Enough Is Enough: Answers to Questions I've Been Asked

It is true that God made the earth and all things therein for man. This is for man's proper USE, not for his ABUSE. To illustrate, God gave us the grape for man's good and enjoyment, but this does not mean it was right for Noah to plan a vineyard, and drink of the wine and become drunk (see Genesis 9:20-21). The grapes were not given by God "to do with as we see fit." In the New Testament, Paul dealt with those that would use a similar argument to justify fornication. We gather from the context of 1 Cor. 6:13 that some were contending that as food is for the stomach, that the body is for fornication. In other words, food is intended to be eaten and enjoyed by the stomach, and the body is made to be used for every kind of sexual pleasure. Paul responded, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord" (1 Cor. 6:13). He did not give us our body to "do with as we see fit." (see also Heb. 13:4). So it is with all God has made. There is a legitimate and proper usage, and then there is distortion and misuse of what God has given. When you stop and think about it, so much of temptation is a matter of the devil taking some God-given desire but to find an outlet that God has forbidden, and is out of harmony with God's will. So far as passages that would address the matter of marijuana: The use of marijuana is a form of drunkenness. Therefore passages that condemn drunkness would apply (Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:21; Prov. 23:29-35). Also in Gal. 5:20 notice the word "witchcraft" (KJV) "sorcery" (NKJV). This is from the Greek work PHARMAKEIA, from which you can see our word pharmacy. The word in this context has to do with the abuse of drugs, which was often used by the sorcerer to bring others under his spell. But my point is that this is a specific passage that condemns the abuse of drugs. The text says that they that practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. One's attitude is so important: why would one want to smoke marijuana? Often it is done in a spirit of rebellion. Many times a question regarding whether something is right can easily be answered by asking "Would Jesus do it?" If anyone can imagine Jesus smoking marijuana, and/or encouraging others to do so, he knows nothing about the Jesus of the Bible. What should our attitude be? Do we will to do His will? (John 7:17). Is our attitude "Speak, Lord, Thy servant heareth?" (1 Sam. 3:9). When this attitude wins over so that one is not sitting in the seat of the scornful, there will be no trouble determining whether it is right to smoke marijuana or misuse other drugs.

Question: I understand the chapter and verse divisions in the Bible are not part of the original text. When were these divisions made, and who made them?

During the time of our Lord's ministry, the Old Testament was not yet divided into our present chapter and verse divisions. He did make reference to "the law, the prophets and the psalms" (Lk. 24:44). "The Law" consisted of the five books of Moses, "The Prophets" included the former prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the latter prophets (major and minor prophets). "The Psalms, as referred to in Lk. 24:44, seem to refer to the Hagiographa" (meaning, "Holy writings", consisted of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles). However, these divisions of the law, the prophets and the psalms were subdivided into smaller sections, and these in turn into subsections, so that it was not as overwhelming as it might seem at first glance to locate a specific text. (Divisions in the books of Moses were called "Parashahs"; in the prophets they were known as "Haphtarahs." The subdivisions were "Psukim", roughly analogous to our verse divisions. Early efforts for better arrangement of the Biblical text include that of Jerome (ca. 347-419/20 A.D), who divided the book of Matthew into "breves" (long chapters) and "capitula" (short chapters). Tatian (2nd century) produced a harmony of the Gospels (known as the Diatessaron) using a similar arrangement. Frederick Norris suggests this may have been created for lessons in his school, and goes on to state, "It became the normal text of many Syriac- speaking churches well into the fifth century..." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Ed.Ferguson.882). In the thirteenth century the chapter divisions as we know them were made. This work is ordinarily attributed to cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro (about 1240 A.D.). He is also know for his revision of the text of the Latin Vulgate. A major contribution was his production of a Concordance, which listed alphabetically all the words in the Vulgate, with their biblical references. McClintock & Strong state that this work "has formed the model of all concordances to the Bible" (IV.389). The verse divisions were inserted by Robert Stephens about 1551. However, his father, as well as others, had already done extensive work along this line (for further discussion see Mc.&Str.X:756- 762). It is important to bear in mind that the chapter and verse divisions, the paragraphs, the chapter headings, the center references are of human and not divine origin, and should be use with that in mind. I.e., they can be beneficial as aids to study, but they are not part of the inspired text. Some chapter divisions were unfortunate, for example Acts 7:60 and 8:1, which is narrating the death of Stephen. This point can easily be seen in translations such as ASV and others which make use of a paragraph format. I.e. the "thought" of Acts 8:1a ("And Saul was consenting unto his death.") is to be included with what precedes it, so that a better chapter division would have been after that sentence. But having said that, how thankful we should be first for the availability of God's word in our own language. Then we should be so grateful for the tremendous labor of those who arranged chapter and verse divisions which enable us to locate passages with ease.

Question: Please explain what is meant by the promise of a new heaven and a new earth.

One passage in the Old Testament containing that promise is Isaiah 65:17: "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." What sometimes is forgotten is that every passage has a context. Isaiah was a 7th century BC prophet. His work was just before the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians. Much of his book of 66 chapters has to do with the people's sin, which was the cause of the coming destruction. But there are also many prophecies within Isaiah that foretell of the coming Messiah and the "new order" that would be under the Christ, and under His new covenant. Isaiah 65:17 is one such prophecy. Isaiah, like Jeremiah, foretold of the end of the old Jewish order, and the new provisions that would be ushered in under Christ (see also Jeremiah 31:31-34). The key to understanding the "new heaven and a new earth" of v. 17 is v. 25, "...They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain...". This is the same mountain referred to in Isa. 2:2-4, which spoke of the mountain of the Lord's house that would be established in the latter days. The New Testament clearly shows that the latter days were ushered in on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:16,17. The mountain that was spoken of is identified as spiritual Mount Zion; it is "the general assembly and church of the firstborn..." (Hebrews 12:23). This is without doubt the meaning of Isaiah's prophecy in 65:17. Then in the New Testament Peter also refers to new heavens and a new earth: "Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13). Peter uses this expression, in a context referring to the second coming of Christ, to describe the final dwelling place of the righteous, which is heaven itself, as Jesus taught in John 14:1-4). Notice that the "new heavens and the new earth" are promised after the present heavens and earth have been destroyed (2 Pet. 3:10). So the context, and the teaching of other passages, show that this term (new heavens and new earth) is a figurative expression for heaven itself. Another reference is that of Revelation 21:1: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away (v.1). At the second coming, the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire but the righteous will receive their glorious state. This new heaven and new earth which John saw is the new and glorified state of the saved. As Peter stated, the present earth on which we now live will pass away. It is stored up for fire (II Pet. 3:7, 10). Just as Isaiah's new heaven and new earth looked unto the New Testament order (Isa. 65:17-25), the new heaven and new earth of Peter and John looks unto the "new order" which begins at the consummation of the Christian age. The heaven and new earth of Rev. 21:1 is that city which was looked for by the godly men and women of old, "which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb. 11:10, 13-16). Again, it is heaven itself which is being described. The reward of the saved is in heaven (Mt. 5:12; 6:19; John 14:1-3; 1 Pet. 1:3,4). There is no passage that promises everlasting life on the earth.

Question: In Leviticus 11:6, how is that the hare, with its single stomach, is here classified with animals that "chew the cud"?

In Leviticus 11:3 two general rules are given by which it might be known what animals were permitted to Israel for food: one which has a split hoof and chews the cud. The text of Lev. 11:6 states: "The hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you...". It is true that the hare, as well as the rock hyrax, or rock badger (v.5, rendered coney NIV) do not technically ruminate. It is not God's purpose here to provide a complete scientific classification, but rather He is giving a simple and practical "rule of thumb" for distinguishing between clean and unclean quadrupeds. Both the rock badger and the hare work their jaws in such a way as to appear to ruminate. I have read that this sort of animal chews half an hour after eating: therefore they were classified popularly with cud chewers. Their thoroughness in chewing falls within the empirical significance of the Hebrew phrase. To flatter oneself that he has discovered a foolish mistake on Moses' part because the hare has a single stomach, and does not have the four stomach compartments of the ruminanita is to create a problem where none exists. It is to misunderstand the purpose of the passage. There were several reasons for the dietary restrictions.

Israel

was set apart as God's holy nation. They were to be a separate people. They were in covenant relationship with God, and every detail of their lives was to reflect this. The dietary restrictions were an extension of this principle, even as further reading in this passage shows: ..."you shall be holy; for I am holy..." (Lev. 11:44,45). That is the "big picture." But there may have been other considerations. Some students of Scripture believe that some of the dietary rules were given because of idolatrous practices of

Israel

's neighbors. For example, the Canadian scholar Peter C. Craigie (now deceased, former Associate Professor of Religious Studies at The University of Calgary) says this regarding the pig: "...the sacred associations of the pig/boar with certain Canaanite-Syrian cults may have made the pig particularly reprehensible to the Hebrews..."(NICO.Deut.231). Even if

Israel

then, or we today, may not understand WHY God commanded or forbad a given thing, the fact is, He is God. He is our creator, and the sustainer of life. We are the creatures. Our part is to believe and obey His will. One other observation I would make is that these dietary restrictions, were applicable during the Mosaic dispensation. Under the New Testament, this distinction between clean and unclean animals was removed. Jesus, in Mark 7:19, declared all meats clean (Mt. 15:17-20; Acts 10:10-15). But the principle is permanent; that is, Christians must have discernment, and avoid what is unclean (sinful) (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 1:9-11; Heb. 5:14).

Question: Comment on the claim that Jesus speaks to some people today, either audibly, or by making a "mental impression on them"?

The question really becomes one of whether the Bible is sufficient, or must we look for later revelations. In 1 Cor. 2:10ff. we learn that the Holy Spirit searched the "things of God" and revealed them to the apostles. That which the Spirit revealed unto them was preached orally, and also put in written form, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Paul "wrote" what had been revealed to him so that others could "read" (Eph. 3:3). God has granted unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). In Eph. 3:3-5 we are taught that God made known the truth of Christ by his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This fulfilled the promise Jesus had previously made to the apostles in John 16:13, that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Spirit did this. But the point is, that this inspired revelation is complete. We are furnished completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16,17). The faith has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This does not leave room for additional revelations. Consider the principle of Gal. 1:9. cf.. 2 John 9. This word is God's power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and is the standard by which all will be judged (Jas. 2:12; John 12:48). Jesus calls by the Gospel (2 Thess. 2:14). Jesus speaks to us through the word (Heb.1:1,2). Consider how Jesus speaks to the churches (Rev. 2:1f). Likewise, the Spirit speaks expressly (1 Tim.4:1f), and, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (Rev. 2:7). Regarding having a mental impression that Jesus is speaking to one today: Remember that our feelings are not infallible. They are not our standard (Prov. 14:12; Jer. 10:23). Paul looked back at that time when he had been in error and still was able to say, "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day" (Acts 23:1; 26:9). "The heart is deceitful above all things..." (Jer. 17:9). This is why we have the Bible. The evidence whereby we may know if we stand approved before God is not our feelings, even in good conscience, but rather whether our conduct is in harmony with God's word (Phil. 1:27; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22-23). There is no indication that Jesus speaks directly to anyone today, with either an audible voice, or through making mental impressions. If we want to hear Him speak, we must listen to His word, the Bible, and specifically the New Testament. Jesus knew that this is how faith in Him would come about: "I do not pray for these [apostles] alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20).

Question: "Do you think the world is coming to an end very soon?

I have in my possession a booklet which lists "88 reasons why the Rapture will occur in 1988." We entered the year 1990, and time has marched on to the present moment. This is one of many erroneous efforts to set a date for the end of time (or for "end- time" events). William Miller set the date for Christ's coming at 1843/44. Joseph Smith gave 1891. Officials in the Jehovah's Witnesses' organization have set the date as 1914, 1925, 1941, and more recently in 1975. All such predictions have proven to be false. Deut.18:22: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hat not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shall not be afraid of him." Christ's coming will be sudden. 1 Thes. 5:3. Some refer to Matt. 24, which speaks of 1) the appearance of false Christs (v.5), 2) wars and rumors of wars (v.6); 3) earthquakes, famines and pestilences (v.7); 4) persecution v.9); 5) many would stumble (v.10); 6) false prophets would arise (v.11); 7) the gospel would be preached unto all nations (v.14); and 8) they would see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (v.15). These signs were to be to Jesus' disciples in Judea who were warned to flee (vv.16-20). Jesus was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. He said, "This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished" (v.34). Some of that very generation were still alive then Titus and his Roman army completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. Christ gave no signs of the end of the world, only an admonition to watch (Matt.25:13: "Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour." (cf. 2 Pet.3:10-12). The reason Christ has not returned yet is not because the Lord is slack concerning His promises. He is granting yet more time and opportunity for men to repent (2 Pet. 3:9). He desires that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:3,4). When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound, time shall be no more. No more opportunities to prepare, to get ready, to obey the Gospel.

Question: What does the Bible say about abortion?

God recognizes the unborn as a living child (Matt.1:18; Lk.1:41- When Elizabeth was pregnant, the unborn "babe" leaped in her womb at the salutation of Mary; Lk.1:15). The same word (brephos) is used to denote the newborn child (Lk. 2:12,16) as well as the older child (Lk. 18:15). Consider also Psa. 139:13: "For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb" (NASB). If it is wrong to kill an infant anytime after birth, it must also be wrong to kill him anytime before birth. Birth only changes an infant's living quarters, its dining habits, and its air passageway. Pro.6:16-17 God hates those who shed innocent blood. What is often the root cause: Selfishness 2 Tim. 3:2; w/o natural affection Rom. 1:31. cf. Eph. 4:18-19. Party who is totally innocent in the matter is the unborn infant. Choosing the route of abortion gives the death penalty to the innocent baby. Countless couples wait in line for years to adopt a baby. Abortion is not the answer. Sex education courses, instruction about "safe sex" is not the answer. Abortion grows out of a heart of rebellion and disobedience to the will of God. Only the word of God will "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children" (Lk.1:68). David Watts: Abortions kill. Something living is killed in every successful abortion. That's a biological fact, not a subjective moral judgment. Abortion kills something kills something with life. Before the abortion, something is living; after the abortion, it is dead. People trying to defend abortions (or sell abortions) often talk about "terminating a pregnancy (of fetus)," or removing "tissue." That sounds much cleaner than talking about killing an unborn baby. The Scriptures, however, refer to the unborn in words descriptive of human life. For example, after John the baptist's conception, but before his birth, he is referred to in the Scriptures as a "babe." The Bible says: "And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb" (Lk.1:41, see also v. 44). The same word God used to describe the infants Herod murdered in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16) is used to describe John before his birth. He didn't become a "babe" at birth--he was a baby before birth. An abortion would have killed him--it would have killed a baby. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. No doubt the idea that what abortions kill isn't human life was invented to excuse the slaughter of unborn babies by abortion. It certainly didn't come from the Bible. It is contrary to what the Scriptures teach. It is calculated that an unborn baby is killed every three minutes. That's more than 4,000 babies each day. Behind the smoke screen of high-sounding phrases, like, "pro-choice" are 20 million dead babies--killed by abortions over the last 15 years. (Gospel Anchor, Jan.1992). Related Question: Isn't abortion breaking of the 10 commandments? Abortion is shedding innocent blood. God hates those who shed innocent blood (Prov.6:16-17). God recognizes the unborn as a living child (Matt. 1:18; Lk. 1:41). Just as it is wrong to kill an infant anytime after birth, it is wrong to kill him anytime before birth. Birth only changes an infant's living quarters, its dining habits, and its air passageway. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was one of the 10 commandments; that commandment is included in the New Covenant, the law of Christ, under which we live today (Matt. 5:21ff). Yes, God's law which forbids killing is violated by abortion.

Question: "Will the U.S. fall before Jesus comes?" Mt. 25:13. We know not the day not the hour of Christ's return.

God rules in the affairs of men Acts 17:26; Dan. 4. Prov. 14:34: "Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people." Prov. 16:12: "It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness; For the throne is established by righteousness." "The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, Even all the nations that forget God.

Question: Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son; why did God not tell him to give up his wealth instead?

There is no doubt that offering Isaac on the altar was the hardest test Abraham ever faced. No doubt Abraham also wished that God had instead commanded him to sacrifice his wealth. It would have been difficult for any loving parent to sacrifice his child. But if that is all we see, we miss the point. The ultimate test of faith was whether Abraham believed God would do what He said He would do re. the Promises. This point is seen in Heb. 11:17,18. In the record of Gen. 22, what is really sacrificed? a. Not Isaac, v. 12. b. The ram v. 13, but this is anticlimactic, not the main point. c. Abraham's will, logic, emotion: Abraham sacrificed himself; he truly gave self to the Lord. 4. We tend to say, I'm glad the Lord does not require that of us! But in principle, He does. Mt.6:33; 2 Cor. 8:5; Gal. 2:20. Question: Explain Acts 19 The twelve rebaptized. Intro: The historian now reaches the point for which he had so hurriedly passed over the voyage of Paul from Ephesus to Antioch, and his land journey thence through Galatia and Phrygia (NMcG.150). Paul is permitted at last to begin a work which he had in mind when, on his preceding tour, he was "forbidden by the H.S. to speak the word in Asia, 16:6; and also to fulfill the appointment which he had left here on his journey homeward, 18:21 (ibid). Disciples: word means a learner. In this particular passage the word does not mean a Christian. When ye believed as used here, refers to conversion. The Holy Spirit here would not refer to the ordinary gift of the H.S. All believers receive H.S., Acts 2:38. Under consideration then would be the miraculous. This is further shown "by the fact that it is this which he conferred upon them at the close of the conversation" (ibid.151). This of course could be given to them only by an apostle (Acts 8:17,18). It is not likely that they had never heard of the existence of the H.S. The O.T. is full of references to Him. Probable meaning is that they did not know that the H.S. had been given. Thus they were ignorant of the events of Pentecost, and of the N.T. being revealed. Since they not only could not work miracles, but did not even know that the H.S. had come, this raised the question of whether they had been scripturally baptized. They were either taught by Apollos, or someone like him. They were ignorant of the baptism of Christ. Paul showed them the temporary nature of John's work in pointing forward to Christ. Now that Jesus had come and had accomplished the Father's work, men were to render obedience to Him. A baptism of repentance Mk.1:14,15. Upon hearing and believing this, they were baptized into the name of Jesus. Lessons: Here were men who had been baptized but did not know of the coming of Christ or of the H.S. Because of this, they had to be rebaptized. Application: If today a person is baptized to enter a denomination, he does not understand the purpose of baptism. If one is baptized thinking he is saved, as is almost always the case among denominations, he has not been scripturally baptized, for scriptural baptism is "for the remission of sins. If a person were baptized just to please someone else, the same would apply. After their baptism, Paul laid his hands on them, imparting to them miraculous gifts. This is the only way that men besides apostles could work miracles. Only apostles could impart miraculous gifts. 1 Tim. 4:14 is misused. with (meta) means to accompany. 2 Tim. 1:6 tells us how Timothy received gift. (dia)--"the means or instrument by which anything is affected" (Thayer.133) Thus when the last apostle died, the power to impart the ability to perform miracles ceased. When the last person on whom an apostle laid hands died, miracles ceased. Therefore there is not a man living on earth today who can perform miracles. Extended preaching at Ephesus Preached in synagogue 3 months. Some were hardened and disobedient, thus Paul separated himself from them. cf. 18:5-6. We learn that when one becomes hardened and disobedient to the Word, the time has come to look for someone else to teach (Mt. 7:6). 9-10) Paul then began to preach daily in the school of Tyrannus. This was done for 2 years. 11) Special miracles. Similar to woman touching garment (Mk.5:25- 27). Purpose of these and all miracles (Heb.2:3,4). NASB: "extraordinary miracles": All miracles are extraordinary, but there were extra-special. They were wrought without personal contact with the patient. (Reese.677) 12) Reese: Latin origin. Handkerchief: speaks of the towel used to wipe sweat from the brow or face. We might call it a hand towel, or shop towel, or even a sweatband. The word "apron" speaks of the short apron worn around the waist by the craftsmen as they worked-- worn to preserve the clothes from wear and tear and soil. As Paul was working at his trade of tentmaking it would have been common to use such garments. The picture behind the words "carried away from his body to the sick" is of Christians coming to Paul as he was working and carrying away with them the very towels and aprons which he had been wearing. Of course, the power to heal was not in the cloth. We must never forget that God is the source of power behind genuine miracles. The efficacy of such media stands obviously on the same footing as that of the hem of Jesus' garment (Mt. 9:20-21), the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15) or the clay used in the healing of the blind man (Jno. 9:6). There are men today, on radio and TV, who urge their listeners to send in for clothes that have been blessed--apparently taking their example from this text. However, we contend that miracles in NT times were wrought to credential messengers; and since the modern so-called miracle workers do not even preach the NT message, their works are either fake or wrought by a power other than the Divine (677-8) 13) Jewish impostors. These events manifested to everyone, especially to magicians, the difference between the power of the apostle Paul, and these impostors. Because of this, many gave up their magic and burned their books, amounting to several thousand dollars.

Question: Redefining Adultery (part one)

Biblical teaching on God's marriage law, including divorce and remarriage, is clear. God's plan is one man and one woman making a lifetime commitment to each other. "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:6). Thereis only one reason for divorce and remarriage; that is the cause of fornication Matt. 19:9. Jesus said,"whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (see also Mk 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2,3) Do you see that adultery is biblically defined, not only as the "extra-marital affair" where one is unfaithful to his spouse, but also, adultery is committed when one divorces his spouse and marries another, and further, when one marries one who has been divorced? When a divorce has occurred, unless one has put away his spouse for the cause of fornication, one must "remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband" (1 Cor. 7:11). Reconciliation may not possible because of the unwillingness of the former spouse, etc. In that case one must remain unmarried (1 Cor. 7:11). A third option, namely remarriage (except reconciliation to one's legitimate spouse) is not given. If you are the one who has remarried (not having put away your spouse for the cause of fornication), you must recognize that your marriage is an adulterous relationship (Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2,3). One must cease the practice of sin; one cannot continue in the adulterous relationship and have God's approval (Eph. 5:3-6; Col.3:5-8). Efforts have been made for some time to "redefine" adultery. We are being told that adultery is not a sexual act, and that you cannot "live in adultery." Instead, supposedly, adultery is when one breaks the marriage contract; it is when one divorces! There is only reason for this new definition and that is is because of what it attempts to accommodate. You see, if adultery is "covenant breaking" (divorce), and does not refer to the ongoing relationship (involving sexual union), then when one repents of adultery, he only repents of covenant breaking, and then is free to continue in the marriage. This is a case of grabbing at straws to try to support a conviction that some want, with no support other than the fact that they want it. "This novel notion has but one design--the accommodation of unscriptural divorce and remarriage, and it is without a shred of evidence, both linguistically, and in the overall context of the Bible" (Jackson.130). These efforts to redefine adultery, as if it it so hard to understand the meaning of the term from the contexts of pertinent passages, reminds me of the scribe in Luke 10, who acted as if it were a tremendous problem to define "neighbor." "But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'" It's really not all that hard. When Jesus told the parable of the "Good Samaritan" he had no trouble defining neighbor. His problem was that he wasn't ready to be that kind of neighbor! These attempts to bypass the teaching of our Lord also reminds me of Balaam, who knew what the Lord said about Balaam's going to curse

Israel

, (God said, "Thou shalt not go"- Num. 22:12). But when promised more riches and honor, Balaam said to the messengers, "Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what Jehovah will speak unto me more (Num 22:18). His problem was not that he needed more information; he was trying to find a way around what God said, in order that he could do what he wanted. We need to look for truth instead of looking for loopholes around the truth! It is not difficult to understand the biblical usage of the word "adultery." The Greek term is Moixeia, defined as illicit sexual conduct of a married person. Adultery is an act that a man does "with another man's wife" (Lev.20:10). Hosea told worldly, idol-worshiping

Israel

, "let her put away her fornications from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts" (Hos.2:2). The allusion to an immoral embrace is just too plain to miss (Jackson.131). Consider Matt 5:28: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Do men lustfully fantasize about breaking covenants? (ibid). Do you remember the women brought to Jesus in who had been "caught in adultery, in the very act" (John 8:4). In what act had she been apprehended? Covenant breaking? Slamming the door as she abandoned her marriage? Had they seen her tearing up the marriage certificate? No, it is not a difficult task to define adultery. We read in Heb. 13:4, "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." From this passage you can clearly see that fornicators and adulterers "defile the bed." Do you remember Reuben, the son of Jacob, who went up to his father's bed. then defiled it? Gen 49:4). The text says, he "lay with Bilhah his father's concubine" (Gen.35:22). This is what he writer of Hebrews calls "adultery." Consider also the Lord's teaching in Matthew 5:32: "But I say unto you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marriesa woman who is divorced commits adultery." This passage is focusing upon the position that one puts his spouse in when he puts her away (not for fornication). Jesus says that he "causes her to commit adultery." But if adultery is to be defined as "covenant breaking" how can the passage make sense? Did she break her covenant with him? No. She has broken no covenant. The text says that he put her away. But when she marries another man, Jesus said that she is committing adultery. If adultery is simply "covenant breaking", how could a person who has not broken the covenant be guilty of it? This clearly reveals the fallacy of defining adultery solely in terms of the breaking of the covenant. (Jackson.59). The correct understanding of the passage is this: She commits adultery, because she has been put away for some frivolous reason, and therefore is still bound (as per

Rom.

7:2-3). But when she marries another man, she commits adultery. She has not committed adultery the moment he puts her away. But the fact is that most divorced people remarry. It is from that perspective that Jesus speaks. If and when she engages in sexual activity later with someone else, she is committing adultery. But Jesus' point is that the one who put her away is co-responsible for it; he put her in that position, and thus will share in her guilt. We must accept the Lord's definition of adultery.

Question: Redefining Adultery (part two)

In part one, we wrote: "Biblical teaching on God's marriage law, including divorce and remarriage, is clear. God's plan is one man and one woman making a lifetime commitment to each other. 'So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate' (Matt. 19:6). There is only one reason for divorce and remarriage; that is the cause of fornication (Matt. 19:9). Jesus said...'whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.'" In that same article we considered some efforts to "redefine" adultery. We are being told that adultery is not a sexual act--it is "covenant breaking"-- and that you cannot "live" in adultery. Some now say there is no such thing as an "adulterous marriage." In this article we want to deal further with arguments which attempt to circumvent the Biblical teaching of Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2,3 and 1 Cor. 7:10-12 (Please read these passages). Argument: "I've gained new insight because I'VE RESTUDIED this matter." Answer: It is commendable to restudy, and to be open minded. But shouldn't it raise some questions, when God's marriage law has been simple enough to understand, perhaps for years, and then I gain new insight[?] when I'm the one who is divorced, or my children have divorced and perhaps remarried? Sometimes we might hear of a policeman who has been taken off a case because he is personally involved; it is feared that he might not be rational in his choices and conduct because he has lost his objectivity; he is too close to the situation to see clearly. Argument: "That's easy for you to say. You've got a wife to go home to." Answer: Do you mean that others should feel guilty because they have a good marriage? What does the marital status of others have to do with the question? Don't you want the help of someone who can see clearly; whose vision is not distorted by his emotional state and personal involvement? Someone who has nothing to defend and can look at these matters objectively? Argument: This is TOO HARD! You're putting me in an impossible Position. Answer: Prov. 13:15: The way of the transgressor is hard. Our tendency is to blame somebody else. The slothful servant in the "Parable of the Talents" told his master, "You're too hard" (Matt. 25:24). That certainly did not excuse his disobedience. The disciples understood the teaching of our Lord to be strict. Understanding the Lord to say that marriage is a lifelong commitment of one man and one woman, and the only cause for which one could divorce his spouse is that of fornication, and further, if one divorces for any other cause, when he remarries he is committing adultery--their response was this: "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt. 19:10). They felt it was excessively strict; that celibacy would be better! "But if His teaching here is of such a nature that one can divorce and remarry multiple times, and then simply say, 'I'm sorry for having broken all these covenants, but I will stay with my present mate;'....Where is the difficulty in such a practice? A man would never be deprived of sexual satisfaction. But the Lord indicated that there were situations that would be otherwise" When Jesus' audience understood what He taught (re. bread of life; seeking eternal life, etc.), they said that it was hard (John 6:60). Then they turned away and walked no more with Him (v. 66). What was Jesus' response? He did not run after them, nor did He attempt to accommodate His teaching to suit them. Rather, "Then Jesus said to the twelve, Do you also want to go away?" (John 6:67). Keep in mind that this is the Messiah that would not break a bruised reed, nor would He quench the smoking flax; yet discipleship is on His terms, not ours! If you want to go to heaven badly enough, you will do whatever it takes. Have you noticed the context of Matt. 5:29-30? Argument: No one in the Bible was ever told to leave an unscriptural marriage. Answer If the Bible gave a specific instance of repentance from every individual sin, how big a book would the Bible be? Acts 2:38 says "Repent." That is inclusive of every sin. Rom. 6:1,2 addresses the question of continuing in sin: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" Jesus said that the people of Nineveh "repented at the preaching of Jonah" (Matt. 12:41). But Jonah 3:10 says, "Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way..." When one repents, he turns from that which is sinful. That includes adulterous marriages. Ezra 9,10 deals with the principle of repentance from forbidden marriages. In Mark 6:18, John told Herod Antipas, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." The present tense form is used. The force of the passage is, "It is not lawful for you to keep on having her." If Herod were to be right with God, he could not continue in that relationship. There is no question that every past sin is forgiven when one obeys the Gospel. But which of those sins can you continue in and have God's approval? It is inconceivable that penitent hearts would continue in fornication, adultery, homosexuality; as would be true of hating, lying, or stealing. There is only one way to get out of adultery, when you are living in an adulterous marriage, and that is to sever the relationship that you are having with that person. One cannot rob a bank and keep the money, and at the same time be in right relationship with God. Argument: You teach that a MURDERER can be forgiven, but an ADULTERER cannot be forgiven. Answer: This is a misrepresentation. The Bible does not teach that an adulterer cannot be forgiven. The murder who is forgiven is the one who repents. He does not continue to commit murder. 2. The language of scripture is clear: a. It is not lawful for you to have [keep on having] her (Mark 6:18). b. To continue in the unapproved marriage is designated by the Lord's words, committeth adultery (Mt.5:32; 19:9; etc.) c. "If, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress" (Rom. 7:3). Since these verses teach an ongoing sinful relationship, to have a parallel situation would require a murderer who continues to commit murder. One who has committed a sin that is in the past, of which he repents, is not continuing to practice it. If you murder a man, you cannot bring him back to life, but you can refrain from murdering others. Argument: But you cannot live in Adultery. Answer: As indicated above, Mk. 6:18, Mt.5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:3 does show "living in adultery." Colossians 3:5 forbids fornication and other sins, adding "in which you also once walked when you lived in them" (v.7) Adultery is one form of fornication; if you can live in fornication, you can certainly live in adultery. Conclusion. When truth has been clearly set forth, but one continues to quibble, and calls for "discussions" that he might air his views, which are contrary to sound doctrine, the point is reached that one becomes a "gainsayer" (those who contradict, NKJV Tit.1:9) whose mouth must be stopped (Titus 1:9-11) a. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith (Titus 1:12). b. If one continues to be factious, reject him (Titus 3:10).

Question: Discuss the Origin, Nature of Angels.

Origin: Angels are created beings. Only deity possesses the intrinsic quality of eternality. Psa. 148:2,5; Neh. 9:6. Nature: They possess the nature of neither deity nor humanity. Scripture does affirm that they are "spirits" (Heb. 1:14). A spirit is not physical, i.e., it does not possess flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Angels thus do not engage in physical relationships, such as marriage (Mt. 22:30. Accountable to God, for some sinned (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), and sin is defined as transgression of divine law (1 John 3:4). When angels sin, the Gospel plan of redemption is not applicable to them: "For verily not to angels does he give help, but he gives help to the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16, ASV). Related question: "As a child we're taught about guardian angels. Are there really guardian angels? Where is it in the Bible? As to the idea that each person has a guardian angel who remains with him for life, protecting him from harm and helping him in various ways, there is no Scriptural support or basis. The Bible does have much to say about the function of angels. a. Lk.15:10: "There is joy in the presence of the angels over one sinner who repents." b. Lk. 16:22: At death, Lazarus was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. c. Speaking of angels, Heb. 1:14 says, "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation? As stated, Matt. 18:10 is sometimes considered as supportive of the idea of personal guardian angels. "See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." a. See context. Note first that the "little ones" of. v.10 are the same as those of v.3. Not speaking of infants, toddlers, young children, but people of an age of accountability, who are humble, and teachable (as He wanted the apostles who asked the question of v.1 to be). Jesus has discussed requirements for His kingdom. Its members will be poor in spirit (Matt. 5:3), humble (Matt. 18:3-4), and will be admitted to it without these traits. If his disciples become like that, they will belong to the "little children"; if they look down on them, they will share in the woes (vv.8-9). See also 1 John 2:12: "I write unto you, my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." 3 John 4. "Greater joy have I none than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth." Reverts to v. 5. "Don't despise one" as one would tend to do if he esteemed self as "greatest in the kingdom." In ways not revealed in detail, God uses his angels to care for His children (as per Heb.1:14). The idea of guardian angels, one being assigned to each one is not supported by the text. The point is, that such (people, the "little ones") are important to God; you had better take care that you not despise them, or cause them to stumble (see v. 6,7). Acts 12:15: "It is his (Peter's) angel" does not state a Scriptural doctrine but only the superstitious ideas of those who were alarmed by Rhoda's report (Lenski, Matt.692).

Question: Who is the Antichrist and when will he come?

The apostle John is the only inspired writer who uses the word "antichrist" (1 Jno.2:18,22; 4:3; 2 Jno.7). "Anti" is a Greek preposition which means "against." "Antichrist" is defined as one who stands against Christ. One who is a defiant adversary of Christ. It should be distinguished from the "false Christs" foretold by Jesus (Matt.24:5,24; Mk.13:22). An "antichrist" opposes and denies Christ, while "false Christs" pretend to be Christ. John also declares that "many antichrists" had already arisen at the very time he was writing (2:18:4:3). It is not then, a question of when will "antichrist" come, but of recognizing all such opponents of Christ who are presently in the world. This we are able to do by contrasting their teaching with that of the apostles of Christ (4:1-6). Some talk and write much about a certain individual, whom they suppose is the "antichrist," that will soon appear to rule the world. All such speculation is purely fanciful (Source: Jimmy Thomas) Related Question: Is the anti-Christ alive today? 1) The word anti-christ is found 4X. 1 Jno.2:18,22;4:3; 2 Jno.7. 2) From these verses we learn that there are many anti-christs (1 Jno.2:18). 3) He denies the Father and the Son (1 Jno.2:22). 4) Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God (1 Jno. 4:3). 5) Those who confess not that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (2 Jno.7). 6) To the extent that one is guilty of the sins specified in these passages, one is thus to be identified with the anti-christ mentioned in the Bible.

Question: Do you believe "once saved, always saved"?

Salvation is used to [1] denote deliverance from sins that are past, and [2] the eternal deliverance to be obtained at the coming of Christ predicated upon a life of faithfulness (Frost,I.137). John 14:1ff; 2 Tim.4:6-8. When one obeys the Gospel of Christ he is "delivered from the power of darkness" and is "translated into the kingdom of [God's] dear Son" (Col.1:13). Raised to walk in newness of life. Must abide in Christ Jno.14:4-6). Consider the following position advocated by one who believed in the impossibility of apostasy: "We take the position that a Christian's sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul....All the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger." 1. Passages Gal. 5:4; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 10:38-39; 2 Pet. 2:20; 1 Cor. 9:27; Rev. 2; Acts 8; Gal.6:1f; Jas.5. Heb. 3:12. 2. Emphasis in the N.T. on continuing Acts 2:42; 11:22-23; 1 Cor. 15:58; Heb. 12:1,2; 1 Cor. 9:24- 10:13. Perseverance of the saints affirms that the elect are in the grace of God forever and cannot fully apostatize so as to be lost eternally in hell. It is otherwise known as "once in grace, always in grace," or "once saved, always saved." The doctrine is stated thusly: "They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit can neither totally nor finally fall away from the status of Grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved" (The Confession of Faith, Chapter XVII, Section 1. Every passage used by the Calvinist on this proposition deals with the security of the believer. The Bible teaches the security of the believer, and we are committed to the defence of such. The question at issue, and the one which the Calvinist must answer, is as follows: Can a believer become an unbeliever? Can a faithful child of God become an unfaithful child of God? The question is not what shall happen to the sheep that is securely in the fold, who hears and heeds the Shepherd's commands, but what will happen to the sheep that refuses to hear the Shepherd's voice, jumps the fence, sheds his fleece and dies on the mountains of sin? Here is the crux of the matter. This doctrine is closely related to Calvin's teaching on irresistible grace. We will quote from Calvin to see what he teaches. "God, therefore, begins the good work in us by exciting in our hearts a desire, a love, and a study of righteousness, or (to speak more correctly) by turning, training, and guiding our hearts unto righteousness; and he completes this good work by confirming us unto perseverance" (Institutes, Book II, Chap. 3, Section 6). Having understood how perseverance fits into Calvin's system of doctrine, and particularly how it relates to irresistible grace, let us allow Calvin to state the doctrine. "As to the common saying, that after we have given admission to the first grace, our efforts co-operate with subsequent grace, this is my answer: If it is meant that after we are once subdued by the power of the Lord to the obedience of righteousness, we proceed voluntarily, and are inclined to follow the movement of grace, I have nothing to object. For it is most certain, that where the grace of God reigns, there is also this readiness to obey. And whence this readiness, but just that the Spirit of God being everywhere consistent with himself, after first begetting a principle of obedience, cherishes and strengthens it for perseverance?" (Institutes, Book II, Chapter 3, Section 11). "...That the original freedom of man was to be able not to sin, but that we have a much greater freedom--viz. not to be able to sin," and, "Therefore, to meet the infirmity of the human will, and prevent it from failing, how weak soever it might be, divine grace was made to act on it inseparably and uninterrup-tedly" (Ibid., Section 13). However, leaving much confusion as to just what his position is, he says: "...though purged by His sanctification, we are still beset by many vices and much weakness, so long as we are enclosed in the prison of the body..." (Ibid., Section 14). As an obvious and familiar explanation for the numerous apostates in the Bible, he says: "...just as a tree not planted deep enough may take root, but will in process of time wither away, though it may for several years not only put forth leaves and flowers, but produce fruit" (Ibid., Chapter 2, Section 12). Passages Used To Support Perseverance of the Saints: Before we list these passages, we wish to point out that the Bible teaches the security of the believer, and we need to draw much comfort and assurance from this fact. But the Bible also teaches that a believer may become an unbeliever, that the obedient can become the disobedient. The saint may voluntarily renounce the gospel and forsake Christ. 1. Eph. 4:30; 6:10. 2. John 5:24 3. John 10:28-29. 4. 1 John 3:1. 5. Rom. 8:35-39. The Possibility of Apostasy The Bible teaches that it is possible for a child of God to apostatize and to be finally lost in hell. The following arguments are a summary of principal examples of apostasy. I. The case of Adam and Eve. A. Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). He was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). B. Adam was uncorrupted by sin. Yet he was no more able to resist temptation than the one who, according to Calvinism, is totally depraved. C. It is not enough to evade the force of these Scriptures by saying that Adam and Eve were children by creation, but Christians are children by adoption. The same warning is given to us (2 Cor. 11:3). II. When the righteous turns away (Ezek. 18:26; 33:18). A. This defends the equality of God's ways. III. If you forsake God, he will forsake you (2 Chron. 15:2). IV. If you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever (1 Chron. 28:9). V. The Lord departed from Saul. A. God chooses Saul (1 Sam. 10:24). B. The Spirit of the Lord came upon him (v. 10). C. The Lord anoints him (v. 1). D. He was turned into another man (v. 6). E. God was with him (v. 7). F. God gave him another heart (v. 9). G. Saul said, "I have sinned" (1 Sam. 15:24). H. The Lord departed from him and became his enemy (1 Sam. 28:16). I. Saul kills himself (1 Sam. 31:4-6). God says, "If thou forsake him he will cast thee off forever" (1 Chron. 28:9). VI. The example of the nation of

Israel

. A. My people (Exod. 3:7). B. People of the inheritance (Deut. 4:20). C. Children of God (Deut. 14:1). D. A holy people (v. 2). E. God favored them (Rom. 9:4). F. The Lord warned them (Deut. 11:26-28). G. A remnant will be saved (Rom. 9:27). H. Natural branches broken off (Rom. 11:21-22). I. Christians can fall after same example of unbelief (Heb. 4:11). J. These things written for our admonition (1 Cor. 10:11). VII. Faith and unbelief. A. Faith overthrown (2 Tim. 2:18). B. Cast off faith (1 Tim. 5:12). C. Depart from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1). D. Have made shipwreck (1 Tim. 1:19). VIII. The crown at the end. A. If you hold fast in memory (1 Cor. 15:2). B. If you hold fast unto the end (Heb. 3:6, 3, 14). C. If you continue in the faith (Col. 1:23). D. End of faith...salvation of your souls (1 Pet. 1:9). E. Be faithful unto death (martyrdom) (Rev. 2:10). IX. Warnings to Christians. A. A falling away first (2 Thess. 2:3). B. Fail of the grace of God (Heb. 12:15). C. Some blind and forgetful (2 Pet. 1:9). D. Give diligence (2 Pet. 1:10). E. Found peace in Him (2 Pet. 3:14). F. Being led away (2 Pet. 3:17). G. Fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). H. Save a soul from death (Jas. 5:19-20). I. Turned aside after Satan (1 Tim. 5:15). J. Weak brother perish (1 Cor. 8:11). K. Forsaken the right way (2 Pet. 2:14-15). L. Latter end worse than beginning (2 Pet. 2:20). M. Better not to have known the way (2 Pet. 2:21). N. Your adversary the devil (1 Pet. 5:8). O. Lest I should be cast away (1 Cor. 9:27). P. Abide not in me, cast forth as a branch (John 15:1-6). Q. Impossible to renew them again (Heb. 6:4-6). R. God will take away his part (Rev. 22:19; 20:15). S. Watch, therefore (Matt. 25:13). X. Individuals who turned away. A. Simon (Acts 8:12-24). B. Demas (2 Tim. 4:10; cf. Col. 4:14; Phile. 24; 1 John 2:15). C. Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:19-20). D. Judas: called to be an apostle (Matt. 10:1); ordained to be with Christ (Mark 3:14); sent out to preach, power to cast out demons (Mark 3:14-15). God gave him to Christ (John 17:12). None of them is lost but the son of perdition (v. 12). Churches. Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-18).

Question: After Armageddon will heaven come to earth?

Armageddon appears only once in the Bible. At the pouring out of sixth bowl of wrath, Rev.16:16 reads, "And they gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew Har-Mageddon." The Bible, as well as secular history, records several battles, some of them crucial, which were fought in the hills of Megiddo. Here

Israel

, under command of Barak, gained a great victory over the Canaanites (Jud.5,6). In the same valley God scattered the host of Midian by the hand of Gideon with only three hundred men (Jud. 7). Armageddon stands for conflict between good and evil, truth and error, light and darkness, God and Satan. It is a spiritual struggle, not some earthly war. In Christ we are assured of victory (Rom.8:37). The Bible knows nothing of the sensational visions of premillennialists and dispensationlists, who forecast the imminent marshaling of all armies of the world into the Valley of Megiddo for the world's last great war, which they call Armageddon. Heaven will not come to earth. Earth will be burned up (2 Pet.3). Saved will go to heaven (Jno.14).

Question: Is there a true atheist?

What is the difference between an atheist and a non-believer? The word atheist refers to one who does not believe that there is a God. I suppose by a "true" atheist, the caller means one who really, deep down, does not believe that God exists. God, in His word, acknowledges that there are those who do not believe in Him. In Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The verse continues, "They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good." (From Leupold, Psalms.p.139:) Fools have always said there is no God...When men deny God's existence or live as though He were not, then wickedness prevails: men "have acted wickedly, made their doings abominable." Atheism bears its proper fruit in rotten conduct. No one becomes an atheist because of a lack of evidence in the existence of God. The multi-faceted design of our universe crys out that there is a God. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge." The things that are made cannot be explained apart from the eternal power of God. To the contrary, men become atheists, in spite of overwhelming evidence for His existence, because they refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28). Psa.10:4: "The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God." Occasionally, there is an atheist who is honest enough to admit his true motive for atheism: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption....The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do....For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."(Aldous Huxley. "Confessions of a Professed Atheist." IN: Report: Perspective on the News. Vol.3 June, 1966.p 19, as quoted in Reason and Revelation, Vol.1. p.27). Regarding the difference between an atheist, and a non-believer, if by non-believer you mean one who does not believe in God, there would be no difference. But as the song by A.W. Dicus truly says, There is a God, He is Alive, In Him we live, and we survive. From dust our God, created man; He is our God, The Great I AM. But as for me I know that my Redeemer liveth (Job 19:25).

Question: How do you answer a person that says, "I don't have to go to church to be a Christian. I'm as good as any of the preachers, deacons, elders, that I know."

My first observation would be that the circle of your acquaintances is no doubt very limited. But so what if that were true: Others are not the standard. What you have done is not wise. 2 Cor. 10:12,18. Instead of examining others, need to examine self (2 Cor. 13:5). cf. 1 Cor. 4:4. The statement betrays a misunderstanding of the church, and of its importance in God's plan. a. The church is the spiritual body of Christ. It is made up of men and women who have gladly received the Gospel, and have in faith obeyed. b. Christians within a given locality are to work and worship together in the capacity of the local church. This is God's plan. He in His wisdom knows our need to be with one another, to encourage one another (Heb.10:24). The church has an important mission and work assigned to it by God: evangelism and edification. 1) Worship in spirit and in truth is a great privilege. 2) While it is true there are things you do individually and privately, that does not take the place of coming together with the church. 3) God does not need our worship to make Him better. It does not diminish his Greatness when you withhold your worship. I pity those who have such a misunderstanding of worship, and of those who have such a bitter and sour attitude. David said, "I was glad when they said to me, let us go into the house of the Lord." (Psa.122:1). 4) I know of those who worship with great difficulty. There are many to have to ride public transport for one or two hours each way to meet with the church to worship. What do you think is God's attitude toward those who could meet with Christians within a five minute's drive from their home, but instead murmur and complain as their favorite pass-time? c. The statement amounts to saying, "I don't have to do what God said to be a Christian." No the church does not save you. Christ is the Savior. But He is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him (Heb.5:8,9). cf. Jno. 12:48.

Question: WHY SPEND SO MUCH TIME DISCUSSING BAPTISM?

Consider the relation of baptism to salvation: PASSAGES: 1. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 1) Believe. 2) Baptism 3) Saved. Question: Is baptism presented as a condition of salvation in the great commission? 2. Acts 2:38: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." 1) Repent. 2) Baptized. 3) Remission of sins. Question: Is baptism presented as a condition of salvation in Peter's sermon? Is there perfect harmony between the two statements==Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:15,16)? 3. Acts 22:16: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." 1) Baptized. 2) Wash away sins. 4. 1 Pet. 3:21. "After a true likeness doth now save you even baptism." 1) Baptism. 2) Save. IN CHRIST: SALVATION IS IN CHRIST (2 TIM.2:10) We are baptized into Christ (Gal.3:26,27) WE ARE NEW CREATURES IN CHRIST (2 COR.5:17) We are baptized into Christ (Rom.6:3,4)

Question: Is baptism sprinkling or immersion?

"About the year 251 A.D., Eusebuis informs us that one Novation, being on a sick bed, desired to be baptized. But he was thought too weak to be taken to the water, and so it was arranged to put a great quantity of water upon him as he lay upon his bed, as the nearest possible approach to baptism under the circumstances." (LCWilson, Hy. of Sprinkling.p.3). But this was followed by controversy. Jesus can claim no authority that is not expressed in His commands: and it would be a refection to say that He did not make himself perfectly clear. If no man can tell what the commission means, or if it means any one of a dozen things, then is baptism not binding upon us. But such a proposition is at once sacrilegious and absurd. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. If immersion is expressed, then is sprinkling and pouring excluded. There is one baptism, and not three (p.8) TAVAL (Ges. 317) "To dip, to dip in, to immerse, followed by an acc[usative] of the thing, and [Heb."b(e)] before the liquid"..."Intrans. to immerse oneself. 2 Kings 5:14..."dipped himself in the

Jordan

seven times." (Wilson: the LXX renders this BAPTIZO, p.47).

Question: What does the 7-headed beast of Revelation mean?

The text where the 7-headed beast is mentioned is Rev. 13:1: "And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy." The book of Revelation is filled with references to the Old Testament. Revelation 13:1 must be understood in the light of Daniel 7; in reality, this is the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. This 7-headed beast was the Roman Empire, the kingdom foretold in Dan. 7; with the persecution of the church also prophesied.

Question: Will the mark of the beast come before or after the rapture?

As we seek to determine what is the "mark of the beast" (Rev.13:16,17), we need to say a word about our approach to the book. Many believe almost everything in the book is prophetic of the future. But look at the very first verse: "the things which must shortly come to pass." "For the time is at hand" (1:3). Although the day of judgment, and the eternal destinies of heaven and hell are yet future (20:11-21:1-26), most of the book was to be fulfilled in the relatively immediate future of the people of John's day. So it was with the "mark of the beast." This had meaning for first century Christians. Actually, there are two beasts in Rev. 13. The first beast that came out of the sea was like a lion, a bear, and a leopard. This represented the Roman Empire, in power when Revelation was written ( the basis for this symbolism is Dan.7; note v.23). Images were erected at various locations where the people were required to burn incense to Caesar. Only those whose names were written in the book of life would refuse to worship the beast (Rev.13:8). The earth beast of vv. 8-18 represents false religion. He is called the false prophet in 19:20. This refers to the men who enforced Caesar worship throughout the Empire. The mark of the beast meant that one was loyal to the Empire, and thus a worshipper of Caesar. Unless one gave in, he could lose his job, and find it difficult to buy and sell. a. He exerciseth authority of the Sea Beast (v. 12). b. Causes the earth (the inhabitants) to worship the Sea Beast (v.12). This is a key passage. c. He causes that a mark be placed on the right hand or upon the forehead of those who worship the beast (v.16). 1) This mark gives individuals the right to buy or sell. (v.17). 2) This mark is the name of the beast or the number of his name. The number is the number of a man. (Some suggest Nero, or one of the other Roman Emperors). 3) Those who received this mark would be punished (14:9- 12). d. Never forget that God has a seal (mark) upon those that are His (7:4; cf.2 Tim. 2:19). The lesson for us is that a Christian must not compromise the faith, though it mean loss of job, prosperity, or even life itself. Unbelievers, and compromising Christians, will be punished. So far as whether it will come before or after the rapture: The rapture in not mentioned at all in connection with the mark of the beast. In fact, the rapture is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. But that is another question.

Question: Identify the head who received the death stroke that was healed:

The death-stroke is the death of Nero, the first emperor to persecute the church, whose policy of persecution was revived by Domitian, in whom the death-stroke was healed. The death of Nero dealt a severe blow to the empire, which was immediately thrown into a two-year state of anarchy and confusion. Order was restored by Vespasian of the Flavian family. But to the church, which is John's interest, the healing of the death-stroke came with the revival of persecution under Domitian. Tacitus points out that after Nero's death there were various rumors that the return of the tyrant was at hand, whereupon pretenders arose claiming to be the deceased emperor (Hist.II.8). Seutonius, another early Roman historian, writes that after Nero's death friends circulated his edicts, "pretending he was still alive and would soon return to confound his enemies"; he tells of one in particular who came forward claiming to be Nero. John would have not been influenced by these rumors, but saw in the renewal of persecution under Domitian a healing of the death-stroke inflicted by the death of Nero. Tertullian wrote of "Domitian--a man of Nero's type". Victorinus (d. A.D. 304), the earliest author to write a commentary on Revelation (only a fragment of which has survived) in commenting on 17:10, lists the five emperors whom he considered had fallen, then says, "One remains, under whom the Apocalypse was written--Domitian, to wit." He adds on v. 16, "Now that one of the heads was, as it were, slain to death...he speaks of Nero" (A-N-F.VII.p.358). "And the whole earth wondered after the beast," that is, the world of unregenerated people followed the beast, being filled with awe and amazement at it. The Christians were not impressed, but held to their faith in Him who in His death had triumphed over all powers and ever lives.

Question: How Can We Know That The Bible Is Really The Word Of God?

The Unity Of The Bible. Unity of Theme running throughout the text. Unity of doctrine. One God Creation. Nature of man (Gen. 1:26; 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; Mt. 10:28; 1 Thes. 5:23. Blood (Gen. 4:4; Lev. 17:11; Mt. 26:28; Jno. 19:34. Historical Credibility. Real persons, real events, real places. Flood: 250 and 300 flood accounts have been discovered. In the late 1800's, Sir William Ramsey, a scholar who was skeptical of the authenticity of the Book of Acts, set out upon an archaeological expedition in Asia Minor with the declared intention of disproving the historicity and accuracy of that book. After years of research, literally digging up evidence, he completely reversed his views. He became convinced that Luke had authored Acts. He wrote:"Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness...Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of all historians" (Luke the Physician.177-179,222). Scientific Accuracy: The earth is spherical in shape (Isa. 40:22). Suspended in space (Job 26:7). Paths in the seas (Psa. 8:8. The water cycle Eccl. 1:7. The Bible and Biology: life does not arise spontaneously (Acts 17:25). Living things reproduce according to the laws of heredity (Gen. 1:11,12,21,24). There is a basic difference in the ell structure of the major classes of living things (1 Cor. 15:39). The Bible and medicine. Sanitation laws infer germs (Lev. 11:29-36; Deut. 23:12-14). Life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). All nations share a common physical unity (Acts 17:26). Evidence of Prophecy Christ's lineage in Prophecy. Events connected with Christ's birth. Virgin born Isa. 7:14; in Bethlehem Mt. 2:1 Slaughter of innocents Jer. 31:15. Escape to

Egypt

from which He would return Hos.11:1; Mt. 1:15. His character Mt. 12:15-21. Betrayal, Rejection, Death and resurrection.

Question: What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (Matt. 12)

Matt. 12:22-37. A careful study of this passage in its context will clearly show what the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is. Jesus had just healed a man blind and dumb. Such miracles were God-given credentials that Jesus was sent of God. Miracles could not be performed by one "except God be with him" (John 3:2; see Jno.20:30-31; Mk.16:20). These Jews felt the force of this miraculous proof. But their intent was to somehow discredit Jesus. To discredit Jesus they either had to deny the miracle he performed, which they could not do, or else attribute His power to Satan, knowing well that the Holy Spirit was with Him (John 3:34). They chose to lie and deliberately call the Spirit unclean. They blasphemed the Spirit. Mark specifies, "because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" (3:30). Their blasphemy consisted in saying that Jesus worked miracles by the power of the devil. By knowingly and wilfully ascribing the work of the Spirit to the devil, they rejected the final evidence by which he might believe and have eternal life. Can one be guilty of this sin today? The blasphemy against the H.S. consisted of witnessing a miracle Jesus performed through the power of the Holy Spirit, and deliberately blaspheming by crediting the devil with the miracle, to discredit Christ. This situation does not now exist. One cannot do what they did. However, it is possible to sin against the Spirit in other ways. a. May resist the Spirit (Acts 7:51-53) b. Christians may grieve the Spirit (Eph.4:30) c. Warned not to quench the Spirit (1 Thess.5:19). d. May do despite unto the Spirit (Heb.10:29). Fear of committing a certain sin, for which there is no forgiveness, has haunted many for generations. In reality, God stands ready to forgive us of every sin through the sacrificial death of His son Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:22,23) MATT.12:22-32 (notes) 23) Proper response 24) Leaders had the same evidence, but refused to renounce their stubborn will. Contrast Nicodemus, Jno.3:2. 25) Their statement was illogical and impractical. Why would Satan fight Satan? If Satan casts out his own demons, then he is opposing himself, diving his kingdom, and destroying his house. 28) Lk.11:20: "the finger of God." 29) Christ's victory over Satan. Eph.1:15-23; Col.2:15; Eph.6:10ff. Neutrality v.30; 43-50. Beware an empty life! It is a standing invitation for Satan to go to work. In the spiritual war being waged you cannot be neutral. You are either for Him or against Him. What about today? This situation existed only while Christ was ministering on earth.

Question: Where did Cain get his wife? (Genesis 4:17)

There two possibilities: a. That he married a sister. Gen. 5:4: Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. b. That he married the offspring of one of his brothers or sisters. v. 14 seems to indicate that by the time Cain killed Able that other offspring had been born. (If not, then he was just concerned about the time when others would be born on down the road.) One option is sometimes proposed that is not possible: that God created other people besides Adam and Eve, and thus that Cain married a woman who was not of Adam and Eve's family. The Bible makes it plain that Eve was the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20). Adam is referred to as the "first man." (1 Cor. 15:45). "If Adam was the first man, and Eve was the mother of all, then it is clear that there were "other peoples" for Cain to marry. The population of the Earth came directly through the lineage of Adam and Eve" (Apol.Press.IV.12). Cf. Acts 17:26: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their habitation." Some object that this would be incestuous. Of necessity, when the earth began to be populated, close- kin marriages were required. A quick glance at Gen. 4-6 shows that the people multiplied quickly. So the time was realized very soon that marriages of close kin were not necessary. Secondly, "no harmful genetic traits had emerged at this point which could have been expressed in the children of closely related partners. However, after many generations, and especially after the Flood, solar and cosmic radiation, chemical and viral mutagens and replication errors, led to the multiplication of genetic disorders." (ibid) By the time of the law of Moses, Marriages of close kin were forbidden (Lev. 18).

Question: What about capital punishment?

Intro: Some believe it is just and fair retribution for certain crimes; others say that it is simply not the solution. Still others believe that it violates the commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Patriarchal Age. When Noah and his family left the ark after the flood, God said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6). Capital punishment was to be meted out to the murderer. No other punishment was ever given. The basis for the law is the fact that man is made in the image of God. When God said, "by man shall his blood be shed", He was not merely giving His permission to execute the murderer, not was He making a suggestion. The phrase is a strict imperative; He is commanding that this be done. The nature of murder is such that the murderer actually forfeits his own right to live. Mosaic Dispensation. God made capital punishment a part of his divine law given at Mt. Sinai. For example Ex. 20:12: "Thou shalt not kill." NKJV: "You shall not murder." The one who violated this commandment "shall surely be put to death" (21:12). Also, kidnapping (21:16); bestiality (22:19). Christian Dispensation. But the real question is, what does the NT say about it? It is included in the New Testament. It is the only just retribution for certain crimes. Some fail to see that there are crimes for which one is worthy of death (Rom. 1:32). Cf. the statement of the Apostle Paul in Acts 25:11. Rom. 13:4. The Government did not use the sword for spanking; it was used for capital punishment. That does not mean that one as an individual can take the law into his own hands; it is a judicial process; a responsibility of the civil government. Leupold said, "When lawgivers attempt to tamper with this regulation [the death penalty] they are trying to be wiser than the Divine Lawgiver and overthrow the pillars of safety that He Himself provided for the welfare of mankind.

Question: What about the observance of Christmas?

The word "Christmas" was not coined until the eleventh century, a thousand years after Jesus came to earth. The observance or celebration of the birth of Christ dates to the second century, the first traces of such being noted in the reign of the Roman emperor Commodus who died about 180 A.D. In the centuries following the close of the apostolic age, the birthday of Christ was celebrated in the spring of the year, often as late as April or May; it was not until the fourth century that an agreement was reached by various religious parties and their leaders to observe Dec. 5 as the day of our Lord's birth. It was not till the 6th century that the whole Christian world concurred in celebrating the nativity on the same day." The observance of Christmas as a religious holiday did not originate in the apostolic age; it is not taught in the Bible that it should be kept as a religious festival. God has made the death and resurrection of Christ significant by authorizing in its memory the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26-29; 1 Cor. 11;23-24; Acts 20:7). Had He wanted the birth of Christ celebrated He could and would have so authorized. a. There is a sense in which nothing the Christian does is "secular."

Rom.

12:1,2; Titus 2:10; how much of his time is he to devote to godliness? b. But to involve the church, and plan a program of church function around the Nativity is not authorized. There are many things that are right that become wrong when turned into a religious ceremony. The washing of hands is proper, but to observe such as a religious ordinance unto God was wrong (Mk. 7;1-13). A key question in this discussion is, "How do we honor Christ?" The answer is, by doing what He says (Lk. 6:46; Jno.14:15; 15:14). a. I do not think the problem is that we are thinking too much about the birth of Christ! (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14; Micah 5:2; Heb. 2:9-18; Lk. 1-2). b. The danger lies more in not placing enough emphasis upon the present role of Christ, in His rule as King of kings and Lord of lords! (Rev. 1; Matt. 28:18-20).

Question: What does the Bible say about cremation?

Passages--What few Biblical references are made to cremation are in the Old Testament. 1 Sam. 31:11-13: Burning of bodies of Saul & his sons. Probably was an emergency measure lest the Philistines further molest the bodies. Lev.20:14; 21:9: Those guilty of sexual immorality Josh. 7:15,25: Those under a curse such as Achan and his family were to be burned. Occurrence of cremation is rare and exceptional. Lack of proper burial was a great misfortune 1 Kgs.13:22; Jer. 16:6. Related passages: Amos 2:1: He (Moab) burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime. cf. Amos 6:10. Quotation from Edersheim: "Cremation was denounced as a purely heathen practice, contrary to the whole spirit of Old Testament teaching." (Sketches of Jewish Life, p. 169 Ghassul flourished during the latter half of the [?] fourth millennium. Archaeologists have documented the Ghassulian custom of burying the dead in ossuaries (ceramic receptacles for bones) in many other areas, particularly the coastal cities near modern Tel Aviv. These ossuaries were usually shaped like animals or houses, in imitation of those used in daily life. After the body was cremated mourners buried the ossuary in a stone cistern together with provisions for the afterlife. (The Bible Almanac, p.95). Guy Woods: Life is the union of the body and spirit; death the condition resulting from their separation. Once the spirit has flown, the body is lifeless and begins its return to its original elements. Whether the return is the slow disintegration of the body through the processes of decay or is achieved in seconds by fire, the result is the same--the return of the body's elements to their original state. In the resurrection, these "building blocks" will be re-assembled... We are taught in the New Testament, largely by example, to exhibit proper respect for the dead and to deal with them in dignified and respectful fashion... As I reflect upon the question, emphasis is placed on using one's body in life to glorify the Lord (Rom. 12:1,2; 1 Cor. 6:18- 20); and upon the entrance of the soul into the hadean world at the point of death. Emphasis is not given to the disposal of the body. Stress is not placed on the funeral, but upon the life one lives prior to the funeral. cf. Lk.12:4; Matt. 10:28. The question does not ask for my personal preference. I know of no New Testament principle that is violated by cremation, if one does make that choice.

Question: Are the 7 days when God created the earth the same as our days?

The reference to the "Day-Age" Theory which states that the 6 creation days of Genesis 1 were not days, but rather long ages or eons, possible millions of years long. We know the days of Gen. 1 are literal 24-hour days because the word day is defined in the context of the passage: Gen. 1:5--"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Day is here defined as the light period in the regular succession of light and darkness, which, as the earth rotates on its axis, as continued ever since. 1:14--"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." This verse clearly distinguishes days from years and seasons. If the days were not days, but were ages involving millions of years, then what were the years? Unless we are willing to take a passage in its context, and let Scripture interpret Scripture, we will be hopelessly confused. The fact that the days of Gen. 1 are 24 hour periods is consistent not only with the context of Gen. 1, but with the rest of the Old Testament as well. The word day, when modified by the numerical adjective, can only be taken to mean a period of 24 hours. Further, the Hebrew phrase translated "evening and morning" occurs over 100X in OT with the word Day. Each time it refers to a literal 24 hour day. If one holds to the day-age theory, there are many problems for which there are no answers. For example, on Day Three, the vegetation and plant life appeared. But if the day was a geologic age, then half of that age was darkness. How could plant life survive for millions of years in total darkness? This must necessarily be the case since the text clearly states that these days consisted of periods of evening and morning. The Sabbath command in Ex. 20:8-11 can be understood only when the days of the creation week are considered to be 24-hour days. In Ex.20:9,11: "Six days shall thou labor, and do all thy work...For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." No one would think that they were to work for 6 eons and then rest on the seventh eon. Perhaps the most damaging statement from the Day-Age theory comes from Jesus teaching in Mark 10:4--"But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them." In other words, God made man and woman "from the beginning of the creation. But this could not be if the Day-Age theory were true, because it places man, not at the beginning of creation, but at the end of millions or billions of geologic time. If we believe Jesus to be the divine Son of God, we must believe what He believed. Only reason for not taking text as it reads: to fit in speculations of evolutionists.

Question from a member of a denominational church: a) Which churches are man-made? b) Which churches are the right ones to go to?

Eph. 4:4-7. Is it important to believe that there is one Lord? What about one God? The one Spirit? The first thing in the list, however, is "There is one body." This is one of the major obstacles which many have, because of the religious division with which we are surrounded. Mt. 16:18: Jesus promised to build His church; Acts 20:28: He purchased the church with His blood. Seed of the kingdom is the word of God, Luke 8:ll. An immutable law of God is that the seed reproduces after its kind. If we believe and obey what inspired men taught in the New Testament, it will make of us Christians, and we will be added to the church of the Lord. There were in N.T. times man-made religious organizations, religious beliefs and practices which were of human origin. Matt. 15. These did not have the Lord's approval. Regarding which one is right, etc. We know that there is a way which is right and cannot be wrong. That is the Lord's way. The problem comes when we want our way. a. Read the book of Acts. To become members, what did they do? b. To what church were they added? b. Where were the headquarters; how were they organized? c. Did they have women preachers, etc.? May God bless you in your search for truth (Acts 17:11). May you have the courage to do what you learn is the Lord's will.

Question: Why did God let Satan live and let sin go on?

He is capable of it. God does not want robots. He wants men and women who give themselves willingly. I may not, and I'm sure do not know all the reasons why, but I do know we have to deal with things as they are. Accordingly: God doesn't promise a world without temptation, but He does promise limits to temptation, and a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). There is a battle going on: Gal. 5: You determine who wins. God has voted for you; Satan has voted against you; you cast the deciding vote. We have the example of Jesus (Mt.4:1ff). We are assured of victory in Jesus, that we can overcome (1 John 5:1-5). We have God's assurance that if we resist Satan he will flee from us (James We have the assurance that "greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world" (1 John 4:4). Hell is that place which is prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt.25:41: cf. Rev. 20:10).

Question? Does The Bible Talk About Dinosaurs?

Some believe the existence of dinosaurs poses a real problem for those that accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. This is really a case of an imaginary problem. There is no doubt that dinosaurs did exist. The real question is not "Did the dinosaurs exist?". The question is "When did the dinosaurs exist?". Therein lies the controversy. Informed Bible students are aware of the plain and simple teaching of the Bible on creation of all life forms--including the dinosaurs. Ex. 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...". If God created everything in six days, then everything was created was created in those six days. Conclusion: dinosaurs and men lived as contemporaries on the earth! Dinosaurs and men lived at the same time. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn if one respects the verbally inspired word of God. God said it; that settles it. Those who make accept the unproved theory of evolution insist that dinosaurs existed 200 million years before man. This will not square with Mk. 10:6; Rom. 1:20. (That they became extince 65-70 million years ago. Man allegedly evolved only 2-3 mil. yrs ago, and was thus separated from the dinosaurs by approximately 65 mil. yrs. of geologic time. In most public school, college, and university settings, when dinosaurs are discussed, it is in the context of their evolutionary origin, development, and extinction. Students are told that these animals evolved from some ancient reptile into what we now know as birds. In such a setting, it is commonplace to use the dinosaurs to instructi simultaneously on the ancient nature of the Earth and/or Universe. Because alomost all youngsters have a fascination with dinosaurs, and because teachers are among the most trusted of all adults, children often accept without question evolutionary dogma and its accompanying concept of an ancient earth. But does the Bible speak of dinosaurs? The answer is yes. Consider Job 40:15-24 (see NIV). What is the "behemoth" creature? He "moveth his tail like a cedar." This speaks of a massive, long tail. Did you ever see the tails of either the elephant or the hippo? These have a short, slim tail. A hippo weighs 4 tons. Some have argued that it is an elephant or hippopotamus. But the text says he is the "chief (largest) of the ways of God." Hippos at full size are 7 ft. high. Elephants were twice as tall, but still dwarfed by dinosaurs that reached heights of up to 3 stories and weights of over 90 tons. (Brachiosaurus stood over 3 1/2 stories tall, and weighted over 90 tons). But what about the fossils? Don't they prove that dinosaurs lived from 200 million to 65 million years ago, becoming extinct long before man ever came of the scene? The truth is that science bears out that the Bible is correct and evolution is wrong. Man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time. In the Paluxy River bed near Glen Rose, Texas, SW of Forth Worth.: dinosaur tracks were discovered in the same stratum as human footprints. In recent years, scientists working with bulldozers in the area (to remove large overlying sediments) have discovered even more dinosaur and human tracks. Dr. Roland T. Bird, paleontologist wit the American Museum of Natural History in New York, went to Glen Rose to investigate the tracks. Dr. Bird authored an article entitled, "Thunder in His Footsteps" in which he discussed the Glen Rose finds. He was not a creationist, and did not like the implications of his find, once telling Mrs. Elsie McFall (a resident of the area at that time) that if he were to acknowledge the presence of man tracks in Cretaceous strata, all the textbooks would have to be rewritten. Nevertheless, Dr. Bird was honest enough to state concerning the tracks: "Yes, they apparently were real enough. Real as rock could bee...the strangest things of their kind I had ever seen. On the surface of each was splayed the near-likeness of a human foot, perfect in every detail." The tracks were widely distributed. Strings of from 15 to 23 right-left tracks have been uncovered. What happened to them. There is compelling evidence to indicate that the pre-Flood world was much different thant the post-flood world. Many creation scientists believe that the dinosaurs survived for a time after the flood, but because of the hostile conditions, eventually became extinct. Conclu: Contrary to popular opinions, dinosaurs do not present a "problem" to creationists. In fact, just the opposite is true. It is the evolutionists who have the problem.

Question: Please explain the gifts listed in Ephesians 4:11-15.

Intro: In vv. 1-3 we see the unity of the Spirit, and the disposition necessary for unity to be achieved and maintained. In vv. 4-6 we see the unifying facts--the seven-fold basis of unity. In vv. 7-16, the unifying gifts that God has given. Apostles. Laid the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19-20). Laid only once, hence no successors. To witness (Acts 1:8,21-22; 2:32-33; 10:39-41). All truth revealed to them (Jno.16:13; Eph. 3:5). Credentials (2 Cor. 12:12). There were then, as today, false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13-15; Rev. 2:2). Prophets. Inspired teachers (Acts 11:27-30; 13:1-3; 21:9- 10). Also laid foundation (Eph. 2:19-20). Received revelation (Eph. 3:5). Evangelists. Function: to preach the Gospel. Examples: Philip (Acts 21:8). Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5). Pastors. Shepherds, to feed the flock That these are the same as elders and bishops can be seen from Acts 20:17 and 28. Elders are limited in their oversight to the flock "over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers..." (Acts 20:28). The elders which Peter addressed are commanded to feed or tend the flock of God "which is among you, taking the oversight thereof..." (1 Pet. 5:2). Qualified elders have all they can handle when they oversee the one flock as God ordained (Heb. 13:17). Teachers. Instructors. Faithful and able (2 Tim. 2:2; Jas. 3:1). The Purpose: for the perfecting or the maturing and growth of the saints, eis (unto) the work of mutual service, eis (unto) the great end of building up the entire body. (Lk. 6:40; 1 Cor. 1:10; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 5:10). All Christians are called to the ministry (Green). To serve, to bear fruit. (Acts 6:1; Rom. 12:7). Some obviously feel they can hire a preacher to do their work. But the preacher's work is to equip the brethren to do their work (Green). This passage gives emphasis to the fact that we are to help each other grow! "Till": the goal that we should constantly strive for. The unity of the faith is unity based upon God's word. Growing as a Christian, and becoming more and more like Jesus. Becoming unmovable. The church is not a perpetual playpen for spiritual babies. Goal is maturity in Christ. Children can be convinced of about anything. They are unstable. They like to be entertained and excited. The word "sleight" is translated from kubos from which we derive "cube." It refers to the throwing of dice, and apparently a reference is implied of using dishonesty in gambling (Green). They are described as "cunning" and "crafty." They don't miss a trick. They are religious con-men. Saints cannot afford to continue very long as novices. Paul could not give the Corinthians the strong, spiritual nourishment they so desperately needed because they were still babies and were not in a sufficiently mature state to receive it (1 Cor. 3:1-3). These wolves are further described as "lying in wait to deceive." Mormons, JW's and others are not slack when it comes to their efforts of proselyting disciples. Truth is often spoken without love. Let's speak the truth, but let us make certain that we don't make it unattractive with a rotten attitude (4:1; 5:1,2 Green). Every day as we practice this exhortation we shall find ourselves conformed more closely to His image. If the body/church is to grow, the members will have to work together. Bound closely, even as the bones of our physical bodies are fitly joined at the joints. Each part of the body works together with every other part to make the body move and function.

Question: "Is evolution totally wrong?"

The theory of organic evolution offers an explanation for this universe purely naturalistic causes. That the universe happened as a result of blind chance; that there is no purpose; that there is no design. That life comes from non-life. Evolution is atheistic. cf. Matthew 19:4. We all know that there is variation within kinds. Different breeds of cattle, or flowers, or dogs can be produced. But evolution demands that we believe that reptiles become birds. Evolution is unproved and unprovable.

Question: Will pre-marital sex send me to hell?

Some experts say that it is not wrong, that it is just a normal part of growing up. Consequently they assume that unmarried persons will be "sexually active" (a euphemism for fornication) and take the approach of education for "safe sex." The thrust is how to commit fornication without unwanted conception or disease. That in a nutshell is the whole point of much of today's sex education. While this may be the standard and message of the world, one who would be pleasing to God will not be deceived. It is possible for young people and other unmarried persons to be pure in heart (Joseph, Gen. 39:7-12). Sexual intimacy is designed by God exclusively for marriage. There it is good and wholesome (Heb. 13:4). Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-6; Rev. 21:8. These passages answer your question in no uncertain terms. Not only is this true for pre-marital sexual activities; it is equally true for extra-marital sexual relations.] God's laws are for our good always (Deut. 6:24). When His will is violated, there are often consequences in this life, in addition to spiritual and eternal considerations. This is certainly true of fornication. One by-product of pre-marital sexual relations is unwanted pregnancies. Statistics show that 1 out of every 4 American brides is pregnant at the time of the wedding. Studies show that such marriages have a far greater chance of ending in divorce. So called sex education courses, that address the subject without moral teaching, have been a dismal failure. There are more kinds of venereal disease than ever before, as a result of pre- marital and extra-marital sex. The one that doesn't have to worry about that is the one who keeps himself pure before marriage, and is faithful to his spouse. You won't see people like that bombarding the clinic, wringing their hands, awaiting the test results as they are checked for aids, or other sexually transmitted diseases.. Those who have been sexually promiscuous before marriage often indicate that there are emotional and psychological scars that the passing of time does not remove. Often this is a hinderance to one's adjustment to marriage. One may find it an obstacle to a healthy and happy marriage, as he/she is haunted by those memories. You should recognize that even if one obtains forgiveness from God, and whatever people are involved, that those scars and consequences may remain.

Question: What does the Bible teach about gambling?

Time Magazine (2/25/91) reported on the rise of teenage gambling "...of the estimated 8 million compulsive gamblers in

America

, fully 1 million are teenagers." Researchers offer such explanations as state governments promoting lotteries; also "unstable families, low self-esteem and a societal obsession with money." Gambling is defined as to play a game for money or other stake...hence: to stake money or any other thing of value upon an uncertain event; to hazard; wager. In gambling, a stake is involved whereby one stands to gain at the loss of others depending upon the outcome of some selected element of chance. People can bet on anything; that selected element of chance may range from a state lottery, to a presidential election, to a football game, to who is the winner of the prize from among those who have "bought a chance." Gambling violates Biblical Principles. a. Some object that the word gambling does not appear in the Bible. b. Violates legitimate economy. It does not involve gain by reason of labor (Gen 2:15; 3:19; Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10); it does not involve exchange of equal values; it does not involve a gift (Luke 6:38; Matt. 2:11). Also, receiving interest (Matt. 25:27). c. The motivation of gambling is covetousness. It seeks the rewards of another's efforts. To covet is to long inordinately for something that is another's. This disposition of heart is condemned (1 Tim. 6;10; Col. 3:5). d. The attraction of gambling is this desire to gain without labor or fair exchange that which belongs to someone else. e. Obedience to the command to love our neighbor prevents us from gambling (Mt. 22:39; Rom. 13:9-10). 1) Mt. 7:12: Violates the golden rule. f. The Christian is concerned with his influence (Mt. 5:16). 1) These Scriptures are more than enough to show anyone who is honest and sincere that gambling is worldly and sinful in nature. It should be abhorred, despised and rejected. g. The fruit of gambling is corrupt (Mt. 7:16,18,20). 1) A gambler robs his family (1 Tim. 5:8) 2) The Senate Crime Investigating Committee (1950-51) as reported by Sen. Estes Kefauver in Crime In America stated "Gambling produces nothing and adds nothing to the economy or society of our nation. America will be in a bad way if we ever resort to taxing crimes and immorality for the purpose of raising revenue to operate our institutions." Crime has greatly increased in those cities that are known for their gambling casinos. The Reno police department says that 75% of the embezzlement cases are related to gambling. Suicides for gamblers are up 12-15% above the national average. Gambling is injurious to the morals and welfare of the people. It has wrecked homes and has ruined many lives. It is addictive. It is directly connected with drinking, theft, broken homes, neglected children and murder. George Washington said, "It is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, the father of mischief." Jimmy the Greek said, "When you put legalized gambling into a community, you ruin the community." What if gambling is legalized by the state? Murdering babies (abortion) is legal; does this make it right? Divorce is legal, but God says it is wrong except in the case of fornication (Mt. 19:9). Anything that is condemned by God's word before it is legalized remains condemned after it is legalized. What if the gambling is just for small amounts of money? As gambling itself is wrong, the amount of the stake makes no difference. I.e., "I know it is wrong to steal a large amount; what about a small sum?" What if it is just for fun? A Christian does not find entertaining those things that are sinful before God. What if it is called a "donation"? This is just a euphemism, a word change to make what is in reality gambling more palatable. Thinking people can see that calling gambling a donation does not change the fact that it is still gambling. Because of the problems it breeds, gambling costs more to police than it can bring in as revenue for the state.

Question: Will We Know One Another in Heaven?

Death is not the cessation of existence; it is not annihilation. It is the separation of the body and the spirit. The spirit survives apart from the body as a conscious entity (2 Cor. 5:6-8). Mt. 17: Moses and Elijah retained their identity after death. Lk.16:19ff Rich man and Lazarus. No indication that at the resurrection, that our identity will be changed, or unrecognizable; no indication that the memory we now possess will be obliterated, and that everyone in heaven will be a stranger. The hope of a glad and happy reunion is not a cruel delusion, a vain and empty fantasy (Woods.11), where songs will be infinitely sweeter than any we have rendered here, where handclasps will be warmer than any we have ever experienced in this life, and where tears, heartaches, and sorrows are unknown (8b8d) 1 Cor. 15. The fact that the saved will be given a new body, one that is incorruptible, a glorious body, does not mean that the saved will be given new identities. Consider also Lk. 13:23-30: The unbelieving Jews would see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom, while the unbelievers themselves would be cast out.

Question: Are there degrees of punishment in hell and degrees of reward in heaven?

Reflections on Lk. 12:47. No passages that say Blessed is the man which thinks one way is as good as another; or Blessed is the man who is true to his conscience. The blessings are pronounced upon the one who knows and does the will of God (v. 43). Ignorance saves no one; if it did, the more ignorant a person is the more sure would be his salvation. On the contrary, ignorance causes many to be lost (Hos.4:6). Instead of thinking that hell will be hotter for some (externally), it would seem that the greater one's awareness of his opportunities, the greater knowledge of truth, and what one has allowed to slip through his fingers, will produce greater suffering (internally).

Question: Explain Acts 19:2 Concerning the receiving of the Holy Ghost.

First, some matters regarding the Holy Spirit. H.S. is in the Bible from Gen. 1:2 to Rev. 22:17. Must accept what the Bible teaches regarding the H.S. (Eph. 4:1-6. Acts 19:2:"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? This is not a reference to H.S. baptism. The only two recorded cases are Acts 2 & Acts 10. Paul wanted to know if they had received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, which were necessary at this point to reveal the word of God. Their answer showed that they were uninformed about the events of Acts 2, re. the coming of the H.S., the establishment of the church. Trace miraculous. This relates to what Simon saw. Acts 18:8-Note what is directly stated: "Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money" 1) Reason Peter and John came to Samaria 2) Gifts not available through prayer. 3) Not transferable through Philip. 4) Many today have not seen what Simon saw. Notes on Acts 19 1-7: The twelve rebaptized. Intro: The historian now reaches the point for which he had so hurriedly passed over the voyage of Paul from Ephesus to Antioch, and his land journey thence through Galatia and Phrygia (NMcG.150). Paul is permitted at last to begin a work which he had in mind when, on his preceding tour, he was "forbidden by the H.S. to speak the word in Asia, 16:6; and also to fulfill the appointment which he had left here on his journey homeward, 18:21 (ibid). Disciples: word means a learner. In this particular passage the word does not mean a Christian. When ye believe as used here, refers to conversion. The Holy Spirit here would not refer to the ordinary gift of the H.S. All believers receive H.S., Acts 2:38. Under consideration then would be the miraculous. This is further shown "by the fact that it is this which he conferred upon them at the close of the conversation" (ibid.151). This of course could be given to them only by an apostle (Acts 8:17,18). It is not likely that they had never heard of the existence of the H.S. The O.T. is full of references to Him. Probable meaning is that they did not know that the H.S. had been given. Thus they were ignorant of the events of Pentecost, and of the N.T. being revealed. Since they not only could not work miracles, but did not even know that the H.S. had come, this raised the question of whether they had been scripturally baptized. They were either taught by Apollos, or someone like him. They were ignorant of the baptism of Christ. Paul showed them the temporary nature of John's work in pointing forward to Christ. Now that Jesus had come and had accomplished the Father's work, men were to render obedience to Him. A baptism of repentance Mk.1:14,15. Upon hearing and believing this, they were baptized into the name of Jesus. Lessons: Here were men who had been baptized but did not know of the coming of Christ or of the H.S. Because of this, they had to be rebaptized. Application: If today a person is baptized to enter a denomination, he does not understand the purpose of baptism. If one is baptized thinking he is saved, as is almost always the case among denominations, he has not been scripturally baptized, for scriptural baptism is "for the remission of sins. If a person were baptized just to please someone else, the same would apply. After their baptism, Paul laid his hands on them, imparting to them miraculous gifts. This is the only way that men besides apostles could work miracles. ONly apostles could impart miraculous gifts. 1 Tim. 4:14 is misused. with (meta) means to accompany. 2 Tim. 1:6 tells us how Timothy received gift. (dia)--"the means or instrument by which anything is affected" (Thayer.133) Thus when the last apostle died, the power to impart the ability to perform miracles ceased. When the last person on whom an apostle laid hands died, miracles ceased. Therefore there is not a man living on earth today who can perform miracles. Extended preaching at Ephesus Preached in synagogue 3 months. Some were hardened and disobedient, thus Paul separated himself from them. cf. 18:5-6. We learn that when one becomes hardened and disobedient to the Word, the time has come to look for someone else to teach (Mt. 7:6). Paul then began to preach daily in the school of Tyrannus. This was done for 2 years. Special miracles. Similar to woman touching garment (Mk.5:25- 27). Purpose of these and all miracles (Heb.2:3,4). Jewish impostors. These events manifested to everyone, especially to magicians, the difference between the power of the apostle Paul, and these impostors. Because of this, many gave up their magic and burned their books, amounting to several thousand dollars. Paul's future plans. Planned on this trip to take up the contribution for the poor saints of Jerusalem. 1 Cor. was written while Paul was in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). Paul did not know at this time that he would go to Rome as a prisoner. 23-41: Riot at Ephesus Ephesus, population 200,000+, worshipped Diana, a fertility goddess. In Ephesus was a great temple which housed her statue, and had an altar 20 feet square. Without doubt, in Paul's preaching he had shown the uselessness of idols, and that God is the only true and living God. 2 complaints: a) this is hurting our business; it will cause us to loose money, cf. 16:19. They made shrines--small portable temples which probably contained an image of Diana. b) What he says is against the worship of Diana. Gaius and Aristarchus seized. Evidently Paul could not be located immediately. When Paul heard what had happened, his friends hindered him from entering, for fear he would be killed. Perhaps the Jews put Alexander forward to make known that they had nothing to do with this. When it was seen that He was a Jew, they would not listen. 35-41 Speech of the city clerk. 35) A keeper of the public records, who presided over public gatherings, and performed the duties of the chief magistrate when he was away. Said: the worship of Diana has not been endangered. (Actually, this was false). This should be settled in court, or in a lawful assembly. there was the danger of their being punished because of riot. Thus the mob was dismissed. Idolatry: When one is devoted and attached to anything more than God. God only is to be worshipped Mt.4:10. Therefore, covetousness is idolatry Co.3:5. can make pleasures, or self-gratification, or self-will one's idol. Deut. 6:12-15; 1 Cor. 10:6-7,14. Consequences: a) No inheritance in kingdom Eph.5:5. b) Wrath of God Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:5,6 c) Lake of fire Rev.21:8 Gift of the Holy Spirit Acts 2:38. Here, ten dorean, not charisma. Also in Acts 8:20; 10:45; 11:17.

Question: How can I know that the Holy Ghost is in me?

I attended a revival...and I don't feel the urge to jump around. Regarding feelings as proof that one has the Holy Spirit, see Judges 16:18-20. Samson did not "feel" any different (than 13:25; 14:5,19). He did not know that the Lord was departed from him (16:20). Today people place much emphasis upon "feelings" as proof they have the Holy Spirit. In the Bible, it never tells how they felt, even among those who could do the miraculous. The only way we know for sure is by what the Bible says (Jer.17:9). Like asking how do you know your sins are forgiven? Answer is Mk.16:16; then 1 John 1:9. Similarly, Acts 2:38 promises the gift of the H.S. God gives the Spirit to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32); his intercession (Rom. 8:26); bearing fruit in our lives (Gal. 5:22-23). Working through word (Eph.6:17). Cf.Eph. 5:19-context.

Question: Is Homosexuality Wrong?

There are fewer than a dozen references to homosexuality, with Romans in the New Testament and Leviticus in the Old Testament frequently cited by traditionalists." How many times does God have to say something for it to be accepted as truth? Would two dozen be enough, or perhaps three dozen? I have an idea that if one will not believe when God says something is wrong in a dozen verses, that he would not believe if it were stated on every page. Let God's word speak for itself: Speaking of the homosexuality of Sodom and Gormorrah, God said, "their sin is very grievous" (Gen. 18:26). Is that really ambiguous to you? Ambiguous means that which is unclear, vague, or indefinite. This passage says homosexuality is a sin, and it is very grievous. There was nothing "ambiguous" about the punish- ment: "Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens" (Gen. 19:24). Then again, God gave the following law to His people Israel: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. There blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13). I really don't have any trouble understanding that, do you? The Romans passage to which the news article referred says, "There- fore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie....For this reason God gave them over to degrad- ing passions; for their women ex- changed the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Rom. 1:24-27). I would be ashamed to say that I couldn't understand that, wouldn't you? 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 plainly says that neither "homosexuals, nor sodomites" (NKJV) "will inherit the kingdom of God." Would it not be more honest and honorable for a person to just say that he is stub- bornly refusing to accept what the Bible teaches than to say that the Bible is "unclear"? Let God be true but every man a liar. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? O.T. SCRIPTURE: 1. Gen. 19:5 2. Forbidden in Lev. 18:22; Called for the death penalty Lev. 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." 3. Deut. 23:17. N.T. SCRIPTURE: 1. Rom. 1:26-32. Note emphasis in the context: all of what is described is the result of departure from God! a. v.26: against nature (para phusin); vile passion (degrading; passions of dishonor). b. v. 27: men working unseemliness: indecent act, shameless act.; error. 1) "Receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." This can so vividly be seen, among many diseases, in the AIDS epidemic. c. v. 28 "reprobate mind" (Vine: a mind of which God cannot approve, and which must be rejected by him). NAS: "depraved mind." To do those things which are not fitting. d. "Worthy of death." 2. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 a. Effeminate (malakos: Thayer-effeminate. of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness). b. abusers of themselves with mankind. c. "Be not deceived" Do not be led astray by plausible talk to cover up sin and change it into something respectable and acceptable. 3. 1 Tim. 1:10: For abusers of themselves with men. 4. Homosexuality is fornication Jude 7 HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS Right to hear the Gospel. 1 Cor. 6:9-11. Right to know that God does not regard homosexuality or lesbianism as an alternative life style Heb. 13:4. Rom. 1:24 Dishonor their own bodies. Have the right to know that this kind of conduct is sin. NKJV: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Have the right to know that they will suffer in their own bodies and personalities the consequences of this sin (Rom. 1:26- 27: James Moffatt Translation: ...".men perpetrating shameless acts with their own sex and getting in their own persons the due recompence of their perversity. Have the right to know that God calls them dogs (Deut. 23:17-18; Rev.22:15). Have the right to know that their companions have a right from God to put them away for this sin Matt.19:9; Jude 7. Have the right to know that they were not born homosexuals. It is a learned behavior. It is a choice that the individ CONCLU: Homosexuality is a sin. Like other sins, it condemns the soul. God wants the homosexual to turn from his sin, in obedience to the Gospel, before it is eternally too late.

Question: Bible speaks of turning the other cheek--does this mean standing up for yourself in self-defense is a sin?

The text is Matthew 5:39: "But I say unto you, That ye resist no tevil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." The passages which teach that a Christian is to turn the other cheek, etc., are speaking of taking personal vengeance for wrongs done....We are told to submit to the government, not to submit to criminals! Related passages: 1 K.22:24ff; Job 16:10 "They gape at me with their mouth, They strike me reproachfully on the cheek, They gather together against me" (NKJV). "Men open their mouths to jeer at me; they strike my cheek in scorn and unite together against me" (NIV). "They have gaped at me with their mouth, They have slapped me on the cheek with contempt; They have massed themselves against me" (NASB)

Question: Which O.T. laws apply today?

O.T. is not entirely composed of law: 5-law 12- history Josh-Esther 5- Poetry (Job, Psa., Prov. SoS, Eccl. 17 - Prophets 39 Total Books Proper use: Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11. Erroneous to contend we are under 10 commandments, etc. Col.2:14. We are under law to Christ (1 Cor. 9).

Question: What about praying for those who have died?

God has made promises in His word as to what He will and what He will not do. There are examples where children of God have referred to those promises as they prayed unto God, knowing that it is impossible for God to lie, asking with boldness and confidence that God would fulfill His word (Ex. 32:9-12). It is right to pray in harmony with the scriptures; to pray that God would fulfill His word. God has promised that those who die in the Lord are blessed (Rev. 14:13; Lk. 16). To be thankful for that, to refer to that in prayer, cannot be wrong. cf. 1 Thes. 4: Comfort one another with these words. But having said that, some words of caution are in order: First, one must recognize that nothing can be done to alter the state/condition of one who is dead. This is taught in many passages. Lk. 16: etc. Salvation is individual in nature. There is no such thing as collective Salvation as today’s progressives teach. A Publication called Christian History (XII:1;31) contained an article entitled "Praying to the 'Dead'." "Praying to the saints began with the practice of praying for them. Any Christian who died was remembered in prayer, and services took place on the 3rd, 7th, 9th, 13th and 14th day after death. For martyrs, annual remembrances of their death were celebrated... "Soon churches drew up lists of martyrs, believing that prayer for martyrs was of 'great benefit to those for whom it is offered' (Cyril of Jerusalem [ca. mid 300's A.D.)." "Gradually, the church believed that martyrs, having made the ultimate sacrifice, already lived fully in God's presence. They didn't need the church's prayers as much as the church needed theirs. 'Only God can pardon, though we see that the merits of the martyrs have great weight before his tribunal' (Cyprian of Carthage [ca. mid 200's A.D.)."... "Despite fears of idolatry, the practice of praying to saints was affirmed by later church leaders, such as Augustine and Aquinas."

Question: What does the Bible say about cursing?

The words that we choose with which to express ourselves are important (Matt. 12:32-37). Language must be characterized by reverence for God. Mt.6:9, model prayer: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name." Hallowed means to hold something as holy, sacred, or revered. God told the Israelites not to take his name in vain (Deut.5:11). In Rom. 3:14, Paul spoke of some "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." Eph. 4:29: No corrupt communication, but that which is good for edifying. Eph. 5:4,5 condemns "filthiness, foolish talking, and jesting which is not befitting. This would include talk that is obscene or shameful; that which is vulgar.

Question: Please explain THE ORIGIN OF RACES.

A human "race" is most often defined as a group of people with certain features in common which distinguish them from other groups of people. Currently there are three or four major races of hujmans, as the word race is commonly defined: 1. Caucasoid (55% of the world's population). 2. Mongoloid (33%) 3. Negroid (8%) 4. Astraloid (4%; the Astraloid group is often known as the Australian Aboriginal Group. Usuallly considered as a subgroup of the Caucasoids). These races are distributed abound the globe throughout over 100 nations, and speak 3,000+ tribal languages and dialect. Evolutionary explanation: 1. Genetic Mutation a. Mutations are rare. But almost all are harmful. Most of the rest are neutral. For there to be a good mutation is extremely rare. But the numbers in the population would have to get so big that they outnumber those who do not have that trait. 2. Biblical alternative. Biologists: A species includes all individuals that are capable of interbreeding and produces fertile offspring. But this doesn't work very well. RE. man, one species, homo-sapiens. Can all intermarry, reproduce fertile offspring. SKIN COLORS Determined by the amount of melanin found in the skin. Provides the body with pigmentation. Allows the body to absorb UV radiation without damage. Three factors 1. The origin of man. God created man. Gen. 1. Very good. Man did not evolve over millions of years. Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45) and Eve was the mother of all living (Gen.3:20). Acts 17:26. God endowed man with variability and adaptability. Whatever racial characterits we possess or those in time past have possessed, came from the original genetic pool of Adam and Eve. There were no others. All came from them. 2. The known historical/biblical facts. The line of human descent passed from Adam and Eve and their descendants to Noah and his family. Restricted, yet passed on through Noah. 3. Man's migratory pattern. After the flood, men had set themselves against God. Refused to inhabit the earth. Dug down and weren't budging. God confused their languages. This caused them to migrate. Skin coloration agent melenin is controlled by two pairs of genes. We can designate them Aa and Bb, the capital letters representing dominant genes and the small letters recessive genes. A and B produce melenan very well; being recessive, a and b produce melanin to a lesser degree. Heterozygous condition. By dispersing linguistically isolated groups all over the world, the Tower of Bable incident had a significant effect on the subsequent development and history of mankind. At least some of the differences which arose can be attributed to the various environments in which the people found themselves. What if lighter colored skined people went to the equator? Would not survive as those with darker skin. Likewise, people with fairer skins who moved into Scandinavian countries would be favored, since darker- skinned people could not as easily produce Vitamin D and would therefore suffer from such diseases as rickets. The races were produced in a very short time span, and the racial variations we see today are merely an expression of the original genetic endowment of Adam and Eve as carried through to us by Noah.

Question: Do you have to be a church member to be saved?

If by "church member" one means a member of the New Testament church, that Jesus built, and for which He shed His blood, the answer is yes. In a way, it's like asking if one must be a Christian to be saved, or if one needs the blood of Christ to be saved. According to the Bible, when one is saved by the blood of Christ as he obeys the conditions of pardon, the Lord adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47). That's what the church is--saved people. The church is not the Savior; Christ is the Savior; the church is the saved.

Question: Why do some people have to suffer?

Is it because they have sinned in the past? God is all knowing (Psa.139; 1 Jno.3:20); all loving (1 Jno. 4:8,16); and all-powerful (Jer.32:17). But some conclude that if you serve God faithfully, He will keep you from all serious suffering. This is a misconception, as is seen from the book of Job. He lost all of his wealth and possessions, all 10 of his children were killed. Then he lost his health and was covered with boils from the top of his head to the soles of his feet. Even his wife turned against him and advised him to "curse God and die." Job did not suffer because he was wicked and disobedient--Job 1:8, God Himself said Job was a "blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil." But the lesson to be learned is that God is worthy of our praise and worship, because He is God, even when every physical and visible reason for serving Him has been taken away. In reality, suffering comes to us from various sources. We often suffer as the result of personal mistakes and sins. (Prov. 23:29,30). Or remember the suffering experienced by the prodigal son (Lk.15). cf. 1 Pet. 4:15. Several million Americans are infected with HIV; even more worldwide. Suffering also comes to us as the result of the sins of others. Thing of the mother who inadvertently infects her baby with AIDS, or of the drunkard's family. Suffering comes as the result of societies which ignore God. When God made man, He could either make him with free moral agency, or without free moral agency; either with freedom of choice, or as a robot, who could only do what he was programmed to do. WE know that God made man with the ability to choose. This means that one can choose to sin. Suffering that comes with sin could not be eliminated unless God had made man such that he could not choose, and he could not sin. Some suffering exists simply because we are in a body of flesh, and the flesh is frail. 2 Cor. 4:16; 1 Pet. 1:24; Heb. 9:27; Eccl. 12. God has not promised that we will be spared from death and bereavement. But He has promised to be with His children, to strengthen them, and not to forsake them (Heb. 4:14-16; 13:5,6; Phil. 4:13; Psa. 73:23-26; John 10:27-29). Some suffering is for righteousness sake (1 Pet. 4:16; Acts 14:22). cf. John 16:33: "In this world you will have trouble." Further, note Acts 12: James was beheaded, but Peter was rescued. Benefits of suffering: a) Pain lets us know when we are being burned; when we need to see a doctor. b) Can contribute to our spiritual development (James 1:12). Sudden calamities remind us of life's brevity. Suffering helps to keep us from becoming too attached to the material realm. This world is not my home. Suffering often leads men to turn to God. It can help prepare us for heaven.

Question: Does God forgive people who commit suicide?

Passages which deal with the subject: 1 Sam.31:3-5; 2 Sam. 17:23; 1 Kings 16:18; Matt. 27:5. In none of these passages is there anything to indicate that this was done with God's approval. There can be no doubt that it is sinful to take one's own life, just as it would be sinful for one to take the live of another. Acts 16:28: "Do yourself no harm." There are books available that tell how to plan suicide. Some seem very much aware of what they are doing, and plan for weeks or month to take their life. On the other hand, I knew of one young lady, who was a Christian, whose death was ruled suicide, but there was a great deal of doubt as to whether she really intended to take her life. Only God would know to what extent one who commits suicide was aware of what he/she was doing, and whether he/she was accountable for the act. Of course, God will be the judge. Related question: What about assisted suicides? 1. Obadiah 11 2. Rom. 1:32 3. Rom. 12:9 4. Eph. 5:11 5. 2 John 9ff. 6. Prov. 3:5,6

Question: Who put the thorn in Paul's flesh and why?

Despite Paul's grand character, and his faithfulness to the Lord, he was human, and as such, susceptible of being "exalted over much" by his singular experience of having been caught up to the "third heaven," the very presence of God (see 2 Cor. 12:1-6). To prevent this, he was given "a thorn in the flesh," a "messenger of Satan to buffet me." The text reads, "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure" (2 Cor. 12:7). The thorn (whatever it was) was a painful affliction. It was thrust into Paul by an agent of Satan. The word rendered, to "buffet" is used in Matthew 26:67 to describe our Lord's treatment by the Sanhedrin the night before He was crucified: "Then they spat in His face and beat Him...". So great was the agony which Paul suffered from this painful disorder that three times he implored the Lord to deliver him from it. Because a greater blessing would be Paul's with the thorn than without it, the Lord did not comply with the request, but he did what was in Paul's best interest. He did give Paul grace and strength to cope with the problem. Paul acquiesced to God's will (vv. 9-10). How wonderful and how wise God is! He gave Paul what was best for him, instead of what Paul asked for. Note also that Paul did not merely resign himself to it, but he welcomed it "most gladly" (v.9). He thus submitted to God's will, "that the power of Christ may rest upon me." Paul's own strength (as is ours) was insufficient. But "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" (Phil. 4:13; cf. 1 John 4:4). What Paul wanted most of all was the Lord's presence; His favor, protection and power. Paul's goal was heaven! It is impossible to identify with certainty the exact nature of the affliction (Deut. 29:29). Many suggest it was an affliction of the eyes, due to the following considerations: 1. Reference is made to his physical infirmity to the Galatians (4:13-14). At that time the Galatians would have "plucked out your own eyes and given them" to Paul (v.15). 2. He wrote with "large letters" (6:11). 3. Some believe that the incident of Acts 23:1-5 may be indicative of poor vision. Keep in mind the text does not say the Lord gave him the thorn; it says the Lord did not remove the thorn. The Bible teaches that some suffering is permitted by God, and overruled by Him for good. As was the case with Job (2:1ff.) God's gracious and restraining hand is never removed. (NICOT.447). The Father's chastening is always "for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness" (Heb. 12:10).

Question: Do you feel that chewing tobacco or dipping snuff is wrong?

Intro: The Bible does not specifically mention tobacco or its use. Therefore the question must be answered by the application of principles that are contained in the Bible. The use of tobacco is harmful to one's body. It has been linked to coronary artery disease and cancer. The apostle Paul taught Christians that their bodies belong to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:19,20; Rom. 12:1). The use of tobacco is an offensive habit. Chewing and dipping with appropriate spitting have an offensive smell as well as appearance. Matt. 7:12. The tobacco habit is an expensive habit. Often users will spend money on tobacco before groceries, medical care, or spiritual matters receive consideration. (1 Cor.4:2- Stewards ought to use wisely that which is intrusted to their care.) Perhaps one of the most important considerations is that of example. Can you picture Jesus dipping snuff or chewing tobacco? The practice could easily "turn off" one from any thing you would like to teach him about his soul. 1 Cor 10:32,33: "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved." Conclu: "To me, it would be a sin to use tobacco. I regard it as a filthy, useless habit that injures many and does few any good...". If you chew tobacco, dip snuff or smoke cigarettes will you go to hell? Intro: The Bible does not specifically mention tobacco or its use. Therefore the question must be answered by the application of principles that are contained in the Bible. The use of tobacco is harmful to one's body. It has been linked to coronary artery disease and cancer. Fifty years of medical research provides overwhelming evidence that cigarette smoking is a major cause of lung cancer, cancer of the larynx, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It has been linked to coronary artery disease, oral cancer, peptic ulcer, carcinoma of the bladder and cirrhosis of the liver. The death rate for smokers is about 70 percent higher than for non-smokers. The apostle Paul taught Christians that their bodies belong to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:19,20; Rom. 12:1). Not only is smoking harmful to the health of the use, but also to the health of those around him. Non-smokers often suffer from the second hand smoke which they must inhale from the smoker. It's not unusual to see a young mother smoking, with several small children forced to breath her second hand cigarette smoke. But the ad assures them, "You've come a long way, Baby." The use of tobacco is an offensive habit. Smoking, chewing and dipping with appropriate spitting have an offensive smell as well as appearance. Matt. 7:12. The tobacco habit is an expensive habit. Often users will spend money on tobacco before groceries, medical care, or spiritual matters receive consideration. (1 Cor.4:2- Stewards ought to use wisely that which is intrusted to their care.) Perhaps one of the most important considerations is that of example. The practice could easily "turn off" one from any thing you would like to teach him about his soul. 1 Cor 10:32,33: "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved." Paul said, "that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. A Christian who smokes cannot exert the best influence on others. Even many who are not Christians frown upon the use of tobacco. In that case a Christian who smokes would definitely hurt his potential influence upon reaching that non-Christian with the Gospel. (Rom.12:1,2). Many times a decision can be made regarding right and wrong by asking the question, What would Jesus do? Can you picture Jesus smoking, dipping, or chewing as He invites all to come unto Him, Come learn of me? "O to be like Thee! Blessed Redeemer; This is my constant longing and prayer; Gladly I'll forfeit all of earth's treasures, Jesus, Thy perfect likeness to ward. O to be like Thee! O to be like Thee! Blessed Redeemer, pure as Thou art; Come in Thy sweetness, come in thy fullness; Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart."

Question: Can there be speaking in tongues if the Holy Ghost is not present? Why do some churches not have speaking in tongues and others don't Is it because of the presence of the H.S. in some and not in others, or is it because of doctrinal differences?

What are tongues? These were languages (Acts 2:8-11). Teaching of 1 Cor. 12-14 regulated the use of tongues. Purpose of miraculous: Mk.16:20. That purpose has been accomplished. What if angel/miracle were to give a different revelation? cf. Gal. 1 a. If same as Bible/less/more/different/ b. What would be purpose today? There are 5 references to speaking in the N.T. (Mk.16:17; Acts 2:3,4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 12-14). The first is a promise, the next three are historical accounts, and the last deals with their proper use. The same Greek. word is used in each of these passages. Therefore, whatever it means it one place is its meaning in all. On Pentecost, those who spoke in tongues spoke languages that could be heard and understood (Acts 2:6-11). The fact that the tongues discussed in Corinthians were subject to interpretation is further proof that they were also languages (1 Cor. 12:10,30; 14:5,13,27) The word "unknown," appearing in the KJV of 1 Cor. 14:2,4,13,14,19, and 27, is in italics, showing that it was supplied by the translators. It is not in the Grk. text, nor is it in other standard translations. The tongues of the Bible were human languages, foreign to the speaker, but understood by those familiar with them. Tongues, along with other miraculous gifts, were given to early disciples to confirm the word of God (Mk.16:20). That word was confirmed and recorded by the end of the first century (Heb.2:3,4; Jno.20:30,31) Furthermore, if some are now able to speak in tongues, then all of the signs mentioned in the N.T. must be done today (Mk.16:17,18; 1 Cor. 12:8-10). Paul plainly declared that tongues shall cease (1 Cor. 13:8). This was to occur when that which is perfect is come (v.10). Means complete, full, in contrast to partial. At that time God's word was being revealed in part; later it was once for all delivered unto the saints. When that happened, tongues ceased.

Question: Discuss what the Bible teaches regarding women preachers.

The Bible has done more to exalt womanhood than any other book that has ever been written. Wherever the Bible has gone the status of women has been improved. Women are "joint-heirs of the grace of life" along with men (q Pet. 3:7). Paul wrote: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one (man) in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal.3:28,29). In the matter of salvation, men and women are equal. But the Bible distinguished between the roles of men and women. The head of woman is man (1 Cor. 11:3). Women are to teach (Acts 18:26-Priscilla helped her husband teach Apollos privately; 21:9 Philip had 4 virgin daughters who prophesied; cf. 2 Tim.2:2; Titus 2:3-5-Older women are commanded to teach younger women; there is no Biblical account of any of these teaching publicly), but not with authority over men (1 Tim. 2:11,12; 1 Cor. 14:34). Women are forbidden to preach publicly, serve as elders or take the lead in the work of the church (J. Thomas,pp.37,75). 1 Tim. 2:11,12: No woman can preach or teach publicly without usurping authority over the man. This shows disrespect for man, and for God who forbids it. It is regrettable that so often men set aside God's will in order to have their own way (2 Jno. 9)

Question: Where did God come from?

Ex. 3:14. The very name of God means "He is," "He exists," "He is present". (Theology of the O.T., p.189) Ps. 90:1,2. "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place In all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

Question: After we leave this world (this life) where will we go to live--in heaven or on earth?

Does the Bible say what it will be like? To find out what happens immediately at the moment of death, read Lk. 16:19f. The question obviously deals with those who are saved. To see the end of those who do not obey the Gospel, and die in their sins, 2 Thes.1:8-10, etc. Our reward is in heaven (Mt. 5:12; 6:19; John 14:1-3; 1 Pet.1:3,4. Earth will be destroyed 2 Pet. 3:7,10,12. The beauties of heaven are described in Rev. 21-22.

Question: Was the devil kicked out of heaven before or after the flood?

Both Peter and Jude speak of angels who left their proper habitation and were cast down into the hadean realm. "For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus), and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" (2 Pet. 2:4). "And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he that kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). "Condemnation of the devil" linked with sin of pride (1 Tim. 3:6). Jesus referred to the devil and his angels Matt.25:41. This is about all the information we have as to the origin of Satan. As to whether this was before or after the flood, the answer is that this took place before the flood. He is seen from the time of creation as the Tempter, and our adversary. (Gen. 3). see also Jno.8:44. Although cast out of heaven, Satan still had dominion over man because of the grip of sin until the death of Jesus on the cross. It was for the purpose of triumphing over Satan that Jesus came to earth and became flesh. Gen. 3:15; Heb. 2. He would bind the strong man (Isa.53; Matt. 12). Rev. 20 is to be understood in this light. Satan is not a myth. He is not funny. He is a real person who is deadly serious in his determination to cause souls to be lost. 1 Pet. 5:7; 2 Cor. 2:11; Eph. 6:12. When we sin, we become in bondage to sin and to Satan. But there is forgiveness through Christ, through His death, when we obey the Gospel of Christ, and continue in right relationship with Him.

Question: Discuss Lent and Easter.

Lent is the 40 days before Easter Sunday, and Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox (about Mar. 21). The custom of the Lenten or Spring Fast ("Lenten" is from the Anglo-Saxon word "lencten" which means "spring") developed slowly during the late 2nd and 3rd centuries. On Easter Sunday, special sermons eulogizing the resurrection of Christ are preached; sunrise services are conducted; multitudes of unknowing infants are sprinkled; many go to church for the one or two times they go each year. (Matt. 15:3,9,12-14; Gal. 4:9-11; Gal. 1:6-12; Col. 2:20-23). Mardi Gras: Ash Wednesday begins the 40 day Lenten season which is climaxed on Easter Sunday. The first day of importance in the traditional Catholic celebration of this season is Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday. "Shrove" refers to confession which is to be made before the 40 days of "fasting"begin. Shrove Tuesday is called in French, Mardi Gras, or "Fat Tuesday" which is observed by Catholics and others as the last day of a carnival period of feasting and merry-making before the Lenten fasting begins. Mardi Gras really means, "Eat, drunk and live it up for tomorrow we must observe Lent." Ash Wednesday follows Fat Tuesday. Ash Wednesday is a reference to the pouring of ashes on the head as a public admission of penitence, both for the excesses and sins of Fat Tuesday and previous sins as well. Maundy Thursday is the Thursday immediately preceding Easter. "Maundy" comes from the French word "Mande," meaning "command," and has reference to the washing of the Apostles' feed by Christ on Thursday evening before His death, and the institution of the "Eucharist" (Lord's Supper). This is celebrated in a ceremony of washing the feet of the poor and partaking of the "Mass". Such foot-washing was traditionally practiced in this observance from the fourth century to 1754 when it was abandoned. Good Friday was originally "God's Friday" and is kept by Catholics and others as the anniversary of the crucifixion. Origin of Easter Easter was not observed by the Apostles of Christ nor Christians of the NT era; it is no part of the religion of Christ. The name "Easter" is merely the slightly changed English spelling of the name of the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian goddess Ishtar. The name "Easter" comes to us from the mythological writings of the ancient Teucrians (who lived 1200 BC along the southern coast of Palestine) where it is known as "Ostern." Webster's says "Easter is from the pre-historic name of a pagan spring festival. The Easter tradition developed over a period of several centuries (late 2nd century to the 7th) with heated controversies surrounding the question of the proper date for its observance. The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) set the day of its observance, but still controversy continued.

Question: Is there anything God cannot do?

He is God Almighty (Gen.17:1). Question is answered in Jer. 31:17,27. 2. Power is seen in creation Rev. 4:11; Rom. 1:20. 3. In His redemption of Israel (Ex. 9:16). 4. In salvation: Lk. 1:35; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18. 5. Cannot lie Titus 1:2; 1 Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:18. 6. Cannot deny Himself 2 Tim. 2:11-13.

Question: Did Satan win at the cross? (He killed Jesus).

Jesus went to hell for the time between the cross and the resurrection. Then Jesus defeated Satan at the resurrection? From a human perspective it may have looked like Jesus was defeated by Satan at the cross. But we must see this from the divine perspective and from the Biblical standpoint. It would be correct to say that His heal was bruised, but not correct to say that He was defeated (Gen. 3:15). His death was according to the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2:23). Col. 2:12-15. Note v. 15: triumphing over them in it. NIV: "by the cross." Heb. 2:14. Consider the impression made upon the Roman centurion who stood at the foot of the cross (Mark 10:39): how He died. cf. Jno. 19. His power over Satan was actually seen before His death, during His personal ministry (Lk. 10:18; Jno.12:31; 16:11). Of course, His death would not have accomplished God's purpose without His resurrection. Rom. 1:4. But that does not mean that Satan defeated Jesus at the cross. Jesus did not go to hell (genenna – paradise for those who have done good and tatarus for those who have done evil) when He died. He did go to the hadean realm (translated hell, Acts 2:27,31 KJV), the realm where the spirit departs at death awaiting their final sentencing to Heaven or Hell. Lk. 23:43 Christ went to paradise. cf. Lk. 16:19f

Question: How old is the Bible?

There are 66 books in the Bible, written by 40 different men. The earliest writing is that of Moses, who wrote the first five books, during the 15th Century B.C. The last book is Revelation, written at the close of the 1st Century A.D. Consequently, the Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years. Therefore, if we speak of the age of the completed revealed will of God, we would say it is 1900 years old. If we speak of the earliest written revelation, then that goes back about 3400 years. In the Old Testament, there are 5 books of law: Genesis, Ex. Lev. Num, Deut. 3. 12 History: Josh. Jud. Ruth, 1&2 Sam. 1&2 Kings; 1&2 Chron. Ezra. Neh. Esther. 5 Poetry: Job, Psa. Prov., Eccl., Song of Solomon. 5. Prophets 17: Isa. Jer. Lament. Ezek. Dan. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zech. Malachi. 6. The New Test. consists of 27 books. The first 4 deal with the life of Christ. The book of Acts gives a history of the preaching of the gospel, with the establishment, and spread of the church. Romans-Jude are letters written to instruct Christians how to live so as to please God. Rev. is a book of prophecy, which primarily deals with things which were to shortly come to pass (1:1), for 1 Century Christians. Question #24: I've heard it said that we don't have all the Bible; is that true? 1. This question has reference to the apocrypha (a Greek term that means "hidden", or "secret things"), books that were written at various times from about 300 B.C. to 30 B.C. (The Bible Almanac, p.582). 2. These books are as follows: 1) 1 Esdras 2) II Esdras 3) Tobet 4) Judith 5) The Rest of the Book of Esther. 6) The Wisdom of Solomon 7) The Wisdom of Ecclesiasticus 8) Baruch 9) The Song of the Three Holy Children 10) The History of Susanna 11) Bel and the Dragon 12) The Prayer of Manasses 13) I Maccabees 14) II Maccabees 3) Some of these books are valuable as history, particularly the books of Maccabees, but they are not inspired books. 4) This can be seen from the fact that the New Testament quotes from the O.T. hundreds of times, but never from the apocrypha. 5) The 16th Century reformer, Martin Luther, included the apocrypha in his German Bible (1534), but printed them separately, asserting that they were not inspired, but profitable. 6) There is no internal or external evidence which would include the apocrypha as scripture. 7) The Council of Trent (1545-63) proclaimed the books as Scripture and pronounced an anathema on those who disagree. But this attempt is 1 1/2 thousand years too late. We can be confident that we have all God intended for us to have in our Bible.

Pages

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Answers to Questions I've Been Asked

No comments:

Post a Comment

Helpfull Links

What is really important to you?

THINGS and SITES I like