagation of Christ; the Epistles are the Explanation of Christ; and the Apocalypse is the Consummation of Christ.
The Scofield Reference Bible contains much valuable information for the student of Scripture who wants a dispensational, pre\-millennial perspective. The Scofield Reference Bible represents an eloquent attempt to present the Bible as a unified revelation of God: “No particular portion of Scripture is to be intelligently comprehended apart from some conception of its place in the whole” (from the Introduction).
|
What is the Romanian Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
The Romanian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous (or self\-governing) church within [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html). Being independent, the Romanian Orthodox Church has its own patriarchate (ecclesiastical jurisdiction). The Romanian Orthodox Church is headquartered in Bucharest, Romania. According to the World Council of Churches, the Romanian Orthodox Church has almost 19 million members worldwide.
The vast majority of Romanians belong to the Romanian Orthodox Church. Other countries with Romanian Orthodox dioceses include Moldova, Hungary, Serbia\-Montenegro, New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and the U.S.
The Romanian Orthodox Church traces its history back to apostle Andrew, who they say preached in the region between the Danube River and the west coast of the Black Sea. Romania gained its political independence in 1877, and the Eastern Orthodox Church granted the Orthodox Church in Romania self\-governance in 1885\. During the communist era, the Soviets suppressed the Romanian Orthodox Church, taking over church schools, confiscating church property, and killing or imprisoning hundreds of priests, monks, and nuns. The Romanian Communist Party methodically removed all anti\-communist clergy and infiltrated the priesthood with the secret police. Eventually, the compromised Romanian Orthodox Church began promoting active support of the communist regime, asserting that the church owed allegiance to the secular government the same as they owed allegiance to God. After the fall of the U.S.S.R., Romania embraced democracy, although the government still controls various aspects of church administration, and clergy are paid by the state.
Relations between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church have been strained at times, mostly over the churches’ competing jurisdictions in Moldova, the country between Romania and Ukraine. The Moldova Orthodox Church answers to the Moscow Patriarchate, but the Metropolis of Bessarabia (the region of Moldova) is part of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church have at times accused the Romanian Orthodox Church of proselytizing in Moldova, attempting to add to the Metropolis of Bessarabia by “stealing” members from the Moldova Church. In this religious wrangling, the Romanian and Russian churches are falling in line with old political disputes over Moldova.
The doctrine and practice of the Romanian Orthodox Church follow those of other churches within Eastern Orthodoxy. The Romanian Orthodox Church observes seven sacraments; venerates [icons](religious-iconography.html); prays to Mary, the “[Mother of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html),” and other saints; prays for the dead; and teaches that salvation is works\-based. These teachings contradict biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches that prayer is to be directed to God alone, and it is clear that salvation is all of grace, apart from human works (Romans 4:5\). The Orthodox message of salvation is “another” gospel to be avoided (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
Who were the Arameans?
|
Answer
*Aram* was the Hebrew designation for the nation of Syria, so the Arameans mentioned in the Bible are Syrians. In fact, some translations such as the ESV and KJV, when translating the Hebrew word for “Aramean,” substitute the word *Syrian* instead (see 2 Kings 7:6\). The Arameans lived on an elevated tableland, and the topography is reflected in the fact that the word [*Aram*](Syria-Aram-in-the-Bible.html) comes from a root meaning “heights.” *Aram Naharaim* in Genesis 24:10 means “highland of the two rivers.”
The borders of Aram encompassed a broad region immediately to the northeast of Israel, extending to the Euphrates River and including Mesopotamia. Among the major cities inhabited by ancient Arameans were Damascus (Genesis 14:15\) and Hamath (Numbers 13:21\). Much later, Syrian Antioch was built and is mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 11:19; 13:1\). The various kingdoms comprising ancient Aram gradually unified under Damascus, which grew to be the most dominant of the Aramean kingdoms.
When Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac, he sent a servant to the land of Aram to find Rebekah (Genesis 24:10; 25:20\). Laban, Jacob’s father\-in\-law, is called an Aramean in Genesis 31:10\. Jacob himself is called “a wandering Aramean” in Deuteronomy 26:5, since both his mother and his grandfather were from Mesopotamia and therefore considered Arameans by the Hebrews.
During the reign of King David, the Arameans of Damascus came to the help of another group of Syrians. David defeated them, and the Arameans were forced to pay tribute (2 Samuel 8:5–6\). Later, the Arameans joined forces with the Ammonites in war against Israel (2 Samuel 10\). The Israelites defeated Aram again and kept them in subjugation. This arrangement lasted through the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 4:21\).
After the time of Solomon, the Arameans were a perennial thorn in Israel’s side. They fought Israel during King Ahab’s time, and Israel won (1 Kings 20\). In another battle, however, they killed Ahab (2 Chronicles 18:34\). They raided Israel (2 Kings 6:8\) and later laid siege to the capital, Samaria (verse 24\). Elisha predicted the atrocities that the Arameans would commit (2 Kings 8:12\). The Arameans fought King Joram of Israel and wounded him (2 Kings 8:28\). And they fought King Joash of Judah and wounded him (2 Chronicles 24:23–25\). The eventual fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Babylon was aided by the Arameans (2 Kings 24:2\).
In a wonderful demonstration of God’s grace and power, Elisha healed [Naaman the Syrian](Naaman-in-the-Bible.html) of leprosy (2 Kings 5\). Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, was an enemy of Israel, but he humbled himself enough to seek the Lord’s help. Naaman discovered that God is merciful to all those who call upon Him—even Arameans—and that discovery drastically changed Naaman’s worldview: “Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15\).
|
What is the meaning of the word Elohim?
|
Answer
*Elohim* is a Hebrew word that denotes “God” or “god.” It is one of the most common [names for God](names-of-God.html) in the Old Testament, starting in the very first verse: “In the beginning \[*Elohim*] created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1\). The name *Elohim* occurs over 2,500 times in the [Tanakh](Jewish-Bible.html).
The basic meaning behind the name *Elohim* is one of strength or power of effect. Elohim is the infinite, all\-powerful God who shows by His works that He is the creator, sustainer, and supreme judge of the world. “Bring to an end the violence of the wicked and make the righteous secure—you, the righteous \[*Elohim*] who probes minds and hearts” (Psalm 7:9\).
Sometimes the word *Elohim* is shortened to *El* and used as part of a longer name. *El Shaddai*, for example, means “God Almighty” (Genesis 49:24\); *El Elyon* means “God Most High” (Deuteronomy 26:19\); and *El Roi* means “God Who Sees” (Genesis 16:13\). Personal names of people can include the name of God: Daniel (“El Is My Judge”), Nathanael (“Gift of El”), Samuel (“Heard by El”), Elijah (“El Is Yahweh”), and Ariel (“Lioness of El”) are examples. Place names, too, can contain the shortened form of *Elohim*: Bethel (“House of El”), Jezreel (“El Will Sow”), and, of course, Israel (“Prince of El”) are examples.
When Jesus cried out from the cross, “*Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?*” (Mark 15:34\), He addressed the Father with a form of *Elohim*, *Eloi*. Mark translates Jesus’ statement for us: “My God, my God, [why have you forsaken me?](forsaken-me.html)”
Making Bible translation more complex is the fact that *Elohim* has other usages in the Old Testament besides referring to the One True God. In some contexts, *elohim* refers to human rulers or judges (see Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34\)—the idea is that such people are to act as God’s representatives on earth, exercising authority wisely and ensuring justice. The warning of Psalm 82 is that the [human *elohim*](you-are-gods.html) must answer to the Supreme *Elohim* some day. Elsewhere, *elohim* is used to refer to false gods (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:28\). “They have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the \[*elohe*] of the Sidonians, Chemosh the \[*elohe*] of the Moabites, and Molek the \[*elohe*] of the Ammonites” (1 Kings 11:33\). Note that *elohe* is a form of *elohim* used with qualifying words or phrases and translated “god of.”
Interestingly, the word *Elohim* is grammatically plural rather than singular (the *\-im* suffix in Hebrew indicates the plural form). The singular form of *Elohim* is probably *Eloah*. What are we to make of the plural? Does the plural form of *Elohim* imply polytheism? No, the Torah makes clear that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4\). Polytheism is expressly forbidden in the Old Testament.
What about Trinitarianism? Does the fact that *Elohim* is plural suggest the triune nature of God? It is best to understand the word construction as a [plural of majesty](majestic-plural.html); that is, writing “Elohim” is a stylistic way of emphasizing greatness, power, and prestige. With that said, and in light of the overall teaching of the Bible, the plural form of *Elohim* certainly allows for the further revelation of God’s triune nature; the Old Testament hints at the Trinity in order to prepare people for the Messiah who would be much more than a human prophet. When Jesus appeared, He more fully revealed mysteries hinted at in the Old Testament. At Jesus’ baptism we have all three Persons of *Elohim* present: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16–17\).
Our God is great and mighty. His power is on display every day and night in the universe He has made. “Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you” (Jeremiah 32:17\). This great power that no one can restrain is the characteristic of God basic to His name *Elohim*.
|
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.