Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
Who was John Wycliffe?	Answer In 1428 the Bishop of Lincoln in England condemned a man who was already 44 years in the grave. The bishop ordered the remains exhumed and burned and the ashes thrown into the River Swift. Such was the fate of John Wycliffe, often called the “Morning Star of the Reformation.” What had Wycliffe done in life that caused such hatred nearly five decades after his death? Wycliffe, a philosopher, preacher, and reformer in the Middle Ages, spent a lifetime promoting Scripture and opposing papal authority. In 1330 John Wycliffe (also spelled Wyclif or Wicliff) was born about 200 miles from London, on a sheep farm. At the age of 16 he matriculated at Oxford, where he became master of Balliol College around 1360\. After earning his M.A. in 1361, Wycliffe was ordained and became the absentee parson of a Lincolnshire church. Continuing his studies, Wycliffe became Oxford’s leading philosopher and theologian. By 1374 Wycliffe was acting as the absentee rector at a church in Lutterworth. Around 1370 Wyclliffe began writing some controversial material. He wrote about the roles of government and church authorities in 1370, arguing that the ungodly have no right to rule. This extended to unjust rulers, both secular and religious, pitting Wycliffe against the excesses of [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) leaders. Pope Gregory XI condemned 18 of Wycliffe’s statements in 1377, calling Wycliffe “The Master of Errors,” and in 1378 Wycliffe was forced to retire from public life. After the Peasants’ Revolt in which Wycliffe’s disciples were implicated, Wycliffe withdrew to Lutterworth and continued writing until his death in 1384\. Why were the teachings of John Wycliffe so controversial? Because he attacked the authority and doctrines of the Catholic Church, which was the church in power in England at the time. Wycliffe rightly believed the Scriptures are the standard by which all traditions, Popes, and other sources must be measured. Scripture is [sufficient](sufficiency-of-Scripture.html), in and of itself, for salvation, Wycliffe argued. This meant the authority of the Pope and the doctrines of the church were subject to the teaching of Scripture. When doctrines or Popes ran afoul of Scripture, they should be rejected. Eventually, Wycliffe concluded that the papacy itself was a manmade institution and the Antichrist. Beyond opposing the papacy, Wycliffe’s view of Scripture led him to reject doctrines such as [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html), which holds the substances of the Eucharist are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Wycliffe found no biblical evidence for the Catholic view and argued it was an invention of the 13th century. Though he maintained that Christ’s body and blood were somehow [spiritually present](spiritual-presence.html) in the Lord’s Supper, Wycliffe flatly rejected transubstantiation. His high view of Scripture also led Wycliffe to Bible translation; through his translation work and the itinerant preaching of his followers, Wycliffe had widespread and lasting influence. Wycliffe believed the Bible to be the final authority for doctrine and practice, and he believed the Bible should be read by everyone, including the common Englishman. In Wycliffe’s day, the [Latin Vulgate](Latin-Vulgate.html) was the main Bible available, and the only copies were kept in churches. Even if he could gain access to a Bible, the common Englishman could not read Latin and was forced to rely on the local priest to tell him what the Bible said. Wycliffe saw the injustice of this and argued for an English translation: “Englishmen learn Christ’s law best in English. Moses heard God’s law in his own tongue; so did Christ’s apostles.” Starting in 1380, Wycliffe supervised the work of translating the Scriptures from Latin into Middle English. All copies were handwritten, since the printing press had not yet been invented. Wycliffe’s group actually made two translations, one more idiomatic than the other, to appeal to a broader range of reading levels. Though Wycliffe didn’t live to see the final product, it was his passion for Scripture that carried the project through to the end. The world had its very first English translation in the Bible. The loss of a monopoly on Scripture was of serious concern to Rome. The Catholic Church condemned the [Wycliffe Bible](Wycliffe-Bible.html). Anyone caught reading it was subject to heavy fines. As the persecution increased, some of Wycliffe’s supporters were burned at the stake with the Wycliffe Bible hung around their necks. But the Word was out, and people could read for themselves what God had said. The people of the Middle Ages became more interested in the Bible, and literacy increased. When Wycliffe died in 1384, his teachings did not die with him. Wycliffe’s disciples, derisively called [Lollards](Lollards.html) (meaning “mumblers”) carried on. In fact, Wycliffe’s ideas spread as far as Bohemia (in modern\-day Czech Republic), where a priest named [John Hus](Jan-Hus.html) applied them. Hus continued to spread reform in Europe until he was martyred for his beliefs in 1415\. The continued growth of Lollardism and a failed Lollard rebellion in 1414 resulted in Wycliffe’s posthumous condemnation at the [Council of Constance](Council-of-Constance.html) in 1415\. The council, which also burned Hus, condemned Wycliffe on 260 different counts. Then, in 1428, Wycliffe’s remains were exhumed, his bones were burned, and his ashes were scattered into a nearby river. Wycliffe’s impact could not be destroyed. One historian observed that, as Wycliffe’s ashes were cast into the Swift and eventually spread to the ocean, so his teaching spread throughout the world. John Wycliffe, the Morning Star of the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), lit the way for many other believers to follow.
Why is Queen Mary I of England known as Bloody Mary?	Answer Mary Tudor, or Queen Mary I, was called “Bloody Mary” because of her intense persecution of Protestants during her short reign. Mary Tudor lived in the first half of the 1500s, daughter to King Henry VIII and his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Mary became the first female ruler of England and Ireland at the age of 37 and reigned from July 1553 to her death in November 1558\. During her long\-anticipated yet relatively short reign, she sought to return England to [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html), reversing the rise of Protestantism that had been established by her father and her half\-brother Edward VI. Mary waited long and fought hard for her right to the throne after being emotionally abused by her father and her position as rightful heir tossed about with indifference. When her mother, Queen Catherine, could produce no sons for Henry VIII, the king attempted to divorce her to wed his mistress, Anne Boleyn. Catherine, rather than acquiescing as Henry had anticipated, would not agree to a divorce, and the Pope would not grant an annulment. In 1534 King Henry VIII took matters into his own hands by cutting ties with Rome and establishing the [Church of England](Church-of-England.html), naming himself as Supreme Head. Thus, his marriage to Catherine was legally annulled, and both mother and daughter became disgraced outcasts. Mary Tudor was declared a bastard child at the age of seventeen and deprived of her former luxuries as princess. Anne Boleyn bore Henry a daughter, the future Elizabeth I; however, by that time, the king was already courting Jane Seymour, a maid of honor to the queen. The king wanted to end his marriage with Anne, for she could not give him a son, either. To facilitate his wishes, Henry had Anne investigated for high treason. Anne was convicted, then beheaded one day before Henry’s engagement to Jane. Jane Seymour encouraged her husband to renew his relationship with Lady Mary Tudor, and Mary found a friend in her new step\-mother. Henry VIII’s third wife at last gave him a son, the future Edward VI. When Jane died shortly after childbirth, Mary Tudor was Jane’s chief mourner. With his royal line in such a tenuous state, Henry at last established the succession of English rule: first, Edward or Edward’s heirs, then, if Edward died without issue, Mary would become queen, after which Elizabeth (Anne’s daughter) would take the throne. Edward became king at nine years old upon the death of Henry VIII. His Protestant tutors and advisers put him into a religious fervor, resulting in further disassembly of the Catholic Church in England. Edward VI ruled for only six years, for various illnesses took his life in 1553\. Since Edward had been a minor, the lords of Somerset and of Northumberland acted as his regents. They knew what would happen if Mary Tudor became England’s first Catholic queen, and they struggled to instate Jane Gray, Henry VIII’s niece, as next in line. However, Mary had the public’s favor, and the decision to make Jane Gray queen was reversed in a mere nine days. After Mary Tudor ascended the throne, she grew drunk with a power that would culminate in an unfortunate end. Within two months of her accession to the throne, Queen Mary I had reinstated the previously repealed Heresy Acts, which were extremely strict regulations “concerning the arresting and apprehension of erroneous and heretical preachers”—heretical in this case meaning “not Catholic.” Under the reinstated law, practicing Protestant leaders and churchmen were imprisoned and made martyrs. In the Marian persecutions, over 300 religious “heretics” were executed by being burned at the stake. This persecution of Protestants earned the queen the posthumous title of “Bloody Mary.” John Foxe, in Chapter XVI of his classic book Acts and Monuments, details many of the executions carried out by Bloody Mary. One of Bloody Mary’s chief antagonists was [John Knox](John-Knox.html), the Scottish Reformer and founder of the Reformed Church in Scotland. When Mary took the throne, Knox fled to Geneva, where he met John Calvin and continued his work in the Reformation. Knox did not return to Scotland until after Bloody Mary’s death, but his influence was felt, as he continued to write tracts against Mary that were smuggled into England. Determined to produce an heir who would continue her mission of restoring Catholic England, Queen Mary I married Philip II of Spain, son of Charles V. Their marriage proved loveless and childless, as Mary suffered from many reproductive ailments. Philip grew bored with Mary and spent little time in England. After Mary’s death, her successor, Queen Elizabeth I, quickly unraveled her half\-sister’s actions on the throne. With the end of Bloody Mary’s reign of terror, England returned to a Protestant\-friendly atmosphere. In some ways, Queen “Bloody Mary” of England was successful in her conversion of England. Under King Henry VIII, only one Catholic bishop stood up to the rejection of Roman Catholicism, though his rebellion led to his execution. When Mary came to power, her bishops proved themselves quite loyal. Ultimately, Bloody Mary could not stop the advance of [Protestantism](Protestant-Reformation.html); however many dissidents she killed, she was fighting against a work of God.
Who/what is Krampus and what does it have to do with Christmas?	Answer Krampus is a nightmarish, demonic goat\-monster that is used in some cultures to scare children into good behavior in the days leading up to Christmas. Krampus is like an anti\-Santa Claus. The Bible says nothing about Krampus. The legend comes from pagan mythology and European folklore. Krampus is depicted as having long, curved horns, fangs, a long tongue, and dark hair all over, making it look devilish. (The German word krampen means “claw.”) The legend of Krampus may have ties to Nordic [paganism](pagan-paganism.html), but the common story originated in Austrian folklore, probably as a way for parents to try to make their children mind—misbehaving children are threatened with a visit from Krampus, who will scare them, beat them with a bundle of birch switches, and possibly even take them away to his lair. Krampus, then, is rather like Santa’s evil counterpart. Santa’s main threat is to put mischief\-makers on his “naughty list” or leave them a lump of coal, but Krampus will terrorize them. In Austria and regions of Germany, residents look for Krampus on Krampusnacht (Krampus Night) on the night of December 5—which happens to be the eve of St. Nicolas Day. In Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, adults get involved in a chaotic Krampus tribute involving public drunkenness and men running through the streets dressed as devils. In recent years, some people in the U.S. have begun throwing Krampus parties as a sort of twisted, anti\-Christmas celebration. Many cultures have legends about a monster or boogeyman of some sort that will snatch up children if they don’t obey: the Namahage in Japan, Cuco in Latin America, and Baba Yaga in Russia, for example. James Whitcomb Riley’s famous poem “Little Orphant Annie” is a cautionary tale to encourage good behavior; each stanza ends with the warning “the Gobble\-uns ʼll git you / Ef you / Don’t / Watch / Out!” Obedience is a good thing. However, scaring children into obeying does not change the heart. And using a child\-stealing, whip\-tongued goat\-devil to frighten young ones cannot be good. How much better to teach them the truth about God’s love and His wrath, along with the true [Christmas story](Christmas.html) and the good news that Jesus can save them from their sins (Matthew 1:21\).
What are the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas?	Answer The Five Ways of [Thomas Aquinas](Saint-Thomas-Aquinas.html) are the primary rational arguments used by Aquinas to defend the existence of the Christian God. While the Five Ways are commonly mentioned in discussions of history and philosophy, they are easily misunderstood. Critics have alternatively over\-complicated, over\-simplified, or simply misinterpreted what Aquinas intended with these statements. His true intent was to demonstrate a general, objective, rational case for God’s existence using commonly available observations. One common mistake is to assume that Aquinas intended the Five Ways to be a complete, airtight case for the existence of God. In reality, he considered them to be only the beginning, a way to support the existence of God to those who cared only for arguments grounded in reason and observation. As such, the Five Ways are better viewed as an introduction to the idea of God’s existence, not the entire sum of Christian theology. On the other hand, some critics of the Five Ways over\-simplify them. This is often combined with misinterpretation. Aquinas’s work was completed in the 13th century, and so the terminology he uses is subtly different from modern vernacular. Aquinas’s use of the word motion, for instance, was meant in the sense of “change,” not physical travel. Interpreting the Five Ways requires careful consideration of Aquinas’s actual intent when he laid out the arguments. Taking the statements in an overly simplistic way or without an understanding of Aquinas’s other philosophical statements is an unfair and misleading approach. There are many different styles of presenting Aquinas’s Five Ways. Their (relative) simplicity can be deceiving; any one of these five assertions can be dissected, nuanced, and debated endlessly. For the sake of discussion, the primary claims can be summarized as follows: I. The Argument from Change (“Motion”) Change is immediately apparent in the universe, in the sense that things move from a “potential” state to an “actual” state. But this potential is for something that does not yet exist and so requires something else to actualize it. Whatever actualizes that, in turn, would have to be actualized by something else. Logically, this chain of changes cannot be infinitely long, or else nothing would have ever changed in the first place. Therefore, there must exist some un\-changed and un\-changing thing that actualizes all other changes. This principle is not related to time or a sequence of events. Rather, it points out the need to have something capable of causing the changes we observe: God, the Un\-Moved Mover. In other words, the first of Aquinas’s arguments for God’s existence points out that all changes are the result of some other change. But this chain of changes cannot be infinite, so there must be some un\-changed (un\-moving) thing (an un\-moved Mover) that is ultimately responsible for all other changes (motion). II. The Argument from Causality Cause and effect are apparent in the universe. Everything that occurs is caused by something else. All events are dependent on some other occurrence or thing in order to make them happen. A thing cannot be the cause of itself, or else it would never come to exist. Logically, this chain of causation cannot be infinitely long, or nothing would ever have come to exist in the first place. Therefore, there must be an un\-caused thing that causes all other things. This argument is not related to time or a sequence of events. Rather, it considers the fact that all things are dependent on something else for their existence. In other words, the second of Aquinas’s ways to show God’s existence is based on the fact that all effects are caused by some other event, which in turn is the effect of some other cause. But this chain of causality cannot be infinitely long, so there must be some un\-caused cause: God, the [First Cause](God-first-cause.html). III. The Argument from Contingency Nothing we observe in the universe is necessary; nothing needs to exist, in and of itself. We often observe things that cease to exist, falling victim to death, destruction, or decay. Eventually, all non\-necessary things cease to be. But, if it were possible for everything to cease to exist, and if there has been an infinite amount of past time, then all things would have already ceased to exist. There would be nothing left at all. The fact that anything exists at all, even now, means there must be one thing that cannot cease to exist, one thing that must necessarily exist. There must be one thing that is non\-contingent—i.e., its existence is not dependent on anything else. This thing must be. In other words, Aquinas’s third argument or way to prove God’s existence is that, if everything were impermanent, eventually everything would cease to be. Therefore, there must be at least one thing that must, necessarily, exist (one non\-contingent thing): God, the Necessary Being. IV. The Argument from Perfection Every trait we see, in every object, is compared to some standard: health, morality, strength, and so forth. The fact that we instinctively see degrees in these areas implies that there is some ultimate standard against which to judge that property. And all comparative properties share a common sense of “perfection.” This means there must be some ultimate standard of “perfection” from which to judge all other properties; those objects cannot be the source or definition of that property in and of themselves. In other words, Aquinas’s fourth argument in favor of God’s existence points out that, in order to speak of “goodness” or “power,” we must have an absolute standard against which to judge those terms; there must be some other thing from which they ultimately derive that characteristic: God, the Ultimate Standard. V. The Argument from Purpose Many things in the universe “drive” toward a particular end, not random results. Magnets “drive” to seek metal or to align their poles. Seeds “drive” to become adult plants, not animals. This regularity, as opposed to randomness, is a sign of purpose—of intention or intelligence. However, magnets and seeds and such have no intelligence of their own. Therefore, their “drive” must be the result of some external intelligence setting or fixing or designing their behavior. In some means or mechanism, all purposes and functions must originate in some intelligent entity. In other words, Aquinas’s fifth way to show the existence of God involves the fact that inanimate matter and energy do not exhibit intelligence or purpose. When we see something unintelligent that appears to have some specific purpose or that fulfills some purposeful role, we must assume that thing to have been given that purpose by some other intelligence. Ultimately, this leads to God, the Grand Designer. The Five Ways Today As we can see, there are strong similarities between Aquinas’s Five Ways and many other [common arguments for the existence of God](argument-existence-God.html). However, there are distinctions to keep in mind. Aquinas’s first three arguments share a common theme: that causality, logic, and so forth lead to an inference of the existence of some deity. The most frequently used of these in the modern world is closely related to the second argument, causality, and is usually simply referred to as the [cosmological argument](cosmological-argument.html). Fundamentally, the fourth argument is almost identical to the [ontological argument](ontological-argument.html) as presented by [Anselm](Anselm-of-Canterbury.html). Aquinas saw a distinction, however, as his focus was on the source of a thing’s existence. That is, Aquinas was arguing that goodness or power in some finite object can only come from some other, greater source. Anselm’s ontological argument, technically, is more focused on the generic concept of “perfection.” Still, it is not uncommon for Aquinas’ fourth way to be approximated as the ontological argument. The fifth argument, also known as Aquinas’s [teleological argument](teleological-argument.html), is similar to the modern\-day argument from [Intelligent Design](intelligent-design.html). However, Aquinas’s argument presumes that individual components have some form of drive or initiative in and of themselves. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, presumes that individual components (e.g., atoms or energy) have no particular purpose or function outside of an intelligent intervention. This distinction is trivial for most purposes today. Yet, strictly speaking, Aquinas’s fifth way is not the same as modern Intelligent Design. Scholars continue to debate the validity of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas. Regardless of how useful one considers them in a modern context, their importance in the fields of theology and philosophy cannot be overstated. When properly understood as the “ground level” of a rational defense of God’s existence, they are useful tools.
Is it a sin to elope?	Answer To elope is to run away secretly; in the context of [marriage](questions_marriage.html), elopement results in a wedding, usually performed without parental consent. Eloping is not the same as having a private wedding. Elopement usually, but not always, implies something of the forbidden as the reason for secrecy. In recent years, the term elope has evolved to mean “to plan a small destination wedding or one in which the guest list is strictly limited.” However, for the purposes of this article, we will define elopement as “the act of running away to get married secretly,” and we will consider whether the Bible has anything to say about it. Customs have changed over the centuries and still differ from culture to culture. In man’s earliest history, a bride and groom simply chose one another and began a new household (Genesis 2:22\). But, as people increased upon the earth, this formation of a new family was cause for celebration. The first hint in Scripture of a marriage custom is when Abraham sent his servant back to his home country to find a wife for his son Isaac (Genesis 24:3–4\). The servant asked the Lord to direct him to the right girl, and he found Rebekah (Genesis 24:5–51\). Her family allowed her to make the decision, and she agreed to return with the servant and become Isaac’s wife (Genesis 24:57–58\). Nothing is said of a wedding. She merely followed a stranger to a faraway land and became the wife of a man she had never met. Another glimpse of marriage customs is when Jacob ran away from his angry brother, Esau (Genesis 27:41\), to his mother’s people. Arriving at his uncle Laban’s, Jacob instantly fell in love with his cousin Rachel (Genesis 29:18\). Laban required Jacob to work for seven years as the bride price for Rachel (Genesis 29:20\). Jacob agreed to this—he did not elope with Rachel—but, when the wedding day came, Laban switched brides and gave his elder daughter, Leah, to Jacob instead, saying, “It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one” (Genesis 29:26\). So wedding customs were already in place at that time, meaning elopement was not the norm. God created marriage. In the Garden of Eden, He brought Eve to Adam and joined them together as husband and wife in the first wedding (Genesis 2:21–24\). Marriage has always been of extreme importance to God and is thus worthy of celebration. One reason He hates [divorce](God-hates-divorce.html) is that the Lord Himself is a witness to every marriage (Malachi 2:14\). In Jesus’ day, weddings were huge celebrations, often lasting for more than a week with feasting and dancing. The idea of elopement would have been foreign to such a culture. Elopement implies a measure of disapproval on the part of the families. The usual reasons for eloping are to avoid embarrassment if the bride is already pregnant, to bypass parental disapproval, or simply to avoid all the hoopla surrounding most wedding ceremonies. However, many couples who have eloped later regret the lack of photographs and memories. They often feel they robbed their friends and families of the privilege of participating in their joyful day. Because elopement usually excludes parental involvement, it seems to violate the Bible’s repeated commands to honor father and mother (Ephesians 6:2; Exodus 20:12\). There may be situations in which a Christian couple wishes to marry, but, because their parents are part of a false religion or the parents desire to wed their child to someone else, the couple may see elopement as their only alternative. But decisions like that should only be made when all other attempts to reason and appeal to the parents have been exhausted. Because of the emphasis on wedding celebrations throughout the Bible, elopement does not appear to be God’s choice for couples who marry. The church is compared to a bride, and Jesus is the Bridegroom (Mark 2:19–20; 2 Corinthians 11:2\). Every mention of this future union is described as joyful, beautiful, and public, not secretive. All mentions of weddings throughout biblical history involved great celebration and honor for the families who were uniting. Although elopement is not sin in itself, a couple should give careful thought to the reasons they are considering eloping. If the motivation includes elements of rebellion, defiance, or shame, the elopement could make things worse. Marriage is too important to begin it that way. It deserves the honor of a celebration.
Who was Charles Haddon Spurgeon?	Answer Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892\) was an influential [Baptist](Baptists.html) preacher in England. He was the most popular preacher of his time and is still known as “the Prince of Preachers.” Spurgeon was the son and grandson of [Congregational](congregationalism.html) ministers. He came to faith in 1850 while listening to a Primitive Methodist preacher. Rejecting Congregational teaching, Spurgeon was baptized as a believer and began to serve in a Baptist church. In 1854, before he was 20 years old, he became the pastor of the New Park Street Chapel, a Baptist church in London. Within a few weeks, many conversions resulted from Spurgeon’s preaching, and the church building could not accommodate the crowds. The congregation also outgrew several other venues until finally the Metropolitan Tabernacle, which seated 6,000, was built specifically for this purpose. Spurgeon preached there from 1861 to 1891, shortly before his death. His sermons were printed in the London papers weekly. In addition to pastoring the church, Spurgeon started a pastor’s college and an orphanage, which are both still in operation today. Spurgeon also wrote prolifically (his collected sermons fill 63 volumes, the largest set of books by one author in the history of Christianity). His books Lectures to My Students and Commenting and Commentaries were the result of his work with students and both are still on the reading lists in modern seminaries. Spurgeon also published the Sword and Trowel magazine. Spurgeon’s sermons were powerful and direct, but also contain elements of humor. Spurgeon was a pastor, evangelist, and careful expositor of Scripture. His sermons are still popular today and are noted for their combination of eloquence and down\-to\-earth applications. His Treasury of David (an exposition of [Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html)) is one of his most popular works, as is his devotional Morning and Evening. Most of Spurgeon’s material is still in print and highly recommended. Charles Spurgeon was unashamedly a [Calvinist](calvinism.html) and a Baptist. He did not shrink from controversy and was outspoken against false teaching and hypocrisy. He attacked both [hyper\-Calvinism](hyper-calvinism.html) and [Arminian theology](arminianism.html). He accused evangelical Anglicans of hypocrisy for continuing to use the Anglican baptismal service found in the [Book of Prayer](Book-of-Common-Prayer.html), even though they did not believe in [baptismal regeneration](baptismal-regeneration.html). During the “Downgrade Controversy,” Spurgeon accused fellow Baptists of teaching modernist theology, and he eventually withdrew from the Baptist Union over this issue. Spurgeon died in 1892\. In his nearly 40 years of pastoring, it’s estimated that he had preached 3,500 sermons to about 10 million people. Through his written works, Spurgeon has left a continuing legacy of love for Christ and His Word that still influences pastors and laymen today. “Christ in us the hope of glory. Christ for us our full redemption. Christ with us our guide, and our solace; and Christ above us pleading and preparing our place in heaven. Jesus Christ Himself is our Captain, our armor, our strength and our victory! We inscribe His name upon our banner, for it is hell’s terror, heaven’s delight, and earth’s hope. We bear this upon our hearts in the heat of the conflict, for this is our breastplate and coat of mail” (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon \#1388, preached December 9, 1877\).
What is disfellowshipping?	Answer Disfellowshipping is a term that refers to putting one out of the fellowship, or common group, due to some sin, moral lapse, or unfaithfulness. Although the concept is widely practiced among religious groups of various kinds, this specific term is used in the [Church of Christ](Church-of-Christ.html) and the [Jehovah’s Witnesses](Jehovahs-Witnesses.html). To be disfellowshipped is to be removed from membership. Without addressing the doctrinal aberrations of the two groups mentioned above, we can state that the basic concept of disfellowshipping is found in the New Testament. In Matthew 18 Jesus teaches that, if a person who claims to be a believer will not repent of specific sin after several confrontations, that person should be treated as an unbeliever. Paul also addresses church discipline: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:9–13\). So, unrepentant sinners within the church are to be removed from the local body. However, Paul reminds the church in 2 Corinthians 2:7–8 to restore and forgive a repentant brother. The ultimate goal of excommunication or disfellowshipping is repentance and the restoration of fellowship. In evangelical churches, the process of removing one from church membership is often called “[church discipline](church-discipline.html).” In the Catholic Church it is called “[excommunication](excommunication.html),” which bars the person from partaking of the Eucharist. In Amish circles it is commonly known as “[shunning](Bible-shunning.html).” The term disfellowshipping is used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Christ. When a group member commits some egregious sin as defined by the group in question, and that person refuses to repent after confrontation, then he or she is disfellowshipped, which means that he or she can no longer participate in the activities of the group and that members of the group in good fellowship can no longer have contact with him. In the Jehovah’s Witness organization, maintaining fellowship with a disfellowshipped non\-relative is grounds for being disfellowshipped. Many have complained that disfellowshipping is cruel and unkind. Certainly, any such action can be initiated either in a spirit of love and humility or in a spirit of pride and anger. The primary issue is not the practice of disfellowshipping but the underlying doctrinal purity (or deviance) of the groups involved.
What is Precept Ministries?	Answer Precept Ministries International is a parachurch organization co\-founded by Bible teacher, author, and speaker Kay Arthur. Based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Precept Ministries works with all denominations while seeking to never compromise the truths of God’s Word. The stated purpose of the ministry is to help “people \[be] established in God’s Word living as exemplary followers of Jesus Christ, studying the Bible inductively, viewing the world biblically, making disciples intentionally, and serving the church faithfully in the power of the Holy Spirit” (<https://www.precept.org>). The ministry is best known for training students in the [inductive Bible study method](inductive-Bible-study.html). The ministry offers a Bible study program, conferences, books, a study Bible, training workshops, tours to biblical locations, and a radio and TV program called Precepts for Life, featuring the teaching of Kay Arthur. Free study guides are available to accompany the broadcasts. The Bible studies of Precept Ministries International are being used in nearly 180 countries and 70 languages. “God’s eternal, inerrant Word is your guidebook for all of life, and inductive study gives you the key to understanding that guide. Inductive study, a method that brings you directly to the Word of God apart from another’s understanding or interpretation of the text, involves three skills: observation, interpretation, and application” (from the Inductive Bible Study Overview from Precept Ministries). Precept Ministries was founded in 1970 by Jack and Kay Arthur. Kay Arthur started teaching a teen Bible study in her home, but the group grew quickly to include college students and adults. The Bible study eventually grew into Precept Ministries International, and over the years Kay has written over 100 books and Bible studies. As with any Bible study program or ministry, we encourage all participants to compare the teaching of Precept Ministries International to what the Bible says (see Acts 17:10–15\).
What is Novatianism?	Answer Novatianism was a sect that split from mainstream Christianity in the 3rd century. The sect was more or less extinct by the 8th century. The Novatianists preferred to call themselves katharoi, literally meaning “clean.” Novatianism split from Roman Christianity over a dispute regarding [apostasy](apostasy.html) and how to deal with church members who had committed grievous sins. While in agreement on all other doctrinal points, Novatianism differed on issues of apostasy and church authority. During a period of heavy persecution in the 3rd century, Fabian, the Bishop of Rome, was martyred. The persecution left church leadership in a bit of a shambles, and there were disagreements over how to restore it. One of the key disagreements was how to handle those who had professed faith prior to the persecution but denied Christ under duress. Most bishops favored some form of reconciliation, with different views on what kind of penance would be required. [Cyprian of Carthage](Cyprian-of-Carthage.html) led the movement to re\-admit into the church these “lapsed” Christians who had fallen away during the persecution. Novatian, however, strongly disagreed with Cyprian. According to Novatian, anyone who denied Christ, even under persecution, could not be forgiven by the church. Strictly speaking, he held they might possibly be forgiven by God, but such forgiveness could not be offered by the church itself. In essence, Novatian claimed that in certain instances the earthly church had no right to offer absolution. When Cornelius was selected to replace the martyred Fabian, Novatian was incensed—the decision was a direct refutation of his hardline stance on lapsed Christians. In response, Novatian convened with a few other bishops and declared himself the Bishop of Rome. In effect, Novatian attempted to take over the Christian church in opposition to most of the existing leaders. For this action, he was excommunicated, and his teachings were declared heresy. Novatianism taught that certain sins were “[mortal](mortal-sin-venial.html),” at least so far as the earthly church was concerned. Mortal sins included apostasy, adultery, idolatry, and so forth. According to the Novatian view, anyone guilty of such sins was outside the church’s power to offer forgiveness. Such sinners might be pardoned by God, but they could not be admitted back into the congregation nor offered sacraments nor given absolution. Other than this view, the Novatian doctrinal stance was identical to the rest of mainstream Christianity at the time. Over the next few centuries, adherents of Novatianism experienced varied measures of tolerance and harassment from the orthodox church. Though Emperor Constantine invited representatives of Novatianism to the [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html), the group’s influence rapidly faded. By the 5th century, Novatianism was all but absent in the Roman Church, and by the 8th century it was extinct among the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well.
What is a scorner in the Bible?	Answer The Bible speaks often of scorners, [scoffers](Bible-scoffers.html), and mockers. Those English words are often used interchangeably, especially in the book of Proverbs, as translations of the Hebrew word luts. A scorner is one who mocks the things of God and expresses his negative opinion of wisdom with derision, in order to involve others. [Fools](fool-Proverbs.html) may think foolish thoughts, but scorners go a step further and blurt them out proudly. Scorners are unteachable because they refuse to listen (Proverbs 9:8; 13:1\). Proverbs 15:12 says it can be a waste of time and effort to show a scorner the error of his ways. The Bible gives several characteristics of scorners and warns us to avoid them and beware lest we become like them. Here are some biblical descriptions of scorners: • Scorners may seek wisdom but cannot find it. One reason they cannot find wisdom is that they are already convinced of their own opinion. We cannot grow wise if we won’t learn from the wise (Proverbs 14:6\). • Scorners refuse to learn from rebukes or mistakes. They keep doing the same dumb things over and over again (Proverbs 13:1\). • Scorners are the source of strife and contention. When we get rid of the scornful, we have peace (Proverbs 22:10\). • Scorners resent correction. They cause trouble for those who try to show them truth (Proverbs 9:7; 15:12\). • Scorners are arrogant and haughty (Proverbs 21:24\), which keeps them at odds with God because He “resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6\). • Scorners don’t benefit from severe consequences, but others can learn from watching their downfall (Proverbs 19:25\). Psalm 1:1 gives an excellent description of a wise and discerning person—such a person avoids scorners. The KJV says it this way: “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” In this verse we can see the progression from innocence to foolishness. It begins with simple acquaintance (“walk”) as we start to listen to the opinions of those who do not follow God. The downward shift continues as we hang around (“stand”) with people who are open and unapologetic about their sin. The result is that we then “sit in the seat” of those who openly mock truth and godliness. The Bible says we are “blessed” (happy) if we do not follow this progression of becoming more and more comfortable with scorners but instead delight in God’s Law (Psalm 1:2; 119:165\). Scorners in the Bible include the boys who mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23; Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem in Nehemiah 2:19; and God’s enemies who mocked Ethan in Psalm 89:51\. The scoffers of Judah rejected God’s prophets and ultimately brought judgment on the nation: “The Lord, the God of their ancestors, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the Lord was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. He brought up against them the king of the Babylonians” (2 Chronicles 36:15–17\). We are seeing an increase of scorners in our world as established wisdom is now being rejected in favor of emotion and human opinion. Scorn has never had a wider audience. We are all vulnerable to becoming scorners if we do not stay grounded in the Word of God. We have the weapons we need to keep from “sitting in the seat of the scornful.” We must be sure that we are “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5\). When we voluntarily subject every idea and opinion to the scrutiny of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, we can protect ourselves from the often seductive words of the scorner.
Is God logical?	Answer There are two ways to interpret this question. One is to ask whether or not belief in God or the idea of God is logical. The other is to ask if God Himself is a logical being. The answer to both is, “Yes, God is logical,” for similar reasons. It’s logical to believe in God because the existence of God provides consistent answers to many of the more important philosophical questions asked by human beings. For instance, we know that there cannot be an infinite amount of past time; it is illogical to claim we are currently at the “end” of an infinite string of moments. Therefore, there had to be some beginning moment. Therefore, there has to be something, [some cause](cosmological-argument.html), that is itself non\-caused. Logically, this is God. Another reason belief in God is logical is that the universe appears to be carefully crafted to allow life. Not only that, but this arrangement allows for the kind of life that is complex enough to be self\-aware. Ultimately, there are only two explanations for this: some kind of God or random luck. And punting to “luck” has never been a very logical answer. The fact that human beings think of “logic” at all also supports the idea of God as a rational belief. If God does not exist, then there is no intelligence, purpose, or meaning in anything. Intelligence, purpose, and meaning are simply illusions created by physics and chemistry. However, if there is no God, it would also mean our reason, intellect, and learning are mere illusions of physics. Lacking God, there is no logic. There is no reason to think our thoughts are meaningful or that they actually reflect reality. Our thoughts may be good for survival or simply the results of randomness, but they can’t be relied on as true. In short, the only way to believe that there is such a thing as logic is for one to believe in some kind of God. Another key point is that those who believe in the laws of logic are confident in something objective, eternal, and non\-material. Any objection that God is immaterial, eternal, or objective would be hypocritical coming from someone who puts stock in the laws of logic. We also know that God Himself is logical, based on His words and His actions. First and foremost, God acts in a logical way: He plans, communicates, discusses, and acts. God even speaks of “reasoning” with human beings (Isaiah 1:18\). He distinguishes between truth and falsehood, a core aspect of basic logic (John 7:18\). God does not always act in ways human beings would prefer, but this does not mean His actions are “illogical.” Also, the fact that there are certain things [God “cannot” do](God-cannot.html), such as lie or change, is evidence of His logical nature. A truly perfect being, by definition, cannot change or he ceases to be perfect. This means God cannot contradict His own nature, or else He would be breaking the laws of logic. Of course, all of these ideas involving God and logic could be explored in much more detail, but that would require more space than is available here.
Who was Archippus in the Bible?	Answer Archippus is mentioned in Colossians 4:17 and Philemon 1:2\. In his letter to Philemon, Paul refers to Archippus as a “fellow soldier.” In Colossians 4:17, Paul requests his readers to “tell Archippus: ‘See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.’” Apparently, then, Archippus was a young man from Colossae tasked with some sort of ministry in the church. Many believe Archippus to have been the son of Philemon and Apphia, close friends of Paul’s. The connection between Archippus and Philemon seems clear in Philemon 1:1–2, “To Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker—also to Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier—and to the church that meets in your home. . . .” Paul is writing to a household. Philemon; his wife, Apphia; and his son, Archippus comprise the family unit. The church of Colossae met in their home. Some believe Paul’s words to Archippus to “complete the ministry” are a gentle rebuke for having neglected certain of his duties. But a majority see Paul’s admonition to Archippus as simple encouragement, similar to Paul’s exhortations in his epistles to Timothy and Titus (see 2 Timothy 4:5\). One tradition holds that Archippus was a leader in Laodicea, a city about 12 miles away from Colossae. It seems strange to send an admonition to Archippus through leaders of another church, but Paul’s intent was that the [letter to the Colossians](Book-of-Colossians.html) should be read in Laodicea, too: “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans” (Colossians 4:16\). In any case, Archippus would receive the message. Ultimately, we do not know much about Archippus other than he was a Christian in the early church who was granted a ministry from the Lord and who soldiered for the faith. Paul’s encouragement to Archippus and his family should encourage all of us to also “complete the ministry” God has given us.
What is The City of God?	Answer The City of God is a book written by [St. Augustine of Hippo](Saint-Augustine.html) between the years 413 and 426\. Also known as De Civitate Dei, The City of God is widely considered Augustine’s greatest work. He wrote the book in response to the charge by the Romans that the sack of Rome by the Visigoth Alaric in AD 410 was due to the city’s inhabitants having forsaken the classical Roman religion and adopting Christianity. Augustine set out to answer this allegation at the request of his friend Marcellinus. In Books 1–5 of The City of God, Augustine demonstrates that the prosperity of the state was not due to its adherence to the old polytheistic worship, since the Romans had suffered disasters long before the birth of Christianity. He also reminds the Romans that whatever success they had achieved was due to the providence of God, even though they were ignorant of Him. In Books 6–10, Augustine argues that the worship of the Roman gods was not necessary in order to attain eternal blessing. The Roman gods could not aid their devotees in either the temporal or the spiritual realms; in fact, it was the God of Christianity who had given them what temporal blessings they enjoyed. Augustine’s philosophy of history is found in Books 11–22, in which Augustine sets forth his idea of two contrasting cities, the City of God and the City of Earth. The City of God, according to Augustine, consists of all human and celestial beings united in their love for God and their seeking to glorify Him. The City of Earth is comprised of those beings who love only themselves and seek their own glory and good. In Books 15–18 Augustine traces the progress of the two cities through biblical and secular history. The remaining books of The City of God present the destiny of the two cities: judgment comes, and those who dwell in the City of God will enjoy eternal happiness and those of the City of Earth will be consigned to everlasting punishment. The City of God does not address the role of the Jewish people in prophecy; in fact, Augustine believed that the [church age is actually the [millennium](millennium.html). The City of God is widely accepted as one of the most important [apologetic](Christian-apologetics.html) works of all time. Its message is clearly biblical in presenting the struggle between the spiritual and secular realms. For those who live in the City of God, their story is the story of Christianity—their redemption and salvation from sin through the grace of God. For those in the City of Earth, their story is one of judgment and damnation. These two destinies are clearly presented in the Bible (see Daniel 12:2; Matthew 7:13– 14; 25:46\). It should be noted that The City of God may seem, at least to the modern reader, very long (1,184 pages in the paperback edition), and the language difficult to understand at times. Those who are familiar with the history of Rome and the Middle Ages will have an easier time with it. That said, the fact that the book is still being published and read today is testimony to its timeless themes and applications.](church-age.html)
What is the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth?	Answer [Zechariah](Zechariah-in-the-Bible.html) (also called Zacharias or Zachariah) was a priest from the tribe of Levi who served the Lord during the reign of Herod in Judea. Zechariah’s wife, [Elizabeth](Elizabeth-in-the-Bible.html), was also a descendant of Aaron, and the Bible says they were godly, devout people (Luke 1:5–6\). When the Bible begins their story, they are both old and childless (verse 7\), although they had prayed for children. Luke 1:8–9 records that it was Zechariah’s turn to enter the temple and burn incense as part of his priestly duties. This was a once\-in\-a\-lifetime honor. While Zechariah was in the holy place, the [angel Gabriel](angel-Gabriel.html) appeared to him “standing at the right side of the [altar of incense](altar-of-incense.html)” (verse 11\). Gabriel told Zechariah that his prayers had been answered. God had chosen him and Elizabeth to bear a son who would be the forerunner of the promised Messiah (verses 13–17\). They were to name him John, and he would be filled with the Holy Spirit and dedicated to the Lord’s service even before birth. But Zechariah doubted the angel’s words, and he reminded Gabriel, “I am an old man and my wife is well along in years” (Luke 1:18\). Because of his lack of faith, Zechariah was struck mute until the time when his son would be born (verse 20\). When Zechariah exited the temple, he stood before the crowd unable to speak. From his gestures, the people understood that he had seen a vision while in the temple (verse 22\). Zechariah returned home, and Elizabeth became pregnant, just as the angel had said. When she was in her sixth month, the angel Gabriel also appeared to Mary, her relative, and told Mary that she would be the mother of the Messiah, Jesus (Luke 1:30–31\). Mary went right away to spend time with Elizabeth, where she received further confirmation of the angel’s words: at the sound of Mary’s voice, the baby John leaped in Elizabeth’s womb (verse 41\). Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she said to Mary, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! . . . Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (verses 42 and 45\). When Elizabeth gave birth to her son, the friends and relatives assumed he would be named after his father, Zechariah. But Zechariah made motions asking for writing tools, and when he received them he wrote, “His name is John” (Luke 1:63\). Immediately, Zechariah was able to speak again, and he praised God for His redemption (verse 68\), for His faithfulness to His promises (verses 69–73\), and for His salvation (verse 74\). Zechariah then prophesied concerning his son, John: “You, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him” (verse 76\). Zechariah closed out his inspired utterance by returning to the messianic theme, praising God for His “tender mercy” and anticipating the Christ: “The rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace” (verses 78–79\). Zechariah and Elizabeth’s baby grew up to be the man we know as [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) (Matthew 3:1\). The repentance John preached prepared people’s hearts for faith in Jesus Christ.
What does the Bible say about the hornet?	Answer The recent appearance of the Asian giant hornet, also known as the “murder hornet,” in North America and other parts of the world is causing people to wonder if this is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Revelation 9:1–12\. However, the only similarities between the Asian giant hornet and what is described in Revelation 9:1–12 is the painful sting. In Revelation 9:1–12, the creature is described as a locust, not a hornet. Further, its sting is specifically said to not be deadly, only painful. The description of the creatures in Revelation 9:7–10 does not match what Asian giant hornets look like. So, while Asian giant hornets are indeed frightening, it is unlikely that they are the fulfillment of any specific biblical prophecy. A hornet is a large wasp; like all wasps, the hornet has a painful sting. The word hornet is found in several places in the Old Testament. In each case, the hornet is mentioned in the context of God chasing His enemies out of the land of Canaan. God encourages the Israelites: “You may say to yourselves, ‘These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?’ But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the Lord your God brought you out. The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. Moreover, the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished. Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God” (Deuteronomy 7:17–21; cf. Exodus 23:28; Joshua 24:12\). Commentators disagree about whether the biblical references to the hornet are literal or figurative. When God says He will send hornets to pursue the Canaanites and drive them from the [Promised Land](Israel-land.html), it’s possible that He was ready to call upon swarms of actual stinging wasps; on the other hand, God could have been speaking symbolically for a plague of another sort. Some Bible translations, such as the New Living Translation (NLT) and the International Standard Version (ISV) substitute the words terror and plague for the word hornet. Whether the language is literal or figurative, it’s clear that the Lord caused the Canaanites to flee before Joshua’s army. Since the land that God gave His people was said to be “flowing with milk and honey” (Deuteronomy 26:9\), we know that bees were there. Israel is also home to several varieties of wasps and hornets. The Judean town of Zorah (literally, “town of hornets”), mentioned in Joshua 15:33, is a clue to the abundance of the stinging insects in the land. It is plausible that the hornets of Canaan could have become aggressive enough at the command of the Lord to drive out the inhabitants. However, some commentators point to passages such as Deuteronomy 7:20 and 35, which detail the diseases and physical afflictions with which God smote the Egyptians, as evidence of the more likely way in which He worked. God promised to drive out the [Canaanites](Canaanites.html) as if they were being chased by a swarm of hornets; He incentivized the Canaanite departure; He made it very difficult for them to stand and fight. The Bible often uses metaphorical language. However, in proper scriptural interpretation, it is always best to take terms literally if a literal understanding is reasonable. God can employ the creatures He created to deliver messages to people. A donkey spoke to Balaam (Numbers 22:28\). Frogs, flies, and gnats tormented the Egyptians when Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go (Exodus 8:5, 16, 24\). And God prepared a big fish to swallow the rebellious Jonah (Jonah 1:17\). So it is not outside scriptural precedent if God indeed used actual hornets to drive out the enemies of His people.
If the Bible teaches gender equality, why has gender inequality always been the norm?	Answer Gender equality is a status in which both genders receive equal treatment and are not discriminated against due to gender. Under gender equality, both genders share the same civil rights, have the same access to social goods and opportunities, and bear the same obligations. The idea is that every person is given the same legal rights and regarded by society as being equals. Neither gender is valued less. Whether there exists gender equality within a society can be difficult to judge. In many ways, no two people—regardless of gender—can be fully said to have equal opportunity and access to everything. One’s socio\-economic status and geographical locale aside, there is the simple matter of genetics and natural ability. Can a 5'2" man really have the same opportunity to become a professional basketball player as can a 6'9" man? That being said, there have been and are many societies in which people of a certain gender, race, class, age, religion, etc., are discriminated against. If being strictly equal is an impossibility since we are not robots living in a non\-diverse world, and since what constitutes a reasonable level of equality is rather subjective, how are we to address the issue of gender equality? First, what is a biblical concept of gender equality? The Bible teaches that God created Adam out of the dust of the ground. He put Adam in the Garden of Eden to work it and commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God then said it was not good for Adam to be alone and that He would make a suitable helper. First, though, God had Adam name the animals. We surmise that, in watching the parade of animals, Adam saw that the animals each had another of their kind whereas he did not. There was not a suitable helper for Adam among the animals; there was none of his kind. God put Adam into a deep sleep and, out of Adam’s rib, formed Eve. God brought Eve to Adam, and “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.’ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Genesis 2:23–25\). The Bible also provides a summary statement of mankind’s creation: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27\). God created both man and woman, and both are made in His image. This implies equality of worth. The equal worth of men and women—and the equality of their spiritual need—is affirmed in Galatians 3:28–29: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Salvation is offered for all people, regardless of race or gender or social status, and that salvation is offered through Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12\). In the matter of salvation, there is true gender equality. Some argue that the Bible does not, in fact, teach gender equality. In particular, several Old Testament passages regarding the treatment of women are disconcerting to modern ears. For example, Deuteronomy 22:28–29 and Exodus 22:16–17 seem to command that a victim of rape [marry her attacker](Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html). But the reality of those verses is a bit more complex. These laws stipulate that a man who had sex with a single woman, essentially negating her opportunity for marriage, must pay the appropriate bride price and marry her. He was not permitted to ever divorce her, despite whatever legal allowances for divorce were found in other laws (Deuteronomy 24:1–4\). Note also that the woman was not forced to marry the man; her father could refuse to give her in marriage, but the man would still pay the bride price. These laws were meant to punish the man who violated a virgin and to protect the woman from further exploitation. Many of the laws in the Old Testament regarding the treatment of women had to do with protection of women living in a society in which they did not have as many rights or opportunities as men. Because societies are made up of people who sin, many social laws have to do with mitigating evil. The laws on divorce are an excellent example. In Matthew 19 Jesus explains to the Pharisees that God did not command divorce, but rather it was permitted “because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Matthew 19:8\). Similarly, the Old Testament laws that seem to suggest a lesser status for women are better understood as legal provisions in a society in which women were already treated as lesser. It is not God who sees women and men as unequal in value, but humans who choose to mistreat one another. Having established that men and women are of equal value in God’s eyes, we can say that they should be treated as being of equal value by one another. So why has this not been the case throughout history? The simple answer is sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, there was a breakdown in humanity’s relationships: with God, with one another, and with creation. After their sin, Adam and Eve hid from God. When God asked them where they were and why they had hidden, Adam blamed Eve (and God, indirectly). Eve blamed the serpent. In Genesis 3:16, God told Eve, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Or, as the NLT translates it, “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” Sin became part of human nature, and with sin came gender inequality and the battle of the sexes. It is our sinfulness that causes us to be proud and selfish. It is sinfulness that causes us to fear, exclude, or mistreat those who are different from us. It is sinfulness that results in our unfair treatment of one another. In short, the root cause of gender inequality, in a meaningful sense of the term, is sin. A point of clarification is in order. The Bible advocates for equal value and the worth of all humans. But it does not advocate for sameness. Men and women are given different, [complementary roles](complementarianism.html) in the family (Ephesians 5:21–33\) and church (1 Timothy 2:12\). Believers are given different spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12\). But the fact that different people have different roles or different gifts is not a testament to inequality. Rather, it is a display of God’s wisdom and creative power. Psalm 139 pictures God knitting someone together in his mother’s womb and says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Ephesians 2:10 speaks of the good works God has prepared in advance for those who put their faith in Jesus. The genders are of equal value before God and both should be treated with dignity and respect.
Who was King Manasseh in the Bible?	Answer The story of King Manasseh is told in 2 Kings 21:1–18 and 2 Chronicles 32:33–33:20, and he is also mentioned briefly in Jeremiah 15:4\. Manasseh was king of the southern kingdom of Judah and the son of the godly [king Hezekiah](life-Hezekiah.html). Hezekiah had undertaken reforms in Judah to rid the land of idolatry. Manasseh, a wicked king, reversed these reforms and did much worse. The first five verses of 2 Kings 21 are a frank and stunning account of Manasseh’s apostasy: “Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty\-five years. . . . He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to [Baal](who-Baal.html) and made an [Asherah pole](Asherah-pole.html), as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, ‘In Jerusalem I will put my Name.’ In the two courts of the temple of the Lord, he built altars to all the starry hosts. He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.” Although we are not given the specifics, Manasseh was also a treacherous king, killing innocent people: “Manasseh also shed so much innocent blood that he filled Jerusalem from end to end” (2 Kings 21:16\). He was pronounced by God to be more wicked than the Amorites who had lived in Canaan before they were displaced by Israel in an act of God’s judgment (2 Kings 21:11; see also 2 Chronicles 33:9\). Not only did Manasseh sin personally, but as king he led Judah in forsaking the LORD and worshiping idols. Such was the extent of their sin that God declared He would wipe out Jerusalem as He had the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 21:13–15\). Jeremiah 15:4 notes that it was the sin of Judah, initiated by Manasseh, that brought the judgment that [Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) proclaimed (the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the exile of the people). According to Jewish tradition, it was King Manasseh who murdered the [prophet Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html). Second Chronicles 33 adds more information not recorded in 2 Kings. God reached out to Manasseh and the people (presumably through prophets), but they would not listen. So God sent the [Assyrians](Assyrians.html) who captured Manasseh and took him away to exile (2 Chronicles 33:11\). While in exile, “In his distress he sought the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his ancestors. And when he prayed to him, the Lord was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God” (2 Chronicles 33:12–13\). The apocryphal book the “[Prayer of Manasseh](Prayer-of-Manasseh.html)” claims to record Manasseh’s prayer of repentance, but it is highly unlikely that the contents of the Prayer of Manasseh accurately represent Manasseh’s prayer. The repentant Manasseh was restored to his kingdom and started to rebuild Judah militarily (2 Chronicles 33:14\), and he also began to institute religious reforms. “He got rid of the foreign gods and removed the image from the temple of the Lord, as well as all the altars he had built on the temple hill and in Jerusalem; and he threw them out of the city. Then he restored the altar of the Lord and sacrificed fellowship offerings and thank offerings on it, and told Judah to serve the Lord, the God of Israel” (2 Chronicles 33:15–16\). Even though Manasseh had a personal conversion, he was never able to lead Judah out of the sin that he had previously led them into. They did not follow him in his reforms. The people continued in their idolatry (2 Chronicles 33:17\), and, when Manasseh died, his son [Amon](King-Amon.html) “did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his father Manasseh had done. Amon worshiped and offered sacrifices to all the idols Manasseh had made. But unlike his father Manasseh, he did not humble himself before the Lord” (2 Chronicles 33:22–23\). Manasseh is a tragic figure in Scripture. Although he repented of his sin, he was unable to undo the damage he had done to the nation or to his own son who followed him. Manasseh demonstrates that, while any sin may be forgiven when we repent, forgiveness does not necessarily remove the [natural consequences](consequences-of-sin.html) that flow from disobedience.
How should a Christian respond to jury duty?	Answer A jury is a panel of impartial people who listen to all evidence presented in a court trial and render a verdict. In the USA, potential jurors are chosen at random from voter registrations and driver’s license renewals. Jury duty is not optional for anyone so summoned in the United States. Part of living in a free society is that every citizen must be willing to participate in the governmental and judicial systems that help keep it free. Because our court system relies on the jury system, thousands of citizens are summoned each year to be screened as possible jurors. How should Christians respond when summoned for jury duty? Romans 13 is the go\-to passage for instruction in the way Christians should respond to [governmental authority](Bible-government.html). Verse 1 begins with, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” Part of being “subject to the governing authorities” is to obey the jury summons. Since there is nothing about the jury system that contradicts God’s Word or His principles, there is no ethical reason to risk punishment by refusing to comply. Romans 13:5 goes on to say, “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” When a jury is to be chosen, hundreds of summons are mailed to local citizens. They are instructed to report to the courthouse at a given date and time or face stiff penalties. Nursing mothers and those whose absence from work would present a critical problem can be excused by special permission. Everyone else is expected to appear at the time given and undergo an often tedious selection process whereby the opposing attorneys attempt to seat a jury that is most likely to render a good verdict. There may be some Christians who cannot, for the sake of conscience, participate on a jury that could render a guilty verdict leading to the [death penalty](death-penalty.html). For those who oppose capital punishment, the idea of jury duty may be intimidating. However, the court is sensitive to such convictions, and neither judges nor lawyers want a juror who cannot vote his or her conscience. That person would most likely be excused during the lengthy selection process, which explores the backgrounds, convictions, and willingness of each potential juror. A Christian should respond to jury duty with a sense of reverence and humility, recognizing the grave responsibility that rests upon his or her shoulders. The future of another human being hinges upon the jury’s decision, and such power should not be taken lightly. A Christian serving on a jury should bathe every step of it in prayer, asking for wisdom to make a right decision (James 1:5\). The Christian juror can also look for opportunities to humbly mention the Lord to other jurors, demonstrate respect and kindness during the entire process, and model a positive attitude during the sometimes boring, tedious waiting times. When Christians view every situation as an opportunity to represent Jesus, even jury duty can have eternal significance for not only the ones on trial but also for those responsible for the verdict.
What does it mean that the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10)?	Answer Second Thessalonians 3:10 reads, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” This verse is set in the context of 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, which warns believers against idleness and [laziness](laziness-Bible.html). The focus of the command is against those who refuse to work rather than those who are unable to do so. The verses preceding the instruction to those unwilling to work relate a positive example: “You ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate” (2 Thessalonians 3:7–9\). Paul and his companions did not come to the people of Thessalonica to take food or money from them but to share Christ with them. They were willing to work a side job to provide for their food. In contrast, if any Christian worker came to a church and refused to work, Paul says not to offer him food. This instruction also had application to people within their congregation. Verses 11–12 note, “We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.” This is the [Christian work ethic](Christian-work-ethic.html). Believers are to be known for working hard, not for a lazy attitude. Scripture often addresses sloth or laziness as sin. For example, Proverbs 18:9 says, “One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys.” Proverbs 19:15 adds, “Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless go hungry”—there is a clear link between not working and not eating in this proverb. Ecclesiastes 10:18 also notes the negative consequences of laziness: “Through laziness, the rafters sag; because of idle hands, the house leaks.” Again, the admonition that “the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” concerns unwillingness rather than inability. There is a difference. James 1:27 describes true religion, in part, as “look\[ing] after orphans and widows in their distress.” Needy children and widows, the disabled, those with special needs, the elderly, and others who cannot earn a living are deserving of much help. As believers, it is important that we be known for our strong work ethic and helping those in true need. We should “let \[our] light shine before others, that they may see \[our] good deeds and glorify \[our] Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16\).
What did Jesus mean when He said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” in Luke 10:18?	Answer In Luke 10:18 Jesus says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” The context of these words is the return of the [70 (or 72\) disciples](70-or-72-disciples.html) that Jesus had sent out to evangelize and prepare His way to Jerusalem (see verse 1\). When the 70 return and give their report, they are joyful and a little surprised that “even the demons submit to us in your name” (verse 17\). Jesus’ first words in reply are, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (verse 18\). In referencing Satan’s fall from heaven, Jesus most likely had in mind Isaiah 14:12, “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” The fall of Satan that Jesus saw happened after Lucifer’s sin, before Adam and Eve’s temptation in the Garden of Eden. In his pride, Lucifer had lifted himself up, but God had cast him down out of his original place in heaven (although he retains a [limited access](Satan-access.html) to heaven for now, according to Job 1:6\). Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:18 speaks of Jesus’ pre\-existence and the Lord’s defeat over the power of Satan in a general sense. When Jesus’ disciples came back to report their joy over their authority over demons, Jesus, in so many words, tells them they should not have been surprised. Satan is a fallen foe and has always been subject to the authority of the Son of God. Jesus had sent the 70 out in His authority, which extends over the demonic realm. Satan’s fall “like lightning” indicates that his judgment in heaven was swift and obvious. Not only did Jesus give the 70 authority over devils, but He also enabled them “to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy” (Luke 10:19\). As the 70 are celebrating that the demons were subject to them in Jesus’ name, in Luke 10:17, Jesus redirects their excitement by pointing to an even bigger blessing: their salvation! Jesus says, “However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (verse 20\). Casting out demons has a temporal, limited benefit in this world, but having your name written in heaven is an eternal, unlimited blessing! Revelation 12:9 refers to another time in which Satan is cast out of heaven: “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” We believe this happens during the future tribulation period when Satan is barred access to heaven once and for all. At the end of the [Great Tribulation](Great-Tribulation.html), Jesus will return, overthrow the kingdom Satan was attempting to set up, and bind the devil for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1–3\). At the end of 1,000 years, Satan will be released for one final battle, but he is defeated again and thrown into the lake of fire for eternity (Revelation 20:7–10\). Jesus has power over Satan and power to save us. Still today, believers face a spiritual battle against forces of evil (Ephesians 6:12\). With God’s Spirit, we do not need to fear Satan or evil spirits; rather, we depend on the Lord’s strength for victory in our spiritual struggles and trust that God will preserve us for heaven’s inheritance. “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4\).
Should a Christian trust psychology?	Answer In determining whether a Christian should “trust” psychology, it’s necessary to know what psychology is—and what it’s not. Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior. The study includes topics such as intelligence, marriage and parenting, leadership, morality, art, psychological disorders, sleep, personality, discrimination, religiosity, and much more. Literally everything that involves humans (or even animals) is studied by psychologists. Therapy is only a small part of the field of psychology. Psychology is a science, which means that psychological theories or ideas are tested in controlled and systematic ways by lots of different people. Psychology is not based on psychologists sitting around thinking about their own opinions or experiences and applying them to others. That is largely what Freud did, but little of what he said is accepted by modern psychologists who test their ideas. The results of psychological experiments are shared and critiqued in peer\-reviewed journals just as in the other sciences. The peer\-review process allows experts in the field (usually three) to critique a study before it is published and vote on whether it should be published in that particular journal (there are many journals and many different reviewers). It is not a perfect process, but it does help prevent low\-quality work and false or overstated claims from getting published. With this basic understanding of psychology, we can now answer the question of should a Christian trust psychology? Much depends on what we are trusting psychology for. For the vast majority of what is taught in psychology courses, Christians should have no reservations about trusting it. Because psychology is so wide\-ranging, we find in it useful descriptions and helpful suggestions for just about everything we do in life. Want to learn how to study more effectively, improve your marriage, raise children who will internalize your religious beliefs, or be more persuasive? Psychology can help with all those things and more. What should we not trust psychology for? As a science, psychology can only tell us how people are and perhaps give some insights about why we are the way we are. It cannot tell us how people should be. That is, psychology has the same limitations as other sciences: it cannot opine on what is moral, who God is, or how to have [everlasting life](what-is-eternal-life.html). Psychology can give us tips on how to attain desired outcomes in this life, but it cannot tell us what leads to eternal life. Psychology can help us understand the factors that influence our desires and the likely consequences of acting on them, but it cannot tell us whether it is right to act on those desires. Psychology can describe interpersonal interactions and provide us with insight into managing our relationships, but it cannot change our hearts to love as God loves. When it comes to trusting psychology, the Christian’s biggest concern comes down to the psychologists themselves. The field of psychology is composed of a diverse group of people with varying levels of education, different worldviews or religious beliefs, and unique areas of specialization. No psychologist can base 100 percent of his or her views on scientific evidence, and the gaps end up being filled in with the psychologist’s worldview. All people do this in some manner, and it is a necessary part of life, but when scientists do it, they are moving away from science into the realm of philosophy or theology. This holds true even when the view is shared by a large group of psychologists. Christians often do not trust psychology when psychologists make philosophical statements about what is right and wrong or good and evil. Many psychologists, for example, argue that same\-sex attraction is good and should be affirmed. They cite research showing that attempts to change sexual attraction are not very effective and that people experiencing same\-sex attraction are better off when affirmed than when not affirmed. Christians have no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the data in this research; however, the moral conclusions are beyond science. Whether same\-sex attraction is morally good simply cannot be answered by science. Everything that psychologists study has positive and negative outcomes. Affirming homosexuality may have some benefits, but it also likely has negative outcomes, too. Unfortunately, the research on affirming homosexuality is very limited right now. It doesn’t usually make distinctions between affirming sexual orientation and being a supportive person, doesn’t usually look for negative effects of affirming, and has not tested wide\-range outcomes such as the long\-term effects, how it affects faith, and so on. Moreover, even if people are happier doing a certain thing, that doesn’t make the behavior right, and it doesn’t mean the happiness will last or lead to everlasting life. When psychologists make philosophical jumps from the “what is” to the “what should be,” often without realizing it, they go beyond psychological science and are no more trustworthy in their conclusions than anyone else. Another area where psychology is potentially in conflict with Christianity is in therapy, which is just the practical part of what was discussed above. In most cases, both Christian and non\-Christian psychologists will conduct therapy in a similar way and have similar outcomes. If you seek therapy for a [phobia](having-a-phobia.html), both will use exposure therapy, and your chances of getting over the phobia will be the same with either therapist. However, as issues get more complex, the views of the therapist might matter more. If you seek therapy for depression, a Christian and non\-Christian therapist will likely treat you the same way, but in some cases they may differ on the cause and how they treat that cause. The difficulty here is that, in some cases, the Christian is more trustworthy, but in other cases, the Christian is less trustworthy. A Christian therapist who incorporates theology (not all Christian therapists do this, at least not directly) might be more likely to see sinful behaviors or wrong theological beliefs as a cause of depression. That conclusion might be right, but it could also be wrong. On the other hand, a non\-Christian therapist might be more likely to attribute the depression to all or mostly biology and simply prescribe medication without doing therapy. Again, as topics become more closely related to theological or moral topics, then the potential for conflict increases. If you (or your child) are experiencing same\-sex attraction, a non\-Christian therapist will likely affirm the attraction and help you come to terms with being gay. This will likely affect the rest of your life and identity in a way that opposes biblical teaching. Depending on their theological views, some Christian therapists will do the same, but most will likely help you to live well with same\-sex attraction. Some will also try to change it, although such attempts are becoming increasingly rare. For these reasons, it’s probably better to seek therapy from a licensed Christian psychologist with the best credentials you can find—someone with an APA\- or CACREP\-accredited degree. For more day\-to\-day issues, a pastor is a great resource, but if the issue is more severe, seeking licensed professional help can be beneficial. You don’t have to see a [Christian counselor](Christian-counselor.html) to get good therapy. Depending on your reason to seek counseling, any psychologist will likely give you similar advice and treatments, although bias and worldview are more likely to play a role when a moral issue is involved. When choosing a therapist, don’t be afraid to ask questions about methods or theological beliefs before beginning care. This holds true even with Christian therapists. In the end, Christians can usually trust psychology when it comes to descriptive claims about the way people typically think and act. However, when psychologists make philosophical claims about how things should be, then we should be less trusting. Describing cognition and behavior is often relevant to morality, but they are categorically different things, so we should be careful not to confuse these areas. In all cases, study the Scriptures, learn theology, and test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21\), regardless of where it comes from.
Should a Christian join a militia?	Answer A militia is generally defined as a military force opposed to the government or regular army and developed from within a society. Should a Christian participate in such a movement? During the public ministry of Jesus, many Jews opposed the Roman government that ruled over Israel. There was even a militia of sorts, called the [Zealots](Zealots-Bible.html), who actively resisted Roman rule. While Jesus cared deeply for the nation of Israel, He did not encourage His followers to form a militia or join the Zealots. Instead, He focused on the kingdom of God that was not of this world (see John 18:36\). In Romans 13:1–2, the apostle Paul addresses the relationship between Christians and [government](Bible-government.html): “Let everyone be subject 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, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” Peter shares similar words in 1 Peter 2:13–17\. The general rule for Christians, then, is submission to the government. The only exception is when Christians are told to disobey a direct command of God. When the apostles were commanded to no longer teach in Jesus’ name, they answered, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20\). A look at the Old Testament also offers important examples. In the [book of Daniel](Book-of-Daniel.html), Daniel refused to stop praying to God, even when his prayer was against the Persian law (Daniel 6\). Daniel’s three friends refused to bow down to an idol, even though refusing to do so was punishable by death (Daniel 3\). In both cases, their reason for disobeying the ruling authorities was based on a clear command in God’s Word. Even in those situations, Daniel and his friends peacefully objected; they did not form a militia. The Bible teaches believers to pray for their governing leaders (2 Timothy 2:1–4\). When we disagree with the actions of our government, prayer and godly living are a far more powerful force than joining a militia. Though there continue to be many injustices in the world, Scripture promotes two important responses. First, our mission is the [Great Commission](great-commission.html). We are called to make disciples of all the nations rather than to join a militia within our nation. Second, Jesus will one day return and set all things right (Revelation 21–22\). We may not be able to correct the evils of our society in our own strength, but we can follow the One who can.
What were the Children’s Crusades?	Answer The Children’s Crusades were not truly [Crusades](Christian-crusades.html) in the proper sense of the word. What are historically called the Children’s Crusades were an independent movement that occurred in AD 1212\. None of the participants ever reached the Holy Land. There is not even absolute certainty that all the participants were truly children. The original goal of those involved with the Children’s Crusades was to travel to Jerusalem to rediscover the lost cross of Christ. They believed the cross had been wrongfully taken by Muslims in approximately 1187\. While some argue these “Crusaders” were literally children, other historians believe it is more likely those called “children” were a class of landless peasants. The Children’s Crusade left from France in 1212 and traveled to Italy. At that point, they were unable to find anyone to take them to Jerusalem. Instead of returning to France, most of the travelers remained in Genoa and the surrounding area where they became slaves or provided cheap labor to area business leaders. Further, the group appears to have never been officially sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church. Two main accounts regarding the Children’s Crusades have long circulated. One account suggests there was a second group from France led by a peasant child named Stephen of Cloyes. According to this account, Stephen gathered some 30,000 children to Marseilles with plans to travel to the Holy Land. A second account of the Children’s Crusades tells of a group of 50,000 from Germany comprised of both children and adults (some versions say 20,000\). This multitude traveled across the Alps to meet with the Pope in Rome. The Pope praised their intentions but decided they were too young to travel to the Holy Land and sent them back home. Most returned, but, according to the story, some forged ahead and boarded ships for the Holy Land. They were never heard from again. Some claim as many as 50 different printed stories exist of Children’s Crusades from the thirteenth century. It is generally agreed most of these accounts are legendary or highly exaggerated. Ascertaining the truth of what took place is difficult. Biblically, there is no precedent for a church engaging in military action or marching against Muslims. There is no reason for a church to venerate physical objects or to claim to be doing God’s work in searching for [relics](Christian-relics.html) and enshrining them. And there is certainly no cause to send children into harm’s way; Jesus showed love to children and expects parents to care for their children, rearing them according to God’s truth (Ephesians 6:4\).
Who were the three men who visited Abraham in Genesis 18?	Answer [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) was visited by three men one day; the men turned out to be unusual guests, to say the least, and the visit was life\-changing for Abraham and Sarah. Genesis 18:1–2 says, “The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.” Abraham showed immediate hospitality to the three men, inviting them to rest under a tree and preparing a big meal for them (verses 3–8\). During their visit with Abraham, the three men warned him that God’s judgment was about to fall upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20–21; 19:12–13\). They also promised that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, would have a baby by the same time next year (Genesis 18:10\). Some have suggested that all three of these “men” were angelic beings who appeared to Abraham in the form of men. However, Genesis 18:1 says that it was “the LORD” (Yahweh) who appeared to Abraham. It is the LORD who speaks in verses 13, 20, 26, and 33\. Abraham stands “before the LORD” in verse 22\. So, one of the three “men” must have been God Almighty taking on the appearance of a man. We call such an appearance a “[theophany](theophany-Christophany.html).” When Jesus appears in His pre\-incarnate body in the Old Testament, we call it a “Christophany.” Whether God’s appearance to Abraham in Mamre was a theophany or a Christophany, we don’t know. But it does seem clear from the context that one of the visitors was God Himself (Genesis 18:22\) and the other two were the angels who later visited Sodom and spoke to Lot (Genesis 19:1\). Abraham’s response to the appearance of the three men also suggests that he instinctively knew that he was in the presence of God. A typical response to visitors in that culture was to rise and wait for them to approach the home. But Abraham ran to meet them and “bowed low to the ground,” a prostrate posture reserved for royalty or deity. Abraham was well acquainted with the LORD and would have instantly recognized Him, because the Lord had spoken and/or appeared to him many times before. Those appearances include the following occasions: • when God first called him (Genesis 12:1–3\) • when Abraham parted ways with Lot (Genesis 13:14–17\) • possibly when he met [Melchizedek](Melchizedek.html) (Genesis 14:18–20\) • when God made a [covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html) with him (Genesis 15\) • when God restated His covenant (Genesis 17\) These three visitors whom Abraham entertained were heavenly, and Abraham and Sarah were in the company of God Himself. The story teaches us that God is aware of what is happening on earth, and He is involved. God can even visit or send His heavenly messengers to help fulfill His plans. We may not always realize whom we are speaking with, so we should treat everyone as though they were on special assignment from God. Hebrews 13:2 reminds us, “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”
What were the Lateran Councils?	Answer The Lateran Councils were a series of conferences called within the Roman Catholic Church in the 12th and 13th centuries. Their name comes from the Lateran Palace of Rome, where the groups assembled. In these meetings, Catholic Church leaders produced responses to various debates and controversies within the church. At the Lateran Councils, the Catholic Church affirmed its views on topics which, by and large, were being criticized by dissenting voices within Christianity. In general, the Lateran Councils followed a pattern of increasing power in the centralized, human leadership of Catholic Christianity. Many details specifically addressed by these meetings were points of contention for the Reformers. When the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) began in the 16th century, the articles drawn up in the Lateran Councils were central to the schism. Although the formal Reformation developed through a long and complex process, it is fair to say that the Lateran Councils represent a “shorthand” history of the growing divide between the Reformers and the Catholic loyalists. The First Lateran Council was held in AD 1123\. This council determined that kings and emperors had no authority to appoint a bishop, as bishops could only be properly approved by the [Pope](pope-papacy.html). The meetings also concluded that true spiritual authority could only come from “the” church, not from any other institution or group. Priestly celibacy was strictly affirmed. The Second Lateran Council was held in AD 1139\. This council determined that laymen could not accept confession from each other. Only Catholic\-approved priests could accept confession or any other sacrament if that sacrament was to be viable. Other decisions of the Second Lateran Council included an admonition to bishops and priests to wear modest clothing rather than extravagant robes. The injunction against priestly marriage was once again upheld, and many existing marriages among the clergy were declared invalid. The Third Lateran Council was held in AD 1179\. This council declared that the only acceptable means of appointing a Pope was a 2/3 majority vote of the bishops. Any other claims to the papacy were automatically invalidated. This council also condemned the [Waldensians](Waldensians.html), a pre\-Protestant denomination that viewed the written Word as their primary authority, embraced poverty, and rejected saintly relics, purgatory, any special power of prayers offered in a church as opposed to other buildings, among other Catholic innovations. These decisions make the Third Lateran Council an especially important milestone in the development of Catholicism’s papal doctrines. The Fourth Lateran Council was held in AD 1215 and was the most divisive of the meetings. It was also the most heavily attended, featuring at least 1,200 abbots and bishops, in addition to various political representatives. The decisions rendered by the Fourth Lateran Council drastically sharpened the divide between reform\-minded Christians and Catholic loyalists. Interestingly, unlike most ecclesial councils, the Fourth Lateran Council was presented immediately with a list of some seventy decrees. These were constructed by Pope Innocent III, and the attendees were expected to endorse them, which they did. The Fourth Lateran Council officially declared the Pope as the Bishop of Rome and re\-emphasized a belief that only the Roman Catholic Church was the true church of God. The decrees affirmed that the [seven sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html) were strictly necessary and also upheld the doctrine of [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html). The other decisions mostly related to the expectations of princes and kings with respect to the clergy and separate clothing requirements for Jews and Muslims. An additional decision of the Fourth Lateran Council was the creation of an [Inquisition](inquisitions.html), which was given the authority to investigate heresy and turn guilty parties over to secular courts for prosecution. The decisions of the Fourth Lateran Council resulted in a dramatic backlash among those who felt the Catholic Church had been drifting from the original teachings of Christ and the apostles. The fallout from this council and its decisions greatly hastened the full\-blown Reformation, which began not long after. What is now considered the Fifth Lateran Council was held several centuries later, between AD 1512 and 1517\. The extended duration was due to various delays, complications, and controversies. The most meaningful aspects of this conference were political infighting among members of the clergy. However, the resulting decrees did establish church\-run pawn shops, forbade the printing of books without permission of the Catholic Church, affirmed that the soul was truly immortal, and rejected the claim that any church council could wield higher authority than the Pope. Strictly speaking, there were many other councils held at the Lateran Palace or Lateran Cathedral in Rome, from the 7th century all the way through to the 18th century. However, the five listed here are the most noteworthy and the only ones generally referred to as the “Lateran Councils.”
Who was King Zedekiah in the Bible?	Answer Zedekiah was the last king of Judah and was king when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC and the majority of the people were carried into exile. The story of Zedekiah is told in 2 Kings 24–25, 2 Chronicles 36, and the [book of Jeremiah](Book-of-Jeremiah.html). Zedekiah’s original name was Mattaniah. He was the son of [King Josiah](Josiah-in-the-Bible.html) and the brother of [King Jehoahaz](King-Jehoahaz.html) and [King Jehoiakim](King-Jehoiakim.html). Zedekiah would not normally have been included in the line to the throne, but the kings preceding him made bad decisions, both spiritually and politically, and were removed in succession. Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, ruled for 3 months and “did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and Pharaoh Necho took him to Egypt in exile (2 Kings 23:31–33\). Necho put his brother Jehoiakim in his place. Jehoiakim ruled for 11 years. During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded. Jehoiakim swore allegiance to him and continued as a vassal king. He also did evil in the Lord’s sight (by not removing all of the idols from the land) and then rebelled against [Nebuchadnezzar](Nebuchadnezzar.html). Upon his death, his son [Jehoiachin](King-Jehoiachin.html) succeeded him (2 Kings 24:1–7\). Jehoiachin continued his father’s evil ways. He reigned for 3 months and then was removed from the throne by Nebuchadnezzar. At this point Mattaniah, son of Josiah, was put on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar to rule as a vassal king. Nebuchadnezzar changed his name to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:8–17\). Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, meaning he would have only been about 10 when his father, Josiah, died and his brother Jehoahaz became king. Zedekiah ruled for 11 years but continued on all the evil of his brothers and nephew Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24: 18–20\). In his ninth year on the throne, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, and, as a result, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Zedekiah was confident of Egypt’s help, which never materialized. In the eleventh year of Zedekiah’s reign, the city fell to Babylon. Second Kings gives the basic historical outline, which is supplemented in 2 Chronicles 36\. Jeremiah fills in much of the behind\-the\-scenes information and the spiritual component. In Jeremiah 21, during the siege of Jerusalem, Zedekiah asks [Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) to intercede to the Lord so that perhaps the Lord would deliver Judah. Jeremiah returns God’s answer: He has irrevocably handed Judah over to judgment, first by plague, and those who escape that will fall to the Babylonians. The only hope that any of the people have is to surrender to the Babylonians. “Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague. But whoever goes out and surrenders to the Babylonians who are besieging you will live; they will escape with their lives” (verse 9\). Zedekiah heard God’s definitive answer, but he did not like it. False prophets contradicted Jeremiah and preached a more favorable message (Jeremiah 23\), but God reiterated His message to Jeremiah (chapters 24–25\). There is a “showdown” in Jeremiah 27–28\. Jeremiah comes to the king wearing a yoke around his neck as a visual of what will happen to the people—they will be taken to Babylon as exiles in bondage. The (false) prophet [Hananiah](Hananiah-in-the-Bible.html) took the yoke from Jeremiah and broke it, saying, “This is what the LORD says: ‘In the same way I will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon off the neck of all the nations within two years’” (Jeremiah 28:11\). The Lord then tells Jeremiah to pronounce judgment on Hananiah and tell him that, before the end of the year, he will be dead. Demonstrating the legitimacy of Jeremiah as a prophet and the truth of his prophecies, Hananiah died “in the seventh month of that same year” (verse 17\). Jeremiah sends a letter to those already in exile in Babylon telling them not to trust prophets who foretell a speedy return. He tells them to settle in, build houses and gardens, have children, and seek the prosperity of Babylon, for they will be there for a long time (he specifies 70 years, Jeremiah 29:10\). However, they are promised that God will restore Judah to the land, but only in His time (chapters 29–31\). In chapter 32, King Zedekiah confines Jeremiah to the courtyard of the guard in the palace (verse 2\), but Jeremiah does not compromise his message. In chapter 34, Jeremiah assures Zedekiah that he (Zedekiah) will die peacefully in Babylon, but that the city of Jerusalem will not escape. At some time in his reign, Zedekiah freed all the slaves that should have been freed every seven years, a command of the Law that had been neglected for many years. However, Zedekiah then reversed his decision and allowed the freed slaves to be enslaved again. Jeremiah delivers this message to the king: “Therefore this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom to your own people. So I now proclaim ‘freedom’ for you, declares the LORD—‘freedom’ to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. . . . I will deliver Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials into the hands of their enemies who want to kill them, to the army of the king of Babylon, which has withdrawn from you. I am going to give the order, declares the LORD, and I will bring them back to this city. They will fight against it, take it and burn it down. And I will lay waste the towns of Judah so no one can live there” (verses 17, 21–22\). Finally, during the siege, Zedekiah fled the city by night but was captured. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before him, and then he was blinded and taken to Babylon in chains (Jeremiah 52, see also 2 Kings 25 and 2 Chronicles 36\). Then the Babylonians broke down the walls of Jerusalem, burned the temple, and took the temple articles to Babylon with them. Zedekiah died in Babylon years later. No doubt it was a peaceful death as the Lord had promised, but what awful memories he must have endured in the meantime! Zedekiah had been presented with a tremendous opportunity. Although he missed the throne three times when two of his brothers and then his nephew were crowned, he finally received stewardship of the kingdom. Zedekiah had the benefit of seeing firsthand the mistakes of his brothers and nephew, and he also had direct messages from God through Jeremiah. Yet he would not submit to the Lord. As a result, Zedekiah lost his sons, his sight, his freedom, and his throne. Through it all God was faithful to do what He promised. He carried out the judgment He had declared, but He also brought about the restoration. Seventy years later, [Cyrus](Cyrus-Bible.html), king of Persia (successor to the Babylonian Empire), declared that all of the Jewish exiles who wanted to return to Jerusalem might do so, and they could take with them all the implements of the temple (Ezra 1\).
Is it wrong for a Christian girl/woman to be a tomboy?	Answer A tomboy is a girl who engages in behaviors that typically only boys are interested in and/or wears clothing that is not stereotypically feminine. Although many young girls start out as tomboys, most of them mature into more typically feminine interests and behaviors after [puberty](Bible-puberty.html). But not all do. Some women continue to prefer careers and hobbies more often of interest to men. Since God created two genders with differing roles, is it wrong for [Christian women and girls](biblical-womanhood.html) to be tomboys? While God did create two genders (Genesis 1:27\) with differing roles, He does not necessarily endorse all the cultural mores that dictate feminine or masculine behavior within a society. Throughout history, women have been oppressed, denied education, and left virtually powerless—all in the name of feminine standards. In some cultures today, women still cannot vote, work outside the home, or seek higher education. Even though those cultures consider oppression to be normal for women, God is not the author of that. On the other hand, women who reject their God\-given femininity in an effort to be masculine are also stepping outside of God’s design. There is a difference between a tomboy and a woman who rejects her gender. Tomboys usually happily accept their female status, while also exploring interests that fall outside the typical female spectrum. A tomboy can be a construction foreman and still fully embrace her gender, while another can wear a dress while resenting the fact that she is a woman. Unfortunately, in modern Western culture, women who continue to be tomboys into adulthood are often labeled as “lesbian” or “bisexual,” when that may have nothing to do with their interest in “masculine” things. A Christian tomboy needs to be aware of her culture’s viewpoint and take care to present herself accurately. As Christians, our first priority must be representing Jesus well (1 Corinthians 10:31\). We should be willing to limit our own freedoms in order not to offend or send the wrong message to the world we are trying to reach (1 Corinthians 9:22; Galatians 5:13\). A woman who acts and dresses like a man may be communicating a message she does not intend to communicate. She should remember God’s instructions to the Israelites about wearing the garments of the opposite gender (Deuteronomy 22:5\). His reason may have been that He wants to keep a clear distinction between men and women. He designed those genders and expects us to celebrate the difference, not blur the line. Another matter Christian tomboys should consider is hairstyle. Some women prefer short hair because their own hair texture is not well\-suited for wearing it long. However, the decision may have more significance than simple style preference. Christian women who desire to honor the Lord and their husbands should prayerfully consider what God thinks about hair. First Corinthians 11:15 says that “if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For long hair is given to her as a covering.” That word covering implies an attitude of submission to the Lord’s design and her husband’s authority in the home (Ephesians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3\). When a woman buzzes her hair off in a military style, she is removing what God says is her “glory” and her “covering.” A Christian woman need not try to imitate a man’s appearance in order to retain her identity as a tomboy. She can do everything “tomboyish” she needs to do and still look like a woman. Another aspect to consider in whether or not it is wrong for a Christian woman to be a tomboy is her role in the home. Tomboys can be excellent wives and mothers. Tomboy moms can earn the respect of their sons by playing sports with them and showing them how to change the oil in the car. A tomboy mom can model for her daughters that femininity does not equal helplessness, as she utilizes her gifts to do home repairs, remodeling projects, and running a ranch if need be. Tomboy wives delight their husbands as they join them in cheering for their favorite sports teams or providing companionship on hunting and fishing trips. A man who marries a tomboy chooses her because of those traits, so she is not defying her God\-given role by developing them. However, a tomboy may be tempted to use that identity as an excuse to neglect her more important roles. While no woman has to get married, those who do should consider carefully the role they are choosing. Being a tomboy does not cancel God’s command that women be “keepers of the home” (Titus 2:5\) and submissive to their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18\). Being a tomboy does not release a woman from her responsibility to develop a “gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (1 Peter 3:4\). Having a gentle and quiet spirit is not about personality. All types of women with different temperaments can develop this gentle and quiet spirit before the Lord. This type of spirit is of such great worth to God because it is an indicator that this woman, His daughter, has embraced the person He created her to be and is willing to submit her own personality to His control. Nothing pleases Him more (1 Corinthians 7:32–34\). So, while it is not wrong for a Christian girl or woman to be a tomboy, she needs to keep in mind that she is, first, a Christian and, second, a female. God created her female for a purpose. A woman can reject God’s purpose and try to forge her own path, or she can embrace that purpose and submit herself to it. That may mean she is a stay\-at\-home mother of five children, or it may mean that she is an airline pilot. As long as she keeps her identity in Christ as her primary motivation, He will give her the desires of her heart (Psalm 37:4\).
What is preparationism?	Answer Preparationism was a view of salvation that became popular among the Puritans. Preparationism held that a person who is not yet regenerated (saved) can participate in behaviors like prayer, Bible study, and church attendance in order to “prepare” himself for the Holy Spirit to actually save him. This “preparatory grace” might manifest itself in a sinner’s self\-examination, a somber reflection of his sinfulness, or a sincere seeking after mercy. In some cases, preparationism was understood as a different take on [prevenient grace](prevenient-grace.html), a way for God to “soften the heart” of the sinner in advance of justifying him. In other cases, preparationism was taught as a way of making a particular sinner seem more acceptable to God—and therefore more likely for Him to save. If a sinner was going to church and living a moral life, then he was a “better candidate” for salvation. In more extreme versions, preparationism was seen as a requirement: those who want to be saved first need to get their lives into proper Christian shape. Being Calvinists, the [Puritans](Puritans-Puritanism.html) believed in [total depravity](total-depravity.html), which holds that man is corrupt to the point that he cannot seek God without the influence of the Holy Spirit. [Calvinism](calvinism.html) likewise holds to the idea that one is saved entirely by the grace of God, and man adds nothing to salvation. Preparationism, in many ways, seems to run counter to both of those concepts. Many Puritans who taught preparationism reconciled their apparently contradictory beliefs with the idea that “preparatory grace” was given by God and could not be manufactured on one’s own. However, the “preparatory grace” could be rejected in some cases, which violates another of Calvinism’s tenets, that of [irresistible grace](irresistible-grace.html). In any analysis, preparationism was a step away from Calvinism and toward [Arminianism](arminianism.html). Historically, preparationism became popular among Puritan theologians, especially in Colonial America. Some Christians objected to the suggestion that adherence to rules and regulations could make a person “more likely” to be saved. Some reacted to preparationism with a complete rejection of the idea that any sign could prove or disprove salvation. The resulting debates and disagreements inspired changes to the political, social, and religious landscape of the Colonies. The form of preparationism practiced by the Puritans is rarely seen in the modern era. The ideas it touched on, however, are still a source of discussion. Today, any debate over preparationism is usually overshadowed by discussions of works versus faith, grace versus law, Calvinism versus Arminianism, and so forth. Debates over the extent to which an unsaved person can or should attempt to live obediently to God, and the level of encouragement he should be given in doing so, are echoes of the controversy of preparationism.
Who was Araunah the Jebusite?	Answer Araunah the Jebusite was a [Canaanite](Canaanites.html) who sold King David a site and supplies to make a sacrifice to the Lord, even though he himself does not appear to have been a believer in the God of Israel. The land purchased from Araunah was eventually used as the site of the temple in Jerusalem. The story of Araunah and his threshing floor is linked to that of David’s [sinful census](David-census.html) in 2 Samuel 24\. King David ordered a census of the fighting men of Israel; this census was contrary to God’s will. (Perhaps the census was a source of pride or a sign that David was relying upon the strength of his men rather than the strength of the Lord.) As a result of David’s sin, God gave David a choice: three years of famine, three months of fleeing before his enemies, or three days of pestilence. David picked the last one as he explains in verse 14: “I am in great distress. Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man.” Therefore, God sent a plague upon the people, and 70,000 men of Israel died (thus significantly weakening the fighting force that had just been counted). Toward the end of the third day, the Angel of the Lord is about to destroy Jerusalem but relents. At the time the plague stops, the Angel of the Lord was standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (verse 16\). Second Samuel 5 gives the account of David’s capture of Jerusalem, which originally belonged to the [Jebusites](Jebusites.html). For the first seven years of his kingship, David reigned in Hebron over Judah and Benjamin. But after all the tribes united under him, he wanted to found a new capital. He chose Jerusalem, a stronghold of the Jebusites, some of the original Canaanite inhabitants of the area. David defeated them and took the city. Although God had commanded that all the Canaanites be exterminated because of their great sin (Leviticus 18:24– 25\), this had never happened, even in David’s day. Throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament, we read of Canaanites interacting with and even living among the Israelites. It appears that Araunah may have been one of the remaining Jebusites who lived there, or at least had a threshing floor near Jerusalem. A threshing floor like that sold by Araunah would have been a large, open, elevated area to facilitate threshing and winnowing. First, the outer husk over the grain would have to be cracked so that the grain could be separated. This could be done by beating the grain or by using a threshing sledge, an arrangement of heavy boards with abrasive material (e.g., sharp rocks) on the bottom side. The sledge was pulled by draft animals back and forth across the grain to separate the tough outer husk from the kernel. Then the grain would be tossed into the air and the wind would blow away the outer husk (the [chaff](chaff-in-the-Bible.html)—see Psalm 1:4\) and the heavier grain kernel would fall back to the ground. The prophet Gad, who had been communicating God’s will to David during this whole ordeal, told David to build an altar to the Lord on Araunah’s threshing floor. David went to Araunah and told him what he intended and offered to buy the threshing floor. Araunah instead offered to donate the site as well as oxen for the offering and the threshing sledges for wood. This offer is significant because these articles represent the whole of Araunah’s livelihood. He is very respectful of David, but speaks of “the LORD your God” (2 Samuel 24:23, emphasis added), perhaps indicating that Araunah was not a believer in the God of Israel himself. David refuses his offer and explains in verse 24: “No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” [David](life-David.html) has it right—a sacrifice that costs us nothing is not a real sacrifice. Araunah sells the site to David as well as the supplies for the offering, and the plague is stopped (verse 25\). First Chronicles 21 is the parallel passage to 2 Samuel 24, but we learn nothing new about Araunah there except that he was also called Ornan the Jebusite. There are a number of reasons why this might be. If Araunah was a Canaanite, not a Hebrew, his name would have to be translated or transliterated into Hebrew, and this can result in some variation of spelling, especially since 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles were written several hundred years apart. It is also possible that Araunah is a title rather than a proper name. There are quite a number of instances in Scripture where a person has two names or variations in spelling of the same name. This does not indicate any error in the text but the normal variation for that age and type of literature.
Who was Agabus in the Bible?	Answer All that we know about the prophet Agabus comes from two short passages in the Bible. In Acts 11:27–30 Agabus is described as one of several prophets who came from Jerusalem to Syrian Antioch, where [Paul](life-Paul.html) was ministering. A prophet was one who received direct messages from God and communicated them to the people. In Acts 11, Agabus predicted (by the Holy Spirit) that a great famine “would spread over the entire Roman world” (verse 28\). The text further reports that Agabus was accurate (as we would expect) and that this famine happened during the reign of Emperor Claudius. As a result of Agabus’s prophecy, the believers in Antioch began to gather money to send to the Christians living in Judea, and they sent the money by the hands of [Barnabas](life-Barnabas.html) and Saul (Paul). This monetary gift was a fitting response because in the ancient Roman Empire there was usually still food available for purchase during a famine, but at dramatically elevated prices. With adequate funds, the Christians in Judea would still have been able to purchase food. Furthermore, the Christians in Judea may well have been cut off from their families and from their normal means of support. The love gift from Antioch was all the more important as a sign of the unity of Jewish (in Judea) and Gentile (in Antioch) believers—a unity for which Paul was continually laboring. In Acts 21:10–12 we see Agabus once again, this time in Caesarea. Although Luke does not explicitly state that this is the same Agabus as in Acts 11, there is no reason to assume he is a different person. Once again, Agabus is functioning as a prophet, and he comes from Judea (verse 10\). He meets Paul as the apostle is on his way to Jerusalem. Agabus takes Paul’s belt and ties up his own hands and feet with it and says, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles’” (verse 11\). When the people in Paul’s party hear the prophecy of Agabus, they do whatever they can to dissuade Paul from going to Jerusalem, but he is resolute. In this case, it seems the purpose of the prophecy was to mentally prepare Paul for what would befall him rather than to warn him not to go. In both of these instances, Agabus faithfully delivered the message that God had given him and left it up to the hearers to make an appropriate response. Agabus said no more and no less than what God had told him—and that is the one requirement of a faithful prophet. After Acts 21, we are told no more about Agabus, but since apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church (Jesus being the cornerstone—Ephesians 2:20\), it would be safe to assume that Agabus continued to minister in other situations that are not recorded in Scripture.
What does it mean that God is the Creator?	Answer One of the foundational truths of the Bible is that God is the Creator of all that is. One of the many passages to proclaim God as Creator is Isaiah 40:28, “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.” All three Persons of the Trinity were involved in the creation of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Acts 17:24; Hebrews 1:2\). A creator is one who makes something new. People can “create” art projects, musical compositions, and physical structures; however, they always have something to work with. They begin with preexisting matter and form it in new ways. Even music and other intellectual creations have rhythms, rhymes, notes, instruments, and artistic mediums that provide structure and offer possibilities. What is commonly called “creativity” is more akin to synthesis. God had no such raw materials to work with. When we say that God is the Creator, we mean that He is truly creative, in a category all by Himself, because He started with [nothing](creation-ex-nihilo.html) (Colossians 1:16\). Genesis 1:1 says that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” That means that, before Genesis 1:1, there existed no heavens and no earth. God spoke them into being (Genesis 1:3, 6, 9\). “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11; cf. Revelation 10:6\). He is God. He is not limited by our understanding, nor by time, space, or matter. As the Creator, God is the [all\-wise](God-omniscient.html) originator and designer of all things: “How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all” (Psalm 104:24\). When God created the heavens and the earth, He did so by speaking it into existence. When He created the things that filled the earth and the sky, He spoke them into being (Genesis 1:11–16\). But when He created human beings, He did something different. He took some dust of the ground that He had already made and formed a man. Then He breathed His own life into that man, and “man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7\). When He created the first woman, Eve, He also used that which He had already made. He caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and took a rib from his side and formed a woman (Genesis 2:21\). God is the Designer and Craftsman of everything in the universe, and He created human beings a step above all the rest. By breathing His own life into that man, He created the man and woman “in His own image” (Genesis 1:27\). That means that human beings are more like God than any other created thing. We have an eternal spirit, just as God has. We can reason, choose good or evil, and love. We have emotions, intellect, and the power and desire to create things ourselves. God desires to have fellowship with us (Genesis 3:8–9; Jeremiah 29:12\). He does not seek fellowship with dogs, dolphins, or trees—only humans. And when He came to earth to save us, He came in the form of a man (Philippians 2:5–8; Luke 1:35\). When we say that God is the Creator, we mean that no one created Him and that God alone is THE Creator. Satan cannot create; he can only pervert what God creates. People cannot truly create, because we must start with something that has already been created. Everything originated from God (Jeremiah 10:16; James 1:17; Revelation 10:6\). Because He created everything, everything is His (Exodus 19:5; Psalm 50:12\). As human beings, we are also His, and He has the right to rule over us. He gives us freedom to choose Him or reject Him, but consequences come with either choice. The wise person bows before the Creator and willingly submits himself or herself to the only One who truly knows how we are made (Psalm 78:39; 103:14; Romans 9:20\).
Should a Christian wear perfume / cologne?	Answer Perfumes, incense, and scented salts have been around for centuries. In the [book of Esther](Book-of-Esther.html), young women spent months undergoing grooming with scented oils and spices in order to prepare for their invitation into the king’s chambers (Esther 2:12\). Our sense of smell is connected to our other senses and can be trained to make us respond in certain ways to a specific scent. Who hasn’t had a moment of déjà vu at the whiff of something that reminds us of grandma’s house or our first date? Proverbs 27:9 says, “Perfume and incense bring joy to the heart.” Certain smells have both positive and negative connotations. Perfumes and colognes tap into the evocative power of scent, and some Christians wonder about the appropriateness of wearing fragrances. Naomi instructed her daughter\-in\-law [Ruth](life-Ruth.html) to “put on perfume and get dressed in your best clothes” in order to make herself attractive to Boaz (Ruth 3:3\). There is nothing sinful implied in this. Perfume has always been considered an accessory that helps make people more pleasing to others. In fact, Ecclesiastes 9:7–9 says, “So go ahead. Eat your food with joy, and drink your wine with a happy heart, for God approves of this! Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne! Live happily with the woman you love through all the meaningless days of life that God has given you under the sun” (NLT). As might be expected, perfume is spoken of in negative terms when it is worn by an adulterous woman in order to ensnare a man (Proverbs 7:16–18\). In Jesus’ day, perfumes were a luxury and could often cost a fortune. The most famous mention of perfume is the account of Mary breaking her [alabaster jar](alabaster-box.html) of expensive perfume and anointing Jesus with it (John 12:3\). Jesus praised her for this, saying that she was preparing His body for burial (John 12:7\). Perfumes and spices were wrapped with a corpse to help mask the stench of rotting flesh. Without realizing it, Mary was foretelling Jesus’ death and expressing her gratitude for it by anointing her Savior with costly perfume. Christians should not be motivated by vanity in the use of perfume or cologne, but there is nothing sinful about using a fragrance. As Christians, we are to present ourselves to the world as worthy representatives of our Father’s kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:20\). Part of that presentation is personal hygiene and grooming. God’s message of [reconciliation](reconciliation.html) is a fragrant gift we offer the world. His messengers need to represent that. People are less likely to listen to such a message from a person who does not seem to care how he or she appears or smells. We should be careful not to overdo perfumes and colognes, and we should be sensitive to people with allergies, but using perfume or cologne is perfectly acceptable.
Does God know our thoughts?	Answer Thoughts are the most private parts of our human experience. No one else can know our thoughts unless we communicate them, so we tend to imagine that anything we think is safe, as long as it stays in our minds. But there is one Person who always knows what we are thinking; God knows everything about us, and He also knows our thoughts. God knows our thoughts no matter who or where we are. Psalm 139 begins this way: “O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar” (verses 1–2\). God searches the hearts and minds of people, seeking those whose hearts are turned toward Him (Jeremiah 12:3; 1 Chronicles 29:17; Acts 15:8\). Two of the Ten Commandments deal with our thoughts. The [first commandment](no-other-gods.html) is to have no other gods before the Lord (Exodus 20:3\). That is a heart matter. The [tenth commandment](you-shall-not-covet.html) warns us not to covet what others have (Exodus 20:17\). Coveting is also a sin of our thoughts. When Jesus walked the earth, He knew people’s thoughts and answered before they even verbalized their questions (Matthew 9:4; 12:25; Luke 9:47; 11:17\). In this way, Jesus exhibited the divine trait of [omniscience](God-omniscient.html). It can be intimidating to realize that God knows our thoughts. He knows the angry thoughts, lustful thoughts, vengeful ideas, secret greed, and hidden coveting. God also knows about those secret longings, hopeful desires, and private dreams. And He understands. First John 3:20 assures us that “if our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” Sometimes we are harder on ourselves than God is. He knows we are frail humans made from dirt and born with a sin nature (Psalm 103:14\). If we have given our lives to Christ, then we should find comfort in remembering that our loving Father knows us better than we know ourselves. God knows our desire to please Him (Psalm 37:23\), even though we stumble at it. Within that loving relationship, we have confidence to cry, “Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:23–24\). We don’t have to be afraid of being vulnerable to our Creator. And there’s no sense in trying to hide things from Him. Whatever the issue, He already knows about it and wants us to feel safe enough to confess our thoughts to Him (Psalm 50:15; 91:15; 1 John 5:14–15\). God knows our thoughts, and He helps us to know ourselves better when we talk them over with Him.
Should a Christian use a credit card?	Answer Credit vouchers in some form have been in existence since the 1800s, but in a private, limited capacity. Plastic credit cards as we know them have only been used since the 1960s. In 1946 a banker named John Biggins invented a bank card called “Charg\-It,” but it was only used locally through his bank. In 1950 Diners Club introduced a card that became the first credit card with widespread use. From then on, other banks and lending institutions joined the throng of those eager to lend money with interest. Credit cards can help someone get by during times of financial stress, but they can also create unmanageable debt if not used carefully. Since, for a Christian, God should be in control of every area of life, including the finances, should a Christian use a credit card? Whether or not a Christian should own and use credit cards depends upon the person’s self\-control, wisdom, and understanding of the power that credit cards have to own us. One major problem with lending institutions and credit card companies is that they make much of their wealth from people with unwise spending habits and those too poor to repay their debt. When God gave His law to the Israelites, He specified that they were not to lend money with interest to their fellow countrymen (Leviticus 25:36; Exodus 22:25\). The King James Version calls this interest “[usury](usury-Bible.html).” Usury sounds like what it means—“exorbitant interest rates charged to those who can’t afford to pay them.” In contrast, Psalm 15:5 describes the person who dwells in God’s presence as someone who, among other things, “lends money to the poor without interest.” Many people have found that they cannot trust themselves with credit cards. They tend to view them as “free money” since the actual bill does not come for weeks, and even then only a minimum payment is required. They can have a $2,000 boat today and only pay for it a few hundred dollars at a time over several months. What they don’t want to think about is that the $2,000 new boat becomes a $4,000 used boat by the time they finally have it paid off, at the minimum payment each month. Wasting money on interest is not good stewardship of the resources God has entrusted to us (see 1 Timothy 6:10; Proverbs 22:7\). Wise spending means we strive to live below our means so that we always have money for emergencies and enough to share with those in need. Earning interest on our investments, rather than paying interest on our spending, is a wise way to handle money. In Matthew 25, Jesus gives the example of three servants, two of whom invested what the master had entrusted to them and doubled the initial sum. The third servant, however, did not invest. In verse 27, the master tells him, “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.” Credit cards are not evil in themselves. They can be beneficial, handy, and even economical for the person who knows how to use them wisely. When we are in charge of our finances, rather than our finances being in charge of us, we don’t make idols out of the things we can buy. Nor do we use our money to control other people. Wise credit card users never pay the exorbitant interest tacked on to their purchases. They pay off the initial balance at the end of each month, thereby using the card without it using them. When we view credit cards as cash, we stay in control of our spending. We don’t charge what we cannot afford and therefore don’t end up with a staggering shock when the bill comes. Charging only what we can afford to pay helps us obey Hebrews 13:5, “Keep your lives free from the [love of money](love-money-root-evil.html) and be content with what you have.” When we refuse the lure of spending on credit, we learn to practice contentment (1 Timothy 6:6\). Through contentment, we develop godly character and see our finances as a way to bless others and honor God (Psalm 37:26; Proverbs 11:24–25; 2 Corinthians 9:7\).
Does a believer have authority over Satan?	Answer The believer’s authority over Satan and victory over the spiritual forces of evil depend on the power of God, the relative power of Satan, and God’s power within the believer. First, God’s power is perfect and unlimited. He created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1\) and holds power over life and death. God clearly has power over Satan and in the end will cast Satan into eternal punishment in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7–10\). Second, Satan’s power, while no match for God’s, is yet strong. Satan can tempt humans, as he did with Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3\). He is sometimes given permission from God to inflict pain on people as in the case of Job (Job 1–2\). He was able to tempt Jesus but was unable to cause Him to stumble or sin (Matthew 4:1–11\). God warns us that Satan hunts for human victims in the way that a roaring lion prowls for his prey (1 Peter 5:8\). Satan’s power is not only limited in effectiveness today, but it is also limited in time. Evil faces an ultimate defeat in the future (see Revelation 12:12 and 20:10\). This brings us to our power in relation to Satan. Believers in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9\) have God’s Spirit living within them. Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” The same power that created the universe resides within us. As a result, Satan has no true power over believers in Christ. He cannot force us to sin, he cannot possess us, and he knows that we will ultimately have the victory over him. At the same time, Satan continues to cause problems for believers living in this fallen world. Ephesians 6:10–18 reminds us of the [spiritual battle](spiritual-battle.html) we face and the importance of walking in [spiritual armor](full-armor-of-God.html). In addition, James 4:7 tells us of our responsibility to resist Satan: “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” We have no authority over Satan in ourselves. God has all authority, and He fights on our behalf. Our response to Satan’s attacks should include submitting our lives to God, living in a holy manner, praying for God’s protection, and resisting sin. When we place ourselves under God’s protection, Satan has no authority over us. He will flee. In addition, we can respond to the devil’s temptations as Jesus did. All three times Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, the Lord responded by quoting God’s Word (Matthew 4:1–11\). If Jesus defeated temptation through Scripture, we should certainly rely on the Bible to overcome Satan’s temptation in our lives. It’s not called the “[sword of the Spirit](sword-of-the-Spirit.html)” for nothing (Ephesians 6:17\). The apostle Paul reminds us that Satan’s power will not last long. Romans 16:20 promises, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” Stand firm in the Lord, and you can live in victory over Satan’s schemes.
What are the books of 3 and 4 Maccabees?	Answer The books of 3 and 4 Maccabees are ancient Jewish writings included in various lists of the [Orthodox Church](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) canon. The canon of Orthodox deuterocanonical books and the Armenian Bible list 3 Maccabees, while 4 Maccabees is listed in the canon of the Georgian Orthodox Bible. The book of 3 Maccabees tells the story of persecution of the Jews under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222–205 BC) prior to the Maccabean uprising. Various scholars have dated the writing of 3 Maccabees as sometime between 100 BC and AD 30, though the exact date and author are uncertain. In contrast with its title, the book does not describe the actions of the Maccabees. The book of 4 Maccabees is a philosophic discourse extoling the supremacy of pious reason over passion. After the prologue, the first section of 4 Maccabees sets forth the philosophical thesis, and the second section illustrates the points made using examples drawn from the Maccabees (principally, the martyrdom of Eleazer and the Maccabean youths) under [Antiochus IV Epiphanes](Antiochus-Epiphanes.html). The early church historian [Eusebius](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html) attributed 4 Maccabees to the Jewish historian [Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html). However, many critics have since disputed Josephus’ authorship, though scholars generally agree 4 Maccabees was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70\. Much more well\-known than 3 and 4 Maccabees are [1 and 2 Maccabees](first-second-Maccabees.html). There is also a 5 Maccabees. The books of 1 and 2 Maccabees are included in the deuterocanonical books used by the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Church. The book of 5 Maccabees is also known as the Arabic 2 Maccabees and was written much later in history. The writers of the [Septuagint](septuagint.html), a Greek translation of the Old Testament, placed the books of the Maccabees (though not 5 Maccabees, which was written much later) in the category of “useful writings” rather than inspired Scripture. Neither 3 Maccabees nor 4 Maccabees is included among the 66 books of the Bible. Though 3 and 4 Maccabees may include some useful historical information, they should not be considered inspired writings from God alongside Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16–17\).
Can I ask God to deliver a message to a loved one who has died?	Answer Some people who have lost loved ones deeply desire to speak with them again. Some wonder if it is okay to ask God to give a message to their loved one in heaven. To be clear, there is no specific Bible verse that speaks directly for or against this idea. However, there are some biblical principles to consider. First, Scripture says we are not to attempt [communicating with the spirits of the dead](praying-to-the-dead.html). According to Old Testament Jewish laws, attempting to do so was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 18:11\). God also judged Saul for this practice (1 Samuel 28\). Since we are not to speak with spirits or attempt to contact the dead, it is wrong to pray directly to departed loved ones. It would also seem to follow that asking God to speak to the spirits of loved ones on our behalf is neither helpful nor necessary. Second, there’s no need to relay messages to people in heaven because those loved ones who are now with the Lord are not separated from us forever. Believers will one day reunite with loved ones in heaven. Instead of attempting to communicate a message to them now, we can look forward to something much better—seeing them again face\-to\-face in the presence of the Lord. Revelation 21:4 promises that in the end, “‘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.” Third, we can always come to God with our hurts and pain, knowing He perfectly understands how we feel. When we lose a loved one, the pain can be overwhelming. We want to communicate with the person or reconnect in some way, knowing things are not the same without him. God calls us to turn to Him in these times of pain. He is our comforter and healer. When we trust in Him, He can provide the help we need to carry on despite the painful loss of a loved one. We can rest assured that God is comforting our loved ones in heaven with a perfect consolation; any supposed comfort they may derive from our personal messages would pale in comparison. It is not a good decision to ask Jesus to be our telephone operator or personal courier. After all, He has already promised believers will be together again someday. Death is a natural part of life in a fallen world, though it is often difficult to handle. It is best to deal with separation from our loved ones in a way that honors Christ and gives all glory to Him. There is no reason to ask God to deliver our messages to loved ones in heaven.
Who was Ishmael in the Bible?	Answer Ishmael is considered a patriarch of [Islam](Islam.html) based upon legends that have developed around him and information found in the Qur’an. But what does the Bible tell us about Ishmael? Ishmael was the firstborn son of [Abraham](life-Abraham.html). God had appeared to Abraham and promised that he would have a son and that he would be the father of many nations (Genesis 15\). However, as time went on, Abraham had no children. His wife, [Sarah](life-Sarah.html), had been unable to conceive, and they began to question just how the promise would be fulfilled. In Genesis 16 Sarah suggests that Abraham should have a child with her slave [Hagar](Sarah-Hagar.html), an Egyptian. Apparently, this was a somewhat common practice at the time (also practiced in Genesis 30 by Jacob’s wives): the wife would give a female slave to her husband, but any children born would be counted as the children of the wife (perhaps an ancient version of surrogacy). While this may have seemed like a workable solution for Abraham and Sarah, in actuality it caused more problems than it solved. Hagar did conceive a child with Abraham. When Hagar knew she was pregnant, she began to “despise” Sarah, and Sarah appealed to Abraham for help. Abraham told Sarah to do as she saw fit, so she began to mistreat Hagar, and Hagar ran away (Genesis 16:4–6\). The angel of the Lord found Hagar in the desert and told her to return to Sarah. He then told her about her yet unborn son: “You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. \[Ishmael means “God hears.”] He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers” (Genesis 16:11–12\). So Hagar went back and bore a son; Abraham was 86 years old. In Genesis 17, when Abraham is 99 years old (making Ishmael approximately 13\), God appeared to him once again and reiterated the promise that he would be the father of many nations. God told Abraham that Sarah, who was 90 years old, will have a son. Abraham had a hard time believing this and asked that God would fulfill His promises through Ishmael (verse 18\). From this we can see that Abraham genuinely loved Ishmael. But God said the [promise](Abrahamic-covenant.html) will be fulfilled through a son that Sarah will bear: “Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year” (verses 19–21\). In Genesis 21, Sarah’s son, [Isaac](life-Isaac.html), is born, and once again problems arise. Sarah sees Ishmael mocking the young Isaac, and she demands action from Abraham: “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac” (verse 10\). “The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. But God said to him, ‘Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring’” (Genesis 21:11–13\). Once again, Abraham’s love for his son Ishmael comes through, and God promises to bless Ishmael. Abraham gathered some provisions and sent Hagar and Ishmael away. After the provisions had been exhausted, Hagar and Ishmael were overcome with grief, assuming that they would die in the desert. “God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, ‘What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.’ Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink” (verses 17–19\). Once again, God appeared to Hagar and promised that Ishmael will be a great nation. Finally, we are told that “God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt” (verses 20–21\). Upon Abraham’s death, he left everything to Isaac, but Ishmael did help his half\-brother bury Abraham (Genesis 25:9\). Genesis 25:12–18 lists the descendants of Ishmael. They are indeed numerous, divided into twelve tribes, and, as God had earlier revealed, “They lived in hostility toward all the tribes related to them” (verse 18\). Ishmael lived a total of 137 years (verse 17\). Genesis 25 is the last mention of Ishmael as an individual (except for later genealogies); however, his descendants continue to be mentioned in relation to Israel. Esau marries a descendant of Ishmael since his mother did not want him to marry Canaanite women (see Genesis 28:6–8; 36:3\). Ishmaelites are mentioned as a people group in Genesis 37—Joseph’s brothers sold him to Ishmaelite traders who took him to Egypt as a slave. Ishmaelites are mentioned incidentally a few more times in the Old Testament (as well as other, unrelated men named Ishmael), but the New Testament is silent about him. Ishmael is not held up as an example either to be followed or avoided. Islamic lore reports that Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca, and Ishmael is considered a patriarch of Islam. While it is not accurate to say that all Arabs are descended from Ishmael, many probably are. There is still a great deal of strife between the descendants of Isaac and those who see Ishmael as their father. One wonders how things might have been different had Abraham simply trusted God to bring about His promise without any added “help” from Abraham and Sarah.
Who was King Jehoshaphat in the Bible?	Answer King Jehoshaphat was the fourth king of Judah under the divided monarchy, the son of [Asa](King-Asa.html). We are first introduced to him in 1 Kings 15:24 but are told nothing more than that he succeeded Asa. Later, 1 Kings 22:42 tells us that he was 35 years old when he began his reign and that he reigned 25 years (from 873 to 848 BC). First Kings 22 gives a brief account of his reign with 2 Chronicles 17–22 giving a more comprehensive account. Spiritually, Jehoshaphat began his reign in a positive way. Second Chronicles 17:3–6 gives this commendation: “The Lord was with Jehoshaphat because he followed the ways of his father David before him. He did not consult the [Baals](who-Baal.html) but sought the God of his father and followed his commands rather than the practices of Israel. The Lord established the kingdom under his control; and all Judah brought gifts to Jehoshaphat, so that he had great wealth and honor. His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the [Asherah poles](Asherah-pole.html) from Judah.” In addition, Jehoshaphat sent men throughout the kingdom to teach the people the Law of God (2 Chronicles 17:7–9\). Militarily, Jehoshaphat fortified his defenses, primarily against the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Chronicles 17:1–3\). The surrounding nations feared Judah and brought tribute (2 Chronicles 17:10–19\). After making peace with Israel, Jehoshaphat apparently tried to reach out to [Ahab](King-Ahab.html), the king of Israel. Ahab was one of the wickedest kings of Israel, and Jehoshaphat could not have been ignorant of his character. First Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18 relate the following account: Ahab asks Jehoshaphat to help him attack Syria. Jehoshaphat wisely requests that they consult the LORD on the matter. Ahab gathers 400 of his prophets who encourage the attack. Jehoshaphat recognizes that these are not genuine prophets of the LORD, and the exchange that follows between Jehoshaphat and Ahab is almost comical: “But Jehoshaphat asked, ‘Is there no longer a prophet of the Lord here whom we can inquire of?’ The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, ‘There is still one prophet through whom we can inquire of the Lord, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah.’” So, [Micaiah](Micaiah-in-the-Bible.html) is summoned, and the question is posed. Micaiah responds with high irony: “Attack and be victorious, . . . for the Lord will give it into the king’s hand.” This answer exasperates King Ahab: “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?” Micaiah then tells Ahab the hard truth: “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the Lord said, ‘These people have no master’” (1 Kings 22:15–18\). In spite of what seems to be an acknowledgement that Micaiah speaks for the LORD, Jehoshaphat joins Ahab in the attack. Ahab is killed, and Jehoshaphat narrowly escapes. When Jehoshaphat returns home, he is reprimanded by a prophet of the Lord for his collaboration with Ahab: “Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, ‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, the wrath of the Lord is on you. There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God’” (2 Chronicles 19:2–3\). Jehoshaphat continues to make reforms, appointing judges throughout the land to handle disputes and charging them to make righteous judgments and to fear the Lord (2 Chronicles 19:4–11\). In 2 Chronicles 20, an alliance of nations decides to march against Judah. Jehoshaphat seeks the Lord and asks all Judah to fast (verse 3\). Through a man named Jahaziel, the Lord tells Jehoshaphat that He will deliver Judah without a fight (verses 14–17\). Jehoshaphat goes out to battle with singers leading the way, singing praise to the Lord. The alliance of nations turn against each other and begin to kill each other (verses 22–23\). The men of Judah spend three days collecting the spoils of war that were abandoned by their enemies (verse 25\). Although Jehoshaphat started his reign by removing the idolatrous high places, at the end of his reign, there were still high places that had not been taken away (1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 20\). Jehoshaphat started well, but his diligence flagged, and the idol\-worship returned. First Kings 22:41–50 and 2 Chronicles 20:35–37 record a joint ship\-building venture that Jehoshaphat attempted with the wicked king Ahaziah of Israel. Jehoshaphat, who had already been chastised for an alliance with Ahab, is once again confronted by a prophet with a warning. It seems that Jehoshaphat heeded the warning and did not allow Ahaziah’s men to sail with the Judeans, but the judgment still came to pass: the fleet was wrecked, and Jehoshaphat’s foolish investment with Ahaziah proved futile. Jehoshaphat is still considered a good and godly king, but his reign ended rather badly. He kept trying to build an alliance with Israel, even though the kings of Israel were obviously wicked. Jehoshaphat worshiped the Lord and led his people in seeking the Lord, but the hearts of the people were never fully changed. They reverted to pagan practices. King Jehoshaphat was unable to pass his faith on to his son [Jehoram](King-Jehoram-Joram.html) who reigned after him. Jehoram started by killing all of his brothers, and then he married the daughter of Ahab (2 Chronicles 21:4–6\).
What was the significance of gatekeepers in the Bible?	Answer [Gates](city-gate.html) are mentioned often in Scripture, and gatekeepers were an important part of maintaining order in ancient societies. Gatekeepers were guards stationed for protection at various kinds of gates, which could be city gates, palace gates, or temple gates. Ancient cities had high, thick walls around them to keep out wild beasts and invading armies (Joshua 7:5; Judges 5:8; Nehemiah 12:30\). Heavy gates were set within those walls to allow entrance and exit. A gatekeeper had to be trustworthy and alert for any signs of trouble. A gatekeeper lax in his duties could bring ruin upon an entire civilization, so the idea of gatekeeping implies alertness and security. The keeper of the gates in Psalm 141:3 is none other than the Lord Himself, as He guards our mouths, preventing us from unwise speech. David and Samuel appointed 212 gatekeepers for “positions of trust” in guarding the temple of the Lord (1 Chronicles 9:22\), and those so appointed rotated through week\-long assignments (verse 25\). Verses 26–29 speak of the four principal gatekeepers, “who . . . were entrusted with the responsibility for the rooms and treasuries in the house of God. They would spend the night stationed around the house of God, because they had to guard it; and they had charge of the key for opening it each morning. Some of them were in charge of the articles used in the temple service; they counted them when they were brought in and when they were taken out. Others were assigned to take care of the furnishings and all the other articles of the sanctuary, as well as the special flour and wine, and the olive oil, incense and spices.” Temple gatekeepers were in charge of who went in and who went out. They ensured order and reverence for God’s house. [Ezra](life-Ezra.html) records that 139 gatekeepers made the trip from Babylon to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:42\). When [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html) had finished the rebuilding of the wall around the city of Jerusalem, gatekeepers were some of the first positions he appointed (Nehemiah 7:1\). This is significant because, before a city can conduct business, it must be protected from outside invaders. The Lord’s house required gatekeepers for the same reason. Before God’s business could be conducted properly, only the prescribed priests and other designated servants could be allowed through the gates. God had given clear commands about temple business (Exodus 25:8–9; cf. Hebrews 9:1–7\). Gatekeepers were part of that holy business, and their positions were considered sacred (1 Chronicles 9:26; Nehemiah 12:47\). We can easily see the parallel for our own lives. Our [conscience](conscience.html), the [fear of the Lord](fear-Lord-beginning-wisdom.html), and the Holy Spirit are “gatekeepers” for our hearts. “Through the fear of the LORD evil is avoided” (Proverbs 16:6\). The Spirit desires our [sanctification](sanctification.html), giving us the power to repel sin. When temptation comes knocking at our gate, the Holy Spirit nudges our Scripture\-informed conscience: “That’s dangerous. Don’t go there.” The divine Gatekeeper acts on our behalf to keep invaders from destroying us. John Bunyan illustrates the need for a spiritual “gatekeeper” in his book The Holy War. In this allegory, Bunyan likens humanity to a city: “This famous town of Mansoul had five gates, in at which to come, out of which to go; and these were . . . impregnable, and such as could never be opened nor forced but by the will and leave of those within. The names of the gates were these: Ear\-gate, Eye\-gate, Mouth\-gate, Nose\-gate, and Feel\-gate” (chapter 1, p. 62–63\). In other words, the five senses are the “gates” by which the human soul interacts with the world through the physical body. These gates must be guarded, and, in Bunyan’s allegory, Mr. Godly\-Fear is just the man to do it. Godly\-Fear was a trustworthy man of “courage, conduct, and valour,” and the enemy attacked Mansoul in vain, as long as Godly\-Fear was the gatekeeper (chapter 15, p. 285\). When we ignore our Gatekeeper, we put ourselves and those we love in jeopardy. But when we, in godly fear, heed the warnings of the Word and the Holy Spirit, we are safe. Our hearts and lives are protected from Satan’s invasive schemes (Ephesians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 2:11\).
What was the significance of anointing spices in the Bible?	Answer “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body” (Mark 16:1\). The women’s visit to the tomb is also mentioned in Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1, though Luke is the only other gospel writer to mention the spices they brought with them. Luke 23:56 adds that, on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, the women “went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.” John 19:39 reveals that [Nicodemus](Nicodemus-in-the-Bible.html) had already used spices on the body of Jesus: “Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy\-five pounds.” The main reason a dead body was anointed with spices was to control the smell of decomposition. Jews did not practice embalming, and the funeral spices were a way to help minimize unpleasant odors. At the tomb of [Lazarus](Lazarus-in-the-Bible.html), when Jesus asked for the stone to be rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, Martha objected: “By this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days” (John 11:39\). The spices the women brought to Jesus’ tomb were intended to eliminate such an odor and honor the body of Christ. The fact that the women brought spices to anoint Jesus’ dead body showed they did not expect Jesus to literally rise from the dead. After resting on the Sabbath (Saturday) according to Jewish custom, the women traveled to Jesus’ tomb early Sunday morning with plans to provide the traditional spices used on a dead body. This group of women included [Mary Magdalene](Mary-Magdalene.html), Mary the mother of James, Salome, [Joanna](Joanna-in-the-Bible.html), and possibly others (Luke 24:10\). Their primary concern was over how the stone would be moved to allow them entrance to the tomb. When they arrived at the tomb, they were surprised to see the stone already rolled away and [no body inside](empty-tomb.html). In their act of devotion, these faithful and reverent followers of Jesus became the first witnesses of the empty tomb and the first to see Jesus alive again. The spices they brought were unneeded, since Jesus was alive forevermore, but their zealous loyalty to the Savior was rewarded with the honor of becoming the first eyewitnesses of the resurrected Lord.
Should a Christian be a prepper or in any way be involved with doomsday prepping?	Answer The sky is falling! The end is near! Prepare now for doomsday! For centuries, people have been predicting the end of the world or some other cataclysmic disaster, and, stirred by their passion, many more people try to prepare for it. Preppers, as they are called, are known for stockpiling food, weapons, and other supplies as they await [doomsday](doomsday-predictions.html). Even Christians have gotten caught up in end\-times predictions, tangling biblical prophecy with fear and current events. Some Christians believe they must physically prepare for Armageddon, the return of Jesus, or World War III—whichever comes first. Of course, Jesus is coming back, and the earth as we know it will some day come to an end, but should Christians be preppers? Does the Bible say anything about doomsday prepping? Prepping is big business. Websites, books, and products abound that promise inside information about impending doom and give instructions about storing, canning, or freeze\-drying food and purifying water. Y2K, the scare during the late 1990s, started the current trend toward prepping, and the practice has continued as the world gets crazier. During the Y2K frenzy, thousands sold their homes and dug hideouts for their families in the event of a nuclear or chemical attack or a worldwide financial meltdown. In some regions, the prepper mentality is still going strong, even leading to standoffs with law enforcement. Some people simply want to live more self\-sustaining lifestyles by using solar energy, growing their own food, and keeping livestock for dairy products and meat. They consider it wise to be less dependent upon utility companies and supermarkets for daily survival, but these people are not motivated by paranoia and fear. They are not considered preppers in the strictest sense but are focused on simplifying their lifestyles. Many Christians have adopted this lifestyle in varying degrees, especially among the homeschooling community. They find that raising crops and livestock is a better lifestyle for their families and consider it a bonus that they are also prepared in the event of most emergencies, ranging from power outages to terrorism. To be considered a “prepper,” a person must be preoccupied with thoughts of preparing for an impending disaster. Some extreme preppers have quit their jobs, burrowed into underground bunkers, and gone completely off the grid to await the end of all things. They see every negative news story as evidence that they are right and doomsday is just around the corner. For Christians to behave this way means that they have lost sight of our mandate to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19\). They have also lost sight of the fact that God’s people are not to live in fear (Isaiah 41:10; Matthew 10:28\). First Peter 3:14 says, “But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. ‘Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.’” When [fear](end-of-days.html) or self\-centered survivalism is the motivation for prepping, it becomes a lifestyle that cannot be supported by Scripture. We are to live wisely in this world, while remembering that this world is not our home (Hebrews 13:14\). And we are to love others as we love ourselves (Galatians 5:14; Luke 10:27\). Preppers, for the most part, have self\-protection as their highest goal. They stockpile for themselves and their families. But what about their neighbors? What about those who may be in need in time of crisis? What are the guns for? Are they prepared to shoot hungry families who come knocking on their barricaded door? The doomsday prepper mindset can take on a desperate life of its own and lead Christians down a decidedly non\-Christian path. Some Christians have adopted a prepper lifestyle with the purpose of being able to provide for the community in the event of catastrophe. They may have massive storage facilities from which they already sell produce and consider their food cache similar to Joseph’s storehouses (Genesis 41:46–57\). Some people have even created community gardens and neighborhood livestock barns and have enjoyed the camaraderie of their neighbors in this joint venture. Such motivation is pleasing to the Lord because it is not self\-centered (Philippians 2:4\). A Christian may be a prepper if the Lord is directing that action as a means of furthering His kingdom and ministering to others (1 Corinthians 10:31; Matthew 6:33\). If one’s heart motive is love and a desire to utilize what God has given in order to share the gospel and care for as many people as possible in time of need, then prepping is a biblically sound choice. However, most prepping is motivated by fear and self\-preservation. It is driven by a lack of faith, and Romans 14:23 says that “whatever is not from faith is sin.” The reasons that a Christian becomes involved with doomsday prepping are what determine whether or not God approves.
Should a Christian mortgage a home?	Answer A mortgage is a legal agreement in which a person borrows money to buy property (such as a house) and pays back the money with interest. Most homes in America are obtained through mortgages, since the purchase price of most livable houses is far outside the financial means of most home buyers. So people who desire to own a home rather than rent are faced with a dilemma: purchase a shack with cash on hand or take out a mortgage to purchase a nicer house they can reasonably afford. But a mortgage means the home buyer will be [indebted](money-debt.html) to the loan company for thirty years, usually, paying interest and taxes on a depreciating property. Is this a wise use of the money God has entrusted to us? Is it wrong for a Christian to buy a house on a mortgage? God entrusts His people with resources so they may lend to those in need and [give](cheerful-giver.html) generously (Psalm 15:5; 37:21; Matthew 5:42\). When we are faithful with those resources, He often entrusts us with more (Luke 16:10\). However, when all our resources are tied up in interest rates and debt repayment, we have little left to invest in God’s kingdom. Romans 13:7–8 gives us another clue into God’s ideal: “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law” (emphasis added). The King James Version words it this way: “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another.” As faithful stewards of all God has given us, we should desire that our financial choices move us toward living as debt\-free as possible. Some people consider themselves to be living debt\-free when a house payment is their only outstanding debt. They pay cash for used cars and pay off their credit cards every month so that there is never a fee or interest payment. When they have purchased a home with a mortgage that is well within their means, they are still living responsible lives of stewardship. They would have to be paying rent anyway, so the house payment is actually a wiser investment. They own the house rather than the house owning them. However, many people don’t do their financial homework first before talking to a real estate agent and are persuaded to take out a mortgage on a house that costs more than they can easily afford. Simply because a person may “qualify” for a certain amount does not mean he should lock himself into such high payments. Wise home buyers prayerfully consider all their options. They ask themselves whether a smaller, less expensive home would be just as useful. And they are careful to plan payments around one paycheck, leaving room for unforeseeable emergencies. One error people often make in taking out a mortgage is assuming that their lifestyle and income will remain the same as it was on closing day. James 4:14–15 says, “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.’” It is dangerous to lock ourselves into debt payments that are dependent upon our jobs and financial status always remaining the same. People get sick. Jobs close. Layoffs, cancer, and unexpected babies can all affect the income level, create major stress, and even lead to foreclosure. In the case of someone mortgaging the home he owns outright, the reasons for doing so should be unavoidable. Some people spend years paying off their home, but once they are debt\-free, they leap right back into debtor\-status by re\-mortgaging that home and using the cash for something that is transient or depreciates. If a financial crisis such as a medical emergency requires a huge financial outlay, then mortgaging the home may be the only option. But, depending on the laws in that area, a family could be setting themselves up to be homeless when they cannot repay the second mortgage. There are many factors, both financial and spiritual, to consider before mortgaging a home. It is unwise to rush into a mortgage because we are unwilling to wait upon the Lord’s timing in providing the home He wants for us (Psalm 145:14–19\). It’s tempting to want what our friends have and so bite off more than we can chew (James 4:3\). Or to go after our dreams in our own ways rather than trust the Lord to provide in His way (Psalm 37:4\). In those cases, it would be wrong to mortgage a home and place indebtedness over our finances for the next thirty years. God may have other plans for our lives that indebtedness would prevent. However, if the Lord has provided an excellent opportunity that is well within our means, and it will not impede our ability to weather life changes or give faithfully to His work, then a mortgage may be the best way to provide stability for our families.
Is artificial intelligence (AI) biblically possible?	Answer Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a phrase referring to a program or computer system that thinks, reasons, and learns in the same way as a human being. This has long been a theme of science fiction—the droids from the Star Wars films are thinking, reasoning, emoting machines. Fictional AI often takes on a villain’s role, such as HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, the machines of The Matrix, or the character Ultron from Marvel Comics. The concept of advanced artificial intelligence is related to the idea of a technological singularity, the point at which manmade creations overtake humans in terms of reasoning ability, problem\-solving, and self\-development. Despite hopes and fears to the contrary, there is no reason to think that true artificial intelligence is possible, let alone actual. Many who see artificial intelligence on the horizon point to the development of machines and other technology. They note how industrial robots are faster and/or stronger than people. Calculators can perform operations with perfect accuracy and in much less time than a human being. Computers, of course, can store, recall, and manipulate data far more efficiently than can a person. AI proponents often point to computers that have beaten human opponents in contests such as chess or the TV game show Jeopardy. Following this type of reasoning, some suggest that technology may advance such that machines will be able to think as well as or better than the average person. An analogy to show how such reasoning falls short relates to animals and people. When someone says, “Machines and AI will be better or smarter than human beings,” it’s like saying, “Animals are better than humans. Cheetahs are faster. Elephants are bigger. Birds are more agile.” The problem, of course, is all of those are separate animals, and they are only “better” in separate categories. A single AI program might be “better” at chess or cooking or even making music. But for AI to be legitimately as smart as or smarter than people, a single program would need to excel in all of those things at once. Key to understanding the idea of artificial intelligence is carefully defining terms such as intelligence; in popular depictions of AI, more common terms are variations of smart or smarter. Computers often appear to be intelligent, when in fact they are performing extremely low\-level thinking extremely quickly. They aren’t actually smart; they are just capable of doing certain tasks in less time than people can. There are some tasks they cannot do at all. If a person defines intelligence in a way that eliminates concepts such as morality, emotion, empathy, humor, relationship, and so forth, then the phrase artificial intelligence is not so meaningful. This is a particularly important point to keep in mind when discussing strategy games like chess or go, in which computers often defeat even the greatest human masters. This, some say, is proof that computers can be smarter than people and perhaps already are. And yet the program that bests a human in a strategy game is designed specifically for playing that game. It might win, but the human can then leave the room and do many, many other things that the machine cannot do. The software that allows the machine to succeed in a trivia game can’t tell you how to tie your shoes. Or make a sandwich. Or draw a flower. Or write a limerick. Nor can it comfort a sick child, pretend to be a character in a play, or watch a movie and later explain the plot to someone else. The truth is that those purpose\-built AI computers are markedly less intelligent than the humans whom they defeated in narrow contests. Further, even the most advanced computer still pits human intelligence against human intelligence. On one side is a single person; on the other is a machine mechanically drawing on the collective intelligence of many people. A computer that beats people at chess or checkers or Jeopardy is not “smarter” than the people it beats. It’s just better at getting certain results according to the rules of that particular game. The phrase technological singularity specifically refers to that theoretical moment when artificial intelligence reaches a tipping point, after which it self\-improves without human input and beyond human ability. In some cases, technological singularity is anticipated as a boon to mankind, with all humanity benefitting from the discoveries made by a vastly superior intellect. In other cases—most, in fact—singularity is feared as precipitating the downfall of the human race—as depicted in movies such as The Terminator and its sequels. A common staple of science fiction is a computer system that evolves and learns so quickly that it outruns the human mind and eventually dominates the world. The concept of technological singularity also assumes that processing power will advance forever. This is contrary to what we know about the natural laws of the universe. The rate of growth in computing technology eventually runs into the limits of physics; scientists and computer experts agree there is a “hard limit” to how fast certain technologies can operate. Since the complexity required to simulate a human mind is so far beyond even theoretical designs, there is no objective reason to say that true artificial intelligence can exist, let alone that it will exist. On a more abstract level, math and logic also strongly suggest that AI can never replace the human mind. Concepts such as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem strongly suggest that a system can never become more complex or more capable than its originator. To make an AI better than a human brain, we’d need to fully understand and then surpass ourselves, which is logically contradictory. Spiritually, we understand our own limits because, being creations of God (Genesis 1:27\), we can’t outdo God’s creative power (Isaiah 55:8–9\). Also, God’s depiction of the future does not seem to include any kind of technological singularity (see the [book of Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html)). Regardless of the limitations they face, researchers continue to attempt to develop artificial intelligence, and large sums are being invested in programs that promise to further work in virtual assistants (such as Alexa or Cortana), deep learning platforms, and biometrics. Not surprisingly, there is already a religion, called Way of the Future, started by a former Google engineer, that plans to worship AI and look to it as mankind’s caretaker and guide. Such futile imaginings are nothing new; humanity has often been guilty of worshiping the work of their own hands. The Way of the Future is just a modern version of carving an [idol](idol-worship.html). In short, AI might be able to perform certain, limited tasks better than a person can, but there is no logical, philosophical, or biblical reason to think it can be “better” in a meaningful sense. AI might emulate the patterns human beings use when we think, but it can never replace the prowess, dexterity, and creativity of the human mind. Despite fears and speculations, the weight of science, observation, and Scripture refutes the possibility of true artificial intelligence or a technological singularity. In short, the concept of AI makes for entertaining fiction, but not much else.
Is belief in the Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU) the same thing as belief in the God of the Bible?	Answer The term Great Architect of the Universe (or Grand Architect of the Universe) is used by a number of groups but figures prominently in Masonic teaching. Belief in the GAOTU is foundational in [Freemasonry](free-masonry.html). But the Great Architect of the Universe is not the God of the Bible, and faith in one does not equate to faith in the other. There is a sense in which God can be considered the “Architect of the Universe,” as He is the Creator (Genesis 1:1\). The fact that the world is the result of an Intelligent Designer should be a common starting point for all people (see Romans 1:18, 21\). And God is certainly great, so we could honestly call Him the Great Architect of the Universe—but the term carries much Masonic baggage. Many non\-Christian groups acknowledge a Creator—Jews, Muslims, Deists, and many Native American tribes—but the gods those groups worship are different from the God of the Bible. Freemasonry speaks of the Great Architect of the Universe, but it does not affirm the truth of who God is, according to the Bible. Freemasons use the term Great Architect of the Universe precisely because it is ambiguous. GAOTU is meant to be a neutral term. From a Masonic publication: “FREEMASONRY offers no doctrine as to the nature and attributes of God. It has no theory to propound, no philosophy to promulgate, as to His relations to men and to the universe. The Craft assumes that God is a reality, a sacred and unquestioned reality, in the mind of every man, . . . and it leaves to that man the prerogative of fashioning his own theological and philosophical theories. A man may believe in the Trinity or deny the same; he may believe in the deity of Jesus or not; he may hold that God created the universe out of nothing or he may prefer to think that the universe is co\-existent with God. . . . Masonry does not demand that we define, or accept any definitions of Him, but it does demand that He be real” (The Builder, June 1921, Volume VII, Number 6, Joseph Newton, ed.). The Great Architect of the Universe may or may not be triune; He may or may not be [incarnate](God-incarnate.html) in Jesus Christ; He may or may not be equal to the universe; and He leaves it up to each person to decide what is “true” about Him. This is not the God of the Bible, by any stretch of the imagination. The True God is known only through Jesus Christ (John 14:6, 9\), so faith in Christ is not optional. The True God exists as a three\-in\-one Tri\-unity and has clearly communicated what He wants us to know of Him through special revelation (Hebrews 1:1–3\). A person’s concept of God may or may not accord with the truth; we can only know the truth as we submit to the sanctifying work of the Bible (John 17:17; Psalm 19:7\). Maintaining a belief in the Great Architect of the Universe is essentially no more than an acknowledgment that a god of some type exists. But that falls far short of a fully biblical faith. In fact, the belief that a creator god exists is on par with the “faith” of demons: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:19\). While visiting Athens, Paul found an altar to an [Unknown God](unknown-god.html). Paul used that monument as a springboard for the gospel, stating that the Athenians needed to know more about that God and that he would tell them what they needed to know. Paul started with creation (Acts 17:24\) and ended with the Jesus Christ, the resurrection, and final judgment (verse 31\). In many ways, Freemasonry acknowledges the same type of “Unknown God,” a neutral deity whom they call the Great Architect of the Universe. But the GAOTU will remain unknown, and unknowable, until human philosophy is abandoned and the revelation of God is embraced. “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him” (John 5:23\). If a person is witnessing to someone steeped in Masonic teaching, he or she might use the term Grand Architect of the Universe as a point of contact to share more biblical truth, just as missionaries often use the local terms and ideas about God as starting points for sharing fuller biblical truth. (Missionary Don Richardson has written a book called Eternity in Their Hearts about the value of this approach.) The God of the Bible is certainly the “Architect” of all created things, but, as Jesus showed us, He is so much more.
What is The Old Path / Members Church of God International / Ang Dating Daan?	Answer The Old Path is the radio and TV program of Eliseo Soriano, the founder of the Members Church of God International (MCGI), based in the Philippines. The Tagalog name of The Old Path is Ang Dating Daan (ADD). The Members Church of God International should be considered a [Christian cult](cult-definition.html), due to its denial of some orthodox biblical doctrines and its exclusivity. Eliseo Soriano, called by members of his church “Brother Eli,” was a disciple of the late Nicolas Perez, the founder and presiding minister of “Church of God in Christ Jesus, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth,” another religious organization that separated from the “Church of God,” founded by Felix Manalo. Soriano goes by the title of “Overall Servant”; he also refers to himself as “Wise One,” “Walking Bible,” “Modern Jeremiah,” “Appointed One,” and “He Who Holds the Key.” Soriano has lived in exile from the Philippines since 2005 due to legal challenges, including charges of slander and an accusation of homosexual rape. Eli Soriano boldly proclaims himself “the most sensible preacher of all time.” Soriano makes use of television, radio, and social media programs utilizing a question\-and\-answer method to propagate his teachings. His method of biblical interpretation is extremely literalistic, but he does not utilize sound hermeneutical principles. The Members Church of God International has no written statement of faith, which may be due to the fact that Soriano often contradicts his own teachings. Soriano is also known for his profanity, spitting, and bad\-mouthing of his debate opponents on live TV. The Members Church of God International runs many charities in the fields of medicine, education, environmentalism, and social work. Overshadowing its charitable work, however, is the organization’s false doctrine. Members Church of God International teaches its own version of [Docetism](Docetism.html). Soriano teaches that Jesus is not a human being but only God and that Jesus only seemed to be human. This false teaching is refuted by 1 John 4:2–3, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” The apostle John essentially says that the belief that Jesus Christ did not become a true human being is anti\-Christian. Soriano doesn’t believe in the doctrine of the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html); instead, the Members Church of God International teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit are only “three powers in heaven.” According to Soriano, Christ is only a “mighty God,” not the “Almighty God,” while the Holy Spirit is only a literal power of God. Members Church of God International also teaches the following: – God has human body parts like arms, eyes, and feet. But God has no knees, since He will not worship any other gods (there are many gods according to Soriano). Scripture says that the true God has no physical body parts for He is Spirit (John 4:24\). – God is residing in His own planet somewhere in the universe. This teaching is somewhat similar to the Mormon doctrine that the gods who came down to earth were residing near a planet named Kolob. – God is not omnipresent. He can choose to be in one place and absent in another. This flatly contradicts the teaching of the Bible, which says God is omnipresent. “‘Am I only a God nearby,’ declares the Lord, ‘and not a God far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:23–24\). – Salvation comes through joining the Members Church of God International, being baptized, and performing works of righteousness. Consider this statement taken from Soriano’s website: “We believe that God is calling His people with determination to serve Him, bringing them in His fold, teaching them righteousness after baptism for their sins to be covered by the priceless blood of Christ poured in Mount Calvary, for the redemption of sin, to make them qualify for life eternal in heaven.” MCGI’s gospel is work\-based, highlighting what man must do to be saved. In contrast, the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone: “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9\). – Celebration of feasts and Christmas are forms of idolatry, according to the Members Church of God International. MCGI also bans going to the movies and drinking alcoholic beverages, and women are prohibited from wearing make\-up, wearing pants and tight shirts, and cutting their hair. Many of the Members Church of God International’s doctrines are unbiblical. And there is certainly nothing in Soriano’s harangues of opponents that accords with the biblical instruction that a pastor “must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful” (2 Timothy 2:24\).The popularity of The Old Path and the humanitarian work of MCGI notwithstanding, the Members Church of God International should be avoided.
Is Jesus coming soon?	Answer Soon is a relative term. If you are microwaving popcorn, soon means within the next three minutes. If you are awaiting the birth of a child, soon can mean anything up to nine months. So when we ask, “Is Jesus coming soon?” we have to qualify the meaning of soon. Jesus Himself said that He is coming soon: “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’” (Revelation 22:20\). And then John adds these words: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” John’s book was penned nearly two thousand years ago, which leads many people to wonder what Jesus meant by “soon.” The Greek word tachu, which is translated “soon” or “quickly,” means “without unnecessary delay.” It does not mean “immediately.” The same word is used in other places in the New Testament, but, interestingly, it is used most often by Jesus in the book of Revelation (Revelation 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, and 20\). The meaning seems to be that events have been set in motion that will usher in His arrival without any unnecessary delay. Everything is moving along according to God’s timetable. Peter reassures us that God is not dragging His feet concerning prophetic events. God’s timing is perfect: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9\). In this light we may understand that Jesus is coming “soon” in that God’s plan is advancing and is only delayed to allow for all the [elect](elect-of-God.html) to be saved (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:5\)—a necessary postponement. The Bible teaches that Jesus’ return for His church is imminent, which means the [rapture](rapture-of-the-church.html) could happen at any moment. The apostles seem to have believed that Jesus would come back in their lifetimes. They referred often to the “last days” (1 Peter 1:20; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:2\) and urged believers to be ready. It appears that Jesus also intended for us to believe in His imminent return, because He often urged His followers to “be ready” (Luke 12:40; 21:34–36; Mark 13:33\). Because no one has known or can predict exactly when He is coming again (see Matthew 24:36\), we should live in the expectancy that He may come any moment. That seems to be Jesus’ point in not being more specific. He wants every generation to live with the conscious awareness that the Lord may suddenly appear and we will have to give an accounting of the way He finds us (Luke 12:38\). To answer the question, “Is Jesus coming soon?” we say, “Yes, He will come without unnecessary delay.”
What happened on Paul’s second missionary journey?	Answer After [Paul’s first missionary journey](Paul-first-missionary-journey.html), he and Barnabas returned to Syrian Antioch and reported the great number of Gentiles in modern\-day Turkey who had believed. They stayed “no little time” there (Acts 14:28\). While in Antioch, Paul and [Barnabas](life-Barnabas.html) were met by a group who came down from Judea (“down” refers to elevation; Jerusalem sits at 2,582 feet above sea level, and Syrian Antioch about 220 feet) who taught that the Gentile converts must conform to Jewish standards, such as dietary laws and circumcision. Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by the church elders to go to Jerusalem and hear what the apostles had to say. At the [Jerusalem Council](Jerusalem-Council.html), after much deliberation, Peter stood and proclaimed that salvation was by faith, not works, and it was inappropriate to place such a “yoke” on the Gentiles’ neck (Acts 15:10–11\). James, the leader of the Jerusalem church and a half\-brother of Christ, concurred, adding that, for the sake of peace within the church, the Gentiles should abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, and from eating blood or the meat of strangled animals (Acts 15:29\). Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch with representatives from the church in Jerusalem with these statements, and the Gentiles rejoiced that they didn’t have to be circumcised in order to be truly Christian. After some time, Paul proposed to Barnabas a second missionary journey together. Paul’s plan was to return to the cities and churches they’d visited in Asia Minor on their first missionary journey (Acts 15:36\). Barnabas agreed, but he wanted to take his cousin, [John Mark](John-Mark-in-the-Bible.html), who had abandoned them shortly into that first trip (verses 37–38\). Paul refused to take Mark with them, so Barnabas took Mark and set sail for Cyprus (verse 39\). Paul took [Silas](life-Silas.html), one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church who had accompanied Paul to Antioch (verse 40\). Instead of sailing, Paul started the second missionary journey overland, crossing one mountain range to Tarsus, then another to Derbe and Lystra as he and Silas moved west. In the area of Derbe and Lystra, Paul met up with [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) who joined Paul and Silas as a ministry partner. Then Paul did something curious. Despite the fact that Timothy’s father was Greek and the church in Jerusalem had just decreed that Gentile believers did not have to be circumcised, Paul circumcised Timothy. Orthodox Judaism still holds that Jewishness comes from the mother’s line, and Timothy’s mother was Jewish. As far as the Jews in Asia Minor were concerned, Timothy was a Jew who did not respect his Jewish heritage. “Because of the Jews,” Paul made sure Timothy was in a position to receive respect as a Jewish believer (Acts 16:9\). This is a classic example of deference—the yielding of one’s rights in order not to offend those to whom one ministers. Although Paul had planned on spending some time in the cities where he had earlier planted churches, the Holy Spirit guided him through Asia Minor quickly. On this second missionary journey, the Spirit forbade Paul to speak in the province of Asia, kept them out of Bithynia near the Black Sea, and led them directly to Troas, on the coast of the Aegean Sea. While in Troas, Paul received a vision of a man in Macedonia (in northern Greece) asking Paul to come and help them. Apparently, Luke joined the team at this point because he reports that “immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them” (Acts 16:10\). The use of first\-person pronouns indicates that Luke was at that point a fellow traveler. Paul’s second missionary journey continued as the group sailed from Troas to the small island of Samothrace, then to the city of Neapolis on the Greek coast. They quickly made their way to the Roman colony of Philippi and stayed for a while (Acts 16:11–12\). On the Sabbath, they went to the riverside where they supposed the Jews would gather and found a group of women who had come to pray. One of the women there was a merchant named [Lydia](Lydia-in-the-Bible.html). She and her household were converted and baptized, and she compelled the missionaries to stay in her home (Acts 16:13–15\). Lydia thus became the first convert to Christianity on European soil. Sometime later, while going to a place of prayer, the missionaries were accosted by a slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination. The girl followed them, saying, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation” (Acts 16:16–17\), and after several days Paul commanded the demon to leave her (verse 18\). When the slave girl’s owners found that their source of income was destroyed, they brought Paul and Silas to the magistrate and incited the crowd against them. The missionaries were stripped, beaten, flogged, and thrown into prison, and their feet were placed in stocks (verses 19–24\). All of this was highly illegal, since Paul and Silas were Roman citizens and had the right to a trial. Around midnight, Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns when an earthquake shook the prison, opening the prison doors and loosening the chains of all the prisoners (Acts 16:26\). When the jailor found the doors open, he drew his sword to kill himself, thinking the prisoners had fled and he would be held responsible (verse 27\). But then he heard the voice of Paul telling him all the prisoners were still there. The jailor immediately asked how to be saved (verse 30\), and Paul and Silas answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (verse 31\). The jailor took Paul and Silas to his home, where he fed them and bandaged their wounds. He and his household believed and were baptized that same night (verses 32–34\). The next morning, when the jailor received word from the magistrate that Paul and Silas were to be released, he told them they were free to leave Philippi (Acts 16:35–36\). They refused. As Roman citizens, Paul and Silas had been treated in violation of Roman law, and they demanded a public apology. The authorities were alarmed and came to the prison to personally escort Paul and Silas out (verses 37–39\). The missionaries left Philippi after visiting Lydia and the Christians there (verse 40\). From Philippi, Paul, Silas, and Timothy passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia before reaching Thessalonica. (It seems that Luke remained in Philippi.) Paul spent three Sabbaths in the synagogue, reasoning with the Jewish men (Acts 17:1–2\). Some were persuaded, but some were not. When Paul found a following of Gentiles and leading women, the Jewish men who had rejected Christ incited a mob and accused Paul and Silas of promoting another king besides Caesar and of turning “the world upside down” (verse 6, KJV). Unable to locate Paul and Silas, the mob dragged the missionaries’ host, Jason, to the city authorities. That night, Paul and Silas slipped away to Berea (verse 10\). The [Jews in Berea](who-Bereans.html) were much more accepting of Paul’s message; Luke says they had “more noble character” and searched the Scriptures daily to ascertain the truth of Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11\). Many respected Greeks, men and women, were converted. Unfortunately, the unbelieving Jews from Thessalonica soon tracked Paul to Berea and once again stirred up the crowds (verse 13\). The Christians quickly sent Paul to Athens by sea while Silas and Timothy remained behind, with instructions to join Paul as soon as they could (verses 14–15\). Paul found an attentive audience in Athens, and he was invited to speak at the [Areopagus](Mars-Hill.html) to the philosophers gathered there. Paul explained that the true God is not made of gold, silver, or stone and did not originate from the imagination of man (Acts 17:29\). The philosophers listened until Paul spoke of the resurrection of Christ, and then some began to scoff (verse 32\). A few men and women believed, but there is no record of Paul being able to establish a church there. Athenians were known for their endless debates, and many just wanted to hear Paul’s new “philosophy” and pick it apart (verse 21\). From Athens, Paul went to Corinth where he met fellow tentmakers [Priscilla and Aquila](Priscilla-and-Aquila.html). They were Jews who’d been exiled when Emperor Claudius commanded that all Jews leave Rome (Acts 18:1–3\). Silas and Timothy joined Paul in Corinth, and the group stayed in that city for a year and a half, preaching, gaining converts, and reasoning with those who rejected the gospel (verse 11\). “Many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized,” including [Crispus](Crispus-in-the-Bible.html), the leader of the synagogue (verse 8\). Eventually, the Jews brought Paul before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, for trial. Gallio determined that, since it was an internal matter of a religious nature, it was not his concern, and he dismissed the case (verses 14–16\). Paul’s second missionary journey continued as the missionary team left Corinth and sailed to Ephesus in Asia Minor, taking Priscilla and Aquila with them. Paul stayed in Ephesus for a little while, reasoning in the synagogue, but when the Ephesians begged him to stay, he declined (verse 20\). Priscilla and Aquila stayed in Ephesus (where they later converted and taught [Apollos](who-Apollos.html)), but Paul sailed from Ephesus to Caesarea in Israel, traveled to Jerusalem, greeted the church there, and then returned to Antioch (verse 22\). The second missionary journey had come to an end.
How should a Christian view tradition?	Answer The word tradition can have two meanings, one secular and one religious. The secular understanding is that tradition is a long\-established ritual, custom, or belief that is passed down from one generation to the next. For example, families have certain traditions in the way they celebrate holidays, birthdays, or vacations. Family traditions can be a healthy and positive way to maintain family cohesiveness. Social traditions can help create a sense of belonging within a community. A school may have a tradition that each year the incoming freshmen are escorted to the first football game by the seniors. Following those traditions builds unity and helps maintain social norms. In the religious arena, however, tradition can blur the line between God’s truth and man’s invention, thereby confusing many. Christians should view religious tradition with caution. Religious tradition was in full force during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He often scolded the religious leaders, saying, “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13\). The scribes and the [Pharisees](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) had added so many of their own ideas to God’s Law that the common people were confused and felt helpless to obey it all. In Mark 7:6–8, Jesus quoted from Isaiah to reprimand the religious leaders, saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” Notice that the “commandments of men” were being taught as if they were divinely inspired “doctrines.” And that was the problem. One of the many traditions kept by the Pharisees of Jesus’ day involved a ritualistic hand\-washing before meals. The observance of this tradition had nothing to do with cleanliness; the Pharisees’ concern was ceremonial purity. Once, when a Pharisee invited Jesus to eat with him, Jesus bypassed the tradition: “His host was amazed to see that he sat down to eat without first performing the hand\-washing ceremony required by Jewish custom” (Luke 11:38, NLT). Jesus had broken no law—nothing in the Mosaic commandments required such hand\-washing—but the Pharisee expected conformity to the custom nonetheless. Jesus’ outright disregard of that manmade tradition sets up a clear distinction between what is binding (God’s commands) and what is not binding (human tradition). Religious traditions that supersede or displace God’s law have been around since the earliest days. They are still in full force within every religion as well as most Christian denominations. The [liturgical](liturgy-liturgical.html) branches of Christianity have the most obvious traditions, but more relaxed worship venues can have them as well. Most of us have our favorite style of music, method of preaching, organizational structure, and serving routines that we accept without question. When faced with change, we might even feel a sense of moral outrage, as though changing the service format or adding a bass guitar were a direct violation of God’s commands. What we’re really doing, perhaps without even realizing it, is guarding our own pet traditions, just as the Pharisees did. We can even become offended at Jesus, as the Pharisees did, when He disrupts our traditional view of what we think Christianity should look like (see John 9:16\). Scripture has layers of meaning. The more we delve into God’s Word, the more we learn about God, and it often upsets our own ideas. Just when we think we have things figured out and we are certain that we are theologically, morally, and socially right about it all, we uncover another layer that shatters those confidences. When we cling to tradition—whether denominational, theological, or structural—as if it were God’s Word, we keep the door closed on God’s revelation of truth to us. He wants to keep surprising us with Who He is as we continue to pursue Him (Jeremiah 29:13\). But religious tradition is often in the way. “That’s not how we’ve always done it,” is the battle cry of the traditionalists. Breaking tradition can be uncomfortable for many, just as it was for the Pharisees (Matthew 5:33–34; Luke 6:26–27\). But when we can clearly see the dividing line between our own traditions and God’s truth, we stay humble and pliable as God continues to transform us into the image of His Son (Romans 8:29\).
Can the infallibility of the Bible be proven?	Answer The word infallible refers to being incapable of error or wrong. When people speak of the Bible as [infallible](Bible-infallible.html), they claim it is completely trustworthy, fully true, and without the ability to teach any error. Claims of the Bible’s infallibility have always been part of Christian belief, but can such claims be proved? First, the Bible’s infallibility is taught in the Bible itself. Second Peter 1:19 states, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.” Second Timothy 3:16–17 adds, “All Scripture is God\-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If Scripture is “God\-breathed,” it is the product of the perfect God and can therefore only be true. Second, outside of the Bible’s own claims of infallibility, we can use inductive reasoning to provide evidence of the Bible’s accuracy. Evidence is gleaned from a study of the ancient manuscripts, archaeology, extra\-biblical history, and other fields of study. Unlike some religious literature, the Bible has a verifiable historical basis—the cities, geography, nations, people, and other facts of the Bible are set within literal time and history. The stories of the Bible are not religious fables but accounts of God’s works throughout human history. Of special importance in the matter of biblical infallibility is the consistent transmission of the biblical manuscripts. Technically speaking, the [inspiration](Bible-inspired.html) of the Bible is limited to the original autographs. However, a study of the history of the Bible’s manuscripts (called textual criticism) reveals an extremely high degree of accuracy in the copying and preservation of the sacred text. The [Dead Sea Scrolls](dead-sea-scrolls.html) include approximately 200 copies of Old Testament books dating from 2,000 years ago. These manuscripts prove the amazing consistency with which the Hebrew text was copied and its accuracy safeguarded through the centuries. For the New Testament, more than 5,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments exist in the original Greek text. The earliest fragments are only one generation removed from the original copies. Today’s scholars note that every original word of the New Testament text is either already in the text or in one of the alternative readings in the footnotes. The New Testament has more early copies to support its accuracy than any other ancient writing. There are both internal and external evidences of the Bible’s infallibility. The text itself can be shown to be extremely accurate, and the subject matter can be supported through a variety of fields of study. The external evidence supports the internal claim that the Bible is unlike any other book in history. The Bible is accurate, authoritative, and infallible. Its teachings are from God Himself and worthy of our devotion (Psalm 1:1–3\).
Can the flood mentioned in Genesis be proven?	Answer The flood recorded in Genesis 6 cannot be proved with absolute certainty, but there is ample evidence to support the view that a [global flood](global-flood.html) did occur. The Bible presents the flood as part of the early history of the world, yet there are certainly skeptics that will reject the evidence. One evidence of the flood of Noah’s day is the abundance of global flood stories found in a wide variety of cultures. Anthropologists have catalogued hundreds of ancient flood legends from all over the world. The ancient Babylonians, [Native Americans](Native-American-beliefs.html), Australian Aboriginals, Aztecs, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mayans, Inuits, and many others recorded flood stories. Further, their stories share many similarities to the Genesis account, including an angry god and people who survived the flood in a boat. A second area of evidence for the flood of Genesis 6 is physical evidence found on the earth’s surface. For example, 75 percent of earth’s land surface is comprised of sedimentary rock—rock that was washed away, dissolved in fluid, and redeposited elsewhere. Fossils are found in many of these sedimentary layers. It is common to find massive fossil graveyards consisting of jumbled, smashed, and contorted fossil remains that give the appearance of a large number of animals destroyed simultaneously by an incredible force. A third area of evidence for the flood of Noah’s day is the long\-distance movement of various types of rock. For example, scientists have noted quartzites discovered more than 300 miles from their source in Oregon, a phenomenon no longer taking place today. The displaced minerals could be the result of what is spoken of in Psalm 104:6–8—the waters standing above the mountains and violently running down into the valleys. A fourth line of evidence for the global flood is the presence of abundant fossil remains of marine life at the tops of every major mountain range in the world, including the Himalayas. What could have caused this phenomenon? A global flood in which water covered the tallest mountains could explain it. Genesis 7:18–19 notes that “the waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” Scientists have yet to provide an adequate alternative theory for the abundance of fossilized marine life at high elevations. The Bible itself serves as an additional line of support. Time and again, the history of the Bible has been validated through a variety of means. If Scripture is accurate in many other areas of history, why would its account of a global flood be disputed? Taken alongside the evidence from the various global flood narratives, abundant fossils, and high\-elevation marine fossils, the Bible’s account offers a plausible scenario for what took place during the time of Noah.
How can I glorify God in everything I do?	Answer The concept of “glorifying” God is that of honoring God with one’s life. First Corinthians 10:31 teaches believers to honor the Lord in all they do: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” The context of this verse includes a discussion of the freedom believers have in Christ. We are free to make personal choices in life, but we are not to do anything that causes another person to “stumble” or sin in his own walk with God. We are to seek the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:32–33\). Further, believers may have the “right” to do anything, but not everything is beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23\). Paul used the illustration of eating meat that had been [dedicated to idols](food-sacrificed-idols.html). To him, such a dedication meant nothing since idols are not real gods. However, he would abstain from ever eating meat again for the good of others who might sin by following his example. Believers serve the Lord both through their personal lives and in their actions toward others. To glorify God requires full commitment to Him. In Colossians 3:23 we read, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.” The context includes Paul’s directions for Christian slaves working for human masters. Even in this role, their work was to be done as if they were serving Jesus (Colossians 3:24\). To honor or glorify God in everything includes having a strong work ethic, even when we work for those we do not like or labor in difficult situations. Glorifying God in everything means we honor Him in our thoughts and actions. Our thoughts are to be set on the things of God (Psalm 1\) and the Word of God (Psalm 119:11\). When we focus on God’s Word, we know what is right and can follow through with doing what is right. Jesus always glorified His Father in heaven. There was never a moment when He did not glorify God. Our Lord’s every thought, word, and action was totally devoted to the glory of God. When Jesus faced the temptations of Satan (Matthew 4:1–11\), Jesus quoted Scripture all three times. Jesus was a man of the Word, fully committed to God’s will, and His example in overcoming temptation offers hope to all of us who seek to stand firm during times of testing. Another way we glorify God in everything we do is in the proper treatment of our bodies. In speaking of [sexual immorality](sexual-immorality.html), 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 teaches, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” To glorify God in everything, we must exercise faith (Hebrews 11:6\), love without hypocrisy (Romans 12:9\), deny ourselves (Luke 9:23\), be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18\), and offer ourselves as “living sacrifices” to God (Romans 12:1\). Every area of life is important to evaluate and live to its fullest for the glory and honor of God. We should strive for every thought and deed to bring joy to our Father in heaven.
What does the Bible say about dowsing?	Answer Dowsing, also called “water witching,” is a method of locating underground water or buried treasure by tapping into what dowsers call spiritual energy. Dowsing involves different methods, but often the dowser holds a forked rod with the straight end pointed toward the ground. It is believed that the rod moves up or down when the dowser walks directly over the place where water or other material is present. The practice of dowsing for water has been around since ancient times and is considered a harmless practice by many. The Bible does not say anything specific about dowsing, but there are elements of dowsing that should cause concern. While anyone can walk around with a forked stick, dedicated dowsers believe they are using a sixth sense to channel the earth’s energy. They believe the “universe” is speaking to them and revealing buried truths. Using a dowsing rod is similar to using a [Ouija board](ouija-boards.html). It is an attempt to gain information through “positive or negative energy” that is supposedly controlling an inanimate object. While some argue that the earth is water\-rich enough that almost anyone can predict a water source if they drill deeply enough, others point out that the accuracy of dowsers seems to be significantly higher than that of random guesses. The Bible addresses practices such as dowsing in Hosea 4:12: “My people consult a wooden idol, and a diviner’s rod speaks to them. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray; they are unfaithful to their God.” The “diviner’s rod” has been variously interpreted as a magic wand, an [Asherah pole](Asherah-pole.html), or some type of wooden staff used to predict the future or guide seekers into “wisdom.” The occult diviner’s rod condemned in Hosea sounds similar to a dowsing rod—in fact, another name for a dowsing rod is “divining rod,” because the purpose of dowsing is to divine the location of water or precious metal. According to Hosea, the Lord places divining rods, idolatry, and prostitution in the same category. But why would God be opposed to a harmless means of discovering a water source? The bottom line is that dowsing is a form of divination, a practice strictly forbidden by God (Deuteronomy 18:10; 2 Kings 17:17; Leviticus 19:26\). Divination is an attempt to predict the future or uncover secret knowledge through a supernatural means other than the Lord. Sorcery, divination, witchcraft, and other occult practices have been a part of human history since Old Testament days. This type of activity was one of the reasons God was so severe with the Canaanite nations and commanded His people to have nothing to do with it (Deuteronomy 18:14; Micah 5:12\). Dedicated dowsers refer to the Force behind their art, which they maintain is a spiritual energy that guides the universe. They are probably right. There are spiritual forces at work in our world. In Acts 16:16–18, a slave girl with a divining spirit pestered Paul and Silas, proclaiming their identities as “servants of the Most High God.” Annoyed, Paul turned around and ordered the spirit to come out of her, and it did. In this passage, divining is directly connected to demonic influence. This girl knew who Paul and Silas were. Her knowledge was accurate, and she obtained it through divination, just as dowsers profess to do. If there is a Force behind dowsing, as many claim, and that Force is not God, then who is it? There are only two spiritual forces at work in our world: God and Satan. They are both real, both spirit, and both powerful. But they are not equals. Satan is merely a created being, a fallen angel whom God allows to rule this world within the boundaries God has established (2 Corinthians 4:4; Luke 10:18\). Any supernatural power that does not originate with God is evil. There are no neutral spirits, friendly guides, or positive energies. There is no “power of the universe” behind supernatural occurrences. We are either experiencing the mighty power of God or dabbling in Satan’s playground. Christians should beware of tampering with supernatural forces that are not from God. We open the door to our enemy by inviting his involvement in our lives (1 Peter 5:8\). If we seek out people who claim to predict the future or claim that “the earth speaks” to them, we should know that we are inviting the very demons of hell to tell us about life. In Zechariah 10:2, God is crying out to Israel, warning them about what they are doing: “The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie; they tell dreams that are false, they give comfort in vain. Therefore the people wander like sheep oppressed for lack of a shepherd.” When we forsake our Good Shepherd (John 10:11\) in order to chase knowledge that He did not reveal to us, we are easy prey for wolves (Matthew 10:16; Acts 20:29\).
What is faith promise giving, and is it biblical?	Answer Faith promise giving encourages believers to give beyond what they think they can give in order to increase world missions. Many churches and parachurch ministries use the model to promote sacrificial giving. Faith promise gifts differ from regular offerings in that a faith promise requires the giver to commit to giving what he or she does not currently have—a [promise](vows-God.html) requiring faith that God will provide. The faith promise approach to giving is often credited to A.B. Simpson, a 19th\-century Canadian preacher and the founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Simpson based the model on 2 Corinthians 10:15–16: “Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our sphere of activity among you will greatly expand, so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. For we do not want to boast about work already done in someone else’s territory.” Some churches base their faith promise giving on 2 Corinthians 8–9 and the way churches in the New Testament gave money to help other churches. Not all faith promise models are the same, but here are several components that are often used: • Church members are to prayerfully consider the amount to promise. • The giving is to be in addition to a person’s normal offering (or tithe). • The promise is a faith commitment, often a one\-year promise. For example, a church member will commit to give a certain amount weekly to the church’s missions program. Oftentimes, the church will support missionaries based on the commitments they receive from the church members. • Faith is to be placed in God, not the giver’s own power. The church members are encouraged to commit to give as much money as possible while trusting God to meet their needs. The whole process is to be carried out in faith, trusting God to supply. The faith promise giving model is often used effectively to support missionaries and various parachurch organizations around the world and to increase the mindset of missions in the church. The faith promise method can become a problem if misused. A faith promise should never be presented as a guilt\-driven, pressure\-filled vow made to God. The Bible calls believers to [give cheerfully](cheerful-giver.html), not grudgingly. A manmade method of doing anything should never be raised to the level of a divine command. Many churches that use the faith promise method are not associated with the false [Word of Faith movement](Word-Faith.html). However, the vernacular used to promote faith promises can be close to what’s used to promote [seed faith offerings](seed-faith.html). The two concepts are not to be confused. A seed faith offering is money given in faith that God will multiply the money and return it to the giver. The more money you give—and the more faith you have—the more money you get in return. In contrast to the deceptive seed faith teaching, the faith\-promise method does not promise to enrich the giver; it simply calls for the giver to trust God and for God to bless a certain ministry through the giver. If your church uses the faith promise giving model and God calls you to give to the fund, give faithfully, cheerfully, and sacrificially. If you are uncomfortable with giving a faith promise, you can still give faithfully to support missions. When we give generously and with a willing heart, God assures us He will watch over us and provide for us (Isaiah 58:9; Psalm 41:1–3; Proverbs 22:9; 2 Corinthians 9:8, 11\).
Federalism vs. seminalism—which view is correct?	Answer Federalism and seminalism are two theories having to do with [original sin](original-sin.html) and how Adam’s sin ultimately touches the rest of the human race. Neither term is used in Scripture but have been coined to try to explain the biblical data. Federalism sees Adam as the representative head of all humanity. When Adam sinned, he sinned not only for himself but as the representative (federal head) of all humanity. His decision was binding upon all people of all time. In the same way, leaders of a government may enter into agreements with other nations, and those agreements are binding upon all the citizens, even though they had no direct input regarding the agreement and may even be unaware of it. Adam sinned, making himself and everyone he represented a sinner. Adam’s guilt (not just his sinful nature) is imputed to every human being. Seminalism sees Adam’s sin as something that corrupted the human nature he passed on to his posterity, as the entire human race was genetically present in Adam. Adam’s guilt is not passed on to his children, but his sinful tendencies are. His children, with their corrupted nature, readily join in Adam’s rebellion at the first available opportunity and are therefore guilty of their own sin. Both federalism and seminalism fall within Christian orthodoxy. Both views affirm the biblical doctrines of original sin and [total depravity](total-depravity.html). Both sides would wholeheartedly agree that, outside of Christ, people are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1\). Seminalists usually turn to Hebrews 7:4–10 for support. The writer of Hebrews uses an incident in the life of Abraham to explain that the [priesthood of Melchizedek](Melchizedek-priesthood.html) is greater than that of Levi because Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. How could Levi have possibly paid tithes to Melchizedek, when Levi was not even born yet? The answer, according to Hebrews, is that, “when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor \[Abraham]” (verse 10\). That is, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, it was as if Levi were also paying tithes, because Levi was “genetically present” within Abraham. This seems to parallel seminalism, which says the whole human race was “genetically present” within Adam at the time of his sin. The problem with drawing a theological conclusion about seminalism from Hebrews 7 is that the writer clearly says, in verse 9, that Levi’s payment of tithes was only in a manner of speaking (“one might even say” in the NIV; “so to speak” in the NASB). The writer is using an analogy that would have been understood by his Jewish readers to emphasize a particular point. When we co\-opt this analogy to make other points, we risk going astray. The point is emotional and rhetorical rather than biological. Ultimately, Hebrews 7:4–10 does not address either seminalism or federalism. The truth must be discerned elsewhere. Federalists find support for their position in Romans 5\. Here Adam is the representative of fallen, condemned humanity, and Christ is the representative of forgiven and renewed humanity. The primary issue for the sinner is who will represent him before God. However, a closer examination of Romans 5 will demonstrate that the federalist view is read into the passage rather than read out of it. Verse 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.” Federalists often point out that, in the phrase “because all sinned,” the Greek word for “sinned” is in the aorist tense and therefore must refer to a single instance in the past—the moment when Adam sinned. In other words, when Adam sinned, we all sinned. But this is a misinterpretation of the aorist tense. The aorist is used when a writer wants to express an action without emphasizing the tense. Any interpretation resting upon the use of the aorist is on weak footing because the interpreter is emphasizing something that the writer chose to de\-emphasize by his use of the aorist. Romans 5:12 simply says that, through Adam, sin and then death passed to all people because all sinned (a truth obvious to any person with a basic biblical knowledge and an observant nature). The verse says nothing about when or where all sinned—it simply states a brute, undeniable fact, and it should be noted that the thrust of the verse is how death (not sin) passed to all. Further evidence for the federalist position is sought in the next two verses (Romans 5:13–14\): “For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses.” Once again, the primary subject seems to be death, not sin, although sin and death are inextricably linked. The federalist reads the above verses to mean that there was no law from Adam to Moses, but people still died—and their deaths must have been the result of Adam’s sin. However, a better reading of the text is to see that Paul is insisting that, even though the Mosaic Law was not given until Sinai, there must have been some kind of divine law in place because sin is not imputed if there is no law. It is clear that people were still sinning as evidenced by the fact that people still died from Adam to Moses. The emphasis of the passage is that people did break some kind of law, even though they did not break the Law of Moses. Depending upon which way the text is read, the meanings are almost opposite. Either people died because they sinned according to some other law (seminalist), or they died because of Adam’s sin, even though they did not sin personally (federalist). The federalist reading seems untenable in light of the flood and the universal condemnation of Romans 1–2 apart from the Law of Moses. Finally, the federalist points to 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, which states, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Here federalists see that representation is the issue. All who are represented by Adam are under condemnation, but all who are represented by Christ are redeemed. However, this is not an affirmation of the federalist position regarding original sin or anything that happened in the Garden of Eden. It simply describes the current situation. Furthermore, the passage also assumes that those who are represented by Christ have made a conscious decision to have Him represent them. In conclusion, the passage that seminalists use to support their position really does not address the issue. Likewise, the passages that federalists use to support their position do not directly touch on the issue. The debate between federalism and seminalism has been going on for many years, and it is not realistic to imagine that this short article will settle it. In the final analysis, Scripture condemns all people for their actual sin. However, humanity’s problem is not only individual acts of sin, but also a nature that is wholly steeped in sin. Individual sins are simply the result of a sin nature that we inherited from Adam. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 1 and 2 to make the case that all people are guilty before God because they have broken the law as it has been revealed to them. He does not charge them with Adam’s sin. Therefore, it seems that the most natural reading of Scripture would lead one closer to the seminalist position.
What is the AME Zion Church?	Answer AME stands for African Methodist Episcopal. The AME Zion or AMEZ is sometimes confused with the [AME Church](African-Methodist-Episcopal.html). Both were started around the same time and under similar circumstances, and for a while both used the same name (African Methodist Episcopal). Later, one group added “Zion” to its name to distinguish itself from the other and because Zion is a frequent designation for the place of God’s dwelling in Scripture (e.g., Joel 3:17\). The AME Zion Church is “Methodist” in that the church sprang from Methodist roots and subscribes to Methodist doctrine, worship, and spirituality. It is “Episcopal” in that church leadership is structured according to the [episcopal model](church-polity.html)—that is, the church is ruled by bishops who oversee a hierarchy of other leaders. The AME Zion Church is “African” because it was founded by people of African descent. Many African Americans had attempted to enter into full fellowship with Methodist churches but often experienced discrimination (as was the case in churches of many denominations). In 1796 a group that had faced discrimination at the John Street Methodist Church in New York City left to form a new church, which also pulled people of African descent from other Methodist churches. This newly formed church was still part of the Methodist denomination and was at first called “African Chapel” but later called “Zion.” By 1800, the congregation was able to build their own building. It was the only African\-American church in New York City at the time. In 1820, the church was discouraged with the continued discriminatory practices of the Methodist Episcopal denomination and withdrew from that organization, forming the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Conference. This new denomination began to incorporate religious expression that was more appealing to black congregations, and affiliate churches began to spring up. The original church in New York is still known as the Mother Church. After the end of the Civil War, representatives from the AME Zion Church spread into the South to minister, and AME Zion churches were planted there as well. Today, the AME Zion Church accepts people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds but is primarily black. It is ruled by twelve bishops and has churches in Canada, England, Africa, India, South America, and the Caribbean. The church emphasizes ministry and social change. The church’s doctrinal positions are generally evangelical, in keeping with historic [Methodism](United-Methodist-Church.html). For more information, please visit the official website of the AME Zion Church at <https://amez.org/>.
What does the Bible say about paranoia / being paranoid?	Answer Paranoia is a mental condition characterized by suspicious, distrustful attitudes toward other people, delusions of persecution or of grandeur, and irrational thought processes. Paranoia can range from general self\-consciousness to a crippling mental illness. Paranoid people may also suffer from phobias, [anxiety](Bible-anxiety.html), or extreme shyness. Paranoia usually involves an exaggerated distrust of people or situations that are not validated by past experience. Mental conditions such as paranoia were not well\-documented in centuries past, and the Bible does not use the term paranoia. When we remove the psychiatric label, paranoia is simply self\-centered [fear](Bible-fear.html), and the Bible has much to say about that (Joshua 1:9; Luke 12:7\). Fear is the brooding suspicion that God will not be enough for what we are facing, that He has forgotten us, or that He may even be against us. When fear is coupled with self\-focus, we become paranoid. We doubt our own value and may begin to screen the responses of others for negativity toward us. Paranoid people see and hear those responses through their own filters and become convinced that others view them the same way that they view themselves: inadequate and unworthy. People dominated by paranoia look outward toward others to validate their worth rather than upward toward God. Even while craving validation, they perceive telltale signs of rejection or hostility in everything. They take every word, action, and event as confirmation that their paranoid fears were correct. This can make healthy relationships virtually impossible for a paranoid person. The cure for non\-pathological paranoia is total surrender to the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18\). When the Holy Spirit [fills us](Spirit-filled.html) as He desires to do, we become self\-forgetful rather than self\-centered. Whether or not other people like or approve of us ceases to consume our thoughts (Galatians 1:10\). Our lives are whittled down to a single goal: the glory and pleasure of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:31\). Rejection still stings, slights still wound, and our feelings still get hurt. But when we are fully surrendered to the lordship of Jesus, we recognize those hurts as opportunities to transfer ownership of them to the Lord. When we bring paranoid fears to Jesus for His perspective, He can use them to showcase selfishness and self\-preoccupation that are leading us down a wrong path (Psalm 139:23\). [King Saul](life-Saul.html) is an example of someone who let paranoia take over his life. When Saul realized that young David had captured the hearts of the people of Israel, he became angry and began to keep a suspicious eye on him (1 Samuel 18:6–9\). David had made no threatening moves toward Saul, yet Saul’s jealousy turned to paranoia and he began seeking ways to kill David. The Bible records that “an [evil spirit](evil-spirit-Saul.html) from the Lord came upon Saul” (1 Samuel 18:10\). This seems to imply that, in his jealousy and hatred toward an innocent man, Saul opened the door for demonic influence in his own heart. His paranoia became so overwhelming that he went on a murderous rampage, convinced that David was out to get him and that everyone else was against him, too, including the Lord’s priests (1 Samuel 22:13–19\) and his own son Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:30–33\). If God’s anointed king could be destroyed by paranoia, we should all be aware of our own vulnerability. Paranoia as a psychological disorder should be treated with medication and therapy. But many times paranoid tendencies arise when we harbor unrepentant sin or unforgiveness. Second Corinthians 2:10–11 reminds us that we must forgive those who have wronged us “in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.” One of Satan’s schemes is to gain access into our lives by our disobedience to God’s commands. Paranoia is one way the devil can destroy the witness and effectiveness of a Christian. When we nurture bitterness, hatred, or other sin, it is like going to bed and leaving the front door open all night. Anything can come in. While not all physical or mental illnesses are due to sin (John 9:2–3; Luke 13:16\), some conditions such as paranoia can have roots in our ongoing disobedience or in some past experience not fully processed. Working with a biblical counselor to discover those roots can help a person who suffers from paranoia overcome it. Repentance, surrender, and acceptance of the spiritual healing God offers can transform paranoia into joyful self\-forgetfulness (Jeremiah 17:14; Philippians 3:13\).
What does the Bible say about traditionalism?	Answer Traditionalism is the practice of adhering to [tradition](Christian-tradition.html) as authoritative. Traditionalism can further be defined as the belief that moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation that is passed down by tradition, rather than attained by human reasoning. Traditionalism seeks to uphold these traditions and is resistant to change. In one respect, religious and moral truth does come from divine revelation—the Bible is full of moral and religious truth. However, human tradition is fallible. Divine revelation is the ultimate authority, not the human tradition that has developed around it. Often, debates over traditionalism crop up in comparisons between Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestantism adheres to [sola scriptura](sola-scriptura.html); that is, Protestants hold to the authority of Scripture alone in matters of faith and practice. Catholicism, on the other hand, gives equal weight to [church tradition](Catholic-tradition.html). When we look at what the Bible actually says, including Jesus’ rebuke of the traditionalists of His day (see Luke 11:37– 52\), it is clear that the Bible is to be our authority. This is not to say that tradition is without merit, but that tradition is only authoritative insofar as it is based on biblical truth. Second Timothy 3:16–17 says Scripture is God\-breathed. It also claims that Scripture “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Nothing needs to be added to Scripture; we are thoroughly equipped for serving God through God’s Word. Jesus Himself affirmed the importance of Scripture. When He was tempted in the wilderness by Satan, He responded three times with “It is written” (Matthew 4:1–11\). Jesus did not respond with “The patriarchs of old” or “According to tradition.” He told the Sadducees that they were in error regarding the resurrection because they didn’t “know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29\). Jesus often called out the religious leaders for adhering to traditionalism over the true commands of God. When some Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus about His disciples’ breaking the tradition of the elders in a certain matter, Jesus asked them why they broke God’s law for the sake of their traditions (Matthew 15:1–20\). Clearly, it is God’s Word, not tradition, that holds authority in our lives. The day Jesus rose from the dead, He met with two disciples walking to Emmaus. They did not recognize Him at first and were discussing the events of the past few days (i.e., His crucifixion). “He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:25–27\). Jesus did not refer them to tradition but to the Scriptures. In Acts 17:11 the Jews in Berea are commended for testing the teachings of Paul and Silas against Scripture. Timothy is encouraged to “preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:2–5\). Timothy is not told to observe human tradition but to stay strong in the Word of God. Hebrews 4:12 and Ephesians 6:17 refer to God’s Word as a sword. In the power of the Holy Spirit, it is God’s Word that is our weapon against Satan and the deceptions of this world. Humans are fallible, and, thus, so is human tradition. That is the weakness of traditionalism. We must not keep tradition simply for the sake of tradition. Rather, we must carefully examine our traditions and measure them against God’s Word. That being said, there can be much value in tradition. Some traditions are commanded in Scripture. The Jews were to keep the Feasts of the Lord to help them remember God’s faithfulness and rejoice in His blessings. Other traditions are not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet they can honor the Lord. The Jewish feasts of [Purim](Feast-of-Purim.html) and [Hanukkah](Feast-of-Dedication.html) are examples. Neither is one of the biblical feasts, but there is nothing contrary to Scripture in their respective emphasis on the book of Esther and deliverance from the Seleucids. In fact, some scholars believe Jesus observed Purim (see John 5:1\). Many traditions surround Christmas, observed by Christians around the world, and such celebrations are not wrong. Traditions can be instructive to us on many levels, and there is nothing inherently wrong with observing tradition. Traditions can give a sense of identity, unite us as the unique family of Christ, provide teaching opportunities, and help us remember important truths. But we must always maintain a distinction between divine commands and human traditions. God’s commands are binding; manmade tradition is not. Traditions, no matter how ancient they may be, only have value if they are grounded in God’s truth and point us to Him. Tradition must be under the authority of God and His Word; any tradition that contradicts God’s Word or distracts us from it should be discarded. Tradition may be a way we practice our faith, but our faith is founded in God’s truth, not fallible human tradition.
Should a Christian go on welfare?	Answer In the United States, various government programs known collectively as “welfare” provide money and help with basic necessities for those in need. Welfare for those in need comes through such programs as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly called “food stamps.” Government welfare is basically a redistribution of wealth: money is gathered through taxation of working people and given to those who are not working or who are not earning enough to sustain themselves. In light of some biblical passages that command everyone to “carry their own load” (Galatians 6:5\), some Christians question the morality of going on welfare or receiving government handouts. First of all, God has made it clear that the care of [widows and orphans](orphans-and-widows.html) is a top priority for Him and should be also for His people (Malachi 3:5; Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 24:20; James 1:27\). One of the first ministries of the early church was the feeding of widows (Acts 6:1\), but even this act of “welfare” had stipulations: “No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds” (1 Timothy 5:9–10\). Welfare through the church was limited to widows who were destitute through no fault of their own and had no family to care for them (1 Timothy 5:3–8\). Christians who find themselves in need of assistance may face the choice of going on government\-provided welfare. Lowered income, job loss, family abandonment, injury, etc., can result in financial hardships that demand relief. Government welfare can provide a temporary reprieve until they can get back on their feet. Whether or not one decides to go on welfare, here are some good things to do: – Pray. We can approach God’s gracious throne with confidence and ask to “receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:16\). We can ask for wisdom any time (James 1:5\). – Seek the help of family members. Families are a ready\-made support system and are often in a good position to know the situation and offer help (1 Timothy 5:8\). – Seek assistance from the church. Our church family can be a resource for helping a hurting member through a tough time. – Continue to provide for your own needs as much as possible. The Bible commends [work](Bible-work.html) and warns against voluntary inactivity. If unemployed and able to work, we should seek employment; if we have a job, we should continue to work at it and pray for more gainful employment (2 Thessalonians 3:6–14\). – “Give thanks in all circumstances” (1 Thessalonians 5:18\). Some Christians may have personal convictions against using government welfare, and that’s understandable. It’s a matter between them and the Lord. But seeking welfare assistance is not wrong per se. The system is in place to assist those who need it, and those with needs should feel free to access it. Christians should not fear they are disobeying God by utilizing the “safety net” created for people in their situation. Government welfare may just be God’s method of providing for them until they can work again or until another means of provision opens up.
Is it wrong to have raffles in the church?	Answer A raffle is a way to make money by selling tickets, or “chances,” to win a big prize. Usually, the tickets are numbered and the winner is drawn at random, so the more tickets a person buys, the greater his chance of winning. Raffles are sometimes used by school groups, civic clubs, and charities as a means of raising money. Some churches and youth groups use raffles to raise money for summer camp, mission trips, or needed equipment. For various reasons, some Christians object to the use of raffles at church. One of the biggest objections to any kind of raffle, in or out of a church, is that the idea of “chance” draws in many people who should be spending their money more wisely. Studies have shown that the people most likely to buy [lottery tickets](Bible-lottery.html) and raffle chances are those who can least afford them. Money that is needed elsewhere is used to buy handfuls of tickets on the outside chance of winning a prize or a jackpot. Some churches refuse to hold raffles because they don’t want to further the “gambler mentality.” Another objection to church raffles is that the Bible never mentions gambling or “chance” as a legitimate way to obtain church funds. They say that God’s work should be funded by God’s people through tithes and offerings (e.g., Numbers 18:24; 2 Chronicles 29:31; Malachi 3:10\), not coerced through the possibility of winning something. Second Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Purchasing raffle tickets is not giving to the Lord but investing in chance. Tickets are bought in hopes of gaining something tangible in return, which means they are not freewill offerings. The logic is that the church should not rely upon raffle money to meet its needs but should rely upon the Lord to work through the hearts of His people (Deuteronomy 16:17; 1 Corinthians 16:2\). Most raffles involve selling tickets to the community at large, in addition to the people of the church, and this also is a cause of concern for some churches who believe that God’s work should be supported by God’s people without depending on the unsaved. Defenders of raffles in the church say that participants are well aware that their money is going to a good cause and would willingly give it anyway. The raffle just makes it more fun, and the possibility of a reward encourages greater generosity. Some winners donate the prize back to the cause as a means of further supporting the goal. Some also point out that drawing straws or throwing dice was a common practice in Bible times as a way of discerning God’s direction (Leviticus 16:8; Proverbs 16:33\). Since the Bible never speaks negatively against raffles or even lotteries, churches should feel free to use them if they so desire. The greatest example of using “chance” to further God’s work is found in Acts 1:26 when the apostles needed to select another man to replace Judas. They nominated two who met the [qualifications of an apostle](apostleship.html), prayed for guidance, and cast lots. The lot fell to [Matthias](Matthias-in-the-Bible.html). Scholars have debated whether the apostles overstepped God’s plan by choosing their own apostle rather than waiting for His choice, who was clearly Paul (Acts 9:1–15\). However, there is no biblical foundation for believing that the apostles were in disobedience when they used this means to determine God’s will. They were clearly seeking the plan of God and were living in obedience to Jesus’ final words to wait for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4\). Although the apostles’ casting of lots was nothing like a raffle in that no one was seeking a “prize,” raffle supporters still consider that the apostles were depending upon chance to fulfill God’s purposes. The practice of [casting lots](casting-lots.html) to determine God’s will is nowhere condemned in Scripture. As with any decision a church makes, prayer and seeking God should dominate the decision\-making process. Since Christ is the head of any true church (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 4:15\), He must be the Lord of every action. We can often discern His will by asking, “If Jesus were sitting in this meeting with us, what would He tell us to do?” In addition, there are a few more questions worth considering: • Does Jesus want to fund His programs through raffles instead of freewill offerings? • Could such fundraising avenues present Christ’s church as people who are greedy and desperate for money? • Could someone’s reluctance to freely give, coupled with a willingness to spend the same amount on a slim chance of winning a prize, indicate misplaced priorities? • Does holding a raffle eliminate the opportunity to wait on the Lord and trust Him for financing? When we have answered these questions, we are in a better position to determine whether or not our church should hold a raffle. Since Christ is the [Head of the church](head-of-the-church.html), it should be His decision. The rest of the body should always seek His methods for furthering His work.
Was Adam and Eve’s sin really about eating a piece of forbidden fruit?	Answer The phrase “forbidden fruit” refers to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were forbidden by God to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9; 3:2\). The Bible says nothing about what type of fruit it was. Tradition has identified it as an [apple](forbidden-fruit-apple.html), but it is impossible to know with certainty what kind of fruit it was. From the text of Genesis, every indication is of a literal tree with a literal fruit. The key element in the passage is not the fruit itself, but the prohibition against eating it. God gave Adam and Eve only one prohibition in His instructions. Whether there was some spiritual property within the fruit is really irrelevant. The sin was in disobeying God’s command. By eating the fruit (an act of disobedience), Adam and Eve gained personal knowledge of evil. They already knew good, but now they had the contrasting experience of the evil of disobedience and the guilt and shame that came with it. Satan’s lie was that knowing good and evil would make them like gods (Genesis 3:5\). In reality, they were already made in the image of God and had the blessing of His good pleasure. The lesson for us today is that when God prohibits something, it is for our own good. Disobeying Him, going our own way, or deciding for ourselves what is and is not beneficial to us will always lead to disaster. Our heavenly Father who created us knows what is best for us, and when He prohibits something, we should listen to Him. When we choose to obey our own wills instead of His perfect and holy will, things never go well for us. Adam and Eve made that sad discovery after eating the forbidden fruit, and mankind has suffered the consequences of their decision ever since (Romans 5:12\).
What is the spiritual presence view of the Lord’s Supper?	Answer The meaning of the “spiritual presence” concerning the Lord’s Supper is that Jesus is spiritually (but not physically) present at [communion](communion-Christian.html). The view can perhaps best be seen in distinction from other views regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that of [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html) or sometimes called the “real presence” view. According to this view, when the priest pronounces the words “[this is my body](this-is-my-body-broken-for-you.html)” over the bread and elevates the cup, the elements are actually changed into the physical body and blood of the Lord. This change is not discernable to the senses; in other words, the bread and wine still look and taste like bread and wine, but they really are the body and blood of the Lord and are to be honored as such. Martin Luther held to a position called [consubstantiation](consubstantiation.html); that is, the body and blood are physically present with the elements. The elements do not change, and the body and blood cannot be recognized by taste, but in some real, physical way the body and blood of Christ are present. Most Protestants today hold to the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The elements do not change or become the body and blood of the Lord in any way. The elements are symbols of His body and blood. While Jesus did say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” it was in the context of a Passover meal in which every element had a symbolic meaning. It would have been entirely out of context for the disciples to suddenly interpret these two items literally—especially since Jesus had not yet been crucified. When we partake of the elements of communion today, we recognize that they are more than just symbols of something that happened a long time ago. Whenever we gather together to observe the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present with us spiritually. It is not just the memory of Him that is present; He is in the midst of the congregation. The emphasis is upon His presence within the worshiping body, not within the elements of the table. The believer communes with the Lord through the act of remembrance and worship. First Corinthians 11:23–26: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
What is orthopraxy/orthopraxis?	Answer Orthopraxy is a compound Greek word. The first word in the compound is ortho, which is quite familiar to most of us today. Is means “right, correct, or straight.” An orthodontist is a dentist who can “straighten” or correct teeth. An orthopedist is a doctor who works with deformities or misalignments of the skeletal system, often the spine, with the hope of being able to correct them. Praxis, the second word of the compound, sounds similar to the English equivalent—practice. Orthopraxy or orthopraxis is simply “correct practice” or “correct behavior.” Orthopraxy is often seen in distinction from orthodoxy, which is “correct teaching” or “correct doctrine.” If someone is orthodox, it means that he believes correctly. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are often seen to be on opposite ends of a spectrum. Some forms of Christianity seem to place more emphasis on correct doctrine. Other forms of Christianity seem to care little for doctrine but place heavy emphasis on proper deeds. Orthopraxis can also refer to the correct performance of required rituals, which is important in some expressions of Christianity as well as in other religions. In many religions, it matters little what one believes as long as the correct works and rituals are performed. [Evangelical Protestantism](evangelicalism.html) emphasizes correct doctrine, and critics sometimes caricature the evangelical position as teaching that, as long as you believe the right things, it doesn’t matter what you do. That is not a genuine evangelical position, and neither is it a biblical understanding of the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. According to the Bible, correct doctrine will lead to correct behavior, but the doctrine comes first. In Romans, Paul spends the first eleven chapters explaining correct doctrine. In Romans 12:1 he transitions to correct practice: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.” The word therefore means that the instructions that follow are based upon the doctrine that has just been explained. In Ephesians we see the same pattern. Ephesians 1–3 explain correct doctrine, and chapters 4–6 explain correct practice. Once again, Ephesians 4:1 makes the transition: “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.” In the first 3 chapters, Paul has explained the calling of the Christian in doctrinal terms, and now he calls his readers to live in light of that doctrine. In Titus 3:8 Paul pulls orthodoxy and orthopraxy together in one verse: “I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God \[orthodoxy] may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good \[orthopraxy]. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.” He does the same thing in Ephesians 2\. Verses 8–9 emphasize the orthodox teaching that we are saved by grace through faith apart from good works: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Verse 10 completes the thought: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Once again, correct belief comes first, and out of that flow correct works. We are saved apart from works; God’s purpose in saving us is that we do [good works](good-works-salvation.html). In fact, the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is so strong that, if a person does not perform good works, it is doubtful that he believes the right things. First John 2:3–6 explains, “We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.” Some religions and some forms of Christianity emphasize orthopraxy with little regard for orthodoxy, but this is not the biblical pattern. Likewise, some forms of Christianity emphasize orthodoxy with little regard for orthopraxy. This too is unbiblical. The biblical model is that we must embrace correct doctrine (orthodoxy), and this must be more than mere intellectual assent to truth. Biblical faith involves trust and personal commitment. When a person goes beyond affirming the fact that Christ is the “Savior of the world” to trusting Christ as “my Savior from my sins,” then he or she is born again. The indwelling Spirit of God begins to change that person from within. Correct behavior (orthopraxy) will result from that inner work. We cannot see a person’s heart, but the link between orthopraxy and orthodoxy is so strong that, if a person’s practice is not correct, we can infer that his faith is not truly orthodox. “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder” (James 2:14–19\). Even demons have an orthodox theology, but they are not saved! In summary, both orthodoxy and orthopraxy are important. If any form of Christianity emphasizes one to the exclusion or diminishing of the other, it is unbiblical. Good deeds are a necessary and normal part of the Christian life; however, they are unable to make one righteous before God. [Justification](justification.html) is only possible by faith in the Savior whose substitutionary, sacrificial death paid the penalty for our sins and provided us with the righteousness that we need to make us acceptable to God.
Is it wrong for a woman to get an epidural and/or other pain relievers during childbirth?	Answer Pain has been a part of childbirth ever since Eve gave birth to Cain (Genesis 4:1\). Most scholars agree that labor pain is part of the curse God placed upon Eve because of her sin in eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:16\), just as weeds and thistles were part of Adam’s curse (Genesis 3:17–18\). Some people argue that, since childbirth pain is the consequence for sin, a mother in labor should not try to dull or escape that pain. Others disagree, noting that the Hebrew word translated “pain” can also mean “toil” or “labor” and does not necessarily imply physical suffering, but rather hard work in giving birth. But if it is true that physical suffering and/or hard labor in childbirth is God’s judgment on a woman, is it wrong to have an epidural and/or other pain\-relieving drugs during childbirth? Is requesting an epidural an attempt to nullify God’s righteous judgment? To carry that argument to its logical conclusion, we would also need to ban weed\-killers, lawn mowers, and most modern farming techniques, since God cursed the ground for Adam and declared that man would have to produce his food by the sweat of his brow. To remain consistent, if epidurals are wrong, all time\- or work\-saving devices for men must be equally wrong. Furthermore, since ALL physical pain is due to sin’s influence on this planet, even the use of aspirin would be an offense to God’s justice, according to this way of thinking. There is nothing immoral about a woman receiving pain relievers during childbirth. Most mothers want the best for their babies, and some mothers feel that all\-natural childbirth is the superior way to provide that best. The upsurge in the use of midwives and birthing coaches illustrates this increasing popularity of natural or even home births. Mothers who want to go that route should have full freedom to do so. But that means no epidurals or spinal blocks will be available to her, unless she is rushed to the hospital for emergency intervention. Other moms\-to\-be see no sense in unnecessary suffering and eagerly sign up for all the pain\-relieving drugs their doctors can offer. Since epidurals and spinals carry no risks for their babies, these mothers also believe they are providing the best for their children while ensuring a relatively pain\-free experience for themselves. Even when narcotics are given to a mother in labor, the minimal effect on the child wears off within a few hours. The baby may be a bit sleepier initially, but, after a few hours, babies of medicated mothers respond as normally as those born without drug intervention. Mothers who have opted for pain relievers may be more relaxed and ready to interact with their newborns, instead of being preoccupied with pain. Before the days of effective [pain\-relieving drugs](pain-medication.html), women in childbirth and people undergoing painful medical procedures were often given a wooden stick or a piece of leather to bite down on. The phrase bite the bullet comes from this practice. Caregivers would give those in pain something tough but malleable enough to protect the teeth, while keeping the patients from biting their own tongues in the agony of the moment. As medical knowledge increased, so have the plethora of pain\-killing drugs on the market, many of them designed for women in labor. Epidurals, spinal blocks, and local anesthetics are now used to alleviate or reduce the hours of intense pain many women feel during childbirth. But some argue that giving birth is the most natural and beautiful experience in the world and to numb that experience is to rob mother and infant of all God intended them to share together. They also suggest that drugs of any kind may affect the baby’s health. Even those drugs considered safe may create issues not yet discovered. There are different types of pain relievers offered during labor. An epidural or a spinal block is an injection of medication into the lower back or near the spinal cord of the mother in labor. Epidurals are often given before C\-sections or when labor has progressed to a certain point. The numbing effect takes place within moments, a critical factor in the case of emergency Cesareans when the baby or mother is at risk. According to the Mayo Clinic website, epidurals and spinal blocks have little or no effect on the baby. Localized injections of anesthetic near the birth canal do not relieve the pain of contractions but can temporarily numb specific areas of the mother’s body in the case of sutures or tearing. Local anesthetics also have no effect on the baby. Narcotics, however, dull the pain of contractions but can cause sleepiness, nausea, or a change in the mother’s heart rate, which can affect the baby. Narcotics can also cause contractions to lessen or stop, so medical professionals monitor their use carefully in laboring mothers. The danger in issues such as this one is spiritualizing something that is not spiritual. Some people create moral and spiritual laws out of that which is neither moral nor spiritual. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing this (Mark 7:8\). We see it within the Christian community about choices such as attending movies, wearing jewelry, homeschooling, or eating out on Sunday. When we become convinced that a certain practice is right or wrong for us, we often build soapboxes from which we preach our convictions to the world. However, if there is no biblical principle behind such convictions, we must be ready to admit that they are our own and not God’s. Romans 14 covers this issue well, with Paul concluding, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand” (verse 4\). The Bible takes no stance against medicine or doctors, as some would have us think. [Luke](Luke-in-the-Bible.html), the author of Luke and Acts, was called the “beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14\) by the apostle Paul. Luke traveled with Paul on several of his missionary journeys, and some scholars believe that he was Paul’s personal physician. Paul also encouraged his young protégé, Timothy, to “use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23\). So there is nothing spiritual about refusing medical treatment or pain relievers when needed. Women who live in areas of the world where epidurals or spinal blocks are available should utilize them if they desire, and women who want all\-natural births should also feel free to decline medication. Neither choice is in any way nullifying God’s plan or defying His righteous decrees. Jesus healed every kind of physical pain and illness during His time on earth, demonstrating that there is no spiritual value in suffering unnecessarily (Matthew 4:24\). Romans 14:22 can be our guide in all matters that are not clearly addressed in the Bible by verse or by principle: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” In other words, form convictions as the Holy Spirit leads and follow those convictions as an act of surrender to Jesus. But don’t judge others who may not have that conviction, and do not allow them to deter you from yours. We all answer to God for how well we obeyed His direction, and keeping a clear conscience in everything should be a primary goal of every Christian (Romans 14:12\).
What does the Bible say about slander?	Answer The old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is not true. Words can do a great deal of damage to those who have been slandered. Slander is making a false verbal statement that damages someone’s reputation. Slander differs slightly from [libel](Bible-libel.html) in that libel is a written defamation of character; slander is only spoken. The Bible says a lot about slander, in both Old Testament and New (Proverbs 10:18; 1 Peter 2:1\). Slander is so high on God’s list of wrongs that He included it in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:16\). The ninth commandment says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Bearing false witness includes slander because of the untruths being spread. Slander is simply [lying](Bible-lying-sin.html) about someone with the intent of causing others to view that person in a negative light. Slander is malicious lying, and God hates lying (Proverbs 6:16–19; 12:22\). Since God is the author of truth (John 14:6; 1 John 5:6\), anything untrue is in opposition to His nature and therefore repulsive to Him. Both slander and gossip are wrong, and Scripture often condemns them together (Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 16:27; 2 Corinthians 12:20\), but slander takes gossip to a whole new level. Gossip collects someone’s secrets and passes them to others; slander makes up its own secrets and broadcasts them wherever they will do the most harm. The New Testament references slander as part of our [old sinful nature](sin-nature.html). Slander has no place in our lives when we become new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\). Colossians 3:7–8 says, “You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” Our words are to be dedicated to the glory of God, just as our bodies are (Romans 12:1–2; Ephesians 4:29\). Those who know God have a responsibility to refrain from slander: “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be” (James 3:9–10\). Slander is one practice that must be put to death if we intend to follow Jesus (see Romans 6:11–14\). In Romans 1:28–32, Paul lists many traits of a depraved mind, and slander is included in this list (verse 30\). When we slander others, we are choosing to step out of the path God designed for us. He will not participate with us in our attempts to destroy someone else with our words. Slander comes from the heart, and when we are tempted to speak untruths about someone, we should first examine our own hearts to see what ugly root is producing those desires. Jesus said, “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:18–19\). God wants us to see that slandering someone is an indicator that our hearts are not right with Him. A desire to slander can spring from a root of bitterness (Hebrews 12:15\), from unresolved hurt (1 Peter 3:14–16\), from unforgiveness (2 Corinthians 2:10–11; Ephesians 4:32\), from jealousy (Galatians 5:20; 2 Corinthians 12:20\), or from other sins of the heart. God’s solution for slander is to love each other (John 13:34\). We don’t slander people whom we love (1 Corinthians 13:4–7\). Love wants the best for others, and that means guarding their reputations as we do our own (Matthew 7:12\). “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10\). When we focus on obeying the Lord by loving as He loves us, slander will not tempt us.
Can a Christian support PETA?	Answer PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. According to their website, PETA is an international organization formed in 1980 that is “dedicated to establishing and defending the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA educates policymakers and the public about animal abuse and promotes kind treatment of animals.” Proverbs 12:10 tells us that the righteous man cares for the life of his beast, so the biblical principle is that we should treat animals humanely; however, PETA goes far beyond the biblical principle. Cruelty in any form is a violation of God’s nature and not His plan for those who inhabit His earth (Proverbs 11:17\). When God gave Adam dominion over all the animals (Genesis 1:26\), He expected the man to learn about them, care for them, breed them, and utilize them to meet the needs of humanity. Mankind quickly learned that wool from sheep makes excellent garments and also helps the sheep shed its heavy coat. Milk from goats and cows makes a healthy addition to the diet of people. And the God\-designed bodies of oxen, mules, and horses have benefited mankind in thousands of ways for centuries. But God also gave animals for meat. In Genesis 9:2–4, after the flood, God gave Noah specific instructions about eating. Man would no longer be restricted to a vegetarian diet. He was to consider all animals as food. The only restriction was that no animal could be eaten with the [blood still inside](eating-meat-with-blood.html) it. Blood represents the sacredness of life, and, even in the eating of the animal, people were to respect the fact that they had taken a life that only God can create (Leviticus 17:11\). Medical research later revealed that this is also a healthy practice, as eating under\-cooked meat can cause illness. God’s commands are always for our good. If PETA’s only concern was the humane treatment of animals, Christians could heartily support their goals. However, PETA goes much further than that and grants “[rights](animal-rights.html)” to animals that parallel those of humans. PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk stated, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.” Statements like that take PETA’s goals to extremist levels, ones that Bible\-honoring Christians cannot condone. People are not animals. PETA’s website states that “only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable.” Thus, PETA grants animals the same [sanctity of life](sanctity-of-life.html) that God gave humans. Biblically, human life is special. Jesus said that the value of one human is far greater than “many sparrows” (Luke 12:7\). God cares for the sparrows, but He cares for us more. Humans have a higher worth. God spoke the animals into being (Genesis 1:20–25\) as He did the sky, the stars, and the trees. But men and women were created separately, in the [image of God](image-of-God.html) Himself (Genesis 1:27\). We are not merely higher animals on the evolutionary tree. We were created specifically by God to have fellowship with Him. We have an everlasting spirit, a spirit will live forever, either with God or apart from Him (John 3:16–18, 36\). This is not true of animals. Throughout the Bible, animals were used, ridden, bred, owned, and eaten by human beings (Deuteronomy 12:15, 20; Leviticus 6:25–27\). Jesus Himself rode a donkey, ate fish, and told a story in which a fatted calf was slaughtered (Luke 15:23; 19:35; 24:42–43\). In the Old Testament, God painted His story of redemption through the continual bloody sacrifices of animals. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Until Jesus shed His own blood (Matthew 26:28\), the blood of forgiveness came from perfect lambs, bulls, and goats (Leviticus 4:32–33\). The God who created the animals also commanded their slaughter as part of His plan of atonement. One of the Jewish holidays commanded in Scripture is [Passover](what-is-Passover.html), a time in which the exodus from Egypt is remembered. At the first Passover, a lamb was slaughtered and its blood applied to the doorposts of Jewish homes to prevent the death of the firstborn (Exodus 12:21–22\). PETA considers God’s requirements for blood sacrifices to be unacceptable, which puts them in direct opposition to God and the Bible. PETA has elevated the animal kingdom to a place never intended by God. In doing so, they have diminished the sanctity of human life. Ironically, many PETA supporters are also pro\-abortion. Christians can agree with PETA that cruelty toward any living thing, including animals, is wrong. We can agree that, if more humane ways of butchering or using animals in research are available, then those methods should be utilized. Shutting down disease\-ridden puppy mills, exposing inhumane conditions in labs or theatrical shows, and working to restrict animal ownership from those who have proven themselves unfit are all ways Christians can support the goals of PETA. However, a wise Christian recognizes that PETA does not support the Christian worldview and therefore cannot be wholeheartedly endorsed.
What is the ark of the testimony?	Answer The first mention of the ark of the testimony is in Exodus 25:10\. God gave Moses specific instructions for building a tabernacle as they traveled in the wilderness. The tabernacle would be the place where the glory of God would dwell among His people (Exodus 25:8–9\). Among hundreds of other descriptive instructions for this tabernacle, God told Moses to build an ark of the testimony, also called the [ark of the covenant](ark-of-the-covenant.html) (Exodus 25:21–22\). The words testimony and covenant both refer to the conditional agreement made between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai. An ark is, literally, a box or chest. So the ark of the testimony is the “box of the agreement.” The ark of the testimony was a wooden box, covered in gold inside and out. It had four exterior rings through which poles could be attached for carrying. No one but the high priest could touch the ark (Numbers 4:15\). To do so would result in instant death, as happened with a man named [Uzzah](Uzzah.html) (2 Samuel 6:1–7\). God was beginning to teach His people about His holiness and their unworthiness. He demonstrated to them that His commands were not suggestions to be negotiated. He wanted to teach them to obey Him in all things, whether or not they understood the reason for the rules. The lid of the ark was also made of gold and formed a seat between two cherubim, called the mercy seat. It was there that God would meet with His people (Exodus 25:22\). Inside the ark of the testimony, Moses placed the tablets of the Law that God gave him on the mountain. The ark was placed inside the tabernacle in the most holy place, where only the high priest could go once a year (Exodus 26:34\). Through it all, God was painting a picture to help us understand what is required for sinful man to come into the presence of a holy God. The ark of the testimony got its name from the fact that it would be the housing for God’s testimony to His people. His Law was not only verbal, but written, etched in stone (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 5:22\), so there could be no excuse for disobedience. Hebrews 9:4 tells us that, later, the Israelites added to the stone tablets within the ark of the testimony a jar of manna (Exodus 16:32–33\) and Aaron’s rod that budded (Numbers 17:8–10\). The ark of the testimony represented the presence of God with His people, and His power went with them wherever they took the ark (Joshua 3:6; Numbers 10:33–35\). The enemies of Israel, the Philistines, stole the ark once (1 Samuel 5:1\), hoping its power would help them. They set it in their idol’s temple and waited for the good luck it would bring. But calamity broke out among the Philistines, until they begged their leaders to send the ark back to Israel (1 Samuel 5:4, 6, 9, 11–12\). God demonstrated that He was not a good\-luck charm whose power could be had by whoever captured His ark. The power was not in the ark of the testimony itself; the ark only represented the presence of God with His people. Since the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 14:9\), God no longer uses an ark of the testimony to dwell with His people. We are under a [new testament or covenant](new-covenant.html). At Pentecost, He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell every believer (Acts 2:1–4, 38–39\). We become His temple (1 Corinthians 6:19\). When we have been born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3, 16\), we take God with us everywhere we go. It did the Philistines no good to harbor the ark, because the ark had no power in itself if God was not on their side. Likewise, we do not need physical items—crosses, images, holy relics—to carry the power of God with us because He already abides in us. That awareness of His presence, called the [fear of the Lord](fear-God.html) (Psalm 19:9; Proverbs 15:33\), helps us make decisions that honor Him.
Should Christians be in cliques?	Answer Webster’s defines a clique as “a small group of people who spend time together and who are not friendly to other people.” The first half of that definition describes perfectly normal and acceptable conduct; the second half, not so much. People naturally gravitate toward others who are like them and, sometimes without realizing it, form a clique. When we find someone with the same likes, same sense of humor, and a similar [worldview](Christian-worldview.html), we want to spend more time with him or her. We enjoy being around people who validate our own perspectives and personality. But the Bible tells us to love everyone as we love ourselves (Galatians 5:14\), including those who are different from us. Cliques are often associated with the immature behavior of children in school, but some churches also have a reputation for being “cliquish.” Certain denominations tend to propagate that culture more than others, and the attitude of the flock is often a reflection of the leadership. A pastor who is open, humble, and eager to connect with everyone often leads a church filled with people of the same attitude. However, pastors who consider themselves above the common worshiper or who isolate themselves within a tight circle of a select few can unknowingly inspire their congregants to do the same. First Peter 5:5 warns us about such attitudes: “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.’” We cannot help but gravitate toward people who make us feel comfortable and accepted. C. S. Lewis famously stated that “friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: ‘What! You too? I thought I was the only one.’” When we find several people with whom we have that experience, we may prefer their company to those we don’t know well or don’t particularly care to be around. Putting ourselves out there to make new friends can be awkward and uncomfortable. So we naturally seek out those we already know, and that pattern can lead to the creation of a clique. It can become “us four and no more,” as the saying goes. A circle of friends becomes a clique when they lose interest in meeting new people and are not particularly welcoming when someone new tries to fit in. Within the church, the presence of cliques can be spiritually devastating for new members and especially weaker believers. James 2:1 says, “My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.” This favoritism may be due to financial standing, popularity, appearance, lifestyle, or personal history. Believers must be aware of the tendency toward favoritism and stamp it out whenever we see it in ourselves. When we acknowledge our prejudices before God, we have taken a step toward overcoming them. We cannot change what we won’t acknowledge. It has been suggested that Jesus was part of a clique, since He spent much of His time with only Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37\). Jesus had many disciples (John 6:60\), but only twelve chosen [apostles](twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html) (Matthew 10:1\). It’s true that He shared some of the greatest spiritual experiences with only those closest to Him, but does that constitute a clique? Healthy people recognize that there are many levels of relationship, and not all people deserve the same level of trust. Jesus’ life demonstrated the perfect balance in relationships. He had a small inner circle of trusted [friends](Bible-friends.html), but He did not spend all His free time with them alone. His life was consumed with interacting, blessing, teaching, and serving everyone who came to Him, and He taught His disciples to do the same (Matthew 4:23; 12:15; Luke 20:1\). Jesus gave selflessly without allowing others to take what He was not ready to give. Even His very life was not taken from Him, but He gave it willingly (John 10:18\). But we cannot spend all our moments giving. Healthy people know the difference between those they serve and those who help them carry the burden of serving, and they spend appropriate amounts of time and energy with each group. A circle of close friends may not necessarily be a clique. They may be people who have found comrades to help carry their burdens. If they are also invested in serving others, giving selflessly to those who cannot give in return, then they may need that inner circle as a relief from the pressure of constant giving, just as Jesus did. Those in full\-time ministry especially need key people they trust with whom they can simply be themselves without the constant demands and pressure to serve. Those not in this circle of friends may view it with jealousy and call it a clique, not realizing that everyone—including ministry leaders—needs a few trusted friends. While it should be the goal of every Christian to model Christ and develop selfless compassion for everyone, it is also important to cultivate close friendships. However, if this circle of friends becomes a closed unit that intentionally excludes other potential comrades, it may have grown unhealthy. If the exclusivity of a church group is causing hurt or offense within the body of Christ, that group should consider restructuring itself so that it avoids the reputation of being a clique.
Does the Bible say anything about miming?	Answer The art of miming originated in ancient Greece, and the word mime is taken from a masked artist named Pantomimus. Miming is the art of conveying a message through exaggerated gestures or body movements without the use of words or props. A mime is a person who specializes in this art. In recent years, miming has entered the church as part of [dance](dance-in-worship.html) and drama ministries. One instance in the Bible where a form of miming is mentioned involves David on the run from King Saul. David flees to Gath but fears that Achish, the king, will reject or kill him, so he fakes insanity: “So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting saliva run down his beard” (1 Samuel 21:13\). David was not pantomiming for entertainment’s sake, but he was using some mime techniques to communicate a clear message that evoked the desired response. His miming was effective; King Achish left him alone. Another case of “biblical miming” is Zechariah after his vision in the temple: “He kept making signs to them and remained mute” (Luke 1:22, ESV). Within the last few decades, art, dance, and mime have made their way into church services as creative ways of expressing worship. While traditionalists may raise some red flags, we should always let Scripture cast the deciding vote about whether or not something new is pleasing to God (see Acts 1:24–25; 17:11\). Mimes often paint their faces white and wear all black to draw attention to their body movements. Some people have objected to the face\-painting, citing pagan cultures that have connected such painting with gender\-blurring or sensuality. Others voice concern about the dress of some mimes, noting that tight\-fitting body suits can be a distraction from the message. Still others see miming as entertainment and not conducive to a true worship experience. There is merit to each of these concerns. However, abuses of an art form do not make the art itself wrong. Oil painting can be used to depict the Last Supper or vulgarities—but the existence of vulgar pictures does not make oil painting sinful. In the same way, the effectiveness of miming is not nullified by those who pervert the art form. We tend to grow comfortable with worship styles that fit our own culture, traditions, and taste. Miming and other performing arts may be treated with suspicion in a church or immediately rejected simply because they are outside of one’s experience or tradition. But a knee\-jerk rejection of mime as a form of worship solely because we are unaccustomed to it is overly hasty. If a church plans to incorporate miming in its services, the leadership should probably consider these questions: 1\. Who is performing the mime? Leading a congregation in worship is a sacred honor. In the Old Testament, only the Levites could lead in musical worship (1 Chronicles 16:4; 2 Chronicles 20:19; Ezra 6:20\). They were specially selected by God and were to keep themselves ceremonially clean before they could lead the people. In order to keep pantomime presentations from becoming mere theatrical entertainments, performers need to be of godly character and commitment. A drama ministry should be just that—a ministry. No one should attempt to minister before a congregation without being called of God and serving from a humble heart. 2\. What is the focus of the mime? Some presentations have a confusing storyline, overly dramatic actions, or a shallow theme that leaves the congregation no better for having viewed it. A [worship service](worship-service.html) should be about worship. Period. It is not a time to display talent, garner attention, or have fun with friends. Everything in a worship service should be done “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40\). Everyone on the stage or taking part in leading the service should have as their singular goal the glorification of the Lord. A mime presentation may be artistically beautiful, professionally done, and receive a standing ovation. But what is left in the minds of the congregation when the actors have left the stage? Is it the strong biblical message of the mime, or is it how great everyone performed? 3\. What subtle messages may be sent during this mime presentation? The actors may have the best intentions, a masterfully written presentation, and talent to spare. But audiences do not always receive the message that was intended. A lack of careful attention to [modesty](dress-modestly.html) can nullify the whole presentation. Since the attention is directed to body movement during a pantomime, young women in spandex or young men in leotards may be sending a message they did not realize they were sending. With all eyes on the moving bodies of the actors, where are those eyes most likely to rest? Many church mime and dance teams have discarded spandex in favor of all\-black tee shirts and jeans, which still make the point without over\-emphasizing body parts that could cause distraction (see 1 Corinthians 8:9; 2 Corinthians 6:3\). In one sense, the Bible promotes miming as a way of life. One aspect of miming is mimicry, and the apostle Paul wrote, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1\). God’s desire for each of us is that we “become conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29\). He wants us to “mime” Christ’s actions. In one way or another, we are all mimes. We are constantly patterning our lives after someone or something. We can allow our movements to reflect our culture, a peer group, tradition, or the will of God (Galatians 1:10; Romans 12:1–2\). A Christian should behave as a “little Christ.” When we mime His actions, we know we are pleasing to the Lord (Matthew 17:5\).
What is a husbandman in the Bible?	Answer The term husbandman means “farmer” or “worker of the soil.” Husbandry is an agricultural term related to the production of crops or livestock. And to husband is to manage something well, showing prudence and economic sense. The word husbandman is not often used anymore. In the New Testament, the word husbandman is a translation of the Greek word georgos, as in 2 Timothy 2:6 and James 5: 7\. In the Old Testament, the word husbandman comes from the Hebrew word adamah, which simply means “land” or “of the earth.” This is the same Hebrew word from which we get [Adam](Adam-in-the-Bible.html), the name of the first man, whom God placed in Eden “to work it and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15; cf. 5:2\). In Genesis 9:20, Noah is called a husbandman when he plants a vineyard. The word husbandman is found primarily in the King James Version of the Bible. Other versions use the word gardener, vine\-dresser, or farmer, instead (see Jeremiah 51:3; Amos 5:16; Zechariah 13:5\). In Genesis 4:2, Cain is called a husbandman because he raised crops. Later, in Genesis 25:27, Esau is also called a husbandman because he loved the outdoors, as opposed to Jacob, who worked indoors. Jesus compared God to a husbandman in John 15:1–2: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (KJV). A good husbandman works the earth, cultivates his plants, and naturally expects them to produce fruit commensurate with the amount of effort he has invested in them. Our heavenly Father, the divine Husbandman, seeks to produce fruit through us as we [abide in Christ](abide-in-Christ.html). Just as God is a good husbandman, bringing forth fruitfulness in our lives, so should we be good husbandmen with the resources He has entrusted to us.
What does the Bible say about nose rings?	Answer Nose rings are mentioned in the Bible as far back as the [book of Genesis](Book-of-Genesis.html). When Abraham sent his servant in search of a wife for Isaac, the servant prayed that God would reveal to him the right young woman (Genesis 24:12–14\). Rebekah came in answer to his prayer, and when she agreed to give him lodging in her father’s home, he gave her some gifts from his master, Abraham. Among those gifts was “a gold nose ring” (Genesis 24:22\). This reveals that nose rings were in fashion during that era and they represented wealth and status when given as gifts. They were also considered female attire. The only time men wore anything through their noses was when they were taken as slaves (2 Chronicles 33:10–11\). In Ezekiel 16, God describes the affection He had showered upon Israel in terms of a man showering his bride with gifts: “I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head” (verse 12\). The Lord often used figurative speech and familiar objects and customs in order to communicate unfamiliar truths to His people. The lavish adornment, including the nose ring, described in this passage was the way a wealthy, loving husband would have provided for his beloved. Nose rings are worn for different reasons in different cultures. In some Hindu communities, piercing a woman’s nose marks her as either married or ready for marriage. It is also believed by some that piercing the nose relieves pain during childbirth. In more primitive cultures, nostril or septum piercing is common and has carried a variety of meanings depending upon the region, tribe, or historical era. In the recent past, nose rings were not considered mainstream in Western culture. The presence of a nose ring indicated rebellion or solidarity with counterculturalism. However, in most Western cultures today, nose rings are simply a matter of personal style and preference. They are usually worn as tiny diamond studs or small rings fastened on one nostril. Wearing a nose ring is neither good nor bad but reflects one’s personal taste. However, if a nose ring represents something evil, then it is wrong to wear one. For example, a teenage girl may get her nose pierced as an act of rebellion against her family’s conservative values. She wants a nose ring simply because no one else in her circle has one and because it will spark controversy. Her parents have told her “no,” but she gets her nose pierced anyway. For that girl, wearing a nose ring is wrong because it is an open, visible statement of rebellion. For a Christian, the one principle that should define all choices is found in 1 Corinthians 10:31: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The mention of eating and drinking drives home the point that every choice a believer makes can have significance. What we do, where we go, and how we dress all reflect our relationship with Jesus. We can either bring Him glory by our choices or bring dishonor to His name. In the decision of whether or not to wear a nose ring, we can ask ourselves a few questions: 1\. In my circle of influence, will wearing a nose ring be likely to cause offense and draw negative attention to me rather than draw positive attention to Christ? 2\. What message do I think I am sending by wearing a nose ring? What message might others actually be receiving? 3\. Do I have a history of infections or skin irritations that an unsanitary nose ring might aggravate? 4\. Will my nose ring be so distracting that it becomes the focus for other people rather than my eyes or my words? Keeping 1 Corinthians 10:31 as our guideline for every decision—whether it be the style of clothing we wear, the way we fix our hair, or the piercings we get—we also keep our motives pure. When our life goal is to magnify the purity and beauty of Christ in our lives, He helps us stay away from the sensational and seek modesty and humility (1 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 5:13\). With those qualities in place, we have freedom to express the beauty of Christ in a variety of ways, including wearing nose rings.
What is Unitarianism?	Answer Unitarianism is best understood in distinction from [Trinitarianism](trinitarianism.html). Whereas Trinitarianism teaches that God is three in one (triune), Unitarianism teaches that God is simply one (unity). Unitarianism rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Unitarianism should also be distinguished from [Modalism](Modalistic-Monarchianism.html), which is also non\-Trinitarian. Modalism teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of existence for the One God. Modalism is found today in the [United Pentecostal Church](United-Pentecostal-Church.html). While both Modalism and Unitarianism are non\-Trinitarian, Modalists affirm the deity of Christ. Unitarians teach that Jesus was an inspired man, a great teacher, and an example to follow but certainly not God. There have been Unitarian and non\-Trinitarian heresies circulating throughout the church from the earliest ages. [Arianism](arianism.html), which was addressed at the [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html), taught that Jesus was not fully God. Even after Nicea, there were always some aberrant groups who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity, holding to some form of Unitarian theology. After the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), Unitarianism seemed to have a revival of sorts as various groups felt more freedom to break with official Roman Catholic (Trinitarian) doctrine. Unitarianism began to flourish in various parts of Europe. Gradually, a number of individual ministers in the Church of England embraced Unitarianism, and, later, Unitarian societies were formed. These beliefs also spread to many Congregational churches in New England in the 18th century. Harvard College, which had been founded for the training of Calvinist ministers, swung to Unitarianism with the election of a Unitarian minister to the Hollis Chair of Divinity in 1805\. Today there are a number of Unitarian groups throughout the United States and the world; probably the most well\-known and influential group is the [Unitarian Universalist Church](unitarian-universalism.html). Unitarianism is usually accompanied by (or perhaps inspired by) rationalism and anti\-supernaturalism. In the final analysis, Unitarians reject the specific teaching of Scripture regarding the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, they usually reject the Bible as divine revelation in favor of human reason. Horizontal relationships between human beings are considered more important than the vertical relationship between a holy God and sinful man.
What is a Bible Baptist Church, and what do Bible Baptists believe?	Answer The majority of Bible Baptist Churches are members of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI), which is “a fellowship of pastors, and by extension, a network of preachers, churches, missionaries, and educational institutions worldwide, affiliated for the purpose of church planting and sharing the truth of the Word of God” (from the BBFI website). In short, Bible Baptists emphasize the fact that they believe the Bible, thus the choice of the word Bible in the official name. The Baptist Bible Fellowship International operates a missionary support and service center and a national church planting office for the enlisting, supporting, and training of church planters. Schools affiliated with the BBFI are Baptist Bible College (Springfield, Missouri) and Boston Baptist College (Boston, Massachusetts). The official magazine of the Bible Baptist Fellowship is the Baptist Bible Tribune. The BBFI is a fellowship of churches, not a denomination. Essentially, the Baptist Bible Fellowship International is a voluntary association of [Baptist churches](Baptists.html) with common doctrine. These churches support the BBFI, which supports church planting, missions, and education. This sort of arrangement is common among Baptist churches, which are not hierarchical. Voluntary affiliation with Baptist organizations fulfills many of the roles that denominational headquarters would fulfill in denominational churches. For instance, it would be difficult for a single Baptist church to operate a Bible college. However, hundreds of churches supporting the BBFI enable the BBFI to operate two colleges. The same is true of church planting and mission projects. Such a fellowship is also useful to help people identify a church of similar faith and practice to their own. A member of a Bible Baptist church who is traveling or moving to a new city can locate another Bible Baptist church in that area, knowing that it will be very similar. Churches that choose to voluntarily associate with and support the BBFI may often have “Bible Baptist” in their name, to help identify them as such, but this is not universally true, nor does a church with “Bible Baptist” in its name necessarily belong to the BBFI. The Baptist Bible Fellowship statement of faith is biblical, [evangelical](evangelicalism.html), and [fundamentalist](fundamentalism.html). The BBFI places a heavy emphasis on soul\-winning and [door\-to\-door visitation](door-to-door-evangelism.html). Bible Baptists are often viewed as taking a strident position on certain teachings considered legitimate points of debate within most evangelical churches. Three examples of this are belief in a literal six\-day creation, [KJV\-Onlyism](KJV-only.html), and the practice of tithing. The BBFI requires tithes to be given only to the local church. Depending on the pastor, a BBFI church may also embrace the aberrant “Baptist bride” theology or [Landmarkism](landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html). When a person is [looking for a church](find-local-church.html) to attend or join, the church’s affiliation with a fellowship or denomination may be a good place to start. However, the health of each individual church must be evaluated. There may be sound churches that are members of theologically unsound groups and vice versa. As with any church, a believer looking to join a Bible Baptist church should carefully, prayerfully investigate the church’s ministry and teachings.
What is demythologization?	Answer The concept of demythologization comes from [Rudolf Bultmann](Rudolf-Bultmann.html), a prominent theologian and New Testament scholar in the 20th century. Bultmann believed that the New Testament was simply the human account of the writers’ divine encounter with God in Christ. According to Bultmann, the Gospel writers used the only terms and concepts they had available to them at the time, and those terms and concepts were inextricably bound to the miraculous and supernatural, which Bultmann saw as myth. Bultmann suggested that, in order to make the gospel acceptable and relevant to the modern thinker, the New Testament must be demythologized. In other words, the mythical (i.e., miraculous) components must be removed, and the universal truth underlying the stories can then be seen. For Bultmann, the universal truth was that, in Christ, God had acted for the good of humanity. However, the New Testament accounts of the virgin birth, walking on water, multiplying bread and fish, giving sight to the blind, and even Jesus’ resurrection must be removed as mythical additions to the essential message. Today, there are many expressions of Christianity that follow this line of thinking, whether they attribute it to Bultmann or not. What may be called “[mainline liberalism](liberal-Christian-theology.html)” relies on a demythologized Bible. Liberalism teaches a vague goodness of God and brotherhood of man with an emphasis on following the example of Christ while downplaying or denying the miraculous. What Bultmann failed to realize is that the miraculous (what he called mythical) element is at the heart of the gospel. Furthermore, it is not as though people in the 1st century were merely gullible and easily led to believe the miraculous whereas “modern man” now knows better. When the angel announced to the virgin Mary that she was going to have a baby, she knew very well that such an occurrence was not normal (Luke 1:34\). Joseph likewise had to be convinced (Matthew 1:18–21\). Thomas knew that a resurrection was not usual after crucifixion and demanded firsthand evidence before he would believe (John 20:24–25\). Paul had to counter a teaching that had shaken the believers in Corinth. In defending the doctrine of the resurrection, Paul explains that a demythologized gospel is not good news at all. Jesus’ resurrection is a fact of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:4\), and it is historical and verifiable (verse 5\). “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (verses 14–19\). In summary, the New Testament does not need to be demythologized. What Bultmann called myth is really the miraculous, and the miraculous is at the heart of the New Testament—from the virgin birth, to the resurrection of Jesus, to His return, to the resurrection of the believer. If anything, the “modern thinker” needs to be reintroduced to the “pre\-modern mindset” that was at least open to supernatural intervention.
Who was King Jotham in the Bible?	Answer Jotham became king of Judah at age twenty\-five and reigned for sixteen years, from 750 to 735 BC (2 Kings 15:33; 2 Chronicles 27:1\). “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the Lord. The people, however, continued their corrupt practices” (2 Chronicles 27:2; see also 2 Kings 15:34–35\). [King Uzziah](King-Uzziah-in-the-Bible.html) had been faithful to the Lord but then became prideful and attempted to burn incense on the altar of the Lord, something only priests were permitted to do (2 Chronicles 26:16–20\). As a result, God afflicted Uzziah with leprosy. Uzziah lived out the rest of his days in a separate house, while his son Jotham oversaw the palace and governed the people (2 Chronicles 26:21\). Jotham did not repeat his father’s mistake of presumptuously entering the temple. “Jotham grew powerful because he walked steadfastly before the Lord his God” (2 Chronicles 27:6\). He rebuilt the Upper Gate of the temple and also did work on the wall at the hill of Ophel and built towns, forts, and towers (2 Chronicles 27:3–4\). However, King Jotham failed to remove the high places so the people continued to make sacrifices there (2 Kings 15:35\). Jotham waged a successful war against the [Ammonites](Ammonites.html), resulting in their paying him tribute for three years (2 Chronicles 27:5\). During Jotham’s reign “the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah” (2 Kings 15:37\). During the reign of Jotham’s son [Ahaz](King-Ahaz.html), the [Arameans](who-Arameans.html) would march against Judah, resulting in defeat and heavy casualties for Judah (2 Chronicles 28:5\). Initial defeat was followed by Ahaz seeking help from the Assyrians and ultimately looting and shutting up God’s temple and creating more high places (2 Kings 16:5–18; 2 Chronicles 28:5–25\). Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah all prophesied during Jotham’s reign (Isaiah 1:1; Hosea 1:1; Micah 1:1\). Also, the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–5 were recorded during Jotham’s reign (1 Chronicles 5:17\). Despite Jotham’s godly example, his son Ahaz proved to be a wicked king. Even so, both Jotham and Ahaz are ancestors of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:9\). God is able to use all people to accomplish His good purposes.
Should a Christian prank / do pranks?	Answer Human beings love to laugh. It’s part of our nature and one way we enjoy interactions with other people. Even animals tease and play with each other. Pranks and practical [jokes](joking-sin.html) take teasing to another level. In a prank, one person is unaware of the joke until he or she becomes the brunt of it. People who have no problem laughing at themselves can enjoy being pranked. But there are some who may be embarrassed or consider pranking to be cruel. So one factor in deciding whether to play pranks or practical jokes is the situation and the person who will be the focus of the prank. Of course, any prank that causes harm to someone is off\-limits for a Christian. The Bible has some practical wisdom about how far to take a prank or practical joke: “Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives their neighbor and says, ‘I was only joking!’” (Proverbs 26:18–19\). Pranks and jokes can sometimes camouflage cruelty, deception, or revenge. Passive\-aggression is a term used to describe an action taken by someone who wishes to retaliate against another but won’t do so openly. Subtle, barbed jabs that are said with a smile are a form of passive\-aggression. Pranks and practical jokes can also be a form of aggression toward someone under the guise of “joking.” When the victim does not respond with laughter, he or she is then shamed for “not being a good sport.” When retaliation or hurt is the motivation for a joke or prank, then a Christian is taking the matter out of God’s hands and trying to exact revenge through passive\-aggressive means (see Hebrews 10:30\). In those instances, it would be wrong to play a practical joke on someone. Other times, pranks can go horribly wrong. An ill\-timed prank or unplanned circumstances can turn a funny joke into a disaster. In order to plan an elaborate practical joke, the instigators count upon many outside factors over which they have little control. Planning a prank requires certain elements to work perfectly in order for the joke to work, and often one or more of those elements misfires. Or the person who was supposed to find the joke hilarious instead takes offense, and relationships are ruined. Before a prank is attempted, those behind it must be certain of its reception. We can put Jesus’ words into practice when deciding whether or not to play a practical joke: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31\). Before planning a prank, we should take that wisdom a step further and ask ourselves, “Would I appreciate this prank if I were in their circumstances, with their personality, and their sensitivities?” When we focus on loving people as we love ourselves, we can make wiser decisions about whether to play a prank or practical joke on someone else (Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:10\).
What does it mean that our sins are washed away?	Answer When the Bible speaks of our sins being washed away, it means we are forgiven. Our sins, which had defiled us, are gone. By the grace of God through Christ, we are no longer spiritually corrupt; we stand [justified](justification.html) before God. The concept of having our sins washed away is first introduced in the Old Testament. When God gave instructions for consecrating the [Levites](Levitical-priesthood.html), He said, “Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves” (Numbers 8:7\). Isaiah 1:16 commands the rebellious people to “wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil.” God often used physical illustrations to help us understand spiritual truths. We understand that washing with water makes us physically clean, so the Bible takes that concept and applies it to our spiritual state. Throughout the Old Testament, God commanded people to purify themselves by following rigorous instructions about sacrifices, ritualistic bathing, and types of clothing to wear (Exodus 30:20; Numbers 19:21; Joel 1:13\). From ancient times, God’s people understood that sin makes us dirty, and dirty people are unworthy to enter into the presence of the Lord. Many of the laws in the Old Testament were given for the purpose of contrasting God’s holiness with man’s unholiness. David wrote of his need to have his sins washed away. After his sin with Bathsheba was exposed by Nathan the prophet (2 Samuel 11\), David repented with great sorrow. In his prayer of repentance, he says, “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow” (Psalm 51:7\). Jesus refers to Nicodemus’s need to have his sins washed away: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5\). Human beings have always needed some way to have our sins washed away. The New Testament continues the theme of washing sins away. Ananias told Paul to “be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16\). God had demonstrated through the Law that we cannot purify ourselves; only He can. So when Ananias instructed Paul to be baptized to wash away his sins, Paul understood that, despite his exalted status as a Pharisee, he was as sin\-covered as the lowest tax collector (1 Timothy 1:15–16\). The Bible makes it clear that every human being is born into this world as a sinner (Romans 3:23\). That sin makes us ceremonially unclean and unfit to enter into the presence of God. The blood of Christ is what washes our sins away (1 John 1:7; 1 Peter 1:19\). Hebrews 9 contrasts the old methods of cleansing with the [new covenant](new-covenant.html) that came through Jesus Christ. Jesus came to earth to establish a new way of being made right with God. Hebrews 9:13–14 says, “The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” When we, through faith, apply the blood of Jesus to our unclean souls, God pronounces us clean (Titus 2:14; 3:5\). He washes our sins away, as it were; He places our sin debt upon His own Son and declares us righteous in His sight (Colossians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). God chooses to forget our sin and [remove it far from Him](as-far-as-the-east-is-from-the-west.html) (Psalm 103:12\). We are still sinners in practice, but righteous in position. An adopted child becomes a son the moment the judge declares him so, even though he may not know the parents well, understand their house rules, or be deserving of their love in any way. Over time, he grows to know and love them, assimilating into their family life, and becoming in practice what he was already declared to be in position. So it is with us. Our sins are washed away the moment we place our faith and trust in the saving work of Jesus on our behalf (Acts 2:21\). Over time, we grow to know and love our Father, assimilate into our Christian family, and become in practice what we have already been declared to be in position (2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 3:3\). The joy of the Christian life is that, even though we are not perfect, we can live every moment with the confidence that our sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus and we have been pronounced “clean” by the final Judge (see Genesis 18:25 and Romans 8:33\).
What does the Bible say about plagiarism?	Answer Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else’s work or ideas and presenting them as your own. Plagiarism is most commonly associated with written work, such as research papers or books, but it can also occur with artistic expressions or in spoken work, such as a speech. While it is true that imitation is the highest form of flattery, such imitation is only flattering when proper credit is given to the original. When proper credit or permission is not given, imitation becomes plagiarism. Plagiarism is [dishonest](Bible-honesty.html) because it advances a falsehood, passing off as one’s own the work of another, and the Bible has much to say about lying (e.g., Exodus 20:16; Proverbs 6:17\). Plagiarism is also self\-seeking, since the plagiarizer attempts to promote himself through the stolen work, and the Bible condemns self\-seeking (see Romans 2:8; Philippians 2:3; 2 Timothy 3:2\). Plagiarism is also stealing, and the Bible has much to say about the evils of [stealing](you-shall-not-steal.html) (e.g., Exodus 20:15\). To steal is to take something that belongs to another, without permission, and make it one’s own. It’s easy to see how taking someone’s physical property is wrong. But taking someone’s intellectual property is just as wrong. Ideas, creative work, and written expressions belong to the person who created them. Plagiarism takes from the creator what was produced from his or her own mind and heart. Plagiarism robs authors, artists, musicians, and other creators of their right to profit from their own original work. It also robs them of the right to build a reputation based upon their work. Stealing is a sin that was part of our old lives, not to be continued after we meet Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17\). Ephesians 4:28 says that stealing must be replaced with something good: “Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.” This principle applies to the theft of intellectual property as well. If plagiarism has been a part of someone’s old life, it must be renounced and confessed to the Lord as sin (see 1 John 1:9\). In order to live in honesty and integrity, we must give proper credit to people whose work we admire, and we should request permission before using the work of others as part of our own creations. Plagiarism has no part in the life of a follower of Christ (1 Peter 4:15\).
What does dayspring mean in the Bible?	Answer The term dayspring is only found in two places in the Bible and is used primarily in the King James Version (KJV) or Bible versions published before the second half of the twentieth century. Dayspring is an archaic word meaning “dawn” or “morning.” The King James Version uses the word dayspring in Job 38:12: “Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place?” The New International Version (NIV) translates Job 38:12 this way: “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place?” In this passage the Lord emphasizes His all\-encompassing power—He is the only One who can cause the dawn. The word dayspring is also found in Zacharias’s prophecy at the birth of his son, John. [Zacharias](Zechariah-in-the-Bible.html) says that “the dayspring from on high hath visited us” (Luke 1:78, KJV). In this instance, the dayspring is a metaphor for the promised Messiah, Jesus, who would soon arrive. The NIV translates the word for “dayspring” as “the rising sun”; the New American Standard Version (NASB) translates it as “the Sunrise from on high.” The word Sunrise is capitalized in the NASB because it refers to the Son of God who would rise like the sun to bring light to all men (see Malachi 4:2 and John 1:4, 9–10\). The word dayspring is still used today as a generic term for “a new era,” but it is no longer used for “sunrise.” Words like dayspring that have lost or changed their meanings with the passage of time are one reason for newer Bible versions. When the [King James Bible](King-James-Version-KJV.html) was first translated into English, the word dayspring was commonly used. In the past 400 years, dayspring has become archaic and can cause confusion to modern readers. It is helpful when studying the Bible to use several versions and compare wordings in order to gain a fuller comprehension of what is being said. There are many resources that provide side\-by\-side comparisons of every verse, as well as the original Greek or Hebrew. By comparing different versions of the same verse, we gain insights into words such as dayspring and move closer to comprehending our incomprehensible God. Dayspring is also the name of a popular Christian greeting card company: [.](https://www.dayspring.com)
What is the aseity of God?	Answer The aseity of God is His attribute of independent self\-existence. God is the uncaused Cause, the [uncreated Creator](who-created-God.html). He is the source of all things, the One who originated everything and who sustains everything that exists. The aseity of God means that He is the One in whom all other things find their source, existence, and continuance. He is the ever\-present Power that sustains all life. There is no other source of life and none other like Him: “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me” (Isaiah 46:9\). The aseity of God is expressed in Exodus 3:14\. When Moses asked the Lord about His name, God replied, “I AM WHO I AM.” God is the eternally self\-existent Being who always was and always will be. The aseity of God is related to His complete independence. God has no need. He is complete in and of Himself and always has been. God did not create man because He was lonely or because He needed to create. He is and always has been complete and self\-sufficient in and of Himself. God’s name I AM embodies the concept of God’s eternality and immutability, both of which are linked to His aseity. God is eternal (Psalm 90:2\). He did not have a beginning. He has always been. God is unchangeable (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17\), always the same yesterday, today, and forever. He will be what He is forever. All of God’s attributes—His love, power, wisdom, etc.—are eternal and unchanging. They are as they have always been and will never be any different. God’s aseity assures us that His autonomy is absolute. He alone decides what to do, and nothing can ever thwart His purpose to keep His promises. What He promises to do, He will do. What He predicts will come to pass. When God says, “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:10\), He is emphasizing His aseity and [sovereignty](sovereignty-of-God.html). Jesus Christ, being God in flesh, shares the aseity of God with the Father. Jesus claimed the name [I AM](I-AM.html) for Himself (John 8:58; 18:6\). Speaking of Jesus, Paul declares, “In him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16–17\). Jesus is not a created being. He came to earth as God in flesh and after His resurrection ascended back into heaven to take His rightful place as Creator of the universe. In the Old Testament, God declared to the Israelites that He is “the First and the Last” (Isaiah 44:6b). Jesus made the same declaration about Himself in Revelation 1:17\. Because of the aseity of God, we can depend upon Him as the independent One who is able to deliver, protect, and keep those who trust in Him. Those whom God has purposed for salvation will come to Christ, and nothing can hinder them: “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37\). If we understand the biblical doctrine of the aseity of God, we will be kept from the error of thinking that God is finite, that He grows weary, or that He will ever be insufficient to meet our needs (see Psalm 23:1\).
Is salvation by grace plus works a false gospel?	Answer The apostle Paul combatted those who taught a false gospel in Galatians 1:6–9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” An issue in the Galatian churches was the teaching that believers in Christ must follow the Old Testament Law (specifically concerning circumcision) in order to be saved. Paul’s unequivocal pronouncement is that a “gospel” of grace plus works is false. Salvation is provided in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9\). No person is perfect, and no human action can make a person right before a sinless, holy God. No one can earn or merit salvation, no matter how “religious” he or she is or how meritorious the work seems to be. There are many genuine Christians who have a misunderstanding of the gospel of grace. This was true even in Paul’s time. Some of those who expected Gentile believers (non\-Jewish Christians) to follow Jewish legal customs were true believers (Acts 15\). They were Christians, but they misunderstood the free gift of the gospel to some extent. At the [Jerusalem Council](Jerusalem-Council.html), the church’s early leaders encouraged Gentile Christians in the grace of God and noted only a few important guidelines for them to follow to promote peace within the church. The problem of trying to mix grace plus works continues today. There are many Christians who have come to genuine faith in Jesus Christ who still believe they must also perform certain works to make sure they do not go to hell, as if the grace of God in Christ were not enough. While such teaching should be confronted and corrected—we must trust Christ, not ourselves—this does not mean the person is unsaved or has lost his or her salvation. According to Galatians 1, those who teach the false gospel of grace\-plus\-works are “[anathema](definition-anathema.html)”; that is, they are condemned by God. Other New Testament passages speak against teaching a false gospel. For example, Jude wanted to write his epistle about the common salvation he shared with his readers, yet he found it necessary to change topics: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3\). In the next verse, he refers to those with another gospel as “ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God.” This is perhaps the best way to describe such teaching. A person can misunderstand the issue of salvation by grace versus works and still truly believe in Christ. However, there are also ungodly people who do not know the Lord and who preach a false gospel. These ungodly individuals are called cursed, as they knowingly pervert the true message of Jesus.
Who was John Wesley?	Answer John Wesley (1703–1791\) was an [Anglican](Anglicans.html) evangelist, theologian, and co\-founder of [Methodism](United-Methodist-Church.html). Wesley was born in the small English town of Epworth and was the fifteenth child of Samuel and Susanna Wesley. John’s father was an Anglican priest. John decided to enter the ministry as well, and he trained at Oxford. There, he began meeting with another group of students, which included his brother [Charles](Charles-Wesley.html) and George Whitfield. They would pray, study Scripture, and observe communion. This group was somewhat mockingly called “the Holy Club” by other students. They were also called “Bible bigots” and “Methodists” because of the prescribed method of spiritual disciplines that they followed. Of course, Methodist would later become the name by which those who followed the prescribed methods (spiritual disciplines) would be called. In 1735 John traveled to the American Colonies to be the parish pastor in Savannah, Georgia, and also to do missions work among the [Native Americans](Native-American-beliefs.html). On the trip across the Atlantic, his ship was caught in a violent storm. John cowered in fear of his life, but he noticed that a group of [Moravians](Moravian-Church.html) seemed to have no fear of death whatsoever. Wesley recognized that the Moravians had something he was lacking. Then his ministry in Savannah lasted only two years and was marked by difficulty, ineffectiveness, and even scandal. He virtually fled back to England. In light of his own assessment, it seems the best explanation for Wesley’s fear of death and ineffectiveness in ministry is that, although he had been trained as a clergyman and was involved in the spiritual disciplines, he had not truly come to faith in Christ for himself. He wrote in his journal on December 2, 1737, “I went to America to convert the Indians; but O! who shall convert me?” Spiritual disciplines such as prayer, Bible reading, and fasting are helpful for a believer to strengthen and deepen a relationship with Christ, but if a person has not come to faith in Christ and been born again by the Spirit of God first, then no amount of spiritual discipline will ever bring about spiritual life. In fact, the road to hell can be paved with spiritual disciplines and good deeds. Upon his return to England, John Wesley came under the influence of a Moravian minister who taught him further about justification by faith and assurance of salvation. On May 24, 1738, Wesley made a journal entry that is now famous. As Wesley heard someone read a passage from Martin Luther’s preface to Romans, he had a conversion experience: “While he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation: and an assurance was given to me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.” Thus John joined his brother Charles in true faith in Christ. Although thoroughly evangelical, John Wesley rejected the doctrine of [election](elect-of-God.html) and also subscribed to the doctrine of [Christian perfectionism](entire-sanctification.html) or entire sanctification. [Wesleyan](Wesleyans.html) theology today is noted for its [Arminian](arminianism.html) stance. After his conversion, John Wesley began enthusiastically preaching the gospel wherever he could. He began holding “Methodist” meetings outdoors, and revival broke out. Methodism became recognized as an evangelical movement within the Church of England, and John was a loyal member of the Anglican Church all his life, even as his followers began forming themselves into a new denomination. Wesley felt any Christian could be a “methodist” and remain loyal to his own church as well. Wesley said that he viewed the world as his parish. He teamed with George Whitfield and preached with great success in the New World. It’s estimated that during his lifetime John Wesley covered a quarter of a million miles on horseback in England, Ireland, and Scotland and preached over 40,000 sermons. Since trained ministers were not generally sympathetic to Wesley’s kind of ministry, he trained laymen to become itinerate preachers—Methodist “circuit riders” to circulate throughout the countryside and hold services. Besides preaching the gospel, John Wesley was active in social reform causes including abolitionism, prison reform, and easy access to education. John Wesley’s ministry changed the religious landscape of England and the American Colonies, and his influence is still being felt today. His The Journal of John Wesley is a classic of Christian literature. The Methodist and Wesleyan churches around the world owe their existence to John Wesley’s leadership and vision.
Should a Christian read fortune cookies?	Answer Fortune cookies are crispy, U\-shaped cookies folded around a printed piece of paper containing a proverb, fortune, or other statement. Fortune cookies are offered with the bill in most Chinese restaurants or otherwise available at the end of the meal. The diner must crack open the fortune cookie to retrieve the statement, which is usually a prosaic saying or random prediction, such as “You will encounter success today,” “The one you love is closer than you think,” or “Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.” Many fortune cookies also contain “lucky numbers.” Since reading a fortune implies special prophetic knowledge, some Christians wonder whether it is wrong to read fortune cookies. Ironically, fortune cookies are not Chinese. No one is sure exactly where the fortune cookie originated. Some claim fortune cookies were invented by David Jung, founder of the Hong Kong Noodle Factory in Los Angeles, California, in 1918\. Interestingly, the fortune cookies Jung passed out contained Bible verses. Other reports trace the fortune cookie to Japan. For Christians, the real question is whether reading the proverb in the fortune cookie is in some way participating in divination or witchcraft, similar to consulting a [horoscope](horoscopes-Christian.html). One major difference between fortune cookies and horoscopes is that fortune cookies are never presented as serious prophecies. They are handed out at random and can in no way have any connection to the person who opens them. Horoscopes, on the other hand, are presented as serious astrology and are supposedly connected to the person’s birth date and certain planetary alignments. This type of fortune\-telling is strictly forbidden in Scripture (Deuteronomy 18:10–15\). In fact, when Paul preached the gospel in Ephesus, many who had previously engaged in astrology and divination responded positively to his message. “A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly” (Acts 19:19\). They knew instinctively that the gospel of Jesus Christ could not coexist with magic arts, astrology, or divination of any kind. Fortune cookies are simply traditional desserts offered in most Chinese restaurants as part of the dining experience. They are never presented as authentic fortune\-telling devices. If eating and reading a fortune cookie does not carry any spiritual overtones for a person, then Christians are free to enjoy them. However, Romans 14 gives wisdom about matters of conscience such as this. If a Christian’s conscience condemns him when he opens a fortune cookie, then he should abstain. Or, if we are dining with Christians who are offended by the idea of fortune cookies, we should also defer to their weaker consciences. Romans 14:22–23 summarizes the New Testament teaching on activities not directly addressed in Scripture: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”
Is there an archangel (or angel) named Uriel?	Answer [Archangels](archangels.html) are created beings that appear to be the leaders of other angels and creatures in the heavens. The canonical Bible, the one read by most Christians and Protestants, names only one archangel: Michael (Revelation 12:7\). Many scholars suggest that [Lucifer](Lucifer-Satan.html) was also an archangel before being thrown out of heaven (Ezekiel 28: 17\). Uriel is called an archangel in the apocryphal books of 2 Esdras and Enoch and in some ancient Jewish writings. John Milton also includes Uriel as a character in [Paradise Lost](Paradise-Lost.html). But Uriel is never named as an angel in any book that we know as the complete Bible. The name Uriel means “fire of God” or “light of God.” Some stories involving Uriel identify him as the angel that guarded Eden (Genesis 3:24\), one of the angels in charge of [Tartarus](what-is-tartarus.html), or the angel that slaughtered the Assyrians encamped against Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35\). Jewish tradition lists Uriel as one of four angels overseeing the four quarters of the earth (see Revelation 7:1\)—the other angels being [Michael](Michael-the-archangel.html), [Gabriel](angel-Gabriel.html), and [Raphael](angel-Raphael.html). God’s Word does not reveal much about angels, and no archangel named Uriel is ever mentioned. We know little of the angels’ rankings, names, or abilities. If God had given us more details about angels, the temptation to focus our hearts on them rather than on God would be even more pronounced. People naturally tend to worship the creatures rather than their Creator (Colossians 2:18; Romans 1:25\). We are never told to speak to an angel, pray to an angel, or in any way attempt to have angels mediate for us. That is idolatry (see 2 Kings 21:3; Revelation 22:8–9\). From a study of the Bible, it appears that angels do have personal names, and two angels are named in Scripture. While there are many factual errors in non\-canonical books such as [First and Second Esdras](first-second-Esdras.html), such books may still contain some accurate information. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Uriel is actually the name of an archangel. Psalm 147:4 implies that God names every star, so we can logically assume that He also names the angels He creates. Does God have an archangel named Uriel? Maybe. What we can know for certain is that, if knowing the name of another archangel were important, God would have included that name in [inspired Scripture](canon-of-Scripture.html) (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21\).
What are Jachin and Boaz?	Answer Jachin and Boaz are the names of two bronze pillars erected at the entrance to the vestibule of [Solomon’s temple](Solomon-first-temple.html), according to 1 Kings 7:21\. Construction of the temple in Jerusalem began in 966 BC and was finished seven years later. The story of the building of the temple is found in 1 Kings 7 and 2 Chronicles 3\. In order to have the best possible fittings for the temple, [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) hired a man named [Hiram (or Huram)](Huram-Hiram.html) from Tyre to do the bronze work. Hiram was known for his wisdom, understanding, and skill in bronze working (1 Kings 7:13–14\). Scripture gives much detail concerning the pillars Jachin and Boaz: “A network of interwoven chains adorned the capitals on top of the pillars, seven for each capital. \[Hiram] made [pomegranates](pomegranates-in-the-Bible.html) in two rows encircling each network to decorate the capitals on top of the pillars. He did the same for each capital. The capitals on top of the pillars in the portico were in the shape of lilies . . . . On the capitals of both pillars, above the bowl\-shaped part next to the network, were the two hundred pomegranates in rows all around” (verses 17–20\). Jachin and Boaz stood at the entrance to the temple’s vestibule or portico. Their dimensions indicate the extent of the work involved in creating them. Including the decorative tops of the pillars, Jachin and Boaz stood approximately thirty\-five feet tall, with a circumference of eighteen feet (1 Kings 7:15–20\). The brass used to make the twin pillars had been taken by King David from the king of Zobah as part of the spoils of war (1 Chronicles 18:8–9\). The pillar on the south of the entrance which was called Jachin, and one on the north named Boaz. Both 2 Chronicles and 1 Kings say that “he” set up the pillars and “he” named them Jachin and Boaz. Commentators are divided as to whether “he” refers to Hiram or Solomon. Whoever named them, their names are significant. Jachin (pronounced yaw\-keen) means “he will establish,” and Boaz signifies “in him is strength.” Taken together, the names were a reminder that God would establish the temple and the worship of His name in strength. The pillars Jachin and Boaz were destroyed along with the rest of the temple by the Chaldeans (Jeremiah 52:17\), but the names’ meaning lives on in the spiritual kingdom of God. The names of the pillars represent the strength and stability of God’s promises of a kingdom that will last forever (Daniel 6:26; Luke 1:33; Hebrews 1:8; Revelation 11:15\).
Who was Bernard of Clairvaux?	Answer Bernard of Clairvaux was a French Catholic mystic, [monk](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) (in the [Cistercian order](Cistercian-Order.html)), and influential church leader in the Middle Ages. Bernard of Clairvaux is a living illustration of a turbulent phase in Western Christendom. Christianity’s triumph over the Roman Empire also marked a slow march toward the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). In between the fall of Rome and the dawn of the Reformation, various leaders spoke out against changes in Catholic theology. Yet some of those same voices were caught up in changes similar to the ones they refuted. Centuries after his death, Bernard of Clairvaux was cited by both Catholics and Protestants in defense of their views. Bernard was born in AD 1090 to parents on the lower end of French nobility. He eventually joined a monastery, and his leadership brought both success and fame. He was particularly well\-known for his eloquence as a writer. His hymn “O Sacred Head Now Wounded” is considered a masterpiece today. Bernard is also credited with writing the traditional Catholic “Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Jesus.” His devoutly holy lifestyle was acknowledged by critics and supporters alike. Bernard was enormously influential in both politics and church government. By the time of his death, Bernard was credited with founding more than 300 monasteries, the most famous of which was in Clairvaux, on the border of Burgundy and Champagne, France. Bernard’s eloquence occasionally came with aggression. His tone toward theological opponents, in particular, could be harsh. His extreme [asceticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html), in which he denied himself food and sleep, resulted in lifelong health issues. While he preached humility and certainly practiced self\-denial, he was also constantly involved at the highest levels of church and world affairs. This included drafting the basic framework for the [Knights Templar](Knights-Templar.html), helping to resolve disputes over the papacy, and influencing the Second Crusade. Bernard of Clairvaux’s involvement in the [Crusades](Christian-crusades.html) became the largest blemish on his reputation. Pope Eugenius III, a former student of Bernard’s, often complained that people thought of Bernard as more of a Pope than the Pope himself. At the same time, Eugenius realized that popular interest in a second Crusade was very weak. So he enlisted Bernard to begin a public relations campaign in favor of military action. Bernard did this with great enthusiasm, but when the Second Crusade failed miserably, he was assigned much of the blame. Bernard of Clairvaux was one of the earlier “reformers,” in that he spoke out against Catholicism’s trend toward ritualism and sacraments. Like [Anselm](Anselm-of-Canterbury.html) before him, Bernard was in favor of a more personal, spiritual, and practical apprehension of faith. He was a strong proponent of the mystical practice of [Lectio Divina](lectio-divina.html). He made statements suggestive of [imputed righteousness](imputed-righteousness.html) and seemed to embrace a form of the doctrine of [sole fide](sola-fide.html). His writings on these topics were used by Reformers of later centuries to support their efforts. At the same time, Bernard supported [indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html) and was a major advocate of Mariology, writing on the subject of the Holy Virgin and preaching her virtues: “If temptation storms, or you fall upon the rocks of tribulation, look to the star: Call upon Mary! If you are tossed by the waves of pride or ambition, detraction or envy, look to the star, call upon Mary. If anger or avarice or the desires of the flesh dash against the ship of your soul, turn your eyes to Mary. If troubled by the enormity of your crimes, ashamed of your guilty conscience, terrified by dread of the judgment, you begin to sink into the gulf of sadness or the abyss of despair, think of Mary. In dangers, in anguish, in doubt, think of Mary, call upon Mary. Let her name be even on your lips, ever in your heart; and the better to obtain the help of her prayers, imitate the example of her life: Following her, thou strayest not; invoking her, thou despairest not; thinking of her, thou wanderest not; upheld by her, thou fallest not; shielded by her, thou fearest not; guided by her, thou growest not weary; favored by her, thou reachest the goal. And thus dost thou experience in thyself how good is that saying: ‘And the Virgin’s name was Mary’” (“The Holy Name of Mary,” part V). Bernard of Clairvaux clearly favored viewing Mary as [Mediatrix](Mary-redemptrix-mediatrix.html). According to one Catholic legend, Bernard was praying in a cathedral in 1146 before a statue of Mary. The image suddenly came alive, and the Virgin squirted milk from her right breast into Bernard’s mouth. Such stories only helped to further the cult of Mary\-worship during the Middle Ages. Bernard of Clairvaux died in 1154\. The Roman Catholic Church canonized him about 21 years later. His feast day is August 20\. As a writer, theologian, and public figure, Bernard of Clairvaux is certainly one of the most influential figures in medieval Christianity.
What is intersectionality, and is it biblical?	Answer Intersectionality is a term used to describe how different forms of discrimination can interact and overlap with each other. In recent years, it has become a feminist buzzword. As a concept, intersectionality deals with the cumulative societal effects of systemic discrimination on people who belong to more than one disadvantaged group. For example, a woman is oppressed by the anti\-women crowd; a black woman faces anti\-woman and anti\-black bias; a black lesbian woman faces anti\-woman, anti\-black, and anti\-gay discrimination, etc. The point of intersectionality is that the victim of only one type of discrimination may have a hard time identifying with those who face multiple types of oppression. The term intersectionality was coined in a 1989 essay by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar who wrote that individual anti\-discrimination laws are insufficient to address the experiences of those who suffer from intersecting discriminations. Current political efforts to end individual forms of discrimination such as sexism, [racism](racism-Bible.html), and [classism](Bible-classism.html), Crenshaw posits, will always be insufficient because they don’t take into account the cumulative nature of different types of discrimination. The answer, according to promoters of the intersectionality concept, is more progressive social programs. The Bible doesn’t use the term intersectionality, but the concept of overlapping discriminations was present in ancient societies, just as it is today, and examples of it can be found in the Bible. The [woman at the well](woman-at-the-well.html) who encountered Jesus in John 4 was the victim of different forms of discrimination. First, she was a woman, and rabbis typically did not speak publicly to women. Second, she was a [Samaritan](Samaritans.html), and there was great hatred between the Samaritans and the Jews, who considered them idolatrous half\-breeds. When Jesus asked her to give Him water from the well, she was shocked. “How is it,” she asked, “that you, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” (John 4:9, ESV). Third, she was a social outcast because of her lifestyle and past. Drawing water from a community well was a form of social interaction for people and usually occurred during the early part of the day. The Samaritan woman came to the well at the sixth hour, or noon (John 4:6\), when she knew others would not be present. She was shunned in her town because she was living with a man who was not her husband and had been doing so with other men (John 4:17–18\). The theory of intersectionality, which has become the darling of radical [feminists](feminism-Christian-feminist.html) and, more recently, Christian feminists, may have some validity. However, the number of ways we discriminate against one another really isn’t the issue. The issue is the sinfulness of the human heart. All sin separates us from God, and all sin must be atoned for. This is why Jesus died on the cross, to pay the penalty for our sin and to redeem a people unto Himself. All forms of discrimination and their intersectionality are the result of the fall of man into sin. No doubt discrimination will continue as long as sinful people reside upon the earth. Christians should acknowledge the problem of discrimination and work to counter it, but lasting change can only happen through the life\-transforming power of Christ. Movements that seek to divide people along racial, gender, or class lines; that create designer victim groups; or that seek retribution through ever more autocratic policies are not truly benefiting society. Christians should be peacemakers working to unite people in the truth rather than divide people or stoke feelings of resentment.
What are the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God?	Answer Communicable attributes of God are those that humans can also possess, although only to a finite extent. If something is communicable, it is able to be communicated or transmitted to others. Incommunicable attributes of God are those attributes exclusive to Him. Humans cannot share the incommunicable attributes of divinity. As finite beings, humans will not share in even the communicable attributes of God to the same extent that God has those attributes. For example, God is love (1 John 4:8\). Humans can love, but we do so imperfectly. God is also just. Humans have a sense of justice and can carry out justice but, again, do so imperfectly. God is Creator. Humans are creative, but we cannot create [ex nihilo](creation-ex-nihilo.html) as God has. Some of the other communicable [attributes of God](attributes-God.html) are grace, mercy, goodness, truthfulness, rational thought, and relationality. As we grow in Christ and are transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit in us (Romans 12:1–2; 2 Corinthians 3:18\), we share in God’s communicable attributes in a more meaningful and perfected sense. When we are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, we become new (2 Corinthians 5:17\). Yet we also still battle against our sinful natures and must learn “to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:22–24\). It is in abiding in Christ that we can bear fruit (John 15:1–17\). It is through the filling of the Holy Spirit that we exhibit characteristics like “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self\-control” (Galatians 5:22–23\). It is when we are in Christ that our love more closely resembles godly [agape](agape-love.html) love and is less tainted by our own sinfulness. It is important to understand that we will never be fully like God, and in no sense will we ever become gods. God is distinct from us, and yet we are made in His image and redeemed by His Son. We are called to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:15–16\) yet know that only He is completely holy; any holiness in us comes from Him. Our sharing in God’s communicable attributes is for His glory and is made possible by His design of us and His enabling as we abide in Him. God’s incommunicable attributes are those characteristics that cannot be shared with His creatures. God’s incommunicable attributes are things that only God can have and that make Him distinct from creation. For example, God is [omnipotent](God-omnipotent.html), [omnipresent](God-omnipresent.html), [omniscient](God-omniscient.html), [sovereign](God-is-sovereign.html), [transcendent](God-transcendent.html), [immutable](immutability-God.html), and [self\-existent](aseity-of-God.html). We can define these attributes, but we often do not fully comprehend them and can never call them our own. The incommunicable attributes of God are what make God, God. They are His distinguishing features that only He possesses. The incommunicable attributes of God are cause for us to revere, worship, trust, and praise the Creator.
What is latitudinarianism?	Answer Latitudinarianism, as it applies to religion, refers to a “broad church” approach that downplays strict conformity to doctrine, church structure, or liturgy and places higher emphasis on reason, morality, and unity. Latitudinarianism can be seen as a tolerance of those with differing religious opinions or doctrines. The term latitudinarianism was first used in the criticism of certain 17th\-century theologians who felt that Puritan theology—essentially Calvinist—had unfairly rejected the role of human understanding in apprehending Christian faith. This first version of latitudinarianism, in contrast to [Puritanism](Puritans-Puritanism.html), emphasized common morality, fundamental doctrines, and a greater use of evidence when discussing the faith. Latitudinarians generally upheld the concept of [sola scriptura](sola-scriptura.html) and the exclusive truth of the gospel, but they also insisted that man needed both revelation and reason in order to fully grasp biblical truth. That focus on [“critical” doctrines](essentials-Christian-faith.html) and a tolerance for disagreement in other doctrines meant downplaying issues such as worship style and church government and so forth. As with most theological terms, latitudinarianism has been used in different ways by different people. It can also be applied in different degrees by different groups and different theologians. Most modern Christian denominations apply some level of tolerance to other non\-heretical groups. For example, typical Lutheran and Baptist churches are latitudinarian in that they do not question each other’s salvation, even though they have disagreements over whether or not infants should be baptized. On the other hand, Baptist and Lutheran churches generally consider groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who reject the Trinity and the deity of Christ, to be fundamentally non\-Christian. In other contexts, the term latitudinarianism has a negative connotation. For example, when a modern theologian feels a certain approach to [ecumenism](ecumenism-ecumenical.html) has gone too far, he might disparage such a strategy as “latitudinarian.” Applied in that way, the term is meant to imply compromise with truth for the sake of harmony. There are some who would even consider the above example of infant baptism to be an issue about which there can be no meaningful peace; to fellowship with [paedobaptists](infant-baptism.html) would be “latitudinarian” and therefore unacceptable. Other than their occasional use in theological discussions, in modern contexts the terms latitudinarian and latitudinarianism have little function. The original latitudinarian movement was highly influential in the [Anglican](Anglicans.html) and [Episcopal](Episcopalians.html) communities, but it eventually drifted into [Unitarianism](unitarian-universalism.html). The term latitudinarianism is also part of philosophy and semantics. When John says, “Give me the biggest box,” there are two ways to interpret his remark. He might mean, “Whatever box happens to be biggest, that is the one I want,” and this is referred to as a de dicto statement. If John means, “I have one exact box in mind, and I’m describing it for you as the biggest box,” that is referred to as a de re statement. For the most part, philosophers and logicians consider those to be two separate types of statements. In semantics, latitudinarianism is the suggestion that de re is not a separate type of statement but only a special case of de dicto.
What is synchronicity?	Answer Synchronicity is the idea that events can be related in meaning or in purpose, without being linked by cause\-and\-effect. This usage of the word synchronicity is usually traced to the work of [analytic psychologist Carl Jung](Jungian-analytic-psychology.html). Any instance of a perceived connection between two events, where there is no clear common cause, can be considered an example of synchronicity. There is no debate over whether or not human beings experience synchronicity; such moments are a common part of life. The controversy over the idea arises when determining what such events actually mean, if they mean anything at all. Here are some examples of events that might cause us to experience synchronicity: – Unexpectedly thinking about an old friend, then randomly encountering him later that day. – Calling a person on the phone, only to find he is calling you at the exact same time. – Thinking of a particular song moments before it begins to play on the radio. – Dreaming about playing a musical instrument, then seeing that same instrument on sale at a store. – Unintentionally finding a Bible verse that seems directly related to a current spiritual struggle. As with any attempt to discern meaning, it is possible to take an unnecessarily extreme approach to synchronicity. The extreme positions detailed below are evidence of dogmatism, not reason, and certainly not good sense. According to the die\-hard spiritual skeptic, there can be no connection between events unless the events have a common cause. Such a skeptic rejects any possible truth behind feelings of synchronicity. The skeptic’s automatic response to meaningful coincidences is an appeal to apophenia, the natural—and very real—human tendency to form patterns out of essentially random arrangements. Taking this extreme runs the risk of making a person [spiritually deaf](spiritual-awareness.html). According to the die\-hard spiritualist, every event is linked in some way. Such a person assumes a synchronous explanation for all seemingly related events and defends every coincidence as a “sign,” an “omen,” or some other message from the universe that requires action and attention. Taking this extreme runs the risk of making a person [superstitious](superstitions.html). The [Christian worldview](Christian-worldview.html) provides a more appropriate approach to synchronicity. This starts with recognizing, per biblical Christianity, that it is entirely possible for coincidences to actually be meaningful. The Christian worldview teaches that God is the Creator of the universe and that He interacts with that creation, providing a common (ultimate) cause for all possible events. That is to say, God is capable of causing whatever we experience, so it’s possible that, when we experience synchronicity, God really is trying to tell us something. On the other hand, Christianity also recognizes that some coincidences are exactly that—[coincidences](Bible-coincidence.html). While God is sovereign over every part of His creation, not everything that happens is meant as a grandiose message from heaven. Christ Himself used the phrase by chance when telling the [parable of the Good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html) (Luke 10:31, ESV). Modern skeptics often use chance to mean “without cause,” but this is not what Jesus was referring to. Rather, as did other ancient philosophers, Jesus used the term chance to refer to a moment when two separate lines of cause\-and\-effect interact. In other words, from a Christian standpoint, all things happen for a reason. But that reason is not necessarily an overt [message from God](God-telling-me.html). This is one reason why God calls on us to compare everything to the [written Word](sola-scriptura.html) (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 4:12\)—so we can rely on something more substantial than feelings or assumptions when we interpret our experiences. Synchronicity is a common feeling for everyone, but, as with any other feeling, we must apply wisdom before acting on it.
What was the Radical Reformation?	Answer During the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), men like [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html), [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html), and [Ulrich Zwingli](Ulrich-Zwingli.html) sought to reverse Catholicism’s changes to Christian doctrine and end abusive practices such as the selling of [indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html). For centuries, groups within Western Christianity had objected to the heretical drift of the Roman Church and sought to correct it. Among these were the Anabaptists, a loose collection of reform\-minded Christians within the church who greatly objected to doctrines such as infant baptism and a [centralized church](church-hierarchy.html). As the Reformation continued, groups like the [Anabaptists](Anabaptists.html) considered the steps taken by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to be insufficient. They pushed for even more drastic separation from Catholicism—not just Reformation, but “Radical Reformation.” The Radical Reformers took issue with mainstream Reformers over several key issues. One of these was the doctrine of [infant baptism](infant-baptism.html), a Catholic innovation maintained by denominations such as Lutheranism. The name Anabaptist refers to being “baptized again,” and the Radical Reformers insisted that Christianity return to its earlier understanding of baptism for believers only. The Radical Reformation also opposed mainline Reformers over the relationship between [church and state](separation-church-state.html). Most of the major Reformers felt that church and state were intertwined and that it was appropriate to use politics and law to enact both church and social reform. Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli’s process is sometimes referred to as the Magisterial Reformation, for this reason. In parallel, most Reformers maintained support for a highly centralized church structure. Radical Reformers, on the other hand, felt that church and state should be separated and that each individual church was accountable only to Christ and Scripture, not to any human institution. The doctrinal beliefs of the Radical Reformation predated the work of men like Martin Luther and John Calvin. While the Anabaptists were not literally part of a separate denomination before the Reformation, their disagreement with the Magisterial Reformers moved them in that very direction. Ultimately, these differences led some change\-minded Christians to dissociate themselves from both Roman Catholicism and the majority of the Protestant Reformers.
What is a cleric?	Answer A cleric is a member of the [clergy](clergy-and-laity.html). Most every religion assumes a divide between the clerics—the “professional” ministers—and the laity—basically, all those who are not clerics. Scripture says that believers have different callings and gifts (Romans 12:6\), and some are called to be pastors or teachers (Ephesians 4:11\), but all believers are servants (“ministers”) of the Lord (Romans 14:4\). There is nothing particularly biblical about dividing the church into clerical and non\-clerical classes; there is something quite amiss with clerics who view themselves as more spiritual or closer to God than the “common” believer and with the concept that clerics must wear “clerical” clothing such as special shirts, collars, albs, cassocks, capes, cinctures, tippets, hats, surplices, jewelry, etc. A cleric is ordained to perform pastoral or other religious work. Cleric is a general term and is used in reference to Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, and non\-denominational pastors. For example, “The cleric led the funeral procession honoring the memory of Dr. Williams.” The word cleric also has roots that extend beyond Latin. The Greek word kleros referred to an object used in the casting of lots (see Matthew 27:35\) or to an inheritance or portion such as might be obtained by the casting of lots (see Acts 1:25–26\). By the second century, kleros was being used by early Greek Christians to refer to any type of ministry work. They based this idea upon Deuteronomy 18:1–2, which says the [Levites](Levitical-priesthood.html) (set apart for temple work) had no inheritance, or “portion,” with the rest of Israel; rather, the Lord would be their portion. From kleros we get the word clerk, which originally referred to a member of the clergy and was a synonym of cleric.
What were the Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law?	Answer Shammai and Hillel were two influential [Jewish rabbis](Jewish-rabbi.html) whose commentaries on the [Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html) shaped Jewish theology and philosophy for hundreds of years. The Shammaite and Hillelite schools were the two dominant approaches to Jewish Law during the years of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Unfortunately, the destruction of the temple in [AD 70](AD-70.html) resulted in the loss of most records relating to the debates between these two groups. The Hillelite school quickly gained dominance after the temple was razed, so much of what we know about first\-century Hillelite and Shammaite law comes exclusively from later Hillelite writers. These writers portray the Shammaite\-Hillelite divide in a manner similar to modern two\-party politics, with each side seemingly bound and determined to contradict the other on everything. According to tradition, Shammai was a Pharisee who taught in the years just prior to Jesus’ birth. In his commentary on the Law, he emphasized the need for temple rituals, and his interpretation is characterized as strict, literalist, and Israel\-centric. The school that followed those interpretations is referred to as the Shammaite interpretation of Jewish Law. Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Shammai, was less concerned with temple worship. His commentary is seen as being more liberal, tolerant, and accepting of Gentiles. Hillel was also known for codifying traditional patterns for [exegesis](Biblical-exegesis.html) into seven individual rules. His Hillelite school was a rival to the Shammaite approach. After the destruction of the temple, the influence of the Shammaite school faded, and Hillel’s philosophy became the dominant approach to Jewish Law for more than 400 years. Scholars are unsure how many of the differences between the Shammaite and Hillelite schools are factual and how many are the products of revisionist history. While Jewish scholars prior to AD 70 make frequent reference to the disagreements between these two groups, the vast majority of surviving records are from Hillelite writers. It’s possible that the Hillelites exaggerated some of the differences between Shammai and Hillel in order to portray Hillel in a more heroic light. Even with such open questions, it’s clear that the interplay between Shammai and Hillel influenced Judaism during the early Christian era. The rivalry between the two schools greatly contributed to Judaism’s growing belief that the [oral law](Mishnah-midrash.html)—such as promoted in the Shammaite or Hillelite schools—was as authoritative as the written Torah. Some scholars debate which school, Shammaite or Hillelite, had a greater influence on the theology of the New Testament. Jesus’ restrictive rules on [divorce](grounds-for-divorce.html) echo those of Shammai, while Hillel allowed for a wider range of acceptable reasons to end a marriage. Jesus also phrased the [“Golden Rule”](Golden-Rule.html) using a more challenging, positive expression, in contrast to Hillel’s lighter, negative expression of the same basic idea. At the same time, Jesus was welcoming of non\-Jewish people and often castigated the Pharisees for their excessive legalism. The fact is that Jesus presented the truth, and His agreement with either Shammai or Hillel was secondary and coincidental. Jesus spoke the Father’s Word, and His teaching cannot be seen as a defense of any rabbi (John 12:49\). There is also an academic debate over the influence of Shammai and Hillel on the theology of the apostle Paul. On one hand, Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who came from the Hillelite school and might have even been Hillel’s grandson. But, prior to his conversion, Paul (Saul) was hardly a tolerant, Gentile\-friendly Pharisee. Rather, in opposition to Gamaliel’s teaching, Paul took a severe stance. And in his letters Paul expresses an Israel\-centric, all\-or\-nothing obedience to the Law (Romans 3:19–28; cp. James 2:10\), which many scholars would identify more with Shammai. Of course, as he was writing inspired Scripture, Paul was not concerned with what rabbi might have had a past influence upon him; he was “carried along by the Holy Spirit” and wrote what the Spirit wanted (2 Peter 1:21\). Ultimately, the differences between Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law are more a matter of historical trivia than a major concern for Christianity. While their influence on Jewish theology might have been significant, the teachings of Shammai and Hillel are ultimately irrelevant against the contents of Scripture and the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.
In what ways was Moses like Jesus?	Answer In one of Moses’ final speeches, he gave this messianic prophecy: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18:15\). The prophet whom [Moses](life-Moses.html) foretells bears these qualities: He will be raised up by God, He will come from among the Israelites, He will be like Moses, and He will be worthy of being heard and obeyed. The prophet who fulfills these words is Jesus Christ, the prophet like Moses. On the banks of the Jordan River, the Jews questioned [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) about who he was and why he was baptizing. Their question “Are you the Prophet?” (John 1:21\) shows that they were looking for the fulfillment of Moses’ prophecy. John plainly informed them that he was not the Prophet but pointed them to the One who was: “Among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie” (verses 26–27\). John’s description of the Messiah as one “among you” recalls Moses’ prediction that God would raise up the Prophet “from among you” in Deuteronomy 18:15\. The very next day, John specifically identifies Jesus as the One they were waiting for (John 1:29–31\). In his sermon at the temple, Peter affirms that Jesus is the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22, quoting Deuteronomy 18:15\). Stephen, addressing the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:37, also quotes Moses and applies the prophecy to Jesus Christ. Jesus is like Moses in several ways. Moses was both a prophet and a lawgiver, and Jesus is, too. Jesus was widely recognized as a prophet who spoke the Word of God (Matthew 21:46\), and He gave commandments for His followers to obey (John 13:34; 15:12, 17; Galatians 6:2\). Both Moses and Jesus mediated a covenant between God and men—Moses the [Old Covenant](old-covenant.html) (Exodus 34:27; Acts 7:44\), and Jesus the [New](new-covenant.html) (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:15\). Both Moses and Jesus were born during perilous times, and both narrowly escaped a king bent on murdering babies (Exodus 1:22 and Matthew 2:16–18\). Both Moses and Jesus had a connection to Egypt (Exodus 2:1–4 and Matthew 2:13–14\). Moses was the (adopted) son of a king (Exodus 2:10\), and Jesus is the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:32\). Moses spent forty years as a shepherd (Exodus 3:1\), and Jesus is the [Good Shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html) (John 10:11, 14\). Both Moses and Jesus were known for their meekness (Numbers 12:3 and Matthew 11:29\). Moses and Jesus were alike in that they both led God’s people out of captivity. With [great power](ten-plagues-Egypt.html), Moses led the Israelites out of physical bondage and slavery in Egypt, and Jesus, with even greater power, led God’s elect out of spiritual bondage and slavery to sin. Moses stood before Pharaoh and said, “'Let my people go” (Exodus 5:1\). Jesus came “to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and . . . to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18\). “In Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2\). Moses was also like Jesus in that he performed miracles—not all prophets did. Several of the miracles of Moses bear a resemblance to Jesus’ miracles, most notably the provision of [bread in the wilderness](what-was-manna.html) (Exodus 16:35\), which is comparable to Jesus’ [feeding of the 5,000](feeding-the-5000.html) (John 6:1–13\). In fact, after Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes, the people’s thoughts ran immediately to Moses’ prophecy: “After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, ‘Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world’” (John 6:14\). Another way that Moses was like Jesus is that he held intimate conversations with God: “The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exodus 33:11\). Jesus also had a special relationship to God: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matthew 11:27\); “The Father knows me and I know the Father” (John 10:15\). When Moses stood in God’s presence, his face shone with a heavenly glory and had to be covered with a veil (Exodus 34:29–35\), and this reminds us of Jesus’ transfiguration, when “His face shone like the sun” (Matthew 17:2\). Another important way that Moses was like Jesus is that he constantly interceded for his people. When the Israelites sinned, Moses was always standing by, ready to petition God on their behalf and plead for their forgiveness. After the blatant idolatry at the foot of Mt. Sinai involving the [golden calf](golden-calf.html), Moses interceded twice for the people (Exodus 32:11–13, 30–32\), and his intercession was needed at other times, too (e.g., Numbers 11:2; 12:13; 21:7\). Moses’ intercession was temporary, but our Lord’s is everlasting. “If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1\). Jesus is right now “at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Romans 8:34\). Jesus “always lives to intercede” for us (Hebrews 7:25\). Not only was Moses an intercessor for God’s people but, like Jesus, he was willing to die for them. In Exodus 32:32, Moses offers his life in exchange for sinners. “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” Jesus said (John 15:13\), and Jesus proved His love when He “laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16; cf. John 10:15\). Finally, Moses and Jesus were alike in that both were sent to people who, by and large, rejected them and would not listen. Moses led a rebellious people (Psalm 78:17–55; Deuteronomy 9:6, 13, 27; Acts 7:39\). Numerous times, the people tested God rebelled against Moses (Numbers 14:1–4, 21–23; 16:1–3\). Likewise, Jesus was sent to a people who “did not receive him” (John 1:11\), besmirched His character (Matthew 12:24\), and eventually killed Him (Matthew 27:22–26\).
Why does Moses have horns in some ancient statues / sculptures?	Answer Michelangelo’s famous statue of Moses on display in Vincoli, Rome, in the Basilica of St. Peter in Chains, depicts Moses with two horns on his head. This horned portrayal of Moses by Michelangelo and by other artists in other works of art and literature stems from a passage in the book of Exodus. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the first set of stone tablets, he encountered the idolatry and immorality of the people. In rage Moses threw down the tablets, breaking them to pieces. After the people repented, God called Moses to climb Mount Sinai again, with new stone tablets to replace those he had broken: “When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God” (Exodus 34:29, ESV). When the people saw Moses’ shining face, they were afraid to go near him (verse 30\). So Moses [covered his face with a veil](Moses-veil.html) (verse 33\). There seems to be nothing in this passage to warrant the idea that Moses had horns, yet this is indeed where the idea comes from, because of a Latin translation. The original Hebrew word used to describe the radiant skin of Moses’ face is qaran. A related word, qeren, means “horns,” as it refers to something that “projected outward” as horns do. However, the word qaran properly means “to shine” or “to send out rays.” The Hebrew wording used in Exodus 34 was meant to indicate that Moses’ face “sent forth rays of light” or “projected light.” The [Latin Vulgate](Latin-Vulgate.html) translation by Jerome in the fourth century used the Latin word cornuta to describe Moses’ face. Cornuta, related to the word cornucopia (“horn of plenty”), means “horned.” Jerome, in saying that Moses was unaware that “his face had become horned,” was most likely expressing the fact that the skin of Moses’ face radiated with “strong horns of light.” But his wording led to overly literal interpretations by artists who assumed that Moses had actual horns protruding from his face when he descended Mount Sinai. One English translation retains the “horns” wording in Exodus 34\. The Catholic [Douay\-Rheims Bible](Douay-Rheims-Version-DRV.html) translation of Exodus 34:29 says, “When Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord” (emphasis added). The reason that Moses has “horns” in the Douay\-Rheims Translation is that the DRT was translated directly from the Latin Vulgate and not from the original Bible languages. The [Septuagint](septuagint.html) (280—100 BC), the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, refers to the face of Moses as “glorified.” The apostle Paul confirms that this is indeed the correct meaning: “Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory” (2 Corinthians 3:7\). It’s possible that Michelangelo and other ancient artists used horns symbolically, in the same way Jerome did in the Latin Vulgate, to visually illustrate rays of light in the form of horn\-like protrusions. Although some anti\-Semitic propaganda has since depicted Jews as having horns, Michelangelo’s sculpture of Moses did not represent anything negative or demonic. In the Bible, horns often symbolize power, expressing domination of the weak (Ezekiel 34:21\), the power of destruction (Zechariah 1:18–21\), and deliverance from oppression (1 Kings 22:11; 2 Chronicles 18:10\). The seven horns of the Lamb of God represent His infinite power (Revelation 5:6\). Moses did not have horns on his head. He had “a face of strength,” emanating rays of light after he talked with God. The Bible is clear about this, but a faulty translation of one verse—some would say an overly literal translation—amplified by classical artwork, has led to some confusion and puzzlement.
What does it mean that judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17)?	Answer Judgment is a recurring theme throughout the Bible (see Psalm 82:8\). God’s plan includes a final judgment on the wicked and all who reject the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as payment for their sins (Matthew 10:15; Romans 2:2; Hebrews 9:27; 10:26–27\). A cursory reading of 1 Peter 4:17 seems to suggest that Christians may face God’s judgment, too: “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” Is the “judgment” that begins at the house of God the same as the judgment of the wicked? The context of 1 Peter 4:17 explains more about the judgment that begins at the household of God. In this chapter Peter is exhorting the church—the house of God—which was facing persecution, to persevere. The believers were also struggling to separate from the former worldly sins that had once enslaved them (verses 1–4\). Peter reminds them that the wicked will face God’s judgment (verse 5\) but that believers in Christ must hold themselves to a higher standard than they once did. The “fiery trials” that they were facing were to help refine them like gold (verse 12\). God allows difficulties and suffering in the lives of His people to purify them. When we are persecuted for the cause of Christ, we share in His sufferings (1 Peter 4:13–14\). And when we share His suffering, we know Him a little better (Philippians 3:10\). Paul echoes this theme in Romans 8:17: “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co\-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” Part of God’s judgment upon sin is physical suffering. When His own children experience such suffering, it is not for our harm but to make us more like Jesus. “Judgment” for the children of God can be considered discipline (Hebrews 12:4–11\). It is designed to purge the sin from our lives and teach us obedience. A loving father does not discipline the kids down the street, because they are not his. A father disciplines his own children. Likewise, the discipline of our heavenly Father begins at His own household, with His own children, the church. He is reserving for the wicked an ultimate, final judgment that His children will never experience (Romans 8:1\). Scripture makes a distinction between God’s purifying discipline of the church and His ultimate condemnation of the wicked: “When we are judged . . . by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:32\). In this present age, God allows painful circumstances in the lives of His own household, not to condemn but to mature, convict, and bring repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10\). Through suffering we learn patience (James 1:2–4\). This kind of judgment is to encourage us to abandon selfishness and draw nearer to Him (James 4:8\). The ultimate, final judgment for unbelievers will be eternal separation from God, from life, and from all that is good and beautiful (Matthew 8:11–12; Revelation 21:8\). The judgment that begins at the household of God also includes [church discipline](church-discipline.html). Church discipline is not for unbelievers but for believers: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Corinthians 5:12\). Believers are commanded to take responsibility for other followers of Christ who may be slipping or headed toward sin (James 5:20\). First Corinthians 5:11–13 commands us to avoid fellowship with anyone claiming to be a brother or sister in Christ but who insists on maintaining a sinful lifestyle. Jesus lays out the process for church discipline in Matthew 18:15–17\. Someone who has been confronted multiple times and warned that the choices he is making are in opposition to God needs to repent. If he refuses to listen to the church, we are to turn away from him in the hope that this drastic action will bring about repentance (see 2 Corinthians 2:7 and Galatians 6:1\). As believers, we are to pursue holiness and encourage each other to pursue it, too (1 Peter 1:15–16\). We are to judge ourselves as God’s household (1 Corinthians 11:31\). In this way, judgment begins in the house of God. There will be another kind of judgment for all those who have been redeemed by God’s Son. Second Corinthians 5:10 says, “For we must all appear before the [judgment seat](judgment-seat-Christ.html) of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (cf. Romans 14:10\). This judgment for those who are “[in Christ](in-Christ.html)” is not to determine eternal destiny but to give rewards for godly service and faithfulness (Matthew 16:27; Revelation 22:12\). Jesus commanded us to store up [treasure in heaven](treasures-in-heaven.html) (Luke 12:33\). This treasure will be revealed at the judgment seat of Christ. This glorious day will be more like an awards ceremony than a trial, because everyone present has already had their eternal fate secured when they were born again (John 3:3\). Jesus Himself will give us crowns and treasure to enjoy for all eternity according to what we have done with all He had entrusted to us (Matthew 25:21\). God’s desire is that His people learn to walk in holiness and fellowship with Him (Romans 8:29\). As any loving parent would do, God will bring unpleasant consequences upon His children for rebellion. He expects the ones He has redeemed by the blood of His Son to set the example for the rest of the world. If the church is not in pursuit of holiness, the world sees no need to change its allegiance. So judgment begins in the household of God, with His own children, as He teaches us to live like Jesus.
What was the significance of the bronze laver?	Answer The bronze laver, also called the “bronze basin” (NIV) and the “laver of brass” (KJV), was one of the furnishings required by God in the outer courts of the [tabernacle](tabernacle-of-Moses.html) and temple. It stood between the temple and the altar, and it held water for washing (Exodus 30:18\). The first bronze laver was made for the tabernacle, the movable tent erected in the desert after the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. The bronze laver was for Aaron and his sons (the priests) to wash their hands and feet before they entered the tabernacle, “so that they will not die” (Exodus 30:20\). The priests also had to wash their hands and their feet before they approached the altar with a food offering (verse 21\). God declared that this was to be a statute forever to them. The washing of the priests was to be observed by Aaron and his descendants in all ages, as long as their priesthood lasted. God wanted His people to understand the importance of purity. Exodus 38:8 tells us that the bronze laver and its base of bronze were made from the mirrors brought by “the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.” The women of that day did not have glass mirrors as we do today. They used highly polished brass and other metals. Job 37:18 refers to a “mirror of cast bronze.” The serving women donated their mirrors to the tabernacle to be used in creating the bronze laver. After the Jews ended their wandering in the desert, the tabernacle was replaced by the [temple in Jerusalem](Solomon-first-temple.html), built by King Solomon. The bronze laver in the temple was made by a bronze worker named [Hiram](Huram-Hiram.html) of Tyre who also crafted the [bronze pillars](Jachin-and-Boaz.html) that stood at the entrance to the temple vestibule (1 Kings 7:13–14\). The “Sea of cast metal” (1 Kings 7:23\), so called because of its great size, took the place of the tabernacle’s laver, but its function was the same—the washing of the priests. This second laver was much larger than the one in the tabernacle: 15 feet in diameter at the top and about 47 feet in circumference, with a depth of 7\.5 feet (1 Kings 7:23\). The depth of the water in the bronze laver seems to indicate that the priests completely immersed themselves in it, rather than just washing their hands and feet. The brim of the laver was carved with flowers, and oxen were carved or cut on the outside all around. The laver stood on a pedestal of twelve bronze oxen, three facing each direction of the compass. The temple court also held ten bronze basins for washing the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 4:6\), but the Sea, or the bronze laver, was only for the priests to wash in. When the [Babylonians](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) sacked Jerusalem in 605 BC, they “broke up the bronze pillars, the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were at the temple of the LORD and they carried all the bronze to Babylon” (Jeremiah 52:17\). The bronze laver had to be rebuilt for [Zerubbabel’s temple](Zerubbabel-second-temple.html). There are no biblical descriptions of the bronze laver as part of [Herod’s temple](Herod-third-temple.html), but historians believe the bronze laver rested on twelve bronze bulls and sat between the altar and the temple, as Moses had instructed. When the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70, the temple was completely destroyed, and the furnishings, including the laver, were either stolen or destroyed. It is significant that the bronze laver was the last object to be encountered before entering the tabernacle (Exodus 40:6–7\). Before entering God’s presence, one must be cleansed. The Levitical priests had to continually wash to ready themselves for the presence of Holy God, but Jesus Christ fulfilled all the Law (Matthew 5:17\). When Christ died, His people were cleansed once for all time by His blood shed on the cross. We no longer need a ritualistic washing with water to come before God, because Christ has “provided purification for sins” (Hebrews 1:3\). Now we can “approach the throne of grace with confidence” (Hebrews 4:16\), being sure that we are acceptable to Him because we are spiritually clean.
What is revivalism?	Answer Revivalism is a method of evangelism relying on what is usually a series of evangelistic meetings called revivals. Revivalism is concerned with the necessity of conversion—a personal decision to follow Christ. Evangelists leading revivals characteristically end every sermon with a strong, emotional appeal for a decision. Revivalism calls people out of a cultural Christianity into a living faith. Revivalism has as its basis the fact that sinners need to be saved, and the preaching of the Word of God is necessary for sinners to know the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) that saves them (Romans 10:14\). Biblical pleas for God to revive His people give revivalism its name: “Revive us, and we will call on your name. Restore us, Lord God Almighty; make your face shine on us, that we may be saved” (Psalm 80:18–19; see also Psalm 85:6; 119:25; and Isaiah 57:15\). In the more Calvinistic\-leaning churches of the American Colonies, the emphasis was upon God who saves the sinner. While it was recognized that the sinner must exercise faith, preachers emphasized God as the One who takes the initiative and calls the sinner to Himself. The Holy Spirit convicted people of their need as they listened to the truth of the gospel proclaimed from the pulpit and enabled people to believe. Many people who grew up in the church grew into faith without having a definitive “conversion experience.” The [First Great Awakening](First-Second-Great-Awakening.html), which followed the preaching of [Jonathan Edwards](Jonathan-Edwards.html) and George Whitfield, was still firmly within this Calvinist tradition. Later revivalist preachers often went where there was no established church (like the American frontier) or where the churches seemed to have grown cold. Revivalists emphasized that each person must make a decision for Christ. They challenged those who had simply accepted the faith of their ancestors without making it truly their own, as well as those who had never embraced any faith at all. They wanted to “revive” the people to a living, functioning Christianity. They preached the judgment of God against sin and pleaded with the sinner to repent and trust Christ. “Altar calls” were often accompanied by great displays of emotion and prolonged pleadings. When people began to respond en masse, the revival was seen to be successful. The Second Great Awakening under [Charles Finney](Charles-Finney.html) followed this pattern and was much more Arminian in approach. The emphasis was less upon the God who called the sinner to faith and more upon the need to convince the sinner to repent and believe. Later revivals placed more and more emphasis upon music to set the tone and help prepare people to make the decision for Christ. (Even today, some churches continue to have extensive altar calls, while others rarely have an altar call or extend the invitation in some other way such as “if you are interested in knowing more about what it means to be a Christian, drop by the reception area for a cup of coffee and the pastor will be happy to speak with you.” Often this difference in approach can be traced back to the theology of the church and whether the emphasis is upon God who calls the sinner or upon the sinner who must be convinced to respond.) Revivalism continued in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with the preaching of [D. L. Moody](D-L-Moody.html), [Billy Sunday](Billy-Sunday.html), and [Billy Graham](Billy-Graham.html), who held “[revival meetings](gospel-crusade.html)” with much the same emphasis. Today, in popular thinking, the word [evangelicalism](evangelicalism.html) has come to encompass many of the values that revivalism embraced in earlier centuries. Whether [Calvinistic or Arminian](Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html), evangelicalism still stresses personal conversion and a resultant change—not only an inward, spiritual [quickening](quicken-in-the-Bible.html), but also an external change in behavior visible to the watching world. Today, revivalism as an evangelistic method is on the wane; large “revival meetings” that fill stadiums are not as common in the United States. Many churches still have a week of “revival meetings” annually. Church members are encouraged to invite unsaved friends and family to meetings where Christians will be challenged to a deeper walk with Christ and the unsaved will be challenged to accept Christ.
What is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD)?	Answer The term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism was first coined by sociologists Christian Smith and Melina Lundquist Denton in their 2005 book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press). Based on extensive research, they identified the predominant beliefs of American teenagers, even those that claim to be Christians. They named the core beliefs Moralistic Therapeutic Deism or MTD. The five core beliefs of MTD are as follows: 1\. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth. 2\. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. 3\. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. 4\. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. 5\. Good people go to heaven when they die. The beliefs of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism are “moralistic” in that they place a high value on “being good” as found in \#2 and \#5, above. Good is really defined by popular culture rather than the moral imperatives of the Bible. So tolerating behaviors the Bible calls sin might be seen as “good” while calling those behaviors “sin” might be seen as intolerant or hateful, which is bad. The beliefs of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism are “therapeutic” in that the primary value is feeling good about oneself as articulated in beliefs \#3 and \#4, above. God’s “job” is to take care of us. The authors used the word deism because, in Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, God exists as the Creator, but He is relatively uninvolved (beliefs \#1 and \#4, above). [Deists](deism.html) have objected to this use of the term because, in true deism, God never intervenes in human affairs. He created us, but He leaves us alone. For this reason, some have suggested that [theism](what-is-a-theist.html) would be a better term. Theists believe that God exists and that He can and does intervene from time to time when needed, in answer to prayer, etc. The most important point concerning Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, however, is not the difference between theism and deism, but how far removed from biblical truth some young people are. The beliefs of MTD are not isolated to Millennials, either. It seems that many people simply view God as a “cosmic genie,” a “divine bellhop,” or a roadside assistance mechanic—you don’t know Him or need to, but you can call Him when you are broken down and He will come and get you going again. The most important thing, according to MTD, is to be good, nice, and tolerant, and God will ultimately receive you into heaven. This view is probably held by a lot of Americans and seems to be becoming the dominant “civic religion,” which emphasizes the horizontal relationships with other people but minimizes a relationship with God. In short, MTD puts humanity at the center and, ultimately, each individual at the center of his or her own belief system. Biblical Christians will have problems with all 5 key points of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism: 1\. Not just “a god” exists, but the God of the Bible, who has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Whoever does not honor Jesus Christ as God does not honor God (see John 5:23\). 2\. God does not just want people to be “nice” but commands that they obey Him. He is the One who defines good and nice. He calls sin “sin” and promises to judge it (see Romans 1:18–32\). 3\. The central goal of life is to give glory to God. A by\-product may be that we feel good about ourselves, but that is not the goal (see Romans 11:36\). 4\. Our primary goal as believers is to be constantly in tune with God, following His leading and in daily fellowship with Him. We are to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17\). 5\. No one is good enough to go to heaven. All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23\); no one is good enough, and that is why we need Jesus, God in the flesh. He lived the perfect life that we could not, and He died to pay for our sin so that we might be made acceptable to God. “‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed’” (1 Peter 2:24\). Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is not an official religion. Probably no one would ever identify himself as a “Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.” The real problem is that [moralism](moralism.html) is not Christianity, and most people who hold these beliefs are likely to identify themselves as Christians when in fact they are living to glorify themselves!
Why doesn’t God respond when I cry out, “God, please help me!”?	Answer Many have felt abandoned by God in their times of greatest need, asking God for help but not receiving what was asked for. Does this mean that God doesn’t care or that He is ignoring our cries for help? When we cry out for Him, asking Him to stop the pain and suffering, we are communicating a universal desire to avoid hurt. That is not weakness, but it is human. The Bible records several testimonies of those who called out to God in a time of need and, at least for a while, were met with silence. [Job](life-Job.html) is the most obvious example, as in his distress he felt as if God were nowhere to be found: “If I go to the east, he is not there; if I go to the west, I do not find him. When he is at work in the north, I do not see him; when he turns to the south, I catch no glimpse of him” (Job 23:8–9\). The psalmists also struggled with the feeling that God was not responding to their cries: “Why, LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” (Psalm 10:1\); “How long, LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?” (Psalm 13:1\); “Why do you hide your face and forget our misery and oppression?” (Psalm 44:24\). Jesus understands the mindset of not wanting to experience pain and suffering. In the [Garden of Gethsemane](garden-of-Gethsemane.html), just before His arrest, Jesus asked His Father three times, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39\) (also see Matthew 26:42 and Matthew 20:22\). Though He asked for the “cup” to pass, Jesus asked with the condition “if it is possible.” Jesus was in complete submission to God’s will and not His own. If His suffering was a part of God’s will, then He was willing to accept that. When we cry out, “God, please help me,” God hears us and always responds. He may not respond in the way we wish, but He responds nonetheless. Understandably, when amid the throes of pain, suffering, and grief, it is difficult to see the wider perspective of God’s plan, especially when we receive an answer of “no” or “not now.” But we can trust in God’s sovereignty because we know He is good (Psalm 48:1; 95:3, 6\). Even as we go through the trials, God gives grace (2 Corinthians 12:9\). After Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, “an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him” (Luke 22:43\). Since God is [omniscient](God-omniscient.html), He is privy to details we cannot begin to understand. Psalm 147:5 says, “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.” When we cry out to God, “Please help me,” He sees the heart and understands (Hebrews 4:15\), and His response will always be out of love (Romans 5:8; Psalm 139:13–16\). We can submit to His authority because He is trustworthy. Remember, God broke His silence and revealed Himself to Job in an unmistakable way (Job 38:1\). Jesus assures us that God will only give us what is good and right in Luke 11:11–13, “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” The God who keeps track of every sparrow cares about the details of our lives, too (Luke 12:5–6\). Since God knows what is best for our lives, He will not say “yes” to a prayer that goes against what is best. We may not understand or agree with the why of that response, but we can trust that God does and that His actions will redound to His glory and our ultimate good (Psalm 19:7; 2 Corinthians 4:7\). Through painful moments in life, we can learn Christlikeness and glorify the Lord with our words and actions even through our suffering (Job 1:22; James 1:2–8; 1 Chronicles 16:28–29\). God responds to every call for help. But whether or not that answer is the one we most desire is up to God. God works for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28\) and for His glory. We can trust that He will always respond to cries for help in accordance to His good and perfect will. Even when the psalmist was searching for a seemingly absent God, he chose to live by faith: “But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation. I will sing the Lord’s praise, for he has been good to me” (Psalm 13:5–6\).

Subsets and Splits

Top Long Responses

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