prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
What does the Bible say about being a good parent? |
Answer
Being a good parent can be a difficult and challenging venture, but at the same time can be the most rewarding and fulfilling thing we ever do. The Bible has a great deal to say about the way we can successfully raise our children to be men and women of God. As a good parent, the first thing we must do is teach them the truth about God’s Word.
Along with loving God and being a godly example by committing ourselves to His commands, we need to heed the command of Deuteronomy 6:7\-9 regarding teaching our children to do the same. This passage emphasizes the ongoing nature of such instruction. It should be done at all times—at home, on the road, at night, and in the morning. Biblical truth should be the foundation of our homes. By following the principles of these commands, we teach our children that worshiping God should be constant, not reserved for Sunday mornings or nightly prayers.
Although our children learn a great deal through direct teaching, they learn much more by watching us. This is why we must be careful in everything we do. We must first acknowledge our God\-given roles. Husbands and wives are to be mutually respectful and submissive to each other (Ephesians 5:21\). At the same time, God has established a line of authority to keep order. “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3\). We know that Christ is not inferior to God, just as a wife is not inferior to her husband. God recognizes, however, that without submission to authority, there is no order. The husband’s responsibility as the head of the household is to love his wife as he loves his own body, in the same sacrificial way that Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25\-29\).
In response to this loving leadership, it is not difficult for the wife to submit to her husband’s authority (Ephesians 5:24; Colossians 3:18\). Her primary responsibility is to love and respect her husband, live in wisdom and purity, and take care of the home (Titus 2:4\-5\). Women are naturally more nurturing than men because they were designed to be the primary caretakers of their children.
Discipline and instruction are integral parts of being a good parent. Proverbs 13:24 says, “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.” Children who grow up in undisciplined households feel unwanted and unworthy. They lack direction and self\-control, and as they get older they rebel and have little or no respect for any kind of authority, including God’s. “Discipline your son, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to his death” (Proverbs 19:18\). At the same time, discipline must be balanced with love, or children may grow up resentful, discouraged, and rebellious (Colossians 3:21\). God recognizes that discipline is painful when it is happening (Hebrews 12:11\), but if followed by loving instruction, it is remarkably beneficial to the child. “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4\).
As a good parent, it is important to involve your children in the church family and ministry when they are young. Regularly attend a Bible\-believing church (Hebrews 10:25\), allow them to see you studying the Word, and also study it with them. Discuss with them the world around them as they see it, and teach them about the glory of God through everyday life. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6\). Being a good parent is all about raising children who will follow your example in obeying and worshiping the Lord.
|
What does the Bible say about caring for our old parents? |
Answer
The Bible has much to say about caring for elderly parents and other family members who are not able to care for themselves. The early Christian church acted as the social services agency for other believers. They cared for the poor, the sick, the widows and the orphans who had no one else to care for them. Christians who had family members in need were expected to meet those needs. Unfortunately, caring for our parents in their old age is no longer an obligation that many of us are willing to accept.
The elderly can be seen as burdens rather than blessings. Sometimes we are quick to forget the sacrifices our parents made for us when they are in need of care themselves. Instead of taking them into our homes—whenever that is safe and feasible—we put them in retirement communities or nursing homes, sometimes against their will. We may not value the wisdom they have acquired through living long lives, and we can discredit their advice as “outdated.”
When we honor and care for our parents, we are serving God as well. The Bible says, “The church should care for any widow who has no one else to care for her. But if she has children or grandchildren, their first responsibility is to show godliness at home and repay their parents by taking care of them. This is something that pleases God very much....But those who won’t care for their own relatives, especially those living in the same household, have denied what we believe. Such people are worse than unbelievers” (1 Timothy 5:3\-4, 8\).
Not all elderly people need or want constant, live\-in care in their children’s homes. They may prefer to live in a community with other people their age, or they may be quite capable of complete independence. Regardless of the circumstances, we still have obligations to our parents. If they are in need of financial assistance, we should help them. If they are sick, we should take care of them. If they need a place to stay, we should offer our home. If they need help with household and/or yard work, we should step up to assist. And if they are under the care of a nursing facility, we need to assess the living conditions to make sure our parents are being properly and lovingly cared for.
We should never allow the cares of the world to overshadow the things that are most important—serving God through serving people, especially the people in our own families. The Bible says, "Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise—"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth" (Ephesians 6:2\-3\).
|
What does the Bible say to do with a rebellious child? |
Answer
The child who exhibits a rebellious streak may be doing so for a variety of reasons. Harsh, unloving, and critical parenting will nearly always result in rebellion of some sort. Even the most compliant child will rebel—inwardly or outwardly—against such treatment. Naturally, this type of parenting is to be avoided. But no matter what style of parenting a family embraces, a child might rebel.
Assuming that the rebellious child naturally possesses a strong\-willed personality, he will be characterized by an inclination to test limits, an overriding desire for control, and a commitment to resisting all authority. In other words, rebellion is his middle name. In addition, these strong\-willed, rebellious children are often very intelligent and can “figure out” situations with amazing speed, finding ways to take control of the circumstances and people around them. These kids can be, for their parents, an extremely trying and exhausting challenge.
Fortunately, it is also true that God has made children who and what they are. He loves them, and He has not left parents without resources to meet the challenge. There are biblical principles that address dealing with the rebellious, strong\-willed child with grace. First, Proverbs 22:6 tells us to “train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not turn from it.” For all children, the way they should go is toward God. Teaching children in God’s Word is crucial for all children, who must understand who God is and how to best serve Him. With the strong\-willed child, understanding what motivates him—the desire for control—will go a long way to helping him find his “way.” The rebellious child is one who must understand that he is not in charge of the world—God is—and that he simply must do things God’s way. This requires parents to be absolutely convinced of this truth and to live accordingly. A parent who is himself in rebellion against God will not be able to convince his child to be submissive.
Once it has been established that God is the One making the rules, parents must establish in the child’s mind that they are God’s instruments and will do anything and everything necessary to carry out God’s plan for their families. A rebellious child must be taught that God’s plan is for the parents to lead and the child to follow. There can be no weakness on this point. The strong\-willed child can spot indecisiveness a mile away and will jump at the opportunity to fill the leadership vacuum and take control. The principle of submitting to authority is crucial for the strong\-willed child. If submission is not learned in childhood, the future will be characterized by conflicts with all authority, including employers, police, law courts, and military leaders. Romans 13:1\-5 is clear that the authorities over us are established by God, and we are to submit to them.
Also, a strong\-willed child will only willingly comply with rules or laws when they make sense to him. Give him a solid reason for a rule, constantly reiterating the truth that we do things the way God wants them done and that the fact is not negotiable. Explain that God has given parents the responsibility to love and discipline their children and that to fail to do so would mean the parents are disobeying Him. Whenever possible, however, give the child opportunities to help make decisions so that he does not feel completely powerless. For example, going to church is not negotiable because God commands us to gather together with other believers (Hebrews 10:25\), but children can have a say (within reason) in what they wear, where the family sits, etc. Give them projects in which they can give input like planning the family vacation.
Further, parenting must be done with consistency and patience. Parents must try not to raise their voices or raise their hands in anger or lose their tempers. This will give the strong\-willed child the sense of control he/she longs for, and he/she will quickly figure out how to control you by frustrating you to the point of making you react emotionally. Physical discipline often fails with these kids because they enjoy pushing parents to the breaking point so much that they feel a little pain is a worthwhile price to pay. Parents of strong\-willed kids often report the kid laughs at them while they are being spanked, so spanking might not be the best method of discipline with them. Perhaps nowhere in life are the Christian fruits of the Spirit of patience and self\-control (Galatians 5:23\) more needed than with the strong\-willed/rebellious child.
No matter how exasperating parenting these children can be, parents can take comfort in God’s promise not to test us beyond our ability to bear it (1 Corinthians 10:13\). If God gives them a strong\-willed child, parents can be sure He has not made a mistake and will provide the guidance and resources they need to do the job. Perhaps nowhere in the life of a parent do the words “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17\) have more meaning than with the strong\-willed youngster. Parents of these children have to spend lots of their time on their knees before the Lord asking for wisdom, which He has promised to provide (James 1:5\). Finally, there is comfort in the knowledge that strong\-willed children who are trained well often grow up to be high\-achieving, successful adults. Many rebellious children have turned into bold, committed Christians who use their considerable talents to serve the Lord they have come to love and respect through the efforts of their patient and diligent parents.
|
What does the Bible say about Christian blended families? |
Answer
Christian blended families are becoming more and more commonplace. God places a very high value on family and taking care of and supporting each other. Men should manage their families well and raise children who respect them (1 Timothy 3:4\). A woman should teach others what is good, carry herself modestly and submissively, and train younger women how to love their husbands and children (Titus 2:3\-5\). Caring for our relatives, especially those who live in our household, is of utmost importance (1 Timothy 5:8\). Children should be obedient to and honor their parents, as long as the parents do not ask the children to do anything against God’s will (Ephesians 6:1\-3\). When the children are grown, they have the responsibility to repay their parents by caring for them in their old age (1 Timothy 5:4\). These principles apply equally to families, blended or not.
The only relationship prioritized above marriage should be the one we have with God. When He is the center of a marriage, He will automatically become the center of a family. God brought Adam and Eve together as the first husband and wife. He had formed Eve from Adam’s rib, which shows us how men and women are to leave their father and mother and be joined together forever, inseparably (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5\). The stronger the marriage unit, the stronger the whole family will be.
When two families come together to form one blended family, they are coming from different households with different rules, different traditions, and different ways of doing things. It is crucial that children are helped through the massive changes they will experience during the transition to a new, blended family life. Cooperation, patience, and communication will be key. Children must feel accepted and secure in the love of both parent and step\-parent. Rules for discipline should be set up and enforced fairly for all the children.
When there is a step\-family, there is often a division of time when the child or children visit the noncustodial parent. Try to maintain a good relationship with the other parents, and if possible, have the same strategy about discipline/chores/rules at both houses. Make the household structured and predictable. We should always be supportive of each other; Jesus relied on His “stepfather” Joseph for companionship and support. Jesus recognized the need for a support system (Matthew 26:38\) and also the need for private time to become spiritually refreshed. In a family, we should always be encouraging and uplifting. We should also be a good example of godliness and conduct ourselves with integrity and with instruction from the Lord.
|
Is there life after death? |
Answer
Job, speaking out of his despair, asked, “If a man dies, shall he live again?” (Job 14:14, ESV). All of us have been challenged by this question. Is there life after death? What happens to us after we die? Do we simply cease to exist? Is death a revolving door of departing and returning to earth? Does everyone go to the same place after death, or do we go to different places? Is there really a heaven and hell?
The Bible tells us that, yes, there is life after death. This world is not all there is, and mankind was made for something more. At death, the body ceases to function and begins the process of returning to the earth, but the spiritual part of man lives on: “The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7; cf. Psalm 146:4\).
To those who are redeemed and have their sin forgiven, God gives [eternal life](what-is-eternal-life.html), an existence so glorious that “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9, NLT). This eternal life is inextricably linked to the Person of Jesus Christ: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3\). In Jesus’ prayer in this passage, He equates “eternal life” with a knowledge of God and of the Son. “Whoever has the Son has life” (1 John 5:12\).
Jesus Christ, God incarnate, came to the earth to pay for our sins and give us the gift of eternal life: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5\). Three days after His crucifixion, Jesus proved Himself victorious over death by rising from the grave—He is life personified (John 11:25\) and the ultimate proof that there is life after death.
The [resurrection of the Christ](Jesus-rose-from-the-dead.html) is a well\-documented event. The apostle Paul invited people to question the over 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6\). All of them could bear testimony to the fact that Jesus is alive and that there is indeed life after death.
The resurrection of Christ, which gives us the sure hope of life after death, is the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12–19\). Because Christ was raised from the dead, we have faith that we, too, will be resurrected. As Jesus told His disciples, “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19\). Christ was only the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again (1 Corinthians 15:23\). Just as God raised up Jesus’ body, so will our bodies be resurrected upon Jesus’ return (1 Corinthians 6:14\).
The fact of life after death does not mean everyone will go to heaven, however. People will continue to exist after they die, and there will be a resurrection someday, but God makes a distinction between the resurrection of the just (those who are in Christ) and the unjust (those who die in their sin): “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2\). Paul put it this way: “There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Acts 24:15\).
Each person must make a choice in this life, a choice that will determine his or her eternal destination. It is appointed for us to die once, and after that will come judgment (Hebrews 9:27\). Those who have been made righteous by faith in Christ will go into eternal life in heaven, but those who have rejected Christ as Savior will be sent to [eternal punishment](eternal-hell-fair.html) in hell (Matthew 25:46\). Hell, like heaven, is a literal place. It is a place where the unrighteous will experience the never\-ending, eternal wrath of God. Hell is described as a lake of fire where the inhabitants will be tormented day and night forever and ever (Revelation 20:10\). In hell, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, indicating intense grief and anger (Matthew 13:42\).
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but desires them to turn from their wicked ways so that they can live (Ezekiel 33:11\). But He will not force us into submission; if we choose to reject Christ, the one and only Savior, we reject the heaven that He has prepared, and we will live eternally apart from Him. Life on earth is a preparation for what is to come. Faith in Christ prepares us for life after death: “Whoever believes in \[God’s Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18\).
Everyone will experience life after death in some manner. For believers in Christ, life after death is eternal life in heaven with God. For unbelievers, life after death is eternity in the lake of fire. How can we receive eternal life and avoid hell? There is [only one way](way-of-salvation.html)—through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die” (John 11:25–26\).
The free gift of eternal life is available to all. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36\). We will not be given the opportunity to accept God’s gift of salvation after death. Our eternal destination is determined in our earthly lifetimes by our reception or rejection of Jesus Christ. “I tell you, [now is the time](today-is-the-day-of-salvation.html) of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2\). If we trust in the death of Jesus Christ as the full payment for our sin, and we believe in His resurrection from the dead, we are guaranteed eternal life after death, in glory (1 Peter 1:3–5\).
Have you made a decision to receive Jesus Christ as Savior because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.
If you have any questions, please use the question form on our [Bible Questions Answered](Bible-Questions.html) page.
|
Should Christians homeschool their children? |
Answer
The question of whether Christians should homeschool their children is one that many families wrestle with. The Bible tells us that children are a gift from the Lord, specially created for His pleasure and divine purpose (Psalm 127:3\-5; 139:13\-16\). God has entrusted us with our children for a very short time, during which parents have the responsibility of training, instructing, nurturing, and disciplining them, as well as overseeing their education (Ephesians 6:4\). It is imperative that Christian parents teach their children the Word of God from a young age, showing them how to incorporate it into their daily lives, trusting continually in God. Spiritual training is even more important than academic training, and it doesn’t happen by accident; it must be purposeful and habitual. The question is which mode of education will best accomplish these goals.
There are many excellent reasons to decide to educate children at home as an alternative to public schooling. The freedom parents have in choosing homeschool curricula allows for academic subjects to be taught through a biblical worldview rather than a secular one. Instead of being taught the theory of evolution, for example, children can learn how God created the heavens and the earth. In biblical times, children were primarily educated and socialized by their families and simply by living and working in society. Instead of being put in age\-segregated classrooms for the majority of the day, they learned to communicate with adults and children of all ages.
Public schools—and even some private and Christian schools—can be spiritual battlegrounds for our children. They may be inundated with anti\-Christian doctrine, relative morality, and secular humanistic theories. The Bible says, "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company corrupts good morals'" (1 Corinthians 15:33, NASB). Children tend to adopt the values of those with whom they spend the most time, which makes it crucial for parents who do not opt to homeschool to spend significant time indoctrinating their children in the truth of the Scriptures. In schools, they are exposed to the value systems of non\-Christian students, teachers, and faculty. They may be told that homosexuality is simply an "alternative lifestyle," that abortion is acceptable, and sex before marriage is normal and healthy. The child who is well\-versed in biblical principles will easily see the falsehood of these claims and may very well be used by God to counter the lies with His truth.
Academically, studies have shown that children fare better at home than they do at school. Even the best public school teachers do not have the ability to spend quality one\-on\-one time teaching each student. Although many teachers are hard\-working, dedicated, and have the best interests of their students at heart, nothing can compare to the love and investment that parents can provide their children.
At the same time, homeschooling is not for everyone. An important homeschooling variable to consider is whether one is appropriately gifted and/or has adequate training or teaching skills to homeschool effectively (and in some states, legally). Some states require specific academic credentials and have strict criteria for homeschoolers. In addition, homeschooling requires a significant sacrifice of time, energy and patience to be done effectively. All these things must be considered before undertaking the monumental challenges inherent in homeschooling. Homeschooling need not necessarily encompass a child’s entire academic career, as such decisions will be impacted by the changing variables of school choices and family situations. Periods of homeschooling may only include strategic portions of a child’s elementary, middle or high school years. One size does not fit all, as typically no family’s situation ever remains static.
There are very few things we can do in this world that are more important than praying for our children and raising them to have hearts that love and desire to serve God. Ultimately, parents are going to have to answer to God for how they raise and educate their children. Homeschooling may not be His answer for every family, and there is no one "right" way to educate children. Every family needs to prayerfully consider whether or not home\-schooling—or private, public or Christian schooling—is right for them.
|
What does the Bible say about being or using a surrogate mother? |
Answer
Using a surrogate mother to bear children for a childless couple is as old as the story of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis chapter 16\. Sarah could not bear children, so she gave her servant, Hagar, to Abraham so she could have his children. This was a common practice at the time, since a childless woman was shamed by her friends and family. This story is the closest the Bible comes to what we call “traditional surrogacy” today, where the mother is impregnated with the sperm of a man—often one whose wife is incapable of producing eggs—usually by means of artificial insemination. Also practiced today is “gestational surrogacy” which involves transplantation of an already\-conceived embryo containing the sperm and egg from a couple. In this case, the surrogate’s role is simply that of a carrier, which was not the case with Hagar.
We learn from Hagar’s story that using a surrogate parent has the possibility to cause pain, heartache, and confusion. One problem that arose with Hagar is that she did not want to give her child over to Sarah when it was born. This can still happen today, as women discover that giving away their children (despite financial compensation) can cause immeasurable pain because of the bond that forms between the pregnant mother and the child she is carrying, even before it is born.
The Bible does not forbid the use of a surrogate parent but raises questions as to whether or not it is ethical. Marriage is designed to be between two people, and children are to be born of that union (Genesis 1:28, 2:24\). To bring in a third party means that the child will have a third parent. Then there may arise difficult questions, such as will the baby know its surrogate mother? Will there be visitation? How will the child be expected to feel about the surrogate mother, and will there be jealousy? All these issues should be prayerfully considered before a Christian couple uses a surrogate. Couples who use a family member as surrogate can often head off problems before they arise if the surrogate has a strong bond with the couple and has their welfare and that of their child at heart.
The Bible says that children are a gift, not a right (Psalm 127:3\). Just as God blesses some people with wealth and success, He blesses some with children and others not. Using a surrogate out of arrogant defiance of God would be a sin, but using a surrogate after prayerful consideration and a time of seeking God’s will and guidance may be a viable alternative for the childless. In all we do, we must examine our hearts and the Holy Spirit for truth. “Whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, you must do all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31\).
|
How do we honor an abusive parent? |
Answer
It would be so much easier if God had asked only that we honor our parents if they are good, kind and loving to us, but the command of Exodus 20:12 is “Honor your father and mother,” period. Ephesians 6:1 says to “obey” them. There are many hurt and damaged people who find these commands nearly impossible to obey. Should we honor and obey an abusive parent? Where do we draw the line?
Abuse comes in many forms. A child can be brought up well clothed and fed with all his needs supplied except for the all\-important need for love and approval. No physical harm is ever done to him, yet, as each year goes by, his spirit shrivels up inside him more and more, as a plant will shrivel without sunlight, desperate for the smallest demonstration of affection. Eventually, he grows to adulthood; everything seems to be normal, yet he is crippled inside by the indifference of his parents.
Then again, a child’s spirit may be broken at an early age—even though he suffers no physical abuse—by being constantly told that he is useless and a waste of space. Everything he attempts is sneered at until he gives up trying to do anything at all. Because very young children naturally believe what their parents say about them, the child who suffers this treatment will gradually withdraw into himself, retiring behind an invisible wall and simply existing rather than living. These children grow up never suffering physically at the hands of their parents but nevertheless crippled in their spirits. As grown\-ups, they find it difficult to make friends and are unable to relate normally to other adults.
So, child abuse can be subtle. There is, of course, the more obvious kind—when a child is neglected, kicked and beaten and, worse still, sexually abused. The damage such abuse causes can last a lifetime. Now for the big question: how do we obey God’s commandment to honor parents who behave with such cruelty toward their own children?
Those who have trusted Jesus as their savior have a real Heavenly Father who desires only our good and never to harm us (Jeremiah 29:11\). He is “a father to the fatherless” (Psalm 68:5\). The Lord will use everything, even horrible acts, for good for those who love Him (Romans 8:28\). When we surrender our will to Him, we will see His work in our life. Trusting God may feel disconnected or impossible for those who have never known what it is to love and trust. Someone in this position need only take one small step toward God saying, “I want to learn to love and trust you—please help me.” Jesus is “meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29\), and we can confidently go to Him and pour out our problems, knowing that He will hear and answer (1 John 5:14\-15\). It will not be long before any child of God willing to trust Him will begin to sense the Holy Spirit at work in his heart. God will take the heart that has been turned to stone by an abusive childhood and replace it with one of flesh and feeling (Ezekiel 36:26\).
The next step for someone who has been abused is to be willing to forgive. This, too, will seem to be utterly impossible, especially for those who have suffered the worst kinds of abuse. Bitterness can sink into their souls, weighing them down like iron, yet there is nothing the Holy Spirit cannot soften and cleanse. With God all things are possible (Mark 10:27\). Our Lord understands our pain; He “was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power” (2 Corinthians 13:4\).
There is no need to fear being honest with God. If you find it difficult to forgive the wickedness of a parent’s behavior, talk to God about it. It is true that unforgiveness is sin, but only deliberate unforgiveness, where we have set our hearts like flint and vowed that never again will we even consider forgiveness for those who have hurt us so badly. A child of God going to his Father for help with something he cannot do for himself will find not an angry, threatening God waiting to punish him, but a Father with a heart full of overwhelming love, compassion, mercy and a desire to help.
So, what does honoring an abusive parent look like in real life? Here are some practical tips: by the grace of God, be willing to forgive. A willingness to forgive honors both God and the parent. Pray for your abuser. Let go of expectations that your parent will ever be the parent you want him or her to be; replace your disappointment and sadness with acceptance of who the person is. Cultivate an attitude of compassion for the things your parent did right, and express gratitude for even slight efforts to show love. Refrain from making disparaging remarks about your parent. If it is safe to be in communication with your parent, establish wise boundaries to reduce sinful temptations for you and your parent.
One thing forgiveness and honor are not, though, is a permanent submission to parental authority. The Bible commands honor but not remaining a prisoner in a dysfunctional family. Families with a destructive cycle of sin are dangerous, and children who break free need to find safety in the family of God—which is every Christian’s true family (Matthew 10:35–38\). Dysfunctional families are fraught with codependence, addiction, violence, and an absence of safe boundaries. These traits will be like a millstone around the neck, dragging the child toward the same sinful patterns. Removing oneself from an abusive situation is much like overcoming addiction; when a person desires sobriety, he cannot associate with people who abuse drugs (Proverbs 13:20\).
Also, in cases in which the grandchildren are exposed to the threat of physical harm or sexual assault, it becomes the adult child’s responsibility to protect their own children. There is no guilt in keeping one’s distance from abusive parents, as long as the separation is not motivated by vengeance. You can honor your parents from afar. Sadly, some parents do not value their children enough to maintain a relationship. The void left by a broken relationship should be filled by Christ rather than pining for a parental relationship that will never be.
By focusing on your own relationship with Christ, you can experience real healing. Without salvation there is no hope for anyone, but in Christ we are new creations able to do anything He calls us to do (2 Corinthians 5:17\). It is also possible that the parent will repent; thus, a relationship could be formed based on Christ’s abundant love and grace. You could be the light that leads your unsaved or wayward parent to repentance and salvation (1 Corinthians 9:19\).
Just as Jesus loved us in our sinful state, we can honor an abusive parent. It means showing grace and compassion to those who don’t deserve it so that God is glorified and the obedient are blessed and rewarded (Matthew 5:44\-48; 1 John 4:18\-21\). Remember, “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14\).
|
Is hell real? Is hell eternal? |
Answer
It is interesting that a much higher percentage of people believe in the existence of heaven than believe in the existence of hell. According to the Bible, though, hell is just as real as heaven. The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23\). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23\). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4\), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.
The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41\), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12\), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2\), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44\-49\), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23\-24\), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9\), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10\-11\), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10\).
The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46\). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ, the Savior they rejected (Psalm 76:10; Philippians 2:10–11\). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36\).
|
Is annihilationism biblical? |
Answer
Annihilationism is the belief that unbelievers will not experience an eternity of suffering in hell, but will instead be “extinguished” after death. For many, annihilationism is an attractive belief because of the awfulness of the idea of people spending eternity in hell. While there are some passages that seem to argue for annihilationism, a comprehensive look at what the Bible says about the destiny of the wicked reveals the fact that punishment in hell is eternal. A belief in annihilationism results from a misunderstanding of one or more of the following doctrines: 1\) the consequences of sin, 2\) the justice of God, 3\) the nature of hell.
In relation to the nature of hell, annihilationists misunderstand the meaning of the lake of fire. Obviously, if a human being were cast into a lake of burning lava, he/she would be almost instantly consumed. However, the lake of fire is both a physical and spiritual realm. It is not simply a human body being cast into the lake of fire; it is a human’s body, soul, and spirit. A spiritual nature cannot be consumed by physical fire. It seems that the unsaved are resurrected with a body prepared for eternity just as the saved are (Revelation 20:13; Acts 24:15\). These bodies are prepared for an eternal fate.
Eternity is another aspect which annihilationists fail to fully comprehend. Annihilationists are correct that the Greek word *aionion*, which is usually translated “eternal,” does not by definition mean “eternal.” It specifically refers to an “age” or “eon,” a specific period of time. However, it is clear that in the New Testament, *aionion* is sometimes used to refer to an eternal length of time. Revelation 20:10 speaks of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet being cast into the lake of fire and being tormented “day and night forever and ever.” It is clear that these three are not “extinguished” by being cast into the lake of fire. Why would the fate of the unsaved be any different (Revelation 20:14\-15\)?
One evidence for the eternality of hell is Matthew 25:46, “Then they \[the unsaved] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” In this verse, the same Greek word is used to refer to the destiny of the wicked and the righteous. If the wicked are only tormented for an “age,” then the righteous will only experience life in heaven for an “age.” If believers will be in heaven forever, unbelievers will be in hell forever.
Another frequent objection to the eternality of hell by annihilationists is that it would be unjust for God to punish unbelievers in hell for eternity for a finite amount of sin. How could it be fair for God to take a person who lived a sinful, 70\-year life, and punish him/her for all of eternity? The answer is that our sin bears an eternal consequence because it is committed against an eternal God. When King David committed the sins of adultery and murder he stated, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Psalm 51:4\). David had sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah; how could David claim to have only sinned against God? David understood that all sin is ultimately against God. God is an eternal and infinite Being. As a result, all sin against Him is worthy of an eternal punishment. It is not a matter of the length of time we sin, but the character of the God against whom we sin.
A more personal aspect of annihilationism is the idea that we could not possibly be happy in heaven if we knew that some of our loved ones were suffering an eternity of torment in hell. However, when we arrive in heaven, we will not have anything to complain about or be saddened by. Revelation 21:4 tells us, “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.” If some of our loved ones are not in heaven, we will be in 100 percent complete agreement that they do not belong there and that they are condemned by their own refusal to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior (John 3:16; 14:6\). It is hard to understand this, but we will not be saddened by the lack of their presence. Our focus should not be on how we can enjoy heaven without all of our loved ones there, but on how we can point our loved ones to faith in Christ so that they will be there.
Hell is perhaps a primary reason why God sent Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins. Being “extinguished” after death is no fate to dread, but an eternity in hell most definitely is. Jesus’ death was an infinite death, paying our infinite sin debt so that we would not have to pay it in hell for eternity (2 Corinthians 5:21\). When we place our faith in Him, we are saved, forgiven, cleansed, and promised an eternal home in heaven. But if we reject God’s gift of eternal life, we will face the eternal consequences of that decision.
|
Will we be able to see and know our friends and family members in Heaven? |
Answer
Many people say that the first thing they want to do when they arrive in heaven is see all their friends and loved ones who have passed on before them. That will indeed be a blessed time as believers reunite to fellowship, worship God, and enjoy the glorious wonders of heaven. One of the blessings is that we will know our friends and family members in heaven, and we will be known.
Our ability to recognize people in the afterlife is suggested in several passages of Scripture. At the [transfiguration of Christ](transfiguration.html), Moses and Elijah made an appearance, and they were recognizable (Matthew 17:3–4\). Though they had departed this world centuries prior, both Moses and Elijah remained distinct persons who had not lost their identity. In Luke 16:19–31, Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man are all recognizable after death. King Saul recognized Samuel’s description given by the witch of Endor when she summoned Samuel from the realm of the dead (1 Samuel 28:8–17\). And, when David’s young son died, David declared, “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23\). David’s words imply that he believed he would recognize his son in heaven. In all these examples, the Bible seems to indicate that, after death, we will still be recognizable to each other.
The Bible declares that, when we arrive in heaven, we will “be like him \[Jesus]; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2\). Just as our earthly bodies were of the first man, Adam, so will our resurrection bodies be like Christ’s glorious body (1 Corinthians 15:47; Philippians 3:21\). “And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:49, 53\). Jesus was recognizable after His resurrection (John 20:16, 20; 21:12; 1 Corinthians 15:4–7\), so it stands to reason that we also will be recognizable in our [glorified bodies](glorified-bodies.html).
Being able to see our loved ones is a glorious aspect of heaven. What a pleasure it will be to reunite with our loved ones and worship God with them in His presence for all eternity!
|
Can people in heaven look down and see us? |
Answer
Some see in Hebrews 12:1 the idea that people in heaven might be able to look down and see us: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses. . . .” The “witnesses” are the heroes of faith listed in Hebrews 11, and the fact that we are “surrounded” by them leads some commentators to understand those heroes (and possibly other people) are looking down on us from heaven.
The idea that people are looking down from heaven to see what we’re doing is common in popular culture. But, as much as we might like the notion that we’re being watched by our departed loved ones, that’s not what Hebrews 12:1 is teaching. Building on Hebrews 11, the author begins drawing up some practical lessons (that’s why chapter 12 begins with “Therefore”). The “witnesses” are the people whom God commends for their faith in chapter 11, and there is a large crowd of them in heaven. The question is, in what way are they “witnesses”?
The proper interpretation of Hebrews 12:1 is that the men and women forming the “great cloud of witnesses” are witness to the value of living life by [faith](God-require-faith.html). Their Old Testament stories give testimony to the blessings of choosing faith over fear. To paraphrase the start of Hebrews 12:1, “Since we have so many tried\-and\-true examples of proven faith . . . .” So, it’s not that people are in heaven watching us (as if our lives on earth are so interesting or they have nothing better to do!), but that those who have gone before us have set a lasting example for us. The record of their lives bears witness to faith and God and truth.
Hebrews 12:1 continues, “Let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” Because of the faith and endurance of believers who went before us, we are inspired to stay the course in our own [race of faith](run-the-race-set-before-us.html). We follow the examples of Abraham and Moses and Rahab and Gideon and etc.
Some people point to the rich man’s mention of his brothers in Luke 16:28 as proof that departed souls (in [Hades](sheol-hades-hell.html), at least) can see events on earth. However, the passage never says that the rich man could *see* his brothers; he knew he had brothers, and he knew they were unbelievers. Also, some people use Revelation 6:10 as a proof text: the tribulation martyrs call for God to avenge their deaths. Again, this passage says nothing about the martyrs *seeing* people on earth; it simply says that they knew they deserved justice and desired the Lord to take action.
The Bible doesn’t specifically say that people in heaven *cannot* look down on us, so we can’t be dogmatic. However, it is unlikely that they can. People in heaven are likely preoccupied with other things such as worshiping God and enjoying the glories of heaven.
Whether or not people in heaven can look down and see us, we are not running our race for them. We are not hoping for their approval or listening for their applause. Hebrews 12:2 keeps our focus where it belongs: “Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.” Jesus is our blessed hope, no other (Titus 2:13\).
|
Are there different levels of heaven? Are there three heavens? |
Answer
The closest thing Scripture says to there being different levels of heaven is found in 2 Corinthians 12:2, “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the [third heaven](Paul-third-heaven.html). Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.” Some interpret this as indicating that there are three different levels of heaven: a level for “super\-committed Christians” or Christians who have obtained a high level of spirituality, a level for “ordinary” Christians, and a level for Christians who did not serve God faithfully. This view has no basis in Scripture.
Paul is not saying that there are three heavens or even three levels of heaven. In many ancient cultures, people used the term *heaven* to describe three different “realms”—the sky, outer space, and then a spiritual heaven. Paul was saying that God took him to the “spiritual” heaven—the realm beyond the physical universe where God dwells. The concept of different levels of heaven may have come in part from [Dante’s *The Divine Comedy*](Divine-Comedy-Dantes-Inferno.html) in which the poet describes both heaven and hell as having nine different levels. *The Divine Comedy*, however, is a fictional work. The idea of different levels of heaven is foreign to Scripture.
Scripture does speak of different rewards in heaven. Jesus said regarding rewards, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done” (Revelation 22:12\). Since Jesus will be distributing rewards on the basis of what we have done, we can safely say that there will be a time of reward for believers and that the rewards will differ somewhat from person to person.
Only those works that survive God’s refining fire have eternal value and will be worthy of reward. Those valuable works are referred to as “gold, silver, and costly stones” (1 Corinthians 3:12\) and are those things that are built upon the foundation of faith in Christ. Those works that will not be rewarded are called “wood, hay, and stubble”; these are not evil deeds but shallow activities with no eternal value. Rewards will be distributed at the “judgment seat of Christ,” a place where believers’ lives will be evaluated for the purpose of rewards. “Judgment” of believers never refers to punishment for sin. Jesus Christ was punished for our sin when He died on the cross, and God said about us: “I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Hebrews 8:12\). What a glorious thought! The Christian need never fear punishment, but can look forward to crowns of reward that he can cast at the feet of the Savior. In conclusion, there are not different levels of heaven, but there are different levels of reward in heaven.
|
What does the Bible say about soul sleep? |
Answer
“Soul sleep” is a belief that after a person dies, his/her soul “sleeps” until the resurrection and final judgment. The concept of “soul sleep” is not biblical. When the Bible describes a person “sleeping” in relation to death (Luke 8:52; 1 Corinthians 15:6\), it does not mean literal sleep. Sleeping is just a way to describe death because a dead body appears to be asleep. The moment we die, we face the judgment of God (Hebrews 9:27\). For believers, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6\-8; Philippians 1:23\). For unbelievers, death means everlasting punishment in hell (Luke 16:22\-23\).
Until the final resurrection, though, there is a temporary heaven—paradise (Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4\) and a temporary hell—Hades (Revelation 1:18; 20:13\-14\). As can be clearly seen in Luke 16:19\-31, neither in paradise nor in Hades are people sleeping. It could be said, though, that a person’s body is “sleeping” while his soul is in paradise or Hades. At the resurrection, this body is “awakened” and transformed into the everlasting body a person will possess for eternity, whether in heaven or hell. Those who were in paradise will be sent to the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1\). Those who were in Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11\-15\). These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not a person trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation.
Present\-day defenders of soul sleep include the [Seventh Day Adventist church](Seventh-Day-Adventism.html), [Jehovah’s Witnesses](Jehovahs-Witnesses.html), [Christadelphians](Christadelphianism.html), and others.
|
How can heaven be perfect if all of our loved ones are not there? |
Answer
The word *perfection* carries the idea of wholeness and a lack of nothing. If something is perfect, then it’s complete. So how can [heaven](heaven-like.html) be perfect if some people are missing? Wouldn’t it be better if all our loved ones were there?
God is perfect (Psalm 18:30\). God’s dwelling place is perfect. God’s plan of salvation is perfect. In God’s plan (which is perfect) He extends the righteousness of Christ to all who trust in Him. What happens to those who do not trust in Christ? They are rejecting perfection, rejecting God’s dwelling place, and rejecting God Himself. As John 3:18 says, “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” To force people to believe, to ignore their sin, or to bypass Christ would be to destroy the perfection of heaven.
When we arrive in heaven, our perspective will change. Our limited, earthly perspective will be replaced by a holy, heavenly perspective. Speaking of the eternal state, Revelation 21:4 says that God “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.” Missing our loved ones would presumably fall under the category of pain or mourning. Perhaps we will have no knowledge or remembrance of them at all. Perhaps we will have come to understand how our loved ones’ absence glorifies God. “Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror. Later we will see him face to face. We don’t know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us” (1 Corinthians 13:12, CEV). In the meantime, we accept by faith that what God says about heaven is true and that we will experience perfection for all eternity.
For a brief description of eternity, see Revelation 21—22\. Everything is made new; everything is splendid, glorious, and blessed. That will include us. Our bodies, souls, and spirits will be completely blessed. Sin will no longer be a factor, and our thoughts will be in agreement with God’s (1 John 3:2\). God has a plan to comfort His people (Isaiah 40:1\), to perfect His redeemed (Hebrews 10:14\), and to provide for them for all eternity (Psalm 23:6\).
Right now, our focus should not be on how we can enjoy heaven or the eternal state without all of our loved ones there; rather, we should focus on how we can point our loved ones to faith in Christ—so that they *will* be there.
|
What is the judgment seat of Christ? |
Answer
Scripture gives us a reason not to judge one another: “For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. . . . So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Romans 14:10–12, ESV). None of us are qualified to be the Judge. Only the Lord Jesus is qualified, and all judgment has been entrusted to Him (John 5:22\). We will all stand some day before the judgment seat of Christ.
The judgment seat of Christ involves a time in the future when believers will give an account of themselves to Christ. This is the plain teaching of Scripture: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10\). The warning is to Christians, not unbelievers. As Jesus taught in His [parable](parable-ten-minas.html), the king is going to return, at which time he will require an account from his servants (Luke 19:11–26\).
The judgment seat of Christ is different from the [Great White Throne Judgment](great-white-throne-judgment.html). That will be the final judgment of the wicked prior to their being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15\). Appearing before the Great White Throne will be unbelievers. Believers will appear before the judgment seat of Christ.
The judgment seat of Christ does *not* determine our salvation; that matter was settled by Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf (1 John 2:2\) and our faith in Him (John 3:16\). All our sins are forgiven, and there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1\). Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and *will not be judged* but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24, emphasis added).
So, believers are secure in Christ, but they still must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. It will be a time of examination and a time of reward. Jesus will inspect our works. What did we do with the resources God gave us? How faithful were we? Were we yielded to the Spirit, seeking to honor Christ and further His work in the world? If so, we will have reward (see Matthew 10:41–42\). Did we neglect our opportunities to serve the Lord? If so, we will suffer loss of reward. Paul likens our Christian service to erecting a building:
Each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames (1 Corinthians 3:10b–15\).
Note, in the above passage, that our works subsequent to Christ’s salvation are of two different types—good and bad. The “fire” of God’s scrutiny will reveal the quality of our works. As Arthur Pink points out, “‘Gold, silver, precious stones’ are of intrinsic value, whereas ‘wood, hay, stubble’ are a natural growth” (*The Redeemer’s Return*, ch. 8, pt. 5\). Rewards are distributed to those whose works withstand the test. Those whose works have a natural source will “suffer loss.” Their works will be burned up, but they themselves “will be saved.” The judgment seat of Christ, then, does not confer or rescind salvation.
The judgment seat of Christ is also not a time to punish sin. Jesus took our punishment once and for all. The judgment seat of Christ is a time when we will be called on to report, to render an accounting of what we did for Jesus. It will be a serious and necessary time of reckoning, but, as God’s redeemed, we will never be condemned with the wicked. As one theologian put it, “It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the judgment is unrelated to the problem of sin, that it is more for the bestowing of rewards than the rejection of failure” (Chafer, L. S., *Systematic Theology*, Vol. IV: Ecclesiology\-Eschatology, Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, p. 406\).
In the Greek, a single word is used for “judgment seat” in Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10—the word is *bema*. A *bema* was a raised platform on which judges sat to view athletic games. Their job was to make sure contestants followed the rules and to present awards to the victors (see 1 Corinthians 9:24–27\). The *bema* was never a place to reprimand the athletes or to punish them in any way. It was a place of testing and reward. In the same way, the *bema* of Christ will not be a place of condemnation or censure.
In anticipation of the judgment seat of Christ, we are careful in what we say and do in this life. James gives this advice: “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom” (James 2:12; cf. Matthew 12:36\). We want to give our account with joy on that day, and that is why we strive to serve the Lord faithfully today.
The Bible speaks of believers receiving [crowns](heavenly-crowns.html) for different things. The various crowns are described in 2 Timothy 2:5, 2 Timothy 4:8, James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4, and Revelation 2:10\. We believe the judgment seat of Christ is when the crowns will be awarded, and this will take place in heaven soon after the rapture of the church (as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18\).
At the very end of the Bible, Jesus said, “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done” (Revelation 22:12\). In preparation for the judgment seat of Christ, what are you choosing to “build” with? Gold, silver, and precious stones—things that will last? Or wood, hay, and straw—things that will not stand the day of testing?
|
Will there be marriage in heaven? |
Answer
The Bible tells us, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30\). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23\-28\)? Evidently, there will be no such thing as marriage in heaven. This does not mean that a husband and wife will no longer know each other in heaven. This also does not mean that a husband and wife could not still have a close relationship in heaven. What it does seem to indicate, though, is that a husband and wife will no longer be married in heaven.
Most likely, there will be no marriage in heaven simply because there will be no need for it. When God established marriage, He did so to fill certain needs. First, He saw that Adam was in need of a companion. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Genesis 2:18\). Eve was the solution to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, as well as his need for a “helper,” someone to come alongside him as his companion and go through life by his side. In heaven, however, there will be no loneliness, nor will there be any need for helpers. We will be surrounded by multitudes of believers and angels (Revelation 7:9\), and all our needs will be met, including the need for companionship.
Second, God created marriage as a means of procreation and the filling of the earth with human beings. Heaven, however, will not be populated by procreation. Those who go to heaven will get there by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; they will not be created there by means of reproduction. Therefore, there is no purpose for marriage in heaven since there is no procreation or loneliness.
|
Are there different levels of punishment in hell? |
Answer
The idea that there are different levels of punishment in hell is graphically portrayed in [*The Divine Comedy*](Divine-Comedy-Dantes-Inferno.html), written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and 1321\. In that poem, the Roman poet Virgil guides Dante through the nine circles of hell. The circles are concentric, representing a gradual increase in wickedness, and culminating at the center of the earth, where Satan is held in bondage. Each circle’s sinners are punished in a fashion befitting their crimes. Each sinner is afflicted for all of eternity by the chief sin he committed. According to Dante, the circles range from the first circle, where dwell the unbaptized and virtuous pagans, to the very center of hell reserved for those who have committed the ultimate sin—treachery against God.
Although the Bible does not *specifically* say there are different levels of punishment in hell, it does seem to indicate that the judgment will indeed be experienced differently for different people. In Revelation 20:11–15, the people are judged “according to what they had done as recorded in the books” (Revelation 20:12\). All the people at this judgment, though, are thrown into [the lake of fire](lake-of-fire.html) (Revelation 20:13–15\). So, perhaps, the purpose of the judgment is to determine how severe the punishment in hell will be.
A clearer passage is Luke 10, where Jesus speaks of comparative punishment. First, Jesus says this about a village that rejects the gospel: “I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town” (verse 12\). Then He speaks to Bethsaida and Chorazin: “It will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you” (verse 14\). Whatever punishment the former residents of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon were experiencing in hell, the Galilean towns that refused to hear Christ would experience more. The level of punishment in hell seems to be tied to the amount of light a person rejects.
Another indication that hell has different levels of punishment is found in Jesus’ words in Luke 12: “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. 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” (verses 47–48\).
Whatever degrees of punishment hell contains, it is clear that hell is a place to be avoided.
Unfortunately, the Bible states that most people will wind up in hell: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13–14\). The question one must ask is “which road am I on?” The “many” on the broad road have one thing in common—they have all rejected Christ as the one and only way to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6\). When He said He is the only way, that is precisely what He meant. Everyone following another “way” besides Jesus Christ is on the broad road to destruction, and the suffering is hideous, dreadful, eternal, and unavoidable.
|
What does the Bible say about when God will judge us? |
Answer
There are two separate judgments. Believers are judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 14:10\-12\). Every believer will give an account of himself, and the Lord will judge the decisions he made—including those concerning issues of conscience. This judgment does not determine salvation, which is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8\-9\), but rather is the time when believers must give an account of their lives in service to Christ. Our position in Christ is the “foundation” spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:11\-15\. That which we build upon the foundation can be the “gold, silver, and precious stones” of good works in Christ’s name, obedience and fruitfulness—dedicated spiritual service to glorify God and build the church. Or what we build on the foundation may be the “wood, hay and stubble” of worthless, frivolous, shallow activity with no spiritual value. The Judgment Seat of Christ will reveal this.
The gold, silver, and precious stones in the lives of believers will survive God’s refining fire (v. 13\), and believers will be rewarded based on those good works—how faithfully we served Christ (1 Corinthians 9:4\-27\), how well we obeyed the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18\-20\), how victorious we were over sin (Romans 6:1\-4\), how well we controlled our tongues (James 3:1\-9\), etc. We will have to give an account for our actions, whether they were truly indicative of our position in Christ. The fire of God’s judgment will completely burn up the “wood, hay and stubble” of the words we spoke and things we did which had no eternal value. “So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12 ).
The second judgment is that of unbelievers who will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11\-15\). This judgment does not determine salvation, either. Everyone at the Great White Throne is an unbeliever who has rejected Christ in life and is therefore already doomed to the lake of fire. Revelation 20:12 says that unbelievers will be “judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Those who have rejected Christ as Lord and Savior will be judged based on their works alone, and because the Bible tells us that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (Galatians 2:16\), they will be condemned. No amount of good works and the keeping of God’s laws can be sufficient to atone for sin. All their thoughts, words and actions will be judged against God’s perfect standard and found wanting. There will be no reward for them, only eternal condemnation and punishment.
|
What is paradise? |
Answer
Paradise is a place of blessing where the righteous go after death. The word *paradise* is usually used as a synonym for “heaven” (Revelation 2:7\).
When Jesus was dying on the cross and one of the thieves being crucified with Him asked Him for mercy, Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43\). Jesus knew that His death was imminent and that He would soon be in heaven with His Father. Therefore, Jesus used “paradise” as a synonym for “heaven.” The apostle Paul wrote of someone (probably himself) who “was caught up to paradise” (2 Corinthians 12:3\). In this context, *paradise* obviously refers to heaven.
There has always been a separation of believers and unbelievers after death (Luke 16:19\-31\). The righteous have always gone to paradise; the wicked have always gone to hell. For right now, both paradise and hell are “temporary holding places” until the day when Jesus Christ comes back to judge the world based on whether or not individuals have believed in Him. The first resurrection is of believers who will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to receive rewards based on meritorious service to Him. The second resurrection will be that of unbelievers who will stand before the Great White Throne Judgment of God. At that point, all will be sent to their eternal destination—the wicked to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11\-15\), and the righteous to a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21—22\).
There are cases in which *paradise* can refer to the Garden of Eden, such in the Douay\-Rheims translation of Genesis 3:8, which speaks of Adam and Eve hiding “amidst the trees of paradise.” The context of the word will determine whether it refers to heaven or Eden.
|
How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin? |
Answer
Many people are uncomfortable, to say the least, with the idea of an eternal hell. This discomfort, though, is often the result of an incomplete understanding of three things: the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of sin. As fallen, sinful human beings, the nature of God is a difficult concept for us to grasp. We tend to see God as a kind, merciful Being whose love for us overrides and overshadows all His other attributes. Of course God is loving, kind, and merciful, but He is first and foremost a holy and righteous God. So holy is He that He cannot tolerate sin. He is a God whose anger burns against the wicked and disobedient (Isaiah 5:25; Hosea 8:5; Zechariah 10:3\). He is not only a loving God—He is love itself! But the Bible also tells us that He hates all manner of sin (Proverbs 6:16\-19\). And while He is merciful, there are limits to His mercy. “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon” (Isaiah 55:6\-7\).
Humanity is corrupted by sin, and that sin is always directly against God. When David sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba and having Uriah murdered, he responded with an interesting prayer: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight…” (Psalm 51:4\). Since David had sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, how could he claim to have only sinned against God? David understood that all sin is ultimately against God. God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2\). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment. God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin. Although to our finite minds our sin is limited in time, to God—who is outside of time—the sin He hates goes on and on. Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice.
No one understands this better than someone in hell. A perfect example is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Both died, and the rich man went to hell while Lazarus went to paradise (Luke 16\). Of course, the rich man was aware that his sins were only committed during his lifetime. But, interestingly, he never says, “How did I end up here?” That question is never asked in hell. He does not say, “Did I really deserve this? don’t you think this is a little extreme? A little over the top?” He only asks that someone go to his brothers who are still alive and warn them against his fate.
Like the rich man, every sinner in hell has a full realization that he deserves to be there. Each sinner has a fully informed, acutely aware, and sensitive conscience which, in hell, becomes his own tormenter. This is the experience of torture in hell—a person fully aware of his or her sin with a relentlessly accusing conscience, without relief for even one moment. The guilt of sin will produce shame and everlasting self\-hatred. The rich man knew that eternal punishment for a lifetime of sins is justified and deserved. That is why he never protested or questioned being in hell.
The realities of eternal damnation, eternal hell, and eternal punishment are frightening and disturbing. But it is good that we might, indeed, be terrified. While this may sound grim, there is good news. God loves us (John 3:16\) and wants us to be saved from hell (2 Peter 3:9\). But because God is also just and righteous, He cannot allow our sin to go unpunished. Someone has to pay for it. In His great mercy and love, God provided His own payment for our sin. He sent His Son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins by dying on the cross for us. Jesus’ death was an infinite death because He is the infinite God/man, paying our infinite sin debt, so that we would not have to pay it in hell for eternity (2 Corinthians 5:21\). If we confess our sin and place our faith in Christ, asking for God’s forgiveness based on Christ’s sacrifice, we are saved, forgiven, cleansed, and promised an eternal home in heaven. God loved us so much that He provided the means for our salvation, but if we reject His gift of eternal life, we will face the eternal consequences of that decision.
|
What does the Bible say about Purgatory? |
Answer
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life. Is this doctrine of Purgatory in agreement with the Bible? Absolutely not!
Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8\). Isaiah 53:5 declares, “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” Jesus suffered for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (1 John 2:2\). The idea that those who are saved by grace through faith have to suffer for their sins after death is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation.
The primary Scriptural passage Catholics point to for evidence of Purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:15, which says, “If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12\-15\) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers’ works being judged. If our works are of good quality “gold, silver, costly stones,” they will pass through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor quality “wood, hay, and straw,” they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer’s works pass through the fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer “escaping through the flames,” not “being cleansed by the flames.”
Purgatory, like many other Catholic dogmas, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Catholics view the Mass / Eucharist as a re\-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice because they fail to understand that Jesus’ once\-for\-all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient (Hebrews 7:27\). Catholics view meritorious works as contributing to salvation due to a failure to recognize that Jesus’ sacrificial payment has no need of additional “contribution” (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Similarly, Purgatory is understood by Catholics as a place of cleansing in preparation for heaven because they do not recognize that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are already cleansed, declared righteous, forgiven, redeemed, reconciled, and sanctified.
The very idea of Purgatory and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1, 14\), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3\). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2\). To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin or sins committed before salvation is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must, in order to be saved, pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins, then Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice.
For believers, after death is to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6\-8; Philippians 1:23\). Notice that this does not say "away from the body, in Purgatory with the cleansing fire." No, because of the perfection, completion, and sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are immediately in the Lord’s presence after death, fully cleansed, free from sin, glorified, perfected, and ultimately sanctified.
|
Where did Old Testament believers/saints go when they died? |
Answer
The Old Testament believers went to a place of comfort and rest called “paradise” when they died. The Old Testament taught life after death and that everyone who departed from this life went to a place of conscious existence. The general term for this place was *Sheol*, which could be translated “the grave” or “the realm of the dead.” The wicked were there (Psalm 9:17; 31:17; 49:14; Isaiah 5:14\), and so were the righteous (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13; Psalm 6:5; 16:10; 88:3; Isaiah 38:10\).
The New Testament equivalent of Sheol is [Hades](sheol-hades-hell.html). Luke 16:19–31 shows that, prior to Christ’s resurrection, Hades was divided into two realms: a place of comfort where Lazarus was (Abraham’s bosom or Abraham’s side) and a place of torment where the rich man was (hell). Lazarus’s place of comfort is elsewhere called “paradise” (Luke 23:43\). The place of torment is called “[Gehenna](Gehenna.html)” in the Greek in Mark 9:45\. Between paradise and hell (the two districts of Hades) there was “a great chasm” (Luke 16:26\). The fact that no one could cross this chasm indicates that, after death, one’s fate is sealed.
Today, when an unbeliever dies, he follows the Old Testament unbelievers to the torment side of Hades. At the final judgment, Hades will be emptied before the Great White Throne, where its occupants will be judged prior to entering the lake of fire (Revelation 20:13–15\).
On the other hand, when a believer dies today, he is “present with the Lord” in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:6–9\). There, he joins the Old Testament saints who have been enjoying their reward for thousands of years.
A resurrection awaits everyone—either a resurrection to eternal life or a resurrection to “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2\). The Bible clearly states that New Testament saints who have died will be resurrected at the event we call the rapture of the church (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17\). The Bible is less clear about when the Old Testament saints will be resurrected. It is our view that Old Testament believers will be joined to their resurrected bodies at the end of the tribulation period when Jesus returns to earth to set up His millennial kingdom (Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 13:14\).
|
How do I find comfort and peace when I have lost a loved one to death? |
Answer
If you have lost a loved one to death, you know that it is a painful experience. Jesus understood the pain of losing someone close to His heart. In the book of John (11:1\-44\), we learn that Jesus lost a loved one named Lazarus. Jesus was deeply moved and wept at the loss of His friend. This story, however, doesn’t end in tears. Jesus knew He possessed the power needed to raise Lazarus from the dead. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" (John 11:25\). Jesus overcame death through His resurrection. It is comforting to know that death is not the end for those who believe. Those who know Jesus as Savior will have eternal life (John 10:28\). God has prepared a new home for us where there will be no more death, tears, or pain (Revelation 21:1\-4\).
Even if we are assured that our loved one is in a better place, we still experience the pain of their absence on earth. It is okay to grieve the loss of your loved one. Jesus wept over the death of Lazarus, even knowing He would bring Lazarus back to life. God is not afraid of our emotions or our questions. We can pour out our burdens on Him and trust in His love to provide us reassurance and comfort (1 Peter 5:7\). We can remember the many good things about our lost loved ones and rejoice in the fact that we were able to share in their lives. We can share stories about the impact our lost loved ones have had on our lives. We might find it comforting to do some of the things our lost loved ones particularly enjoyed or to spend time reminiscing about our lost loved ones with other close relatives and friends. We can also honor their memory by living our lives in a way that brings honor and glory to God.
It is important to remember that God is ultimately the source of our comfort (2 Corinthians 7:6\). While it is good to remember our lost loved ones and to honor their influence in our lives, the Bible is clear that we are not to pray to lost loved ones or worship them in any way. Instead, we bring our prayers to God and ask Him for comfort and healing. The Bible tells us that God is the father of mercies and that He will comfort us in all our tribulations (2 Corinthians 1:3\-4\). Be assured that God loves you and that He understands how much you are hurting. Run to the shelter of the Most High where you will find sweet rest (Psalm 91:1\-2\).
|
What age will everyone be in Heaven? |
Answer
The Bible does not specifically answer this question. Will babies and children who die still be babies / children in Heaven? What about elderly people who die\-\-do they remain elderly in heaven? Some have guessed that babies are given a resurrection body (1 Corinthians 15:35\-49\) that is “fast\-forwarded” to the “ideal age,” just as those who die at an old age are "re\-wound" to the ideal age. This would indicate that there won’t be any children or elderly people in heaven.
What is the ideal age? Again, this concept is not specifically biblical. Some believe it to be around 30\. Some guess 33 since that is approximately the age Jesus was when He died. First John 3:2 declares, "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."
One thing is for certain. Whatever age we appear to be, we will be gloriously perfect. Our entire person will be remade flawless, wholly and completely Christ\-like. We will lose all trace of human fallenness, wearing the white robes of purity, holiness and absolute perfection. So whatever age we are, it will be the age of complete and total perfection.
|
What will we look like in heaven? |
Answer
In the book of 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, Paul talks about the resurrection and the resurrected body. In verses 35 and following, he states that our heavenly bodies will be different from our natural bodies, with some stark contrasts. Whereas our earthly bodies are characterized by mortality (being susceptible to death), our resurrected bodies will be characterized by immortality (not susceptible to death). Likewise, while our earthly bodies are susceptible to decay (corruption), they will become incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:53\). Also, where our natural bodies are prone to weakness (ask anyone who has reached 40 years of age or older), our resurrected bodies will be characterized by strength (verse 43\).
Another comparison is that now we have a natural body, but then we will have a [spiritual body](spiritual-body.html). This probably doesn’t mean that we will be like ghosts possessing no body at all and floating around unable to interact with things around us. After all, 1 Corinthians 15:49 states that we will have a body like Jesus’ resurrected body (see also 1 John 3:2\). And Jesus, after His resurrection, told them to touch Him and to watch Him eat, demonstrating that He was not merely a spirit (Luke 24:37\-43\). Rather, it’s more likely that just as a natural body is fitted for this present life in our physical universe, the spiritual body will be that which will best suit us for the eternal existence we are destined for in our eternal abode. Jesus’ resurrected body was capable of entering locked rooms at will (John 20:19\). Our earthly body limits us in ways (and/or dimensions) that our spiritual body will not.
First Corinthians 15:43 also describes the transformation from “sown in dishonor” to “raised in glory.” Philippians 3:21 says that Jesus “will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.” Our decaying bodies are described with the word *dishonor* because they bear the mark of the results of sin. Sometimes our bodies are marred due to our own, personal sin, such as a brain that is no longer able to form complete thoughts because of drug abuse. Other times our bodies are marked by the sins of others, such as scar from someone acting violently against us. But these are not the only physical markings of sin. In more general terms, the decaying physical body is the direct result of humanity’s fall into sin. Had there been no sin, there would be no decay and death (1 Corinthians 15:56\). But God, through Christ’s transforming power, is able to raise up His children with new, glorious bodies, completely free from the ravages of sin and possessing the glory of Christ instead.
To summarize, we are not told exactly what we will look like in the next life, what age we will appear to be, or if we will look thin or fat. But, while many believe we will bear some resemblance to what we look like now, we do know that in whatever ways our appearance or health has been altered as a result of sin (whether because of overeating or not eating right, hereditary malformations, injuries, aging, etc.), these traits will not be carried over into our appearance in the next life. More importantly, the sin nature inherited from Adam (Romans 5:12\) will no longer be with us, for we will be made after the holiness of Christ (1 John 3:2\).
|
What does the Bible say about reincarnation? |
Answer
To reincarnate is, literally, to “incarnate again”; that is, reincarnation is a “rebirth” into a new body of flesh and blood. In most contexts, *reincarnation* refers to the process, after death, of a [soul](human-soul.html) returning in a new body. Claims of remembering a “past life” imply reincarnation.
According to some religious and philosophical systems, reincarnation involves more than human souls and bodies: a dog’s spirit can reincarnate as another dog, for example, or a human soul can reincarnate as a cow. Reincarnation, also referred to as the transmigration of the soul, rests on concepts such as the eternal, uncreated nature of the soul and the need for the soul to “mature,” grow, transform, and evolve.
Of course, there is no “proof” for reincarnation. Any evidence put forward is entirely subjective: feelings of déjà vu, recurring dreams, feeling one has an “old soul,” irrational phobias, and an affinity for other cultures and eras are all interpreted, by some, as confirmation that they are living another life in a different body.
The concept of reincarnation, in any of its forms, is completely without foundation in the Bible. The truth is that we die once and then face judgment (Hebrews 9:27\). The Bible never even remotely suggests that people have a second chance at life or that they can come back as different people or animals. Reincarnation has been a popular belief for thousands of years, but it has never been accepted by Christians or followers of Judaism because it is contradictory to Scripture.
Several passages in Scripture refute the idea of reincarnation. Jesus told the criminal on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43\)—not “You will have another chance to live a life on earth.” Matthew 25:46 tells us that, upon death, believers go on to eternal life while unbelievers go on to eternal punishment. We are created as individuals, and our identity does not change after death (see Luke 9:30\).
Some who believe in reincarnation point to Matthew 17:10–12 as biblical support for reincarnation. The disciples ask Jesus about the commonly taught prophecy that Elijah must come before the Messiah (verse 10; cf. Malachi 4:5\), and Jesus responds by identifying the “Elijah” of the prophecy as John the Baptist (Matthew 17:11–13\). However, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. For one thing, Elijah did not die; he was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11\), so the literal “coming” of Elijah would have been a descent from heaven, not a reincarnation. Jesus calls John the Baptist “Elijah” because he came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17\), not because he was Elijah in a literal sense. Also, Elijah himself had just appeared, talking with Jesus (Matthew 17:3\), which shows that Elijah had not changed his identity—he had not become John. Finally, the people had earlier asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah, and he said, “No, I am not” (John 1:21\).
Belief in reincarnation is a central tenet in the majority of Indian religious traditions such as [Hinduism](hinduism.html), [Sikhism](Sikhism.html), and [Jainism](Jainism.html). Many modern pagans also believe in reincarnation, as do some New Age movements, along with followers of Spiritism. For the Christian, however, there can be no doubt: reincarnation is unbiblical and must be rejected as false.
|
Do we have an appointed time of death? |
Answer
The Bible tells us that “all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:16\). So, yes, God knows exactly when, where, and how we will die. God knows absolutely everything about us (Psalm 139:1\-6\). So does this mean our fate is sealed? Does this mean we have absolutely no control over when we will die? The answer is both yes and no, depending on the perspective.
The answer is "yes" from God’s perspective because God is omniscient—He knows everything and knows exactly when, where, and how we will die. Nothing we can do will change what God already knows will happen. The answer is "no" from our perspective because we do have an impact on when, where, and how we die. Obviously, a person who commits suicide causes his own death. A person who commits suicide would have lived longer had he not committed suicide. Similarly, a person who dies because of a foolish decision (e.g., drug use) “expedites” his own death. A person who dies of lung cancer from smoking would not have died in the same way or at the same time if he had not smoked. A person who dies of a heart attack due to a lifetime of extremely unhealthy eating and little exercise would not have died in the same way or at the same time if he had eaten healthier foods and exercised more. Yes, our own decisions have an undeniable impact on the manner, timing, and place of our death.
How does this affect our lives practically? We are to live each day for God. James 4:13\-15 teaches us, “Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.'” We are to make wise decisions about how we live our lives and how we take care of ourselves. And ultimately, we trust God that He is sovereign and in control of all things.
|
What will we be doing in Heaven? |
Answer
In Luke 23:43, Jesus declared, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise." The word Jesus used for "paradise" is *paradeisos* which means "a park, that is, (specifically) an Eden (place of future happiness, paradise)". Paradeisos is the Greek word taken from the Hebrew word pardes which means "a park: \- forest, orchard" (Strong’s). Jesus said, "Today you shall be with me "en paradeisos," not "en nephele" which is Greek for “in clouds.” The point is that Jesus picked and used the word for "a park." Not just any park but "the paradise of God" or park of God (Revelation 2:7\) which for us will be a place of future happiness. Does this sound like a boring place? When you think of a park, do you think of boredom?
Jesus said, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Matthew 4:10\). It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not say "praise and serve." Even the briefest examination of the word praise in the Bible quickly shows it’s a verbal thing and is for the most part singing. Worship, however, is from the heart. Worship manifests itself in praise. Serving God is worship, and Scripture is clear we will serve God in heaven. "His servants will serve Him" (Revelation 22:3\).
We are unable to fully serve God in this life due to sin, but in heaven "every curse will no longer be" (Revelation 22:3\). We will not be under the curse of sin any longer, so everything we do will be worship in heaven. We will never be motivated by anything other than our love for God. Everything we do will be out of our love for God, untainted by our sin nature.
So what will we do? My favorite thing is to learn. "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?" (Romans 11:34\), "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3\). God is the "the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity" (Isaiah 57:15\). God is bigger than forever, and it will take eternity "to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ" (Ephesians 3:18\-19\). In other words, we will never stop learning.
God’s Word says we won’t have to be in His paradise alone. "I shall fully know even as I also am fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:12\). This would seem to indicate that we will not only know our friends and family, we will "fully know" them. In other words, there is no need for secrets in heaven. There is nothing to be ashamed of. There is nothing to hide. We will have eternity to interact with "a great multitude, which no man could number, out of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues" (Revelation 7:9\). No wonder heaven will be a place of infinite learning. Just getting to know everyone will take eternity!
Any further anticipation about what we shall do in God’s eternal park, heaven, will be far surpassed when "the King shall say to those on His right hand, 'Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world'" (Matthew 25:34\). Whatever we will be doing, we can be sure it will be wonderful beyond our imaginations!
|
Will we remember our earthly lives when we are in Heaven? |
Answer
Isaiah 65:17 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Some interpret Isaiah 65:17 as saying that we will have no memory of our earthly lives in heaven. However, one verse earlier in Isaiah 65:16, the Bible says, “For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes.” It is likely only our “past troubles” will be forgotten, not all of our memories. Our memories will eventually be cleansed, redeemed, healed, and restored, not erased. There is no reason why we could not possess many memories from our earthly lives. The memories that will be cleansed are the ones that involve sin, pain, and sadness. Revelation 21:4 declares, “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.”
The fact that the former things will not come to mind does not mean that our memories will be wiped clean. The prophecy could be suggesting the wondrous quality of our new environment. The new earth will be so spectacular, so mind\-blowing, that everyone will quite forget the drudgery and sin of the current earth. A child who is scared of the shadows in his room at night completely forgets his nocturnal fear the next day on the playground. It’s not that the memories have been wiped out, only that, in the sunshine, they don’t come to mind.
Also, it’s important to make a distinction between the [eternal state](eternal-state.html) and the current heaven. When a believer dies, he or she goes to heaven, but that is not our final destination. The Bible speaks of “[a new heaven and a new earth](new-heavens-earth.html)” as our eternal, permanent home. Both passages quoted above (Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1\) refer to the eternal state, not the current heaven. The promise of wiping away every tear does not come until after the tribulation, after the final judgment, and after the re\-creation of the universe.
In his apocalyptic vision, John sees sorrow in heaven: “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’” (Revelation 6:9–10\). John is obviously in heaven (Revelation 4:1–2\), and he sees and hears those who obviously remember the injustice done to them. Their loud calls for vengeance indicate that, in the current heaven, we will remember our lives on earth, including the bad things. The current heaven of Revelation 6 is temporary, though, giving way to the eternal state in Revelation 21\.
The story of [Lazarus and the rich man](rich-man-and-Lazarus.html) (Luke 16:19–31\) is further proof that the dead remember their earthly lives. The rich man in Hades asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn the rich man’s brothers of the fate awaiting the unrighteous (verses 27–28\). The rich man obviously remembers his relatives. He also remembers his own life of self\-serving and sinful comfort (verse 25\). The memories of the rich man in Sheol become part of his misery. The story does not mention whether or not Lazarus has memories, but Abraham has definite knowledge of goings\-on on earth (verse 25\). It’s not until we reach the eternal state that the righteous will leave all sorrow behind.
|
What does the Bible say about near death experiences? |
Answer
A near\-death experience (NDE) is when a person is at the brink of death and, upon recovery, reports an unusual occurrence, generally an out\-of\-body experience or some sort of vision of heaven or hell. There is no specific scriptural support for near\-death experiences. Many people use 2 Corinthians 12:2\-5 as a biblical proof text of near\-death experiences. However, this is taking great liberty with interpretation and makes the assumption that the man (presumed to be Paul) was either near death or actually dead when he found himself in heaven. The passage nowhere states that the man had died or come close to death. It was a vision that God gave the man of heaven, not a near\-death experience.
That being said, it is not impossible for God to give someone near death, or anyone for that matter, a vision of heaven. However, with the completion of the biblical canon, visions are not a normative experience for Christians.
We need to be extremely careful in how we validate our experiences. The most important test of any experience is comparing it with the Bible. Satan is always ready to cause deception and twist people’s thinking. "But I am not surprised! Even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. So, it is no wonder his servants can also do it by pretending to be godly ministers. In the end, they will get every bit of punishment their wicked deeds deserve" (2 Corinthians 11:14\-15\).
Because the Bible is silent regarding near\-death experiences, and scientific research has not been able to be performed reliably, we simply cannot accept the legitimacy of near\-death experiences on their face value. It would be too strong to state that all near\-death experiences are faked, imagined, or Satanic, but there are still serious concerns, biblically, about the validity of near\-death experiences. Again, any description of a near\-death experience should be validated against the truth of Scripture. If such an experience comes from God, it will line up with what He has already revealed in His Word and ultimately bring Him glory in the name of Jesus Christ.
|
Will we have physical bodies in Heaven? |
Answer
Although the Bible tells us little about what it will be like in heaven, it seems that we will most likely have a physical body, although not in the same sense of “physical” that we have now. First Corinthians 15:52 says that "the dead will be raised incorruptible" and that those who are alive at the time of Christ’s return for His saints "shall be changed." Jesus Christ is "the first fruits" of those who have died (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23\). This means that He set the example and leads the way. First Corinthians 15:42 says that our "body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption." In a precursor to the believers’ resurrection, some were raised at the time of Christ’s resurrection in Matthew 27:52 where it says that their "bodies...were raised." Thomas, in John 20:27, physically touched the body of Christ following His resurrection, so He obviously had a body that was solid.
We can expect that all believers’ resurrection will be like that of Christ’s. What a wonderful truth! The Bible is not specific, but it seems that we will be able to eat. John, in Revelation 22:2, writes of his vision of the eternal state where he saw that "in the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month." This seems to be a reversal of the Genesis 3 punishment where Adam and Eve, and hence all of mankind, were banned from eating from this tree. As for hunger, it appears that there won’t be any. Isaiah 49:10 says that there will be no hunger or thirst in the millennial kingdom. This is speaking of mortal men during that period, not of translated saints, but by extension it can be said that if mortals on earth during Christ’s Kingdom do not hunger, then surely there will be no hunger in heaven (see also Revelation 7:14\-16\).
Finally, Job wrote that he knew for sure that even after he dies and his skin is long gone, that "in my FLESH I shall SEE God" (Job 19:26 \- all caps added for emphasis). So that means our bodies will consist of some kind of glorified flesh. Whatever form we have, we know that it will be perfect, sinless and flawless.
|
What does the Bible say about death? |
Answer
The Bible presents death as separation: physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, and spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God.
Death is the result of sin. “For the wages of sin is death,” Romans 6:23a. The whole world is subject to death, because all have sinned. “By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12\). In Genesis 2:17, the Lord warned Adam that the penalty for disobedience would be death—“you will surely die.” When Adam disobeyed, he experienced immediate spiritual death, which caused him to hide “from Lord God among the trees of the garden” (Genesis 3:8\). Later, Adam experienced physical death (Genesis 5:5\).
On the cross, Jesus also experienced physical death (Matthew 27:50\). The difference is that Adam died because he was a sinner, and Jesus, who had never sinned, chose to die as a substitute for sinners (Hebrews 2:9\). Jesus then showed His power over death and sin by rising from the dead on the third day (Matthew 28; Revelation 1:18\). Because of Christ, death is a defeated foe. “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:55; Hosea 13:14\).
For the unsaved, death brings to an end the chance to accept God’s gracious offer of salvation. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27\). For the saved, death ushers us into the presence of Christ: “To be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23\). So real is the promise of the believer’s resurrection that the physical death of a Christian is called “sleep” (1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 5:10\). We look forward to that time when “there shall be no more death” (Revelation 21:4\).
|
Do faith in God and science contradict? |
Answer
Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.
Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.
Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.
Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.
Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.
|
What is the age of the earth? |
Answer
On some topics, the Bible is extremely clear. For example, our moral obligations toward God and the method of salvation are discussed in detail. On other topics, however, the Bible doesn’t provide nearly as much information. Reading the Scriptures carefully, one finds that the more critical a topic is, the more directly the Bible addresses it. In other words, “the main things are the plain things.” One of the topics not explicitly addressed in Scripture is the age of the earth.
There are several ways of attempting to determine the age of the earth. Every method relies on certain assumptions which may or may not be accurate. All fall in a spectrum between biblical literalism and scientific literalism.
One method of determining the age of the earth assumes that the six days of creation presented in Genesis 1 were [literal 24\-hour periods](Genesis-days.html) and that there are no [gaps](gap-theory.html) in the chronology or genealogy of Genesis. The years listed in the genealogies of Genesis are then added to get an approximate time from creation to certain Old Testament figures. Using this method, we arrive at an age for Earth of approximately 6,000 years. It’s important to realize that the Bible nowhere explicitly states the age of the earth—this is a calculated number.
Another method of determining the age of the earth is to use resources such as [radiometric (carbon) dating](carbon-dating.html), geologic cycles, and so forth. By comparing different methods, and seeing if they align, scientists attempt to determine how old the planet is. This is the method used to arrive at an age for Earth of about 4 to 5 billion years. It’s important to realize that there is no means to directly measure the age of the earth—this is a calculated number.
Both of these methods of determining the age of the earth have potential drawbacks. There are theologians who do not believe that the Bible’s text requires the creation days to be literal 24\-hour periods. Likewise, there are reasons to believe that the genealogies of Genesis have intentional gaps, only mentioning certain men in the lineage. Some measures of the age of Earth do not seem to support it being as young as 6,000 years, and denying such evidence requires the suggestion that God made virtually every aspect of the universe “appear” to be old, for some reason. Despite claims to the contrary, many Christians who hold to an old earth view take the Bible to be infallible and inspired, but they differ on the proper interpretation of a select few verses.
On the other hand, radiometric dating is only useful or accurate back to a certain point, far less than the scale involved in dating the earth. Geologic time scales, fossil records, and so forth are highly dependent on assumptions and subject to modeling errors. The same is true of observations of the greater universe; we can only see a tiny fraction of all that exists, and much of what we “know” is theoretical. In short, there are ample reasons to believe that secular estimates for the age of the earth are inaccurate, as well. Relying on science to answer scientific questions is fine, but science cannot be treated as infallible.
In the end, the chronological age of the earth cannot be proven. Unfortunately, there are voices on both sides of the issue who claim theirs is the only possible interpretation—theologically or scientifically. In truth, there is no irreconcilable theological contradiction between Christianity and an old earth. Nor is there a true scientific contradiction in a young earth. Those who claim otherwise are creating division where none needs exist. Whichever view a person holds, what matters is whether or not he is trusting in God’s Word to be true and authoritative.
Got Questions Ministries favors the [young earth perspective](old-earth-vs-young-earth.html). We believe that Genesis 1–2 is literal, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents. At the same time, we do not consider old earth creationism to be heretical. We need not question the faith of our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us about the age of the earth. We believe one can hold to old earth creationism and still adhere to the core doctrines of the Christian faith.
Topics such as the age of the earth are why Paul urged believers not to cause strife over things not detailed in the Bible (Romans 14:1–10; Titus 3:9\). The age of the earth is not “plain” in the Scriptures. It is also not “main,” in that one’s view of Earth’s age has no necessary implications for one’s view of sin, salvation, morality, heaven, or hell. We can know much about who created, why He created, and how we are meant to relate to Him, but the Bible does not tell us in unambiguous terms exactly *when* He created.
|
What is the first resurrection? What is the second resurrection? |
Answer
Daniel 12:2 summarizes the two very different fates facing mankind: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Everyone will be raised from the dead, but not everyone will share the same destiny. The New Testament reveals the further detail of separate resurrections for the just and the unjust.
Revelation 20:4\-6 mentions a “first resurrection” and identifies those involved as “blessed and holy.” The second death (the lake of fire, Revelation 20:14\) has no power over these individuals. The first resurrection, then, is the raising of all believers. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14\) and the “resurrection of life” (John 5:29\).
The first resurrection takes place in various stages. Jesus Christ Himself (the “first fruits,” 1 Corinthians 15:20\), paved the way for the resurrection of all who believe in Him. There will be the resurrection of “the dead in Christ” at the Lord’s return (1 Thessalonians 4:16\) and the resurrection of the martyrs at the end of the tribulation (Revelation 20:4\). The Old Testament saints will also be raised at the end of the tribulation, and they are also part of the first resurrection.
Revelation 20:12\-13 identifies those comprising the second resurrection as the wicked judged by God at the [great white throne judgment](great-white-throne-judgment.html) prior to being cast into the lake of fire. The second resurrection, then, is the raising of all unbelievers; the second resurrection is connected to the second death. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29\).
The event which divides the first and second resurrections seems to be the millennial kingdom. The last of the righteous are raised to reign “with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4\), but the “rest of the dead \[that is, the wicked] lived not again until the thousand years were finished” (Revelation 20:5\).
What great rejoicing will attend the first resurrection! What great anguish at the second! What a responsibility we have to share the Gospel! “And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 23\).
|
What does the Bible say about creation vs. evolution? |
Answer
It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists in its present form. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
A key factor in the state of the creation vs. evolution debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold a form of theistic evolution. Others take a deistic view of God, believing He exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along an uninterrupted, natural course. Many genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution better fits the data. However, the dominant narrative in this discussion is that evolution is, somehow, incompatible with both the Bible and faith in God.
It’s important to realize that some scientists who hold to belief in evolution also believe in God and the Bible without seeing one or the other as contradictory. However, the vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Modern theories of evolution, in practice, are almost entirely a naturalistic science.
There are spiritual drivers behind some of these positions. For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predates Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible, natural source for the process of evolution: natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but, as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God.
Darwin’s goal was not to disprove God’s existence, nor did he see his theory as doing so. Unfortunately, that is how his ideas have been promoted by those looking to enable atheism. One reason many believers today resist modern evolutionary theory is that it so often comes packaged with a forced, atheistic worldview. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. And yet, according to the Bible, that is one reason the theory of evolution is approached in the way we see today.
The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1\). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20\). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. By necessity, evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
Atheists who support evolution frequently mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be “naturalistic.” Creation, by definition, is beyond the rules of the natural world. Since God cannot be tested, so the argument goes, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science.
Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be observed or tested any more or less than intelligent design, but that does not seem to be an issue with non\-believing evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre\-accepted worldview of naturalism, without alternate explanations being considered.
Neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life can be directly tested or observed. Both creation and evolution require a level of faith to be accepted. We cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Those who adamantly reject creation do so on grounds that would logically force them to reject evolution as well.
If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution, as often presented today, is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life developed apart from a Creator God. As such, modern theories of evolution serve as a substitute “creation story” for the religion of atheism.
The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.
|
What does the Bible say about cavemen, prehistoric men, neanderthals? |
Answer
The Bible does not use the term *caveman* or *Neanderthals*. So, according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man, in that sense. The Bible gives no indication that Adam and Eve accidentally evolved from lower life forms. Nor does it give any explicit indication that there were human\-like beings prior to man.
With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval upon the earth—the flood (Genesis 6–9\), during which time civilization was utterly destroyed except for eight people. Humanity was forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly were not half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human men who lived in caves.
Fossilized ape remains have occasionally been interpreted as a transition between ape and men. Most people think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half\-men, half\-ape creatures crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And, as far as Darwinian paleo\-anthropology goes, we should keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview and are not the result of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, but the Darwinists themselves do not entirely agree among themselves on the details.
Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view promotes this idea that man and ape both evolved from the same ancestor, but this is certainly not the only plausible interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, there is no evidence in favor of this particular interpretation.
When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19–25; 3:1–20; 4:1–12\). It is almost entertaining to consider the lengths evolutionary scientists go to “prove” the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshapen tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave, hunched over like an ape. There is no way that science can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully formed, intelligent, and upright.
|
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? |
Answer
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest); Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.
In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the sequence to focus on the sixth day, when God made mankind. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man and woman.
There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1—2\. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” There is no contradiction, though, because Genesis 2:5 does not say *how long* before man’s creation there was no plant life. In fact, the previous verse mentions the first and second days of creation (at which point there were no plants), so it makes sense that Genesis 2:5 would mention there were no plants. Several days of creation occur between Genesis 2:6 and Genesis 2:7\. Verse 7 details the creation of man on the sixth day. Verse 8 mentions the garden that God had created for him—the fourth day is spoken of in the past tense. The trees that God makes to grow in verse 9 are those in the garden. So the passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation on the third day; Genesis 2:5 speaks of the first and second days when there was no vegetation; and Genesis 2:9 speaks of the specific growth of trees in Eden.
The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24\-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19\-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had \[already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.
By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2\. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
|
Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days? |
Answer
In our opinion, examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24\-hour period of time.
The Hebrew word *yom* translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24\-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”). It is used to refer to a 24\-hour period in Genesis 7:11\. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16\. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4\. So, what does *yom* mean in Genesis 1:5–2:2 when used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24\-hour periods or something else? Could *yom* as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?
We can determine how *yom* should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word *yom* is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, *yom* plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24\-hour period. There are a few instances where *yom* and a number do not imply a literal, 24\-hour day. The words *evening* and *morning* together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of *evening*, then *morning*, along with *yom* is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.
All in all, the context in which the word *yom* is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24\-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian history. At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non\-literal interpretation.
Then, in the 1800s, a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community. This was mostly driven by hostility to religion and an effort to re\-interpret observations in ways contrary to the Bible. This caused a rift in the scientific community. One side claimed that only atheism, as well as specific ideas such as an old earth and naturalistic evolution, was compatible with science. The other side, in response, attempted to denounce atheism and any possible old\-earth interpretations.
The truth is that both young\-earth and old\-earth interpretations rely upon certain assumptions. Sincere believers debate the meaning of *yom* in the creation account because a case can be made on both sides. This does not diminish the importance of what Genesis teaches, regardless of whether or not a person accepts young\-earth creationism.
For instance, according to Exodus 20:9–11, God used the six creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God could have used six discrete 24\-hour days. And He could have created everything using a process of long time periods. Our view, based on our interpretation of the Bible, is that six literal days is the most likely interpretation of the Genesis account.
|
Was Noah’s flood global or local? |
Answer
The biblical passages regarding the flood make it clear that it was global. Genesis 7:11 states that “all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” Genesis 1:6\-7 and 2:6 tell us that the pre\-flood environment was much different from that which we experience today. Based on these and other biblical descriptions, it is reasonably speculated that at one time the earth was covered by some kind of [water canopy](canopy-theory.html). This canopy could have been a vapor canopy, or it might have consisted of rings, somewhat like Saturn’s ice rings. This, in combination with a layer of water underground, released upon the land (Genesis 2:6\) would have resulted in a global flood.
The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19\-23\. Regarding the waters, “They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.”
In the above passage, we not only find the word “all” being used repeatedly, but we also find “all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered,” “the waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet,“ and “every living thing that moved on the earth perished.” These descriptions clearly describe a universal flood covering the whole earth. Also, if the flood was localized, why did God instruct Noah to build an ark instead of merely telling Noah to move and causing the animals to migrate? And why did He instruct Noah to build an ark large enough to house all of the different kinds of land animals found on the earth? If the flood was not global, there would have been no need for an ark.
Peter also describes the universality of the flood in 2 Peter 3:6\-7, where he states, “By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” In these verses Peter compares the “universal” coming judgment to the flood of Noah’s time and states that the world that existed then was flooded with water. Further, many biblical writers accepted the historicity of the worldwide flood (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7\). Lastly, the Lord Jesus Christ believed in the universal flood and took it as the type of the coming destruction of the world when He returns (Matthew 24:37\-39; Luke 17:26\-27\).
There are many extra\-biblical evidences that point to a worldwide catastrophe such as a global flood. There are vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation. Oceanic fossils are found upon mountain tops around the world. Cultures in all parts of the world have some form of flood legend. All of these facts and many others are evidence of a global flood.
|
Of whom was Cain afraid after he killed Abel? |
Answer
In Genesis 4:13\-14, shortly after he killed his brother Abel, “Cain said to the LORD, ‘My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.’” Whom exactly was [Cain](Cain-in-the-Bible.html) afraid of? The only people the book of Genesis had mentioned to this point are Adam and Eve (Cain’s parents) and Abel (who was now dead). Who would possibly be a threat to Cain?
It is important to recognize that Cain and Abel were both full\-grown adults at the time that Cain killed Abel. Both Cain and Abel were farmers, who tended to their own lands and flocks (Genesis 4:2\-4\). The Bible does not tell us how old Cain and Abel were, but they very likely could have been in their 30’s or 40’s. The Bible does not specifically mention Adam and Eve having any children between Abel and Seth (Genesis 4:25\). However, it is highly unlikely that the two most perfect human beings in the history of the world, Adam and Eve, would not have any children over several decades. Adam and Eve had many children after Seth (Genesis 5:4\), so why would they not also have had other children between Abel and Seth? The Bible does not say that Seth was Adam and Eve’s first child, or even first son, after Abel was killed. Rather, it states that Seth was born as a “replacement” for Abel. Genesis chapter 5 traces the genealogy of Seth. Prior to his death, Abel was likely the “chosen” son that would eventually produce the Messiah (Genesis 3:15\). It is in this sense that Seth “replaced” Abel.
So, whom was Cain afraid of? Cain was afraid of his own brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces, who were already born and would be capable of seeking revenge. The fact that Cain had a wife (Genesis 4:17\) is a further evidence that Adam and Eve had other children after Cain and Abel, but before Seth.
|
What is the Gap Theory? |
Answer
Genesis 1:1–2 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” The gap theory is the view that God created a fully functional earth with all animals, including the dinosaurs and other creatures we know only from the fossil record. Then, the theory goes, something happened to destroy the earth completely—most likely the fall of Satan to earth—so that the planet became without form and void. At this point, God started all over again, recreating the earth in its paradise form as further described in Genesis. The gap theory, which is distinct from [theistic evolution](theistic-evolution.html) and the [day\-age theory](Day-Age-Theory.html), is also called old\-earth creationism, gap creationism, and the ruin\-reconstruction theory.
In [young\-earth](earth-age.html) creationism, Genesis 1:1 is seen as a summary of the complete chapter 1 in the Hebrew storytelling form. God created the heavens and the earth. Then verse 2 begins a detailed breakdown of the step\-by\-step process that verse 1 summarizes. However, the statement that “the earth was formless and empty, \[and] darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Genesis 1:2\) can be puzzling. The idea that God created a useless and shapeless earth is an uncomfortable position for some conservative theologians, and this leads them to the gap theory, or an old\-earth perspective.
According to conservative proponents of the gap theory, Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of God—perfect in every way. Then, between verses 1 and 2, Satan rebelled in heaven and was cast out. Satan’s sin “ruined” the original creation; that is, his rebellion brought about its destruction and eventual death, and the earth was reduced to its “formless and empty” state, ready for the “re\-construction.” The length of time involved—the size of the “gap”—is not specified but could have lasted millions of years.
Of course, Satan must have fallen before Adam did; otherwise, there would have been no temptation in the garden. Young\-earth creationists say that Satan fell sometime after Genesis 1:31\. Gap creationists say that [Satan fell](Satan-fall.html) between Genesis 1:1 and 2\.
One difficulty of the gap theory is that it requires that creation suffer death and destruction *before* Adam’s fall. Romans 5:12 says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” The gap theory counters by positing *two* worlds. Satan’s sin brought death to the original creation, whatever that was like; and Adam’s sin brought death to the re\-creation, the realm of mankind. Through Adam’s sin, evil entered our world and the realm of man was cursed. But rebellion already existed outside the realm of mankind (in the spiritual realm), since Satan and his angels had already fallen (Isaiah 14:12–14; Ezekiel 28:12–18\). Sin could not enter the realm of man until man chose it. And Satan, via the serpent, successfully tempted man to make that choice.
Objections to the gap theory include the idea that, if something important had occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 2, God would have told us so, rather than leave us to speculate in ignorance. Also, Genesis 1:31 says God declared His creation to be “very good”—a statement difficult to square with the theory that evil already existed because of Satan’s fall in the “gap.”
It is possible to hold to a literal, six\-day creation week and still hold to the gap theory—the gap theory does not require evolution to be true, since the gap falls before the events of Day One in Genesis 1:3\. And that’s why some conservative scholars do believe the gap theory, although its acceptance has waned since the days of proponents [C. I. Scofield](C-I-Scofield.html) and [J. Vernon McGee](J-Vernon-McGee.html).
However, many of those who hold to the gap theory do so in order to reconcile old\-earth, evolutionary theories with the book of Genesis. But it seems to be a strained reconciliation. The plain reading of Genesis 1 does not at all intimate a length of time between the first two verses. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 informs us that, when He first created the earth, it was formless, empty, and dark; it was unfinished and uninhabited. The rest of Genesis 1 relates how God completed the formless, empty, and dark earth by filling it with life, beauty, and goodness.
|
Why did God create such a vast universe and other planets if there is only life on Earth? |
Answer
The question of whether God created life on other planets is certainly fascinating. Psalm 19:1 says that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork.” Everything that God has made, be it you and me, or wildlife, or angels, or stars and planets, has been created for His glory. When we see a breathtaking view of the Milky Way or peer at Saturn through a telescope, we are amazed at the wonders of God!
David wrote in Psalm 8:3, “I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained.” When we see the vast number of stars, then read that scientists have discovered thousands upon thousands of galaxies, each containing millions of stars, we should be standing in reverent fear of a God so immense to make all that and call it the work of His fingers! Furthermore, Psalm 147:4 tells us that “He counts the number of the stars, He calls them all by name.” It is impossible for mankind to know how many stars there are, not to mention the “name” of every star! “Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together” (Isaiah 48:13\).
Space and planets were created for God’s glory. We know that stars and planets outside our solar system exist, and these, too, were created for the glory of God. A constantly expanding universe is yet another conjecture that has yet to be proven. The next star farther than the sun is over 4 light\-years away, and that isn’t even a measurable fraction of the size of the known universe, expanding or not.
As to whether there is life on other planets, we simply do not know. So far, no evidence of life on the other planets of our solar system has been found. Considering the nearness of the end times, it is unlikely that man will progress far enough to visit other galaxies before the Lord’s return. Wherever life exists or doesn’t exist, God is still the Creator and Controller of all things, and all things were made for His glory.
|
Who was Lilith / Lillith? |
Answer
There are legends that Adam had a wife before Eve who was named Lilith, but this is not found in the Bible. The legends vary significantly, but they all essentially agree that Lilith left Adam because she did not want to submit to him. According to the legends, Lilith was an evil, wicked woman who committed adultery with Satan and produced a race of evil creatures. None of this is true. There is no biblical basis whatsoever for these concepts. There is no one in the Bible named Lilith.
The passage most often pointed to as evidence for Lilith is Isaiah 34:14, which in the NRSV reads, "there too Lilith shall repose." This is a poor translation. Every other major translation of the Bible reads something to the effect of "night creature" or "[screech owl](owls-in-the-Bible.html)." Even if "demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam is nowhere even hinted at in this passage or its context. Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation.
Another commonly used support for Lilith is the differing Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1\-2\. Some claim that the woman in Genesis 1 was Lilith, with the woman in Genesis 2 being Eve. This is completely ludicrous. Rather, Genesis chapter 2 is a "closer look" at the creation of Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis chapter 1\. The Bible specifically says that Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created (Genesis 1:26\-28; 2:18\-25\). This "Lilith" myth is popular in some radical feminist movements because Lilith is an example of a woman refusing to submit to male headship. While there are myths outside of the Word of God regarding Lilith, her complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth.
|
What is theistic evolution? |
Answer
Theistic evolution is one of three major origin\-of\-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation. Versions of theistic evolution come somewhere between one of two extremes. One view is close to [deism](deism.html), which says God allows only natural processes to influence the development of life. The other assumes that God constantly used miraculous intervention to guide evolution.
The first boundary of theistic evolution states that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. According to this view, God created the building blocks and natural laws with the eventual emergence of life in mind. However, early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it was designed to do, and life eventually emerged from non\-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic—albiet God\-designed and ordained—origin of life. Atheistic evolution also assumes that life emerged naturally from preexisting, non\-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws. However, according to atheistic evolution, there is no God, and the origin of those natural laws is not explained.
The opposite pole of theistic evolution is that God performed constant miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. According to this view, He led life step by step down a path from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity. This view is similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life, but with God’s intervention taking the place of mutation and natural selection. In this view, where life was not able to evolve naturally, God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it. Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials.
There are numerous differences between the perspectives of special creation and theistic evolution. One significant difference concerns their respective views on death. Theistic evolutionists typically believe that the geologic column containing the fossil record represents long epochs of time. Since man does not appear until late in the fossil record, theistic evolutionists believe many creatures lived, died, and became extinct long before man’s belated arrival. This means that physical death, at least for animals, existed before Adam and his sin.
Special creationists believe that the earth is [relatively young](young-earth-creationism.html) and that the fossil record was laid down during and after Noah’s flood. The stratification of the layers is thought to have occurred due to hydrologic sorting and liquefaction, both of which are observed phenomena. This puts the fossil record and the death and carnage it describes hundreds of years after Adam’s sin.
Another significant difference between theistic evolution and special creation is how the two systems interpret the age of the earth. Theistic evolutionists tend to subscribe to either the [day\-age theory](Day-Age-Theory.html) or the framework theory, both of which are allegorical interpretations of the length of the “days” in Genesis 1\. Young earth creationists subscribe to a literal, 24\-hour day as they read Genesis 1\. Theistic evolution is generally incompatible with a literal reading of the first two chapters of Genesis.
Theistic evolutionists imagine a Darwinian scenario in which stars evolved, then our solar system, then earth, then plants and animals, and eventually man. The two viewpoints within theistic evolution disagree as to the role God played in the unfolding of events, but they generally agree on the Darwinian timeline. That timeline is in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. For example, Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on day one, and the sun, moon, and stars were not created until day four. A common counter from theistic evolutionists is to note that the wording of Genesis suggests the sun, moon, and stars were actually created on day one but they could not be seen through earth’s atmosphere until day four, leading to their placement on day four.
A literal reading of Genesis shows that birds were created with sea creatures on day five while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view that birds evolved from land animals. The literalist account says birds preceded land animals. The theistic evolutionist view says exactly the opposite.
Regardless of how a person chooses to interpret scientific evidence or the Bible, experience has shown the Bible to be reliable. Centuries of challenges have affirmed that not only is the Bible compatible with science, but also that not a single word in the Bible has ever been disproved by confirmed facts. Interpretations of Scripture may be found lacking, but the Word of God itself is never wrong. The Bible is God’s living Word, given to us by the Creator of the universe, and His description of how He created that universe is not threatened by atheistic versions of science.
|
How can the light of stars billions of light years away from the earth have reached us if the earth is only thousands of years old? |
Answer
A light\-year is the maximum distance that light can travel in one year in the vacuum of space. Consequently, it takes billions of years for light to travel billions of light\-years through space. From our vantage point here on Earth we can see light from stars that are billions of light\-years away. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that our universe is at least billions of years old—old enough to give the light from these stars enough time to reach our planet billions of light\-years away.
This reasonable assumption contradicts the Young Earth (YE) perspective, which claims that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If there was not a strong scientific case for the YE perspective, this contradiction would not merit a second thought. The growing body of evidence supporting the YE view is substantial enough, however, to warrant a thoughtful investigation into whether or not this apparent contradiction can be resolved reasonably. And so we ask the question: How can the light of stars billions of light\-years away reach the earth in only a few thousand years?
**Gravitational Time Dilation**
According to Albert Einstein, space is not the empty “nothingness” that most of us perceive it to be. It is filled with what Einstein called ether. Dictionary.com defines ether as “an all\-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium.” Everything that exists within the bounds of our universe does so within this massless medium.
As dictionary.com notes, ether is infinitely elastic. It can be stretched and distorted. In order to visualize this, imagine a tightly stretched cloth. This is ether. Now imagine dropping a heavy ball (like a bowling ball) onto the cloth, right in the middle. This would cause the cloth to sag in the middle. The heavy ball represents dense matter, like our planet. Einstein believed that matter causes space to sag, similar to how the heavy ball causes the stretched cloth to sag. These sags in space are known as gravity wells.
Now, if we placed smaller, lighter balls (like marbles) onto the cloth along with the heavy ball, they would roll toward the center, into the sag caused by the heavy ball. Moreover, they would contribute to the overall sagging of the cloth, even if only slightly. This motion towards the center represents gravity. According to Einstein’s view of gravity, if smaller, lighter forms of matter are close enough, they can be drawn into the gravity wells of larger, denser forms of matter. While they each create their own sag in space, some gravity wells are deeper and more influential than others (that is, they generate a stronger gravitational force). One thing they all have in common: they distort time.
In the 1960s, physicists Robert Pound and Glen Rebka experimentally confirmed a theoretical consequence of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity called the Gravitational Time Dilation Effect (GTDE). Pound and Rebka were able to demonstrate that time passes more slowly for objects the farther they travel into a gravity well. For example, Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites are farther away from the earth than objects on the planet’s surface and are therefore less immersed in the gravity well caused by Earth’s mass. The result is that time passes a little more quickly for our GPS satellites than it does for us here on the surface, since we are deeper inside of the earth’s gravity well. Atomic clocks aboard the satellites and here on Earth have been used to detect and measure this difference in the rate of time’s passage.
Likewise, an atomic clock in Greenwich, England (at sea level), records a slower rate of time than the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado (at 5,430 feet above sea level). At these relatively small altitudinal differences, the measurable effect is minor. The effect across the greater cosmos can be much more dramatic. The deeper a gravity well, the stronger the GTDE. In fact, according to General Relativity, time actually stands still at the boundary of a black hole—an area known to scientists as an “event horizon,” where gravity is so intense that even light cannot escape (hence the name “black hole”).
Now, let’s set aside the GTDE for a moment and consider another important astronomical phenomenon: stellar redshifts. Redshifts are a Doppler effect phenomenon whereby radiational wavelengths (like those of starlight) lengthen as they move farther away from an observer. The general consensus among astronomers is that observed stellar redshifts indicate that the universe is expanding (Hubble’s Law). By extrapolating this expansion backwards, it becomes apparent that the primordial universe was somewhat denser, more compact than it is today.
In a bounded universe wherein matter has a center and an edge, the material compression as described above would serve to deepen the gravity well caused by the combined mass of the universe. This would intensify the GTDE, causing time to pass much more slowly near the center of the universe (deeper in the well) than near its edge (nearer the surface of the well).
The implication is paradoxical: even if the entire universe was created all at once in the beginning (and should therefore be the same age), some parts can be substantially younger than others due to the relativistic nature of time. Light could travel billions of light\-years over billions of years in some parts of the universe in what we on Earth would perceive to be a much shorter period of time. As the universe expands and matter spreads out across space, the universal gravity well would gradually even out, lessening the rate of time difference across the universe.
Many astrophysicists and astronomers reject the idea of a bounded universe with our galaxy, the Milky Way, near or at its center. But this is a philosophical presupposition, not a scientific conclusion founded upon empirical data. As world\-renowned astrophysicist Dr. George F. R. Ellis candidly explained, “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” (W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” *Scientific American*, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55\)
In summary, the Gravitational Time Dilation Effect is a theoretical solution to the YE problem of distant starlight which, amazingly, reconciles evidence for a young Earth with evidence for an old universe. Many astrophysicists and astronomers reject one of the major foundational suppositions upon which the GTDE explanation rests (a bounded universe with the Milky Way at or near the center), not because of the observable data but because of their philosophical perspectives.
|
What happened at the Tower of Babel? |
Answer
The Tower of Babel is described in Genesis 11:1\-9\. After the Flood, God commanded humanity to "increase in number and fill the earth" (Genesis 9:1\). Humanity decided to do the exact opposite, “Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth’” (Genesis 11:4\). Humanity decided to build a great city and all congregate there. They decided to build a gigantic tower as a symbol of their power, to make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:4\). This tower is remembered as the Tower of Babel.
In response, God confused the languages of humanity so that they could no longer communicate with each other (Genesis 11:7\). The result was that people congregated with other people who spoke the same language, and then went together and settled in other parts of the world (Genesis 11:8\-9\). God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel to enforce His command for humanity to spread throughout the entire world.
Some Bible teachers also believe that God created the different ethnicities of humanity at the Tower of Babel. This is possible, but it is not taught in the biblical text. On the origin of the ethnicities, please read our article \- [https://www.gotquestions.org/different\-races.html](different-races.html). It seems more likely that the different ethnicities existed prior to the Tower of Babel and that God confused the languages at least partially based on the different ethnicities. From the Tower of Babel, humanity divided based on language (and possibly ethnicity) and settled in various parts of the world.
Genesis 10:5, 20 and 31 describe Noah’s descendants spreading out over the earth “by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.” How is this possible since God did not confuse the languages until the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter 11? Genesis 10 lists the descendants of Noah’s three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It lists their descendants for several generations. With the long life spans of that time (see Genesis 11:10\-25\), the genealogies in Genesis 10 likely cover several hundreds of years. The Tower of Babel account, told in Genesis 11:1\-9, is a “flashback” to the point in Genesis 10 when the languages were confused. Genesis 10 tells us of different languages. Genesis 11 tells us how the different languages originated.
|
What does the Bible say about dragons? |
Answer
The Bible mentions a dragon in Revelation chapters 12, 13, 16, and 20\. Revelation 20:2 identifies the dragon: “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” The Bible is not teaching that dragons ever truly existed. Rather, it is only comparing Satan to a fire\-breathing monster.
It is interesting to note, however, that nearly every major ancient culture has myths and legends about giant reptiles. How would these civilizations, continents and millennia apart, all come up with legends of giant reptilian creatures? Classic evolutionary theory claims dinosaurs existed millions of years before human beings. Dinosaur fossils were not discovered until thousands of years after the myths of giant reptiles began.
Some suggest that humans and dinosaurs might have co\-existed. Scripture mentions two creatures that seem remarkably similar to the dinosaurs, the [leviathan](leviathan.html) and [behemoth](behemoth.html), in Job chapters 40—41\. Some young\-earth creationists believe the “dragon” myths came from real contact between human beings and dinosaurs. This view holds that all animals were created around 6,000 years ago and co\-existed with human beings. That would explain how all human cultures have myths about giant reptiles—because they actually saw them!
Of course, this is not the universal view of all Christians, nor of most scientists. Likewise, the “fire\-breathing” aspect of a dragon is most likely entirely mythical. Universal legends of giant reptiles are seen by some as proof of real contact between human beings and dinosaurs or some other creature no longer seen in the modern world.
|
Did God use the “Big Bang” to create the universe? |
Answer
Prior to the twentieth century, before the Big Bang theory had been developed, philosophers and scientists debated whether the universe had a beginning. Some argued it had always existed: that it was “infinitely old.” This agreed with the worldview of ancient philosophers and then\-current atheism. On the other hand, there were logical reasons to think the universe could not be “infinitely old,” such as [causality](cosmological-argument.html). For most of history, there was no empirical evidence proving the universe had an objective “beginning.” Atheism particularly held to the idea of an “infinitely old” universe as a reason to dismiss God as unnecessary.
This situation changed drastically in the first half of the twentieth century, as several discoveries were made leading to the formation of the Big Bang theory. Over several decades, those who preferred the idea of an eternal universe made many attempts to explain away hard evidence, but to no avail. The result was secular science lending tremendous support to the creation account of the Bible.
Einstein’s theory of general relativity, published in 1916, suggested the universe either had to be constantly expanding or constantly contracting. So, Einstein added a “cosmological constant” to his equations, for no other reason than to maintain the possibility of a static, eternal universe. Einstein later called this the “biggest blunder” of his career.
The work of Edwin Hubble in the 1920s proved the universe is expanding. This finding contradicted Einstein’s cosmological constant and left non\-believing astrophysicists unhappy. Their discomfort was made even worse with the contributions of Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest and astronomer. Lemaître noted that the combination of general relativity theory and Hubble’s discoveries implies a beginning. If the universe is currently [expanding](universe-expanding.html), then at some time in the past, the entire universe would have been contained in some infinitesimally small point. This idea is foundational to the Big Bang theory.
Over the next several decades, physicists tried to salvage the [eternality of the universe](universe-eternal.html) by proposing everything from the Milne model (1935\) to the steady state theory (1948\). In many (if not most) cases, these models were proposed explicitly because the implications of a non\-eternal universe were “too religious.”
The year 1964 brought about the Nobel Prize\-winning discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation—something predicted by the earliest Big Bang theorists in the 1940s. For all intents and purposes, that discovery made the “beginning” of the universe an inescapable fact of modern science. The question was no longer “did the universe have a beginning?” but “how did the universe begin?”
Apparent evidence for the Big Bang, regardless of how one interprets it, is a stunning example of science and theology intersecting. According to objective, empirical science, all space, time, and energy came into existence together in a single moment: a “beginning.” Before this event, whatever it was, there was no time. There was no space. Then, suddenly, an exceedingly dense, incredibly hot, infinitesimal ball of something—everything—appeared somewhere, somehow for reasons unknown and began to expand rapidly with our whole universe inside of it. If true, the Big Bang theory all but confirms the view espoused by Judeo\-Christianity for thousands of years.
Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased it this way in his book *God and the Astronomers* (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 116\): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Why? Because, as Jastrow explained in a subsequent interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” *Christianity Today*, August 6, 1982, pp. 15, 18\).
It is important to note that, prior to the development of the Big Bang theory, disbelief in God was tied closely to the idea of an eternal, un\-caused, and un\-created universe. Afterwards, however, non\-believers began to claim that these advances in science actually *disproved* God. What had always been interpreted as clear support for a Creator—and resisted for that very reason—almost overnight turned into the claim that atheists had been right all along.
This attitude, unfortunately, led to a corresponding reaction from the [creationist](creationism-scientific.html) community. Just as many astrophysicists felt that the expanding universe theory was a ploy to inject religion into science, many Christians have come to feel that the Big Bang theory is an effort to undermine the biblical account of creation. Other Christians, however, feel that the Big Bang theory is consistent with the Bible’s account and welcome such compelling evidence for the universe having a beginning.
With that said, it is important to understand that the Big Bang theory is just that—a theory. The exact nature or cause of that “beginning” has not been explicitly proved by empirical science, nor can it be.
Did God use the “Big Bang” to create the universe? The idea itself—that the universe came into existence in an instantaneous expansion—is compatible with biblical creationism, as long as there is recognition that the ingredients and forces of the big bang were created by God “out of nothing” (see Hebrews 11:3\). Scripture only says that God created the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1\), speaking the universe into existence (Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 11:3\). Could some of the evidence that appears to point to a “big bang” actually be pointing to God’s initial creative act? Possibly.
At the same time, the Big Bang theory, as it is commonly presented by the scientific community, contains atheistic presuppositions and contradicts the biblical creation account. In that sense, no, God did not use the “Big Bang” to create the universe.
|
What is the Intelligent Design Theory? |
Answer
The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information\-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. Certain biological features defy the standard Darwinian random\-chance explanation, because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically necessitates an intelligent designer, the appearance of design is cited as evidence for a designer. There are three primary arguments in the Intelligent Design Theory: 1\) [irreducible complexity](irreducible-complexity.html), 2\) specified complexity, and 3\) the [anthropic principle](anthropic-principle.html).
One of the arguments for Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, is defined as “a single system which is composed of several well\-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Simply put, life is comprised of intertwined parts that rely on each other in order to be useful. Random mutation may account for the development of a new part, but it cannot account for the concurrent development of multiple parts necessary for a functioning system. For example, the human eye is obviously a very useful system. Without the eyeball, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, a randomly mutated incomplete eye would actually be counterproductive to the survival of a species and would therefore be eliminated through the process of natural selection. An eye is not a useful system unless all its parts are present and functioning properly at the same time.
Another argument for Intelligent Design, specified complexity, is the concept that, since specified complex patterns can be found in organisms, some form of guidance must have accounted for their origin. The specified complexity argument states that it is impossible for complex patterns to be developed through random processes. For example, a room filled with 100 monkeys and 100 computers may eventually produce a few words, or maybe even a sentence, but it would never produce a Shakespearean play. And how much more complex is biological life than a Shakespearean play?
The anthropic principle of Intelligent Design states that the world and universe are “fine\-tuned” to allow for life on Earth. If the ratio of elements in the atmosphere of the earth was altered slightly, many species would quickly cease to exist. If the earth were significantly closer to or further away from the sun, many species would cease to exist. The existence and development of life on Earth requires so many variables to be perfectly in tune that it would be impossible for all the variables to come into being through random, uncoordinated events.
While the Intelligent Design Theory does not presume to identify the source of intelligence (whether it be God or UFOs or something else), the vast majority of Intelligent Design theorists are theists. They see the appearance of design which pervades the biological world as evidence for the existence of God. There are, however, a few atheists who cannot deny the strong evidence for design but are not willing to acknowledge a Creator God. They tend to interpret the data as evidence that earth was [seeded](directed-panspermia.html) by some sort of master race of extraterrestrial creatures (aliens). Of course, their interpretation does not address the origin of the aliens, either, so they are back to the original argument with no credible answer.
Intelligent Design Theory is not always exactly the same as biblical creationism. There are various interpretations of what Intelligent Design refers to. Biblical creationists conclude that the Genesis account of creation is reliable and correct, and so life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent: God. They see the facets of Intelligent Design as evidence from the natural realm that supports this conclusion. Other Intelligent Design theorists begin with the natural realm and reach the conclusion that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent, without specifying who that agent might be.
In and of itself, Intelligent Design does not specify who the Designer or designers actually are. As such, Intelligent Design is compatible with biblical creationism, but it is not an inherently religious position.
|
What is the location of the Garden of Eden? |
Answer
The only thing the Bible tells us concerning the [Garden of Eden’s](Garden-of-Eden.html) location is found in Genesis 2:10\-14, “A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold…The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” The exact identities of the Pishon and Gihon Rivers are unknown, but the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are well known.
If the Tigris and Euphrates mentioned are the same rivers by those names today, that would put the Garden of Eden somewhere in the Middle East, likely in Iraq. However, even a small local flood can change the course of a river, and the Flood of Noah’s day was more than a localized flood. The Deluge completely changed the topography of the earth. Because of this, the original location of the Tigris and Euphrates is uncertain. It could be that the modern rivers called the Tigris and Euphrates are simply named after those associated with Eden, in the same way that Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is named after the town in Judea.
If the Middle East region is where the Garden of Eden was, and if crude oil is, as most scientists believe, primarily decayed vegetation and animal matter, then it stands to reason that the Middle East is where we would find the greatest oil deposits. Many people speculate that the vast stores of oil in the Middle East are the result of the decomposition of Earth’s lushest organic materials in the Garden of Eden. While the oil in the Middle East *could be* the dregs of Eden, but those who promote such ideas are simply theorizing.
People have searched for the Garden of Eden for centuries to no avail. There are various spots claimed as the original location of Eden, but no one can be sure. What happened to the Garden of Eden? The Bible does not specifically say. It is likely that the Garden was completely destroyed in the Flood.
|
Did God create other people in addition to Adam and Eve? |
Answer
There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that God created any humans other than Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2 we read, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed… Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’ …So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:4\-8, 18, 21\-22\).
Notice that the passage says, “There He placed the man whom He had formed.” Not the “men,” just the one “man.” And this man was alone (v. 18\) so God made a woman out of his rib to be his companion. All other human beings have descended from these two original people. The two main reasons why this question usually comes up are (1\) Cain’s wife, and (2\) the origin of the different races. If the only people on the earth were children of Adam and Eve, whom did Cain marry and how did we get all the different races of people with their different skin colors from just two people? For answers to these issues, please read "[Who was Cain’s wife?](Cains-wife.html)" and "[What is the origin of the different races?](different-races.html)"
|
Had it ever rained before the Flood in Noah’s day? |
Answer
Some interpret Hebrews 11:7 as saying it had never rained prior to the Flood: “By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.” Rain could be the correct understanding of “things not yet seen,” or it could be referring to the Flood in general.
Genesis 2:6 says, “But streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Before the Flood (Genesis chapters 6\-9\), the earth was possibly surrounded by a “firmament” or canopy of water, creating a greenhouse effect on the earth’s climate. These would have been the waters that God released, causing the Flood. It seems that before the Flood the dew and ample water supply were enough to keep creation watered. The Bible does not specifically tell us whether or not it had rained before the Flood. Noah seemed to understand what rain was when God mentioned it to him (Genesis 7:4\-5\). Genesis 2:4\-6 mentions that God did not send rain on the earth until after He created Adam and Eve. We can speculate that it had rained before the Flood, but, again, the Bible does not specifically say.
|
How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark? |
Answer
How did Noah fit all of those animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to fit “two of every kind… of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind,” and seven of some kinds? What about food? There had to be enough room to store enough food to last Noah and his family (8 in all), plus all of the animals, at least a year (see Genesis 7:11; 8:13\-18\) and maybe more, depending on how long it took for vegetation to grow back. That’s a lot of food! What about drinking water? Is it realistic to believe that Noah’s boat was big enough to store all of these animals and all of this food and water for over a year?
The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15\). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word “cubitum” which means “elbow.” The Hebrew word for “cubit” is “ammah.” As everybody’s arms are different lengths, this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some, but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43\-56 centimeters). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21\.888 inches. So, doing the math,
300 x 22 inches \= 6,600; 50 x 22 inches \= 1,100; 30 x 22 inches \= 660
6,600/12 \= 550 feet; 1100/12 \= 91\.7 feet; 660/12 \= 55 feet.
Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91\.7 feet wide and 55 feet high. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91\.7 x 55 \= 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smallest measurement of cubit, 17 inches, we end up with 1,278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16\) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14\), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that a little more than half (54\.75%) of the 2,773,925 cubic feet could store 125,000 sheep\-sized animals, leaving over 1\.5 million cubic feet of free space (see \- [http://www.icr.org/article/how\-could\-all\-animals\-get\-board\-noahs\-ark/](http://www.icr.org/article/how-could-all-animals-get-board-noahs-ark/)).
John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive *Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study*, estimated that only about 15 percent of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.
How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates 8,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are over 400 dog breeds all belonging to one species (*Canis familiaris*), so many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the biblical “kind.”
Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600\. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so\-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than, say, 50,000 animals were on the ark” (Morris, 1987\).
Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high\-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some, the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much, relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.
What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant\-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised, and they are all good questions. In the minds of many, these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly nothing new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test.
With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah’s Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” *Impact* No. 273, March 1996\. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 [http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp\-273\.htm](http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm)). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti\-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”
|
Did the Bible copy the Flood account from other myths and legends? |
Answer
It is true that the Genesis flood account shares many striking similarities with the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, and with the Babylonian Atrahasis epic, for that matter. In fact, literally hundreds of flood traditions have been preserved all over the world, with traditions abounding in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, as well as both of the Americas, and the Genesis account shares similarities with most of them. Of the flood traditions which have survived to the present time, about 95% describe a global cataclysmic deluge, 88% tell of a favored family of humans saved from drowning to reestablish the human race after the deluge, 66% say the family was forewarned of the coming cataclysm, 66% blame the wickedness of man for the deluge, and 70% record a boat as being the means by which the chosen family (and animals) survived the flood. More than one third of these traditions mention birds being sent out from the boat.
Since every culture has descended directly from the flood’s survivors, it is logical that stories of this traumatic event are both abundant and universal, having been passed down from generation to generation. This is certainly the case. Many of these traditions are remarkably consistent, considering the relative isolation of the cultures, the length of time that has elapsed since the flood, and the human tendency to embellish, exaggerate, and distort stories over time. The Babylonian and biblical accounts of the flood appear to represent different retellings of an essentially identical flood tradition.
Skeptics want to imagine that there was, in fact, no flood and that the Bible’s flood account was borrowed from a Babylonian myth. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise: there was, in fact, a catastrophic worldwide deluge, and the veracity of the biblical account is attested to by numerous other similar ancient accounts. In addition to abundant historical evidence, there is a wealth of physical proof in favor of the flood’s historicity. The flood of Noah’s day was most certainly a real historical event, and the biblical account of what happened is trustworthy.
|
What does the Bible say about marriage? |
Answer
The Bible records the creation of marriage in Genesis 2:23–24: “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” God created man and then made woman to complement him. In the Bible marriage is God’s “fix” for the fact that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18\).
As the Bible describes the first marriage, it uses the word [*helper*](wife-helpmeet.html) to identify Eve (Genesis 2:20\). To “help” in this context means “to surround, to protect or aid.” God created Eve to come alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. The Bible says that marriage causes a man and woman to become “one flesh.” This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy. The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness: “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6\).
Several of Paul’s epistles refer to marriage and how believers are to operate within the marriage relationship. One such passage is Ephesians 5:22–33\. Studying this passage provides some key truths concerning what the Bible says marriage should be.
The Bible, in Ephesians 5, says a successful biblical marriage involves both the husband and the wife fulfilling [certain roles](roles-husband-wife-family.html): “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (Ephesians 5:22–23\). “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25\). “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church” (Ephesians 5:28–29\). “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31\).
When a believing husband and wife institute God’s principles of marriage in the Bible, a solid, healthy marriage results. A biblically based marriage keeps Christ as the head of the man and the wife together. The biblical concept of marriage involves a oneness between a husband and wife that pictures the oneness of Christ with His church.
|
How often should a married couple have sex? |
Answer
The Bible doesn’t tell us how often a married couple should have sex; it does tell us that a couple is to abstain only when it is a mutual decision. First Corinthians 7:5 tells us, "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control." So, [mutual consent](mutual-consent.html) is the "rule" for how often a married couple should have sex. The "rule" is that abstaining from sex must be agreed upon, and that even when it is agreed upon, it should only be for a short time.
Sex should not be withheld or demanded. If one spouse does not want to have sex, the other spouse should agree to abstain. If one spouse wants to have sex, the other spouse should agree. It is all a matter of compromise. We must remember that our bodies belong to our spouses, as 1 Corinthians 7:4 tells us, "The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." Obviously, the "sexual compromise" in marriage must be reasonable. If one spouse desires sex every day, and the other spouse once a month or less, they will have to lovingly and sacrificially agree to a compromise, a middle ground. Studies show that taking into account all age ranges, a typical married couple has sex 2 times per week.
|
What does creation ex nihilo mean? |
Answer
*Ex nihilo* is Latin for “from nothing.” The term *creation ex nihilo* refers to God creating everything from nothing. In the beginning, [God created](biblical-creationism.html) the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1\). Prior to that moment, there was nothing. God didn’t make the universe from preexisting building blocks. He started from scratch.
The Bible never expressly states that God made everything from nothing, but it is implied. In Hebrews 11:3 we read, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Scholars take this to mean that the universe came into existence by divine command and was not assembled from preexisting matter or energy. Things that are visible do not owe their existence to anything visible.
Humans can be very creative, but we cannot create *ex nihilo*. Strictly speaking, we cannot create; we can only synthesize. We require materials from which to build something. God is not so constrained. This is difficult for us to comprehend because of a fundamental law of physics that we are all familiar with. The “first law of science” states that matter (the stuff the universe is made of) cannot be created or destroyed. Matter can be converted from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again; atoms can be combined into molecules and split into their component parts; but matter cannot be created from nothing or completely destroyed. And so this idea that God created everything from nothing is not natural to us. It’s not natural at all—it’s supernatural.
The term *creation ex nihilo* refers to the supernatural event that was the beginning of the universe. It was the moment that God created something (everything) from nothing.
|
Is remarriage after divorce always adultery? |
Answer
Before we even begin to answer this question, let us reiterate, "God hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16\). The pain, confusion, and frustration most people experience after a divorce are surely part of the reason that God hates divorce. Even more difficult, biblically, than the question of divorce, is the question of remarriage. The vast majority of people who divorce either remarry or consider getting remarried. What does the Bible say about this?
Matthew 19:9 says, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." See also Matthew 5:32\. These Scriptures clearly state that remarriage after a divorce is adultery, except in the instance of "marital unfaithfulness." In regards to this "exception clause" and its implications, please read the following articles:
[What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?](divorce-remarriage.html)
[I am divorced. Can I remarry?](divorced-remarry.html)
It is our view that, in certain instances, a person is allowed to divorce and remarry without being guilty of adultery: a person whose spouse commits adultery, for example, and a believer whose unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage. We are not saying that a person under such circumstances should remarry. The Bible’s instruction to divorced people is to remain single or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:11\). At the same time, it is our view that God offers His mercy and grace to the innocent party in a divorce and allows that person to remarry.
A person who gets a divorce for a reason other than the reasons listed above, and then gets remarried has committed adultery (Luke 16:18\). The question then becomes, is this remarriage an "act" of adultery, or a "state" of adultery. The present tense of the Greek in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; and Luke 16:18 can indicate a continuous state of adultery. At the same time, the present tense in Greek does not always indicate continuous action. Sometimes it simply means that something occurred (Aoristic, Punctiliar, or Gnomic present). For example, the word "divorces" in Matthew 5:32 is present tense, but divorcing is not a continual action. It is our view that remarriage, no matter the circumstances, is not a continual state of adultery. Only the act of getting remarried itself is adultery.
In the Old Testament Law, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10\). At the same time, Deuteronomy 24:1\-4 mentions remarriage after a divorce, does not call it adultery, and does not demand the death penalty for the remarried spouse. The Bible explicitly says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16\), but nowhere explicitly states that God hates remarriage. The Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1\-4 does not describe the remarriage as invalid. Ending a remarriage through divorce would be just as sinful as ending a first marriage through divorce. Both would include the breaking of vows before God, between the couple, and in front of witnesses.
No matter the circumstances, once a couple is remarried, they should strive to live out their married lives in fidelity, in a God\-honoring way, with Christ at the center of their marriage. A marriage is a marriage. God does not view the new marriage as invalid or adulterous. A remarried couple should devote themselves to God and to each other—and honor God by making their new marriage a lasting and Christ\-centered one (Ephesians 5:22\-33\).
|
What is a Christian couple allowed to do in sex? |
Answer
The Bible says that “[marriage](validity-of-marriage.html) should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Hebrews 13:4\). Scripture never says what a husband and wife are or are not allowed to do sexually, so how can we know if something is sexually permissible between a husband and wife? The Bible gives us general principles regarding sex within marriage:
1\. *Sex is to be God\-honoring* — Our bodies are meant to glorify the Lord, not to be controlled by our passions and not to be used for sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:12–13\). “Therefore honor God with your bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:20\).
2\. *Sex is to be exclusive* — Sex is between a husband and wife only (1 Corinthians 7:2\).
3\. *Sex is to be loving and other\-oriented* — First Corinthians 7:3–4 instructs, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” Each spouse lovingly yields his or her body to the other.
4\. *Marital sex happens regularly* — “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control” (1 Corinthians 7:5\).
5\. *Marital sex unifies* — Sexual intimacy unites a husband and wife (1 Corinthians 7:5\) and solidifies the becoming “one flesh” aspect of marriage, not just physically but emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, and in every other way.
If the sexual act in question satisfies these principles, and both the husband and wife are agreeable to loving each other in that way, there is no biblical case for declaring it to be a sin. The principle of “mutual consent” applies to abstaining from sex (1 Corinthians 7:5\) and to whatever is done sexually within a marriage. Neither spouse should be coerced into doing something he or she is not completely comfortable with or thinks is wrong. If a husband and wife both agree that they want to try something (e.g., oral sex, different positions, sex toys, etc.), then the Bible does not give any reason why they cannot.
There are a few things, though, that are never allowable for a married couple. The practice of “swapping,” “swinging,” or “bringing in an extra” (threesomes, foursomes, etc.) is [adultery](Bible-adultery.html) (Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3\). Adultery is sin even if one’s spouse allows, approves, or even participates in it. [Viewing pornography](watch-porn-with-spouse.html) is another practice that should be off\-limits for a married couple. Porn appeals to the “lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes” (1 John 2:16\) and is therefore condemned by God.
Scripture provides great freedom in the bedroom for a husband and wife. As long as a married couple’s sexual practices are God\-honoring, exclusive, loving, other\-oriented, unifying, and mutually agreed upon, they carry God’s blessing.
|
I am divorced. Can I remarry according to the Bible? |
Answer
We often receive questions like “I am divorced for such and such a reason. Can I get remarried?” Or “I have been divorced twice—the first for adultery by my spouse, the second for incompatibility. The man I’m dating has been divorced three times—the first for incompatibility, the second for adultery on his part, the third for adultery on his wife’s part. Can we get married to each other?” Questions like these are difficult to answer because the Bible does not go into great detail regarding the various scenarios for remarriage after a divorce.
What we can know for sure is that it is God’s plan for a married couple to stay married as long as both spouses are alive (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6\). The basic principle concerning divorce and remarriage is laid out clearly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” So, the foundational rule is that there should be no divorce and, if a divorce does happen, no remarriage.
Once we understand the basic rule that there should be no remarriage after a divorce, we can look at the possible exceptions to that rule. One possible allowance for remarriage after a divorce is found in Matthew 19:9—if the marriage ended because of adultery, then the wronged spouse may be free to remarry. But this interpretation is debated among Christians.
Another possible allowance for remarriage is desertion—when an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12–15\). In such a case, the believer is “not bound” (verse 15\). This passage does not specifically address remarriage, however, and much depends on the meaning of the words *not bound*. Instances of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse would be sufficient cause for separation, but the Bible does not speak of these sins in the context of divorce or remarriage.
While God [hates divorce](I-hate-divorce.html) (Malachi 2:16\), God is also merciful and forgiving. Every divorce is a result of sin, either on the part of one spouse or both. Does God forgive divorce? Absolutely! Divorce is no less forgivable than any other sin. Forgiveness of all sins is available through faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7\). If God forgives the sin of divorce, does that mean you are free to remarry? In light of the command to “remain unmarried or else be reconciled” in 1 Corinthians 7:11, the answer would seem to be no, except in the specific circumstances mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:12–15 and Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9\.
Being [unmarried](single-Christian.html) is not a curse. God sometimes calls people to remain single (1 Corinthians 7:7–8\). Singleness can be an opportunity to serve God wholeheartedly (1 Corinthians 7:32–36\).
So, can you or should you get remarried? We cannot give a blanket answer to that question. Ultimately, that is between you, your potential spouse, and, most importantly, God. The only advice we can give is for you to search the Scripture and pray to God for wisdom regarding what He would have you do (James 1:5\). Pray with an open mind and genuinely ask the Lord to place His desires on your heart (Psalm 37:4\). Seek the Lord’s will (Proverbs 3:5–6\) and follow His leading.
|
Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible? |
Answer
While the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns polygamy, God made His ideal for marriage clear throughout Scripture: one man with one woman. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible is that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. Solomon had [700 wives and 300 concubines](Solomon-wives-concubines.html) (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3\. What are we to make of these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1\) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2\) How does God view polygamy today? 3\) Why did it change?
1\) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy, and we must remember that allowance is not the same as approval. As we speculate about God’s permissive silence, there is at least one key factor to consider. In patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery.
So, God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who otherwise may have been left destitute. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternative of prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7\).
2\) How does God view polygamy today? Even while recording cases of polygamy, the Bible presents [monogamy](monogamy-Bible.html) as the plan that conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife \[not wives], and they will become one flesh \[not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24\). The consistent use of the singular in this verse should be noted. Later, in Deuteronomy 17:14–20, God says that the kings were not to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that kings must be monogamous, it does indicate that having multiple wives causes problems. Such problems can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3–4\).
In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 list being “the husband of one wife” as a qualification for spiritual leadership in the church. The phrase could literally be translated “a one\-woman man.” However broadly or narrowly that qualification should be applied, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one\-woman man.” Is the prohibition of polygamy only for elders and deacons, the “example\-setters”? No, the standard of monogamy should apply to all Christians.
Ephesians 5:22–33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), the passage always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife \[singular]. . . . He who loves his wife \[singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife \[singular], and the two will become one flesh. . . . Each one of you also must love his wife \[singular] as he loves himself, and the wife \[singular] must respect her husband \[singular].” Further, if polygamy were allowable, the illustration of Christ’s relationship with [His Body](body-of-Christ.html) (the Church) falls apart (Ephesians 5:32\). In Colossians 3:18–19, Paul refers to husbands and wives in the plural, but in that passage it is clear that he is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers.
3\) Why did it change? It is not so much that God disallowed something He had previously allowed as it is that God restored marriage to His original plan. As seen in Genesis 2, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but that solution was not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1–7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes, including laws prohibiting polygamy.
Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps, but it is unfathomable that there would be no other solution. Due to the “[one flesh](the-two-shall-become-one-flesh.html)” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.
|
Is physical abuse an acceptable reason for divorce? |
Answer
The Bible is silent on the issue of physical abuse as a reason for divorce, although it is obvious what God expects a marriage to look like (Ephesians 5:22–33\), and abuse is contrary to everything godly. Physical violence against a spouse is immoral and should not be tolerated by anyone. No one should remain in an unsafe environment, whether it involves a family member, friend, employer, caregiver, or stranger. Physical abuse is also against the law, and civil authorities should be the first ones contacted if abuse occurs.
A spouse who is being abused should immediately seek a safe place. If there are children involved, they should also be protected and removed from the situation. There is nothing unbiblical about separating from an abuser; in fact, it is morally right to protect oneself and one’s children.
The Bible never *commands* divorce, even in the case of abuse. The Bible specifies two acceptable reasons for divorce: abandonment of a Christian by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15\) and adultery (Matthew 5:32\). Since the Bible does not list abuse as an acceptable reason for divorce, we are careful to limit our advice to separation.
God *allows* divorce in the event of abandonment and adultery, but even those circumstances do not automatically trigger divorce proceedings; divorce is still a last resort. In the case of infidelity, it is better for two Christians to reconcile than divorce. It is better to extend the forgiveness and love that God freely gives us (Colossians 3:13\). Reconciliation with an abuser, however, is far different. Reconciling with an abusive partner depends completely on the abuser proving his or her reliability, which could take years—if it happens at all. Separation from an abusive spouse is likely to be long\-term.
Once separation has been established, the abuser has the responsibility to seek help. First and foremost, he or she should seek God. “For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks” (Matthew 7:8\). God has power to heal individuals and relationships. He must be the Lord of our lives, the Master of our assets, and the Head of our households. Psychological aid and legal limitations (restraining orders) on an abuser are also appropriate, and such tools are important to his or her process of change.
If the abuser demonstrates verifiable change, independently confirmed, the relationship may be resumed with much caution. Both husband and wife must commit themselves to God’s path and develop their relationship with God through Christ. “Keep me from deceitful ways; be gracious to me and teach me your law. I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I have set my heart on your laws” (Psalm 119:29–30\). This commitment to God should be accompanied by intensive counseling from a trusted pastor or believing licensed counselor. The counselling should be taken first individually, then as a couple, and finally as an entire family, as all need help healing. Change is possible for an abusive person who truly repents and humbly surrenders to the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18\).
There are a number of “red flags” to look for before entering a permanent relationship. Unfortunately, these indicators may not be visible until after the wedding takes place, since many abusers are skilled at hiding their true natures. However, a short list of things to look out for includes irrational jealousy, the need to be in control, a quick temper, cruelty toward animals, attempts to isolate the other person from his or her friends and family, drug or alcohol abuse, and disrespect for boundaries, privacy, personal space, or moral values. If you see any of these warning signs in a person you are entering a relationship with, please seek advice from someone familiar with abusive situations.
If you are in an abusive situation right now, whether the abuser is a spouse, parent, child, caretaker, teacher, relative, or anyone else, please know that God does ***not*** want you to remain in that situation. It is not God’s will for you to accept physical, sexual, or psychological abuse. Leave the situation, find someone to help you stay safe, and involve law enforcement immediately. Through it all, pray for God’s guidance and protection.
|
What constitutes marriage according to the Bible? |
Answer
The Bible nowhere explicitly states at what point God considers a man and a woman to be [married](definition-of-marriage.html). Due to the Bible’s silence on this matter, identifying the precise moment a man and woman are married in God’s eyes is a complex undertaking. Here are the three most common viewpoints: 1\) God only considers a man and a woman married when they are legally married—that is, when they become husband and wife in the eyes of the law. 2\) A man and a woman are married in God’s eyes when they have completed some kind of formal wedding ceremony involving covenantal vows. 3\) God considers a man and a woman to be married at the moment they engage in sexual intercourse. Let’s look at each of the three views and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each.
1\) God only considers a man and a woman married when they are legally married. The scriptural support typically given for this view is the command to obey the government’s laws (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:17\). The argument is that, if the government requires certain procedures and paperwork to be completed before a marriage is recognized, then a couple should submit themselves to that process. It is definitely biblical for a couple to submit to the government as long as the requirements do not contradict God’s Word and are reasonable. Romans 13:1–2 tells us, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
However, there are some weaknesses and potential problems with this view. First, marriage existed before any government was organized. For thousands of years, people were getting married with no such thing as a marriage license. Second, even today, there are some countries that have no governmental recognition of marriage, and/or no legal requirements for marriage. Third, there are some governments that place unbiblical requirements on a marriage before it is legally recognized. As an example, some countries require weddings to be held in a Catholic church, according to Catholic teachings, and overseen by a Catholic priest. Obviously, for those who have strong disagreements with the Catholic Church and the Catholic understanding of marriage as a sacrament, it would be unbiblical to submit to being married in the Catholic Church. Fourth, to make the legitimacy of the marriage union solely dependent on government statutes is to indirectly sanction the statutory definition of marriage, which may fluctuate.
2\) A man and a woman are married in God’s eyes when they have completed some kind of formal wedding ceremony. Some interpreters understand God’s bringing Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22\) as God’s overseeing the first wedding “ceremony”—the modern practice of a father giving away his daughter at a wedding reflects God’s action in Eden. In John chapter 2, Jesus attended a wedding ceremony. Jesus would not have attended such an event if He did not approve of what was occurring. Jesus’ presence at a wedding ceremony by no means indicates that God requires a wedding ceremony, but it does indicate that a wedding ceremony is acceptable in God’s sight. Nearly every culture in the history of humanity has observed some kind of formal wedding ceremony. In every culture there is an event, action, covenant, vow, or proclamation that is recognized as declaring a man and woman to be married.
3\) God considers a man and a woman to be married at the moment they engage in sexual intercourse. There are some who take this to mean that a married couple is not truly “married” in God’s eyes until they have consummated the marriage physically. Others argue that, if any man and woman have sex, God considers the two of them to be married. The basis for this view is the fact that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is the ultimate fulfillment of the “[one flesh](one-flesh-marriage.html)” principle (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31\). In this sense, sexual intercourse is the final “seal” on a marriage covenant. However, the view that intercourse constitutes marriage is not biblically sound. If a couple is legally and ceremonially married, but for some reason is unable to engage in sexual intercourse, that couple is still considered married.
We know that God does not equate sexual intercourse with marriage based on the fact that the Old Testament often distinguishes a wife from a [concubine](concubine-concubines.html). For example, 2 Chronicles 11:21 describes one king’s family life: “Rehoboam loved Maakah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines.” In this verse, concubines who had sexual intercourse with King Rehoboam are not considered wives and are mentioned as a separate category.
Also, 1 Corinthians 7:2 indicates that sex before marriage is [immorality](sexual-immorality.html). If sexual intercourse causes a couple to become married, it could not be considered immoral, as the couple would be considered married the moment they engaged in sexual intercourse. There is absolutely no biblical basis for an unmarried couple to have sex and then declare themselves to be married, thereby declaring all future sexual relations to be moral and God\-honoring.
Some point to Genesis 24 and the story of Isaac and Rebekah as an example of a couple being married solely by sexual intercourse, without any type of ceremony. But the details that lead up to the marriage reveal that a formal process was followed. Isaac’s father, Abraham, gave his servant a list of things to do to find Isaac a wife (Genesis 24:1–10\). The servant did all his master asked, plus he prayed to God for guidance and confirmation (verses 12–14\). God did guide him, and He also confirmed all of the servant’s “tests” to show that the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah was indeed God\-approved (verses 15–27\). So convinced was the servant of God’s will that he immediately related to Rebekah’s brother, Laban, all the details confirming God’s choice (verses 32–49\). By the time dinner was served, everyone knew that this was of God, that both Isaac and Rebekah should be married (verses 50–51\). Then a dowry was paid, and verbal contracts were pledged between them (verses 52–59\). Thus, the marriage mentioned in verse 67 was hardly based on a mere sexual act. Cultural procedures and dowry traditions were fulfilled, conditions were met, answers to prayer were seen, and the obvious blessing by God was upon the entire scenario.
So, what constitutes marriage in God’s eyes? It would seem that the following principles should be followed: 1\) As long as the requirements are reasonable and not against the Bible, a man and a woman should seek whatever formal governmental recognition is available. 2\) A man and a woman should follow whatever cultural, familial, and covenantal practices are typically employed to recognize a couple as “officially married.” 3\) If possible, a man and a woman should consummate the marriage sexually, fulfilling the physical aspect of the “one flesh” principle.
|
What does the Bible say about prenuptial agreements? |
Answer
Although prenuptial agreements are not mentioned in the Bible, God does tell us how we are to view marriage, and from that we can figure how agreements such as “pre\-nups” would be viewed. First, God intended marriage to be permanent, lasting as long as both spouses are alive. When two Christian people go into a marriage, it should be with the strong belief that divorce is not an option. To have a prenuptial agreement allows for the possibility of divorce. When God formed Eve from Adam’s rib, He was signifying the purpose of a husband\-and\-wife relationship. The woman is the man’s helper, taken from under his protective arm and formed from the same flesh. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24\). Obviously, being “[one flesh](one-flesh-marriage.html)” means that a husband and wife should not even consider separating. The only reason the Law ever allowed divorce was the people’s hard\-hearted insistence on divorce as a right (Matthew 19:8\). God never changes, and He despises [divorce](God-hates-divorce.html) (Malachi 2:16\).
The [love](agape-love.html) described in 1 Corinthians 13 should obviate the need for prenuptial agreements. Biblical love is a conscious decision that we are going to do what is best for others the way God always does what is best for us. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self\-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Corinthians 13:4–7\). As Christians, we should be characterized by this kind of love, especially within a Christian marriage. If love “endures through every circumstance” (NLT), then prenuptial agreements are unneeded.
In Ephesians 5, we learn a lot about the [roles of a husband and wife](roles-husband-wife-family.html) in marriage. Husbands are called to love their wives with the same love that Christ showed the church (verse 25\)—a love that did not shrink from sacrifice. Wives are to honor their husbands and submit to their leadership (verse 22\). Just as Christ will never leave us, a husband should never leave his wife. Husbands should love their wives as they love themselves (verse 28\), and wives should respect their husbands (verse 33\).The biblical model of marriage teaches the permanence of the union and the necessity of selflessness; prenuptial agreements, by their very nature, cast doubt on the permanence of the union and foster selfishness.
There is no reason for two Christian people, committed to God and each other, to need a prenuptial agreement. Yes, both the husband and wife will sin, but “love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8\). God calls us to forgive each other just as He has forgiven us, but a pre\-nup is a plan to *not* forgive. If two truly become one, shouldn’t the distinction between “yours” and “mine” be eradicated—or at least greatly blurred?
Many in today’s society consider prenuptial agreements to be necessary and that anyone who does not sign one is a fool. But God’s ways contradict the world’s (Luke 16:15; Romans 12:2\). Nothing in the Bible supports the idea that a Christian engaged couple should forge a “just in case we get divorced you can’t take my stuff” agreement.
|
What does it mean to be one flesh in a marriage? |
Answer
The term “one flesh” comes from the Genesis account of the creation of Eve. Genesis 2:21\-24 describes the process by which God created Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side as he slept. Adam recognized that Eve was part of him—they were in fact “one flesh.” The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.
As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24\). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.
Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one. Even as one part of the body cares for the other body parts (the stomach digests food for the body, the brain directs the body for the good of the whole, the hands work for the sake of the body, etc.), so each partner in the marriage is to care for the other. Each partner is no longer to see money earned as “my” money, but rather as “our” money. Ephesians 5:22\-33 and Proverbs 31:10\-31 give the application of this “oneness” to the role of the husband and to the wife, respectively.
Physically, they become one flesh, and the result of that one flesh is found in the children that their union produces; these children now possess a special genetic makeup, specific to their union. Even in the sexual aspect of their relationship, a husband and wife are not to consider their bodies as their own but as belonging to their partner (1 Corinthians 7:3\-5\). Nor are they to focus on their own pleasure but rather the giving of pleasure to their spouse.
This oneness and desire to benefit each other is not automatic, especially after mankind’s fall into sin. The man, in Genesis 2:24 (KJV), is told to “cleave” to his wife. This word has two ideas behind it. One is to be “glued” to his wife, a picture of how tight the marriage bond is to be. The other aspect is to “pursue hard after” the wife. This “pursuing hard after” is to go beyond the courtship leading to marriage, and is to continue throughout the marriage. The fleshly tendency is to “do what feels good to me” rather than to consider what will benefit the spouse. And this self\-centeredness is the rut that marriages commonly fall into once the “honeymoon is over.” Instead of each spouse dwelling upon how his or her own needs are not being met, he or she is to remain focused on meeting the needs of the spouse.
As nice as it may be for two people to live together meeting each other’s needs, God has a higher calling for the marriage. Even as they were to be serving Christ with their lives before marriage (Romans 12:1\-2\), now they are to serve Christ together as a unit and raise their children to serve God (1 Corinthians 7:29\-34; Malachi 2:15; Ephesians 6:4\). Priscilla and Aquila, in Acts 18, would be good examples of this. As a couple pursues serving Christ together, the joy which the Spirit gives will fill their marriage (Galatians 5:22\-23\). In the Garden of Eden, there were three present (Adam, Eve, and God), and there was joy. So, if God is central in a marriage today, there also will be joy. Without God, a true and full oneness is not possible.
|
Is it wrong for a married couple to have sex just for pleasure? |
Answer
The Bible is straightforward about the origin of sex: it was God’s idea. God created the two genders, and human sexuality, including all its physical, emotional, and spiritual intricacies, is God’s invention. Of course, sexual intercourse serves to perpetuate the human race, but sex has more than a utilitarian purpose. Sex is [pleasurable](God-pleasure.html) by God’s design, and it is an intimate act—it helps create a bond between a husband and wife. Some people struggle with the issue of the pleasurableness of sex, thinking that it is sinful to seek physical enjoyment. Is it wrong for a married couple to have sex for pleasure, or should sex be reserved only for those times when the couple is trying to have a baby?
Because of the pervasiveness of pornography and the widespread perversion of sex in our culture, some people, including some sincere Christians, have the idea that sex for pleasure is wrong. They feel guilty about enjoying sex and would rather reserve the sex act for procreation; sex becomes something to be tolerated as the only way to make babies. Such a perspective is not biblical. Sex does not equal sin—not even sex for pleasure. Immorality (sex outside of [marriage](marriage-constitutes.html) as defined by God) is wrong, but not sex within marriage. “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept [pure](marriage-bed-undefiled.html), for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Hebrews 13:4\).
A married couple having sex for pleasure is no more sinful than that same couple enjoying a chocolate dessert together. There’s not much practicality about eating a dessert—it is not eaten to sustain life or to provide nutrition; it is eaten for pleasure. As long as the couple keeps their dessert\-eating within appropriate bounds, their enjoyment of chocolate desserts is fine. If they start lusting for chocolate, gluttonously eating nothing but chocolate, or stealing chocolate, then there is a problem. But the enjoyment of the dessert is fine in itself.
One Old Testament book deals at length with the subject of passion and sex for pleasure within marriage. The Song of Solomon is detailed in its description of the wedding night—although its use of metaphor tones it down somewhat—and, traditionally, Hebrew boys couldn’t read it until they were 12 years old, when they became men. The beautiful imagery of chapter 4 evokes scenes of serenity and delight. This is not a couple doing what they must in order to conceive; this is a couple surrendering to one another and simply enjoying each other. They are having sex for pleasure.
The biology of the human body argues for the acceptability of sex for pleasure. God designed the body to respond pleasurably to touch in certain areas. He could have made us with no desire for sex and no gratifying sensations during sex, but He didn’t. He gave us sex not merely as the means to propagate but, as a bonus, a gift to be enjoyed. God intended sex to be pleasurable.
Biblically, a married couple is expected to have sexual relations: “Since [sexual immorality](sexual-immorality.html) is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control” (1 Corinthians 7:3–5\). According to this passage, the normal, natural state of marriage is for a husband and wife to have sex regularly. The deprivation spoken of is not the denial of having children but the withholding of sexual relations. If a husband and wife are not having sex for pleasure, then something is wrong.
Sex, whether it’s sex for procreation or sex for pleasure, is a gift from God to the marital union. The feelings of sexual longings and pleasure during sex were created by God, and God designed marriage to fulfill those longings and experience that pleasure. God fashioned us for sex and created the emotions to go with it; pleasure was intended. We shouldn’t let Satan and his lies keep us from providing pleasure to our spouses and enjoying ourselves. Neither should we fall victim to the counterfeit sexual pleasures the world offers outside of marriage. God’s pleasure is real and satisfying; Satan’s counterfeit is empty and destructive.
|
What does the Bible say about gay marriage? |
Answer
While the Bible does address [homosexuality](is-being-gay-a-sin.html), it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same\-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26–27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be “shameful” and “unnatural.” First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are “wrongdoers” who will [not inherit the kingdom of God](do-gay-people-go-to-heaven.html). Since homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, it follows that homosexuals marrying is not God’s will and would be, in fact, sinful.
Every mention of [marriage](marriage-Bible.html) in the Bible refers to the union of a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2–16 and Ephesians 5:23–33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The biblical understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is found in every human civilization in world history. History thus argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well\-adjusted children. So, psychology also argues against gay marriage. Anatomically, men and women were clearly designed to fit together sexually. The “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation, and only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. In this way, nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman, why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same\-sex marriage labeled as hateful people or intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same\-sex marriage when most people, religious and non\-religious, are supportive of gay couples having the same legal rights as married couples through some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. Romans 1:18–32 says that God has made the truth plain. But the truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed. One way to suppress the truth is to normalize homosexuality and marginalize those who oppose it. And a good way to normalize homosexuality is to place gay marriage/same\-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional, opposite\-gender marriage.
To sanction gay marriage/same\-sex marriage is to approve of the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently labels as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same\-sex marriage. Further, there are strong, logical arguments against gay marriage/same\-sex marriage from contexts apart from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God as the lifetime union of a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:4–6\). Gay marriage/same\-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we do not condone or ignore sin. Rather, we share the love of God and act as [ministers of reconciliation](ministry-of-reconciliation.html) (2 Corinthians 5:18\). We point to the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15\).
|
What does the Bible say about a trial separation in a marriage? |
Answer
When a couple enters into the covenant of marriage, the Bible tells us that God joins them together into one flesh. “Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together” (Matthew 19:6, NLT). Marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment, not a temporary solution for loneliness or other emotional needs. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16\) and never intends for a couple to separate once they are married (Matthew 19:8\).
Because separation, whether it is legal or physical, involves the division of a married couple, it displeases God. First Corinthians 7:10–11 says, “A wife must not leave her husband. But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else go back to him. And the husband must not leave his wife.” Separation is never an ideal situation, but because of sin, it is sometimes necessary. If a spouse or child is being physically abused, for example, he or she should immediately seek help outside the home and separate from the abuser until appropriate help and treatment have been provided to all parties (see our article on [domestic violence](domestic-violence.html) for more on this). Prayer and counsel from their pastor are also necessary for the restoration of the marriage and family.
Marriage vows should not be taken lightly, and separation should not be undertaken casually. Far too many couples decide to have a “trial separation” in order to discover what they truly want out of life, but they do so without any attempt to rebuild the marriage during this time. Instead of reconstructing the family on a foundation of faith in Christ, they drift farther apart until they eventually divorce. This is not in God’s perfect plan for marriage and family, even if it has become acceptable in our culture. “Live happily with the woman you love through all the meaningless days of life that God has given you in this world. The wife God gives you is your reward for all your earthly toil” (Ecclesiastes 9:9\).
|
How can I restore my marriage? |
Answer
Since the need to restore a marriage relationship can be for many different reasons, we will look at underlying principles that the Bible sets forth for relationships in general and then marriage in particular.
The place to start is with the individual one\-on\-one relationship between a man or woman and the Lord Jesus Christ. As born\-again believers, the success of any relationship with others is in direct correlation with the quality of our personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. When we are out of fellowship with the Lord due to sin or mental attitudes that are contrary to divine viewpoint, we find that we are out of sorts with ourselves, first, and that spills over to our relationships with others. Therefore, restoring our relationship and fellowship with the Lord through agreeing with His viewpoint and resting in the forgiveness that is ours in Christ Jesus (1 John 1:9\) is the place we must begin.
The above presupposes that one has a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ through the new birth. That is being born again unto newness of life in accepting salvation through the gift of eternal life given to us in Christ. If that step has not been taken in an individual’s life, then biblical principles are not the first issue to be addressed; one’s eternal salvation or redemption is. This website has an excellent resource available to help to guide one to repentance and acceptance of the gift of life in Christ.
For the born\-again believer, forgiveness is the position and privilege that we have in Christ, and because of that forgiveness we are commanded to forgive others. "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32\). If we are believers, we are forgiven “in Christ,” and “in Christ" we also forgive others. No relationship can be restored without forgiveness. Forgiveness is a choice we make based upon the reality of our own forgiven state.
For the marriage relationship, the Bible has given us a very clear model that is opposite to the world’s viewpoint. To restore a marriage relationship once forgiveness has been given and received, applying God’s model will begin to bring the two separate parties into a God\-honoring union. This requires a choice on the part of both parties. There is an old saying, "you cannot use what you do not know." Therefore, to learn God’s model for marriage we must look into God’s Word.
God ordained the first marriage in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. When sin entered because of their disobedience, that perfect union was destroyed. Subsequently, God told Eve that Adam would be her "head" to rule over her (Genesis 3:16\). (Compare 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:5\-6\.) This "rule" has been overthrown by the modern liberal women’s movement and has brought untold unhappiness to those who believe the "lie." There is also the human viewpoint that "all are equal." In a way, that is true. We all have equal access to salvation in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28\). But to say that all in the world are equal in human opportunity, abilities or even power is naïve. God had a purpose for placing wives under the authority of their husbands. Because of sin, that rule has been both abused and chaffed under, and the result has brought chaos to the home and family. However, God does not let the husband off the hook. The husband is to "love his wife as he loves his own body" (Ephesians 5:28\). In fact, the greater part of the responsibility of the marriage model is given to the husband. The woman is to obey her husband as unto the Lord; however, husbands are to love their wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25\-29\).
There is also a passage in 1 Corinthians 7 that lays down some principles and practical, personal, Spirit\-led, advice about marriage from the Apostle Paul. This is all in accordance with the supposition that the individuals are born\-again believers. This passage speaks about adultery, fornication, staying single and pure or—in order to avoid the pitfalls of passion and fornication—to marry.
God’s marriage model works, but it takes commitment on the part of both parties to create a relationship with a balance of each individual’s obedience to God and walking in fellowship with the Lord. It does not happen overnight. And, usually, if a marriage relationship has broken down, there are issues that need to be forgiven and put behind in order to move forward, and, again, that takes a choice and a commitment. Unwillingness on the part of either party will mean no restoration. The overriding issue is with each individual’s responsibility before the Lord and then coming together before the Lord. Walking in forgiveness and fellowship would be a wonderful place to start to put the pieces back together again.
|
What does the Bible say about remarriage after the death of your spouse? |
Answer
Is a person eligible for remarriage after he/she is widowed? Not only does the Bible not speak against remarriage after a spouse dies, in some cases, it actually encourages it (1 Corinthians 7:8\-9; 1 Timothy 5:14\). The Jewish culture in biblical times also encouraged this for different reasons. In most cases, the Bible addresses the issue of widows rather than widowers. However, there is nothing within the context of any of these passages leading us to believe that the standard was gender\-specific.
Primarily addressing widows was likely to have been for three reasons. The first was that men usually worked outside the home, sometimes doing dangerous jobs. Men in biblical times, just as now, had shorter life spans on average than their wives. Thus, widows were far more common than widowers.
The second reason was the fact that women rarely had any means of supporting themselves and their children in biblical times (2 Kings 4:1\-7\). Remarriage was the primary way in which a widow would regain protection and provision for the needs of herself and her children. Once Christ established the Church, the Church became responsible for the care of widows under certain circumstances (1 Timothy 5:3\-10\).
The third issue was that continuing the husband’s family line and name was a concern in Jewish culture. As a result, if a husband died without leaving any children to carry on his name, his brother was encouraged to marry the widow and provide her with children. Other men in the family had the option also, but there was a proper order in which each man had the opportunity to fulfill or pass on this responsibility (see the book of Ruth for an example of this). Even among priests (who had to follow a higher standard), remarriage after the death of a spouse was permitted. In the case of priests, it was under the stipulation that they only marry the widow of another priest (Ezekiel 44:22\). So, based on all biblical instruction on the subject, remarriage after the death of a spouse is permitted by God.
Romans 7:2\-3 tells us, “For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.” Even with divorce occurring in 50% of marriages today, most wedding vows still contain the phrase “till death do us part.” This phrase may not be specifically from the Bible, but the principle is biblical.
When a man and woman get married, God unites them as one flesh (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5\-6\). The only thing that can break the marriage bond, in God’s eyes, is death. If a person’s spouse dies, the widow / widower is absolutely free to remarry. The Apostle Paul allowed widows to remarry in 1 Corinthians 7:8\-9 and encouraged younger widows to remarry in 1 Timothy 5:14\. Remarriage after the death of a spouse is absolutely allowed by God.
|
Does marriage hinder your relationship with God? |
Answer
The issue that marriage might hinder one’s relationship with God was of concern to Paul in 1 Corinthians 7\. Because of this, he stated that it is best for a single person to remain as he was—single. But he understood that the ability to handle a single life without “burning” with passion was not a gift given to everyone (verses 7\-9\). He states in verses 32\-35 that the unmarried people are able to serve the Lord in an “unhindered” fashion because they do not need to focus a part of their lives on pleasing their spouses. But he also stated that whether married or not, we should be focusing on serving Christ (verses 28\-31\).
But the fact that Jesus did not call just single men—and even selected Peter, a married man (Matthew 8:14\), as one of the three closest disciples—indicates that marriage need not hinder one’s intimacy with Christ. Likewise, in the Old Testament there are two individuals (among others) who were intimate with God. One was Daniel; another was Moses. One was single; one was married. Thus, marriage was not a factor in determining intimacy with God. Christian biographies of such men as [Hudson Taylor](Hudson-Taylor.html), [George Mueller](George-Mueller.html), and Jim Elliot would also indicate that one’s intimacy with Christ need not diminish with marriage.
The key to marriage not putting a damper upon one’s intimacy with Christ is to be sure to marry “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39\) or, to put it another way, not to become unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14\) by marrying either an unbeliever or a believer who does not have the same doctrinal foundation or the same desire to serve Christ with a whole heart. Rather, if one marries “in the Lord,” the statements of Scripture concerning the benefits of a good companion become true (Proverbs 27:17; Ecclesiastes 4:9\-12\), and the spouse becomes an aid and encouragement in one’s walk with Christ.
|
What should a Christian do if he or she is married to an unbeliever? |
Answer
Being married to an unbeliever can be one of the most difficult challenges in a Christian’s life. Marriage is a sacred covenant that joins two people together in one flesh (Matthew 19:5\). It can be very difficult for a believer and an unbeliever to live in peaceful harmony (2 Corinthians 6:14\-15\). If one partner becomes a Christian after the marriage, the inherent struggles of living under two different authorities quickly become apparent.
Often Christians in this situation will look for a way out of the marriage, convinced that this is the only way to truly bring honor to God. His Word, however, says the contrary. It is very important not only to be content in our situation, but also to look for ways to bring glory to Him out of our challenging circumstances (1 Corinthians 7:17\). The Bible specifically addresses those who are married to unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 7:12\-14: “…If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband…”
Christians married to unbelievers will need to pray for the power of the Holy Spirit to enable them to profess Christ and live in the light of God’s presence (1 John 1:7\). They should seek God’s transforming power to change their hearts and produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). A Christian wife is obligated to have a submissive heart, even toward her unbelieving husband (1 Peter 3:1\), and she will need to remain close to God and rely on His grace to enable her to do so.
Christians are not meant to live solitary lives; they need to find support from outside sources such as the church and Bible study groups. Being married to an unbeliever does not alter the sacredness of the relationship, so it should be the priority of every Christian to pray for his or her spouse and set a good example, allowing Christ’s light to shine brightly (Philippians 2:14\). May the truth found in 1 Peter 3:1—that an unbelieving spouse is “won over”—be the hope and goal of every Christian who is married to an unbeliever.
|
What should be the response of a Christian whose spouse has had an affair? |
Answer
Infidelity creates a very difficult and painful situation, one that involves all the emotions, and, for the Christian, can stretch faith almost to the breaking point. The best thing to do is “turn all your worries over to Him. He cares about you” (1 Peter 5:7\). If you have been wronged, go to the Lord for comfort, wisdom, and direction on a daily basis. God can help us through the deepest of trials.
Adultery is always wrong. “God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Hebrews 13:4\). The injured party should rest in the truth that God is the avenger. The wronged individual does not need to fret over getting even. God will do a much better job of avenging us. When we are betrayed, we need to commit the pain to the One who knows every detail and will deal with it appropriately.
PRAY. Seek the Lord for wisdom, for healing, and for guidance. Pray for yourself, pray for the offender, and pray for anyone else involved. Pray for the Lord to direct your thoughts, words, actions, and decisions.
BE HONEST. A betrayed spouse is going to suffer the effects of deep hurt. It is appropriate to engage the anger and hurt caused by infidelity. Expressing these emotions to God can be a first step toward true healing (see Psalm 77:1–2\). Giving our emotions and needs over to God allows Him to minister to our hearts so that we can begin to let go of the offense. Godly counsel from a Christian counselor or pastor is helpful.
BE WILLING TO FORGIVE. We are to [forgive](what-is-forgiveness.html) others as we have been forgiven (Ephesians 4:32\). We should be willing and ready to extend forgiveness to anyone, including a spouse who has had an affair, who comes to us in [repentance](repentance.html), confessing his sin (Matthew 6:14 –15; 18:23 –35; Ephesians 4:31 –32; Colossians 3:13\). True forgiveness may not be accomplished for some time, but the *willingness* to forgive should be present always. To harbor bitterness is sin and will negatively affect everyday decisions.
BE WISE. We must consider the possibility that the unfaithful spouse does *not* repent of his or her sin. Are we to forgive a person who does not confess his sin and remains unrepentant? Part of the answer is to remember what forgiveness is *not*:
Forgiveness is not forgetting. We are not asked to forget the experience but to deal with it and move forward.
Forgiveness is not the elimination of [consequences](sin-consequences.html). Sin has natural consequences, and even those who are forgiven may still suffer as a result of their past choices: “Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched? So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished” (Proverbs 6:28–29\).
Forgiveness is not a feeling. It is a commitment to pardon the offender. It is a transaction made between the offended and the offender. Feelings may or may not accompany forgiveness.
Forgiveness is not a private, secret act within an individual’s heart. Forgiveness involves at least two people. This is why confession and repentance are required.
Forgiveness is not the automatic restoration of trust. It is wrong to think that forgiving an unfaithful spouse today means everything is back to normal tomorrow. Scripture gives us many reasons to distrust those who have proved themselves untrustworthy (see Luke 16:10–12\). Rebuilding trust can only begin after a process of reconciliation involving true forgiveness—which, of course, involves confession and repentance.
Also, importantly, forgiveness *offered* is not the same as forgiveness *received*. The *attitude* of forgiveness—being willing to forgive—is different from the actual *transaction* of forgiveness. We must not short\-circuit the process of confession and repentance and the rebuilding of trust.
Forgiveness may be offered by the wronged spouse, but, to be complete, it requires that the one who had the affair acknowledges his or her need for forgiveness and receives it, bringing reconciliation to the relationship.
BE FORGIVEN. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9\). When a marriage is in crisis, both parties should ask God to help them see how each may have contributed to the whole situation and be released from the weight of guilt before God. From that point on, there will be freedom to seek His counsel and guidance. His Holy Spirit will enable them to do what they could not do on their own. “I can do all this through him who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13\).
As God leads, true forgiveness and reconciliation are possible. No matter how long it takes, every effort must be made to forgive and reconcile (see Matthew 5:23–24\). As to whether to stay or to leave, “whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful” (Matthew 19:9, NLT). While the innocent party may have grounds for divorce, God’s preference is forgiveness and reconciliation.
In summary, when a Christian’s spouse has had an affair, the wronged party must guard against bitterness (Hebrews 12:15\) and be careful not to repay evil for evil (1 Peter 3:9\). We should be willing to forgive and genuinely want reconciliation; at the same time, we should not extend forgiveness to the unrepentant. In all things we must seek the Lord and find our wholeness and healing in Him.
|
Do I have to confess my adultery to my spouse? |
Answer
Whether or not to confess the sin of adultery to one’s spouse is a dilemma for many Christians who have had the unfortunate experience of the sin of adultery. Worldly "experts" usually encourage adulterers to keep their mouths shut about their infidelities, proclaiming worse damage will be done by confessing. The problem with this is that it stifles one’s conscience and doesn’t allow for the restoration of relationships that confession is intended to encompass. James 5:16 says, "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed."
The apostle Paul wisely stated, "So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man" (Acts 24:16\). Although adultery is a sin against God, first and foremost, the Bible also says that our bodies do not belong to ourselves, but also to the one we are married to (1 Corinthians 7:4\). The physical act of sex is the symbol of the way a married couple becomes one flesh when God joins them together in marriage (1 Corinthians 6:15\-16\). For these reasons, a person who has committed adultery should pray and allow the Holy Spirit to lead him or her, confessing the infidelity at the appropriate time.
A guilty conscience will not go away simply by trying to ignore it. It may, in fact, lead to psychological and even physical problems. As difficult as it would be for anyone to tell their husband or wife that they have been unfaithful, it is necessary not only for the integrity of the marriage, but also for the relationship between the person and God, so that their conscience may be clear and they will be able to live a holy and blameless life.
|
What is Arianism? |
Answer
Arianism is a heresy named for Arius, a priest and false teacher in the early fourth century AD in Alexandria, Egypt. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh, or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or not? Arius denied the deity of the Son of God, holding that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation and that the nature of Christ was *anomoios* (“unlike”) that of God the Father. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus is a finite created being with some divine attributes, but He is not eternal and not divine in and of Himself.
Arianism misunderstands biblical references to Jesus’ being tired (John 4:6\) and not knowing the date of His return (Matthew 24:36\). It may be difficult to understand how God could be tired or not know something, but these verses speak of Jesus’ human nature. Jesus is [fully God](Jesus-God-man.html), but He is also fully human. The Son of God did not become a human being until a specific point of time we call the [Incarnation](incarnation-of-Christ.html). Therefore, Jesus’ limitations as a human being have no impact on His divine nature or His eternality.
A second major misinterpretation in Arianism concerns the meaning of *firstborn* as applied to Christ. Romans 8:29 speaks of Christ as “the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (see also Colossians 1:15–20\). Arians understand *firstborn* in these verses to mean that the Son of God was “created” as the first act of creation. This is not the case. Jesus Himself proclaimed His self\-existence and eternality (John 8:58; 10:30\). In Bible times, the firstborn son of a family was held in great honor (Genesis 49:3; Exodus 11:5; 34:19; Numbers 3:40; Psalm 89:27; Jeremiah 31:9\). It is in this sense that Jesus is the “firstborn.” Jesus is the preeminent Person in God’s plan and the Heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2\). Jesus is the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6\).
After nearly a century of debate at various early church councils, the Christian church officially denounced Arianism as a false doctrine. Since that time, Arianism has never been accepted as a viable doctrine of the Christian faith. Arianism has not died out, however. Arianism has continued through the centuries in varying forms. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons of today hold a very Arian\-like position on Christ’s nature. Following the example of the early church, we must denounce any and all attacks on the deity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
|
What is liberation theology? |
Answer
Simply put, liberation theology is a movement that attempts to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. True followers of Jesus, according to liberation theology, must work toward a just society, bring about social and political change, and align themselves with the working class. Jesus, who was poor Himself, focused on the poor and downtrodden, and any legitimate church will give preference to those who have historically been marginalized or deprived of their rights. All church doctrine should grow out of the perspective of the poor. Defending the rights of the poor is seen as the central aspect of the gospel.
Here is an example of how liberation theology views Scripture through the lens of the poor and destitute: in Luke 1:52–53, Mary praises the Lord, saying, “He has brought down rulers from their thrones / but has lifted up the humble. / He has filled the hungry with good things / but has sent the rich away empty.” According to liberation theology, Mary is expressing joy that God has liberated the materially poor and fed the physically hungry while bringing down the materially rich. He is a God, in other words, who favors the destitute over those with wealth.
Liberation theology has it roots in Latin American [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html). Its rise is seen as a response to widespread poverty and the mistreatment of large segments of Latin American society. An influential book promoting liberation theology is Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez’s *A Theology of Liberation* (1971\).
Promoters of liberation theology appeal to the Old Testament prophets for support. For example, Malachi 3:5 warns of God’s judgment on those who oppress the working man: “‘I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against . . . those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,’ says the LORD Almighty” (see also Isaiah 58:6–7; Jeremiah 7:6; Zechariah 7:10\). Also, Jesus’ words in Luke 4:18 show His compassion for the oppressed: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free” (cf. Isaiah 61:1\).
Liberation theologians also use Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:34 to promote the idea that the church should be involved in activism: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus, according to liberation theology, pushed not for social stability but for social unrest.
Critics of liberation theology associate it with Marxism and see it as a religious form of failed socialist policies. Vatican officials, including several popes, have spoken against liberation theology. The reasons for Catholic opposition involve liberation theology’s emphasis on practice over doctrine and their rejection of church hierarchical structure—liberation theology advocates “base communities” that meet outside the confines of the church, effectively bypassing Catholic clergy.
Liberation theology has moved beyond the poor peasants in South and Central America. Haiti and South Africa are also home to forms of liberation theology. In the United States, [black liberation theology](black-liberation-theology.html) is preached in some churches such as Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. A related theological movement is feminist liberation theology, which views women as the oppressed group that must be liberated.
The Bible certainly teaches followers of Christ to care for the poor (Galatians 2:10; James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17\), and we should speak out against injustice. And, yes, the Bible warns repeatedly against the deceitfulness of riches (Mark 4:19\). However, liberation theology goes wrong in a couple of places. For one, it places social action on equal footing with the gospel message. As important as feeding the hungry is, it cannot take the place of the gospel of Christ (see Acts 3:6\). Mankind’s *primary* need is spiritual, not social. Also, the gospel is for all people, including the rich (Luke 2:10\). Visitors to the Christ Child included both shepherds and magi; both groups were welcome. To assign special status to any group as being preferred by God is to discriminate, something God does not do (Acts 10:34–35\). Christ brings unity to His church, not division along socio\-economic, racial, or gender lines (Ephesians 4:15\).
|
Can a couple who has gotten divorced get remarried? |
Answer
When Jesus came into this world, He was “made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law” (Galatians 4:4\-5\). The Christian is to “stand fast . . . in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free” (Galatians 5:1\). Scripture makes it quite clear that we who are in Christ are not under the Old Testament Law. Instead, we “walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16\) and follow the “law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2\).
The restriction of Deuteronomy 24:4 was part of God’s regulation on divorce, a practice which He tolerated, but never condoned, because of the Israelites’ hardheartedness (Matthew 19:8\). Moses required a legally binding, written bill of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1\) and prohibited “reversing” the divorce. Both regulations were calculated to emphasize the gravity and finality of divorce. In essence, God was saying, “Divorce is a very serious matter; do not take this step lightly.”
Today, married couples would do well to follow Jesus’ word and leave intact what God has joined (Matthew 19:6\). Divorced couples, while not bound to follow the particulars of the Old Testament Law, must still consider all the implications of remarriage. If the relationship with an ex\-spouse moves forward, pastoral counseling is recommended to ensure that the factors which led to the divorce in the first place have been confronted and worked through.
|
What is the Immaculate Conception? |
Answer
Many people mistakenly believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate—that is, without the stain of sin—but the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus at all. The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html) in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. The official statement of the doctrine reads, “The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin” (Pope Pius IX, *Ineffabilis Deus*, December 1854\). Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from [original sin](original-sin.html), that Mary did not have a sin nature and was, in fact, sinless.
Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary on December 8\. Within [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), December 9 is the date of the Feast of the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy [Theotokos](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html). (Anne is Mary’s mother, according to tradition.) The Eastern Church does not hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, although they do consider Mary “all\-holy,” that is, she never committed a sin.
The Immaculate Conception is not a virgin birth. Catholics believe Mary was conceived the normal way, but God made her immune from imputed or inherited sin. For as long as she’s been in existence, Mary has been free of sin. This allowed her to be the “second Eve” to give birth to the “second Adam” (see 1 Corinthians 15:45\). Overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35\), Mary was a pure and holy “ark,” fit to carry the Son of God. As the ark of the Lord in Moses’ day carried the elements of the Old Covenant within it, so Mary carried the Author of the New Covenant within her.
The Roman Catholic Church bases its teaching of the Immaculate Conception on tradition along with a couple passages of Scripture. One is Genesis 3:15, the [protoevangelium](protoevangelium.html). There, God speaks to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.” Catholics point to the fact that the conflict between the serpent and the woman is equal to the conflict between the serpent and the woman’s Offspring, and they explain this by saying the woman (Mary) must be as equally sinless as her Offspring (Christ). The other passage cited by Catholics in support of the Immaculate Conception is Luke 1:28, “The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’” The Greek word translated “highly favored” can be rendered “favored with grace”; thus, according to Catholic dogma, Mary had a superabundance of grace, rendering her sinless, and that’s why God chose her to bear His Son.
The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because, without it, Jesus would have received His flesh from one who was herself a slave to the devil, whose works Jesus came to destroy (1 John 3:8\). Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, needed for her flesh to be free from the power of sin, and God gave her that privilege. From her time in the womb, Mary was sanctified because of her special role in bringing the Son of God incarnate into the world.
One problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. Even Catholics admit that Scripture does not directly teach the Immaculate Conception. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28\). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27\). But the Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (see Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5\).
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the biblical doctrine of the [virgin birth](virgin-birth.html). The Bible never hints that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. Mary is not an exception to the Bible’s statement that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23\). Mary needed a Savior just like the rest of us (Luke 1:47\).
|
What is Sabellianism? |
Answer
A third\-century presbyter named Sabellius began to emphasize in his church (probably in Rome) the oneness of God, as opposed to God’s tri\-unity. In fact, Sabellius went so far as to say that there are no distinctions between the “persons” of the Godhead—the one God manifests Himself at different times and for different purposes in three different “modes” or “aspects.” This teaching, called “Sabellianism,” grew out of earlier forms of [Modalistic Monarchianism](Modalistic-Monarchianism.html).
None of the writings of Sabellius have survived to this day, so what we know of his teaching comes from the writings of those who refuted his errors. It seems that, according to Sabellianism, God manifested as the Father at creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Spirit in sanctification. For years, Sabellianism was quite popular in some parts of the world, but it was finally declared a heresy, and Sabellius was excommunicated in AD 220\.
One opponent of Sabellianism was [Hippolytus of Rome](Hippolytus-of-Rome.html), a contemporary of Sabellius. Hippolytus wrote against the heresy of Sabellianism in his *Philosophumena* (*Refutation of All Heresies*). Tertullian also strongly opposed Sabellianism, pointing out its error of [Patripassianism](Patripassianism.html) (the teaching that the Father suffered with the Son on the cross). Other Christian leaders who had to fight against Sabellianism include Dionysius of Alexandria and [Basil the Great](Basil-of-Caesarea.html). Sabellianism cropped up again during the time of the Reformation in the teaching of [Michael Servetus](Calvin-Michael-Servetus.html) and more recently in [Swedenborgianism](Swedenborgianism.html). Different labels, same lie.
[Sabellian baptisms](baptism-Jesus-name.html) were performed in one name only, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Insisting upon a non\-Trinitarian formula ignores Jesus’ words that emphasize God’s triune nature in Matthew 28:19, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Sabellianism is an unbiblical denial of the eternal distinctions among the Persons of the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html). On one level, it is easy to see why Sabellianism has been so popular throughout the centuries—it is certainly much easier to understand Sabellianism than it is to understand the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. However, the Bible presents God as one God and also speaks of three Persons. As difficult as it is to understand, the Trinity is the truth. The [Athanasian Creed](Athanasius.html) puts it well: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. . . . So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.”
|
What does the Bible say about the prosperity gospel? |
Answer
In the prosperity gospel, also known as the “[Word of Faith Movement](Word-Faith.html),” the believer is told to use God, whereas the truth of biblical Christianity is just the opposite—God uses the believer. Prosperity theology sees the Holy Spirit as a power to be put to use for whatever the believer wills. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is a Person who enables the believer to do God’s will. The prosperity gospel movement closely resembles some of the destructive greed sects that infiltrated the early church. Paul and the other apostles were not accommodating to or conciliatory with the false teachers who propagated such heresy. They identified them as dangerous false teachers and urged Christians to avoid them.
Paul warned Timothy about such men in 1 Timothy 6:5, 9\-11\. These men of “corrupt mind” supposed godliness was a means of gain and their desire for riches was a trap that brought them “into ruin and destruction” (v. 9\). The pursuit of wealth is a dangerous path for Christians and one which God warns about: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (v. 10\). If riches were a reasonable goal for the godly, Jesus would have pursued it. But He did not, preferring instead to have no place to lay His head (Matthew 8:20\) and teaching His disciples to do the same. It should also be remembered that the only disciple concerned with wealth was Judas.
Paul said covetousness is idolatry (Ephesians 5:5\) and instructed the Ephesians to avoid anyone who brought a message of immorality or covetousness (Ephesians 5:6\-7\). Prosperity teaching prohibits God from working on His own, meaning that God is not Lord of all because He cannot work until we release Him to do so. Faith, according to the Word of Faith doctrine, is not submissive trust in God; faith is a formula by which we manipulate the spiritual laws that prosperity teachers believe govern the universe. As the name “Word of Faith” implies, this movement teaches that faith is a matter of what we say more than whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm in our hearts.
A favorite term of prosperity gospel teachers is “[positive confession](positive-confession.html).” This refers to the teaching that words themselves have creative power. What you say, prosperity teachers claim, determines everything that happens to you. Your confessions, especially the favors you demand of God, must all be stated positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer (as though man could require anything of God!). Thus, God’s ability to bless us supposedly hangs on our faith. James 4:13\-16 clearly contradicts this teaching: “Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” Far from speaking things into existence in the future, we do not even know what tomorrow will bring or even whether we will be alive.
Instead of stressing the importance of wealth, the Bible warns against pursuing it. Believers, especially leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:3\), are to be free from the love of money (Hebrews 13:5\). The love of money leads to all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10\). Jesus warned, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15\). In sharp contrast to the prosperity gospel emphasis on gaining money and possessions in this life, Jesus said, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19\). The irreconcilable contradictions between prosperity teaching and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is best summed up in the words of Jesus in Matthew 6:24, “You cannot serve both God and money.”
|
What is neo-orthodoxy? |
Answer
Neo\-orthodoxy is a religious movement that began after World War I as a reaction against the failed ideas of liberal Protestantism. It was developed primarily by Swiss theologians [Karl Barth](Karl-Barth.html) and Emil Brunner. Others called it “neo\-orthodoxy” because they saw it as a revival of the old Reformed theology. Neo\-orthodoxy differs from “old” orthodoxy in its views of the Word of God and sin.
The orthodox view holds that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, given by the inspiration of God. By inspiration, both verbal and mechanical, it is meant that the Holy Spirit was in full control of the Bible writer, by either verbally dictating everything he was writing or using the person as a tool to work through. This doctrine of inspiration comes to the logical conclusion that the original manuscripts are without error or contradiction. The Bible is the complete and sufficient revelation of God. Two passages that support this view are 2 Timothy 3:16\-17 and 2 Peter 1:20\-21\.
Neo\-orthodoxy defines the Word of God as Jesus (John 1:1\) and says that the Bible is simply man’s interpretation of the Word’s actions. Thus, the Bible is not inspired by God, and, being a human document, various parts of it may not be literally true. God spoke through “redemptive history,” and He speaks now as people “encounter” Jesus, but the Bible itself is not objective truth.
Neo\-orthodoxy teaches that the Bible is a *medium* of revelation, while orthodoxy believes it *is* revelation. That means that, to the neo\-orthodox theologian, revelation depends on the experience (or personal interpretation) of each individual. The Bible only “becomes” the Word of God when God uses its words to point someone to Christ. The details of the Bible are not as important as having a life\-changing encounter with Jesus. Truth thus becomes a mystical experience and is not definitively stated in the Bible.
The neo\-orthodox view of sin is that it is a rejection of our responsibility to treat our fellow man well. The result of sin is dehumanization, accompanied by unkindness, unforgiveness, loneliness, and a myriad of societal ills. Salvation comes to those who have a subjective encounter with Christ—no acceptance of a set of truths is necessary. Neo\-orthodoxy places an emphasis on social work and our ethical responsibility to love others.
Neo\-orthodoxy has influenced the less\-conservative branches of Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in America, along with other denominations. While its original purpose, to provide a more biblical alternative to liberalism, is commendable, neo\-orthodox teaching nevertheless carries some inherent dangers. Any time that truth is determined according to what is relevant to my experience, the possibility of relativism exists. Any doctrine that sees the Bible as a wholly human document containing errors erodes the very foundation of biblical Christianity.
We cannot truly have a life\-changing “encounter” with Jesus without also believing some facts as presented in the Bible. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17\). The content of our faith is the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3\-4\).
The disciples had an “encounter” with Jesus in Luke 24\. The disciples initially misinterpreted the event, however: “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost” (verse 37\). It was not until Jesus informed them of the truth (that He had been bodily resurrected) that they grasped the reality of the situation. In other words, we need an encounter with Jesus, but we also need to have that encounter interpreted by the truth of God’s Word. Otherwise, experience can lead us astray.
Jude 1:3 tells us “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The faith was entrusted to us via the Bible, the written Word of God. We must not compromise the truth that God has spoken inerrantly and fully in His Word.
|
Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical? |
Answer
Some Roman Catholics draw a fine line between praying *to* Mary—which they deny doing—and praying *with* her. They maintain that a prayer addressed to Mary or the saints is simply a way of asking people in heaven to pray for people on earth and is no different from asking someone here on earth to pray on one’s behalf. Other Catholics readily admit that they pray to Mary and the saints.
The Catechism of the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html), second edition, seems clear enough that prayers on earth can indeed be directed to Mary: “When we *pray to \[Mary]*, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus’ mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and *to her*” (part 4, § 1, ch. 2, art. 2, ¶ 2679, emphasis added).
There are many Catholic prayers to Mary. A famous one is the Memorare, which addresses Mary directly and encourages the petitioner to trust in her:
“Remember, most loving Virgin Mary,
never was it heard
that anyone who turned to you for help
was left unaided. . . .
I run to your protection
for you are my mother.”
The same is true for another traditional Catholic prayer, “[Hail, Holy Queen](worship-saints-Mary.html).” This prayer explicitly calls Mary a “most gracious advocate”:
“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy,
hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope.
To you we cry, the children of Eve;
to you we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this land of exile.
Turn, then, most gracious advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
lead us home at last”
(from *A Book of Prayers*, 1982, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc.)
Praying to Mary and the saints in such a way is unbiblical. Even in cases in which Mary or a saint is simply being asked to pray on one’s behalf, the practice has no biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or saints such as Gertrude, Rita, Sylvester, Vincent, Agnes, etc.? Why do they petition the dead and request their prayers?
Catholics view Mary and the saints as “intercessors” before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in heaven, has been perfected in love (including love for us) and has more “direct access” to God than do earthbound sinners. In Catholic thinking, prayers delivered by a saint are more effective than our praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that believers here on earth have direct access to God and can “approach the throne of grace with confidence.”
No saint can take Jesus’ place: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5\). There is no one else who can mediate with God for us. Since Jesus is the *only* [mediator](Jesus-mediator.html), Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: “He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25\). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more readily than His only begotten Son? Romans 8:26–27 says the Holy Spirit is also interceding for us. With the second and third Persons of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father, why would we need to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
Let us examine the claim that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us:
1\) Asking other believers (on earth) to pray for us is certainly biblical (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3\). The apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19\.
2\) The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking someone in heaven to pray for him or her. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth.
3\) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people?
4\) Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in a negative context involving activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10–13; 1 Samuel 28:7–19\).
Praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking a friend here on earth to pray for us. Asking people on earth to pray for us has a strong biblical basis; asking the heavenly saints or Mary to pray has no biblical basis whatsoever.
It is wrong to think that God will hear and answer the prayers of St. Jude, for example, over ours. Scripture teaches that prayer offered to God in faith, according to God’s will, from a redeemed heart will be heard. As an example, “Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops” (James 5:17–18\).
There is absolutely no scriptural basis to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no need to, either. Jesus, our Intercessor, has it covered. No one in heaven can mediate on our behalf except for Jesus Christ. Only God can hear and answer prayer. The temple veil was torn in two (Hebrews 10:19–20\); the child of God on earth has just as much access to God’s throne of grace, in Jesus’ name, as anyone in heaven (Hebrews 4:16\).
|
Is worship of saints / Mary biblical? |
Answer
The Bible is absolutely clear that we are to worship God alone. The only instances of anyone other than God receiving worship in the Bible are false gods, which are Satan and his demons. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshiped (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–14\). The holy angels refuse to be worshiped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9\). The response is always the same, “Worship God!”
Roman Catholics attempt to “bypass” these clear Scriptural principles by claiming they do not “worship” Mary or saints, but rather that they only “[venerate](veneration.html)” Mary and the saints. Using a different word does not change the essence of what is being done. A definition of “venerate” is “to regard with respect or reverence.” Nowhere in the Bible are we told to revere anyone but God alone. There is nothing wrong with respecting those faithful Christians who have gone before us (see Hebrews chapter 11\). There is nothing wrong with honoring Mary as the earthly mother of Jesus. The Bible describes Mary as “highly favored” by God (Luke 1:28\). At the same time, there is no instruction in the Bible to revere those who have gone to heaven. We are to follow their example, yes, but worship, revere, or venerate, no!
When forced to admit that they do, in fact, worship Mary, Catholics will claim that they worship God through her, by praising the wonderful creation that God has made. Mary, in their minds, is the most beautiful and wonderful creation of God, and by praising her, they are praising her Creator. For Catholics, this is analogous to directing praise to an artist by praising his sculpture or painting. The problem with this is that God explicitly commands against worshiping Him through created things. We are not to bow down and worship the form of anything in heaven above or earth below (Exodus 20:4–5\). Romans 1:25 could not be more clear: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Yes, God has created wonderful and amazing things. Yes, Mary was a godly woman who is worthy of our respect. No, we absolutely are not to worship God “vicariously” by praising things (or people) He has created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.
The major way Catholics “venerate” Mary and the saints is by praying to them. But [prayer to anyone other than God alone](prayer-saints-Mary.html) is anti\-biblical. Whether Mary and/or the saints are prayed to, or whether they are petitioned for their prayers—neither practice is biblical. Prayer is an act of worship. When we pray to God, we are admitting that we need His help. Directing our prayers to anyone other than God is robbing God of the glory that is His alone.
Another way Catholics “venerate” Mary and the saints is by creating statues and images of them. Many Catholics use images of Mary and/or the saints as “good luck charms.” Any cursory reading of the Bible will reveal this practice as blatant idolatry (Exodus 20:4–6; 1 Corinthians 12:1–2; 1 John 5:21\). Rubbing rosary beads is idolatry. Lighting candles before a statue or portrayal of a saint is idolatry. Burying a Joseph statue in hopes of selling your home (and countless other Catholic practices) is idolatry.
The terminology is not the issue. Whether the practice is described as “worship” or “veneration” or any other term, the problem is the same. Any time we ascribe something that belongs to God to someone else, it is idolatry. The Bible nowhere instructs us to revere, pray to, rely on, or “idolize” anyone other than God. We are to worship God alone. Glory, praise, and honor belong to God alone. Only God is worthy to “receive glory and honor and power” (Revelation 4:11\). God alone is worthy to receive our worship, adoration, and praise (Nehemiah 9:6; Revelation 15:4\).
|
What is consubstantiation? |
Answer
Consubstantiation is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord’s Supper are spiritually the flesh and blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine. In this way, it is different from transubstantiation, in which the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma that stretches back to the earliest years of that church, while consubstantiation is relatively new, arising out of the Protestant Reformation. Consubstantiation essentially teaches that Jesus is "with, in, and under" the bread and wine, but is not literally the bread and wine.
Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was a Roman Catholic priest who was fed up with the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to reform the church so it could return to its roots. Luther learned all about the doctrine of transubstantiation in his theological training, and it made up part of his belief system because, as a priest, he celebrated the Mass many times, and the dogma of transubstantiation is central to the Roman Catholic Mass.
Thus, when the Reformation started as a backlash to the Roman Catholic abuses (such as the sale of indulgences), and the reform movement was summarily denounced by the church, the leaders of the Reformation were largely Roman Catholic believers who were now without a church since they had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Thus was born the climate in which the elements of the Mass, the bread and the wine, could be examined in a scriptural light. So, instead of transubstantiation, a doctrine that must be taken on faith alone since no apparent change is present in the bread and wine, the doctrine of consubstantiation was formulated to explain what happened to the bread and wine and why there was no real physical change to these basic elements.
The change from *trans\-* to *con\-* is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix *trans\-* means “change” and says that a change takes place; the bread actually becomes the body of Jesus, and the wine actually becomes the blood of Jesus. The prefix *con\-* means “with” and says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co\-exists with the body of Christ so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co\-exists with the blood of Jesus so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.
In this way, the make\-up of the Host central to the worship service approaches reality since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change; the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh, and the wine tastes like wine, not blood. However, these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co\-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26\-28 and Mark 14:22\-24, can be properly observed. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran, as examples). Even among these groups, consubstantiation is not universally accepted.
|
Is Jesus Michael the archangel? |
Answer
Jesus is not [Michael the archangel](Michael-the-archangel.html). The Bible nowhere identifies Jesus as Michael (or any other angel, for that matter). Hebrews 1:5\-8 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and the angels: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be my Son’? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship Him.’ In speaking of the angels He says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.’ But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” The hierarchy of heavenly beings is made clear in this passage—angels worship Jesus who, as God, is alone worthy of worship. No angel is ever worshiped in Scripture; therefore, Jesus (worthy of worship) cannot be Michael or any other angel (not worthy of worship). The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2\-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7\), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3\-6\).
Michael the archangel is perhaps the highest of all the angels. Michael is the only angel in the Bible who is designated “the archangel” (Jude verse 9\). Michael the archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. The clear distinction in the power and authority of Michael and Jesus can be seen in comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan, and Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel “dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy” against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14\). Michael the archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.
|
What is baptism for the dead? |
Answer
Baptism for the dead, as performed by some religious groups today, is a non\-biblical practice in which a living person is baptized in lieu of a person who has passed away. The purpose of baptism for the dead, or vicarious baptism, is to make a public profession of faith for a person who is already deceased. We can essentially think of it as the practice of baptizing a dead person.
The concept underlying baptism for the dead is that baptism is necessary for salvation, that those who have died un\-baptized cannot inherit eternal life. Those souls need someone still living to become a surrogate for them; if someone will be baptized on their behalf, they may be granted access to heaven. But this contradicts Scripture. The notion that baptism [merits salvation](baptism-salvation.html) is itself unbiblical. Further, salvation is a personal matter—it cannot be conferred upon anyone based on the faith of someone else. The practice of baptism for the dead has nothing to commend it in Scripture.
What, then, do we make of 1 Corinthians 15:29? In that verse, in the middle of a discussion of physical resurrection, Paul says, “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?” This is a difficult verse to interpret, but we know from the rest of Scripture that it does *not* mean a dead person can be saved by proxy. We can rule out the idea that the baptism of someone living can benefit someone dead. As already noted, baptism is not a requirement for salvation in the first place (see Ephesians 2:8; Romans 3:28; 4:3; 6:3–4\). The entire passage of 1 Corinthians 15:12–29 is about the surety of the resurrection; “baptism for the dead” is only mentioned in passing to bolster the truth that the resurrection is our confident hope.
There have been many different interpretations put forward to explain what 1 Corinthians 15:29 means in referring to those “who are baptized for the dead.” Some believe Paul is referring to a pagan custom or to a superstitious and unscriptural practice in the Corinthian church. But why would Paul, a champion of salvation by grace, countenance such a practice?
Here are three viable interpretations that preserve the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith:
1\. Those baptized for the dead “had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise” (Barnes, A., *Notes on the Bible*, 1834\). According to this view, the verse could be paraphrased like so: “Every Christian has embraced belief in the physical resurrection of the dead, a doctrine illustrated in the very act of baptism. To deny the resurrection is to denounce the very foundation of the Christian faith and make baptism meaningless.”
2\. Those baptized for the dead are those who are taking the physical place left vacant by believers who have already died. The idea of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is that, as Christians are martyred, their places are continually being filled by new converts, ready to take a stand for Christ. One commentator likens this to “ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight” (*The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge*, Vol. 9, Leeds, 1805, p. 99\). C. I. Scofield paraphrased the verse this way: “Of what value is it for one to trust Christ and be baptized in the ranks left vacant by the believing dead, if there is no resurrection for believers? Why place life in jeopardy and forfeit the benefits of this life, if there is no life after death?” (*The Scofield Study Bible III*, NKJV, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 1,593\).
3\. Those baptized for the dead are “living believers who give outward testimony to their faith in [baptism by water](Christian-baptism.html) because they were first drawn to Christ by the exemplary lives, faithful influence, and witness of believers who had subsequently died. Paul’s point is that if there is no resurrection and no life after death, then why are people coming to Christ to follow the hope of those who have died?” (MacArthur, J., *The MacArthur Study Bible* ESV, Crossway, 2010, p. 1,710\).
The [Mormon](Mormons.html) practice of baptism for the dead is unscriptural and traces back to [Marcionism](marcionism.html), a heresy of the mid\-second century AD. The rite of baptism is a way for the living to proclaim their faith and commitment to Jesus Christ. It is not to merit grace or confer the hope of salvation upon the dead.
|
What is transubstantiation? |
Answer
Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:
"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’"
In other words, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord’s Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). Is such a concept biblical? There are some Scriptures that, if interpreted strictly literally, would lead to the “real presence” of Christ in the bread and wine. Examples are John 6:32\-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17\-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24\-25\. The passage pointed to most frequently is John 6:32\-58 and especially verses 53\-57, “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”
Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53\-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.
The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24\-25\), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the [Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion](communion-Christian.html) back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the [Holy Eucharist](Holy-Eucharist.html).
The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re\-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re\-offering / re\-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18\). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."
|
What is atheism? |
Answer
Atheism is the view that God does not exist. Atheism is not a new development. Psalm 14:1, written by David around 1000 B.C., mentions atheism: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Recent statistics show an increasing number of people claiming to be atheists, up to 10 percent of people worldwide. So why are more and more people becoming atheists? Is atheism truly the logical position atheists claim it to be?
Why does atheism even exist? Why doesn’t God simply reveal Himself to people, proving that He exists? Surely if God would just appear, the thinking goes, everyone would believe in Him! The problem here is that it is not God’s desire to just convince people that He exists. It is God’s desire for people to believe in Him by faith (2 Peter 3:9\) and accept by faith His gift of salvation (John 3:16\). God clearly demonstrated His existence many times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6\-9; Exodus 14:21\-22; 1 Kings 18:19\-31\). Did the people believe that God exists? Yes. Did they turn from their evil ways and obey God? No. If a person is not willing to accept God’s existence by faith, then he/she is definitely not ready to accept Jesus Christ as Savior by faith (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). God’s desire is for people to become Christians, not just theists (those who believe God exists).
The Bible tells us that God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Hebrews 11:6 declares, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” The Bible reminds us that we are blessed when we believe and trust in God by faith: “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29\).
The existence of God must be accepted by faith, but this does not mean belief in God is illogical. There are many good arguments for the existence of God. The Bible teaches that God’s existence is clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1\-4\), in nature (Romans 1:18\-22\), and in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). With all that said, the existence of God cannot be proven; it must be accepted by faith.
At the same time, it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God absolutely does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.
Atheism cannot be proven, and God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Obviously, Christians believe strongly that God exists, and admit that God’s existence is a matter of faith. At the same time, we reject the idea that belief in God is illogical. We believe that God’s existence can be clearly seen, keenly sensed, and proven to be philosophically and scientifically necessary. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1\-4\).
|
What is polytheism? |
Answer
Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods. Breaking the word down, “poly” comes from the Greek word for “many,” and “theism” from the Greek word for “God.” Polytheism has perhaps been the dominant theistic view in human history. The best\-known example of polytheism in ancient times is Greek/Roman mythology (Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Poseidon, etc.). The clearest modern example of polytheism is Hinduism, which has over 300 million gods. Although Hinduism is, in essence, pantheistic, it does hold to beliefs in many gods. It is interesting to note that even in polytheistic religions, one god usually reigns supreme over the other gods, e.g., Zeus in Greek/Roman mythology and Brahman in Hinduism.
Some argue that the Bible teaches polytheism in the Old Testament. Admittedly, several passages refer to “gods” in the plural (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 10:17; 13:2; Psalm 82:6; Daniel 2:47\). Ancient Israel fully understood that there was only one true God, but they often did not live as if they believed that to be true, continually falling into idolatry and the worship of foreign gods. So what are we to make of these and other passages that speak of multiple gods? It is important to note that the Hebrew word elohim was used to refer to the one true God and to false gods/idols. It functioned almost identically to the English word “god.”
Describing something as a “god” does not mean you believe it to be a divine being. The vast majority of Old Testament Scriptures which speak of gods are speaking of false gods, those who claim to be gods but are not. This concept is summarized in 2 Kings 19:18: “They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by men’s hands.” Notice Psalm 82:6, “I said, 'You are “gods” you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.”
The Bible clearly teaches against polytheism. Deuteronomy 6:4 tells us, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Psalm 96:5 declares, “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.” James 2:19 says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” There is only one God. There are false gods and those who pretend to be gods, but there is only one God.
|
What is agnosticism? |
Answer
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is impossible to be known or proven. The word “agnostic” essentially means “without knowledge.” Agnosticism is a more intellectually honest form of atheism. Atheism claims that God does not exist—an unprovable position. Agnosticism argues that God’s existence cannot be proven or unproven—that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. In this, agnosticism is correct. God’s existence cannot be empirically proven or disproven.
The Bible tells us that we must accept by faith that God exists. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith “it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” God is spirit (John 4:24\) so He cannot be seen or touched. Unless God chooses to reveal Himself, He is invisible to our senses (Romans 1:20\). The Bible declares that the existence of God can be clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1\-4\), sensed in nature (Romans 1:18\-22\), and confirmed in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11\).
Agnostics are unwilling to make a decision either for or against God’s existence. It is the ultimate “straddling the fence” position. Theists believe that God exists. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that we should not believe or disbelieve in God’s existence, because it is impossible to know either way.
For the sake of argument, let’s throw out the clear and undeniable evidences of God’s existence. If we put the positions of theism and agnosticism on equal footing, which makes the most “sense” to believe in regards to the possibility of life after death? If there is no God, theists and agnostics alike all simply cease to exist when they die. If there is a God, both theists and agnostics will have someone to answer to when they die. From this perspective, it definitely makes more “sense” to be a theist than an agnostic. If neither position can be proven or disproven, it seems wise to make every effort to thoroughly examine the position that may have an infinitely and eternally more desirable end result.
It is normal to have doubts. There are many things in this world that we do not understand. Often, people doubt God’s existence because they do not understand or agree with the things He does and allows. However, as finite human beings we should not expect to be able to comprehend an infinite God. Romans 11:33\-34 exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?’”
We must believe in God by faith and trust His ways by faith. God is ready and willing to reveal Himself in amazing ways to those who will believe in Him. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”
|
What is pantheism? |
Answer
Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism is similar to polytheism (the belief in many gods), but goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. A tree is God, a rock is God, an animal is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. Pantheism is the supposition behind many cults and false religions (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent, the various unity and unification cults, and “mother nature” worshipers).
Does the Bible teach pantheism? No, it does not. What many people confuse as pantheism is the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. Psalm 139:7\-8 declares, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.” God’s omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no place in the universe where God is not present. This is not the same thing as pantheism. God is everywhere, but He is not everything. Yes, God is “present” inside a tree and inside a person, but that does not make that tree or person God. Pantheism is not at all a biblical belief.
The clearest biblical arguments against pantheism are the countless commands against idolatry. The Bible forbids the worship of idols, angels, celestial objects, items in nature, etc. If pantheism were true, it would not be wrong to worship such an object, because that object would, in fact, be God. If pantheism were true, worshiping a rock or an animal would have just as much validity as worshiping God as an invisible and spiritual being. The Bible’s clear and consistent denunciation of idolatry is a conclusive argument against pantheism.
|
What is panentheism? |
Answer
Related to [Process Theology](process-theology.html), panentheism is essentially a combination of theism (God is the supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme effect” of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe. Events and changes in the universe affect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.
Panentheism is most definitely not biblical. In fact, it is extreme heresy that impugns the character of God and makes Him more like a man. God is present everywhere (Psalm 139:7\-8\), but God is not everything. God knows everything, whether actual or possible (Psalm 139:1\-6; Romans 11:33\-35\). God does not learn because He already has all knowledge. God is “affected” by things that occur in the universe, but only in that sin angers Him and holiness pleases Him. Our actions do not change God or impact His essential being.
The Bible presents God as holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8\), sovereign (1 Chronicles 29:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 37:20\), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7\-10\), omniscient (Job 28:24; Psalm 147:4\-5\), omnipotent (Job 42:1\-2\), self\-existent (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 36:9\), eternal (Psalm 90:2; Habakkuk 1:12\), immutable (Psalm 33:11; James 1:17\), perfect (Deuteronomy 32:3\-4\), and infinite (Job 5:9; 9:10\). None of these attributes are compatible with panentheism. God transcends all of His creation, and is in no sense limited or changed by events in His creation.
|
What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals? |
Answer
The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri\-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms / modes / manifestations—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different "modes."
This teaching of the Jesus Only / Oneness Pentecostals has been around for centuries, in one form or another, as modalism. Modalism teaches that God operated in different forms or modes at different times—sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But passages like Matthew 3:16\-17, where two or all three Persons of the Godhead are present, contradict the modalistic view. Modalism was condemned as heretical as early as the second century A.D. The early church strongly contended against the view that God is strictly a singular person who acted in different forms at different times. They argued from Scripture that the tri\-unity of God is evident in that more than one Person of the Godhead is often seen simultaneously, and they often interact with one another (examples: Genesis 1:26; 3:22;11:7; Psalm 2:7; 104:30; 110:1; Matthew 28:19; John 14:16\). Oneness Pentecostalism / Jesus Only doctrine is unbiblical.
The concept of the tri\-unity of God, on the other hand, is present throughout Scripture. It is not a concept that is easily grasped by the finite mind. And because man likes everything to make sense in his theology, movements such as the Jesus Only movement—not to mention the Jehovah’s Witnesses—regularly arise to try to explain the nature of God. Of course, this simply cannot be done without doing violence to the biblical text. Christians have come to accept that God’s nature is not subject to the limitations we might like to put on Him. We simply believe Him when He says, "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"' (Isaiah 55:8\-9\). If we can’t understand His thoughts and ways, we accept that we cannot fully understand His nature, either.
|
What is process theology? |
Answer
Process theology is based on the philosophy that the only absolute which exists in the world is change. Therefore, God, too, is constantly changing. The Bible clearly states that process theology is false. Isaiah 46:10 is unequivocal regarding God’s sovereignty and unchanging nature: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.’” Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is equally unchanging: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8\). The Bible is clear that His plans do not change according to the whims of mere men (Psalm 33:11\). He “does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17\). But process theology does not consider the Bible to be inspired or to be our final authority.
The Bible expresses many attributes, qualities, and characteristics of God. These include His holiness (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8\); sovereignty (1 Chronicles 29:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 37:20\); unity (Deuteronomy 6:4\); omnipresence (Psalm 139:7\-10\); omniscience (Job 28:24; Psalm 147:4\-5\); omnipotence (Job 42:1\-2\); self\-existence (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 36:9\); eternality (Psalm 90:2; Habakkuk 1:12\); immutability (Psalm 33:11; James 1:17\); perfection (Deuteronomy 32:3\-4\); infiniteness (Job 5:9; 9:10\); truth (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 86:15\); love (1 John 4:8, 16\); righteousness (Psalm 11:7; 119:137\); faithfulness (Deuteronomy 7:9; Ps. 89:33\); mercy (Psalm 102:17\); graciousness (Exodus 22:27; Nehemiah 9:17, 31; Psalm 86:15; 145:17\); justice (Psalm 111:7; Isaiah 45:21\); and freedom (Job 23:13; Proverbs 21:1\). God uses these in the world and actively exercises all of these today. God transcends all of His creation, yet He is personal and knowable.
Process theology denies the deity of Jesus Christ, saying that Jesus has no intrinsic difference from any other man. Additionally, the humanistic philosophy of process theology teaches that mankind does not require salvation, while the Bible is clear that without Christ, man is hopelessly lost and doomed to hell for eternity. Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is God (Isaiah 9:6\-7; Matthew 1:22\-23; John 1:1, 2, 14; 20:28; Acts 16:31, 34; Philippians 2:5\-6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1\) and that without His death on the behalf of sinners (Romans 3:23; 6:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21\) no one could ever be saved (John 1:12; 3:18; 3:36; 14:6; Acts 4:10\-12; 16:30\-31\).
|
What is replacement theology / supersessionism / fulfillment theology? |
Answer
Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism and fulfillment theology) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. Among the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel are the church has replaced Israel (replacement theology), the church is an expansion of Israel ([covenant theology](covenant-theology.html)), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel ([dispensationalism/premillennialism](dispensational-premillennialism.html)).
Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. The prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are spiritualized or allegorized into promises of God’s blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2,000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1,900 years?
The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is distinct from Israel, and the terms *church* and *Israel* are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9–11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17\). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings of the Mosaic Covenant were valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God’s program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion (see Romans 11\).
Contrary to replacement theology, dispensationalism teaches that, after the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18\), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6–19\). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel who survive the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1–5\).
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God’s plan for Israel. The strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1–7, where it says six times that Christ’s kingdom will last 1,000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11\).
|
What is dualism? |
Answer
In theology, the concept of dualism assumes that there are two separate entities—good and evil—which are equally powerful. In “Christian” dualism, God represents the good entity and Satan represents the evil entity.
However, the truth is that even though Satan has some power, he is no equal to God Almighty, for he was created by God as an angel before he rebelled (Isaiah 14:12\-15; Ezekiel 28:13\-17\). As the Scripture says, “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4\). According to Scripture, there is no dualism, no two opposing forces of equal power called good and evil. Good, represented by God Almighty, is the most powerful force in the universe without exception. Evil, represented by Satan, is a lesser force that is no match for good. Evil will be defeated every time in any head\-to\-head match with good, for God Almighty, the essence of good, is all\-powerful, whereas evil, represented by Satan, is not.
Whenever any doctrine portrays good and evil as two equal opposing forces, that doctrine contradicts the scriptural position that good, represented by God Almighty, is the dominant power in the universe. Since Satan was not, and never will be, equal to God, any doctrine that says he is can be marked as a false doctrine. The fact that Satan was thrown out of heaven for trying to rise above God does not mean Satan has given up trying to be equal or superior to God, as evidenced by the basic tenets of “dualism” that have come down largely through the philosophical stem of human wisdom.
There can be no dualism existing in any corner of our universe. There is only one power that is overriding, and that power is God Almighty as revealed to us in the Bible. According to the scriptural evidence, there is only one power that is omnipotent, not two. Thus, any doctrine of dualism which contends that there are two equal powers opposing each other (good and evil) is a false doctrine.
|
What is open theism? |
Answer
“Open theism,” also known as “openness theology,” the “openness of God,” and “free will theism,” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.
Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge” (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10\). In light of the many other Scriptures that declare God’s knowledge of the future, these Scriptures should be understood as God describing Himself in ways that we can understand. God knows what our actions and decisions will be, but He “changes His mind” in regard to His actions based on our actions. God’s disappointment at the wickedness of humanity does not mean He was not aware it would occur.
In contradiction to open theism, Psalm 139:4, 16 state, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” How could God predict intricate details in the Old Testament about Jesus Christ if He does not know the future? How could God in any manner guarantee our eternal salvation if He does not know what the future holds?
Ultimately, open theism fails in that it attempts to explain the unexplainable—the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and mankind’s free will. Just as extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they make human beings nothing more than pre\-programmed robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects God’s true omniscience and sovereignty. God must be understood through faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Open theism is, therefore, not scriptural. It is simply another way for finite man to try to understand an infinite God. Open theism should be rejected by followers of Christ. While open theism is an explanation for the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will, it is not the biblical explanation.
|
Is the Word of Faith movement biblical? |
Answer
Word of Faith teaching is decidedly unbiblical. It is not a denomination and does not have a formal organization or hierarchy. Instead, it is a movement that is heavily influenced by a number of high\-profile pastors and teachers such as Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paul and Jan Crouch, and Fred Price.
The Word of Faith movement grew out of the Pentecostal movement in the late 20th century. Its founder was E. W. Kenyon, who studied the metaphysical New Thought teachings of Phineas Quimby. Mind science (where "name it and claim it" originated) was combined with Pentecostalism, resulting in a peculiar mix of orthodox Christianity and mysticism. Kenneth Hagin, in turn, studied under E. W. Kenyon and made the Word of Faith movement what it is today. Although individual teachings range from completely heretical to completely ridiculous, what follows is the basic theology most Word of Faith teachers align themselves with.
At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the "force of faith." It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith\-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith\-force are said to operate independently of God’s sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws. This is nothing short of idolatry, turning our faith—and by extension ourselves—into god.
From here, its theology just strays further and further from Scripture: it claims that God created human beings in His literal, physical image as little gods. Before the fall, humans had the potential to call things into existence by using the faith\-force. After the fall, humans took on Satan’s nature and lost the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ gave up His divinity and became a man, died spiritually, took Satan’s nature upon Himself, went to hell, was born again, and rose from the dead with God’s nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to replicate the Incarnation in believers so they could become little gods as God had originally intended.
Following the natural progression of these teachings, as little gods we again have the ability to manipulate the faith\-force and become prosperous in all areas of life. Illness, sin, and failure are the result of a lack of faith, and are remedied by confession—claiming God’s promises for oneself into existence. Simply put, the Word of Faith movement exalts man to god\-status and reduces God to man\-status. Needless to say, this is a false representation of what Christianity is all about. Obviously, Word of Faith teaching does not take into account what is found in Scripture. Personal revelation, not Scripture, is highly relied upon in order to come up with such absurd beliefs, which is just one more proof of its heretical nature.
Countering Word of Faith teaching is a simple matter of reading the Bible. God alone is the Sovereign Creator of the Universe (Genesis 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:15\) and does not need faith—He is the object of faith (Mark 11:22; Hebrews 11:3\). God is spirit and does not have a physical body (John 4:24\). Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26, 27; 9:6\), but this does not make him a little god or divine. Only God has a divine nature (Galatians 4:8; Isaiah 1:6\-11, 43:10, 44:6; Ezekiel 28:2; Psalm 8:6\-8\). Christ is Eternal, the Only Begotten Son, and the only incarnation of God (John 1:1, 2, 14, 15, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:1\). In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9\). By becoming a man, Jesus gave up the glory of heaven but not His divinity (Philippians 2:6\-7\), though He did choose to withhold His power while walking the earth as man.
The Word of Faith movement is deceiving countless people, causing them to grasp after a way of life and faith that is not biblical. At its core is the same lie Satan has been telling since the Garden: “You shall be as God” (Genesis 3:5\). Sadly, those who buy into the Word of Faith movement are still listening to him. Our hope is in the Lord, not in our own words, not even in our own faith (Psalm 33:20\-22\). Our faith comes from God in the first place (Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 12:2\) and is not something we create for ourselves. So, be wary of the Word of Faith movement and any church that aligns itself with Word of Faith teachings.
|
Subsets and Splits