SIMPLE BIBLE QUESTIONS AND SIMPLE ANSWERS
Question: How can it be wrong to smoke pot, since God gave us every seed
producing plant to do with as we see fit.
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).
XI. 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:
H.Hailey: 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?
1. 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 spearation 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?
1. 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?
1. 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?
1. 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: 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment