prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
What is regeneration according to the Bible? |
Answer
Another word for *regeneration* is *rebirth*, related to the biblical phrase “born again.” Our rebirth is distinguished from our first birth, when we were conceived physically and inherited our [sin nature](sin-nature.html). The [new birth](new-birth.html) is a spiritual, holy, and heavenly birth that results in our being made alive spiritually. Man in his natural state is “dead in trespasses and sins” until he is “made alive” (regenerated) by Christ. This happens when he places his faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:1\).
Regeneration is a radical change. Just as our physical birth resulted in a new individual entering the earthly realm, our spiritual birth results in a new person entering the heavenly realm (Ephesians 2:6\). After regeneration, we begin to see and hear and seek after divine things; we begin to live a life of faith and holiness. Now Christ is formed in the hearts; now we are partakers of the divine nature, having been made new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17\). God, not man, is the source of this transformation (Ephesians 2:1, 8\). God’s great love and free gift, His rich grace and abundant mercy, are the cause of the rebirth. The mighty power of God—the power that raised Christ from the dead—is displayed in the regeneration and conversion of sinners (Ephesians 1:19–20\).
Regeneration is necessary. Sinful human flesh cannot stand in God’s presence. In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus said twice that a man must be [born again](born-again.html) in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 7\). Regeneration is not optional, for “flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:6\). Physical birth fits us for earth; spiritual rebirth fits us for heaven. See Ephesians 2:1; 1 Peter 1:23; John 1:13; 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18\.
Regeneration is part of what God does for us at the moment of salvation, along with sealing (Ephesians 1:14\), adoption (Galatians 4:5\), reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18–20\), etc. Regeneration is God’s making a person spiritually alive, as a result of faith in Jesus Christ. Prior to salvation we were not God’s children (John 1:12–13\); rather, we were children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3; Romans 5:18–20\). Before salvation, we were degenerate; after salvation we are regenerated. The result of regeneration is peace with God (Romans 5:1\), new life (Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:17\), and eternal sonship (John 1:12–13; Galatians 3:26\). Regeneration begins the process of sanctification wherein we become the people God intends us to be (Romans 8:28–30\).
The only means of regeneration is by faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. No amount of good works or keeping of the Law can regenerate the heart. “By works of the law no human being will be justified in \[God’s] sight” (Romans 3:20\). Only Christ offers a cure for the [total depravity](total-depravity.html) of the human heart. We don’t need renovation or reformation or reorganization; we need rebirth.
|
Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible? |
Answer
It is very important to clarify exactly what role the Emperor [Constantine](Constantine-the-Great.html) played in the Council of Nicea, what the purpose for the council was, what happened at Nicea, and briefly how the canon—the Bible as we know it—was formed. Constantine was a Roman Emperor who lived from 274 to 337 A.D. He is most famous for becoming the single ruler of the Roman Empire (after deceiving and defeating Licinius, his brother\-in\-law) and supposedly converting to Christianity. It is debated whether or not Constantine was actually a believer (according to his confessions and understanding of the faith) or just someone trying to use the church and the faith to his own advantage. Constantine called the Council of Nicea—the first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.—primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, "There was when He was not." This was in reference to Jesus and was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the following words about Christ in the Nicene Creed: "God from true God…from the Father…not made." It was determined by the council that Christ was *homoousia*, meaning, one substance with the Father.
Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party’s document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council. Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine’s death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2\-3 John, Jude, Ps\-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.
Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long\-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.
|
What is Opus Dei? |
Answer
Opus Dei is an organization within the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html) that encourages its members to demonstrate Christian virtues in their daily lives. The name of Opus Dei is Latin for “Work of God.” Its full name is “The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei.” Founded in 1928 by Father Josemaría Escriva during a pilgrimage in Madrid, the Opus Dei roster lists some 90,000 members of which only 2 percent are priests; 98 percent of the organization’s members are lay Catholics, men and women, mostly married, and engaged in vocations outside of the professional clergy.
Opus Dei promotes the integration of Christian holiness into all facets of their members’ lives. The stated aim of Opus Dei is “to contribute to \[the] evangelizing mission of the Church, by fostering among Christians of all social classes a life fully consistent with their faith, in the middle of the ordinary circumstances of their lives and especially through the sanctification of their work” (from their official website).
Born in Barbastro, Spain, on January 9, 1902, Josemaría Escriva studied civil law while pursuing his ecclesiastical studies. He was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1925 and earned a doctorate in law two years later. The following year, he founded Opus Dei. Besides his work with Opus Dei, Escriva was active in ministering to those suffering from poverty. He was also a prolific writer; his most popular book, *The Way*, has sold over four million copies and has been translated into dozens of languages. At his death on June 26, 1975, Opus Dei’s membership totaled 60,000 members, and on October 6, 2002, Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escriva, calling him “the saint of the ordinary.”
Opus Dei was unfairly maligned by novelist Dan Brown in his fictional [*The DaVinci Code*](DaVinci-code-truth.html). Brown’s fanciful portrayal of Opus Dei painted a picture of a secret society of radicals who are guilty of political intrigue and historical coverups. Practically nothing in Brown’s caricature is accurate, other than the fact that Opus Dei is a Catholic institution.
The prelature of Opus Dei refutes Brown’s portrayal of Opus Dei on the following points:
• Brown presents Opus Dei members as monks, but in reality there are no monks in Opus Dei.
• Brown describes Opus Dei as endorsing criminal behavior; Opus Dei condemns criminal activity.
• Brown calls Opus Dei a “sect” and a “cult”; in fact, Opus Dei is a fully integrated entity of the Catholic Church.
• Brown writes that women may not enter through the front doors of the Opus Dei headquarters, but must use a side entrance; however, males and females freely use the front entrance of the real Opus Dei headquarters building.
Unlike some other Catholic groups, members of Opus Dei do not call attention to their involvement in the organization. The prelate and vicars of Opus Dei do not wear special clothing to mark them as Opus Dei members, and the rank and file do not sport Opus Dei pins, rings, pendants, or other signifiers of their involvement.
Opus Dei promotes the following as core principles of their institution:
*Divine filiation*. A person is made a child of God through baptism. Those who have been baptized in the Church form a fraternity and have a close relationship with God.
*Ordinary life*. St. Josemaría said, “It is in the midst of the most material things of the earth that we must sanctify ourselves, serving God and all mankind” (*In Love with the Church*, Scepter Publishers, 2008, p. 52\). Every activity is seen as an opportunity to imitate Christ in love, patience, humility, diligence, integrity, cheerfulness, etc.
*Sanctifying work*. Opus Dei members are taught to work with the spirit of Christ, i.e., to work competently and ethically, with the aim of loving God and serving others.
*Prayer and sacrifice*. The sanctifying of one’s occupation is accomplished through the spiritual disciplines of prayer, [daily Mass](Holy-Eucharist.html), confession, penance, almsgiving, fasting, and devotion to Mary.
*Unity of life*. One’s professional, social, and family life should be united to one’s inner spiritual life, and all should honor God.
*Freedom*. Each member of Opus Dei is allowed to act with freedom and personal responsibility, with respect to others who may hold different opinions.
*Charity*. As part of being witnesses for Christ and spreading His message, members of Opus Dei seek to meet material needs and find solutions to social problems.
The values set forth by Opus Dei are commendable, and many of them are overtly biblical. The call to [holy living](holy-life.html) in all areas of life is not a Roman Catholic principle, per se; rather, it is incumbent upon all believers to honor God and live out the gospel message. Our caution against Opus Dei is that it is a Catholic institution and therefore holds to Catholic views of salvation, the sacraments, and veneration of Mary.
|
What is the Desposyni / Rex Deus? |
Answer
Desposyni is a name given to the blood\-relatives of Jesus through His mother, Mary. They are believed by some to have had a large part in the leadership of the Church in its formative years up through the 4th century, at which time references to the Desposyni seem to have disappeared. Many attribute this to violent persecution against Jewish Christians, Desposyni in particular. There are some who believe that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had children with her, whom are also called Desposyni. It is believed that this dynasty exists yet today and has played a large role in world government and religious leadership.
Rex Deus also attributes its lineage to the supposed marriage of Jesus and Mary, but also goes back to King David and, even further, to the High Priest Aaron, Moses’ brother. According to theorists, the Rex Deus have kept their bloodline pure throughout the last few thousand years and are supposedly custodians of the "true" secrets of Judaism and Christianity.
The Desposyni, as being blood\-descendants of Mary, Jesus’ mother, are historical fact. They are mentioned in historical records through the fourth century, A.D. However, claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children with her are clearly untrue, and should be immediately discounted. Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Jesus took a wife, let alone that it was Mary Magdalene. It cannot even be insinuated using biblical text. Every mention of Mary Magdalene in Scripture negates every assumption that there was a sexually intimate relationship between her and Jesus. This twisted view cannot even be supported by non\-canonical gospels which reference Mary Magdalene, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, or even the Gospel of Mary.
The marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene is merely a man\-made farce, a tool created to further the work of fringe researchers and conspiracy theorists. The ideas behind the Desposyni and Rex Deus arise from mankind’s penchant for solving mystery and for exposing the unknown. Their feeling is there must be an explanation for everything that happens in world history, and what is unknown does not suffice. So, theories are created by twisting historical facts. Farces are introduced as truth, and a few grasp onto this "truth" and take it to the next level in attempts to expose mystery and subterfuge. Secrets contain knowledge, and knowledge power, and will forever ever be an enticement. We who are believers, though, understand that there is only one Truth by which all mysteries are judged—the very Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\).
|
Did Constantine change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? |
Answer
In the year 321 A.D., [Constantine](Constantine-the-Great.html) decreed, "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed" (Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, *History of the Christian Church*, Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1\). Constantine seems to have made this change himself and not through the papacy, since the papacy had not really come in to being at that time. The papacy grew gradually out of the office of Bishop and for many years this was centered in Rome. In any case, it should be noted that in doing this, Constantine is not changing the Sabbath; he is merely making Sunday the official day of rest for the Roman Empire. His motivation was probably not born out of hatred for the Jews (it’s hard to say for sure why Constantine or any historical figure did what they did) but out of a desire to adopt what the Christians had practiced for nearly two and a half centuries.
It is well documented that the early church adopted Sunday as their day of worship. Acts 20:7 speaks of this, "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people …" and 1 Corinthians 16:2, "On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." These passages indicate that Christians were probably meeting regularly on Sunday (the first day of the week). They did this most likely because Christ rose on the first day of the week. It wasn’t until hundreds of years later that the death of Christ became the focal point of Christian worship services. That is not to say they thought it unimportant; but they were primarily concerned with His victory over death realized in His resurrection.
It is important to remember that corporate worship with other believers is necessary and part of obedience, but the day that your church body chooses to worship on is not really that significant. The New Testament addresses this in a couple of different passages. Colossians 2:14\-17 says, "He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross. So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.” Also see Romans 14:5\-6, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."
|
Is the priesthood of all believers biblical? |
Answer
The Bible teaches that all believers in Christ are priests in their own right. The main passage that deals with the priesthood of all believers is 1 Peter 2:5–9: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . . But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (ESV).
[Old Testament priests](Levitical-priesthood.html) were chosen by God, not self\-appointed, and they were chosen for a purpose: to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. The priesthood served as a picture or “type” of the coming ministry of Jesus Christ—a picture that was no longer needed once His sacrifice on the cross was completed. When God tore in two the [temple veil](temple-veil-torn.html) that covered the doorway to the Holy of Holies at the time of Christ’s death (Matthew 27:51\), He indicated that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Now people could come directly to God through the great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14–16\). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5\).
Christ our [High Priest](Jesus-High-Priest.html) has made one sacrifice for sin for all time (Hebrews 10:12\), and there is no more sacrifice for sin that can be made (Hebrews 10:26\). But as priests once offered other kinds of sacrifices in the temple, so it is clear from 1 Peter 2:5, 9 that God has chosen Christians “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (verse 5, NKJV).
First Peter 2:5–9 leads us to understand at least two things about the priesthood of believers. The first is that believers are privileged. To be chosen by God to be a priest was a privilege. All believers have been chosen by God: a “chosen people . . . God’s special possession” (verse 9\). In the Old Testament tabernacle and temple, there were places where only the priests could go. Into the Holy of Holies, behind a thick veil, only the high priest could go, and that only once a year on the [Day of Atonement](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html) when he made a sin offering on behalf of all the people. What a privilege we have now: direct access to the very throne of God! We who were once “not a people” and “had not received mercy” (2 Peter 2:10\) are the people of God who serve as holy priests because of the mercy of God.
The second thing to know about the priesthood of believers is that we are chosen for a purpose: to offer up spiritual sacrifices (cf. Hebrews 13:15–16\) and to “declare the praises of him who called \[us] out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:10\). Thus, both by life (1 Peter 2:5; Titus 2:11–14; Ephesians 2:10\) and by word (1 Peter 2:9; 3:15\), our purpose is to serve God. As the believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\), so God has called us to serve Him. We offer our lives as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1–2\). One day we will be serving God in eternity (Revelation 22:3–4\), but not in any temple, for “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (Revelation 21:22\). As the Old Testament priesthood was to be free of defilement, so has Christ made us holy positionally before the Father. He calls on us to live holy lives that we might also be a “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5\).
In summary, believers are called “a [royal priesthood](royal-priesthood.html)” as a reflection of their privileged status as heirs to the kingdom of the Almighty God and of the Lamb. In Christ, our High Priest, we have a closeness to God, and no earthly mediator is necessary. As priests in God’s kingdom, we recognize that salvation is not merely “fire insurance” but an opportunity to serve God in offering spiritual sacrifices. The royal priesthood is comprised of people “eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14\). As priests of the living God, we give praise to the One who sacrificed Himself on our behalf, and we share the wonderful news of this grace with others.
|
What is the Great Commission? |
Answer
Matthew 28:19–20 contains what has come to be called the Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Jesus gave this command to the apostles shortly before He [ascended into heaven](ascension-Jesus-Christ.html), and it essentially outlines what Jesus expected the apostles and those who followed them to do in His absence.
It is interesting that, in the original Greek, the only direct command in Matthew 28:19–20 is “make disciples.” The Great Commission instructs us to make disciples while we are going throughout the world. The instructions to “go,” “baptize,” and “teach” are indirect commands—participles in the original. How are we to make disciples? By baptizing them and teaching them all that Jesus commanded. “[Make disciples](making-disciples.html)” is the primary command of the Great Commission. “Going,” “baptizing,” and “teaching” are the means by which we fulfill the command to “make disciples.”
A disciple is someone who receives instruction from another person; a Christian disciple is a [baptized](water-baptism.html) follower of Christ, one who believes the teaching of Christ. A disciple of Christ imitates Jesus’ example, clings to His sacrifice, believes in His resurrection, possesses the Holy Spirit, and lives to do His work. The command in the Great Commission to “make disciples” means to teach or train people to follow and obey Christ.
Many understand Acts 1:8 as part of the Great Commission as well: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” The Great Commission is enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are to be Christ’s witnesses, fulfilling the Great Commission in our cities (Jerusalem), in our states and countries (Judea and Samaria), and anywhere else God sends us (to the ends of the earth).
Throughout the book of Acts, we see how the apostles began to fulfill the Great Commission, as outlined in Acts 1:8\. First, Jerusalem is evangelized (Acts 1 — 7\); then the Spirit expands the church through Judea and Samaria (Acts 8 — 12\); finally, the gospel reaches into “the ends of the earth” (Acts 13 — 28\). Today, we continue to act as [ambassadors for Christ](ambassador-for-Christ.html), and “we plead on Christ’s behalf: ‘Be reconciled to God’” (2 Corinthians 5:20, CSB).
We have received a precious gift: “the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3\). Jesus’ words in the Great Commission reveal the heart of God, who desires “all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4\). The Great Commission compels us to share the good news until everyone has heard. Like the servants in Jesus’ parable, we are to be about the business of the kingdom, making disciples of all nations: “He called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13, KJV).
|
Why did God take Enoch and Elijah to heaven without them dying? |
Answer
According to the Bible, [Enoch](Enoch-in-the-Bible.html) and [Elijah](life-Elijah.html) are the only two people God took to heaven without their dying. Genesis 5:24 says, “Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.” Second Kings 2:11 relates the earth\-to\-heaven translation of Elijah: “As they \[Elijah and Elisha] were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.”
Enoch was a seventh\-generation descendant of Adam through Seth. He was the father of Methuselah and great\-grandfather of Noah. Genesis 5:23–24 describes Enoch as a man who walked “faithfully with God” (NIV) or “in close fellowship with God” (NLT). The name *Enoch* may originate from a Semitic word meaning “to dedicate, initiate.” Enoch was 365 years old when “he disappeared, because God took him” to heaven (Genesis 5:24, NLT). Some scholars believe Psalms 49:15 and 73:24 are references to Enoch’s story.
Elijah lived many centuries after Enoch during the reigns of kings Ahab and Ahaziah when Israel existed as a divided kingdom. Elijah was a worker of spectacular miracles, including the calling forth of drought and rain (see 1 Kings 17:1, 17–24; 18:16–46\). He was perhaps the most powerful of God’s prophets in the Old Testament. *Elijah* rather fittingly means, “My God is Yahweh \[the Lord].” Elijah spent his prophetic energies proving that Yahweh was superior to the false god Baal. The Bible says Elijah was walking and talking with his understudy, Elisha, when the two prophets were separated by a chariot of fire pulled by flaming horses. Suddenly, Elijah was carried up into heaven in a whirlwind.
Why did God take Enoch and Elijah? The Bible does not specifically give us the answer; therefore, we can only speculate.
Enoch and Elijah had one primary trait in common—they were both exceptionally faithful in serving and obeying the Lord. Perhaps for this reason, God desired to spare them from experiencing death.
Enoch lived during an exceedingly evil period in world history, right before the Flood. Almost every living person had rejected God, becoming wholly corrupt, and the world was full of violence (see Genesis 6:5–12\). However, Enoch stood for righteousness and refused to be silent about the sinfulness all around him. According to Jude, Enoch prophesied against his wicked generation: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 1:14–15\).
The author of Hebrews seems to suggest that Enoch was taken to heaven without dying because his great faith pleased God: “It was by faith that Enoch was taken up to heaven without dying—‘he disappeared, because God took him.’ For before he was taken up, he was known as a person who pleased God” (Hebrews 11:5, NLT).
Some hypothesize that Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven in preparation for a strategic role in end\-times events. Malachi prophesied that God would send Elijah back before “that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes” (Malachi 4:5\). Some thought Jesus might be Elijah returned (Matthew 16:14; Mark 6:15\). Elijah “appeared in glorious splendor” with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration to discuss with Jesus His soon departure (Matthew 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36\).
A conceivable theory is that the [two witnesses](two-witnesses.html) of Revelation 11:3–12 are Enoch and Elijah. Neither is mentioned by name, but both have the “power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want” (verse 6\). While this inference is possible, it is not explicitly taught in the Bible.
Whatever the reason, God had His purpose for taking Enoch and Elijah to heaven without their dying. We can’t always understand the Lord’s plans and ways in our finite human state (Isaiah 55:9\), but we can trust and know that “His way is perfect” (Psalm 18:30\).
|
Is the deity of Christ biblical? |
Answer
In addition to Jesus’ specific claims about Himself, His disciples also acknowledged the deity of Christ. They claimed that Jesus had the right to forgive sins—something only God can do—as it is God who is offended by sin (Acts 5:31; Colossians 3:13; Psalm 130:4; Jeremiah 31:34\). In close connection with this last claim, Jesus is also said to be the one who will “judge the living and the dead” (2 Timothy 4:1\). Thomas cried out to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28\). Paul calls Jesus “great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13\) and points out that prior to His incarnation Jesus existed in the “form of God” (Philippians 2:5\-8\). God the Father says regarding Jesus: “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8\). John states that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word \[Jesus] was God” (John 1:1\). Examples of Scriptures that teach the deity of Christ are many (see Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:6\-8; Psalm 18:2, 95:1; 1 Peter 5:4; Hebrews 13:20\), but even one of these is enough to show that Christ was considered to be God by His followers.
Jesus is also given titles that are unique to YHWH (the formal name of God) in the Old Testament. The Old Testament title “redeemer” (Psalm 130:7; Hosea 13:14\) is used of Jesus in the New Testament (Titus 2:13; Revelation 5:9\). Jesus is called Immanuel—“God with us”—in Matthew 1\. In Zechariah 12:10, it is YHWH who says, “They will look on me, the one they have pierced.” But the New Testament applies this to Jesus’ crucifixion (John 19:37; Revelation 1:7\). If it is YHWH who is pierced and looked upon, and Jesus was the one pierced and looked upon, then Jesus is YHWH. Paul interprets Isaiah 45:22\-23 as applying to Jesus in Philippians 2:10\-11\. Further, Jesus’ name is used alongside God’s in prayer “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2\). This would be blasphemy if Christ were not deity. The name of Jesus appears with God’s in Jesus’ commanded to baptize “in the name \[singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19; see also 2 Corinthians 13:14\).
Actions that can be accomplished only by God are credited to Jesus. Jesus not only raised the dead (John 5:21, 11:38\-44\) and forgave sins (Acts 5:31, 13:38\), He created and sustains the universe (John 1:2; Colossians 1:16\-17\). This becomes even clearer when one considers YHWH said He was alone during creation (Isaiah 44:24\). Further, Christ possesses attributes that only deity can have: eternality (John 8:58\), omnipresence (Matthew 18:20, 28:20\), omniscience (Matthew 16:21\), and omnipotence (John 11:38\-44\).
Now, it is one thing to claim to be God or to fool someone into believing it is true, and something else entirely to prove it to be so. Christ offered many miracles as proof of His claim to deity. Just a few of Jesus’ miracles include turning water to wine (John 2:7\), walking on water (Matthew 14:25\), multiplying physical objects (John 6:11\), healing the blind (John 9:7\), the lame (Mark 2:3\), and the sick (Matthew 9:35; Mark 1:40\-42\), and even raising people from the dead (John 11:43\-44; Luke 7:11\-15; Mark 5:35\). Moreover, Christ Himself rose from the dead. Far from the so\-called dying and rising gods of pagan mythology, nothing like the resurrection is seriously claimed by other religions, and no other claim has as much extra\-scriptural confirmation.
There are at least twelve historical facts about Jesus that even non\-Christian critical scholars will admit:
1\. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2\. He was buried.
3\. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4\. Jesus’ tomb was discovered (or was claimed to be discovered) to be empty a few days later.
5\. The disciples believed they experienced appearances of the risen Jesus.
6\. After this, the disciples were transformed from doubters into bold believers.
7\. This message was the center of preaching in the early Church.
8\. This message was preached in Jerusalem.
9\. As a result of this preaching, the Church was born and it grew.
10\. Resurrection day, Sunday, replaced the Sabbath (Saturday) as the primary day of worship.
11\. James, a skeptic, was converted when he also saw the resurrected Jesus.
12\. Paul, an enemy of Christianity, was converted by an experience which he believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.
Even if someone were to object to this specific list, only a few are needed to prove the resurrection and establish the gospel: Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (1 Corinthians 15:1\-5\). While there may be some theories to explain one or two of the above facts, only the resurrection explains and accounts for them all. Critics admit that the disciples claimed they saw the risen Jesus. Neither lies nor hallucinations can transform people the way the resurrection did. First, what would they have had to gain? Christianity was not popular and it certainly did not make them any money. Second, liars do not make good martyrs. There is no better explanation than the resurrection for the disciples’ willingness to die horrible deaths for their faith. Yes, many people die for lies that they think are true, but people do not die for what they know is untrue.
In conclusion, Christ claimed He was YHWH, that He was deity (not just “a god” but the one true God); His followers (Jews who would have been terrified of idolatry) believed Him and referred to Him as God. Christ proved His claims to deity through miracles, including the world\-altering resurrection. No other hypothesis can explain these facts. Yes, the deity of Christ is biblical.
|
What trials did Jesus face before His crucifixion? |
Answer
The night of Jesus’ arrest, He was brought before [Annas](Annas-in-the-Bible.html), [Caiaphas](Caiaphas-in-the-Bible.html), and an assembly of religious leaders called the Sanhedrin (John 18:19\-24; Matthew 26:57\). After this He was taken before Pilate, the Roman Governor (John 18:28\), sent off to Herod (Luke 23:7\), and returned to Pilate (Luke 23:11\-12\), who finally sentenced Him to death.
There were six parts to Jesus’ trial: three stages in a religious court and three stages before a Roman court. Jesus was tried before Annas, the former high priest; [Caiaphas](Caiaphas-in-the-Bible.html), the current high priest; and the Sanhedrin. He was charged in these “ecclesiastical” trials with blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God, the Messiah.
The trials before Jewish authorities, the religious trials, showed the degree to which the Jewish leaders hated Him because they carelessly disregarded many of their own laws. There were several illegalities involved in these trials from the perspective of Jewish law: (1\) No trial was to be held during feast time. (2\) Each member of the court was to vote individually to convict or acquit, but Jesus was convicted by acclamation. (3\) If the death penalty was given, a night must pass before the sentence was carried out; however, only a few hours passed before Jesus was placed on the Cross. (4\) The Jews had no authority to execute anyone. (5\) No trial was to be held at night, but this trial was held before dawn. (6\) The accused was to be given counsel or representation, but Jesus had none. (7\) The accused was not to be asked self\-incriminating questions, but Jesus was asked if He was the Christ.
The trials before the Roman authorities started with Pilate (John 18:23\) after Jesus was beaten. The charges brought against Him were very different from the charges in His religious trials. He was charged with inciting people to riot, forbidding the people to pay their taxes, and claiming to be King. Pilate found no reason to kill Jesus so he sent Him to Herod (Luke 23:7\). Herod had Jesus ridiculed but, wanting to avoid the political liability, sent Jesus back to Pilate (Luke 23:11–12\). This was the last trial as Pilate tried to appease the animosity of the Jews by having Jesus scourged. The Roman scourge was a terrible whipping designed to remove the flesh from the back of the one being punished. In a final effort to have Jesus released, Pilate offered the prisoner Barabbas to be crucified and Jesus released, but to no avail. The crowds called for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. Pilate granted their demand and surrendered Jesus to their will (Luke 23:25\). The trials of Jesus represent the ultimate mockery of justice. Jesus, the most innocent man in the history of the world, was found guilty of crimes and sentenced to death by crucifixion.
|
Is God real? |
Answer
We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
The most basic proof of God’s existence is simply what He has made. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20\). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1\).
If I found a wristwatch in the middle of a field, I would not assume that it just “appeared” out of nowhere or that it had always existed. Based on the watch’s design, I would assume it had a designer. But there is far greater design and precision in the world around us. Our measurement of time is not based on wristwatches, but on God’s handiwork—the regular rotation of the earth (and the radioactive properties of the cesium\-133 atom). The universe displays great design, and this argues for a Great Designer.
If I found an encoded message, I would seek out a cryptographer to help break the code. My assumption would be that there is an intelligent sender of the message, someone who created the code. How complex is the DNA “code” that we carry in every cell of our bodies? Does not the complexity and purpose of DNA argue for an Intelligent Writer of the code?
Not only has God made an intricate and finely tuned physical world; He has also instilled a sense of eternity in the heart of every person (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). Mankind has an innate perception that there is more to life than meets the eye, that there is an existence higher than this earthly routine. Our sense of eternity manifests itself in at least two ways: law\-making and worship.
Every civilization throughout history has valued certain moral laws, which are surprisingly similar from culture to culture. For example, the ideal of love is universally esteemed, while the act of lying is universally condemned. This common morality—this global understanding of right and wrong—points to a Supreme Moral Being who gave us such scruples.
In the same way, people all over the world, regardless of culture, have always cultivated a system of worship. The object of worship may vary, but the sense of a “higher power” is an undeniable part of being human. Our propensity to worship accords with the fact that God created us “in His own image” (Genesis 1:27\).
God has also revealed Himself to us through His Word, the Bible. Throughout Scripture, the existence of God is treated as a self\-evident fact (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14\). When Benjamin Franklin wrote his autobiography, he did not waste time trying to prove his own existence. Likewise, God does not spend much time proving His existence in His book. The life\-changing nature of the Bible, its integrity, and the miracles which accompanied its writing should be enough to warrant a closer look.
The third way in which God revealed Himself is through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6\-11\). “In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1,14; see also Colossians 2:9\).
In Jesus’ amazing life, He kept the entire Old Testament law perfectly and fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah (Matthew 5:17\). He performed countless acts of compassion and public miracles to authenticate His message and bear witness to His deity (John 21:24\-25\). Then, three days after His crucifixion, He rose from the dead, a fact affirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6\). The historical record abounds with “proof” of who Jesus is. As the Apostle Paul said, this thing “was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26\).
We realize that there will always be skeptics who have their own ideas concerning God and will read the evidence accordingly. And there will be some whom no amount of proof will convince (Psalm 14:1\). It all comes down to faith (Hebrews 11:6\).
|
What is extreme unction / last rites? |
Answer
The Roman Catholic sacrament of anointing of the sick or extreme unction is performed on a seriously ill person for spiritual and physical strength, or when a person is close to death as preparation for heaven. The priest anoints the sick person with oil and prays over him. When combined with confession and the Eucharist, it is called “Last Rites.” At one time it was reserved for those extremely ill and thought close to death. The Roman Catholic Church has been seeking to make it clear that it is not just for those near death. The Roman Catholic Church states that this sacrament can be repeatedly used during the long course of an ongoing illness and that it should be used before serious surgery when a dangerous illness is the reason for the surgery. It can also be requested for those who are unconscious or who have lost the use of reason if they would have asked for it were they in control of their faculties.
The Roman Catholic Church states that the biblical basis for the sacrament is the following passage: "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:13\-16\). The Roman Catholic Church also cites Mark 6:13 ("And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them") as the first allusion to the sacrament of the anointing of the sick. And while the Roman Catholic Church sees it as the responsibility of every Christian to care for the sick, it states that Christ charged “His priests to anoint the sick while praying over them in a sacramental gesture that would be more properly a deed of His own personal care” (cf. James 5:14\).
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that “sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification” (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, while God gives grace to man without outward symbols (sacraments), He has also chosen to give grace to man through visible symbols and that, because He has, man is foolish to not make use of this God\-provided means of gaining sanctification. In order to qualify as a sacrament, the Roman Catholic Church states that an action must meet the following three criteria: "a) the external, that is a sensibly perceptible sign of sanctifying grace; b) the conferring of sanctifying grace; c) the institution by God or, more accurately, by the God\-Man Jesus Christ." Thus, sacraments are not merely a symbol but are believed to actually confer sanctifying grace upon the recipient.
But when one examines the biblical passages that the Roman Catholic Church uses to validate their sacraments, one finds that the belief that they convey "sanctifying grace" is not in keeping with the context of the rest of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church’s foundation for its belief in sacraments is its teaching that its priesthood is capable of exercising the sacraments in order to dispense the sanctifying grace, yet the only priesthood mentioned for New Testament times is the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9\). So, even this core doctrine (of the Roman Catholic Church priesthood), necessary for their sacramental system, is unfounded in Scripture.
Most evangelical churches would see the “anointing with oil” as the “rubbing in” or application of olive oil, used in ancient times as a healing salve. Thus, this passage would encourage the combining of prayer with the current medical treatment appropriate to the illness. Typically, evangelical churches will have their elders (who represent the congregation) come and pray with the ill person while that ill person also seeks the use of modern medicine. And, at times, in answer to prayer, God is gracious and grants a healing. Also, James 5:16 would seem to imply that the illness may sometimes be the result of a chastening sent by God because of sin. As that sin is confessed and forsaken, the need for His chastening is removed and healing is granted. First Corinthians 11:30 is often cited as an example of illness being used as a chastening of God for sin in the life of a Christian.
Salvation is not determined by confessing all sins the moment before death. Salvation is not determined by “extreme unction,” being anointed and prayed over by a priest. Salvation is determined by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16\). Thankfully, God allows for the decision of faith to be made up to the point of death. However, this must be a personal and genuine receiving of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). Observance of a ritual before death is meaningless in determining salvation and eternal destiny.
|
What were the Dark Ages? |
Answer
The “Dark Ages” are commonly considered to be the early part of the period known as the Middle Ages. Often the term Dark Ages refers to the initial five hundred years following the fall of Rome in 476\. It is thought of as beginning around A.D. 450 and continuing till A.D. 1000\. During this time Rome and other cities deteriorated because of the invasions of barbarians from northern and central Europe. Since there was no longer an imperial authority with the power to protect the citizens of the cities, the urban population declined sharply during this period of history. Another consequence of the lack of a strong central power was the development of the feudal system especially from A.D. 900\-1150\. During this feudal age, most parishes had rural populations, and towns tended to be smaller and less numerous. Castles and walled towns were guarded by the feudal lord’s armies and provided security and safety to the peasants and townspeople from the invading barbarians. One of the consequences of the feudal system was the decline in church structures because of feudalistic pressures and control that was put upon them.
It was during this time that a new religious movement called monasticism developed. After the establishment of the Benedictine Order at Monte Cassino in A.D. 529, monasticism spread quickly throughout the medieval church, and the monastery replaced the functions of the early church and became a link between the classical city and medieval city. The withdrawal of the church from cities to monasteries caused the church to be oriented more inwardly than outwardly. While sometimes the church is blamed for the spiritual darkness of the Dark Ages, in many ways it was the only light, no matter how dim, that shone in the darkness of surrounding barbarism and heathenism. During this time it was the priests and the monks that saved from the ruins of the Roman Empire the treasures of classical literature—along with the Holy Scriptures and patristic writings—and preserved them for the future. Certainly, while the light that shone was more from ecclesiastical tradition and not always the clear light found in the Word of God, it was light in the dark days of that time, and it continued until the Reformation brought the true full light of Christ back to the world. Yet even throughout this spiritually dark time, Christ had His witnesses in all ages and countries.
|
How do we distinguish a psychological disorder from demon possession? |
Answer
The short answer to this question is that the Bible does not speak to distinguishing between demon possession and a psychological disorder. Because God chose not to equip Christians for this task, we should probably assume this is not something we are called to do. However, there are two things we know for sure from Scripture.
First, we know from the Bible that demons can and do possess those who do not belong to Christ, and Scripture gives some examples of people being possessed by demons. From these descriptions, we can find some symptoms of demonic influence as well as gain insights as to how a demon possesses someone. In some of these passages, the demon possession causes physical ailments (inability to speak, epileptic symptoms, blindness, etc. \[Matthew 9:32\-33, Mark 9:17\-18]); in other cases the demon causes the individual to do evil (Judas is the main example); in Acts 16:16\-18, the spirit apparently gave a slave girl some ability to know things beyond her own learning (a spirit of divination); in the case of the demoniac of the Gadarenes who was possessed by a multitude of demons, he had superhuman strength, cut himself, went around naked, and lived among the tombstones (Mark 5:1\-17\). King Saul, after rebelling against the LORD, was troubled by an evil spirit (1 Samuel 16:14\-15; 18:10\-11; 19:9\-10\) with the apparent effect of a melancholy mood and an increased desire and readiness to kill David (God’s next anointed king of Israel).
Second, we should be greatly encouraged to know that it is impossible for a Christian to be possessed by a demon. The believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God who comes to reside in our hearts when we give our lives to Christ (2 Corinthians 1:22\). The description of a possessing demon as “evil” means “unclean” in the Greek (Mark 5:2\), therefore making it impossible for the Holy Spirit to share His dwelling place with such a creature. For those who do not have the Holy Spirit, however, no amount of “cleaning up their lives” will prevent a demon from possessing or influencing them. The parable Jesus told in Matthew 12:43 makes this clear:
“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.” Jesus is teaching here that we are incapable of sweeping and putting “in order” our own hearts because our hearts are “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9 KJV). Only God can regenerate us and create in us a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26\) and make us new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
However, while Christians cannot be possessed by a demon, this is not to be confused with being influenced by one. The apostle Peter is an illustration of a believer who was influenced by the devil (Matthew 16:23\). This can occur especially when we are not mature in the faith and not sufficiently involved in the spiritual disciplines of regular study of Scripture and prayer.
Lastly, a word to the wise: some people develop an unhealthy fascination with the occult and demonic activity. This is ill advised to say the least. If we pursue God with our lives and we are clothing ourselves with His armor and relying upon His strength (not our own) (Ephesians 6:10\-18\), we have nothing to fear from the evil ones, for God rules over all! When we are in Christ, and He in us, we have nothing to fear from the evil one because “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4\).
|
What is the difference between the Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost? |
Answer
Of the modern English translations of the Bible, it is only the King James Version of the Bible which uses the term “Holy Ghost.” It occurs 90 times in the KJV. The term “Holy Spirit” occurs 7 times in the KJV. There is no clear reason as to why the KJV translators used Ghost in most places and then Spirit in a few. The exact same Greek and Hebrew words are translated "ghost" and "spirit" in the KJV in different occurrences of the words. By "ghost," the KJV translators did not intend to communicate the idea of "the spirit of a deceased person." In 1611, when the KJV was originally translated, the word "ghost" primarily referred to "an immaterial being."
With recent Scripture translations, "Spirit" has replaced "Ghost" in most instances. Some of this came about because words don’t always hold their meanings. In the days of Shakespeare or King James, ghost meant the living essence of a person. Looking back, we see that "breath" or "soul" were often used as synonyms of "ghost." During these times, spirit normally meant the essence of a departed person or a demonic or paranormal apparition. As language evolved, people started saying "ghost" when speaking of the vision of a dead person while "spirit" became the standard term for life or living essence, often also for "soul." With slight exceptions, "ghost" and "spirit" changed places over some 300 years.
The real issue is that both "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" refer to the Third Person of the Trinity, coequal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; Acts 5:3,4; 28:25,26; 1 Corinthians 12:4\-6\). He is the gift of the Father to His people on earth to initiate and complete the building of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13\). He is also the agency by which the world is convicted of sin, the Lord Jesus is glorified, and believers are transformed into His image (John 16:7\-9; Acts 1:5, 2:4; Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Ephesians 2:22\). Whichever term we use, we remember that this Holy Ghost is God’s active breath, blowing where He wishes, creating faith through water and Word.
|
Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter to the Lord? |
Answer
In Judges 11:30\-31, [Jephthah](who-was-Jephthah.html), a judge of Israel, made a foolish vow that if God gave him victory in the upcoming battle, he would sacrifice whatever first came out of his door when he came home. Jephthah was victorious in the battle against the Ammonites (Judges 11:32\-33\). When Jephthah returned home after the battle, his daughter came to greet him (Judges 11:34\). Jephthah was devastated and stated that he had made a vow to the Lord that he could not break (Judges 11:35\). Jephthah’s daughter asked for a two month “reprieve,” and Jephthah granted her request (Judges 11:36\-38\). The passage then states that Jephthah “did to her as he had vowed” (Judges 11:39\).
The Bible does not *explicitly* state that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering. Since his daughter was mourning the fact that she would never marry instead of mourning that she was about to die (Judges 11:36\-37\), this possibly indicates that Jephthah gave her to the tabernacle as a servant instead of sacrificing her. However, again, Judges 11:39 does seem to indicate that he did follow through with the sacrifice: "He did to her as he had vowed."
Whatever the case, God had specifically forbidden offering human sacrifices, so it was absolutely not God’s desire for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter (Leviticus 20:1\-5\). Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 32:35 clearly indicate that the idea of human sacrifice has "never even entered God’s mind." The account of Jephthah and his daughter serves as an example for us to not make foolish [vows or oaths](vows-God.html). It should also serve as a warning to make sure any vow we make is something that is not in violation of God’s Word.
|
What does the Bible say about the ice age? |
Answer
The Bible doesn’t explicitly mention the Ice Age. It wasn’t something that had much impact upon the writers of the Bible as they all lived in the Middle East, a region far south of the continental glaciations.
Scientific evidence suggests at least three historical patterns of cooling and warming, as shown by a consistent series of layers in associated rocks. The impact of glaciers and their movement is a dominant factor in the topography (land shape) of northern areas in the Americas and Europe. Despite what some might claim, however, scientists are not entirely sure why these periods would have begun or ended. This is an area where many competing theories exist, and none are especially dominant.
More importantly, none of the theories regarding an Ice Age have much to do with the Bible. Nor does the concept of an Ice Age especially prove or disprove the truth of Scripture. It’s entirely possible that rapid changes in Earth’s climate produced the effects we see. Or they may have been gradual changes. Those might have been something originating in God’s initial creation, a development over time, or the result of the [flood](global-flood.html) of Noah’s day. These “ice ages” may have been much more or less dramatic than what we assume. And there are many possible explanations for what caused them to occur.
Simply put, the Bible does not say anything about an Ice Age, directly or indirectly. It’s not a topic of any special importance, and so Scripture does not address it.
|
How should a Christian view the separation of church and state? |
Answer
The issue of the separation of church and state has prompted much debate. In spite of the rhetoric common to revisionist historians, America’s Founding Fathers did not seek to eradicate religion. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence counted themselves as religious men. It may come as a surprise to learn that nowhere in the Constitution do the words *separation of church and state* appear. The idea of church/state separation came from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson. Again, contrary to the propaganda from the revisionists, Jefferson’s cause was to protect religious liberties from an intrusive government! In no way did Jefferson or any of the other framers of the U.S. Constitution seek to restrict Americans’ religious activities.
Americans live in a constitutional republic rather than a theocracy—and for good reason. State\-sanctioned churches have historically become puppets of the government. In countries with state churches, the edicts of fallible man take precedence over the inspired teachings of Scripture. When the state is the head of the church, the integrity of the gospel is all too easily compromised.
Christians are glad for the separation of church and state, as the separation is designed to protect religious liberty. The first of the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That wording is the result of lessons learned from the dictatorial Holy Roman Empire and King Henry VIII’s power grab in the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The point of the First Amendment was not to rid the country of religion but to ensure that the federal government did not select a religion and give it exclusive support. Americans are free to worship as they please.
Another popular misconception is that men and women of faith have no business being involved in [politics](Christian-politics.html). But it is hardly a secret that George Washington was an active member of Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. In the early days of the republic, a church met within the Capitol Building —a church attended, of all people, by Thomas Jefferson. “Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. . . . Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers” (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2,” www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06\-2\.html, accessed 4/13/20\).
A Christian should view the separation of church and state as a good thing. Those who wish to combine church and state usually do so thinking that Christianity can help stamp out evil, if the church is in charge. But history shows that the melding of church and state gives rise to corruption, totalitarianism, and oppression. Christians can and should be involved in the political process, just as anyone else. But Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36\), and Christians understand that enforcing Christianity through a national church is not the answer to the world’s problems. The limits imposed on the government in the U.S. Constitution are wise and designed to preserve the religious freedom of individuals.
|
Should a Christian join a fraternity / sorority? |
Answer
In this article on whether a Christian should join fraternities / sororities, we are giving possible issues. We are not saying that all fraternities / sororities fit all of the items we mention. As with anything else, always closely examine a group before you make any commitment to it. Research what fraternity / sorority life involves and requires.
The first question that needs to be asked is why a person would want to join a fraternity / sorority. Motives in God’s eyes are important (1 Samuel 16:7\). Depending on the motivating reasons, different issues come to the forefront. If one wants to join a fraternity / sorority because they have the best parties, the Bible says that such a life should belong in one’s unsaved past, not in the present life of a believer (1 Peter 4:3\).
If one wants to join a fraternity / sorority because of membership being a status symbol, it may be an issue of pride. The Bible repeatedly encourages humility both in life and in the choice of one’s companions (Romans 12:16; 1 Peter 5:5\-7\), exhorting us to live even as Christ lived. The Bible mentions pride as sin and something God hates (Proverbs 6:16\-19; 8:13; 11:2; 16:18; Daniel 4:37; 1 Peter 5:5; 1 John 2:15\-17\).
Another problem with joining a fraternity or sorority is the exclusivity that such a group embodies. Some pledges or oaths bind members to unreasonable levels of devotion, restricting them from helping members of other groups academically or in other ways. It is hard to see how a Christian can obey the Lord’s command to help “the least of these” while pledging allegiance to a group that distances itself from others or sees itself as above them.
A Christian’s closest relationships should be with fellow Christians and not based on external ties such as belonging to the same fraternity / sorority, having gone to the same school, coming from the same race or social class, etc. (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:12\-13; 12:24\-26; Galatians 6:10; John 13:34\-35\). Most colleges have branches of Christian organizations such as InterVarsity, Campus Crusade, and Navigators as well as good local churches who have college ministries to help young people come to know Christ and grow as His disciples. These groups and fellow Christians should be sought after as the core group of friends while one is away at college.
Whom one has as his closest companions is a major issue in Scripture whether they are fraternity brothers, roommates in a dorm, or classmates. Here are a few of Scripture’s admonitions concerning this issue: "Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character’" (1 Corinthians 15:33\). “He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20\). "I am a friend to all who fear you, to all who follow your precepts" (Psalm 119:63\). In the end, the question of whether to join a fraternity or sorority is a matter for prayer and following God’s leading in our hearts.
|
What are some of the most common questions about Noah’s Ark? |
Answer
[Who was Noah’s wife?](who-was-Noah-wife.html)
[Would the discovery of Noah’s Ark be important?](Noahs-ark-discovery.html)
[What are some of the most common questions about Noah’s Ark?](Noahs-ark-questions.html)
[How did Noah fit all the animals on the ark?](Noahs-ark-animals.html)
[How long did it take Noah to build the ark?](how-long-did-it-take-Noah-to-build-the-ark.html)
[How long was Noah on the ark?](how-long-was-Noah-on-the-ark.html)
[How many people were on Noah’s ark?](how-many-people-were-on-Noahs-ark.html)
[How many animals were on Noah’s ark?](how-many-animals-were-on-Noahs-ark.html)
[What similarities are there between the Gilgamesh flood account and biblical flood account?](Gilgamesh-flood.html)
[What was the purpose of the flood in the time of Noah?](Noah-flood.html)
[How was the flood in the time of Noah just?](flood-just.html)
[How can God be good if He drowned babies in Noah’s flood?](God-drowned-babies.html)
[Can the flood mentioned in Genesis be proven?](Genesis-flood-proven.html)
[Were there dinosaurs on Noah’s ark?](dinosaurs-Noahs-ark.html)
[Was Noah’s flood global?](global-flood.html)
[When was Noah’s flood?](when-was-Noah-flood.html)
[Had it ever rained before the Flood in Noah’s day?](rained-before-flood.html)
[Did the Bible copy the Flood account from other myths and legends?](Flood-accounts.html)
[Are there really hundreds of flood legends giving credence to the Genesis flood?](flood-legends.html)
|
What does the Bible say about hentai? |
Answer
It seems that the latest craze in internet pornography is hentai, which is Japanese for "perversion." It is cartoon\-based pornography based primarily on "[anime](Christian-anime.html)," which is a popular form of Japanese animation. The terms "manga" and "doujin" are often closely connected to "anime." Some attempt to justify viewing hentai using the excuse that it is not "real people," and/or it does not involve real people doing immoral things. The arguments go further to state that the Bible never condemns "art" as being sinful. After all, don’t some famous pieces of art include nudity and/or graphic images?
So, what would the Bible have to say about hentai? The three primary divisions of sin, according to 1 John 2:16, are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Pornography, whether cartoon\-based or not, definitely causes us to lust after flesh, and it is undeniably a lust for our eyes. Clearly, hentai forms of anime / manga / doujin do not qualify as what the Bible says we should think about: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable \- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy \- think about such things” (Philippians 4:8\).
Hentai is not true, it is not noble, it is not right, it is not pure, it is not lovely, it is not admirable. Hentai is neither excellent nor praiseworthy. Just like all other forms of pornography, hentai is addictive (1 Corinthians 6:12; 2 Peter 2:19\), destructive (Proverbs 6:25\-28; Ezekiel 20:30; Ephesians 4:19\), and leads to ever\-increasing wickedness (Romans 6:19\). Lusting after other people (whether real or imaginary) is offensive to God (Matthew 5:28\). Continual viewing of hentai pornography demonstrates that a person is still living [carnally](carnal-Christian.html) and may not have yet experienced the saving grace of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9\).
|
If I am saved and all of my sins are forgiven, why not continue to sin? |
Answer
The apostle Paul answered a very similar question in Romans 6:1\-2, “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” The idea that a person could “trust in Jesus Christ” for salvation and then go on living just as he/she lived before, is absolutely foreign to the Bible. Believers in Christ are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17\). The Holy Spirit changes us from producing the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19\-21\) to producing the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). The Christian life is a changed life because the Christian is changed.
What differentiates Christianity from every other religion is that Christianity is based on what God has done for us through Jesus Christ—divine accomplishment. Every other world religion is based on what we must do to earn God’s favor and forgiveness—human achievement. Every other religion teaches that we must do certain things and stop doing certain other things in order to earn God’s love and mercy. Christianity, faith in Christ, teaches that we do certain things and stop doing certain things because of what Christ has done for us.
How could anyone, having been delivered from sin’s penalty, eternity in hell, go back to living the same life that had him on the path to hell in the first place? How could anyone, having been cleansed from the defilement of sin, desire to go back to the same cesspool of depravity? How could anyone, knowing what Jesus Christ did on our behalf, go on living as if He were not important? How could anyone, realizing how much Christ suffered for our sins, continue sinning as if those sufferings were meaningless?
Romans 6:11\-15 declares, “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!”
For the truly converted, then, continuing to live sinfully is not an option. Because our conversion resulted in a completely new nature, our desire is to no longer live in sin. Yes, we still sin, but instead of wallowing in it as we once did, we now hate it and wish to be delivered from it. The idea of “taking advantage” of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf by continuing to live sinfully is unthinkable. Christians who have no desire to live for Christ, but instead find themselves living lives indistinguishable from those of unbelievers, should examine whether they have ever genuinely received Christ as Savior. “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (2 Corinthians 13:5\).
|
What is the Q gospel? |
Answer
The gospel of “Q” gets its title from the German word *quelle* which means “source.” The whole idea of a Q gospel is based on the concept that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are so similar that they must have copied from each other and/or another source. This other source has been given the name "Q." The predominant argument for the existence of a Q gospel is essentially this: (1\) The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after A.D. 70 and therefore could not have been written by the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, or Luke the doctor. (2\) Since the authors of the Gospels were not firsthand witnesses, they must have used other sources. (3\) Since Mark is the shortest Gospel and has the least original material, Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. (4\) Since there are many similarities in Matthew and Luke which do not occur in Mark, Matthew and Luke must have had another source. (5\) This source, Q, was likely a collection of sayings of Jesus, similar to the gospel to Thomas.
When considering the possibility of a Q gospel, it is important to remember that no evidence whatsoever has ever been found for the existence of a Q gospel. Not even a single manuscript fragment of Q has ever been found. None of the early church fathers mentioned anything that could have been the Q gospel. Second, there is strong evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between A.D. 50 and 65, not after A.D. 70\. Many of the early church fathers attributed the Gospels to the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, and Luke the doctor. Third, since the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they were written by actual eyewitnesses of Jesus and/or close companions of eyewitnesses of Jesus. Therefore, it is natural that we should expect many similarities. If the Gospels record actual words spoken by Jesus, we should expect the eyewitnesses to report Jesus saying the same things.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with the idea of the Gospel writers using the other Gospels as sources. Luke states in Luke chapter 1 that he used sources. It is possible that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. It is possible that there was another source in addition to Mark. The possible use of a "Q" source is not the reason why the Q gospel concept should be rejected. The use of a source which contained the sayings of Jesus does not take away from the inspiration of Scripture. The reason the Q gospel should be rejected is the presupposition of most Q gospel advocates \- namely, that the Gospels are not divinely inspired.
The vast majority of those who promote the Q gospel concept do not believe the Bible is inspired (God\-breathed). The vast majority of proponents of Q do not believe that the Gospels were written by the Apostles and their close associates, or that the Gospels were written within the generation of the Apostles. They do not believe it is possible that two or three authors could use the exact same words without using each others' writings as sources. Crucially, most Q advocates reject the inspiration of the Holy Spirit helping the Gospel writers to accurately record the words and works of Jesus Christ. Again, the use of a "Q" source is not the problem. The problem is the reason why most Q gospel advocates believe a "Q" was used, namely a denial of the inspiration of Scripture (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12,13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20,21\).
|
Can you give me some Christian relationship advice? |
Answer
We often receive questions along the lines of: "I am interested in two different guys...which one should I choose to be my boyfriend?" Or, "I am in a relationship and my girlfriend did/said '\_\_\_\_\_'; so, should I break up with her?" These types of questions are very difficult for us to answer. GotQuestions.org is not a Christian relationship advice ministry. We will always strive to tell you what the Bible has to say about a given situation. However, in regards to relationship advice issues, the Bible rarely specifically addresses the situations we are asked about. The Bible is far more concerned with our relationship with God.
We are very reluctant to give relationship advice. It is difficult to give wise counsel to a personal issue through an article. It is exceedingly difficult to give Christian relationship advice when we do not personally know the people involved, we are not receiving all of the details, and/or we are only receiving one side of the story. We do not presume to speak for God in giving authoritative relationship advice to Christians.
With that said, what is our advice? It is our advice that you speak with God about your relationship. Pray to the Lord, asking Him to clearly reveal to you what He would have you do (Philippians 4:6\-7\). Ask God to give you wisdom and discernment (James 1:5\). God promises to grant prayer requests that are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14\-15\). Being wise and discerning are most definitely God’s will. God wants you to make good relationship decisions. God desires Christians to be joyous and edified as a result of their relationships. If you ask God with an open heart and humble spirit, He will give you the relationship advice you need.
Finally, find wise counsel with mature Christians who have been married for many years and have walked with God all that time. Seek guidance from your pastor, elders or other mature church leaders. Their years of experience enable them to speak from wisdom and the knowledge of God in their lives.
|
What is a Christian worldview? |
Answer
A “worldview” refers to a comprehensive conception of the world from a specific standpoint. A “Christian worldview,” then, is a comprehensive conception of the world from a Christian standpoint. An individual’s worldview is his “big picture,” a harmony of all his beliefs about the world. It is his way of understanding reality. One’s worldview is the basis for making daily decisions and is therefore extremely important.
An apple sitting on a table is seen by several people. A botanist looking at the apple classifies it. An artist sees a still\-life and draws it. A grocer sees an asset and inventories it. A child sees lunch and eats it. How we look at any situation is influenced by how we look at the world at large. Every worldview, Christian and non\-Christian, deals with at least these three questions:
1\) Where did we come from? (and why are we here?)
2\) What is wrong with the world?
3\) How can we fix it?
A prevalent worldview today is naturalism, which answers the three questions like this: 1\) We are the product of random acts of nature with no real purpose. 2\) We do not respect nature as we should. 3\) We can save the world through ecology and conservation. A naturalistic worldview generates many related philosophies such as [moral relativism](moral-relativism.html), [existentialism](existentialism.html), [pragmatism](pragmatism.html), and [utopianism](utopianism.html).
A Christian worldview, on the other hand, answers the three questions biblically: 1\) We are God’s creation, designed to govern the world and fellowship with Him (Genesis 1:27\-28; 2:15\). 2\) We sinned against God and subjected the whole world to a curse (Genesis 3\). 3\) God Himself has redeemed the world through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ (Genesis 3:15; Luke 19:10\), and will one day restore creation to its former perfect state (Isaiah 65:17\-25\). A Christian worldview leads us to believe in moral absolutes, miracles, human dignity, and the possibility of redemption.
It is important to remember that a worldview is comprehensive. It affects every area of life, from money to morality, from politics to art. True Christianity is more than a set of ideas to use at church. Christianity as taught in the Bible is itself a worldview. The Bible never distinguishes between a “religious” and a “secular” life; the Christian life is the only life there is. Jesus proclaimed Himself “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6\) and, in doing so, became our worldview.
|
Does the Bible teach situational ethics? |
Answer
Situational ethics is a particular view of moral ethics that holds that the morality of an act is determined by its context. Situational ethics states that if there is a right and wrong, it is merely determined by the desired outcome of the situation. Situational ethics is different from moral relativism in that moral relativism states that there is no right or wrong. Situational ethics envelopes a code of ethics in which meeting the needs of each situation determines what is right or wrong.
From cover to cover, the Bible is true, consistent, and applicable. Does the Bible teach, admonish, or even lean toward advocating situational ethics? The short answer is "no." Let us consider three principles: 1\) God is creator and sustainer. 2\) All of God’s Word is true. Even the parts we don’t like or understand. 3\) Right and wrong are determined and defined by who God is.
1\. God is creator and sustainer. Situational ethics states that morality is determined by surroundings or circumstance. God’s Word says morality is determined by God’s sovereignty, as He is creator and sustainer. And that is not a matter of semantics but of fact. Even if God were to give a command to one group of people and forbid it to another group, the determination of whether it is right or wrong, ethical or not, is not based on the situation, but rather on God’s command. God has the authority to govern right and wrong. Romans 3:4 says, “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
2\. All of God’s Word is true. To suggest that the Bible advocates situational ethics would be to imply that there are errors contained therein. That is not possible. It is not possible because of number 1; God is creator and sustainer.
3\. Right and wrong are defined by who God is. Love is God’s nature. He defines what love is not by what He does, but simply by who He is. The Bible says, “God is love” (1 John 4:16\). Love is selfless and considerate of others, never seeking its own glory or pleasure (1 Corinthians 13\). Therefore, by virtue of who God is, the Bible, being given by God and being all true, cannot contain a system of ethics that would in itself defy the nature of God. Situational ethics finds right and wrong to please the majority or a single person out of selfishness. Love is the opposite. Love seeks to encourage and build up others.
Two foundational problems with situational ethics are the reality of an absolute truth and the concept of real love. The Bible does teach absolute truth, which demands that right and wrong are predetermined by a Holy God. And love—God’s definition of true, honest, real love—leaves no room for selfish or impure motivations. Even if someone were to say that the situation demands selflessness, it is still a human determination and not a divine one. A human being’s reasons for determining what is best, without true love are foundationally selfish.
So what happens when things look right but God says they are wrong? We must trust God’s sovereignty and trust “that all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28\). If we belong to Christ, God has given us His Spirit (John 16\), and through Him we have an understanding of what is right and wrong. Through Him we are convicted, encouraged, and guided to righteousness. An earnest desire to know the truth of a matter, coupled with seeking God, will be rewarded with God’s answer. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled" (Matthew 5:6\).
|
What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it? |
Answer
Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–18\). This important statement of our Lord gives us insight into His mission and the character of God’s Word.
Jesus’ declaration that He came to fulfill [the Law and the Prophets](law-and-the-prophets.html), not to abolish them, obviously contains two statements in one. There is something Jesus *did* and something He did *not* do. At the same time, Jesus emphasized the eternal nature of the Word of God.
Jesus goes out of His way to promote the authority of the Law of God. He did not come to abolish the Law, regardless of what the Pharisees accused Him of. In fact, Jesus continues His statement with a commendation for those who teach the Law accurately and hold it in reverence: “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19\).
Note the qualities that Jesus attributes to the Word of God, referenced as “the Law and the Prophets”: 1\) The Word is everlasting; it will outlast the natural world. 2\) The Word was written with intent; it was meant to be fulfilled. 3\) The Word possesses plenary authority; even the smallest letter of it is established. 4\) The Word is faithful and trustworthy; “everything” it says will be accomplished. No one hearing Jesus’ words in the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html) could doubt His commitment to the Scriptures.
Consider what Jesus did *not* do in His ministry. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets. In other words, Jesus’ purpose was not to abrogate the Word, dissolve it, or render it invalid. The Prophets will be fulfilled; the Law will continue to accomplish the purpose for which it was given (see Isaiah 55:10–11\).
Next, consider what Jesus *did* do. Jesus says that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. In other words, Jesus’ purpose was to establish the Word, to embody it, and to fully accomplish all that was written. “Christ is the culmination of the law” (Romans 10:4\). The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah would be realized in Jesus; the holy standard of the Law would be perfectly upheld by Christ, the strict requirements personally obeyed, and the ceremonial observances finally and fully satisfied.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Prophets in that, in His first coming alone, He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies concerning Himself (e.g., Matthew 1:22; 13:35; John 19:36; Luke 24:44\). Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in at least two ways: as a teacher and as a doer. He taught people to obey the Law (Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 1:44\), and He obeyed the Law Himself (John 8:46; 1 Peter 2:22\). In living a perfect life, Jesus fulfilled the moral laws; in His sacrificial death, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws. Christ came not to destroy the old religious system but to build upon it; He came to finish the Old Covenant and establish the [New](new-covenant.html).
Jesus came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. In fact, the ceremonies, sacrifices, and other elements of the Old Covenant were “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Hebrews 10:1\). The tabernacle and temple were “holy places made with hands,” but they were never meant to be permanent; they were but “copies of the true things” (Hebrews 9:24, ESV). The Law had a built\-in expiration date, being filled as it was with “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Hebrews 9:10\).
In His fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, Jesus obtained our eternal salvation. No more were priests required to offer sacrifices and enter the holy place (Hebrews 10:8–14\). Jesus has done that for us, once and for all. By grace through faith, we are made right with God: “He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14\).
There are some who argue that, since Jesus did not “abolish” the Law, then the Law is still in effect—and [still binding](Christian-law.html) on New Testament Christians. But Paul is clear that the believer in Christ is no longer under the Law: “We were held in custody under the Law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the Law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Galatians 3:23–25, BSB). We are not under the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html) but under “the law of Christ” (see Galatians 6:2\).
If the Law is still binding on us today, then it has not yet accomplished its purpose—it has not yet been fulfilled. If the Law, as a legal system, is still binding on us today, then Jesus was wrong in claiming to fulfill it and His sacrifice on the cross was insufficient to save. Thank God, Jesus fulfilled the whole Law and now grants us His righteousness as a free gift. “Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16\).
|
Who is permitted to baptize / perform baptisms? |
Answer
The Bible does not specifically address this question. When one looks through the baptisms recorded in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, it would seem that all that was needed was to be a disciple of either Jesus or John the Baptist (in the four Gospels) or to be a godly Christian (in the Book of Acts), a “godly” Christian being one who was sharing the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the cross. It was as a result of believing this good news that people were then willing or desiring to be baptized.
Here are a few examples of these godly Christians in the Book of Acts: Peter and the apostles baptized large numbers in Acts 2 as they responded to the message about Christ. Later on, Philip, who was at first selected as one to distribute food to widows in the church in Jerusalem, preached the gospel in Samaria and baptized believers there (Acts 6,8\). Still later, Paul baptized some of those who trusted in Christ in the course of his missionary work, but apparently also let others do the baptizing instead of him (Acts 16:33; 1 Corinthians 1:10\-17\.).
The pivotal passage that answers this question indirectly is found in the “Great Commission” passage (Matthew 28:18\-20\). This passage records Jesus’ command to make disciples of all nations and includes baptizing as part of the process of making those disciples. If this commission is given to all Christians (as is commonly held), then it follows that the authority to baptize is also given to all Christians.
The Epistles never discuss who is to baptize. What is discussed is the meaning behind baptism. In both the book of Acts and the Epistles, the proper understanding of how one is saved (Acts 19:1\-5\) and the symbolism involved in baptism (Romans 6\) seem to be more important than who is doing the baptism.
Based on Matthew 28:18\-20, as well as on the silence of the remaining portions of Scripture concerning this issue, it would seem that any true believer has authority from God to baptize, even as he has the authority from God to evangelize and teach all that Christ commanded.
|
What are some of the most common questions about Adam and Eve? |
Answer
[When were Adam and Eve created?](when-were-Adam-and-Eve-created.html)
[Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?](Adam-and-Eve-story.html)
[Were Adam and Eve saved?](Adam-and-Eve-saved.html)
[Why weren’t Adam and Eve created at the same time (Genesis 2\)?](Adam-Eve-created.html)
[Why did God use Adam’s rib to create Eve?](Adams-rib.html)
[Was Adam with Eve when she spoke to the serpent (Genesis 3:6\)?](Adam-with-Eve.html)
[Why is Adam blamed for the fall of humanity when Eve sinned first?](Eve-sinned-first.html)
[Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons / navels?](Adam-Eve-have-belly-buttons.html)
[Did Adam and Eve know what death was when God commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge?](Adam-Eve-know-death.html)
[Why didn’t Adam and Eve immediately die for their sin (Genesis 3\)?](Adam-Eve-die-sin.html)
[Why didn’t Adam and Eve find it strange that a serpent was talking to them?](talking-snake.html)
[Why was it wrong for Adam and Eve to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22\)?](know-good-evil.html)
[How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?](Adam-Eve-Garden-Eden.html)
[What language did Adam and Eve speak?](what-language-did-Adam-and-Eve-speak.html)
[How many children did Adam and Eve have?](Adam-and-Eve-children.html)
[Were Adam and Eve cavemen?](Adam-and-Eve-cavemen.html)
[Were Adam and Eve white?](were-Adam-and-Eve-white.html)
|
What does the Bible say about pride? |
Answer
There is a difference between the kind of pride that God hates (Proverbs 8:13\) and the kind of pride we can feel about a job well done (Galatians 6:4\) or the kind of pride we express over the accomplishment of loved ones (2 Corinthians 7:4\). The kind of pride that stems from self\-righteousness or conceit is sin, however, and God hates it because it is a hindrance to seeking Him.
Psalm 10:4 explains that the proud are so consumed with themselves that their thoughts are far from God: “In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” This kind of haughty pride is the opposite of the spirit of humility that God seeks: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3\). The “poor in spirit” are those who recognize their utter spiritual bankruptcy and their inability to come to God aside from His divine grace. The proud, on the other hand, are so blinded by their pride that they think they have no need of God or, worse, that God should accept them as they are because they deserve His acceptance.
Throughout Scripture we are told about the consequences of pride. Proverbs 16:18\-19 tells us that “pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.” Satan was cast out of heaven because of pride (Isaiah 14:12\-15\). He had the selfish audacity to attempt to replace God Himself as the rightful ruler of the universe. But Satan will be cast down to hell in the final judgment of God. For those who rise up in defiance against God, there is nothing ahead but disaster (Isaiah 14:22\).
Pride has kept many people from accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Admitting sin and acknowledging that in our own strength we can do nothing to inherit eternal life is a constant stumbling block for prideful people. We are not to boast about ourselves; if we want to boast, then we are to proclaim the glories of God. What we say about ourselves means nothing in God’s work. It is what God says about us that makes the difference (2 Corinthians 10:18\).
Why is pride so sinful? Pride is giving ourselves the credit for something that God has accomplished. Pride is taking the glory that belongs to God alone and keeping it for ourselves. Pride is essentially self\-worship. Anything we accomplish in this world would not have been possible were it not for God enabling and sustaining us. “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (1 Corinthians 4:7\). That is why we give God the glory—He alone deserves it.
|
What did Jesus mean when He said, “this generation will not pass”? |
Answer
This quote of Jesus in regards to the end times is found in Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; and Luke 21:32\. Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The things that Jesus had been speaking of—the rise of the Antichrist, the [desolation of the Holy Place](abomination-desolation.html), and the darkening of the sun—did not happen during the lifespan of people alive in Jesus’ day. Obviously, Jesus meant something different when He spoke of “this generation.”
The key to understanding what Jesus meant by “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” is the context; that is, we must understand the verses that are surrounding Matthew 24:34, especially the verses prior to it. In Matthew 24:4–31, Jesus is clearly giving a prophecy; He is speaking of future events. Jesus had already told those living during His earthly ministry that the kingdom had been taken from them (Matthew 21:43\). Therefore, it is imperative that Matthew 24–25 be seen as dealing with a future time. The generation that Jesus speaks of “not passing” until He returns is a *future* generation, namely, the people living when the predicted events occur. The word *generation* refers to the people alive in the future when the events of Matthew 24–25 take place.
Jesus’ point in His statement, “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” is that the events of the end times will happen quickly. Once the [signs of the end](signs-end-times.html) begin to be observed, the end is well on the way—the [second coming](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html) and the judgment will occur within that last generation. Jesus reinforced this meaning with a parable in Matthew 24:32–33: “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.” A sure sign of summer is the leafing of the fig tree; a sure sign of the end of the world is that “all these things” (of Matthew 24\) are taking place. Those who are on the earth then will have only a short time left.
Another interpretation is that Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24 has a “[double fulfillment](prophecy-double-dual-fulfillment.html).” In this view, “this generation” is the people Jesus was speaking to at that moment—some of what He predicted was going to occur during their lifetimes. So, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled in part; the fall of Jerusalem provided a foretaste of worse things to come. However, many aspects of Jesus’ prophecy did not occur in AD 70; for example, the celestial signs of Matthew 24:29–31\. The main problem with the “dual\-fulfillment” interpretation is that it does not harmonize with Jesus’ statement that “all” these things will take place in “this generation.” Therefore, it is better to understand “this generation” as referring to the generation alive when the end times events are actually occurring.
Essentially, Jesus is saying that, once the events of the end times begin, they will happen quickly. The age of grace has continued for a very long time. But when the time for judgment finally arrives, things will be wrapped up posthaste. This concept of God’s drawing things to a rapid close is echoed in many other passages of Scripture (Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20; Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20\).
|
Will there be such a thing as gender in Heaven? |
Answer
Matthew 22:30 speaks of people after the resurrection not participating in marriage–they become "like the angels." However, this does not mean people are genderless. The masculine, not neuter, pronoun is used many times to describe angels (and HE was like...HIS appearance was like, etc.). So there is no real indication that the angels are genderless beings.
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates people will lose or change their gender in heaven. In the book of Revelation (chapters 21\-22\), it seems that God is making things not just like they were in the Garden of Eden, but even better. Remember that gender is not bad\-\-it is actually a good thing. God created Eve because Adam needed someone to complement him. Marriage (impossible without different genders), the model relationship between a man and a woman, is a picture of Christ and the church. The church is the bride and Christ is the groom (Ephesians 5:25\-32\).
Although it is not explicitly taught in the Bible, it seems most likely that people retain their gender after death. Our genders are a part of who we are. Gender is more than physical–it is part of our very nature and part of the way we relate to God. Therefore, it seems that gender will be perfected and glorified in eternity. It is also noteworthy that Jesus retained His gender after His death and resurrection.
|
What does the Bible say about the concept of a common law marriage? |
Answer
Common law marriage may be defined differently in different states, but, in general, a common law marriage can be thought of as a romantic relationship legally recognized as a marriage without the need to purchase a marriage license and without being “made official” with a ceremony. Usually, to be eligible for a common law marriage, a couple must have a marriage\-like lifestyle: they live together, agree that they are married, and present themselves to others as husband and wife. Also, neither one of the individuals is already married to someone else. *Webster’s New College Dictionary* defines *common law marriage* as follows: “A marriage existing by mutual agreement and cohabitation between a man and a woman without a civil or religious ceremony.”
A common misperception is that, if you live together for a certain length of time (seven years is what many people believe), then you are common\-law married. This is not true anywhere in the United States.
The Bible does not speak of common law marriage. Genesis 2:21–24 shows God’s original plan for marriage and will serve as the basis for the [biblical definition of marriage](definition-of-marriage.html): “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 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.”
In the first few chapters of Genesis, God fills the earth with large numbers of different kinds of life. He doesn’t just put a few fish in the ocean; it “teems” with them (Genesis 1:21\). But when it comes to mankind, He makes just one male and one female, and those two were to become [“one flesh.”](one-flesh-marriage.html) The implication of Genesis 2:24 is that this “one woman for one man for one lifetime” principle was not just for Adam and Eve but for all who would ever be born. Jesus commented on this passage when the Jewish leaders brought up the topic of divorce: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mark 10:6–9\).
In order to evaluate common law marriage, we should understand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, creating a new entity, a new “whole” (one flesh). This union is brought about by a mutual commitment before God (expressed today through a [public vow](Christian-wedding-marriage-vows.html)) to forsake all others, to keep themselves only unto their partner, and to act in the best interest of the other (to love), and to seek to fulfill God’s purposes for their lives as a new unit. This commitment is to last as long as they both shall live (1 Corinthians 7:39\).
In appraising common law marriage, we should also remember that marriage is not merely a “friendship.” Although it is not the “consummation” that begins the actual marriage (or Joseph and Mary would not have been married until after Christ was born—Matthew 1:25\), sexual activity is understood to be a natural part of marriage (Exodus 21:10; Hebrews 13:4\). Today, the exchanging of vows during a wedding ceremony is the vocalized commitment that was understood between biblical couples such as Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24:67\.
Some of God’s purposes for marriage are companionship (Genesis 2:18\), procreation (Genesis 1:28\), mutual and undefiled pleasure (1 Corinthians 7:4–5; Proverbs 5:18–19; Song of Solomon; Hebrews 13:4\), prevention of immorality (1 Corinthians 7:2, 5\), service of Christ, the representation of the spiritual relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22–33\), and the rearing of godly descendants (Malachi 2:13–16\). The bond of marriage (when respected) leads to the good of the couple and their children and society as a whole, for the family unit is the building block of any society.
While marriages throughout most of biblical history involved some type of public ceremony (and celebration), such a ceremony is not required for a biblical marriage to have taken place. In the case of Isaac and Rebekah and others, no ceremony is recorded (Genesis 24:67\). But a shared ingredient between common law marriage and one involving a ceremony is a publicly expressed intent to be married. Two people living together without that expressed intent are not in a common law marriage; they are just cohabiting. Isaac and Rebekah did not just begin living together; there was a clear expression of intent that their union be of a permanent nature (see Genesis 24:51, 57\). Another common ingredient of common law marriage and one involving a ceremony and license is its legal standing. In order for a common law marriage to be dissolved, a legal divorce must be obtained. (Again, in God’s original intent for marriage, there should be no [divorce](God-hates-divorce.html).) Another trait of the model marriages in the Bible, whether or not they involved a public ceremony, is that there was no sexual activity prior to the marriage—there was no cohabiting.
From a biblical perspective, there are a few troublesome issues about common law marriage. Two of the biblical purposes of marriage are (1\) to use the union to serve Christ as a new unit and (2\) to represent the greater reality of the union between Christ and His church. Historically, common law marriage came into being because there were small villages in England to which a church or government official was unable to travel on a regular basis. Common law marriage allowed a couple to legally get married without the presence of an official. There was still the component of a public declaration of their intent to marry before cohabiting. During World War II, common law marriages took place in Japanese prison camps between prisoners expressing a similar public declaration of intent. But for Christians under normal circumstances, a public ceremony in a church enables them to begin their union before family and friends with a testimony of their intent to serve Christ and a witness of their salvation in Christ.
Christians are to “aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man” (2 Corinthians 8:21, ESV; cf. Romans 12:17\). It is important that their marriages are honorable in man’s sight. Common law marriage is held to be legal marriage in a minority of states. Even then, there are strict requirements governing the recognition of such unions. In states that allow common law marriage, as long as the law is followed, a common law marriage is not sinful. At the same time, every Christian should desire to live above reproach so that Christ can be honored in all that he or she does (1 Corinthians 10:31\). A Christian couple should carefully weigh the options, consider their public testimony, and evaluate their own motives for dispensing with a public ceremony.
|
Was Saint Peter the first pope? |
Answer
The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18\). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18\-19\), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1\-23; Galatians 2:1\-14; and 1 Peter 5:1\-5\. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter ever being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13\). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19\-20\), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15\-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1\-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10\-11\).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2\-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19\-22\). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23\).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7\-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19\-21\). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28\-32\). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10\-12\).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1\-10\). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18\). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25\).
|
Stigmata - what is it? Is it biblical? |
Answer
Stigmata are the appearance of the wounds of Jesus Christ on a person’s body. Some stigmata include representations of the wounds on Christ’s back caused by the scourging and/or the head wounds caused by the crown of thorns. But traditionally stigmata consist of five classic points: the side (where Jesus was pierced with the spear to confirm that He was dead), and both hands and both feet (the wounds caused by the nails of the crucifixion). Stigmata are also known as the "Five Wounds" or the "Sacred Wounds of our Lord."
Several individuals in church history have claimed to have miraculously received stigmata. However, there are serious challenges to the legitimacy of these supposed appearances. Many have been proven to have been self\-inflicted in an attempt to fake miraculous stigmata. The Bible nowhere instructs anyone to get stigmata or states that God will give stigmata. In Galatians 6:17, Paul states, "...for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." This does not mean Paul literally had the scars of crucifixion. Rather, it indicates that Paul’s body was scarred due to his commitment to follow Christ. Jesus suffered the wounds so we would not have to. The wounds of crucifixion being miraculously inflicted on the body of a believer contradicts the fact that "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5\).
|
Does Satan have the power to control the weather? |
Answer
The increasing number of natural disasters and terrible storms have many people wondering, who controls the weather, God or Satan? Some point to the descriptions of Satan as the “[prince of the power of the air](prince-power-air.html)” in Ephesians 2:2 and the “[god of this world](Satan-god-world.html)” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 as evidence for Satan having control over weather. An examination of Scripture reveals that whatever influence Satan and his demon angels have over the weather is restricted by God’s ultimate sovereignty. The Devil, our "adversary," must be taken seriously; we should acknowledge his existence and his limited power over the secular world. At the same time, Satan, a defeated fallen angel, is super\-human but not divine, having only the power that God ultimately allows (2 Thessalonians 2:6\-11\).
If Satan could impact the weather, it would only be by God’s permission, and restrained, as in the case of Job. Satan was allowed by God to torment Job in order to test him, and this included “the fire of God” (probably lightning) which "fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants" (Job 1:16\). This was followed by a "mighty wind" (possibly a tornado) that destroyed his eldest son’s home and killed Job’s children (verses 18\-19\). So if the fire from heaven and the tornado were somehow caused by Satan, they were still under the ultimate control of God for His purposes.
It is God, not Satan, who controls the weather (Exodus 9:29; Psalm 135:6\-7; Jeremiah 10:13\).
God controls the skies and the rain (Psalm 77:16\-19\).
God controls the wind (Mark 4:35\-41; Jeremiah 51:16\).
God upholds and sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3\).
God has power over the clouds (Job 37:11\-12, 16\).
God has power over lightning (Psalm 18:14\).
God has power over all nature (Job 26\).
God is in control of all things, including the weather. Through His providence, God provides for and protects His children, but He also permits Satan, demons, and mankind to exercise their limited will to commit acts of sin, evil, and wickedness. These same beings are fully responsible for any and all man\-made disasters and tragedies they cause. We know that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 11:36\), and therefore His invisible hand is in our pain, even though He cannot sin or be the perpetrator of evil (James 1:13\-17\).
There can be no meaningless suffering for the believer, whether the suffering is caused by mankind or by a natural event. We may not always know why evil acts or natural disasters happen, but we can be assured that in all our trials and tribulations God is working all things together for His glory and for our everlasting good (Romans 8:18\-28\).
|
What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? |
Answer
The concept of “binding and loosing” is taught in the Bible in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14\-40\), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.
Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.
It’s not that the apostles were given the privilege of changing God’s mind, as if whatever they decided on earth would be duplicated in heaven; rather, they were encouraged that, as they moved forward in their apostolic duties, they would be fulfilling God’s plan in heaven. When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear: “Whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:19, Young’s Literal Translation). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, “Whatever you bind \[forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have \[already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose \[permit, declare lawful] on earth will have \[already] been loosed in heaven.”
Jesus taught that the apostles had a special task on earth. Their words of authority, as recorded in the New Testament epistles, reflect God’s will for the church. When Paul declared an anathema on those who pervert the gospel, then we know that anathema was already declared in heaven (see Galatians 1:8–9\).
|
Should a Christian participate in acupuncture / acupressure? |
Answer
The origin of acupuncture is Chinese Taoism. Taoism is the philosophical system evolved by Lao\-tzu and Chuang\-tzu that advocates a life of complete simplicity, naturalness, and non\-interference with the course of natural events in order to attain an existence in harmony with the Tao, or life\-force. It is closely related to Hsuan Chaio, which is a popular Chinese religion that purports to be based on the doctrines of Lao\-tzu, but which is actually highly eclectic in nature and characterized by a pantheon of many gods, [superstitions](superstitions.html), and the practice of [alchemy](Bible-alchemy.html), [divination](Bible-divination.html), and magic.
In this Chinese philosophy/religion there are two principles. The first is the "yin," which is negative, dark, and feminine, and the second is "yang," which is positive, bright, and masculine. The interaction of these two forces is thought to be the guiding influence for the destinies of all creatures and things. One’s fate is under the power of the balance or imbalance of these two forces. Acupuncture is a mechanism practiced by adherents of Taoism that is used to bring the "yin and yang" of the body into harmony with Tao.
While the underlying philosophy and worldview behind acupuncture is decidedly unbiblical, that does not necessarily mean the practice of acupuncture itself is against the teachings of the Bible. Many people have found acupuncture to provide relief from pain and other ailments when all other treatments have failed. The medical community is increasingly recognizing that, in some instances, there are verifiable medical benefits from acupuncture. So, if the practice of acupuncture can be separated from the philosophy/worldview behind acupuncture, perhaps acupuncture is something a Christian can consider. Again, though, extreme caution must be taken to avoid the spiritual aspects behind acupuncture. Most acupuncture practitioners genuinely believe in the Tao/yin\-yang philosophy that is at the origin of acupuncture. A Christian should have nothing whatsoever to do with Taoism.
As to the difference between acupuncture and acupressure, with acupressure, instead of needles, pressure is placed upon nerve centers. For instance, there are pressure points said to be in the sole of the foot and the palm of the hand that correspond to other areas of the body. Acupressure would seem to be very similar to deep\-tissue [massage therapy](massage-therapy.html), where the muscles of the body are exposed to pressure to increase blood flow. However, if acupressure is practiced to bring the body into the harmony of yin and yang, then the same problem arises as with acupuncture. Can the practice be implemented without the philosophy?
The important issue here is separation for the born\-again believer from any and all practices that would bring him or her the danger of bondage to counterfeit religions. Ignorance of evil is a danger, and the more we inform ourselves as to the true origin of the Eastern philosophies and practices, the more we see that they are rooted in superstition, occultism, and false religions that are in direct opposition to God’s Word. Can a valuable medical procedure be invented by a non\-Christian? Of course! Much of Western medicine has its origin in practices/individuals that were just as unchristian as the developers of acupuncture. Whether or not the origin is explicitly Christian is not the issue. What procedures we subject ourselves to in search of healing/relief from pain is a matter of perspective, discernment, and conviction, not dogmatism.
|
Is the perpetual virginity of Mary biblical? |
Answer
It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.
So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55\-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.
Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31\-34; Luke 8:19\-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14\. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of [Joseph from a previous marriage](Joseph-married-before-Mary.html), why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.
|
Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved? |
Answer
The Gospel of John is the only Gospel which mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23 tells us, “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him.” John 19:26 declares, “When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, 'Dear woman, here is your son.'“ John 21:7 says, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’” This disciple is never specifically identified, but the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is clear. The disciple whom Jesus loved self\-identifies as the author of the gospel (John 21:24\), whom most scholars believe to be the apostle John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.
First, only the Gospel of John mentions the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Second, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter: “Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together...” The apostle John was a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21\). Third, there were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33; Luke 8:51\). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple (John 21:20\-21\). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible “longevity” of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22\. James was the first of the apostles to die (Acts 12:2\). While Jesus did not promise the disciple whom He loved long life, it would be highly unusual for Jesus to say, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” if the disciple whom He loved was going to be the first disciple to die.
Church history tells us that the apostle John lived into the A.D. 90s and was the last surviving apostle. Early church tradition was unanimous in identifying John as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It seems that John had a closer relationship with Jesus than any of the other disciples. Jesus and John were essentially “best friends.” Jesus entrusted John with the care of His mother, gave John the vision of the transfiguration, allowed John to witness His most amazing miracles, and later gave John the Book of Revelation.
|
Why did Jesus command people to not tell others of the miracles He performed? |
Answer
After healing a man of leprosy (Mark 1:41\-42\), "Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: ’see that you don’t tell this to anyone...'" (Mark 1:43\-44\). To our way of thinking, it would seem that Jesus would want everyone to know about the miracle. But Jesus knew that publicity over such miracles might hinder His mission and divert public attention from His message. Mark records that this is exactly what happened. In this man’s excitement over his being miraculously healed, he disobeyed. As a result, Christ had to move His ministry away from the city and into the desert regions (Mark 1:45\) “As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to Him from everywhere.”
In addition, Christ, though he had cleansed the leper, still required him to be obedient to the law of the land — to go at once to the priest, and not to make delay by stopping to converse about his being healed. It was also possible that, if he did not go at once, evil\-minded men would go before him and prejudice the priest and prevent his declaring the healing to be true because it was done by Jesus. It was of further importance that the priest should pronounce it to be a genuine cure, that there might be no prejudice among the Jews against its being a real miracle.
Finally, Jesus did not want people focusing on the miracles He performed, but rather the message He proclaimed and the death He was going to die. The same is true today. God would rather that we be focused on the healing miracle of salvation through Jesus Christ instead of focusing on other healings and/or miracles.
|
What is the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible? |
Answer
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible \-
<http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/> \- is a website dedicated to pointing out all of the supposed errors, contradictions, and discrepancies in the Bible. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible divides the supposed errors into the following categories: injustice, absurdity, cruelty and violence, intolerance, contradictions, family values, women, good stuff, science and history, prophecy, sex, language, interpretation, and homosexuality. It is not the purpose of this article to refute every issue the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible raises (there are over 6,000\).
It is the purpose of this article to point out the fallacies behind the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. First, we commend the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible for giving the "Good Stuff" section \-
<http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html>. It is rare for an atheist / anti\-Christian website to say anything positive about the Bible and/or Christianity. At the same time, the "Good Stuff" section is the only place the Bible is treated with any respect or logic. In regard to the "contradictions" and "absurdities" sections, please read our article on
[Bible errors, contradictions, and discrepancies](Bible-errors.html). The sections on homosexuality and tolerance can be answered simply and concisely. Speaking the truth and not tolerating sin is the most loving thing we can do. Ignoring evil and promoting ungodliness may be seen as tolerant, but it does not result in anything truly positive.
The sections on "injustice," "family values," "cruelty and violence," and "women" fail to account for an important concept—the Bible was written to reform our souls, not our societies. While the teachings of the Bible were revolutionary in the protection they gave to slaves, women, etc., some of the commands and statements seem brutal and unjust to our modern minds. God "breathed out" the Bible in an ancient culture. God approached the sins of man from the "inside out." If a man comes into a relationship with God, God will reform his heart, teach him to love, to respect, to forgive. Yes, some of the laws in the Bible seem brutal and primitive, but if a person had a genuine relationship with God, the laws would not even be necessary.
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible’s section on "sex" does nothing but point out all the various verses in the Bible that mention sex. Why is this section even necessary? Yes, the Bible talks about sex. Sex is, obviously, an important aspect of life in this world. It is normal, therefore, for the Bible to address human sexuality. The "interpretations" section is filled with difficult verses and passages. However, these difficulties are answered in detail in nearly every major Bible commentary. The existence of a difficult passage is meaningless in verifying or rejecting the inspiration of the Bible.
Again, if you have questions about the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible or have found something in the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible that you cannot explain, please feel free to ask us, and we will be happy to provide a personalized answer.
|
Why should I not commit suicide? |
Answer
Our hearts go out to those who have thoughts of ending their own lives through suicide. If that is you right now, it may speak of many emotions, such as feelings of hopelessness and despair. You may feel like you are in the deepest pit, and you doubt there is any hope of things getting better. No one seems to care or understand where you are coming from. Life just is not worth living...or is it?
If you will take a few moments to consider letting God truly be God in your life right now, He will prove how big He really is, “for nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37\). Perhaps scars from past hurts have resulted in an overwhelming sense of rejection or abandonment. That may lead to self\-pity, anger, bitterness, vengeful thoughts, or unhealthy fears that have caused problems in some of your most important relationships.
Why should you not commit suicide? Friend, no matter how bad things are in your life, there is a God of love who is waiting for you to let Him guide you through your tunnel of despair and out into His marvelous light. He is your sure hope. His name is Jesus.
This Jesus, the sinless Son of God, identifies with you in your time of rejection and humiliation. The prophet Isaiah wrote of Him in Isaiah 53:2\-6, describing Him as a man who was “despised and rejected” by everyone. His life was full of sorrow and suffering. But the sorrows He bore were not His own; they were ours. He was pierced, wounded, and crushed, all because of our sin. Because of His suffering, our lives can be redeemed and made whole.
Friend, Jesus Christ endured all this so that you might have all your sins forgiven. Whatever weight of guilt you carry, know that He will forgive you if you humbly receive Him as your Savior. “...Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you...” (Psalm 50:15\). Nothing you have ever done is too bad for Jesus to forgive. Some of His choicest servants committed gross sins like murder (Moses), murder and adultery (King David), and physical and emotional abuse (the apostle Paul). Yet they found forgiveness and a new abundant life in the Lord. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
Why should you not commit suicide? Friend, God stands ready to repair what is “broken,” namely, the life you have now, the life you want to end by suicide. In Isaiah 61:1\-3, the prophet wrote, “The LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve…to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.”
Come to Jesus, and let Him restore your joy and usefulness as you trust Him to begin a new work in your life. He promises to restore the joy you have lost and give you a new spirit to sustain you. Your broken heart is precious to Him: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51:12, 15\-17\).
Will you accept the Lord as your Savior and Shepherd? He will guide your thoughts and steps—one day at a time—through His Word, the Bible. “I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you and watch over you” (Psalm 32:8\). “He will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure” (Isaiah 33:6\). In Christ, you will still have struggles, but you will now have hope. He is “a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Proverbs 18:24\). May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you in your hour of decision.
If you desire to trust Jesus Christ as your Savior, speak these words in your heart to God: “God, I need you in my life. Please forgive me for all that I have done. I place my faith in Jesus Christ and believe that He is my Savior. Please cleanse me, heal me, and restore my joy in life. Thank You for Your love for me and for Jesus’ death on my behalf.”
Have you made a decision to receive Jesus Christ as your Savior because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.
If you are considering suicide, please seek help now. Call 1\-800\-273\-8255, the national hotline, get yourself to a hospital if you can, call 911, go alert someone in your home, apartment, or workplace, or wherever you are, and do whatever it takes to get help.
National Hopeline Network: 1\-800\-SUICIDE
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988
Befrienders.org: <http://www.befrienders.org/directory>
Suicide hotlines available in most countries: [http://www.suicide.org/international\-suicide\-hotlines.html](http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-hotlines.html)
|
Should a Christian consult horoscopes? |
Answer
The purpose of a horoscope is to gain insight into a person’s character and foretell the future. The basic belief of astrology is that planets and stars exert an influence upon our lives. Those with special knowledge—astrologers—can predict events in a person’s life. It is distressing that most major newspapers have a horoscope column, and even more distressing that many Christians read their horoscopes.
The Bible expressly forbids divination, sorcery, and hidden arts (Deuteronomy 18:10\-14\). God’s people are to heed God only (Deuteronomy 18:15\). Any other source of guidance, information, or revelation is to be rejected outright. (See also Acts 16:16\-18\.) The Bible points to Jesus Christ as the only proper focus of faith (Acts 4:12; Hebrews 12:2\). Our trust is in God alone, and we know that He will direct our paths (Proverbs 3:5\-6\). Faith in anything besides God is misplaced.
Astrology, then, opposes biblical teaching in at least two ways: it advocates faith in something other than God, and it is a form of divination. We cannot determine God’s will for our lives through horoscopes. As Christians, we are to read the Bible and pray to God in order to gain wisdom and guidance. Consulting a horoscope is a violation of God’s means of communicating with His children. We strongly believe that horoscopes should be rejected by Christians.
|
What is practical theology? |
Answer
Practical theology, as its name implies, is the study of theology in a way that is intended to make it useful or applicable. Another way of saying it is that it is the study of theology so that it can be used and is relevant to everyday concerns. One seminary describes its Practical Theology Program as “being dedicated to the practical application of theological insights” and that it “generally includes the sub\-disciplines of pastoral theology, homiletics, and Christian education, among others.” Another seminary sees the purpose of practical theology as helping to prepare students to translate the knowledge learned into effective ministry to people. Doing this involves both personal and family life as well as the administration and educational ministries in the church. They state that the goal of practical theology is to develop effective communicators of Scripture who have a vision for the spiritual growth of believers while being servant leaders.
Some consider practical theology to simply be a more technical name for the doctrine of the Christian life. Its emphasis is on how all the teaching of Scripture should affect the way we live today in this present world. The emphasis of practical theology is not simply to contemplate or comprehend theological doctrines but to move beyond that to applying those doctrines in everyday Christian life so that we “contribute to the world’s becoming what God intends it to be.”
The premise behind practical theology programs is that future Christian leaders need to be equipped not only with theological knowledge but also with the necessary professional skills to minister effectively in the modern world. Often these programs use preaching, Christian education, counseling and clinical programs to provide opportunities to equip and prepare future Christian leaders.
|
What is Luciferianism? |
Answer
One type of Luciferianism is the worship or reverence of [Lucifer](Lucifer-Satan.html) as a deity. Such religion is related to Satanism—though it attempts to emphasize the more “positive” aspects of Lucifer. Another type of Luciferianism is nontheistic and views Lucifer as nothing more than a symbol of mankind’s quest for wisdom and enlightenment.
The name “Lucifer” comes from a translation of Isaiah 14:12\. It literally means “bright star, shining star, or morning star.” Most scholars see this as a description of Satan before his rebellion against God. Passages like Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 teach that Satan was created the highest, most beautiful of the angels, but that his pride and desire for God’s own throne resulted in his being cast out of heaven and being given the name “Satan” (meaning “adversary”).
The first type of Luciferianism is really nothing more than the worship of Satan as the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4\). Satan is venerated as a being of knowledge and light (2 Corinthians 11:14–15\). The focus is on the “good” that was in Lucifer prior to his rebellion and not the evil and darkness that is associated with the name “Satan.” Though Lucifer and Satan are one and the same, Luciferianism portrays him as a god of light, a god of knowledge, and a god of magic. Luciferians seek to become gods themselves, a position attained by living a life of goodness, seeking after knowledge, practicing magic, and opening one’s mind to the cosmic mind of Lucifer. In many ways, Luciferianism resembles [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html).
The other type of Luciferianism, which rejects the idea that Lucifer is a personal being, is still seeking enlightenment apart from the truth of God. These Luciferians may see themselves as lovers of light and goodness, but they are embracing falsehood. Satan does not care if people believe in him or not; he can still lead them astray.
Groups that adhere to Luciferian teachings are few and far between, though elements of Luciferianism are found in [Masonic](free-masonry.html) teachings, [Wicca](Wicca.html), and [New Age](new-age-movement.html) philosophy. Because there is no agreed\-upon dogma, Luciferian beliefs are extremely varied from group to group. The wide variety of beliefs among Luciferian adherents has contributed to the generally held belief that Luciferianism is simply a subset of Satanism, a mini\-denomination of sorts. Although some adherents would be quick to denounce such a claim, Luciferianism is otherwise difficult to categorize.
One thing is certain: Lucifer/Satan is not a being to be worshiped, nor is he anyone to be treated lightly. He is a very powerful being and the enemy of our souls. The Bible describes him as “the devil \[who] prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8\). Those who get involved with him will eventually regret it, as he will devour their souls as a reward for their worship. “Resist him,” Peter exhorts in verse 9, “standing firm in the faith.” The faith he means is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, because He alone can save us from hell, the ultimate destination of all who dabble in Luciferianism.
|
If the Jewish people do not offer animal sacrifices, how do they believe they can receive forgiveness from God? |
Answer
For all intents and purposes, the Jewish practice of [animal sacrifice](animal-sacrifices.html) ended in AD 70, the year that the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. With the temple gone, there is no longer a place for the sacrifices to be offered according to the Mosaic Law (see Deuteronomy 12:13–14\). Repeatedly in the Old Testament, the point is made that sacrifices were required to make atonement for sin (e.g., Exodus 29:36; Leviticus 4:31; 9:7; 14:19; 15:15; Numbers 15:25\). The shedding of blood is what consecrated things and people to the Lord (Leviticus 16:19; cf. Hebrews 9:22\).
With no blood sacrifice today, the Jews have no lawful way of atoning for their sin. Passover is still observed, but without the sacrifice. Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is still on the calendar, but there is never an offering made for sin. The stipulations of the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html) remain unchanged, but the Jewish people cannot make things right with God—they cannot find forgiveness—without an animal sacrifice.
Modern Jews believe that forgiveness of sin is obtained through repentance, prayer, and good deeds. They use verses like Hosea 6:6 to devalue the need for sacrifices: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” Still, it is hard to overlook such passages as Leviticus 17:11, “The life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
The fact remains that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22\). The animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant have been replaced by the once\-for\-all sacrifice for sin given by Jesus, the Messiah. As Jesus established the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html), He “died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Hebrews 9:15\).
Within a generation of Christ’s sacrifice, the Jewish temple was destroyed; the need for animal sacrifices no longer existed, for Christ had fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law (Matthew 5:17\). Animal sacrifices were merely a type of the perfect Sacrifice—the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29\). The sacrifice of Christ paid the debt of sin for all mankind, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 9:12–15\).
|
What does the Bible say about laziness? |
Answer
Newton’s first law of motion states that an object in motion tends to remain in motion, and an object at rest tends to remain at rest. This law applies to people. While some are naturally driven to complete projects, others are apathetic, requiring motivation to overcome inertia. Laziness, a lifestyle for some, is a temptation for all. But the Bible is clear that, because the Lord ordained work for man, laziness is sin. “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise” (Proverbs 6:6\).
The Bible has a great deal to say about laziness. Proverbs is especially filled with wisdom concerning laziness and warnings to the lazy person. Proverbs tells us that a lazy person hates work: “The sluggard’s craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work” (21:25\); he loves sleep: “As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed” (26:14\); he gives excuses: “The sluggard says, ‘There is a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets’” (26:13\); he wastes time and energy: “He who is slothful in his work is a brother to him who is a great waster” (18:9 KJV); he believes he is wise, but is a fool: “The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who answer discreetly” (26:16\).
Proverbs also tells us the end in store for the lazy: A lazy person becomes a servant (or debtor): “Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor” (12:24\); his future is bleak: “A sluggard does not plow in season; so at harvest time he looks but finds nothing” (20:4\); he may come to poverty: “The soul of the lazy man desires and has nothing; but the soul of the diligent shall be made rich” (13:4 KJV).
There is no room for laziness in the life of a Christian. A new believer is truthfully taught that “…it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8\-9\). But a believer can become idle if he erroneously believes God expects no fruit from a transformed life. “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10\). Christians are not saved by works, but they do show their faith by their works (James 2:18, 26\). Slothfulness violates God’s purpose—good works. The Lord, however, empowers Christians to overcome the flesh’s propensity to laziness by giving us a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
In our new nature, we are motivated to [diligence](Bible-diligence.html) and productiveness out of a love for our Savior who redeemed us. Our old propensity toward laziness—and all other sin—has been replaced by a desire to live godly lives: “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need” (Ephesians 4:28\). We are convicted of our need to provide for our families through our labors: “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8\); and for others in the family of God: “You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive'” (Acts 20:34\-35\).
As Christians, we know that our labors will be rewarded by our Lord if we persevere in diligence: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Galatians 6:9\-10\); “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:23\-24\); “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them” (Hebrews 6:10\).
Christians should labor in God’s strength to evangelize and disciple. The apostle Paul is our example: “We proclaim him \[Christ], admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me” (Colossians 1:28\-29\). Even in heaven, Christians’ service to God will continue, although no longer encumbered by the curse (Revelation 22:3\). Free from sickness, sorrow, and sin—even laziness—the saints will glorify the Lord forever. “Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:58\).
|
What is moral relativism? |
Answer
Moral relativism is more easily understood in comparison to [moral absolutism](moral-absolutism.html). Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is, therefore, as unchanging as He is. Moral relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical “truths” depend on variables such as the situation, culture, one’s feelings, etc.
Several things can be said of the arguments for moral relativism which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support relativism might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the “right” moral scheme—the one we all ought to follow. But this itself is absolutism. Second, even so\-called relativists reject relativism in most cases. They would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as he did not violate his own standards.
Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? After all, they were only following their culture’s morality. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different practices of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti\-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So, even here, absolute universal morality is shown to be true.
Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality—in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).
The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist’s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self\-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly—but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.
The fact is that all people are born with a conscience, and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between “fair” and “unfair.” It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong and that moral relativism is true.
|
What does the Bible say about how to find purpose in life? |
Answer
The Bible is very clear as to what our purpose in life should be. Men in both the Old and New Testaments sought for and discovered life’s purpose. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, discovered the futility of life when it is lived only for this world. He gives these concluding remarks in the book of Ecclesiastes: "Here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:13\-14\). Solomon says that life is all about honoring God with our thoughts and lives and thus keeping His commandments, for one day we will stand before Him in judgment. Part of our purpose in life is to fear God and obey Him.
Another part of our purpose is to see life on this earth in perspective. Unlike those whose focus is on this life, King David looked for His [satisfaction](Bible-satisfaction.html) in the time to come. He said, "And I—in righteousness I will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness" (Psalm 17:15\). To David, full satisfaction would come on the day when he awoke (in the next life) both beholding God’s face (fellowship with Him) and being like Him (1 John 3:2\).
In Psalm 73, Asaph talks about how he was tempted to envy the wicked who seemed to have no cares and built their fortunes upon the backs of those they took advantage of, but then he considered their ultimate end. In contrast to what they sought after, he states in verse 25 what mattered to him: "Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you" (verse 25\). To Asaph, a relationship with God mattered above all else in life. Without that relationship, life has no real purpose.
The apostle Paul talked about all he had achieved religiously before being confronted by the risen Christ, and he concluded that all of it was like a pile of manure compared to the excellence of knowing Christ Jesus. In Philippians 3:9\-10, Paul says that he wants nothing more than to know Christ and “be found in Him,” to have His righteousness and to live by faith in Him, even if it meant suffering and dying. Paul’s purpose was knowing Christ, having a righteousness obtained through faith in Him, and living in fellowship with Him, even when that brought on suffering (2 Timothy 3:12\). Ultimately, he looked for the time when he would be a part of the "resurrection from the dead."
Our purpose in life, as God originally created man, is 1\) glorify God and enjoy fellowship with Him, 2\) have good relationships with others, 3\) work, and 4\) have dominion over the earth. But with man’s fall into sin, fellowship with God is broken, relationships with others are strained, work seems to always be frustrating, and man struggles to maintain any semblance of dominion over nature. Only by restoring fellowship with God, through faith in Jesus Christ, can purpose in life be rediscovered.
The purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We glorify God by fearing and obeying Him, keeping our eyes on our future home in heaven, and knowing Him intimately. We enjoy God by following His purpose for our lives, which enables us to experience true and lasting joy—the abundant life that He desires for us.
|
What is an Evangelical Christian? |
Answer
To begin, let’s break down the two words. The term *Christian* essentially means "follower of Christ." *Christian* is the term given to followers of Jesus Christ in the first century A.D. (Acts 11:26\). The term *evangelical* comes from the Greek word that means "good news." Evangelism is sharing the good news of the salvation that is available through Jesus Christ. An evangelical, then, is a person dedicated to promoting the good news about Jesus Christ. Combined, the description "evangelical Christian" is intended to indicate a believer in Jesus Christ who is faithful in sharing and promoting the good news.
In Western culture today, there are many caricatures of evangelical Christians. For some, the term *evangelical Christian* is equivalent to “right\-wing, fundamentalist Republican.” For others, "evangelical Christian" is a title used to differentiate an individual from a Catholic Christian or an Orthodox Christian. Others use the term to indicate adherence to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. In this sense, an evangelical Christian is a believer who holds to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. However, none of these definitions are inherent in the description "evangelical Christian."
In reality, all Christians should be evangelical Christians. The Bible is consistently instructing us to be witnesses of the good news (Matthew 28:18\-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1\-4; 1 Peter 3:15\). There is no better news than Jesus! There is no higher calling than evangelist. There is no doubt that holding to the fundamentals of the Bible will result in a certain worldview and, yes, political belief. However, there is nothing about being an evangelical that demands a certain political party or affiliation. An evangelical Christian is called to share the good news, to preach God’s Word, and to set an example of purity and integrity. If these callings require political action, so be it. At the same time, evangelical Christians should not be sidetracked into abandoning our highest calling—sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
|
Was Jesus crucified on a cross, pole, or stake? |
Answer
The cross is arguably the most beloved symbol in all of Christianity. It adorns our churches and cathedrals, our jewelry, our books and music, and is used in numerous marketing logos. The empty cross symbolizes the work performed there by our Savior who went to death willingly to pay the penalty for our sins. Among Jesus’ last words before He died were “It is finished” (John 19:30\). The Law was fulfilled, the Messianic prophecies pertaining to His first advent were accomplished, and redemption was complete. It is no wonder that the cross has come to symbolize all that is the greatest story ever told—the story of the sacrificial death of Christ.
This may come as a surprise to many, but the precise shape of the object on which Jesus was crucified cannot be proved explicitly from the Bible. The Greek word translated “cross” is *stauros*, meaning “a pole or a cross used as an instrument of capital punishment.” The Greek word *stauroo*, which is translated “crucify,” means “to be attached to a pole or cross.” Outside of the Bible, the same verb was also used in the context of putting up a fence with stakes. Though *stauros* can mean either “pole” or “stake,” many scholars argue that Jesus most likely died on a cross in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece. But a biblical, airtight case cannot be made for either a cross or a pole/stake. The Romans were not picky in regards to how they would crucify people. Historically, we know the Romans crucified people on crosses, poles, stakes, upside\-down crosses, X\-shaped crosses (such as the apostle Andrew is said to have been martyred on), walls, roofs, etc. Jesus could have been crucified on any of these objects, and it would not have affected the perfection or sufficiency of His sacrifice.
Certain cults, most notably the [Jehovah’s Witnesses](Jehovahs-Witnesses.html), are adamant that Jesus did not die on a cross and that the cross is in fact a pagan symbol. Their insistence on this point is curious, given the ambiguity of the Greek word. But they have worded their [New World Translation](New-World-Translation.html) to say that Jesus died on a “torture stake” rather than a cross. Given that the Jehovah’s Witnesses also deny the deity of Christ and His [bodily resurrection](bodily-resurrection-Jesus.html), it stands to reason that they should object to other details of traditional Christianity.
Arguing against the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching that Jesus died on a “torture stake” are some indirect clues in the New Testament. One of these is found in John 21\. Jesus gives Peter a glimpse of the manner of his death: “‘When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.’ Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God” (verses 18–19\). The fact that Peter (who tradition says was crucified) would “stretch out” his hands indicates that Roman crucifixion usually involved outspread arms such as would be positioned on a crosspiece.
The other clue that Jesus was crucified on a cross is found in John 20\. Thomas, in his famous moment of doubt, said, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe” (verse 25\). Note Thomas’s mention of the *nails* (plural) that had scarred Jesus’ hands. If Jesus had been crucified on a stake or a pole, only one nail would have been used. The fact of two nails in the hands suggests a traditional cross.
Completely lost in arguments over the shape of the cross is its significance to us. Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:24–25\). The cross/stake/pole was an instrument of death. By telling us to take up our cross and follow Him, Jesus says that, in order to be His true followers, we must die to self. If we call ourselves “Christians,” then we must deny ourselves and give up our lives for His sake. This may take the extreme form of being martyred for our faith, but even in the most peaceful political settings, we must be willing to lose the self—crucifying self\-righteousness, self\-promotion, selfish ambitions—in order to be His followers. Those who are not willing to do so are “not worthy” of Him (Matthew 10:38\).
So, did Jesus die on a cross? We believe He did. Could it have been a pole or stake instead? Possibly, if we ignore Thomas’s words in John 20:25\. But even more important than the shape of the object on which Jesus was crucified is that Jesus shed His blood for our sins and that His death purchased for us eternal life.
|
How can I overcome feelings of rejection? |
Answer
We are all prone to disappointment and feelings of rejection, and that is especially true in the aftermath of a broken relationship. However, as born\-again believers we have a resource in God’s Word that can bring comfort and clarity to the situation. One person’s rejection does not mean we are unlovable. We can allow that one rejection to determine how we feel and allow that feeling to color our idea of who we are, or we can choose to put that behind us and move forward on the basis of something that is far more lasting.
What is that? For believers, it is our position in Christ. When we are born again, we are accepted. "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves" (Ephesians 1:3\-6\).
Even though we do not deserve it nor can we earn it (Ephesians 2:8\-9\), the Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us with every spiritual blessing and has made us accepted in Him. This acceptance is His gift of grace, and it transcends any and all other "feelings" we may have because it is not based on "hope so" but on "know so." We know that this is true because God’s Word tells us, and as we appropriate this truth by faith, it becomes reality in our hearts and lives.
Walking by our feelings is like walking through the world with our heart on our sleeve. We are bound to be hurt, and we are bound to be disappointed, for we live in a fallen world. What we choose to do with that hurt and disappointment will either allow us to grow stronger in our walk with the Lord or it will mean that we are walking wounded. Both outcomes are our choice. God makes it possible for us to walk through the disappointments in life with a knowledge that His provision for us works. His grace and His comfort are ours as we rest in Him. Every born\-again child of God has all of these provisions and blessings in Christ, but we have to choose to utilize them. It is sort of like having a million dollars in the bank and choosing to starve to death because we don’t use that money to buy food. It is also true that we cannot use what we do not know. Therefore, it behooves every believer to "know" the God who knows us and loves us, and that means more than a devotional reading of God’s Word but study that changes our perspective (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\) and allows us to face life armed with real understanding about the reality of walking by faith.
As believers we are not defined by our past failures or by disappointment or by the rejection of others. We are defined as children of God, born again to newness of life and endowed with every spiritual blessing and accepted in Christ Jesus. That is the defining factor when it comes to victorious living. God has prepared for each of us unique opportunities to walk through the "all things" of this life. We can either walk in our own strength and what the Apostle Paul calls our "flesh," or we can walk in the power of the provision God has made for us through the Holy Spirit. It is our choice. God has provided us with armor (Ephesians 6:11\-18\), but it is up to us to put it on by faith.
Therefore, if you are a child of God, you may suffer disappointment in this life, but you need to remember that as a child of the King, this rejection is a momentary bump in the road. You have a choice to either allow that bump to derail you and walk wounded, or you can choose to claim the heritage of a child of God and move forward in grace. Forgiveness of others and of self is a gift that you can give because it is the gift given to you by the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:32\).
|
Did the high priest have a rope tied to him when he entered the Holy of Holies? |
Answer
There is a mystical Jewish tradition that the high priest of Israel would enter the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle or temple with a rope tied to his foot. The purpose of the rope, according to the tradition, was to retrieve the high priest’s body in case he died in the course of his duties within the [Holy of Holies](Holy-of-Holies.html).
The Law of Moses said that once a year, on [Yom Kippur](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html), the high priest must bring the blood of sacrifices into the Holy of Holies to atone for his sin and the national sins of the people of Israel. On that Day of Atonement, before entering the tabernacle, the high priest was to bathe and put on special garments (Leviticus 16:4\), then sacrifice a bull for a sin offering for himself and his family (verses 6 and 11\). The blood of the bull was to be brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled on the ark of the covenant.
Following that, the high priest was to burn “two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense” (Leviticus 16:12\) and then turn his attention to two goats. One goat was sacrificed “because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been” (verse 16\). Its blood was sprinkled on the ark of the covenant. The other goat was used as a [scapegoat](Azazel-scapegoat.html). The high priest would place his hands on the scapegoat’s head, confess over it the rebellion and wickedness of the Israelites, and send the goat away to be released into the wilderness (verse 21\). The second goat carried on itself all the sins of the people, which were forgiven for another year (verse 30\).
The law mandated other washings and clothing changes in the Day of Atonement ceremony. Twice in Leviticus 16, God warns the high priest to follow the protocol, on penalty of death (verses 2 and 13\). It’s possible that, because of the seriousness of entering the Holy of Holies, the Jews formulated the idea of tying a rope around the high priest’s foot.
According to tradition, during the last couple of centuries of the temple’s existence, a gold or scarlet rope was tied to the high priest’s foot on the Day of Atonement. Another priest standing in the Holy Place tended the other end of this rope. If the high priest’s sins were not atoned for properly, then God would strike him dead when he entered the presence of the Shekinah—the glory of God—that filled the Holy of Holies. Since access to that part of the temple was strictly forbidden, the priests felt they needed a way to retrieve the body of the high priest, if necessary.
Exodus 28:33–35 specified that bells (and knitted pomegranates) were to be worn on the hem of the high priest’s garment so that “the sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the Lord and when he comes out” (verse 35\). The bells provided an audible cue to those outside the tabernacle of the high priest’s whereabouts. They could tell when he entered and exited the Holy of Holies. According to the rope tradition, the bells also provided a means of knowing if the priest had died: if the jingling stopped, the priest on the other end of the rope would be alerted to the fact that the priest had ceased moving. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that was the purpose of the bells.
An alternate explanation of the rope tradition says that the rope was tied around the high priest’s foot as a reminder to exit the Holy of Holies. According to this theory, the exquisite beauty of the presence of God would so mesmerize the high priest that all earthly concerns would fall away. He would be so lost in awe and wonder that he would want to stay forever in God’s presence. The rope served to remind him of the “real world” outside and bring him back to the people who needed him.
The source for the tradition that the high priest had a rope tied to his ankle comes from the [Zohar](Zohar.html) and is therefore related to [Kabbalah](Kabbalah.html). In one passage, the Zohar relates that, as the high priest enters the Holy of Holies, “a knot of rope of gold hangs from his leg, from fear perhaps he would die in the Holy of Holies, and they would need to pull him out with this rope” (*Acharei Mot*, verse 198\).
Most likely, there was no rope tied to the high priest’s leg. The idea is pure fiction. The Bible does not allude to ropes for any purpose on the high priest. In fact, the Bible has specific instructions regarding what the high priest can and cannot wear (Exodus 28—35\). Also, the practice of the high priest wearing a rope around his foot is never mentioned in the [Mishnah](Mishnah-midrash.html) or the [Talmud](Talmud.html). No text in the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions a rope, and neither does the [Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html) or [pseudepigrapha](pseudepigrapha.html). In the end, the idea that the high priest entered the Most Holy Place with a rope tied around his foot is a fanciful notion.
|
What was the significance of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died? |
Answer
During the lifetime of Jesus, the holy temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. The temple was the place where animal sacrifices were carried out and worship according to the Law of Moses was followed faithfully. Hebrews 9:1\-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1\-2\). Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7\) to enter God’s presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16\).
Solomon’s temple was 30 cubits high (1 Kings 6:2\), but Herod had increased the height to 40 cubits, according to the writings of Josephus, a first\-century Jewish historian. There is uncertainty as to the exact measurement of a cubit, but it is safe to assume that this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high. An early Jewish tradition says that the veil was about four inches thick, but the Bible does not confirm that measurement. The book of Exodus teaches that this thick veil was fashioned from blue, purple, and scarlet material and fine twisted linen.
The size and thickness of the veil make the events occurring at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross so much more momentous. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50\-51a).
So, what do we make of this? What significance does this torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus’ death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile.
When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a temple made with human hands (Acts 17:24\). God was through with that temple and its religious system, and the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 13:35\. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8\-9 refers to the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13\).
In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6\). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19\-20 says, “We have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us.
The profound significance of the tearing of the veil is explained in glorious detail in Hebrews. The things of the temple were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death the faithful now have free access to God.
The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14\-16\).
|
What is cultural relativism? |
Answer
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture\-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs.
Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today’s anthropologist considers all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective.
Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard that applies to all cultures. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society can pass judgment on another society.
Cultural relativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing inherently good) with any cultural expression. So, the ancient Mayan practices of self\-mutilation and human sacrifice are neither good nor bad; they are simply cultural distinctives, akin to the American custom of shooting fireworks on the Fourth of July. Human sacrifice and fireworks—both are simply different products of separate socialization.
In January 2002, when President Bush referred to terrorist nations as an “axis of evil,” the cultural relativists were mortified. That any society would call another society “evil” is anathema to the relativist. The current movement to “understand” radical Islam—rather than to fight it—is a sign that relativism is making gains. The cultural relativist believes Westerners should not impose their ideas on terrorists, including the idea that the suicide bombing of civilians is evil. Islamic belief in the necessity of jihad is just as valid as any belief in Western civilization, the relativists assert, and America is as much to blame for the attacks of 9/11 as are the terrorists.
Cultural relativists are generally opposed to missionary work. When the gospel penetrates hearts and changes lives, some cultural change always follows. For example, when Don and Carol Richardson evangelized the Sawi tribe of the Netherlands New Guinea in 1962, the Sawi changed: specifically, they gave up their long\-held customs of cannibalism and immolating widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres. The cultural relativists may accuse the Richardsons of cultural [imperialism](colonialism-imperialism.html), but most of the world would agree that ending cannibalism is a good thing. (For the complete story of the Sawis’ conversion as well as an exposition of cultural reform as it relates to missions, see Don Richardson’s book *Peace Child*.)
As Christians, we value all people, regardless of culture, because we recognize that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27\). We also recognize that diversity of culture is a beautiful thing and differences in food, clothing, language, etc., should be preserved and appreciated. At the same time, we know that because of sin, not all beliefs and practices within a culture are godly or culturally beneficial. Truth is not subjective (John 17:17\); truth is absolute, and there does exist a moral standard to which all people of every culture will be held accountable (Revelation 20:11\-12\).
Our goal as missionaries is not to westernize the world. Rather, it is to bring the good news of salvation in Christ to the world. The gospel message will kindle social reform to the extent that any society whose practices are out of step with God’s moral standard will change—idolatry, polygamy, and slavery, for example, will come to an end as the Word of God prevails (see Acts 19\). In amoral issues, missionaries seek to preserve and honor the culture of the people they serve.
|
What is the Ordo Salutis / order of salvation? |
Answer
*Ordo Salutis* is the Latin for "the order of salvation," which deals with the steps or stages in the salvation of a believer (e.g., election, foreknowledge, predestination, redemption, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification—see especially Romans 8:29\-30\). There is disagreement within the church concerning this order and about the causal connections among them. Before discussion, it might be helpful to provide some basic definitions of many of the terms involved:
**Foreknowledge:** God’s knowing (in this sense) prior to salvation those who would be saved.
**Predestination:** God’s choosing before time all who would be saved.
**Election:** God’s choosing of all who would be saved.
**Regeneration:** God’s renewing of one’s life (not physically, but as opposed to the spiritual death caused by sin) (Titus 3:5\).
**Evangelism:** The communication of the gospel by which one can be saved (Matthew 28:19\).
**Faith:** Belief and trust in the message of the gospel (Ephesians 2:8\-9\).
**Conversion:** One’s turning to God based on the gospel (Acts 26:18\).
**Perseverance:** One’s continued true belief—remaining in the state of salvation (Jude 1:24\).
**Repentance:** Changing one’s mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ (Acts 26:20\).
**Justification:** God’s freeing of one from the penalty of sin—the pronouncement of "not guilty" on a sinner (Romans 5:9\).
**Sanctification:** God’s separation of one from the lure of sin (2 Timothy 2:21\).
**Glorification:** God’s final removal of all sin from the life and presence of one (in the eternal state) (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17\).
The debate over *ordo salutis* is most keenly developed between the Reformed and Arminian systems. In the Reformed tradition, the *ordo salutis* is election / predestination, followed by evangelism, regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification. In the Arminian camp, the *ordo salutis* is evangelism, followed by faith / election, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, and glorification. These stages may have various distinctions that are not represented here but serve to show the basic differences between the two systems. It should be noted that these need not be conceived as chronological steps \- many of these stages are seen as distinctions within a single process that all (in one way or another) depend upon the work of God.
It is important to realize that the differences are much more than mere labels. One’s *ordo salutis* has as much to do with the cause(s) of salvation itself as it does with salvation stages . For example, the Reformed position has faith as an effect of election rather than a cause of it (as the Arminians have it). Thus, there is a sense in which a person is saved in order to have faith. Where, then, should blame be laid if a person does not believe? The Arminian position has the believer responsible for whether or not God saves him, and thus a person must persevere to the end before he can be assured of salvation. What does this say about a believer’s security? These and many other questions are dependent upon the *ordo salutis* for their answers, and it is thus important that a believer understands from which perspective those answers are given.
|
What is the duty / role of a pastor’s wife? |
Answer
The Bible does not address the involvement of the pastor’s wife in any ministry. In other words, it depends upon the denomination, the individual church within a denomination, the church board, and the pastor and his wife to determine how active the pastor’s wife should be. The main area of responsibility for any wife is to support and be submissive to her husband (Ephesians 5:22\-24\). However, if the Lord calls a man into the ministry, He calls the whole man, and that includes the man’s wife and his family.
The Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3 gives us the qualifications of a "bishop" or what we call a pastor, and in verse 4 we see the following: "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence." "Rules well" is an idiom for being a biblical husband with a submissive wife and children that love and respect him. The pastor who is the head of his home will be more successful as a leader in the church, and of course this means that his wife is his helper in the ministry of the home as well as the church. The ministry is a partnership in all areas of life and not just in the home life.
The wife does not do the work of the pastor, but the pastor and his wife are a team who are yoked together to do God’s work. Too few recognize the reality of this and want to put the pastor’s wife in a box and relegate her to keeping the home fires burning and prayer support for her husband. That certainly is her responsibility, but quite often the pastor’s wife has gifts that can and should be used in the ministry. On the other hand, there are women whose husbands are pastors and they see it as "his" ministry and do not enter in to the work in any way. There should be a good balance between these two ideas with the goal of bringing glory to God in all things. An active, outgoing pastor’s wife is a valuable asset to any church in today’s climate of apathy to the things of God.
|
Does Satan have to get God’s permission before he can attack us? |
Answer
There is no biblical proof that [Satan](who-Satan.html) *always* needs God’s specific permission in order to act against Christians every time he wishes to attack them. We know that Satan needs permission at least sometimes. Job 1 shows that Satan was not able to afflict Job without God’s permission. However, consider Satan’s argument before God: “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land” (Job 1:10\). Satan is obviously familiar with who Job is and is aware of Job’s special protection and blessing by God. How could Satan have known of Job’s protection, unless he and/or his demonic minions had not already tried to work their will against Job? What Satan is really asking is for God to remove Job’s protection; of course, in asking that the protection be removed, Satan is essentially seeking permission to attack Job. Does Satan have to seek such permission *every* time he attacks us? The Bible does not say.
Another relevant passage is Luke 22:31–32\. Jesus says, “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to [sift you as wheat](sift-you-as-wheat.html). But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Clearly in this case Satan had asked God’s permission to test Peter and the other disciples. Jesus tells Peter that He has prayed specifically for him so that Peter’s faith would not fail and so that Peter can strengthen the other disciples when the test was over. The implication is that Peter and the rest *would* be sifted in whatever way Satan intended. So God allowed the harassing of His disciples, within limits, but He had a higher purpose in mind—the strengthening of them all.
In Job 38:11 God says that He limits the waves of the sea: “This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt.” In the same way, it seems that there are boundaries and rules that Satan must abide by. He can go so far but no farther. As the devil “prowls around like a roaring lion” (1 Peter 5:8\), must he stop and ask God’s permission for every step? Or does he only need to ask special permission when he runs into an obstacle to his hatred? There is no real biblical proof either way. Job and Peter were hedged about by the Lord—Satan couldn’t get to them without the Lord’s first removing a measure of His protection. We know that God cares for all of His children, so it is reasonable to assume that God has a measure of protection surrounding each of us. And we know that, ultimately, God controls everything in the universe, including Satan. “In all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28\).
|
Could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it? |
Answer
This question is frequently asked by skeptics of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self\-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. So, the question, could God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it? The quick answer is “No.” But the explanation is far more important to understand than the answer...
This question is based on a popular misunderstanding about the definitions of words like “almighty” or “omnipotent.” These terms do not mean that God can do anything. Rather, they describe the amount of God’s power. Power is the ability to effect change \- to make something happen. God (being unlimited) has unlimited power, and the Bible affirms this (Job 11:7\-11, 37:23; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 4:8; etc.). Therefore, God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man’s ability is being shown in contrast to God’s), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.
So, the first part of the question is based on a false idea—that God being almighty means that He can do anything. In fact, the Bible itself lists things God cannot do \- like lie or deny Himself (Hebrews 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2\). The reason He cannot do these things is because of His nature and the nature of reality itself. God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two\-sided triangle, or a married bachelor. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible—these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality. Now, what about this rock? A rock would have to be infinitely large to defeat an infinite amount of lifting power. But an infinite rock is a contradiction since material objects cannot be infinite. Only God is infinite. There cannot be two infinites. So the question is actually asking if God can make a contradiction—which He cannot.
|
What is the Eastern Orthodox Church and what are the beliefs of Orthodox Christians? |
Answer
The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a single church but rather a family of 13 self\-governing bodies, denominated by the nation in which they are located (e.g., the [Greek Orthodox Church](Greek-Orthodox-Church.html), [Russian Orthodox Church](Russian-Orthodox-Church.html)). They are united in their understanding of the sacraments, doctrine, liturgy, and church government, but each administers its own affairs.
The head of each Orthodox church is called a “patriarch” or “metropolitan.” The [patriarch of Constantinople](Ecumenical-Patriarch-of-Constantinople.html) (Istanbul, Turkey) is considered the ecumenical—or universal—patriarch. He is the closest thing to a counterpart to the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike the Pope, who is known as VICARIUS FILIUS DEI (the vicar of the Son of God), the bishop of Constantinople is known as PRIMUS INTER PARES (the first amongst equals). He enjoys special honor, but he has no power to interfere with the 12 other Orthodox communions.
The Orthodox Church claims to be the one true church of Christ, and seeks to trace its origin back to the original apostles through an unbroken chain of apostolic succession. Orthodox thinkers debate the spiritual status of Roman Catholics and Protestants, and a few still consider them heretics. Like Catholics and Protestants, however, Orthodox believers affirm the Trinity, the Bible as the Word of God, Jesus as God the Son, and many other biblical doctrines. However, in doctrine, they have much more in common with Roman Catholics than they do with Protestant Christians.
Sadly, the doctrine of justification by faith is virtually absent from the history and theology of the Orthodox Church. Rather, Orthodoxy emphasizes [theosis](theosis.html) (literally, “divinization”), the gradual process by which Christians become more and more like Christ. What many in the Orthodox tradition fail to understand is that “divinization” is the progressive result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation itself. Other Orthodox distinctives that are in conflict with the Bible include:
The equal authority of [church tradition](Christian-tradition.html) and Scripture
Discouragement of individuals interpreting the Bible apart from tradition
The [perpetual virginity of Mary](perpetual-virginity-Mary.html)
[Prayer for the dead](praying-for-the-dead.html)
[Baptism of infants](infant-baptism.html) without reference to individual responsibility and faith
The possibility of receiving [salvation after death](second-chance-salvation.html)
The possibility of [losing salvation](Christian-lose-salvation.html)
While the Eastern Orthodox Church has claimed some of the church’s great voices, and while there are many in the Orthodox tradition that have a genuine salvation relationship with Jesus Christ, the Orthodox church itself does not speak with a clear message that can be harmonized with the biblical gospel of Christ. The call of the Reformers for “Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, and Christ alone” is missing in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that is too precious a treasure to do without.
|
Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions? |
Answer
Acts 15:19\-21, 28 is the Scripture Jehovah’s Witnesses typically point to as the reason they refuse to accept blood donations. Acts 15:20 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions. There were many pagan religious practices that involved eating and drinking blood and/or strangling an animal to keep more of its blood in its meat. This is what the Bible speaks against, not blood transfusions.
Is it acceptable for a Christian to receive or give a blood transfusion? Since the Bible does not explicitly say, a decision of this nature can only be made between a person and God. One consideration might be that God created billions of people over the centuries, but only four blood types, making it possible to transfuse blood from one person to another, regardless of race or nationality. Perhaps this is an argument for the legitimacy of blood transfusions. A person should carefully and prayerfully consider what God would have him do in regards to receiving/giving a blood transfusion. There is no command either way in Scripture. Blood transfusions are, therefore, a matter of conscience.
|
How do you balance leave and cleave with honoring your parents? |
Answer
Both Christian parents and their married children can have difficulty with the balance between the concept of “leave and cleave” and honoring parents. Some pertinent Bible passages:
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined (cleave) to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24\).
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right" (Ephesians 6:1\).
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you" (Exodus 20:12\).
There are three aspects to the statement of Genesis 2:24: 1\. Leave \- This indicates that in a family there are two types of relationships. The parent\-child relationship is the temporary one and there will be a “leaving.” The husband\-wife relationship is the permanent one—“what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6\). Problems occur in family life when these two roles are reversed and the parent\-child relationship is treated as the primary relationship. When an adult child has married and this parent\-child relationship remains primary, the newly formed union is threatened.
2\. Cleave \- the Hebrew word translated “cleave” refers to (1\) the pursuing hard after someone else and (2\) being glued or stuck to something/someone. So a man is to pursue hard after his wife after the marriage has occurred (the courtship should not end with the wedding vows) and is to be “stuck to her like glue.” This cleaving indicates such closeness that there should be no closer relationship than that between the two spouses, not with any former friend or with any parent.
3\. And they shall become one flesh \- Marriage takes two individuals and creates a new single entity. There is to be such sharing and oneness in every aspect (physical, emotional, intellectual, financial, social) that the resulting unity can be best described as “one flesh.” Again, when there is greater sharing and emotional support gained from a continuing parent\-child relationship than from the husband\-wife relationship, the oneness within the marriage is being threatened, resulting in an unbiblical imbalance.
With these three aspects of Genesis 2:24 in mind, there are also the scriptural admonitions to honor one’s parents. This includes treating them with a respectful attitude (Proverbs 30:11,17\), obeying them when their commands are in keeping with God’s laws (“in the Lord” Ephesians 6:1\), and taking care of them as they get older (Mark 7:10\-12; 1 Timothy 5:4\-8\).
The line between these two commands is drawn where one is being asked to comply with one principle in such a way that it will violate the other principle or command. When the meddling of a parent violates the “leaving” because it is treating the parent\-child relationship as primary (demanding obedience, dependence, or emotional oneness over the desires of, dependence upon, or oneness with the spouse), it should be respectfully rejected and the spouse’s desires honored. However, when there are genuine needs of an aging parent (either physical or emotional, assuming the emotional “need” does not supersede the “leaving” principle), that need is to be met, even if one’s spouse does not “like” the parent\-in\-law. Biblical love toward the aging parent is given based on choosing to do the loving thing, even when one does not feel like doing it.
The balance between these scriptural mandates is similar to the command to obey those in authority (Romans 13\) and the example of the apostles violating that principle when the authority figures ask them to act contrary to God’s mandates. In Acts 4:5\-20, the apostles rejected the Jewish authorities’ demand to stop preaching the gospel because their command violated God’s, but the apostles did so in a respectful manner. Similarly, Jesus says we are to honor our parents but that the parent\-child relationship is secondary to our relationship with Christ (Luke 14:26\). In like manner, when parents violate Genesis 2:24 principles, the parents should be respectfully disobeyed. But on the opposite end of the spectrum, a spouse’s desires should be overlooked if he/she is unwilling to expend the time, energy, and finances required to meet the needs of an aging parent; keeping in mind that one must distinguish true physical and emotional needs from the “felt needs” of an overbearing, demanding parent.
|
What does the Bible say about a death bed conversion? |
Answer
The most high\-profile death bed / last\-minute conversion to Christ in the Bible is the case of the criminal crucified alongside Jesus (Luke 23:39\-43\). Only moments before his own death, this criminal had been an unbelieving mocker of Christ (see Matthew 27:44\). However, at the last moment the criminal repented and acknowledged Jesus as the heavenly King. The Lord gave him the blessed promise, “Today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
Although the story of the criminal on the cross demonstrates that last\-minute conversions are possible, the Bible warns us to repent now, without waiting another moment. John the Baptist warned, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2\). Jesus had the identical message concerning the need for immediate repentance, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17\).
The Bible warns us concerning the brevity of the human lifespan. “You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14\). We are not instructed to consider converting someday, but to [believe today](today-is-the-day-of-salvation.html)! “Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7\-8, 14; 4:7\). None of us knows how much time we have left in this life or what the circumstances of our death will be. We may die in a sudden, unexpected manner that will preclude a deathbed conversion. The only reasonable option is to repent and believe in Jesus Christ today.
Many people die without having the experience of an extended amount of time on a death bed. Many people die instantly and unexpectedly, with no opportunity to trust in Christ. 2 Corinthians 6:2 declares, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you. I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation."
|
What are the four spiritual laws? |
Answer
The Four Spiritual Laws are a way of sharing the good news of the salvation that is available through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a simple way of organizing the important information in the Gospel into four points.
The first of the Four Spiritual Laws is, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." John 3:16 tells us, "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 10:10 gives us the reason that Jesus came, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." What is blocking us from God’s love? What is preventing us from having an abundant life?
The second of the Four Spiritual Laws is, "Humanity is tainted by sin and is therefore separated from God. As a result, we cannot know God’s wonderful plan for our lives." Romans 3:23 affirms this information, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 6:23 gives us the consequences of sin, "the wages of sin is death." God created us to have fellowship with Him. However, humanity brought sin into the world, and is therefore separated from God. We have ruined the relationship with Him that God intended us to have. What is the solution?
The third of the Four Spiritual Laws is, "Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for our sin. Through Jesus Christ, we can have our sins forgiven and restore a right relationship with God." Romans 5:8 tells us, "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." 1 Corinthians 15:3\-4 informs us of what we need to know and believe in order to be saved, "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..." Jesus Himself declares that He is the only way of salvation in John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." How can I receive this wonderful gift of salvation?
The Fourth of the Four Spiritual Laws is, "We must place our faith in Jesus Christ as Savior in order to receive the gift of salvation and know God’s wonderful plan for our lives." John 1:12 describes this for us, "Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God." Acts 16:31 says it very clearly, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved!" We can be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8\-9\).
If you want to trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior, say the following words to God. Saying these words will not save you, but trusting in Christ will! This prayer is simply a way to express to God your faith in Him and thank Him for providing for your salvation. "God, I know that I have sinned against you and deserve punishment. But Jesus Christ took the punishment that I deserve so that through faith in Him I could be forgiven. I place my trust in You for salvation. Thank You for Your wonderful grace and forgiveness \- the gift of eternal life! Amen!"
Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.
If you have any questions, please use the question form on our [Bible Questions Answered](Bible-Questions.html) page.
|
What is the Adamic covenant? |
Answer
The Adamic Covenant can be thought of in two parts: the [Edenic Covenant](Edenic-covenant.html) (innocence) and the Adamic Covenant (grace). The Edenic Covenant is found in Genesis 1:26\-30; 2:16\-17\. The details of this covenant include the following:
Mankind (male and female) created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion (rule) over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3\).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden (with death as the stated penalty).
The Adamic Covenant is found in Genesis 3:16\-19\. As the result of Adam’s sin, the following curses were pronounced:
Enmity between Satan and Eve and her descendants.
Painful childbirth for women.
Marital strife.
The soil cursed.
Introduction of thorns and thistles.
Survival to be a struggle.
Death introduced.
Death will be the inescapable fate of all living things.
Although these curses are severe and inescapable, a wonderful promise of grace was also included in the Adamic Covenant. Genesis 3:15 is often referred to as the “Proto\-Gospel” or “First Gospel.” Speaking to Satan, God says, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, / And between your seed and her seed; / He shall bruise you on the head, / And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
Here God promises that one born of a woman would be wounded in the process of destroying Satan. The “seed” of the woman who would crush the Serpent’s head is none other than Jesus Christ (see Galatians 4:4 and 1 John 3:8\). Even in the midst of the curse, God’s gracious provision of salvation shines through.
|
What was the Great Schism? |
Answer
The Great Schism is the title given to the rift that formed in the Church in the eleventh century A.D. This separation led to the "Roman Catholic" Church, hereafter known as the Western Church, and the "Greek Catholic" or "Greek Orthodox” Church, hereafter known as the Eastern Church.
In order to best understand what happened, we need to examine history and the context in which that history occurred. The Church from the fourth century onwards had 5 patriarchs or heads, and each one governed a jurisdictional area or patriarchate. The patriarchates were located in the West in Rome, which spoke Latin, and in the East in Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Byzantium, which all spoke Greek.
Wanting to create a new Christian empire, and due to the degree of paganism in Rome, the Emperor Constantine decided to move the capital of the Empire to Byzantium (which was later renamed Constantinople after him). Around this time, and shortly after this move, Germanic tribes began invading across Europe. This invasion had the effect of plunging Europe into what is known as the "[Dark Ages](dark-ages.html)." The combination of economic and political turmoil, geographical distances, and linguistic differences created a rift that caused the eventual estrangement of West from East.
Given these factors, it is not surprising that very few Western theologians spoke Greek, and instead wrote and spoke primarily in Latin. They did not have access to, nor could they read, the writings of the Eastern theologians. Because of this, most Western theology was based on a few key Latin theologians, whereas the East had numerous Greek theologians and did not have to focus on any particular theologian’s teaching.
The flexibility of the Greek language (it had approximately ten times the vocabulary of Latin) allowed for more expressive and deeper writings. The decline of literacy in the West led to the clergy being the primary teaching authority. This is contrasted with the East where general education and more universities created a literate populace, and thus more lay theologians who played an active role in the church.
The growing list of differences between East and West simply exacerbated the tensions. One of the most striking differences was that as new people were evangelized in the West, they had to use Latin as their liturgical and ecclesiastical language, while looking to Rome for leadership. On the other hand, missionaries from the East translated the Bible into the language of the people. When the new churches in the East became mature, they became self\-governing and administratively independent from their mother church. In the West, Rome began to require all clergy to be celibate; whereas, in the East they retained married clergy.
So, while the [filioque controversy](filioque-clause-controversy.html) is often cited as the cause of the Great Schism, with the Eastern and Western bishops excommunicating each other, it was, in fact, only the breaking point. Differences, disagreements, and distance had been laying the foundation for the Great Schism for centuries. The Great Schism was essentially the “forerunner” of the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), with a refusal to accept the unbiblical concept of the supremacy of Rome at its core.
|
How should a Christian view prayer in public schools? |
Answer
Prayer in public schools is a sensitive issue. In a perfect situation, all people would graciously and humbly acknowledge the biblical view of God and His sovereign control over the entire world. In that case, there would be prayer in all public facilities, including public schools. As Psalm 33:12 states, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” Praise the Lord that, when Jesus returns to reign over this earth, this will be the case. Until that day, a Christian should approach the issue of prayer in public schools with wisdom and discernment.
Our country was founded upon biblical principles, and Bible reading and prayer were long part of the daily schedule in public schools. Although our culture was directed by the Judeo\-Christian ethic for the first 150\-plus years, the U.S. is currently not a [Christian nation](Christian-nation.html). Our nation is marked by great diversity of opinion and religion. One of the blessings of this country is the government\-mandated freedom of expression and religion. So many countries have governments that mandate the practice of one religion and/or outlaw the practice of another. In our diverse, tolerant, freedom\-based country, one of the sticky issues regarding formalized, school\-sponsored events is that, if the school sponsors a Christian event, it may also have to sponsor an event from another religion. It is easy to say that we want prayer in public schools until we realize that the prayers may include non\-Christian prayers. This is definitely something to think about as we develop opinions regarding this issue.
How should a Christian view prayer in public schools? First, according to Romans 13, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Peter 2, we are to submit to and pray for all authority, including those in authority in public schools. An application of this would be to pray that we as a culture return to our Christian heritage; may the Lord bring [revival](Christian-revival.html) to our country and the salvation of souls.
Second, although Christian\-based prayer is not sponsored in public schools, Christian students can and should pray while attending school. Students can and should pray for other students, teachers, and administrators. Christian students should view their schools as a field for evangelism, and they should receive training from parents and churches for this purpose. No one can stop a child from praying, only from organizing a specific prayer event on public school grounds. As the saying goes, “As long as there are exams, there will be prayer in schools.”
One thing we as Christians shouldn’t do is look to government organizations such as the public schools to reinforce our Christian values and beliefs. The Bible tells us that the world is opposed to the things of God. If our hope for our country is based upon electing the right officials or hiring the right principals, more than likely we will be disappointed. Our hope for our country is based upon God’s intervention as the gospel is proclaimed to the lost in all places, including the public schools. Prayer may be banned in public schools, but the Holy Spirit is not limited. “The arm of the LORD is not too short to save” (Isaiah 59:1\).
|
Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? |
Answer
[Calvinism](calvinism.html) and [Arminianism](arminianism.html) are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html), a French theologian who lived from 1509\-1564\. Arminianism is named for [Jacobus Arminius](Jacobus-Arminius.html), a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560\-1609\.
Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God\-given ability to choose salvation.
Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual or on any act performed by the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.
Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. This is likely the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.
Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.
Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation. Note: many Arminians deny "conditional salvation" and instead hold to "[eternal security](eternal-security.html)."
So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five\-point Calvinists and five\-point Arminians and three\-point Calvinists and two\-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our opinion that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.
|
What does it mean to leave and cleave? |
Answer
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 KJV). Other translations render “leave and cleave” as “leave and be united” (NIV), “leave and be joined” (NASB), and “leave and hold fast” (ESV). So, what precisely does it mean to leave your father and mother and cleave to your spouse?
As recorded in Genesis chapter 2, God created Adam first, and then Eve. God Himself brought Eve to Adam. God Himself ordained that they would be joined together in holy matrimony. He said that the two of them would become one flesh. This is a picture of marital intimacy—the act of love that is never to involve anyone else. To “cleave” means “to adhere to, stick to, or join with.” It is a unique joining of two people into one entity. It means we do not quit when things are not going right. It includes talking things out, praying things through, being patient as you trust God to work in both of your hearts, being willing to admit when you are wrong and asking forgiveness, and seeking God’s counsel regularly in His Word.
If either spouse fails to both leave and cleave, problems will result in a marriage. If spouses refuse to truly leave their parents, conflict and stress result. Leaving your parents does not mean ignoring them or not spending any time with them. Leaving your parents means recognizing that your marriage created a new family and that this new family must be a higher priority than your previous family. If spouses neglect to cleave to each other, the result is a lack of intimacy and unity. Cleaving to your spouse does not mean being with your spouse every moment or not having meaningful friendships outside of your marriage. Cleaving to your spouse means recognizing that you are joined, essentially “glued,” to your spouse. Cleaving is key in building a marriage that will endure hard times and be the beautiful relationship that God intends it to be.
The “leave and cleave” in the marriage bond is also a picture of the union God wants us to have with Him. “Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him” (Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV). It means we leave all other gods, whatever form they may take, and join to Him alone as our God. We cleave to Him as we read His Word and submit to His authority over us. Then, as we follow Him closely, we find that His instruction to leave father and mother in order to cleave to our spouse is to discover commitment and security, just as He intended. God takes His design for marriage seriously. Leaving and cleaving is God’s plan for those who marry. When we follow God’s plan, we are never disappointed.
|
What are indulgences and plenary indulgences, and are the concepts biblical? |
Answer
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an indulgence is “the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt has already been forgiven. A properly disposed member of the Christian faithful can obtain an indulgence under prescribed conditions through the help of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. **An indulgence is partial if it removes part of the temporal punishment due to sin, or plenary if it removes all punishment.**”
Understanding Catholic definitions is very important in understanding this issue:
•Eternal Punishment: “the penalty for unrepented mortal sin, separating the sinner from communion with God for all eternity; the condemnation of the unrepentant sinner to hell.”
•Temporal Punishment: “purification of the unhealthy attachment to creatures, which is a consequence of sin that perdures even after death. We must be purified either during our earthly life through prayer and a conversion which comes from fervent charity, or after death in purgatory.”
•Purgatory: “a state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God’s friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven.”
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sin has a double consequence. For a member of the Catholic Church, committing a mortal sin causes “eternal punishment,” involving eternal separation from God and suffering in hell. (The Catholic Church also teaches that under normal circumstances those who have not been baptized by either the Roman Catholic Church or another church teaching baptismal regeneration are also condemned to hell because the stain of original sin remains upon their souls.) Venial (minor) sin, in contrast, does not cause “eternal punishment” but does cause “temporal punishment.” Roman Catholic teachings sometimes refer to these “temporal punishments” given by God as a means of purifying His children (either in this life or in Purgatory). But the Roman Catholic Church also sees venial sins as creating a debt to God’s justice that must be atoned for in a way that is distinct from Christ’s atonement for eternal punishment. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that because of the unity of the Body of Christ (the Communion of the Saints, including living believers, believers in heaven, Roman Catholic saints in heaven, Christ, Mary, and the imperfect believers in Purgatory), it is possible for the merit generated by the good works, prayers, almsgiving, sufferings, etc., of one or more of these members of the Body to be applied to the temporal debt of another. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the combined merit of Christ, the saints, and godly believers is stored in a place referred to as the [Treasury of Merit](treasury-of-merit.html) (it is also sometimes called the Treasury of Satisfaction, the Church’s Treasury, or the *Thesaurus Ecclesiae*). And through apostolic succession from Peter, it is the Roman Catholic Church alone that has the authority to withdraw merit from this treasury and dispense it to believers in this life or in Purgatory to atone for some or all of their venial sin. This it does through the granting of Catholic indulgences.
Again, indulgences pertain only to temporal, not eternal, punishment and can only be distributed through a Roman Catholic Church leader to someone who is either in Purgatory or is still living and whose soul is in the state of sanctifying grace (i.e., he/she would go to Purgatory, not hell, if he/she were to die at that moment). An indulgence can be obtained through a good deed done, a Mass being offered on behalf of someone, prayer, abstinence, giving to the poor, or some other meritorious act performed in accordance with requirements set by a Pope or bishop having jurisdiction over that individual. The offering of a Mass for someone is seen as one of the most effective means of reducing the temporal punishment of that person in Purgatory. A partial indulgence will reduce the temporal punishment a person has. A plenary indulgence will remove all temporal punishment.
**Is the concept of Catholic indulgences biblical?**
Various Roman Catholic Church doctrines are derived from tradition rather than from Scripture. And as the Roman Catholic Church sees their tradition as consistent with Scripture and equal to Scripture in authority, this is not an issue with them. But to most other Christian groups, the Bible alone is the source of authority and is more than sufficient in supplying Christians with all the resources they need to know and serve Christ as God intended (2 Timothy 3:15\-17; Acts 20:32\). But because the Roman Catholic Church states that its doctrines are not contradictory to Scripture and accepts Scripture as part of its authority, it is appropriate for both groups to ask, “Are indulgences biblical?”
An examination of the passages the Roman Catholic Church uses to support such doctrines as temporal punishment, vicarious atonement by fellow believers and saints, and Purgatory illustrates the Catholic reliance on tradition above and beyond Scripture. Other doctrines, such as the Treasury of Merit, the “pristine and unfathomable merit of Mary,” the “superabundant merit of the saints,” and the existence of indulgences, are foreign to Scripture altogether! Is the doctrine of indulgences scriptural? A consistent and contextual interpretation of Scripture will neither support the teaching of indulgences nor the doctrines it is built upon.
**Indulgences and Purgatory**
The Roman Catholic Church cites a few passages for their scriptural support of Purgatory. In addition to a passage from the apocryphal 2 Maccabees, 1 Corinthians 3:10\-15; Matthew 5:26; and Matthew 12:32 are also given as scriptural support. Matthew 5:26 is part of a parable on the issue of forgiveness. Matthew 12:32 is addressing the issue of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Neither passage focuses upon what happens after death nor gives a clear teaching of what takes place after death. It is a principle of hermeneutics (the study of how to rightly interpret Scripture) that one should interpret “unclear” passages that merely touch on an issue by passages that focus on that issue or are clear about that issue. To interpret these verses as teaching that there is a place of further atoning and purifying in Purgatory after death flies in the face of many clear statements in the Bible that there are only two places that one will end up in after death: either in heaven with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:21\-23; 1 Thessalonians 4:13\-18\) or in hell in torment (Luke 16:23\-24; Revelation. 20:10\-15\). The Bible does not say that after death comes "further purification"; it says, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:28\). See the GotQuestions.org article on [purgatory](purgatory.html) for a further discussion on this issue.
**Indulgences and Penance**
Catholics speak of “doing penance” for their sins. At the end of confession to a priest, the confessor is given certain things to do (such as certain prayers to pray) that are a part of “doing penance.” Part of the purpose of this penance is to bring about a returning of one’s disposition away from sin and back toward God. But another purpose mentioned repeatedly in Roman Catholic literature is that of paying or atoning for one’s sins. This is not the same as making restitution to those hurt by one’s sin, but rather involves making a payment toward the temporal punishment to satisfy God’s justice. This latter purpose is closely tied to the idea of indulgences and is not mentioned in Scripture. The Bible does speak of repentance, referring to a “change of mind about one’s sin that results in a change in behavior.” John the Baptist’s ministry and teaching is summarized in Luke 3:3\-18\. He told those that were baptized by him (their baptism being a sign of their repentance) to show by their deeds that their repentance was real. But never is there the message of “you must pay or atone for your sins by doing some good deed or by abstinence,” or by anything else. By this call to good works, John was essentially saying, “Show me your repentance is genuine by your works” (cf. James 2:18\). But again, the idea of “doing penance” as an atoning for our sins or a repaying of a temporal debt to God’s justice is never mentioned in Scripture!
**Catholic Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit**
The doctrine of the “Treasury of the Church” was first officially expressed in 1343 by Pope Clement VI. He describes this treasury as not only consisting of the merits of Christ’s atonement but also “the merits (atonements) of Mary, the Mother of God, and of all the chosen, from the greatest to the least of the just, contribute to the increase of the treasure from which the Church draws in order to secure remission of temporal punishment.”
The Bible never once refers to anything like the “Treasury of Merit,” and never is there the thought that atonement can be made by one believer for the sake of another’s sin. Paul expresses that, if it were possible, he would sincerely be willing to be accursed, if that would mean the redemption of his fellow Israelites in Romans 9 and 10\. But that is not possible because Paul and the other writers of Scripture state that, for a believer, the just Judge was satisfied when Jesus Christ became the atonement (propitiation) for our sins and that apart from Him there is no atonement (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 5:10\-11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:1\-18\). Never is there any hint of the idea of vicarious atonement by believers, either alive or dead, for the sake of their fellow believers. The Roman Catholic Church may make a distinction between atoning for people’s eternal punishment and their temporal punishment, but the idea of anyone other than Christ atoning for anyone’s sin and its corresponding punishment is never found in Scripture. Never is there any teaching about the “superabundant satisfactions of the Saints” or that the prayers and good works of Mary “are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God.” In Scripture, there is only the unfathomable and infinite value of Christ’s atonement…period.
**Catholic Indulgences and Temporal punishment**
The Catholic Catechism speaks of temporal punishment as being a purification process. But elsewhere, throughout Roman Catholic official teachings, it speaks of it as a spiritual debt that needs to be atoned for, either by the individual who sinned or by someone else vicariously. Again, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between eternal punishment for “major” sin and temporal punishment for “minor” sin.
It is clear that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a forensic or “legal” nature to temporal punishment; i.e., that it involves the need to satisfy the justice of a just Judge and that if that justice is not satisfied by atonement in this life, it must be atoned for in the next in Purgatory. It is that forensic or “payment to satisfy justice” aspect that is unscriptural. Scripture does teach that indeed one’s sins can be forgiven in the eternal sense (with the sinner no longer being condemned to hell) or even in an earthly sense (in not having the penalty laid down by the Mosaic Law inflicted upon the sinner, 2 Samuel 12:13\). Sin changes things in this life and how God interacts with us in this life. It has to for a number of reasons given in Scripture:
1\) This is a real world where real actions have real consequences. If we plant barley in the spring, we don’t harvest wheat in the fall. If we plant sin, we eventually reap turmoil, hardship, destruction, and death (Galatians 6:7; Romans 3:16; James 1:15\).
2\) Our sin and God’s response to it affect how we and other people view our God. If we sinned and there were no obvious effects to it, we would see sin as something that is “no big deal” to God, and thus His holy character would be blasphemed. This is one of the reasons God cited for the death of the child conceived by David in adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:13\-14\)—if there were no earthly consequences to David’s murder of Uriah and his adultery, then God would be viewed as One who condoned such sinful actions.
3\) Others “looking on” would be encouraged to sin. First Corinthians 10:1\-12 states that all of the punishments imposed by God upon the Israelites for their disbelief, idolatry, lust, etc., were recorded for our admonition so that we could learn from their mistakes. Proverbs says that others are encouraged to sin when punishment upon sin is delayed (i.e., if we see someone else “get away with it,” we are also encouraged to repeat their sin). So, an earthly punishment is either imposed by God or the natural consequences of sin are allowed to come to maturity so that others may learn not to sin.
4\) God disciplines us for our benefit so that we may enjoy the fruit of righteousness that He intended for us. When a person places his faith in Christ, God ceases to be his Judge and becomes his Father (John 1:12\). We will stand before Him as a Judge of our works done after salvation (2 Corinthians 5:10\-11; 1 Corinthians 3:10\-15\), but now we have peace with God (Romans 5:1\-10\). There is no more condemnation (Romans 8:1\). But as a loving father disciplines his children for their good, so God disciplines us for ours (Hebrews 12:3\-11\). But when you look at the description of this heavenly discipline given in Hebrews 12, you find no thought of punishment as in the sense of one being required to pay or atone for a crime!
So, one does find that God either imposes earthly consequences or allows the natural consequences as a result of sin, but in no passage does it say that these consequences are imposed so that His temporal justice may be satisfied!
In conclusion, having discussed the lack of scriptural support for some of the foundational doctrines necessary for the existence of indulgences, it must also be stated that there is not a single scriptural example of, or teaching about, an apostle or church leader doling out an “indulgence” to a fellow believer. Not one! From its foundation to its summit, the whole structure of the doctrine of indulgences is unfounded biblically.
It is our prayer that as the apostle Paul saw many converted to Christ because they compared his teachings to Scripture (Acts 17:10\-12\), so those who read this summary would read the inerrant and infallible Word of God for themselves and simply ask, “Are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found in what I have read? Do they ‘fit’ both the immediate context of any given passage and the context of the New Testament as a whole? Is the ‘system’ of the Roman Catholic Church found in the New Testament?” It is our prayer that all those who claim the name of Christ would turn to the simplicity of trusting Christ alone and desire to live for Him out of gratitude for all He has done for them (Romans 3\-12\).
|
What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God? |
Answer
The answer to this question is found by first understanding the reason why John wrote his gospel. We find his purpose clearly stated in John 20:30\-31\. “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Once we understand that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith, we will be better able to understand why John introduces Jesus as “The Word” in John 1:1\.
By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15\-18\). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.
So, essentially, what John is doing by introducing Jesus as the Logos is drawing upon a familiar word and concept that both Jews and Gentiles of his day would have been familiar with and using that as the starting point from which he introduces them to Jesus Christ. But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human. Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9\). By using the term Logos or “Word” in John 1:1, John is amplifying and applying a concept with which his audience was familiar and using that to introduce his readers to the true Logos of God in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, fully God and yet fully man, who came to reveal God to man and redeem all who believe in Him from their sin.
|
Does the Bible say anything about a pre-Adamic race? |
Answer
The concept of a pre\-Adamic race is the idea that God created a race of humans who lived on the Earth before He created Adam, the first man. This hypothesis has been promoted by various scholars at various times throughout history. Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate (circa A.D. 331–363\) and Calvinist theologian Isaac de La Peyrère (1596\-1676\) are two notable examples.
We will look at two popular facets of the Preadamite Hypothesis: the hypothesis as it was proposed by Isaac de La Peyrère and the form which it takes in the “Gap Theory” (also known as the Ruin\-Reconstruction interpretation). According to La Peyrère, God created the Gentiles on the sixth day when He said, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26\). He did not create the Jews until after the seventh day, His day of rest. At some point after the seventh day, God created Adam, the father of the Jews.
La Peyrère cited Scripture to support his hypothesis. Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14\-17\) are all interpreted as evidence that another race of men coexisted with Adam and his family.
La Peyrère subsequently reinterpreted other passages of Scripture in light of his peculiar understanding of the Genesis account. Consider a very familiar passage, Romans 5:12\-14: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—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, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
This passage is traditionally interpreted as meaning that death began with Adam’s sin and reigned unchecked among men (even among those who haven’t actually eaten the forbidden fruit, those who have sinned but not “in the likeness of the offense of Adam”) until the Law was given to Moses. La Peyrère interpreted this passage another way. According to La Peyrère, the pre\-Adamic Gentiles sinned against God, but in a manner less egregious than Adam (which is why Adam’s sin brought death while theirs didn’t). They merely sinned against God’s moral will, while Adam sinned against His Law. Adam disobeyed God’s prohibition by eating the forbidden fruit. He broke what La Peyrère called the Law of Paradise. Thus, according to La Peyrère, the pre\-Adamic Gentiles were those who “had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam.”
By now it’s obvious how misinterpreting one or two passages of Scripture can lead to all kinds of warped perceptions. The Scriptural problems with La Peyrère’s interpretations are numerous.
First, Adam is called the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45\). This is inconsistent with the idea that God created men before Adam. Second, according to La Peyrère, the Gentiles were to live outside of the Garden of Eden while Adam enjoyed paradise (a privilege which came with the responsibility of obeying the Law of Paradise—not eating the forbidden fruit). Genesis 2:5\-8, however, says quite plainly that before God created “the man whom He had formed,” the very same man which He placed in the garden, there were no men upon the earth to cultivate the ground. Third, God created Eve for Adam because he was alone, there was no one else like him around (“It is not good for the man to be alone… but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” Genesis 2:18, 20\). Fourth, Adam named his wife “Eve” “because she was the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20\). The list goes on, but these passages should suffice to refute La Peyrère’s misinterpretation.
As for Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14\-17\), Adam was almost 130 years old by the time that Cain killed Abel (Adam had Seth, his next son after Abel’s death, when he was about 130 years old; Genesis 4:25; 5:3\). And we know that Adam had sons and daughters (Genesis 5:3\). At 130 he could have had grandkids and great\-grandkids by the time that Cain killed Abel. Cain had plenty of family members to be afraid of after killing his brother.
Cain apparently married a family member (a necessity back then) at some point before Abel’s murder. It seems odd to us today, but incest wasn’t outlawed by God until the Law of Moses. It may have been around that time that generations of degenerative genetic mutations began to take a toll on our DNA. God outlawed incest for our protection. It became (and remains) dangerous for close relatives to procreate because of shared genetic defects which become expressed in their children causing severe deformities and other problems.
As for Cain founding a city, if he lived to be the average age back then, he probably lived to be about 900 years old. By the time he died, his family would have been a small city. If Cain had a child at the age of 30, and his child had a child at the age of 30 and so on, Cain could have produced 30 generations by the time he died (30 generations times 30 years each equals 900 years).
The Ruin\-Reconstruction interpretation takes a somewhat different approach to the pre\-Adamic race theory. According to the Gap Theory, an unspecified amount of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which God created a pre\-Adamic race of men who lived upon the earth until God destroyed them in judgment. Other extinct creatures, like the dinosaurs, are said to have also lived during this time. Afterwards, the theory goes, God remodeled the earth in six days. He created Adam on the sixth day, and the rest is history. Some say that Satan’s fall occurred at some point during the ambiguous gap.
A “mistranslation” has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Proponents of the Gap Theory emphasize the word “replenish.” They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what it says in English translations, the Hebrew word is *mâlê’*, and it simply means “to fill” or “to be full.” Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means “to fill.” They chose “replenish” because, in 17th\-century Elizabethan English, “replenish” meant “to fill” (similar to how in modern English the word “replete” doesn’t mean to “abound again,” it simply means “abundant” or “abounding”). Language is not static, but dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today “replenish” means “to fill again.” It didn’t mean the same thing in 17th century England. Nearly all modern translations translate *mâlê’* as simply “fill” in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28\).
Proponents of the Gap Theory respond by pointing out that God said to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill \[*mâlê’*] the earth” (Genesis 9:1\). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the earth after the flood. Can’t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the same thing—that Adam was to repopulate the earth after God’s judgment? The fact is that, regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah’s flood, God didn’t tell Noah to “refill” the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said “refill,” that would have been something, but since He just said “fill,” that argument falls flat.
The real problem with the Gap Theory is that it places human mortality (pre\-Adamic human mortality) before Adam’s sin. The Bible is quite clear that death entered in through Adam’s sin. “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21\-22\). Regardless of whether or not we believe in animal mortality before sin, the Bible is quite explicit about human mortality before Adam’s sin. There wasn’t any. To deny this is to deny a central Christian doctrine.
|
Should Christians of different denominations date or marry? |
Answer
Can a Baptist date a Pentecostal? Can a Lutheran date a Presbyterian? The most important issue is whether both individuals know Jesus Christ as Savior. The Bible speaks of being "unequally yoked" (2 Corinthians 6:14\), but this only refers to believers and unbelievers. It does not refer to two believers who happen to have some beliefs that are different. If both individuals know Jesus Christ as Savior, there is no reason, biblically, that they could not date and/or marry.
However, that is not to say there will not be potential problems and issues. When / if the relationship becomes serious and is potentially leading toward marriage, the couple must sit down and come to an agreement on what church to attend. If there are major disagreements in doctrinal beliefs, the couple must agree to disagree, and at the same time agree on how to raise children and agree on how to live out the Christian faith. It is best for a couple to agree doctrinally, but the most important issue is faith in Christ, love for one another, and a desire to have a God\-honoring relationship.
It goes without saying that this applies only to different denominations of the Christian faith. True believers in Christ should not marry members of [cults](cult-definition.html) and/or [false religions](world-religions.html) that claim to be Christian. Knowing and agreeing on the basic doctrines of the Christian faith is crucial for a couple who hope to have a successful, God\-honoring relationship or marriage.
|
Why do people reject Jesus as their Savior? |
Answer
The decision to accept or reject Jesus as Savior is the ultimate life decision. Why do many people choose to reject Jesus as Savior? There are perhaps as many different reasons for rejecting Christ as there are people who reject Him, but the following four reasons can serve as general categories:
1\) Some people do not think they need a savior. These people consider themselves to be “basically good” and do not realize that they, like all people, are sinners who cannot come to God on their own terms. But Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6\). Those who reject Christ will not be able to stand before God and successfully plead their own case on their own merits.
2\) The fear of social rejection or persecution deters some people from receiving Christ as Savior. The unbelievers in John 12:42\-43 would not confess Christ because they were more concerned with their status among their peers than doing God’s will. These were the Pharisees whose love of position and the esteem of others blinded them, “for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”
3\) For some people, the things that the present world has to offer are more appealing than eternal things. We read the story of such a man in Matthew 19:16\-23\. This man was not willing to lose his earthly possessions in order to gain an eternal relationship with Jesus (see also 2 Corinthians 4:16\-18\).
4\) Many people are simply resisting the Holy Spirit’s attempts to draw them to faith in Christ. Stephen, a leader in the early church, told those who were about to murder him, “You stiff\-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51\). The apostle Paul made a similar statement to a group of gospel rejecters in Acts 28:23\-27\.
Whatever the reasons why people reject Jesus Christ, their rejection has disastrous eternal consequences. “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12\), and those who reject Him, for whatever reason, face an eternity in the “outer darkness” of hell where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30\).
|
What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical? |
Answer
The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.
Yes, the eternal Sonship is biblical and is a view that is widely held among Christians and has been throughout church history. It is important, however, to remember when discussing the doctrine of eternal Sonship that there are evangelical Christians on both sides of this debate. This is not to say that this is not an important doctrine, because it is; it simply acknowledges the fact that there are orthodox or evangelical Christians that hold or have held both views. Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship are not denying the triune nature of God or the deity or eternality of Christ, and those that embrace the eternal Sonship of Christ are not inferring that Jesus Christ was anything less than fully God.
Throughout church history the doctrine of eternal Sonship has been widely held, with most Christians believing that Jesus existed as God’s eternal Son before creation. It is affirmed in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." It was also later reaffirmed in the fifth century in the Athanasian Creed.
There is considerable biblical evidence to support the eternal Sonship of Christ. First of all, there are many passages that clearly identify that it was “the Son” who created all things (Colossians 1:13\-16; Hebrews 1:2\), thereby strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation. When one considers these passages, it seems clear that the most normal and natural meaning of the passages is that at the time of creation Jesus was the Son of God, the second Person of the Triune Godhead, thus supporting the doctrine of eternal Sonship.
Second, there are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10\) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16\). Clearly implied in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4\-6, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation. All three Persons of the Triune Godhead have existed for all eternity, and their names reveal who they are, not simply what their title or function is.
Third, 1 John 3:8 speaks of the appearance or manifestation of the Son of God: “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” The verb “to make manifest” or “appeared” means to make visible or to bring to light something that was previously hidden. The idea communicated in this verse is not that the second Person of the trinity became the Son of God, but that the already existing Son of God was made manifest or appeared in order to fulfill God’s predetermined purpose. This idea is also seen in other verses such as John 11:27 and 1 John 5:20\.
Fourth, Hebrews 13:8 teaches that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” This verse again seems to support the doctrine of eternal Sonship. The fact that Jesus’ divine nature is unchanging would seem to indicate that He was always the Son of God because that is an essential part of His Person. At the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, but His divine nature did not change, nor did His relationship with the Father. This same truth is also implied in John 20:31, where we see John’s purpose in writing his gospel was so that we might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” It does not say that He became the Son of God but that He is the Son of God. The fact that Jesus was and is the Son of God is an essential aspect of Who He is and His work in redemption.
Finally, one of the strongest evidences for the eternal Sonship of Christ is the triune nature of God and the eternal relationship that exists among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Particularly important is the unique Father/Son relationship that can only be understood from the aspect of Christ’s eternal Sonship. This relationship is key to understanding the full measure of God’s love for those whom He redeems through the blood of Christ. The fact that God the Father took His Son, the very Son He loved from before the [foundation of the world](foundation-of-the-world.html), and sent Him to be a sacrifice for our sins is an amazing act of grace and love that is best understood from the doctrine of eternal Sonship.
One verse that speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son is John 16:28\. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." Implied in this verse is again the fact that the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and God the Son is one that always has and always will exist. At His incarnation the Son “came from the Father” in the same sense as upon His resurrection He returned “to the Father.” Implied in this verse is the fact that if Jesus was the Son after the resurrection, then He was also the Son prior to His incarnation. Other verses that support the eternal Sonship of Christ would include John 17:5 and John 17:24, which speak of the Father’s love for the Son from “before the foundation of the world.”
After one considers the many arguments for the doctrine of eternal Sonship, it should become clear that this is indeed a biblical doctrine that finds much support in Scripture. However, that is not to imply that arguments cannot be made against the doctrine as well, or that all Christians will agree to this doctrine. While it has been the view of the majority of Christian commentators throughout history, there have been several prominent Christians on the other side of the issue as well.
Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship would instead hold to a view that is often referred to as the Incarnational Sonship, which teaches that while Christ preexisted, He was not always the Son of God. Those that hold this view believe Christ became the Son of God at some point in history, with the most common view being that Christ became the Son at His incarnation. However, there are others who believe Christ did not become the Son until sometime after His incarnation, such as at His baptism, His resurrection, or His exaltation. It is important to realize that those who deny the eternal Sonship of Christ still recognize and affirm His deity and His eternality.
Those who hold this view see the Sonship of Christ as not being an essential part of Who He is, but instead see it as simply being a role or a title or function that Christ assumed at His incarnation. They also teach that the Father became the Father at the time of the incarnation. Throughout history many conservative Christians have denied the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Some examples would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Finis J. Dake, Walter Martin, and at one time John MacArthur. It is important to note, however, that several years ago John MacArthur changed his position on this doctrine and he now affirms the doctrine of eternal Sonship.
One of the verses commonly used to support Incarnational Sonship is Hebrews 1:5, which appears to speak of God the Father’s begetting of God the Son as an event that takes place at a specific point in time: “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. And again. I will be a Father to Him. And He shall be a Son to Me.” Those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship point out two important aspects of this verse. 1—that “begetting” normally speaks of a person’s origin, and 2—that a Son is normally subordinate to his father. They reject the doctrine of eternal Sonship in an attempt to preserve the perfect equality and eternality of the Persons of the Triune Godhead. In order to do so, they must conclude that “Son” is simply a title or function that Christ took on at His incarnation and that “Sonship” refers to the voluntary submission that Christ took to the Father at His incarnation (Philippians 2:5\-8; John 5:19\).
Some of the problems with the Incarnational Sonship of Christ are that this teaching confuses or destroys the internal relationships that exist within the Trinity, because if the Son is not eternally begotten by the Father, then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. Also, if there is no Son prior to the incarnation, then there is no Father either; and yet throughout the Old Testament we see God being referred to as the Father of Israel. Instead of having a triune God eternally existing in three distinct Persons with three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship end up with a nameless Trinity prior to the incarnation, and we would be forced to say that God has chosen not to reveal Himself as He truly is, but only as He was to become. In other words, instead of actually revealing who He is, the Triune God instead chose to reveal Himself by the titles He would assume or the roles that He would take on and not who He really is. This is dangerously close to modalism and could easily lead to false teachings about the nature of God. One of the weaknesses of the doctrine of incarnational Sonship is that the basic relationships existing among the members of the Trinity are confused and diminished. Taken to its logical conclusion, denying the eternal Sonship of Christ reduces the Trinity from the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to simply Number One, Number Two and Number Three Persons—with the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation, destroying the God\-given order and relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity.
|
What is hyper-Calvinism and is it biblical? |
Answer
A simple definition is this: hyper\-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper\-Calvinist over\-emphasizes God’s sovereignty and under\-emphasizes man’s responsibility in the work of salvation.
An obvious ramification of hyper\-Calvinism is that it suppresses any desire to evangelize the lost. Most churches or denominations that hold to hyper\-Calvinistic theology are marked by fatalism, coldness, and a lack of assurance of faith. There is little emphasis upon God’s love for the lost and His own people but rather an unbiblical preoccupation with God’s sovereignty, His election of the saved, and His wrath for the lost. The gospel of the hyper\-Calvinist is a declaration of God’s salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost.
The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over the entire universe (Daniel 4:34\-35\), including the salvation of men (Ephesians 1:3\-12\). But with God’s sovereignty, the Bible also teaches that His motivation for saving the lost is love (Ephesians 1:4\-5; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9\-10\) and that God’s means of saving the lost is the proclamation of His Word (Romans 10:14\-15\). The Bible also declares that the Christian is to be passionate and determined in his/her sharing with unbelievers; as ambassadors for Christ, we are to "beg" people to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20\-21\).
Hyper\-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper\-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.
|
Is papal infallibility biblical? |
Answer
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible when he speaks from his position of authority on a particular issue or doctrine (speaking *ex cathedra*). Many misunderstand “papal infallibility” as indicating that everything the pope says is infallible. This is not what the Roman Catholic Church means by “papal infallibility.” According to the Roman Catholic Church, this infallibility of the pope, only when speaking *ex cathedra*, is part of the Roman Catholic Church’s Magisterium, or the “teaching authority of the Church” which God gave to the “mother Church” to guide her infallibly. This “teaching authority of the Church” is made up of the pope’s infallible teaching ability, the infallible teaching ability of church councils assembled under the authority of the pope, and the “ordinary” Magisterium of the bishops. This “ordinary” Magisterium involves, among other things, bishops in various places beginning to teach the same particular doctrine (for instance, the teaching that Mary was conceived without sin), and that if this teaching gains acceptance throughout the church as a whole, it is an indication that the Holy Spirit is working through the bishops and that this teaching is from God. The pope may later recognize this and proclaim infallibly that it comes from God and is to be accepted by all Roman Catholics.
The question is whether this teaching is in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “mother Church” as being necessary to guide the Church, and uses that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, we find the following:
1\) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18\-19\), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the entire church (see Acts 15:1\-23; Galatians 2:1\-14; 1 Peter 5:1\-5\). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13; primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19\-20\) and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15\-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1\-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10\-11\). Thus, the foundation of papal infallibility—the existence of the papacy itself—is not scriptural.
2\) Nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the Roman Catholic Church teaching of "apostolic succession"). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2\-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19\-22\). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23\). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among accepted church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:18\-21\). Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error he does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28\-32\).
3\) Nowhere in Scripture is the “teaching Magisterium,” or mastery of bishops, taught and treated as of equal weight with Scripture. What history has shown is that, when any other source of authority is treated as being of equal weight with Scripture, that second authority always ends up superseding Scripture (such is the case with the Mormons' other accepted writings and the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ *Watchtower*). So it is with the Roman Catholic Church. Repeatedly, Catholic Catechisms state that many of their doctrines are not found in or based on Scripture (e.g., Mary being Co\-redemptress and Co\-mediator, sinless, and conceived without sin; Mary’s ascension; praying to saints and venerating them and images of them; etc.). For Roman Catholics, it is the “mother Church” that is the final authority, not Scripture, no matter that they say that the Magisterium is the “servant of Scripture.” Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as the measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8\-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. And while the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell upon those who would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel from what had already been given and recorded in the New Testament (Galatians 1:8\-9\).
4\) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession and the infallible Magisterium of the church as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) infallible Scripture (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15\-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10\-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.),
(b) Christ’s unending high\-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22\-28\),
(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12\-14\), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3\-8; Ephesians 4:11\-16\), and Who uses the written Word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17\).
In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, "tangible," infallible guide left by God for His church. It is the written word of God, not an infallible leader (2 Timothy 3:15\-17\). And, as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19\-21\), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word (1 Corinthians 12 and 14; Ephesians 4:11\-16\). That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16\) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches (Acts 20:30\). Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the "word of His grace" for their guidance (Acts 20:32\), determining the truth not by who said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture (Galatians 1:8\-9; see also Acts 17:11\).
|
What does it mean to accept Jesus as your personal Savior? |
Answer
Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? To properly understand this question, you must first understand the terms “Jesus Christ,” “personal,” and “Savior.”
**Who is Jesus Christ?** Many people will acknowledge Jesus Christ as a good man, a great teacher, or even a prophet of God. These things are definitely true of Jesus, but they do not fully define who He truly is. The Bible tells us that Jesus is God in the flesh, God in human form (see John 1:1, 14\). God came to earth to teach us, heal us, correct us, forgive us—and die for us! Jesus Christ is God, the Creator, the sovereign Lord. Have you accepted this Jesus?
**What is a Savior, and why do we need a Savior?** The Bible tells us that we have all sinned; we have all committed evil acts (Romans 3:10\-18\). As a result of our sin, we deserve God’s anger and judgment. The only just punishment for sins committed against an infinite and eternal God is an infinite punishment (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:11\-15\). That is why we need a Savior!
Jesus Christ came to earth and died in our place. Jesus’ death was an infinite payment for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21\). Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins (Romans 5:8\). Jesus paid the price so that we would not have to. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead proved that His death was sufficient to pay the penalty for our sins. That is why Jesus is the one and only Savior (John 14:6; Acts 4:12\)! Are you trusting in Jesus as your Savior?
**Is Jesus your “personal” Savior?** Many people view Christianity as attending church, performing rituals, and/or not committing certain sins. That is not Christianity. True Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Accepting Jesus as your personal Savior means placing your own personal faith and trust in Him. No one is saved by the faith of others. No one is forgiven by doing certain deeds. The only way to be saved is to personally accept Jesus as your Savior, trusting in His death as the payment for your sins and His resurrection as your guarantee of eternal life (John 3:16\). Is Jesus personally your Savior?
If you want to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, say the following words to God. Remember, saying this prayer or any other prayer will not save you. Only believing in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross for you can save you from sin. This prayer is simply a way to express to God your faith in Him and thank Him for providing for your salvation. “God, I know that I have sinned against You and deserve punishment. But I believe Jesus Christ took the punishment I deserve so that through faith in Him I could be forgiven. I receive Your offer of forgiveness and place my trust in You for salvation. I accept Jesus as my personal Savior! Thank You for Your wonderful grace and forgiveness—the gift of eternal life! Amen!”
Have you made a decision to receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.
If you have any questions, please use the question form on our [Bible Questions Answered](Bible-Questions.html) page.
|
Is baptism required before a person can receive communion? |
Answer
It is not stated in Scripture that a person must be baptized before being able to receive the Lord’s Supper. However, the same requirement for both baptism and partaking of the Lord’s Supper is salvation through faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus with His disciples the evening before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:20\-28\). In Matthew 28:19, after our Lord’s death and resurrection, He gave the Great Commission to His disciples to go into all the world and teach His Gospel, followed with the command to also baptize the new believers. Baptism by water in the name of the Trinity has been practiced by the church from its beginning. The only requirement, as stated above, is that the person has trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. In doing so, the person understands that this is a picture of the salvation experience and is a requirement of obedience to our Lord. It is considered by many Bible scholars to be the first step of Christian discipleship.
Perhaps this is the reason some churches require baptism before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is to be partaken of only by believers in Jesus Christ. Baptism is intended to be an identifying mark of believers in Christ. Therefore, some churches require water baptism before a person can partake of the Lord’s Supper. However, again, Scripture nowhere gives us this instruction.
|
When should children be baptized and/or allowed to take the Lord’s Supper? |
Answer
While some churches have requirements for children to attend Bible classes for instruction in doctrine and the meaning of the ordinances before being allowed to participate, many others do not. Whatever the case may be, it is wise for parents to instruct and prepare their children for baptism and communion. Ultimately the instruction of children in the ways of God is the responsibility of the parents, and the church is there to help.
Before taking communion, the main requirement for all children (as with all adults) is that they have received the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. Even though some children make this salvation decision at an early age, being baptized and partaking of the Lord's Supper should not be rushed into. As a child matures in his faith and it is evident that he is truly born again, the father and/or mother should be perceptive as to when he is ready to understand and participate in communion. The spiritual maturity level of one child differs from that of another, even in the same family.
In many churches, when the parents of a child make it known to the pastor that he/she is wanting to be baptized, the pastor speaks with the child to decide if he/she is ready. This is a good and wise practice. It is vitally important that a child understands that neither baptism or communion saves him/her, but rather they are steps of obedience and remembrance of what Jesus did for us in providing for our salvation (Luke 22:19\).
|
What is secular humanism? |
Answer
The ideal of secular humanism is mankind itself as a part of uncreated, eternal nature; its goal is man’s self\-remediation without reference to or help from God. Secular humanism grew out of the 18th century Enlightenment and 19th century freethinking. Some Christians might be surprised to learn that they actually share some commitments with secular humanists. Many Christians and proponents of secular humanism share a commitment to reason, free inquiry, the separation of church and state, the ideal of freedom, and moral education; however, they differ in many areas. Secular humanists base their morality and ideas about justice on critical intelligence unaided by Scripture, which Christians rely on for knowledge concerning right and wrong, good and evil. And although secular humanists and Christians develop and use science and technology, for Christians these tools are to be used in the service of man to the glory of God, whereas secular humanists view these things as instruments meant to serve human ends without reference to God. In their inquiries concerning the origins of life, secular humanists do not admit that God created man from the dust of the earth, having first created the earth and all living creatures on it from nothing. For secular humanists, nature is an eternal, self\-perpetuating force.
Secular humanists may be surprised to learn that many Christians share with them an attitude of religious skepticism and are committed to the use of critical reason in education. Following the pattern of the noble Bereans, Christian humanists read and listen to instruction, but we examine all things in the light of the Scriptures (Acts 17:11\). We do not simply accept every declaration or mental perception that enters our minds, but test all ideas and “knowledge” against the absolute standard of the word of God in order to obey Christ our Lord (see 2 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Timothy 6:20\). Christian humanists understand that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Col. 2:3\) and seek to grow in full knowledge of every good thing for Christ’s service (Phil. 1:9; 4:6; cf. Col. 1:9\). Unlike secular humanists who reject the notion of revealed truth, we adhere to the word of God, which is the standard against which we measure or test the quality of all things. These brief comments do not fully elucidate Christian humanism, but they add life and relevance to the clinical definition given in lexicons (e.g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, which defines Christian Humanism as "a philosophy advocating the self\-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles").
Before we consider a Christian response to secular humanism, we must study the term *humanism* itself. Humanism generally calls to mind the rebirth or revival of ancient learning and culture that took place during the [Renaissance](Renaissance-Christianity.html). During this time, “humanists” developed rigorous modes of scholarship based on Greek and Roman models and attempted to build a new Latin style (in literary and plastic arts) and political institutions based on them. However, long before the Renaissance “Christian humanism” thrived in the works and thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Erasmus, and others. Some even see in [Plato](Plato-Platonism.html), a pagan philosopher, a type of thinking that is compatible with Christian teaching. While Plato offers much that is profitable, his assumptions and conclusions were certainly not biblical. Plato, like Nietzsche, believed in “eternal recurrence” (reincarnation); he (and the Greeks generally) paid lip service to their gods, but for them man was the measure of all things. Contemporary expressions of secular humanism reject both the nominal Christian elements of its precursors and essential biblical truths, such as the fact that human beings bear the image of their Creator, the God revealed in the Bible and in the earthly life and ministry of the Lord Jesus, the Christ.
During the scientific revolution, the investigations and discoveries of broadly trained scientists who can be considered humanists (men like Copernicus and Galileo) challenged Roman Catholic dogma. Rome rejected the findings of the new empirical sciences and issued contradictory pronouncements on matters lying outside the domain of faith. The Vatican held that since God created the heavenly bodies, these must reflect the “perfection” of their Creator; therefore, it rejected the astronomers’ discoveries that the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not spherical, as previously held, and that the sun has “spots” or colder, darker areas. These empirically verifiable facts and the men and women who discovered them did not contradict biblical teachings; the real turn away from biblically revealed truth and toward naturalistic humanism—characterized by rejection of authority and biblical truth, and leading toward an avowedly secular form of humanism—occurred during the Enlightenment, which spanned the 18th and 19th centuries and took root throughout Europe, blossoming especially in Germany.
Numerous pantheists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, and skeptics pursued various intellectual projects not beholden to revealed truth. In their separate and distinct ways, men like Rousseau and Hobbes sought amoral and rational solutions to the human dilemma; moreover, works like Hegel’s *Phenomenology of Spirit*, Kant’s *Critique of Pure Reason*, and Fichte’s *The Science of Knowledge* laid the theoretical foundation for later secular humanists. Whether consciously or unconsciously, contemporary academics and secular humanists build on the ground laid before when they promote exclusively “rational” approaches to social and ethical issues and [antinomian](antinomian.html) forms of self\-determination in such areas as individual autonomy and freedom of choice in sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia. In the cultural domain, secular humanists rely on critical methods when interpreting the Bible and reject the possibility of divine intervention in human history; at best, they view the Bible as “holy history.”
Going by the name of “higher criticism,” secular humanism spread like gangrene in schools of theology and promoted its rationalized or anthropocentric approach to biblical studies. Starting in Germany, the late 19th century “higher criticism” sought to “go behind the documents” and de\-emphasized the authoritative message of the biblical text. As Darrell L. Bock has noted, the speculative nature of higher criticism treated the Bible “as a foggy mirror back to the past” and not as the inerrant historical record of the life and teachings of Christ and His apostles (“Introduction” in Roy B. Zuck and D. L. Bock, *A Biblical Theology of the New Testament*, 1994, p. 16\). For example, in his Theology of the New Testament, [Rudolf Bultmann](Rudolf-Bultmann.html), a leading exponent of higher criticism, relies heavily on critical assumptions. As Bock points out, the author is “so skeptical about the New Testament portrait of Jesus that he barely discusses a theology of Jesus" (ibid).
While higher criticism undermined the faith of some, others, like B. B. Warfield at Princeton Seminary, William Erdman, and others, persuasively defended the Bible as the Word of God. For example, in responding to skeptics who questioned the early date and Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel, Erdman and other faithful servants of the Lord have defended these essentials on critical grounds and with equal scholarship.
Likewise, in philosophy, politics, and social theory, Christian academics, jurists, writers, policy\-makers, and artists have wielded similar weapons when defending the faith and persuading hearts and minds for the Gospel. However, in many areas of intellectual life the battle is far from over. For example, in American English departments and literary circles beyond the academic world, the siren call of Ralph Waldo Emerson continues to hold sway. Emerson’s pantheism amounts to a denial of Christ; it is subtle and can beguile the unwary to turn away from the Gospel. Emerson held that the “Over Soul” within individuals makes each person the source of his or her own salvation and truth. In reading writers like Emerson and Hegel, Christians (especially those who would defend the faith once and for all delivered to the saints \[Jude 3]) must exercise caution and keep the Word of God central in their thoughts, and humbly remain obedient to it in their lives.
Christian and secular humanists have sometimes engaged in honest dialogue about the basis or source of order in the universe. Whether they call this reason or Aristotle’s prime mover, some secular rationalists correctly deduce that moral Truth is a prerequisite for moral order. Although many secular humanists are atheists, they generally have a high view of reason; therefore, Christian apologists may dialogue with them rationally about the Gospel, as Paul did in Acts 17:15\-34 when addressing the Athenians.
How should a Christian respond to secular humanism? For followers of the Way (Acts 9:2; 19:19, 23\), any legitimate form of humanism must view the full realization of human potential in the submission of the human mind and will to the mind and will of God. God’s desire is that none should perish, but that all should repent and inherit eternal life as His children (John 3:16; 1:12\). Secular humanism aims to do both much less and much more. It aims to heal this world and glorify man as the author of his own, progressive salvation. In this respect, “secular” humanism is quite at ease with certain religious substitutes for God’s true Gospel—for example, the teachings of Yogananda, the founder of the Self\-Realization Fellowship. By contrast, Christian humanists follow the Lord Jesus in understanding that our kingdom is not of this world and cannot be fully realized here (John 18:36; 8:23\). We set our minds on God’s eternal kingdom, not on earthly things, for we have died and our lives are hidden with Christ in God. When Christ—who is our life—returns, we will appear with him in glory (Colossians 3:1\-4\). This is truly a high view of our destiny as human beings, for we are His offspring, as even secular poets have said (see Aratus’s poem “Phainomena”; cf. Acts 17:28\).
One does not have to be a Christian to appreciate that humanism powered by pure reason alone cannot succeed. Even [Immanuel Kant](Immanuel-Kant.html), writing his *Critique of Pure Reason* during the height of the German Enlightenment, understood this. Neither should followers of Christ fall prey to the deceitfulness of philosophy and human tradition, or be taken captive by forms humanism based on romantic faith in the possibility of human self\-realization (Colossians 2:8\). Hegel based human progress on the ideal of reason as spirit “instantiating” itself through progressive dialectical stages in history; but had Hegel lived to see the world wars of the 20th century, it is doubtful that he would have persisted in detecting human progress in this debacle of history. Christians understand that any form of humanism set apart from divinely authored redemption is doomed to failure and false to the faith. We ground a high view of man in a high view of God, since mankind is made in the image of God, and we agree with Scripture concerning man’s desperate situation and God’s plan of salvation.
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed, humanism offers no solution at all to mankind’s desperate condition. He puts it this way: "If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.” Indeed. Mankind’s task is to seek and find God (Acts 17:26\-27; cf. 15:17\), our true redeemer who offers us a better than earthly inheritance (Hebrews 6:9; 7:17\). Anyone who opens the door to Christ (Revelation 3:20\) will inherit that better country, which God has prepared for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28; Hebrew 11:16; cf. Matthew 25:34; John 14:2\). How much more excellent is this than all the proud and lofty goals contained in secular humanist manifestos?
|
What is an advent calendar? |
Answer
The word '[Advent](what-is-Advent.html)' has a Latin origin meaning 'the coming,' or more accurately, 'coming toward.' For Christian believers, Christmas is one of the greatest events in the yearly cycle, being the celebration of the greatest gift ever given by God to mankind. That gift was Jesus, the Son of God Himself, born into this world in human form and coming to live among us to show us the true nature of God, experience human joy and sorrow along with us, and finally, going of His own will to die a horrible, agonizing death. In this way the price was paid for all human sin that had cut us off from our Holy God and Heavenly Father, resulting in our complete and total reconciliation with Him.
Centuries ago, the importance of this event caused many Christians to feel that it was inadequate merely to mark off only one day on the yearly calendar for celebrating this incredible gift from God. Believers had (and still do have) such a sense of awe and overwhelming gratitude and wonder at what happened that first Christmas that they felt the need for a period of preparation immediately beforehand. They could then not only take time themselves to meditate on it, but also teach their children the tremendous significance of Christmas.
At first, the days preceding Christmas were marked off from December 1 with chalk on believers' doors. Then in Germany in the late 19th century the mother of a child named Gerhard Lang made her son an Advent Calendar comprised of 24 tiny sweets stuck onto cardboard. Lang never forgot the excitement he felt when he was given his Advent calendar at the beginning of each December, and how it reminded him every day that the greatest celebration of the whole year was approaching ever nearer. As an adult he went into partnership with his friend Reichhold and opened a printing office. In 1908, they produced what is thought to be the first\-ever printed Advent Calendar with a small colored picture for each day in Advent. Later on, at the beginning of the 20th century, they hit on the idea of making the pictures into little shuttered windows for the children to open day by day in order to heighten their sense of expectation.
The idea of the Advent Calendar caught on with other printing firms as the demand swiftly increased, and many versions were produced, some of which would have printed on them Bible verses appropriate to the Advent period. By now the Advent Calendar had gained international popularity, and children all over the world were clamoring for them as December approached. Unfortunately, the custom came to an end with the beginning of the First World War when cardboard was strictly rationed and only allowed to be used for purposes necessary to the war effort. However, in 1946, when rationing began to ease following the end of the Second World War, a printer named Richard Sellmer once again introduced the colorful little Advent Calendar, and again it was an immediate success.
Sadly, the Advent Calendar, although still popular with children, has lost its true meaning for many. Often children and their parents have no idea of the history of the little calendar or its true purpose, which is to prepare us for the celebration of the advent of the Christ\-child. Even so, the fact that the world still celebrates Christmas eagerly can serve as a ready opportunity for those who do know Jesus Christ to share the gospel and the hope we have in Him. May our joyful anticipation in the Advent season remind us not only that Christ has come, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and been raised back to life to provide us salvation, but that He is returning. And may we be encouraged to share the reality of salvation in Him with all around us.
Find instructions for making a simple [Advent calendar for kids](https://www.gqkidz.org/how-to-make-an-advent-calendar.html).
|
Deconstructionism - is it a valid way to interpret the Bible? |
Answer
Deconstructionism is basically a theory of textual criticism or interpretation that denies there is any single correct meaning or interpretation of a passage or text. At the heart of the deconstructionist theory of interpretation are two primary ideas. First is the idea that no passage or text can possibly convey a single reliable, consistent, and coherent message to everyone who reads or hears it. The second is that the author who wrote the text is less responsible for the piece’s content than are the impersonal forces of culture such as language and the author’s unconscious ideology. Therefore the very basic tenets of deconstructionism are contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible that absolute truth does exist and we can indeed know it (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 65:16; John 1:17–18; John 14:6; John 15:26–27; Galatians 2:5\).
The deconstructionist approach to interpreting the Bible comes out of postmodernism and is therefore simply another denial of the existence of absolute truth, which is one of the most serious logical fallacies anyone can commit. The denial of absolute truth is a logical fallacy because it is a self\-contradictory statement. No one can rationally deny absolute truth because to do so one is forced to state an absolute—which is what he is saying does not exist. When someone claims that there is no such thing as absolute truth, ask him, “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If he says, “Yes,” then he has made a statement contradictory to his very premise.
Like other philosophies that come out of the postmodernism, deconstructionism celebrates human autonomy and determines truth by the intellect of man. Therefore, according to the postmodern thinker, all truth is relative and there is no such thing as absolute truth. At the heart of postmodernism and deconstructionist thought is pride. The deconstructionist thinks that he can discover a personal or social motivation behind what Scripture says and therefore can determine what is “really being said.” The result is a subjective interpretation of the passage in question. Instead of accepting what the Bible actually says, the deconstructionist is arrogant enough to think he can determine the motive behind what was written and come up with the “real” or “hidden” meaning of the text. However, if one were to take deconstructionism to its logical conclusion, then the findings of the deconstructionist would themselves have to be deconstructed to determine what the deconstructionist “really” said. The endless circular reasoning is self\-defeating. When one thinks about how fundamentally flawed this type of thinking is, one is reminded of 1 Corinthians 3:19, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness.’”
The deconstructionist does not study the Bible in order to find out the meaning intended by the writer but to attempt to discern the cultural and social motives behind what was written. The deconstructionist is only limited in his interpretation of a passage by his own imagination. To the deconstructionist there is no right or wrong interpretation, and the meaning of the text becomes whatever the reader wants it to be. One might imagine what would happen if legal documents such as wills and deeds were read this way. This approach to Scripture fails to recognize the fundamental truth that the Bible is God’s objective communication to mankind and that the meaning of the passages comes from God.
Instead of spending time debating deconstructionism or other postmodern theories, we should concentrate on exalting Christ and emphasizing the sufficiency and authority of the Scriptures. Romans 1:21–22 sums up most postmodern thinkers who hold to such theories as deconstructionism: “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”
|
What is the spiritual significance to a déjà vu experience? |
Answer
The term *déjà vu* is a French term coined by a French psychic researcher named Émile Boirac. *Déjà vu* means “already seen,” and is also called “paramnesia.” It describes the feeling of having already experienced a situation. When experiencing déjà vu, one is struck with feelings of familiarity and strangeness, which can make one feel that the situation has truly happened before.
Approximately two thirds of adults claim to have had a déjà vu experience. Déjà vu experiences have been connected with medical conditions, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, and anxiety. No one really knows what causes these episodes, although psychologists have also come up with theories such as stress and internal hidden conflicts. Some believe déjà vu is the memory of previously forgotten dreams. Still others associate it with psychic abilities, prophecy, or past\-life experiences.
A déjà vu experience could be the result of God revealing certain things to a person before the event occurred, but the experience could also simply be the result of something occurring that is very similar to an event in the past. The event triggers the memory, causing an "eerie" sense of familiarity. Rather than being a spiritual issue, déjà vu is likely a simple and harmless physical one.
|
Does the Bible teach that life begins at conception? |
Answer
The Bible does teach that life begins at conception. Every culture’s view of when human life begins changes as society’s values, moral standards, and knowledge about the process of embryonic development change. Prior to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand, developing embryos were considered unborn persons. Now, even a fetus that could survive on its own outside its mother’s womb could be aborted, under certain medical circumstances. This demonstrates that we do not consider an unborn child to be a true human being.
Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child’s genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully\-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.
More importantly, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then (Jeremiah 1:5\). King David said this about God’s role in our conception: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13, 16\).
Society continually seeks to devalue the lives of the unborn, creating its own definitions of humanity based on distorted views of morality. But the undeniable fact is that life begins at creation, and a human is created as soon as he or she is conceived. God is present at our creation; He is, in fact, our Creator. Our value as human beings created in His image is conceived even before we are.
|
Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity? |
Answer
This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups. The battle between [Catholics](Roman-Catholicism.html) and [Protestants](Protestantism.html) is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome. Reformation teachings that identify the [Pope as the Beast of Revelation](pope-antichrist.html) and / or Roman Catholicism as [Mystery Babylon](whore-Babylon-mystery.html) are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.
For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one’s faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a [works\-gospel](meritorious-works.html) that cannot save, while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach [easy\-believism](easy-believism.html) that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching. Protestants accuse Catholics of [worshiping Mary](worship-saints-Mary.html), and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the [distinctions](veneration.html) Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.
Behind the particular disagreements over the role of [faith and works](salvation-faith-alone.html), the [sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html), the [canon of Scripture](canon-of-Scripture.html), the role of the [priesthood](priesthood-believers.html), [prayers to saints](prayer-saints-Mary.html), and all the issues surrounding Mary and the [Pope](pope-papacy.html), etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic’s side because once Rome speaks, it is settled. This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic authority.
Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one’s “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their [tradition](Catholic-tradition.html). But this merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.
Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family’s faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments. Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the [differences](difference-Catholic-Protestant.html) are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.
|
What is New Testament theology? |
Answer
New Testament theology is the study of what God has revealed about Himself in the New Testament. The system of New Testament theology takes the various truths that the New Testament books teach us about God and presents them in an organized fashion. The New Testament discloses the coming of the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9\), the rejection of the Messiah by Israel, the fulfillment of the Law, the birth of the New Testament church (the body of Christ), the church age, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and instructions for believers in Jesus Christ.
The phrase *new covenant* (or *new testament*) was spoken by Christ at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20\). Paul cited the new covenant as the substance of the ministry to which he was called (2 Corinthians 3:6\). The Old Testament is the record of the calling and history of the Jewish nation, and it contains the Mosaic Law, the Old Covenant to which Israel was bound for many years. The New Testament deals with the history and application of the Christ’s redemption from the Law (Galatians 4:4–5\), a redemption He provided through His death on the cross (Ephesians 1:7\). Being the New Covenant, it supersedes the Old (Hebrews 8:6, 13\).
Theology is the study of the doctrines of the Bible, following the progressive revelation that God made to man from the beginning of time to the end of the book of Revelation. New Testament theology primarily deals with the study of Christology, ecclesiology, and soteriology. Plus, it furthers our understanding of eschatology, pneumatology, angelology, hamartiology, and other fields of doctrine.
|
What is Old Testament theology? |
Answer
Old Testament theology is the study of what God has revealed about Himself in the Old Testament. The system of Old Testament theology takes the various truths that the Old Testament books teach us about God and presents them in an organized fashion. God’s revelation of Himself begins in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The presupposition of God and His creative work is something that all believers accept by faith and is emphasized throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.
Old Testament theology is a rich and rewarding study of what God revealed of Himself, His character, His attributes, etc., in the Old Testament. The Old Testament focuses primarily on God’s relationship with the Jews, starting with His call of Abraham in Genesis 12\. He chose Israel and covenanted with them for the purpose of relaying His message to the world and ultimately bringing the Messiah to save us from our sin. Through His relationship with the Jews, God blessed the entire world (Genesis 12:3\). The Old Testament chronicles God’s progressive revelation of Himself, specifically to His chosen people but also to those of Gentile heritage, in order that we might learn who He is and His plan in the world. Into the very heart of the Old Testament is woven the idea of a covenant between God and man: the first was made with Adam and others with Noah, Abraham, the nation of Israel, and David.
Old Testament theology is foundational to our understanding of God and His purposes in the world. The seeds of the doctrines of substitutionary atonement, salvation, election, holiness, mercy, judgment, and forgiveness are all found in the Old Testament. A study of Old Testament theology includes a look at theology proper, anthropology, and eschatology, among other vital subjects.
|
Is cyber-sex / phone sex a sin? |
Answer
The Bible nowhere mentions cybersex (cyber\-sex) or phone sex because, obviously, “cyber\-anything” and “phone\-anything” were not possible in Bible times. As with so many questions related to sex, the answer to this question depends somewhat on whether the people involved are married to each other. Within marriage, cybersex/phone sex would fall under the biblical principles outlined in Scripture regarding marital sex. For more information, please see our article on what is [sexually allowed in a marriage](sexually-allowed.html).
Cybersex is any sexual activity done through means of a computer. It can involve video chats, discussion forums, or virtual reality. The key for cybersex is that everything is done online. Phone sex involves engaging in sexually explicit conversations or listening to sexually explicit recordings on a telephone. Often, users pay a fee for either cybersex or phone sex.
Outside of marriage, the performance of any sexual act is sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7\). For the unmarried, engaging in cybersex or phone sex is sinful. Jesus taught that to desire something that is sinful is itself sinful: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28\). Also, we must be careful about what we allow our minds to dwell on: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things” (Philippians 4:8\). It is hard to see how cybersex or phone sex could be considered “noble,” “right,” or “pure.”
What about a married couple engaging in cybersex or phone sex with each other? What if a husband calls up his wife, and the two of them engage in some sexually charged banter? Is a wife allowed to spice up a video chat with her husband? The Bible says nothing that would prevent a husband and wife from engaging in such activity together. Neither spouse is having lustful thoughts about other people; the focus is solely on the spouse.
Outside the marriage bond, cybersex and phone sex are, in essence, desiring something that is sinful (fornication or adultery). Cybersex and phone sex are fantasizing about that which is immoral and impure. Cybersex and phone sex are virtual adultery. Those who engage in cybersex or phone sex are fantasizing about a person lustfully or encouraging another person to give in to selfish and immoral [lust](overcoming-lust.html). A person who is immoral in his or her mind and heart will eventually become immoral in action. So, outside of marriage, cybersex and phone sex are sinful.
|
How can I overcome peer pressure? |
Answer
Why do we face peer pressure? The Bible clearly tells us that we should not expect our lives to look like the lives of other people (unbelievers) in this world. As Christians, we are aliens and strangers here on earth (1 Peter 2:11\), and this world is not our home. Just as Christ was rejected—and still is—by so many who want to live life their own, ungodly way, we will also find the same types of people despising us for our faith.
In the first chapter of 1 Thessalonians, Paul speaks of how we are to know we are Christians. One of the points he emphasizes (see 1 Thessalonians 1:6\) is the fact that we should have joy despite suffering. We should expect to encounter trials and persecution as Christians, yet be comforted with the fact that God is in control and will repay any wrongs that are committed against us. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul talks about the troubles this church was continuing to face. He told them that when Christ returns and God judges the world, God “will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well” (2 Thessalonians 1:6\-7\). Although many Christians will never face suffering as extreme as the Thessalonians did, or even those living in modern\-day Sudan who are killed for their faith, we still suffer in smaller ways, such as the torture of peer pressure.
**What does the Bible say about dealing with peer pressure?** The Bible never uses the words “peer pressure,” but it does tell us how we should deal with the many trials we will face in our lives, especially those involving unbelievers. Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
Romans 12:14\-16 says, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.”
First Peter 1:13\-21 says, “Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self\-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.’ Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.”
The Bible also tells us that we can trust that God will work all things together for the good of His children (Romans 8:28\). However, the Bible does not promise us an easy life, but a life that glorifies God as we learn lessons that are difficult and overcome attacks from Satan that would be impossible to overcome without God. We are being “conformed to the likeness of \[Christ]” as God changes us through all our life (Romans 8:29\-30\). Be comforted that Christ Himself was tempted in every way we have been; He understands how difficult it is. Yet, the Bible promises us that God will provide a way of escape from every trial (1 Corinthians 10:13\). Put your complete trust and faith in God. Let Him alone be your strength (Philippians 4:13\) and your guide (Psalm 23\).
Peer pressure will be a fleeting thing in our lives. Peer pressure is largely about insecurity and a desire for acceptance for all involved. Most people eventually realize that intimidating others to feel important is manipulative and immature. Those who have been followers will usually realize it is more important to make their own decisions and be their own person than to be controlled by someone else. We must not give in to peer pressure, whatever the situation. Standing up for what we believe and what the Bible teaches will please God. Throughout history, those who have been unafraid to stand on unpopular beliefs have been the ones to change the world and make things happen. There is so much in this world that we need to change, and so many people who need to be told about Christ. Letting other people decide what we do and how we behave is exactly what Satan hopes we will do; if we never stand up for what is right because of peer pressure, we are actually standing up for what is wrong.
|
Should a Christian read the Chronicles of Narnia series or see the movies? |
Answer
Each time a new movie or TV version of *The Chronicles of Narnia* comes out, many people find a renewed interest in [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html)' classic series. This seven\-book series features witches, mythical creatures, talking animals, magical spells, and far\-off worlds, prompting Christians to ask the question: Is this the type of material a Christian should be reading?
While it is true that *The Chronicles of Narnia* series includes evil witches and mystical spells, each of the seven books is filled with biblical allegories and allusions. For instance, the hero of *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* is a lion named Aslan (Jesus is called a “lion” in Revelation 5:5\). Aslan created the world of Narnia with his voice, which is very similar to the Genesis account of how God created the earth: "And God said” (Genesis 1:3\). In addition, Aslan dies in the place of a sinner and rises from the dead, and by doing so, defeats an age\-old curse. Redemption is bestowed upon Narnia because of the death and resurrection of Aslan. Clearly, this is Lewis’ retelling of the salvation story of the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ.
Evil, on the other hand, is clearly delineated as pure evil, and children can easily identify the evil in the books as unattractive and can, at the same time, find Aslan and his righteous qualities very attractive. *The Chronicles of Narnia* can be a great way for parents and their children to read entertaining literature together and discuss biblical elements all at the same time. While it is fun to read about imaginary places and mystical creatures, parents should always keep in mind, while talking to their children, that the real point of the books is what Jesus Christ did on the cross for all mankind (John 3:16\). With that in mind, it is perfectly fine for Christians to use their own wisdom and discernment, in Christian freedom, as to whether to read *The Chronicles of Narnia* books or watch the movies.
|
What is progressive creationism and is it biblical? |
Answer
Progressive creationism (also called “process creation”) is the belief that God created the heavens and the earth over a period of billions of years, not the six 24\-hour days that is the basis for the traditional creationism view. Progressive creationists can be liberal or conservative in their theological belief system, but they generally agree on the following:
• The “[Big Bang](big-bang-theory.html)” was God’s way of producing stars and galaxies through billions of years of natural processes.
• The earth and universe are billions of years old, not merely thousands of years old.
• The days of creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
• Death and bloodshed have existed from the very beginning of creation and were not the result of Adam’s sin. Man was created after the vast majority of earth’s history of life and death had already taken place.
• The flood of Noah was local, not global, and it had little effect on the earth’s geology, which shows billions of years of history.
Progressive creationism is a belief that opposes both atheistic [evolutionism](evolutionism.html) and young earth creationism. The teachings of progressive creationism are not new, but in recent years they have received favorable publicity through Christian radio, television, magazines, and books.
In our view, the error of progressive creationism rests on the assumption that the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1–2 is not meant to be understood literally. According to progressive creationism, the “days” in Genesis 1 are not literal, 24\-hour days but actually long periods of time, amounting to millions or even billions of years (see our article on the [days of creation](creation-days.html)). Progressive creationists accept the evolutionary viewpoint of the age of the earth, which we feel is in error (see our article on [age of the earth](earth-age.html)).
Another disagreement we have with progressive creationism is that it posits that death existed prior to the [Fall](fall-affect-humanity.html), which undermines the teaching that all physical death is a result of sin (see Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22\).
In some circumstances, progressive creationism is an attempt by some Christians to harmonize the teachings of modern science with the Bible. However, the theory actually precedes modern evolutionary thinking and was suggested by some of the earliest Christian writers. While we disagree with progressive creationism, it is a view held by a sizable proportion of the Christian community.
All that being said, the traditional interpretation of Genesis has mostly been that of young earth creationism, not progressive creationism. This is because the strongest evidences suggested for progressive creationism come mainly from the field of science, not directly from the words of the Bible.
|
How should Christians respond to the “war on Christmas”? |
Answer
Many people perceive a modern\-day “war on Christmas” being waged in the public square. Those who believe in the reality of a war on Christmas see a concerted effort to eliminate the word *Christmas* from public discourse. Stories confirming a war on Christmas seem to be coming more frequently: a grade\-school choir sings “We Wish You a Happy Holiday” instead of “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” for their “Winter Concert.” A library invites “holiday displays” from the community provided the displays have no religious connotation—the stable may have animals in it, but no people. And major shopping chains forbid their employees from wishing anyone a “Merry Christmas.” It is possible to do all one’s Christmas shopping and never see or hear the word *Christmas* in the stores.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with saying “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings.” But if someone says “Happy Holidays” for the sole purpose of *not* saying “Merry Christmas,” then we are right to question what’s going on. Is there truly be a cultural “war on Christmas” being waged? “Why is the word *Christmas* censored?” we wonder as we wander through the malls. Why do some public schools celebrate everything from Kwanzaa to Labafana the Christmas witch, and ban the Nativity, all in the name of “inclusion” and “tolerance”?
One reason put forward by those seeking to avoid the word *Christmas* is that it offends non\-Christians. But, according to a recent Gallup poll, only 3 percent of adults in America say it bothers them when a store makes specific reference to Christmas. This fact gives the “war on Christmas” a more sinister twist. The exclusion of Christmas is less about sensitivity and more about censorship. Expunging all mention of Christmas from society is not really a way to “adapt” to a more diverse culture but a way to engineer a more secular culture.
Many times, the arguments against Christmas programs and displays are couched in political terms, but the bias against Christmas goes much deeper than that. The war on Christmas is primarily a spiritual battle, not a political one.
How should Christians respond to the war on Christmas and the ubiquitous use of “Happy Holidays” to the exclusion of “Merry Christmas”? Here are some suggestions:
1\) Celebrate Christmas! War on Christmas or not, let the joy of the season show in your life. Teach your family the significance of Jesus’ birth and make the Christmas traditions meaningful in your home.
2\) Wish others a Merry Christmas. When confronted with a “Happy Holidays,” get specific and wish the greeter a “Merry Christmas!” You may be surprised at how many respond in kind. Even if you’re met with resistance, don’t let it dampen your cheer. In Dickens’*A Christmas Carol*, Ebenezer Scrooge wages a personal war on Christmas, and his nephew feels the brunt of his uncle’s attacks year after year, but it doesn’t stop him from wishing his humbug of an uncle a Merry Christmas and inviting Scrooge to Christmas dinner.
3\) Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\). The Christmas season is a wonderful opportunity to share Christ’s love and the gospel message. He is the reason for the season!
4\) Pray for those in positions of power (1 Timothy 2:1–3\). Pray for wisdom. Pray for revival so that Christmas, instead of being “offensive,” would be honored by all. May we each be a peaceful warrior in the cultural war on Christmas.
|
What are the Christian themes in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? |
Answer
In short, *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* by [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html) presents a Christian worldview through a mythic tale. It takes place in Narnia, a world of magic. In Narnia, virtually every fairy tale or mythic creature imaginable comes alive. But unlike much fantasy, such as the realm of Harry Potter, Narnia is another world—a separate creation from ours. In Narnia, what we would call "magic" is simply part of the created order (the wardrobe is actually from Narnia too, although this is known from a previous story). Thus, the mythic elements are used as a vehicle to tell a bigger story, not to promote falsehood in the real world.
*The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* is an allegory, and in an allegory it is important to understand what the symbols are referring to. For example, Aslan’s death and coming to life is a portrayal of Christ’s substitutionary atonement. It does not matter that it was not on a cross or that some elements are separated or out of order in time from the biblical gospel story. What matters is that the picture is correct – and it is. Aslan (Christ) has willingly humiliated himself and died for the sons of Adam (specifically Edmund) whom sin and death (the White Witch) have a right to take due to the “deep magic” (the Law) of Narnia. But Aslan rises again (resurrection), accompanied by an earthquake and discovered by two girls (the two Marys). His resurrection destroys the power of the deep magic over mankind (nailing our sins to the cross). Aslan then goes on to breathe life into his warriors (the Holy Spirit coming on all disciples) so that they may wage war with him against the White Witch and her armies (spiritual warfare). Aslan ultimately wins, bringing in a re\-created world (new heavens and earth).
*The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* also presents a biblical portrait of Christ in the character of Aslan. Some have complained that as a Christ\-figure Aslan should not have taken part in the killing of the White Witch. But the book of Revelation says that Christ will indeed destroy evil at His return—and it will not be pretty. The politically correct/humanistic/liberal community is simply not used to thinking of evil as something to be fought, and that such fighting is not only right, it is valorous. *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* reminds us of this truth.
There are many other gems in this story. A stirring, single\-line description of God comes at the point when the children are in Beaver’s dam. Lucy asks Beaver if Aslan is safe, and Beaver replies, "Safe? Of course he isn’t safe! . . . But he’s good." Another classic line comes when Lucy’s siblings approach their uncle about Lucy’s bizarre belief in Narnia. After they admit that she has never been known to lie and does not appear to be insane, their uncle then replies that, logically, she should be believed! This is Lewis’ famous “trilemma”—where Christ’s claims to divinity are shown to be believable due to the absurdity of the other explanations.
All in all, *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* presents the gospel in a powerful way that children can relate to, and adults can still learn from.
|
What are the Christian themes in The Magician’s Nephew? |
Answer
Although published as the sixth in the series, *The Magician’s Nephew* by [C. S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html) is the first of the Narnia books when arranged chronologically. Much is explained in this book of beginnings, including the origin of the magic wardrobe, the presence of a lamp post in Narnia, and the creation of Narnia itself.
In *The Magician’s Nephew*, the Professor Kirke of the previous books is a young boy named Digory. He is the nephew of a vain and foolish magician named Andrew Ketterly. Digory and his friend Polly, with the aid of some magic rings, are transported into another world, a cold, dying place named Charn. In Charn, Digory foolishly releases a wicked queen named Jadis from a trance\-like state, and Jadis follows him back to our world where she immediately attempts to set up a kingdom of her own. Digory uses the rings to get Jadis out of our world again, and they arrive in an empty place where they find a Lion singing. In response to the Lion’s song, stars appear, and a sun and plants and animals. Of course, the Lion is Aslan, and what Digory witnesses is the creation of Narnia. In this new world, Digory faces (and resists) a grave temptation before he returns home. Jadis stays in the northern regions of the other world and becomes the White Witch who appears in [*The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe*](Narnia_Lion-Witch-Wardrobe.html).
In chapter 9 of *The Magician’s Nephew*, Lewis provides a beautiful picture of [creation *ex nihilo*](creation-ex-nihilo.html) as Aslan creates Narnia. In later chapters, several biblical themes are illustrated, including the garden of Eden, the first temptation, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life. The creative, life\-giving power of Aslan is contrasted with the destructive, life\-robbing power of Jadis, the witch who had reduced her previous world to a dark, ruinous wasteland. The Lion of Narnia gives himself to his creatures: “‘Creatures, I give you yourselves,’ said the strong, happy voice of Aslan. ‘I give to you forever this land of Narnia. I give you the woods, the fruits, the rivers. I give you the stars and I give you myself’” (chapter 10\). In contrast, the Queen of Charn selfishly takes whatever power and glory she can steal.
The major theme of *The Magician’s Nephew* is “rules have a purpose.” Several characters in the book believe themselves to be “above the law,” and each one pays a price. The Lord Jesus (in the form of Aslan) is presented as the all\-powerful Creator/Artist of the world and as the loving, kindly Lawmaker. Other themes in *The Magician’s Nephew* include the importance of exercising power responsibly, the joy and freedom of obedience, and the foolishness of trusting our limited perspective.
|
What are the Christian themes in The Horse and His Boy? |
Answer
The fifth of the [“Chronicles of Narnia”](Chronicles-of-Narnia.html) series by [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html), *The Horse and His Boy*, relates the story of a young man named Shasta and a talking horse named Bree as they escape a life of slavery in the land of Calormen. Joining them in their flight is Aravis, a member of the Calormene aristocracy who flees an arranged marriage. Narnia’s Queen Susan, King Edmund, and Queen Lucy take part in the proceedings, but they are only minor characters, since the whole tale is told from the point of view of the escaping Calormenes.
The protagonists of *The Horse and His Boy*, Shasta and Aravis, encounter many adventures en route to freedom: crossing deserts, fighting battles, and narrowly escaping a pursuing lion are just a few. When Aravis unwittingly discovers a Calormene plot to invade the peaceful country of Archenland, it becomes a race against time to warn the king of Archenland of the impending attack. In the end, a prophecy is fulfilled, Shasta discovers his true identity, and Bree finds a home with the other talking animals of Narnia.
The major theme of *The Horse and His Boy* concerns the folly of pride and the wisdom of humility. Several characters exhibit varying degrees of [pride](pride-Bible.html), which leads to all sorts of difficulties, but by the story’s end, the proud are abased and the humble are lifted up, in accordance with James 4:6\. The Lord Jesus (in the form of Aslan) is presented as the All\-powerful Sovereign who directs both the fate of nations and the hearts of individuals with equal precision. Other themes apparent in *The Horse and His Boy* include the refutation of “[luck](luck.html),” the [incarnation of Christ](incarnation-of-Christ.html), God’s love for all people, and [prevenient grace](prevenient-grace.html).
|
What are the Christian themes in Prince Caspian? |
Answer
In this, the second of the seven\-volume “Chronicles of Narnia” series by [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html)—although it is the fourth book in the chronological series—Peter, Lucy, Edmund, and Susan are summoned once again to their beloved Narnia as young Prince Caspian seeks to regain his rightful place upon the throne. As the story unfolds, we learn the Caspian’s true identity has been kept a closely guarded secret by an evil uncle, but Caspian’s teacher, Dr. Cornelius, breaks his [vow of silence](vow-of-silence.html) by revealing Caspian’s true heritage and the wonderful secrets of Narnia’s golden past. A civil war erupts when Prince Caspian challenges the evildoers who stole his crown.
*Prince Caspian* is a classic good\-vs.\-evil story set at a time when the true Narnians who believe in and follow Aslan—representative of those who follow Christ—are driven underground, both physically and symbolically. The small band of believers is forced to hide out in Aslan’s How, “a huge mound which Narnians raised in very ancient times over a magical place, where there stood, and perhaps still stands, a very magical Stone.” That Stone turns out to be the Stone Table on which Aslan was sacrificed to redeem the traitorous Edmund in *The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe*, the most obvious reference to Christ’s redeeming sacrifice on the cross. Here is a picture of believers through the centuries who were reviled and persecuted for their faith, often having to hide out from the forces of evil that sought to destroy them. The description of Aslan’s How is reminiscent of the catacombs of Rome, in which believers in the ancient world lived and died during the Roman persecutions. Clearly, one of the themes of *Prince Caspian* is the continuing need for Christians to count the cost of following Christ, even to death, if necessary.
Another theme is the stark difference between believers and unbelievers, as symbolized by the Old Narnians—those who remained true to Aslan—and the Telmarines and some of the dwarves, especially Nikabrik. The Old Narnians are characterized as those who “believe in fairy tales.” King Miraz, who has usurped young Caspian’s throne, berates him: “That’s all nonsense, for babies…Only fit for babies, do you hear? You’re getting too old for that sort of stuff.” Even Trumpkin, the dwarf who is eventually convinced of the reality of Aslan, says early on, “But who believes in Aslan nowadays?” Trumpkin changes his mind, or rather has it changed for him, when he meets the great Aslan face to face. After that momentous meeting, Trumpkin becomes a true son of Narnia and will continue to be so through the next book, *The Silver Chair*. Lewis is drawing a parallel to the Christian life in that our faith will always be ridiculed and sneered at by those who will see it as foolishness. Paul reminds us that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18\).
Perhaps the most obvious theme is represented by Lucy’s journey through the story. Her struggle portrays the struggle of all Christians who must follow the path of faith and obedience, even in the face of opposition. Lucy has to go against her friends and family in order to follow Aslan (Jesus), who appears to her one night and beckons her to follow Him on the path to Aslan’s How, a path the others cannot, or will not, see. When they refuse to follow her, her heart is broken, but she abandons Aslan in order to stay with the group. When Aslan comes to her a second time, He is compassionate and loving towards her, but He makes it clear to her through her own conscience that she should have followed Him, no matter what the cost. She realizes her mistake and gains from Him the strength she needs: “Lucy buried her head in his mane to hide from his face. But there must have been magic in his mane. She could feel lion\-strength going into her. Quite suddenly she sat up. ‘I’m sorry, Aslan,’ she said. ‘I’m ready now.’”
Lucy now had the courage to follow Aslan, even if she will be the only one who does. “‘I do hope,’ said Lucy in a tremulous voice, ‘that you will all come with me. Because—because I’ll have to go with him whether anyone else does or not.’” This is a poignant lesson for Christians of all ages, but especially for children. Lucy’s heroism as she determines to follow Aslan through all the dire circumstances in the first three books teaches children three invaluable lessons: counting the cost of following Christ (Luke 14:26\-33\); the dangers and trials inherent in the Christian life (James 1:12; Revelation 2:10\); and the faithfulness of our Savior, who will lead us home and from Whom nothing can separate us (2 Thessalonians 3:3; Hebrews 10:23; Romans 8:38\-39\).
Another theme in *Prince Caspian* is the universality of questioning God’s timing and purposes. Several times the main characters wonder why Aslan doesn’t come and intervene in their struggles, why they can’t see Him, and why He has been absent from Narnia for so long. But their faith, and ours, is built up by just such circumstances until we learn, as the psalmist tells us, “As for God, His way is perfect” (Psalm 18:30\). If God’s ways are “perfect,” then we can trust that whatever He does and whatever timing He chooses, is also perfect. In the end, it is the High King Peter who proclaims, “We don’t know when He will act. In His time, no doubt, not ours. In the meantime He would like us to do what we can on our own.” As Christians, what we “do” is to live by faith in the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us (Galatians 2:20\).
|
What are the Christian themes in The Last Battle? |
Answer
Titled accordingly, *The Last Battle* is the final chapter in the “Chronicles of Narnia” series by [C.S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html). As it happens, a clever ape and a not\-so\-clever donkey discover the hide of a lion. The poor donkey sees the hide as a mere curiosity, but his companion senses an opportunity for gain. With a stitch of a sewing needle here and there, reasons the ape, his donkey friend could be made to look like a lion—and no ordinary lion, mind you, but the great Aslan himself! The deception works, and the disheartened creatures of Narnia are fooled by this counterfeit Aslan who, by his decrees, begins delivering the good land and its citizens into the hands of her enemies.
Lewis was a master storyteller, but more importantly, he was a brilliant Christian apologist who truly believed the prophetic writings of Scripture. The distinguished Oxford professor began his academic career as a staunch atheist, but a thorough examination of the Bible led him to become, in his own words, “the most reluctant convert in London.” Apart from the inspired writers of Scripture, no Christian author is quoted more widely or esteemed more highly than C. S. Lewis.
*The Last Battle* symbolizes the climactic ending of Antichrist’s reign of terror when King Jesus triumphantly returns to establish His worldwide kingdom from Jerusalem (Revelation 18\-22\). Readers are kindly spared the usual eschatological arguments concerning the timing of the rapture; thankfully, Lewis omits all the pre\-, mid\-, and post\-tribulation guesswork. What we have is a gripping allegory representing our Lord’s Second Coming minus some of the more speculative details. There are plenty of suspense and intrigue, twists and turns, and imaginative writing for captivating the restless hearts and minds of young readers—and older readers, too!
|
What should Christian parents do if they have a prodigal son (or daughter)? |
Answer
There is inherent in the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11\-32\) several principles that believing parents can use to react to and deal with children who walk contrary to the way in which the parents have raised them. Parents need to remember that once their children have reached adulthood, they are no longer under the authority of their parents.
In the story of the prodigal son, the younger son takes his inheritance and goes into a far country and wastes it. In the case of a child who is not a born\-again believer, this is just doing what comes naturally. In the case of a child who at one time made a clear profession of faith in Christ, we call this child a “prodigal.” The meaning of this word is “a person who has spent his resources wastefully,” a good description of a child who leaves home and wastes the spiritual inheritance that his parents have invested in him. All the years of nurture, teaching, love, and care are forgotten as this child rebels against God. For all rebellion is against God first, and is manifested in a rebellion against parents and their authority.
Notice that the father in the parable does not stop his child from leaving. Nor does he follow after his child to try to protect him. Rather, this parent faithfully stays at home and prays, and when that child “comes to his senses” and turns around and heads back, the parent is waiting and watching and runs to greet that child even when he is a “long way off.”
When our sons and daughters go off on their own—assuming they are of legal age to do so—and make choices that we know will bring hard consequences, parents must let go and allow them to leave. The parent does not follow after, and the parent does not interfere with the consequences that will come. Rather, the parent stays at home, keeps faithfully praying and watching for the signs of repentance and a change of direction. Until that comes, parents keep to their own counsel, do not support the rebellion, and do not interfere (1 Peter 4:15\).
Once children are of an age of legal adulthood, they are subject only to the authority of God and the delegated authority of government (Romans 13:1\-7\). As parents, we can support our prodigals with love and prayer and be ready to come alongside once they have made their move toward God. God often uses self\-inflicted misery to bring us to wisdom, and it is up to each individual to respond correctly. As parents, we cannot save our children—only God can do that. Until that time comes, we must watch, pray, and leave the matter in the hands of God. This may be a painful process, but when carried out biblically, it will bring peace of mind and heart. We cannot judge our children, only God can. In this there is a great comfort: “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25b).
|
Subsets and Splits