prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
Is once saved, always saved biblical? |
Answer
Once a person is saved are they always saved? Yes, when people come to know Christ as their Savior, they are brought into a relationship with God that guarantees their salvation as eternally secure. To be clear, salvation is more than saying a prayer or “making a decision” for Christ; salvation is a sovereign act of God whereby an unregenerate sinner is washed, renewed, and born again by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3; Titus 3:5\). When salvation occurs, God gives the forgiven sinner a new heart and puts a new spirit within him (Ezekiel 36:26\). The Spirit will cause the saved person to walk in obedience to God’s Word (Ezekiel 36:26–27; James 2:26\). Numerous passages of Scripture declare the fact that, as an act of God, salvation is secure:
(a) Romans 8:30 declares, "And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified." This verse tells us that from the moment God chooses us, it is as if we are glorified in His presence in heaven. There is nothing that can prevent a believer from one day being glorified because God has already purposed it in heaven. Once a person is justified, his salvation is guaranteed—he is as secure as if he is already glorified in heaven.
(b) Paul asks two crucial questions in Romans 8:33\-34 "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us." Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? No one will, because Christ is our advocate. Who will condemn us? No one will, because Christ, the One who died for us, is the one who condemns. We have both the advocate and judge as our Savior.
(c) Believers are born again (regenerated) when they believe (John 3:3; Titus 3:5\). For a Christian to lose his salvation, he would have to be un\-regenerated. The Bible gives no evidence that the new birth can be taken away.
(d) The Holy Spirit indwells all believers (John 14:17; Romans 8:9\) and baptizes all believers into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13\). For a believer to become unsaved, he would have to be "un\-indwelt" and detached from the Body of Christ.
(e) John 3:15 states that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life." If you believe in Christ today and have eternal life, but lose it tomorrow, then it was never "eternal" at all. Hence, if you lose your salvation, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be in error.
(f) In a conclusive argument, Scripture says, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38–39\). Remember the same God who saved you is the same God who will keep you. Once we are saved, we are always saved. Our salvation is most definitely eternally secure!
|
What does the Bible say about tattoos? |
Answer
Tattoos are more popular than ever in many parts of the world. The number of people with tattoos has increased dramatically in recent years. Tattoos are not just for delinquents or rebels anymore. The edginess of rebellion historically associated with tattoos is starting to wear off.
The New Testament does not say anything about whether or not a believer in Jesus Christ should get a tattoo. Therefore, we cannot say that getting a tattoo is a sin. Because of Scripture’s silence, getting inked falls under the category of a “gray area,” and believers should follow their convictions in the matter, respecting those who may have different convictions.
Here are some general biblical principles that may apply to getting a tattoo:
◦ Children are to honor and obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1–2\). For a minor to get a tattoo in violation of his or her parents’ wishes is biblically unsupportable. Tattoos born of [rebellion](Bible-rebellion.html) are sinful.
◦ “Outward adornment” is not as important as the development of the “inner self” and should not be the focus of a Christian (1 Peter 3:3–4\). A person who desires a tattoo to garner attention or draw admiration has a vain, sinful focus on self.
◦ God sees the heart, and our [motivation](Bible-motives.html) for anything we do should be to glorify God (1 Corinthians 10:31\). Motivations for getting a tattoo such as “to fit in,” “to stand out,” etc., fall short of the glory of God. The tattoo itself may not be a sin, but the motivation in getting it might be.
◦ Our bodies, as well as our souls, have been redeemed and belong to God. The believer’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\). How much modification of that temple is appropriate? Is there a line that should not be crossed? Is there a point at which the proliferation of tattoos on one body ceases to be art and starts becoming sinful mutilation? This should be a matter of individual reflection and honest prayer.
◦ We are [Christ’s ambassadors](ambassador-for-Christ.html), delivering God’s message to the world (2 Corinthians 5:20\). What message does the tattoo send, and will it aid or detract from representing Christ and sharing the gospel?
◦ Whatever does not come from faith is sin (Romans 14:23\), so the person getting the tattoo should be fully convinced that it is God’s will for him or her.
We cannot leave the discussion of tattoos without looking at the Old Testament law that prohibited tattoos: “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:28\). The reason for the prohibition of tattoos in this passage is not stated, but it is likely that tattooing was a pagan practice connected with idolatry and superstition. It was probably common for the pagans to mark their skin with the name of a false god or with a symbol honoring some idol. God demanded that His children be different. As He reminded them in the same verse, “I am the LORD.” The Israelites belonged to Him; they were His workmanship, and they should not bear the name of a false god on their bodies. While New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law, we can take from this command the principle that, if a Christian chooses to get a tattoo, it should never be for superstitious reasons or to promote worldly philosophy.
The bottom line is that getting a tattoo is not a sin, per se. It is a matter of Christian freedom and should be guided by biblical principles and rooted in love.
|
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? |
Answer
In some people’s minds, being homosexual is as much outside one’s control as the color of your skin and your height. On the other hand, the Bible clearly and consistently declares that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10\). God created marriage and sexual relationships to be between one man and one woman: “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (Matthew 19:4–5\). Anything outside of God’s intent and design is sin. The Bible teaches that Christians are to live for God, deny themselves, pick up their cross, and follow Him (Matthew 16:24\), including with their sexuality. This disconnect between what the Bible says and what some people feel leads to much controversy, debate, and even hostility.
When examining what the Bible says about homosexuality, it is important to distinguish between homosexual *behavior* and homosexual *inclinations* or *attractions*. It is the difference between active sin and the passive condition of being tempted. Homosexual behavior is sinful, but the Bible never says it is a sin to be tempted. Simply stated, a struggle with temptation may lead to sin, but the struggle itself is not a sin.
Romans 1:26–27 teaches that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. One of the fruits of rebellion against God is homosexuality. First Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that those who practice homosexuality, and therefore transgress God’s created order, are not saved.
A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. Just because a person is born with a greater susceptibility to fits of rage doesn’t make it right for him to give in to those desires and explode at every provocation. The same is true with a susceptibility to homosexuality.
No matter our proclivities or attractions, we cannot continue to define ourselves by the very sins that crucified Jesus—and at the same time assume we are right with God. Paul lists many of the sins that the Corinthians once practiced (homosexuality is on the list). But in 1 Corinthians 6:11, he reminds them, “That is what some of you *were*. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). In other words, some of the Corinthians, before they were saved, lived homosexual lifestyles; but no sin is too great for the cleansing power of Jesus. Once cleansed, we are no longer defined by sin.
The problem with homosexual attraction is that it is an attraction to something that God has declared to be sinful, and any desire for something sinful ultimately has its roots in sin. The pervasive nature of sin causes us to see the world and our own actions through a warped perspective. Our thoughts, desires, and dispositions are all affected. So, homosexual attraction does not always result in active, willful sin—there may not be a conscious choice to sin—but it springs from the [sinful nature](sin-nature.html). Same\-sex attraction is always, on some basic level, an expression of the fallen nature.
As sinful human beings living in a sinful world (Romans 3:23\), we are beset with weaknesses, temptations, and inducements to sin. Our world is filled with lures and entrapments, including the enticement to practice homosexuality.
The temptation to engage in homosexual behavior is real to many. Those who struggle with [homosexual attraction](same-sex-attraction.html) often report suffering through years of wishing things were different. People may not always be able to control how or what they feel, but they *can* control what they do with those feelings (1 Peter 1:5–8\). We all have the responsibility to resist temptation (Ephesians 6:13\). We must all be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2\). We must all “walk by the Spirit” so as not to “gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16\).
Finally, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Without Christ, we are lost, whatever type of sin has entangled us. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is available to the homosexual just as it is to the adulterer, idol worshiper, murderer, and thief. God promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13\).
|
What does the Bible say about women pastors? |
Answer
There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than that of women serving as pastors. As a result, it is important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as pastors and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not a matter of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11–12\). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13–14\). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, since pastoring definitely includes preaching, teaching publicly, and exercising spiritual authority.
There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11–14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women *of Ephesus* from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism—therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female\-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11–12\.
A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 *could* refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8–10\. Are only *husbands* to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8\)? Are only *wives* to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9–10\)? Of course not. Verses 8–10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11–14\.
Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry references women in positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women were chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people—the church, the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, [Priscilla and Aquila](Priscilla-Aquila-Apollos.html) are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. In verse 18, Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, suggesting to some that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. (The detail of whose name comes first is probably inconsequential, because in verses 2 and 26 the order is reversed from that of verse 18\.) Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26\). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11–14\.
In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–13; Titus 1:6–9\).
The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11–12\. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13–14\). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22–33\) and in the church.
The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men (1 Timothy 2:14\). This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because *Eve* was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helping/serving. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5\), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12\). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23\), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15\).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This does not imply men are better teachers or that women are inferior or less intelligent. It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are also to set an example in their lives, but in a different way (1 Peter 3:1\-6\). Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5\). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This bars women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means; rather, it gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s design.
|
What does the Bible say about interracial marriage? |
Answer
The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3–4\). However, the reason for this command was not skin color or ethnicity. Rather, it was religious. The reason God commanded against interracial marriage for the Jews was that foreign people were worshipers of false gods. The Israelites would be led astray if they intermarried with idol worshipers, pagans, or heathens. This is exactly what happened in Israel, according to Malachi 2:11\.
A similar principle of spiritual purity is laid out in the New Testament, but it has nothing to do with race: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14\). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry idolaters, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers. The Bible never says that interracial marriage is wrong. Anyone who forbids interracial marriage is doing so without biblical authority.
As [Martin Luther King, Jr.](Dr-Martin-Luther-King-Jr.html), noted, a person should be judged by his or her character, not by skin color. There is no place in the life of the Christian for favoritism based on race (James 2:1–10\). In fact, the biblical perspective is that there is only one “race”—the human race—with everyone having descended from Adam and Eve. When selecting a mate, a Christian should first find out if the potential spouse is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3–5\). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong but of prayer and personal choice.
A couple considering marriage needs to weigh many factors. While a difference in ethnicity should not be ignored, it absolutely should not be the determining factor in whether a couple should marry. An interracial couple may face discrimination and ridicule, and they should be prepared to respond to such prejudice in a biblical manner. But marriage is honorable among all (Hebrews 13:4\). Also, “there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him” (Romans 10:12\). A colorblind church and/or a Christian interracial marriage can be a powerful illustration of our equality and oneness in Christ.
|
Who was Cain’s wife? |
Answer
The Bible does not specifically say who Cain’s wife was. The only possible answer is that Cain’s wife was his sister or niece or great\-niece, etc. The Bible does not say how old Cain was when he killed Abel (Genesis 4:8\), but they both were likely full\-grown adults. Adam and Eve surely had given birth to more children than just Cain and Abel at the time Abel was killed. They definitely had many more children later (Genesis 5:4\). The fact that Cain was scared for his own life after he killed Abel (Genesis 4:14\) indicates that there were likely many other children and perhaps even grandchildren of Adam and Eve living at that time. Cain’s wife (Genesis 4:17\) was a daughter or granddaughter of Adam and Eve.
Since Adam and Eve were the first (and only) human beings, their children would have no other choice than to intermarry. God did not forbid inter\-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6–18\). The reason that incest today often results in genetic abnormalities is that, when two people of similar genetics (i.e., a brother and sister) have children together, there is a high risk of their recessive characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. The human genetic code has become increasingly damaged over the centuries as genetic defects are multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve were perfectly designed by God, and their lack of genetic defects enabled them (and the first few generations of their descendants) to have a greater quality of health than we do now. When sin entered the world through [Adam and Eve’s disobedience](fall-affect-humanity.html) to God, it brought sickness, disease, and a compromised bloodline for all their descendants. Their children had few, if any, genetic mutations; therefore, they could intermarry safely.
|
Eternal security - is it biblical? |
Answer
When people come to know Christ as their Savior, they are brought into a relationship with God that guarantees their eternal security. Jude 24 declares, "To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy." God’s power is able to keep the believer from falling. It is up to Him, not us, to present us before His glorious presence. Our eternal security is a result of God keeping us, not us maintaining our own salvation.
The Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand" (John 10:28\-29b). Both Jesus and the Father have us firmly grasped in their hand. Who could possibly separate us from the grip of both the Father and the Son?
Ephesians 4:30 tells us that believers are "sealed for the day of redemption." If believers did not have eternal security, the sealing could not truly be unto the day of redemption, but only to the day of sinning, apostasy, or disbelief. John 3:15\-16 tells us that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life." If a person were to be promised eternal life, but then have it taken away, it was never "eternal" to begin with. If eternal security is not true, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be in error.
The most powerful argument for eternal security is Romans 8:38\-39, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Our eternal security is based on God’s love for those whom He has redeemed. Our eternal security is purchased by Christ, promised by the Father, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
|
What happens after death? |
Answer
Within the Christian faith, there is a significant amount of confusion regarding what happens after death. Some hold that after death everyone “sleeps” until the final judgment, after which everyone will be sent to heaven or hell. Others believe that at the moment of death people are instantly judged and sent to their eternal destinations. Still others claim that, when people die, their souls/spirits are sent to a “temporary” heaven or hell to await the final resurrection, the final judgment, and the finality of their eternal destination. So, what exactly does the Bible say happens after death?
First, for the believer in Jesus Christ, the Bible tells us that after death believers’ souls/spirits are taken to heaven, because their sins were forgiven when they received Christ as Savior (John 3:16, 18, 36\). For believers, death means being “away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6–8; Philippians 1:23\). However, passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:50–54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17 describe believers being resurrected and given glorified bodies. If believers go to be with Christ immediately after death, what is the purpose of this resurrection? It seems that, while the souls/spirits of believers go to be with Christ immediately at death, the physical body remains in the grave “sleeping.” At the resurrection of believers, the physical body is resurrected, glorified, and reunited with the soul/spirit. This reunited and glorified body\-soul\-spirit will be the state of existence for believers for eternity in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21—22\).
Second, for those who do not receive Jesus Christ as Savior, death means everlasting punishment. However, similar to the destiny of believers, it seems that unbelievers also go to a temporary holding place to await their final resurrection, judgment, and eternal destiny. Luke 16:22–23 describes a rich man being tormented immediately after death. Revelation 20:11–15 describes all the unbelieving dead being resurrected, judged at the great white throne, and cast into the lake of fire. Unbelievers, then, are not sent to hell (the lake of fire) immediately after death, but they are rather sent to a temporary realm of judgment and anguish. The rich man cried out, “I am in agony in this fire” (Luke 16:24\).
After death, a person resides in either a place of comfort or in a place of torment. These realms act as a temporary “heaven” and a temporary “hell” until the resurrection. At that point, the soul is reunited with the body, but no one’s eternal destiny will change. The first resurrection is for the “blessed and holy” (Revelation 20:6\)—everyone who is in Christ—and those who are part of the first resurrection will enter the millennial kingdom and, ultimately, the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1\). The other resurrection happens after Christ’s millennial kingdom, and it involves a judgment on the wicked and unbelieving “according to what they had done” (Revelation 20:13\). These, whose names are not in the book of life, will be sent to the lake of fire to experience the “second death” (Revelation 20:14–15\). The new earth and the lake of fire—these two destinations are final and eternal. People go to one or the other, based entirely on whether they have trusted Jesus Christ for salvation (Matthew 25:46; John 3:36\).
|
Masturbation—is it a sin according to the Bible? |
Answer
The Bible does not mention masturbation or self\-gratification or “solo sex,” as it’s sometimes called. In its silence on the subject, the Bible does not state whether or not masturbation is a sin. Some people take the view that masturbation is a lustful act and is always wrong; others believe it involves a normal bodily function and has nothing to do with sin.
A passage frequently associated with masturbation is the story of [Onan](onanism.html) in Genesis 38:9–10\. Some interpret this passage to say that “spilling seed”—the squandering of semen—is a sin. However, that is not what the passage is saying. God condemned Onan not for “spilling his seed” but because Onan was rebellious. Onan refused to fulfill his duty to provide an heir for his deceased brother. The passage is not about masturbation but about fulfilling a family obligation.
A second passage sometimes used as evidence that masturbation is a sin is Matthew 5:27–30\. Jesus speaks against having lustful thoughts and then says, “If your right hand causes you to sin, [cut it off](pluck-out-eye-cut-off-hand.html) and throw it away.” While there is often a connection between lustful thoughts and masturbation, it is unlikely that Jesus was alluding to the specific sin of masturbation in this passage.
Though the Bible nowhere explicitly addresses masturbation, it does outline the purpose of sex. According to 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, “Each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control.” Implicit in this passage are these truths:
\- God’s plan for sex requires relationship, namely, that of a husband and wife (verse 2\). Masturbation is sex disconnected from relationship.
\- Foundational to God’s plan for sex is giving one’s body to another (verse 4\). Masturbation is the keeping of one’s body to oneself.
\- The solution to a time of deprivation is to “come together” (verse 5\). Masturbation is done alone, not together.
First Corinthians 7:9 identifies the proper outlet for single people who struggle with sexual desire: “If they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Paul suggests that self\-control is the best avenue. To singles who lack self\-control, Paul does not say, “Let them masturbate”; he says, “Let them marry.” Again, marriage is the God\-given outlet for sexual yearnings.
Those who believe that masturbation has no moral or ethical import argue that masturbation is a “need” akin to the need to eat or the need to scratch an itch. However, the Bible never presents sexual fulfillment as a need. On the contrary, Paul says to the unmarried, “It’s better to stay unmarried” (1 Corinthians 7:8, NLT).
Certain actions often associated with masturbation are sinful and should be dealt with: lustful thoughts, inappropriate sexual stimulation, and [pornography](pornography-Bible.html) use, for example. If these problems are tackled, masturbation becomes less of a temptation. Many people struggle with guilt concerning masturbation, when, in reality, they would be better off repenting of the sins that lead them to masturbate.
So, is masturbation a sin? The Bible does not directly answer this question, but there definitely are some biblical principles to apply:
(1\) “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31\). If we cannot give God glory for something, we should not do it.
(2\) “Everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23\). If we are not fully convinced that an activity is honoring to God, it is a sin.
(3\) “I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12\). Christians have a responsibility to avoid anything that might enslave them.
(4\) “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Corinthians 9:27\). Self\-denial is difficult, but self\-discipline is worth it.
(5\) “The fruit of the Spirit is . . . self\-control” (Galatians 5:22–23\). Masturbation is almost always a sign of a *lack* of self\-control.
(6\) Do “not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want” (Galatians 5:16–17\). We are called to self\-denial, not to self\-gratification.
These truths should have an impact on what we do with our bodies. In light of the above principles, it is doubtful that masturbation can be a God\-honoring activity. If masturbation could be done with
• no lust in the heart
• no immoral thoughts
• no pornography
• no self\-gratification of the flesh
• full assurance that it is good and right
• thanks given to God
then perhaps it would be allowable. But those qualifiers seem to negate the very meaning and purpose of masturbation.
|
What does the Bible say about Christian tithing? |
Answer
Many Christians struggle with the issue of tithing. In some churches giving is over\-emphasized. At the same time, many Christians refuse to submit to the biblical exhortations about making offerings to the Lord. Tithing/giving is intended to be a joy and a blessing. Sadly, that is sometimes not the case in the church today.
Tithing is an Old Testament concept. The tithe was a requirement of the Law in which the Israelites were to give 10 percent of the crops they grew and the livestock they raised to the tabernacle/temple (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:24; 2 Chronicles 31:5\). In fact, the Old Testament Law required multiple tithes—one for the Levites, one for the use of the temple and the feasts, and one for the poor of the land—which would have pushed the total to around 23\.3 percent. Some understand the Old Testament tithe as a method of taxation to provide for the needs of the priests and Levites in the sacrificial system.
After the death of Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, the New Testament nowhere commands, or even recommends, that Christians submit to a legalistic tithe system. The New Testament nowhere designates a percentage of income a person should set aside, but only says gifts should be “in keeping with income” (1 Corinthians 16:2\). Some in the Christian church have taken the 10 percent figure from the Old Testament tithe and applied it as a “recommended minimum” for Christians in their giving.
Although no tithe is demanded of the Christian, the New Testament talks about the importance and benefits of giving. We are to give as we are able. Sometimes that means giving more than 10 percent; sometimes that may mean giving less. It all depends on the ability of the Christian and the needs of the body of Christ. Every Christian should diligently pray and seek God’s wisdom in the matter (James 1:5\). Above all, offerings should be given with pure motives and an attitude of worship to God and service to the body of Christ. “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7\).
|
What does the Bible say about suicide? |
Answer
Suicide is a tragic reality in our fallen world. That people experience desperation to the point that they believe the best option is to end their own lives is heartbreaking. To lose a loved one to suicide prompts a range of questions and a special kind of grief. But the Bible offers hope—both to those who are considering suicide and to those who have been affected by the suicide of another.
To those who are desperate, please recognize that suicide is not the best option. In Christ, there is [hope](hope-Bible.html). Also recognize that you are not alone. In fact, the Bible speaks of many who felt deep despair in life. Solomon, in his pursuit of pleasure, reached the point where he “hated life” (Ecclesiastes 2:17\). Elijah was fearful and depressed and yearned for death (1 Kings 19:4\). Jonah was so angry at God that he wished to die (Jonah 4:8\). Even the apostle Paul and his missionary companions at one point “were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself” (2 Corinthians 1:8\).
But Solomon learned to “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind” (Ecclesiastes 12:13\). Elijah was comforted by an angel, allowed to rest, and given a new commission. Jonah received admonition and rebuke from God. Paul learned that, although the pressure he faced was beyond his ability to endure, the Lord can bear all things: “This happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:9\).
You, too, can turn to God. Paul wrote, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:3–5\). You can experience that same [comfort](comfort-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) in Jesus. If you have trusted in Jesus as your Savior, you are a child of God, you have the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:3–14\), and you have continual access to God in prayer.
Referring to Jesus, Hebrews 4:15–16 encourages, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” Romans 8:15–17 says, “The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, ‘*Abba*, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co\-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”
Cling to the promises of God. Go to Him in prayer (the book of Psalms might be particularly helpful). Reach out to brothers and sisters in Christ for encouragement. Believers are called to encourage one another and bear one another’s burdens (Ephesians 4:32; Galatians 6:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Hebrews 10:24–25\). Allow them to do so.
On a more theological note, recognize that God, as our Creator, is the only one who is to decide when and how a person should die. We should say with the psalmist, “My times are in your hands” (Psalm 31:15\).
God is the giver of life. He gives, and He takes away (Job 1:21\). Trust Him with your days. Remind yourself of His character and His authority. Other believers are helpful in reminding us of truth; ask them to remind you of truth.
Much of the above advice also applies to those who are grieving the loss of a loved one to suicide. Those who are grieving can remember that God is sovereign and each person’s days are in God’s hands. The bereaved can come to God with their grief and their questions (1 Peter 5:6–7\). They can invite other believers to mourn with them (Romans 12:15\).
For the sake of clarity, we should state that suicide is a sin against God and others. However, suicide does not determine a person’s eternal destiny. Our eternal destiny rests solely on God’s grace. Those who trust in Jesus Christ are [fully forgiven](forgiveness-of-sin.html) of every sin, and they receive eternal life; those who reject Him remain condemned (John 3:16–18, 36; Ephesians 2:1–10\).
If you are considering suicide, please seek help now. In the US, please call 988 or 1\-800\-273\-8255, the national hotline. Or get yourself to a hospital or call 911\. Or go alert someone in your home, apartment, or workplace, or wherever you are. Do whatever it takes to get help.
National Hopeline Network: 1\-800\-422\-HOPE (4673\)
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988
To Write Love on Her Arms: [http://twloha.com/find\-help](http://twloha.com/find-help)
Befrienders.org: <http://www.befrienders.org/directory>
Suicide hotlines available in most countries: [http://www.suicide.org/international\-suicide\-hotlines.html](http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-hotlines.html)
|
Do pets go to heaven? |
Answer
The Bible does not give any explicit teaching on whether pets/animals have souls, or whether pets/animals will be in heaven. However, we can use general biblical principles to develop some clarity on the subject. The Bible states that both man (Genesis 2:7\) and animals (Genesis 1:30; 6:17; 7:15, 22\) have the “breath of life”; that is, both man and animals are living beings. The primary difference between human beings and animals is that humanity is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26\-27\), while animals are not. Being made in the image and likeness of God means that human beings are like God in some ways; they are capable of spirituality; they have a mind, emotion, and will; and part of their being continues after death. If pets/animals do have a soul (or spirit, or immaterial aspect), it must therefore be of a different and lesser quality. This difference possibly means that pet/animal souls do not continue in existence after death.
Another factor to consider regarding whether pets will be heaven is that animals are a part of God’s creative process in Genesis. God created the animals and said they were good (Genesis 1:25\). Therefore, there is no reason why there could not be pets / animals on the new earth (Revelation 21:1\). There will most definitely be animals during the millennial kingdom (Isaiah 11:6; 65:25\). It is impossible to say definitively whether some of these animals might be the pets we had here on earth. We do know that God is just and that when we get to heaven we will find ourselves in complete agreement with His decision on this issue, whatever it may be.
|
What does the Bible say about dinosaurs? |
Answer
The topic of dinosaurs in the Bible is part of a larger ongoing debate within the Christian community over the age of the earth, the proper interpretation of Genesis, and how to interpret the physical evidence we find all around us. Those who believe in an older age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, because, according to the old\-earth paradigm, dinosaurs died out millions of years before the first man ever walked the earth, so the men who wrote the Bible could not have seen living dinosaurs.
Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dinosaurs, though it never actually uses the word *dinosaur*. Instead, it uses the Hebrew word *tanniyn*, which is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles. Sometimes it’s “sea monster,” and sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “[dragon](Bible-dragons.html)” in the KJV. The *tanniyn* appears to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 74:13; Isaiah 27:1; Jeremiah 51:34\) and were found both on land and in the water. Another Hebrew word, *livyathan*, transliterated [*leviathan*](leviathan.html), is used six times in Scripture (e.g., Job 41:1; Psalm 104:26\) and refers to some type of large, fierce sea creature. The description of leviathan in Job 41 gives the impression of a strong yet graceful, unstoppable creature against which weapons are unavailing: “Nothing on earth is its equal” (Job 41:33\).
Another giant creature the Bible describes and that Job was familiar with is the [behemoth](behemoth.html), said to be “a prime example of God’s handiwork” (Job 40:19, NLT). The behemoth is a huge, plant\-eating animal that dwells by the water. Its bones are like “tubes of bronze,” and its limbs are like “rods of iron” (Job 40:18\); its tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:17\). Some have tried to identify the behemoth as an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, and Saltasaurus, on the other hand, had huge tails that could easily be compared to a cedar tree.
Nearly every ancient civilization has left some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs and clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict images of creatures resembling Triceratops, Diplodocus, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans\-cultural, geographically unbounded memories of these creatures. Thirteenth\-century explorer Marco Polo wrote of seeing “huge serpents” in China, which he described: “At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, each with three claws, as well as eyes larger than a loaf and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror” ((Polo, M., *The Travels of Marco Polo*, trans. by Marsden, W., ed. by Rugoff, M., Signet Classics, 1961, pp. 158–159\).). (See https://apologeticspress.org/physical\-evidence\-for\-the\-coexistence\-of\-dinosaurs\-and\-humans\-part\-i\-2416/, http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/visual.html, and https://creation.com/ica\-stones\-authenticated.)
So, are there dinosaurs in the Bible? The matter is far from settled. It depends on how one interprets the available evidence. If the first two chapters of Genesis are taken literally, the result is a belief in a relatively young earth and the conviction that dinosaurs and man coexisted.
If dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, what happened to the dinosaurs? The Bible does not discuss the issue, but dinosaurs likely [died out](dinosaur-extinction.html) sometime after the flood due to a combination of dramatic environmental shifts and being relentlessly hunted to extinction.
|
What is the gift of speaking in tongues? |
Answer
The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the [day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html) in Acts 2:1–4\. The apostles shared the gospel with the crowds, speaking to them in their own languages. The crowds were amazed: “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:11\). The Greek word translated “tongues” literally means “languages.” Therefore, the gift of tongues is speaking in a language the speaker has never learned in order to minister to someone who does speak that language. In 1 Corinthians 12—14, Paul discusses miraculous gifts, saying, “Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?” (1 Corinthians 14:6\). According to the apostle Paul, and in agreement with the tongues described in Acts, speaking in tongues is valuable to the one hearing God’s message in his or her own language, but it is useless to everyone else unless it is interpreted/translated.
A person with the [gift of interpreting tongues](gift-interpreting-tongues.html) (1 Corinthians 12:30\) could understand what a tongues\-speaker was saying even though he did not know the language being spoken. The tongues interpreter would then communicate the message of the tongues speaker to everyone else, so all could understand. “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says” (1 Corinthians 14:13\). Paul’s conclusion regarding tongues that were not interpreted is powerful: “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:19\).
Is the gift of tongues for today? First Corinthians 13:8 mentions the gift of tongues ceasing, although it connects the ceasing with the arrival of the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10\. Some point to a difference in the tense of the Greek verbs referring to prophecy and knowledge “ceasing” and that of tongues “being ceased” as evidence for tongues ceasing before the arrival of the “[perfect](perfect-1Corinthians-13-10.html).” While a possible interpretation, this is not explicitly clear from the text. Some also point to passages such as Isaiah 28:11 and Joel 2:28–29 as evidence that speaking in tongues was a sign of God’s oncoming judgment. First Corinthians 14:22 describes tongues as a “sign to unbelievers.” Using this verse, [cessationists](cessationism.html) argue that the gift of tongues was a warning to the Jews that God was going to judge Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ as Messiah. Therefore, when God did in fact judge Israel (with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70\), the gift of tongues no longer served its intended purpose. This view is also possible, but the primary purpose of tongues being fulfilled does not necessarily demand the gift’s cessation. Scripture does not conclusively assert that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased.
At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10\). It would be for the purpose of communicating God’s Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6–12\). It would be exercised in the church in agreement with the command God gave through Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians 14:27–28\). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”
God can definitely give a person the gift of speaking in tongues to enable him or her to communicate with a person who speaks another language. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in the dispersion of the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11\). Just imagine how much more productive missionaries could be if they did not have to go to language school and were instantly able to speak to people in their own language. However, God does not seem to be doing this. Tongues does not seem to occur today in the manner it did in the New Testament, despite the fact that it would be immensely useful. The majority of believers who claim to practice the gift of speaking in tongues do not do so in agreement with the Scriptures mentioned above. These facts lead to the conclusion that the gift of tongues has ceased or is at least a rarity in God’s plan for the church today.
|
What does the Bible say about drinking alcohol? |
Answer
Scripture has much to say regarding the drinking of alcohol (Leviticus 10:9; Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 29:6; Judges 13:4, 7, 14; Proverbs 20:1; 31:4; Isaiah 5:11, 22; 24:9; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12\). However, Scripture does not necessarily forbid a Christian from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. In fact, some passages of Scripture discuss alcohol in positive terms. Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs, “Drink your wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14\-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:1 encourages, “Yes, come buy wine and milk…”
What God commands Christians regarding alcohol is to avoid drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18\). The Bible condemns drunkenness and its effects (Proverbs 23:29\-35\). Christians are also commanded to not allow their bodies to be “mastered” by anything (1 Corinthians 6:12; 2 Peter 2:19\). Drinking alcohol in excess is undeniably addictive. Scripture also forbids a Christian from doing anything that might offend other Christians or encourage them to sin against their conscience (1 Corinthians 8:9\-13\). In light of these principles, it would be extremely difficult for any Christian to say he is drinking alcohol in excess to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31\).
Jesus changed water into wine. It even seems that [Jesus drank wine](did-Jesus-drink-wine.html) on occasion (John 2:1\-11; Matthew 26:29\). In New Testament times, the water was not very clean. Without modern sanitation, the water was often filled with bacteria, viruses, and all kinds of contaminants. The same is true in many developing countries today. As a result, people often drank wine (or grape juice) because it was far less likely to be contaminated. In 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul instructed Timothy to stop drinking water exclusively (which was probably causing his stomach problems) and instead drink wine. In that day, wine was fermented (containing alcohol), but not necessarily to the degree it is today. It is incorrect to say that it was grape juice, but it is also incorrect to say that it was the same thing as the wine commonly used today. Again, Scripture does not forbid Christians from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. Alcohol is not, in and of itself, tainted by sin. It is drunkenness and addiction to alcohol that a Christian must absolutely refrain from (Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 6:12\).
Alcohol, consumed in small quantities, is neither harmful nor addictive for most people—the exception being those who struggle with addiction. Some doctors advocate drinking small amounts of red wine for its health benefits, especially for the heart. Consumption of small quantities of alcohol is a matter of Christian freedom. Drunkenness and addiction are sin. However, due to the biblical concerns regarding alcohol and its effects, due to the easy temptation to consume alcohol in excess, and due to the possibility of causing a brother to stumble, it is often best for a Christian to abstain from drinking alcohol.
|
Is gambling a sin? |
Answer
The Bible does not specifically condemn gambling, betting, or the [lottery](Bible-lottery.html). The Bible does warn us, however, against the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5\). Scripture also encourages us to avoid attempts to “get rich quick” (Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10\); we are to work hard and earn a living (2 Thessalonians 3:10; Proverbs 14:23\). Gambling focuses on the [love of money](love-money-root-evil.html) and tempts people with the promise of quick and easy riches.
Gambling, if done in moderation and only on occasion, is a waste of money but not necessarily evil. People waste money on all sorts of activities. Gambling is no more or less wasteful than seeing a movie (in many cases), eating an unnecessarily expensive meal, or purchasing a worthless item. Of course, the fact that money is wasted on other things does not justify gambling. Money should not be wasted. By cutting wasteful spending, one can save money for future needs or give more to the Lord’s work. Gambling only adds to the waste.
While the Bible does not explicitly mention gambling, it does mention events of “luck” or “chance.” For example, [casting lots](casting-lots.html) was God’s prescribed method of choosing between the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:8\). Joshua cast lots to determine the allotment of land to the various tribes, and the results were accepted as God’s will (Joshua 18:10\). Nehemiah cast lots to determine who would live inside the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 11:1\). The apostles cast lots to determine the replacement for Judas (Acts 1:26\). Each of these occasions proved the truth of Proverbs 16:33, which says, “The lot is cast in the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” With the exception of the Roman soldiers’ gambling at the foot of the cross (John 19:24\), none of the instances of casting lots in the Bible have to do with betting or the transfer of goods. The apostles’ casting lots in Acts 1 is no justification for playing craps in Vegas.
Gambling, by nature, takes advantage of the misfortune of others. In order for one person to win, someone else—usually multiple others—must lose. For a Christian to risk money in the off chance that he will gain even more is foolish. But to actively seek financial benefit from someone else’s loss is more than foolish; it is unethical.
What about casinos and lotteries? Casinos use all sorts of marketing schemes to entice gamblers to risk as much money as possible. They often offer inexpensive or even free alcohol, which encourages drunkenness—and a decreased ability to make wise decisions. Everything in a casino is perfectly rigged for taking money in large sums and giving nothing in return but momentary thrills and empty pleasures.
State and national lotteries are a form of gambling. Lotteries tempt people with the possibility of quick riches and are marketed as a way to fund education and/or social programs. However, it seems that those the lottery is touted to help are actually being hurt. A recent study showed that households in the lowest income bracket spend 13 percent of their annual household income on the lottery, in contrast to the highest earners, who spend just 1 percent of their income on the lottery (Bankrate survey, October 2019\). In other words, those who can least afford to spend money on lottery tickets are often the ones buying them. With the chances of winning the lottery being infinitesimal, the whole system preys upon the poor.
First Timothy 6:10 provides wisdom that directly relates to gambling: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” Those who gamble cannot follow the admonition of Hebrews 13:5: “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you’” (Hebrews 13:6\). Serving God and serving money are incompatible (Matthew 6:24\).
In summary, gambling is poor stewardship of one’s God\-given resources, it attempts to bypass honest work, it promotes [greed](Bible-greed.html) and covetousness, and it rejoices in the misfortune of others. A Christian should not be involved in gambling or in other forms of materialism.
|
What does the Bible say about sex before marriage? |
Answer
The Bible clearly condemns sexual sins: adultery (consensual sex between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse) (Proverbs 6:32; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:18 and Hebrews 13:4\) and fornication (sexual immorality in general) are specified (Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1\). Sex before marriage, or premarital sex, is not addressed in that exact term, but it does fall within the scope of sexual immorality.
The Bible teaches that sex before marriage is immoral in a couple of different passages. One is 1 Corinthians 7:2, which says, “But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” In this verse, marriage is presented as the “cure” for sexual immorality. Sexual union within marriage, which is commended, is set against immorality, which is to be avoided. Thus, any sex outside of marriage is considered immoral. This would have to include premarital sex.
Another verse that presents sex before marriage as immoral is Hebrews 13:4, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Here, we have both adultery and fornication contrasted with what happens in the marriage bed. Marriage (and sexual intercourse within marriage) is [honorable](marriage-bed-undefiled.html); all other types of sexual activity are condemned as immoral and bring God’s judgment.
Based on these passages, a biblical definition of sexual immorality would have to include sex before marriage. That means that all the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality in general also condemn sex before marriage. These include Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; and Revelation 21:8\.
God designed sex, and the Bible honors marriage. Part of honoring marriage is the Bible’s promotion of complete abstinence before marriage. When two unmarried people engage in sexual intercourse, they are defiling God’s good gift of sex. Before marriage, a couple has no binding union, and they’ve entered no sacred covenant; without the marriage vows, they have no right to exploit the culmination of such vows.
Too often, we focus on the “recreation” aspect of sex without recognizing that there is another aspect—procreation. Sex within marriage is pleasurable, and God designed it that way. God wants men and women to enjoy sexual activity within the confines of marriage. Song of Solomon 4 and several other Bible passages (such as Proverbs 5:19\) describe the pleasure of sex. However, God’s intent for sex includes producing children. Thus, for a couple to engage in sex before marriage is doubly wrong—they are enjoying pleasures not intended for them, and they are taking a chance of creating a human life outside of the family structure God intended for every child.
While practicality does not determine right from wrong, following the Bible’s instructions concerning sex before marriage would greatly benefit society. If the Bible’s message on sex before marriage were obeyed, there would be far fewer sexually transmitted diseases, far fewer abortions, far fewer unwed mothers and unwanted pregnancies, and far fewer children growing up without both parents in their lives. [Abstinence](abstinence-before-marriage.html) saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations their proper value, and, most importantly, honors God. Sex between a husband and wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God approves.
|
What is the importance of Christian baptism? |
Answer
Christian baptism is one of two ordinances that Jesus instituted for the church. Just before His [ascension](ascension-Jesus-Christ.html), Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19–20\). These instructions specify that the church is responsible to teach Jesus’ word, make disciples, and baptize those disciples. These things are to be done everywhere (“all nations”) until “the very end of the age.” So, if for no other reason, baptism has importance because Jesus commanded it.
Baptism was practiced before the founding of the church. The Jews of ancient times would baptize proselytes to signify the converts’ “cleansed” nature. John the Baptist used baptism to prepare the way of the Lord, requiring *everyone*, not just Gentiles, to be baptized because *everyone* needs repentance. However, John’s baptism, signifying repentance, is not the same as Christian baptism, as seen in Acts 18:24–26 and 19:1–7\. Christian baptism has a deeper significance.
Baptism is to be done in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit—this is what makes it “Christian” baptism. It is through this ordinance that a person is admitted into the fellowship of the church. When we are saved, we are [“baptized” by the Spirit](Spirit-baptism.html) into the [Body of Christ](body-of-Christ.html), which is the church. First Corinthians 12:13 says, “We were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Baptism by water is a “reenactment” of the baptism by the Spirit.
Christian baptism is the means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of [sanctification](sanctification.html).”
Christian baptism illustrates, in dramatic style, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, it also illustrates our death to sin and new life in Christ. As the sinner confesses the Lord Jesus, he dies to sin (Romans 6:11\) and is raised to a brand\-new life (Colossians 2:12\). Being submerged in the water represents death to sin, and emerging from the water represents the cleansed, holy life that follows salvation. Romans 6:4 puts it this way: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
Very simply, baptism is an outward testimony of the inward change in a believer’s life. Christian baptism is an act of obedience to the Lord *after* salvation; although baptism is closely associated with salvation, [it is not a requirement to be saved](baptism-salvation.html). The Bible shows in many places that the order of events is 1\) a person believes in the Lord Jesus and 2\) he is baptized. This sequence is seen in Acts 2:41, “Those who accepted \[Peter’s] message were baptized” (see also Acts 16:14–15\).
A new believer in Jesus Christ should desire to be baptized as soon as possible. In Acts 8 Philip speaks “the good news about Jesus” to the Ethiopian eunuch, and, “as they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?’” (verses 35–36\). Right away, they stopped the chariot, and Philip baptized the man.
Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Everywhere the gospel is preached and people are drawn to faith in Christ, they are to be baptized.
|
Do angels sing? |
Answer
It may seem strange to ask if angels sing, because conventional wisdom says, “Of course they do.” It’s common to see pictures of angels holding songbooks or harps or otherwise engaged in music\-making. And people often allude to the Christmas story: “The angels sang to the shepherds when Jesus was born, didn’t they?” The problem is that singing is not mentioned in the biblical Christmas story. In fact, there is very little scriptural evidence that the angels sing.
Probably the clearest passage on this issue is Job 38:7, which says that, at the creation of the world, “the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy.” In the parallelism of the Hebrew poetry, the “morning stars” are equated with the “angels,” and the singing is paralleled by the joyful shouts. It seems fairly straightforward: the angels sing. However, the Hebrew word translated “sang” doesn’t always denote music. It can also be translated as “joyfully shouted,” “resoundingly cried,” or “rejoiced.” Also, the word translated “angels” in the NIV literally means “sons of God.”
Revelation 5 is another passage that may indicate that the angels sing. Verse 9 speaks of beings that “sang a new song” in heaven. These beings that sing are the twenty\-four elders and the four living creatures—possibly angelic beings, but they are not specifically called such. Then in verse 11 “the voice of many angels” is heard. But now the words are “said,” not specifically “sung.” The words of the angelic host in verse 12 are quite similar to the words of the song in verse 9, but the words of the angels are not explicitly called a song. So, there is no conclusive proof in Revelation 5 that angels sing.
What about the Christmas story? Luke 2:13–14 says, “Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God . . . .’” Note, again, that the words of the angels are “said,” not specifically “sung.” Since singing is a type of speaking, the passage does not rule out the idea that the angels sang—but neither does the passage put the question to rest.
In short, the Bible does not give a definitive answer as to whether the angels sing. God has created humanity with an innate connection to music and singing, especially in regard to worship (Ephesians 5:19\). We often use singing when we praise the Lord. The fact that the words of the angels in Revelation 5 and Luke 2 are words of praise, expressed in a poetic form, argues for the idea that the angels are singing. And it would seem logical that God created the angels with the same propensity for singing as humans have. But we cannot be dogmatic. Whether the angels were singing or speaking in the Bible, they were worshiping and praising God. May we follow their example!
|
What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? |
Answer
The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.
The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co\-eternal Persons who are God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:
1\) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5\).
2\) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16\-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14\). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.
In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14\-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16\-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are other examples of passages that present three distinct Persons in the Trinity.
3\) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Psalm 110:1\). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2\-4\). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18\) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10\-12\). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6\-7; Hebrews 1:8\-9\). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16\-17\). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also the other instances when Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.
4\) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2\). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20\). [The Holy Spirit is God](is-the-Holy-Spirit-God.html) (Acts 5:3\-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16\).
5\) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply something our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14\. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13\-14\.
6\) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11\); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1\); salvation (John 3:16\-17\); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10\). The Father initiates all of these things.
The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16\-17\); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12\-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1\); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42\). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.
The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30\); divine revelation (John 16:12\-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21\); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2\); and Jesus’ works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38\). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.
There have been many attempts to develop [illustrations of the Trinity](Holy-Trinity.html). However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.
The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non\-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on God’s greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33\-34\).
Below is the best symbol for the Trinity we are aware of (click to expand):
[](img/trinity.svg)
|
What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? |
Answer
First of all, no matter what view one takes on the issue of divorce, it is important to remember Malachi 2:16: “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.” According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6\). God realizes, though, that marriages involve two sinful human beings and that divorces are going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws to protect the rights of divorcées (Deuteronomy 24:1–4\). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because such laws were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8\).
The issue of remarriage after a divorce is addressed directly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” So, the biblical rule is that there should be no divorce and, if a divorce does occur, no remarriage.
We have two possible exceptions to this foundational principle, one of which Paul addresses in the same context: a believer abandoned by an unbelieving spouse “is not bound” (1 Corinthians 7:15\). And Jesus says, “Except for [sexual immorality](sexual-immorality.html)” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9\. So, depending on the exact meaning of *bound* and *sexual immorality*, there may be some cases in which remarriage is allowable after divorce. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul’s argument for the “unbound” condition of the believing spouse is based on who leaves—it is the unbeliever who [abandons the marriage](Bible-abandonment.html), and the believer is an innocent party.
Taking a closer look at Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the phrase *except for sexual immorality* possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many interpreters understand this “[exception clause](exception-clause.html)” in Matthew as referring to marital unfaithfulness during the betrothal period. In Jewish custom, a man and a woman were considered married even while they were still engaged or “betrothed.” According to this view, immorality during this betrothal period would be the only valid reason for a divorce.
However, the Greek word translated “sexual immorality” is a general word that can mean any form of sexual sin. It can refer to fornication, prostitution, adultery, etc. Jesus is possibly saying that divorce is permissible if sexual immorality is committed. Sexual relations are an integral part of the marital bond: “The two will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31\). Therefore, any breaking of that bond by sexual relations outside of marriage might be a permissible reason for divorce.
Jesus’ teaching seems to be that [adultery](Bible-adultery.html) unties the marriage knot, but the allowance of remarriage is not explicit. In Matthew 5:32, the assumption is that the woman who is divorced will remarry, and Jesus seems to say that, unless her first marriage was dissolved by adultery (on her husband’s part), her second marriage will make her an adulteress. Jesus also has remarriage in mind in Matthew 19:9\. In both passages, divorce and remarriage seem to be allowed in the circumstance covered by the exception clause, whatever that is interpreted to be. It is important to note that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. Although not stated in the text, it would seem the allowance for remarriage after divorce is God’s mercy for the one who was sinned against, not for the one who committed the sexual immorality. There may be instances where the guilty party is allowed to remarry, but they are not evident in this text.
First Corinthians 7:15 may be another biblical “exception,” allowing remarriage if an unbelieving spouse divorces a believer. The verse says, “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” The text is clear that, if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer, the believer is free to accept the separation and move on with life. He or she is “not bound,” indicating full liberty. The Amplified Bible translates the statement as “the \[remaining] brother or sister is not \[spiritually or morally] bound.” The believing spouse can work for reconciliation (1 Corinthians 7:11\), but he or she is not obligated to remain in the marriage.
If desertion dissolves a marriage, then is remarriage permitted? The context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mention remarriage, except in verse 11, which says a divorced person cannot remarry. But, if “the believing husband or wife is no longer bound to the other” (verse 15, NLT), then it is reasonable to assume that remarriage is allowed. It seems in verse 15 Paul is giving an exception to the rule of verse 11\.
Some also claim that abuse (spousal or child) is a valid reason for divorce even though it is not listed as such in the Bible. While this may very well be the case, it is never wise to presume upon the Word of God. In cases of abuse, a separation is definitely in order and should occur immediately.
Sometimes lost in the debate over the exception clause is the fact that, whatever “sexual immorality” means in Matthew 5 and 19, it is an allowance for divorce, not a requirement for it. Even when adultery is committed, a couple can, through God’s grace, learn to forgive and begin rebuilding their marriage. God has forgiven us of so much more. Surely, we can follow His example and even forgive the sin of adultery (Ephesians 4:32\). However, in many instances a spouse is unrepentant and continues the immoral behavior. That is when Matthew 19:9 applies.
Looking to quickly remarry after an allowable divorce can also cause problems. It might be God’s desire for the divorced person to remain single, even if he or she can biblically remarry. God sometimes calls people to be single so their attention is not divided (1 Corinthians 7:32–35\). Remarriage after a divorce may be an option in some circumstances, but that does not mean it is the only option.
In summary, the Bible makes it clear that God [hates divorce](God-hates-divorce.html) (Malachi 2:16\) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32\). However, God recognizes that divorce will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if the divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9\.
|
Where was Jesus for the three days between His death and resurrection? |
Answer
After Jesus said, “[It is finished](it-is-finished.html),” on the cross, “he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30\). His dead body remained on the cross until it was taken down and placed in a nearby tomb (John 19:40–42\). His spirit, however, was elsewhere. Three days later, His body and spirit were reunited, and He rose from the dead (John 20\). There is some speculation about where Jesus was—that is, where His spirit was—for the three days between His death and [resurrection](resurrection-Christ-important.html).
The clearest indication we have in Scripture of where Jesus was between His death and resurrection comes in His conversation on the cross with one of the thieves crucified next to Him. The believing thief asks to be remembered when Jesus comes into His kingdom (Luke 23:42\), and Jesus replies, “Truly I tell you, [today](today-paradise.html) you will be with me in paradise” (verse 43\). So, after His death, Jesus went to the place of blessing where God is—heaven. And that’s where the believing thief went, too.
In the discussion of where Jesus was for the three days between His death and resurrection, another passage is often mentioned. First Peter 3:18–20 says, “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared” (ESV). Some take this to mean that Jesus, sometime between His death and resurrection, went to [hell/Hades](sheol-hades-hell.html) and made an announcement of some type to the “spirits” imprisoned there. Within this interpretation, the spirits Jesus addressed could be either demonic or human.
If the spirits mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19 are fallen angels, then those spirits were probably imprisoned because they were involved in a grievous sin before the flood in Noah’s time—Peter mentions Noah’s flood in verse 20\. Peter does not tell us what Jesus proclaimed to the imprisoned spirits, but it could not have been a message of redemption, since angels cannot be saved (Hebrews 2:16\). If these were fallen angels, what Jesus proclaimed was probably a declaration of His victory over Satan and his hosts (1 Peter 3:22; Colossians 2:15\).
But there is another interpretation of the 1 Peter passage. In this interpretation, the “spirits” are people currently in hell, but Peter is not saying Jesus made a special trip to Hades/hell to preach or proclaim anything. Rather, Peter is giving parenthetical information about something Jesus had done previously in history, namely, that He had “in spirit” preached to the people of Noah’s day while they were still living on earth. That wicked generation heard the message, rejected it, perished in the flood, and are *now* in prison. The word *now* in 1 Peter 3:19 is provided for clarity in the Amplified Bible and the New American Standard Bibles of 1977 and 1995, and it contrasts with the “long ago” (NIV) and “formerly” (ESV) of 1 Peter 3:20\.
According to this alternate interpretation, Christ was in Noah (spiritually) when Noah preached to his doomed neighbors. To better explain, here is a paraphrase of 1 Peter 3:18–20: “Jesus was put to death in the flesh, but He was made alive in the Spirit (it was through this same Spirit that Jesus long ago preached to those who are right now in prison—those souls who disobeyed during the time of God’s great patience when Noah was building the ark).” According to this view, Jesus preached *spiritually* to the people of Noah’s time, and He did this through the prophet Noah, in much the same way that God speaks through us today when we proclaim God’s Word.
Ephesians 4:8–10 is another passage used in the discussion regarding Jesus’ activities in the three days between His death and resurrection. Quoting Psalm 68:18, Paul says about Christ, “When he ascended on high, he took many captives” (Ephesians 4:8\). The ESV puts it that Christ “led a host of captives.” Some say this refers to an event not elsewhere described in Scripture, namely, that Jesus gathered all the redeemed who were in paradise and took them to their permanent dwelling in heaven. That is, after securing their salvation on the cross, Jesus brought Abraham, David, Joshua, Daniel, the beggar Lazarus, the thief on the cross, and everyone else who had previously been justified by faith, and led them from Hades (the abode of the dead in general) to their new spiritual home.
Another view of Ephesians 4 is that *ascended on high* is a straightforward reference to Jesus’ [ascension](ascension-Jesus-Christ.html). Christ returned to heaven victoriously, as God. In His triumph, Jesus had defeated and taken captive our spiritual enemies: the devil, death, and the curse of sin.
All of this is to say that the Bible gives scant information about what exactly Christ did for the three days between His death and resurrection. The only thing we know for sure is that, according to Jesus’ own words on the cross, He went to [paradise](paradise.html). We can also say with confidence that, His work of redemption finished, Jesus did not have to suffer in hell.
|
What are the cosmological arguments for the existence of God? |
Answer
Cosmological arguments attempt to prove God’s existence by observing the world around us (the cosmos). They begin with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a “God\-type” thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Science finally caught up with theologians in the twentieth century, when the fact that the universe had a beginning was confirmed. So, today, the cosmological arguments are even powerful for non\-philosophers.
There are two basic forms of cosmological arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be the “vertical” and the “horizontal.” These names indicate the direction from which the causes come. The argument in the vertical form is that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline, only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).
The horizontal cosmological argument, also called the [kalam cosmological argument](kalam-cosmological-argument.html), is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not negate the argument, because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever.
To illustrate the kalam, or the horizontal cosmological argument, let’s take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the “cause” of the tree). But every seed had its beginning (its “cause”) in another tree. There cannot be an infinite series of tree\-seed\-tree\-seed, because no series is infinite. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number, because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings, actually—one at the end and one at the beginning (try to imagine a one\-ended stick!). If there were no first cause, then the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This [first cause](God-first-cause.html) is God.
The vertical form of cosmological argument is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful. Not only does the vertical argument show that God had to cause the “chain of causes” in the beginning, but it shows He must still be causing things to exist right now. Again, we begin by noting that things exist. Next, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of “own”—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider the triangle. We can define a triangle as “the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments.” Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.
This definition of a triangle would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle’s nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle’s nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (someone must draw a triangle). The triangle is thus caused by something else—which also must have a cause. This cannot go on forever (there are no infinite series). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence.
Now, apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, the universe had to have a first cause to get started, and it also needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It *is* existence. This something would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, and be infinite. That something is God, the “[I AM](I-AM-WHO-I-AM-Exodus-3-14.html)” of Exodus 3:14\. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19:1–2\).
|
What is the Ontological argument for the existence of God? |
Answer
The ontological argument for the existence of God is one of the few arguments originating in logic rather than observation. [Teleological](teleological-argument.html) and [cosmological](cosmological-argument.html) arguments, for instance, demonstrate how the existence of God best explains apparent design in nature and the nature of causality, respectively. In contrast, the ontological argument relies on pure reasoning. The argument has both strengths and weaknesses. Few consider the ontological argument convincing, even among Christian believers. Carefully considering it does, however, lead to ideas that strongly support the existence of God.
The ontological argument has been phrased in many ways. The most well\-known comes from [Anselm](Anselm-of-Canterbury.html) in the eleventh century. The core of Anselm’s position is that God is “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” According to Anselm, existing is “greater than” not existing; therefore, God must exist as the “greatest” thing of which one can conceive. In somewhat plainer language, Anselm suggested that God is the “best” thing possible, and to exist is “better” than to not exist; therefore, God must exist.
Those who encounter the ontological argument for the first time typically react in one of two ways. For some, it’s abstract enough that it makes no sense. Most others find it unconvincing, whether or not they can articulate a specific reason. A few people find it compelling, perhaps after long study, but this is not a common response. Even those who reject it, however, have a difficult time explaining exactly why it is wrong.
The main drawback of the ontological argument is logical: it’s not clear how concepts such as “greatness” and “existence” apply in a purely logical setting. It would be circular and illogical to simply say, “God by definition exists; therefore, He exists.” Still, adding the stipulation that God is the “greatest possible” being doesn’t seem to do much to break that circle. Further, problems such as the [liar’s paradox](liars-paradox.html) prove that logic can form irrelevant loops: statements that are self\-contained and not meaningful in reality.
Most who reject ontological arguments do so for that reason, even if they can’t articulate why. It simply “feels” wrong; our rational instincts react against the idea of simply defining something to exist. For most people, non\-believers in particular, the ontological argument carries little impact.
And yet the ontological argument has not completely faded and disappeared. In part, that’s because, the more closely one tries to define its terms, the more the biblical God emerges. Two points summarize why this is the case: the [attributes of God](attributes-God.html) and the concept of objective truth.
Efforts to debunk the ontological argument sometimes apply it to a different object or idea to show the structure is absurd. A common example is to posit a “perfect island”: since existing would be “more perfect” than not existing, this island must exist somewhere. That’s clearly not true, in practice, but not for the reasons the skeptic assumes. The problem there is that the term *island* itself expresses limits. Anything called an “island” must be finite and limited. Sooner or later, ideas like “perfection” or “greatness” contradict the requirements of calling something an “island.”
God, however, does have the ability to fully meet the definition of an “absolutely great” or “absolutely perfect” thing. That’s because all God’s attributes are [equally perfect](attribute-above-all-others.html). An island can’t be omniscient, by definition, but God can be—and only because He is also omnipotent and omnipresent. If we stretch the definition of *island* so it can become as “perfect” as anything can be, it winds up becoming all\-powerful, all\-wise, and all\-present—which means it would be God. In an effort to debunk the ontological argument, one winds up repeating it: the greatest conceivable thing must exist, by definition.
The other reason the ontological argument clings to life is the idea of [objective truth](objective-truth.html). Concepts such as power, knowledge, goodness, and so forth assume there is some standard by which to judge those ideas. We don’t measure distances or weights against “infinite distance” or “infinite weight,” since infinity doesn’t literally exist and, even if it did, there’s no way to measure something against infinity. Yet we instinctively realize that things like power and morality are real and make sense only in respect to some absolute standard. Claiming otherwise is self\-defeating: “subjective morality” is virtually a contradiction in terms. We’re inevitably pressed to recognize the existence of absolute benchmarks for those ideas.
Notice, however, what that statement entails. If there is an absolute measure of goodness, then—forgive the awkward grammar—the “most good” thing must exist. The same is true of power, knowledge, etc. Once again, this turns into a re\-statement of the ontological argument: there must be something in existence than which no greater or more perfect thing can be conceived. That we have standards for morality, etc., suggests something very close to the premises of the ontological argument. It also implies there is only one being for whom the argument would work, anyway: one being ultimately perfect in every possible way—and that being would be God.
The ontological argument is neither as powerful nor as useless as extreme views might suggest. It has little practical value, especially for skeptics or non\-believers. Like [Pascal’s Wager](Pascals-wager.html), the ontological argument sometimes gets a bad rap: it’s not simplistically arguing that “conceiving” of something is sufficient to make it real. However, the more one tries to untangle it, the more the ontological argument digs in and refuses to be disproved.
It’s much easier to say, “The ontological argument doesn’t work for me,” than it is to say, “The ontological argument is false because—.” It’s an interesting example of [arguments for God’s existence](argument-existence-God.html), and an important one, even if it’s not held in high regard by many people.
|
What is the teleological argument for the existence of God? |
Answer
The term *teleology* refers to explanations that appeal to design and purpose. The teleological argument claims that the appearance of design and purpose in nature implies a designer. Strictly speaking, this is only evidence of “a” designer, not necessarily any specific being. In practice, teleological arguments are often paired with other ideas to imply the existence of a deity, such as the God of the Bible. Teleology is a broad category that includes several narrower ideas, such as [fine\-tuning](fine-tuning-argument.html), [intelligent design](intelligent-design.html), and [irreducible complexity](irreducible-complexity.html). Teleological arguments are suggestions that deliberate choices by God are the most reasonable explanations for certain observations.
Almost every debate over teleology involves defining reasonable evidence of design. This simultaneously demonstrates both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of teleological arguments. In one sense, philosophers have struggled to objectively express the boundaries of “evidence of design.” Teleological arguments are thus framed in terms of likelihood or assumption; this leads to further debates over applying mathematical probability. On the other hand, human experience routinely distinguishes between intent and accident; attempts to reject teleological arguments often run counter to the principles used in virtually all other circumstances.
Teleological arguments broadly suggest that some observations are more reasonably explained as resulting from purpose and design, rather than random accidents. A patch of sand shaped like the letter *C* would typically be interpreted as random. A perfect circle in the sand would raise questions. Ten perfect circles, arranged to look like a human face, would cause observers to naturally assume a prior intentional action. A large furrow carrying water from one puddle to another will be interpreted differently than will a thin, straight ditch bringing river water directly to a farmer’s field.
Arguments for design are more intuitive than objective, so they can be difficult to assess. In strict logical terms, many events we interpret as intentional could be the result of something random. Improbability does not necessarily imply intent. At the same time, and for the same reason, teleological arguments derive great strength from the extreme odds involved. Just because something is *possibly* random does not mean it’s reasonable to assume it really was accidental.
As an example, consider the card game stud poker. In this game, players are dealt seven cards, and they select the best five\-card combination. Cards are randomly dealt from a deck of fifty\-two cards, split into four suits—hearts, clubs, diamonds, and spades—of thirteen cards each. The ultimate hand in this game is the royal flush, which includes the top five cards of a single suit. The odds of obtaining this hand from a fair deck are about 1 in 31,000, or 1:3\.1x104.
If a player were to obtain a royal flush, other players would be disappointed, but likely to accept the outcome as *possible*. If the same player obtained a *second* royal flush in the next hand, opponents would naturally suspect something underhanded. It is *possible* a person could get two consecutive royal flushes. Yet the odds of this happening are about 1 in 957 million, or 1:9\.57x108.
Mathematically, it’s even possible to be dealt five royal flushes in a row, albeit at odds of 1 in 28 sextillion, or 1:2\.83x1022. However, none of the other players at the table would accept randomness as a valid explanation. The likelihood of that happening by pure chance is so vanishingly small that it is by far more reasonable to assume cheating. At the very least, the other players would demand further investigation.
Attempting to refute teleological arguments for God’s existence often results in a similar quandary. Some arrangements of nature are so improbable, yet so necessary, that they demand interpretation as the result of “fine\-tuning” by an intelligent mind. Dismissing appearance of design by appealing to blind luck opens the door to rejecting almost all scientific knowledge; ignoring the implications of probability makes experimental observations meaningless.
Sometimes, mathematical probability cannot be objectively assigned. Even then, commonsense principles lend weight to teleological arguments. Ratios and odds aren’t involved in concluding that “Watch Out for Sharks” carved in sand on the beach was written on purpose. Nor does a person need a calculator to decide whether an arched stone bridge across a river was an accident. Some patterns and arrangements are universally associated with intentional action. Yet these same principles are often ignored when attempting to refute teleological arguments for God. For instance, those who presume the outrageous sophistication of DNA—an actual “code”—formed without any greater purpose are ignoring the logical implications of the existence of that code.
Another aspect of teleological arguments involves situations that are not only improbable, but seemingly impossible. In the card game example above, it is theoretically possible for five random hands dealt from fair decks to result in five royal flushes. The components are there. But if a player were dealt two of the same card, such as receiving two kings of diamonds, it would be proof that either the deck or the dealer is not fair. This is the case with issues such as [abiogenesis](abiogenesis-definition-theory.html)—life arising from non\-life—which all scientific observations have demonstrated to be impossible.
If something cannot happen according to certain assumptions, but it does happen, then the assumptions are wrong. Teleological arguments leverage the apparent impossibility of certain things happening naturally. The more reasonable assumption is that something—or *Someone*—is acting outside of the established rules of the system.
A common term when debating teleological arguments is *gaps*. Critics frequently miscast teleological explanations as, “We don’t know how this happened, so God did it.” This is referred to as the “[god of the gaps](God-of-the-gaps.html)” error. In some cases, this criticism has merit. Reaching the end of our understanding does not necessarily imply the next causal step is “direct intervention of a deity.” Framed in that way, arguments in favor of God are logically weak. At the same time, merely pointing out the appearance of design and intent is not a “gaps” error. If something appears to be deliberate, considering that fact is not an argument from ignorance: it’s a positive use of all information.
Those claiming “god of the gaps” often confuse *mechanism* for *agency*. Explaining how something happened does not logically explain away intent. Arguments for design only require that certain situations strongly correlate with *intent* or *purpose*. Teleology does not require disproof of all mechanisms leading to the end state. An automobile’s steering involves multiple steps between the movement of the tires and the intent of the driver. Pointing out the existence of power steering, an electronic control unit, or the entire series of machinery would not excuse a driver who wrecks the car. Learning “how” something happens does not mean there is no “who” behind it.
It is also common to respond to teleological arguments with an “atheism of the gaps” approach. This simply says, “Blind randomness cannot explain this *yet*, but we should assume we will eventually.” This is an especially common tactic when dealing in issues such as abiogenesis, where observations move beyond improbability into what seems like impossibility.
Closely related are claims of “poor design,” where a perceived flaw is held up as proof that the designer is inferior. Logically, this does not disprove teleology—intent is intent, even if it’s fallible. Such arguments are also typically shallow. Engineers often make valuable design choices that end users won’t intuitively understand. A farm worker might complain that almost every time his auger breaks, it’s because a small, relatively weak pin in the shaft is breaking. Since he’s replaced that pin several times, he might think it should be made stronger. But what the worker dismisses as “poor design” is a deliberate choice by the designer. A shear pin is easily replaced; it is intended to break before excess stress destroys more expensive parts of the auger. What the farm worker considers a *flaw* is a *feature* saving him from even worse complications. Complaints about [vestigial organs](vestigial-organs.html) and [misunderstood design](why-do-men-have-nipples.html) of the human body fit into this category of error.
Teleological arguments are useful, though not logically absolute. Viewed in the context of normal human observation, they take on great potency. In fact, the lengths required for some critics to dismiss these arguments speak to their value. Critics of religion frequently concede that biology and nature give every appearance of being designed. The only justification given for concluding otherwise is preference—that is, because the existence of God or any divine influence must be refuted at all costs. This comes across very much like a poker player saying, “It strongly appears that I’m cheating, so please be sure to assume I am not.” For those lacking such bias, probability and common sense lend weight to the value of teleological arguments.
|
Do angels have wings? |
Answer
The most common image of an angel is essentially a human being with wings. This is not biblical. The Bible often presents angels as appearing as human beings. However, this does not indicate that angels in their essence resemble human beings. Further, the Bible very rarely describes angels as having wings. However, there are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that have wings: [cherubim](cherubim.html) (Exodus 25:20; Ezekiel 10\) and [seraphim](seraphim.html) (Isaiah 6\). Cherubim and seraphim are two types of angels, possibly the two highest orders of angels. So, this much is clear, some angels do have wings.
The Bible tells us that angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:14\). The descriptions of the cherubim in Ezekiel chapter 10 and the seraphim in Isaiah chapter 6 are highly unusual. It is clear that Ezekiel and Isaiah were having trouble accurately describing the amazing visions they saw of heaven and the angels. As spirit beings, it is unclear as to why the angels would require wings. A spirit being does not need wings in order to fly. The angels are not bound by the laws of the physical universe.
So, do angels have wings? Yes, some angels do have wings. However, we should not limit what the angels can or cannot do based on our limited understanding of the wings some angels possess as described in the Bible.
|
What are the new heavens and the new earth? |
Answer
In Revelation 21:1, John sees something spectacular: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...” This new earth and new heavens are sometimes referred to as the “eternal state.” As seen in Revelation chapters 21\-22, the new earth will be the eternal dwelling place of believers in Jesus Christ. Scripture gives us a few details of the new heavens and new earth.
The current heavens and earth have long been subject to God’s curse because of mankind’s sin. All creation “has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth” (Romans 8:22\) as it awaits the fulfillment of God’s plan and “the children of God to be revealed” (verse 19\). Heaven and earth will pass away (Mark 13:31\), and they will be replaced by the new heavens and the new earth. At that time, the Lord, seated on His throne, says, “I am making everything new!” (Revelation 21:5\). In the new creation, sin will be totally eradicated, and “there shall be no more curse” (Revelation 22:3, NKJV).
The new heaven and new earth are also mentioned in Isaiah 65:17, Isaiah 66:22, and 2 Peter 3:13\. Peter tells us that the new heaven and new earth will be “where righteousness dwells.” Isaiah says that “the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” Things will be completely new, and the old order of things, with the accompanying sorrow and tragedy, will be gone.
The new earth will be free from sin, evil, sickness, suffering, and death. It will be similar to our current earth, but without the curse of sin. It will be earth as God originally intended it to be. It will be Eden restored.
A major feature of the new earth will be the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html). John calls it “the Holy City . . . coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (Revelation 21:2\). This glorious city, with its streets of gold and pearly gates, is situated on a new, glorious earth. The tree of life will be there (Revelation 22:2\). This city represents the final state of redeemed mankind, forever in fellowship with God: “God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. . . . His servants will serve him. They will see his face” (Revelation 21:3; 22:3–4\).
In the new heavens and new earth, Scripture says, there are seven things notable for their absence—seven things that are “no more”:
• [no more sea](no-more-sea.html) (Revelation 21:1\)
• no more death (Revelation 21:4\)
• no more mourning (Revelation 21:4\)
• no more weeping (Revelation 21:4\)
• no more pain (Revelation 21:4\)
• no more curse (Revelation 22:3\)
• no more night (Revelation 22:5\)
The creation of the new heavens and new earth brings the promise that God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” (Revelation 21:4\). This event comes *after* the tribulation, *after* the Lord’s second coming, *after* the millennial kingdom, *after* the final rebellion, *after* the final judgment of Satan, and *after* the [great white throne judgment](great-white-throne-judgment.html). The brief description of the new heavens and new earth is the last glimpse into eternity that the Bible gives.
|
What is the Moral argument for the existence of God? |
Answer
The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.
In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else’s. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14\-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.
To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the [existence of God](Does-God-exist.html).
|
What is Satanism? |
Answer
Satanism is not easily defined. There are several "divisions" of Satanism. In contrast to Christians, Satanists themselves disagree on their very fundamental principles. Christians may differ in opinion or conviction about interpretation of certain Bible passages, but they believe the same foundational principle that Jesus is God’s Son who paid the price for our sins by dying on the cross and rising from the dead. Satanists argue among themselves whether Satan even exists and whether they are worshiping him or themselves. In essence, they are a confused group bound by lies. John 8:44 perhaps applies to Satanists: “You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
It is because of these lies that there is a plethora of ideologies within Satanism. Some of Satanism’s practices are constant, and Satanists' unity is found more in rituals than in an underlying belief system. Satanists do certain things; they do not have to believe certain things.
Most Satanists, devil worshipers, diabolists, Luciferians, and members of the Church of Satan claim to have roots in LaVeyan Satanism, named after Anton LaVey, the author of the Satanic Bible and founder of the first Church of Satan. LaVey presumably started the First Church of Satan in 1966\. As a self\-proclaimed authority on everything evil, he began giving weekly lectures at a cost of $2\.00 per person. And thus the Church of Satan was born.
The basic commonality in all the branches of Satanism is a promotion of self. All forms of Satanism claim that life exists to consume and that selfishness is a virtue. Some Satanists hold that the only existence they will ever know is here on Earth. Thus, devil worshipers live for the moment, and their creed is gluttony and debauchery.
Satanism pledges its allegiance to Satan, even while some in the Church of Satan believe that no God or devil exists. Most in the Church of Satan also believe that there is no redeemer for them or anyone else. Each person is fully responsible for the path of his own life. Still, they pray to Satan in rituals, asking for his sovereign hand to be manifest in their lives. This kind of thinking reveals the influence of lies and deceptions in their philosophy. Whether Satanists believe in him or not is irrelevant to Satan. The end result is the same—their souls are in bondage to him, and, unless God’s grace intervenes, they will experience eternity in hell.
In short, Satanism may or may not involve worshiping Satan, but it is a conscious effort to NOT worship the one true God. Romans 1 gives a clear look into the heart and motives of a Satanist. They have “depraved minds to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness” (vv 28\-29\). People who have been misled by Satan into this lifestyle have a hard time understanding God’s concept of grace and freedom. Instead, they live for themselves, by themselves.
Second Peter 2 contains a warning to anyone who would follow after Satanism or any other thing rather than God: “These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity” (vv. 17\-19\).
|
Is a home church a true biblical church? |
Answer
Churches in the New Testament era were indeed small assemblies that met in homes (Acts 2:46; 20:20\). So, the practice of attending a home church, or house church, is biblically allowable. There also seem to be some good reasons to have house churches as opposed to large gatherings: greater intimacy, stronger relationships, single\-mindedness, etc. The fact that large churches usually have their own small groups that meet in homes speaks to the value of the house church model. Several considerations should be made, however, concerning the reasons for creating a house church or choosing to attend one.
First, the fact that first\-century Christians did something does not establish it as a pattern for all generations to follow, unless there is also a clear command to do so. Simply because Scripture records an event or practice does not, of itself, establish a mandate (or, in some cases, even approval). So, for example, the fact that early Christians in Jerusalem sold what they owned and shared the profits with other believers (see Acts 2:44–45\) does not mean that we must do so today—although such selflessness and generosity would certainly be acceptable. Home churches are “biblical” in the sense that there is precedent in Scripture, but there is no biblical obligation to attend a home church.
Many believers who attend house churches interpret Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14 as establishing a principle of participation, which implies the need for a smaller church gathering: “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. . . . Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged” (1 Corinthians 14:26, 29–31\). Some read this passage as not only *descriptive* of what was happening in Corinth but also *prescriptive* for all churches at all times, based on Paul’s words later in the context: “as in all the churches of the saints” and “was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (verses 33, 36–38\). Nowhere else in Scripture do we find more consecutive verses addressing what to do when the local church gathers.
Second, home churches motivated solely by an effort to counter the “[institutional church](institutional-church.html)” have a questionable foundation. The given reason for starting a home church is usually to more closely align with the biblical model, but the unstated reason often seems to be displeasure with large church movements. While the complaints against large churches may be valid, they can lead to a divisive, “us\-vs.\-them” mentality that should be avoided (see Ephesians 4:3\).
One final consideration is the issue of accountability. Any church, large or small, should follow the instructions of 1 Timothy 3:1–13 regarding [elders and deacons](qualifications-elders-deacons.html). Members of a house church should make sure that (a) there are recognized elders and (b) the elders are biblically qualified. These men should be held accountable even as they hold the group accountable to follow sound doctrine (Titus 1:9\).
In conclusion, there is nothing unbiblical about Christians gathering regularly in houses or large buildings or any other venue. Some benefits of a house church could be reproducibility, thorough discipleship through participation, a family atmosphere, and better financial stewardship. The Bible does not give any guidelines as to the proper size or location of a church meeting. What it does do is explain what is to take place at those meetings (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 16:2; 1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 4:2\). So long as biblical teaching (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy) are foremost in the assembly, the format and location really do not matter.
|
Who/what is Satan? |
Answer
People’s beliefs concerning Satan range from the silly to the abstract—from a little red guy with horns who sits on your shoulder urging you to sin, to an expression used to describe the personification of evil. The Bible, however, gives us a clear portrait of who Satan is and how he affects our lives. Put simply, the Bible defines Satan as an angelic being who fell from his position in heaven due to sin and is now completely opposed to God, doing all in his power to thwart God’s purposes.
Satan was created as a holy [angel](was-Satan-an-angel.html). Isaiah 14:12 possibly gives Satan’s pre\-fall name as Lucifer. Ezekiel 28:12\-14 describes Satan as having been created a cherub, apparently the highest created angel. He became arrogant in his beauty and status and decided he wanted to sit on a throne above that of God (Isaiah 14:13\-14; Ezekiel 28:15; 1 Timothy 3:6\). Satan’s pride led to his fall. Notice the many “I will” statements in Isaiah 14:12\-15\. Because of his sin, God permanently removed Satan from his exalted position and role.
Satan became the ruler of this world and the prince of the power of the air (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2\). He is an accuser (Revelation 12:10\), a tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5\), and a deceiver (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:3\). His very name means “adversary” or “one who opposes.” Another of his titles, the devil, means “slanderer.”
Even though he was cast out of heaven, he still seeks to elevate his throne above God. He counterfeits all that God does, hoping to gain the worship of the world and encourage opposition to God’s kingdom. Satan is the ultimate source behind every false cult and world religion. Satan will do anything and everything in his power to oppose God and those who follow God. However, Satan’s destiny is sealed—an eternity in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10\).
|
Have any aspects of end times prophecy been fulfilled? |
Answer
Revelation 4:1 introduces a section of Scripture that details “things which must be hereafter.” What follows are prophecies of the “end times.” We have not yet reached the tribulation, the revelation of the Antichrist, or other “end\-time” events. What we do see is a “preparation” for those events.
Jesus said that the last days would be preceded by several things: many false Christs would come, deceiving many; we would “hear of wars and rumors of wars”; and there would be an increase in “famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:5\-8\). Today’s news is full of false religions, warfare, and natural disasters. We know that events of the tribulation period will include all that Jesus predicted (Revelation 6:1\-8\); current events seem to be a build\-up for greater trouble ahead.
Paul warned that the last days would bring a marked increase in false teaching. “In later times, some will abandon the faith, and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1\). The last days are described as “perilous times” because of the increasingly evil character of man and because of people who actively “oppose the truth” (2 Timothy 3:1\-9; also see 2 Thessalonians 2:3\). The list of things people will be in the last days—lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self\-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power—(2 Timothy 3:1\-5\) seems to fit our modern age exactly.
Can there be any doubt that the prophecies concerning apostasy are being fulfilled? Our 21st\-century world has embraced moral relativism, a philosophy which is tainting even the church. For example, many denominations are having a hard time defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and many religious leaders today are openly supporting homosexuality. The Bible has become subordinate to the modern church’s quest for a more appealing “truth.” These are indeed “perilous times” spiritually.
The formation of the European Union—and the fact that we have a reunified Germany—is very interesting in light of biblical prophecy. The “ten toes” of Daniel 2:42 and the ten\-horned beasts of Daniel 7:20 and Revelation 13:1 are references to a “revived” Roman Empire which will hold power before Christ returns. Although the precise political structure has yet to be formed, the pieces can be seen as falling into place.
In 1948, Israel was recognized as a sovereign state, and this, too, has ramifications for the student of Scripture. God promised Abram that his posterity would have Canaan as “an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8\), and Ezekiel prophesied a physical and spiritual resuscitation of Israel (Ezekiel 37\). Having Israel as a nation in its own land is important in light of end\-time prophecy, because of Israel’s prominence in eschatology (Daniel 10:14; 11:41; Revelation 11:8\).
While there is no biblical proof that the things mentioned above are prophecy fulfilled, we can see how many of these events are similar to what the Bible describes. In any case, we are to be watching for prophecy fulfilled because Jesus told us that the day of the Lord—His return for His own—would come like a thief in the night (2 Peter 3:10\), unexpected and unannounced. “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man" (Luke 21:36\).
|
Should a Christian woman wear a bikini? |
Answer
Whether or not to wear a bikini is a question many women struggle with, but for a Christian woman, the issue takes on additional implications. God calls women to [modesty](dress-modestly.html), which means to not draw attention to themselves: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1 Timothy 2:9–10\). God also calls us to purity: “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12\). The question is whether or not wearing a bikini is consistent with modesty and purity.
The faithfulness of a daughter of God is not ultimately measured by what she wears but by her walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16\). At the same time, what she wears does send a message and can have an effect on others. A biblical principle concerning controversial issues is that we should love others and avoid doing what we know will cause them to stumble. In that regard, we should consider how our clothing choices affect others of both genders in their walk with God, in their own thought life, and in their perception of our witness about who God is. We can and should limit our [freedoms](Christian-freedom.html) to help others where we can (see 1 Corinthians 10:23–28 and Romans 14:1–13\).
A woman’s personal motivation for wearing a bikini is also important. Is a bikini truly the most comfortable and most appropriate outfit for the occasion? Or is wearing a bikini designed to draw attention? To elicit compliments? To fit in with the crowd? To please someone else? Some motivations are better than others.
Another consideration for the woman wearing a bikini is the setting. Is she spending time alone in her own backyard? Is she with her girlfriends or husband? Or is she at a pool party with co\-workers of both genders? Some settings are more appropriate for a bikini than others.
Whether clad in a bikini or not, our bodies belong to God and are to be used for His glory, not our own. Romans 12:1 tells us, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.” When we offer our bodies to God as “living sacrifices,” we are saying, in effect, “My body is yours, Lord. Use it for your glory.”
|
Making marriage last - what is the key? |
Answer
What can a married couple do to ensure that their [marriage](marriage-constitutes.html) will last? The first and most important issue is one of obedience to God and His Word. This is a principle that should be in force before the marriage begins. God says, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” (Amos 3:3\). For the born\-again believer, this means not beginning a close relationship with anyone who is not also a believer. “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14\). If this one principle were followed, it would save a lot of heartache and suffering later in marriages.
Another principle that would protect the longevity of a marriage is that the husband should obey God and love, honor, and protect his wife as he would his own body (Ephesians 5:25–31\). The corresponding principle is that the wife should obey God and submit to her own husband “as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22\). The marriage between a man and a woman is a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church. Christ gave Himself for the church, and He loves, honors, and protects her as His “bride” (Revelation 19:7–9\).
Building on the foundation of a godly marriage, many couples find practical ways to help make their marriages last: spending quality time together; saying, “I love you” often; being kind; showing affection; offering compliments; going on dates; writing notes; giving gifts; and being ready to forgive, for example. All these actions are encompassed by the Bible’s instructions to husbands and wives.
When God brought Eve to Adam in the first marriage, she was made from his “flesh and bone” (Genesis 2:21\) and they became “one flesh” (Genesis 2:23–24\). Becoming one flesh means more than just a physical union. It means a meeting of the mind and soul to form one unit. This relationship goes far beyond sensual or emotional attraction and into the realm of spiritual “oneness” that can only be found as both partners surrender to God and each other. This [relationship](roles-husband-wife-family.html) is not centered on “me and my” but on “us and our.” This is one of the secrets to a lasting marriage.
Making a marriage last for a lifetime is something both partners have to make a priority. Couples whose marriages last celebrate their commitment to each other. Many couples make it a point not to even speak of divorce, even in anger. Solidifying one’s vertical relationship with God goes a long way toward ensuring the horizontal relationship between a husband and wife is a lasting, God\-honoring one.
A couple who desires their marriage to last must learn how to deal with problems. Prayer, Bible study, and mutual encouragement are good. And there is nothing wrong with seeking outside help; in fact, one of the purposes of the church is to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” (Hebrews 10:24\). A struggling couple should seek advice from an older Christian couple, a pastor, or a biblical marriage counselor.
|
Who was King Hoshea in the Bible? |
Answer
Hoshea son of Elah became king of the northern kingdom of Israel in 732 BC after assassinating [King Pekah](King-Pekah.html), son of Remaliah. Hoshea reigned 9 years. He was a wicked king, but not as wicked as previous kings of Israel (2 Kings 17:2\). Hoshea was the last king of Israel before the nation’s destruction by Assyria.
King Pekah had fought with the Assyrians but lost territory to Tiglath\-Pileser, king of Assyria. So when Hoshea took the throne from Pekah, he was a vassal to Shalmaneser king of Assyria and was required to pay heavy tribute (2 Kings 17:3\). In a bid for freedom and independence, Hoshea rebelled against Assyria and stopped paying the tribute, appealing to Egypt for help. This move was a failure. When Shalmaneser discovered King Hoshea’s treachery, he threw Hoshea into prison (verse 4\). The Assyrian army then invaded all of Hoshea’s land. The capital, Samaria, was besieged for three years and eventually captured. The Israelites were then deported to Assyria and settled in Halah, Gozen on the Harbor River, and in the towns of the Medes. As most of the northern kingdom of Israel had already been conquered, this deportation effectively destroyed the entire kingdom. Israel’s destruction partly fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:16\.
On the surface this may sound like the usual intrigues of kings, but the Bible makes it clear that the Assyrians’ takeover of Israel and the Israelites’ subsequent exile was God’s judgment on His people for their great sin. In spite of all the Lord had done for them, the Israelites had turned from God and worshiped false gods, setting up high places and burning incense to idols (2 Kings 17:7–11\). God had sent prophets, including [Elijah and Elisha](Elijah-and-Elisha.html), to warn the Israelites, but the people persisted in their idolatry. God had meant for Israel to be set apart as a holy people (Leviticus 20:26; 2 Kings 17:15\), but instead they had assimilated the idolatrous practices of the societies they had conquered. God had given them many chances to turn back to Him, but they ignored all the prophets who warned them to turn from their evil ways. Because of their rebelliousness, “the LORD removed them from His presence” (2 Kings 17:23\) in fulfillment of Moses’ warning in Deuteronomy 30:17–18\.
Several years after the capture of King Hoshea and the destruction of the northern kingdom, the southern kingdom of Judah fell to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 25:1–4\). The capital city of Jerusalem was destroyed, including its walls and the temple of the Lord (verses 8–10\). Judah was taken into captivity and exiled for 70 years, just as the Lord had promised as judgment for sin. However, in His mercy, God promised to preserve His people and eventually bring them back to the land He had promised them (Ezekiel 11:14–17\).
|
Who were the kings of Israel and Judah? |
Answer
In the period that preceded the monarchy, Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit (Judges 21:25\). God raised up Samuel to lead the people (1 Samuel 3:4\). All of Israel knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord (1 Samuel 3:20\). Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life, and when he was old he made his sons judges over Israel (1 Samuel 8:1\). Israel rejected the sons, refused to obey Samuel, and demanded a king (1 Samuel 8:19–20\). When Samuel reported their request to God, the Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king” (1 Samuel 8:22\).
Saul was the first king. He was of the tribe of Benjamin, which, in the days of the judges, had almost been annihilated. Tall, handsome, and humble, Saul began his reign with a brilliant victory over the Ammonites. Any misgivings about the new monarchy disappeared. But success rapidly went to Saul’s head, and humility gave place to pride. He offered a sacrifice, which was the exclusive function of priests, showing his presumed self\-importance. He deliberately disobeyed God, causing God to tell Samuel, “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions” (1 Samuel 15:10\). Saul reigned unsuccessfully from 1049 BC to 1009 BC, then, wounded in battle, he “took his own sword and fell on it” (1 Samuel 31:4\).
David, although anointed as king when just a boy, did not ascend to the throne until after Saul’s death (2 Samuel 2:4\). David was short of stature, ruddy, of beautiful countenance, handsome, and of immense physical strength and great personal attractiveness. He was a man of war, prudent in speech, brave, musical, and religious. God promised that David’s family should reign forever. “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse \[David’s father] and from his roots a Branch \[Jesus] will bear fruit” (Isaiah 11:1\). After Saul’s death, David was made king over Judah, and seven years later he was made king over all Israel. He was 30 years old when he became king and reigned from 1009 BC to 969 BC.
Solomon became king in 971 BC, possibly two years before his father David died, and reigned until 931 BC. Solomon was born of Bathsheba, and, though not directly in line for the succession, he was chosen by David and approved by God to be David’s successor (1 Chronicles 23:1\). Solomon inherited the throne of the most powerful kingdom then existing. It was an era of peace and prosperity with vast business enterprises and literary attainments. God told Solomon to ask what he would, and it would be given to him. Solomon asked for wisdom to govern his people. That pleased God, who richly rewarded him with wealth, wisdom, power, and the important task of building the temple (1 Chronicles 28:2–6\).
After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided. Ten tribes formed the Northern Kingdom, called Israel; Judah and Benjamin formed the Southern Kingdom, called Judah. The date of the division of the kingdom is approximately 931 BC. The following is a list of the kings of Israel and Judah. The dates of their reigns are approximate, due to overlapping reigns, associated sovereignty, intervals of anarchy, and the Jewish practice of counting parts of years as full years. Portions of some reigns were concurrent. All the kings of Israel practiced idolatry; the worst served Baal. Many of the kings of Judah served idols; few served the Lord faithfully. Some bad kings were partly good; some good kings partly bad. The kings, the approximate dates of their reigns, and descriptions of their overall obedience to God are listed below:
**KINGS OF ISRAEL:**
[Jeroboam I](Jeroboam-in-the-Bible.html), rebellious, 931—910 BC
[Nadab](King-Nadab.html), bad, 910—909 BC
[Baasha](King-Baasha.html), wicked, 909—886 BC
[Elah](King-Elah.html), evil, 886—885 BC
[Zimri](King-Zimri.html), sinful, 885 BC
Tibni, iniquitous, 885—880 BC
[Omri](King-Omri.html) (overlap), extra bad, 885—874 BC
[Ahab](King-Ahab.html), the worst to that point, 874—853 BC
[Ahaziah](King-Ahaziah.html), disobedient, 853—852 BC
[Joram/Jehoram](King-Jehoram-Joram.html), mostly rotten, 852—841 BC
[Jehu](King-Jehu.html), not good but better than the rest, 841—814 BC
[Jehoahaz](King-Jehoahaz.html), noncompliant, 814—798 BC
Joash, wayward, 798—782 BC
Jeroboam II (overlap), badly behaved, 793—753 BC
[Zechariah](King-Zechariah.html), abysmal, 753 BC
[Shallum](King-Shallum.html), full of vice, 752 BC
Menahem, horrible, 752—742 BC
Pekahiah, idolatrous, 742—740 BC
[Pekah](King-Pekah.html) (overlap), awful, 752—732 BC
[Hoshea](King-Hoshea.html), appalling, 732—722 BC
**KINGS OF JUDAH:**
[Rehoboam](King-Rehoboam.html), mostly bad, 931—913 BC
[Abijah](King-Abijah.html), mostly perverted, 913—911 BC
[Asa](King-Asa.html), good, 911—870 BC
[Jehoshaphat](King-Jehoshaphat.html) (overlap), righteous, 873—848 BC
[Jehoram/Joram](King-Jehoram-Joram.html) (overlap), terrible, 853—841 BC
[Ahaziah](King-Ahaziah.html), bad, 841 BC
[Athaliah](Athaliah-in-the-Bible.html) (queen), devilish, 841—835 BC
[Joash/Jehoash](King-Joash.html), mostly virtuous, 835—796 BC
[Amaziah](King-Amaziah.html), mostly wholesome, 796—767 BC
[Uzziah/Azariah](King-Uzziah-in-the-Bible.html) (overlap), mostly respectable, 790—739 BC
[Jotham](King-Jotham.html) (overlap), worthy, 750—731 BC
[Ahaz](King-Ahaz.html), heinous, 735—715 BC
[Hezekiah](life-Hezekiah.html), the best, 715—686 BC
[Manasseh](King-Manasseh.html), depraved until he repented at the end, 695—642 BC
[Amon](King-Amon.html), treacherous, 642—640 BC
[Josiah](Josiah-in-the-Bible.html), great, 640—609 BC
[Jehoahaz](King-Jehoahaz.html), dreadful, 609 BC
[Jehoiakim](King-Jehoiakim.html), degenerate, 609—597 BC
[Jehoiachin](King-Jehoiachin.html), frightful, 597 BC
[Zedekiah](King-Zedekiah.html), foolish, 597—586 BC
|
Silent prayer - is it biblical? |
Answer
The Bible gives an example of silent prayer in [Hannah’s](Hannah-and-Samuel.html) inaudible petition (1 Samuel 1:10, 13\), but it does not give specific instructions on praying silently. That does not mean that silent prayer is any less valid than praying out loud—Hannah’s prayer was answered, after all. God can hear our thoughts just as easily as He can hear our words (Psalm 139:23; Jeremiah 12:3\). Jesus knew the evil thoughts of the Pharisees (Matthew 12:24\-26; Luke 11:17\). Nothing we do, say, or think is hidden from God, who does not need to hear our words to know our thoughts. He has access to all [prayers](what-is-prayer.html) directed to Him, whether or not they are spoken.
The Bible mentions praying in private (Matthew 6:6\). What is the difference between praying aloud or silently if you are by yourself? There are some circumstances where only silent prayer is appropriate, e.g., praying for something that needs to stay between you and God only, praying for someone who is present, etc. There is not anything wrong with praying silently, as long as you are not doing it because you are embarrassed to be heard praying.
Perhaps the best verse to indicate the validity of unspoken prayers is 1 Thessalonians 5:17: “Pray without ceasing.” To [pray unceasingly](pray-without-ceasing.html) obviously cannot mean we are praying out loud all of the time. Rather, it means we are to be in a constant state of God\-consciousness, where we take every thought captive to Him (2 Corinthians 10:5\) and bring every situation, plan, fear, or concern before His throne. Unceasing prayer will include prayers that are spoken, whispered, shouted, sung, and silent as we direct our thoughts of praise, petition, supplication, and thanksgiving to God.
|
Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden? |
Answer
God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden to give Adam and Eve a choice to obey Him or disobey Him. Adam and Eve were free to do anything they wanted, except eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:16\-17, “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’” If God had not given Adam and Eve the choice, they would have essentially been robots, simply doing what they were programmed to do. God created Adam and Eve to be “free” beings, able to make decisions, able to choose between good and evil. In order for Adam and Eve to truly be free, they had to have a choice.
There was nothing essentially evil about the tree or the fruit of the tree. It is unlikely that the fruit, in and of itself, gave Adam and Eve any further knowledge. That is, the physical fruit may have contained some vitamin C and some beneficial fiber, but it was not *spiritually* nutritious. However, the act of disobedience was spiritually deleterious. That sin opened Adam’s and Eve’s eyes to evil. For the first time, they knew what it was to be evil, to feel shame, and to want to hide from God. Their sin of disobeying God brought corruption into their lives and into the world. Eating the fruit, as an act of disobedience against God, was what gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of evil—and the knowledge of their nakedness (Genesis 3:6–7\).
God did not want Adam and Eve to sin. God knew ahead of time what the results of sin would be. God knew that Adam and Eve would sin and would thereby bring evil, suffering, and death into the world. Why, then, did God allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve? God allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve to force them to make the choice. Adam and Eve chose, of their own free will, to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit. The results—evil, sin, suffering, sickness, and death—have plagued the world ever since. Adam and Eve’s decision results in every person being born with a sin nature, a tendency to sin. Adam and Eve’s decision is what ultimately required Jesus Christ to die on the cross and shed His blood on our behalf. Through faith in Christ, we can be free from sin’s consequences, and ultimately free from sin itself. May we echo the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:24\-25, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
|
What should be the Christian view of romance? |
Answer
The term *romance* is used to describe styles of literature, situations, and certain languages, such as French and Italian. But, for the purposes of this article, the word *romance* will be limited to the emotional excitement or attraction that a specific person or situation elicits in another. That kind of romance is a popular topic in our culture. Music, movies, plays, and books capitalize upon our human fascination with romantic love and its seemingly endless expressions. In a Christian worldview, is romance good or bad or somewhere in between?
The Bible has been called God’s love letter to humanity. Although it contains harsh imagery and warnings about God’s judgment, the Bible is also filled with creative expressions of [love](does-God-love-me.html) between human beings and God (Psalm 42:1–2; Jeremiah 31:3\). But love and romance, though intertwined, are not identical. We can have romance without real love, and we can love without feeling romantic. While passages such as Zephaniah 3:17 describe God’s emotional love for His own, other passages such as 1 Corinthians 13:4–8 detail qualities of love that have nothing to do with the emotions of romance. Jesus said, “Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13\). Dying an agonizing death on a cross for ungrateful sinners was in no way romantic, but it was the ultimate expression of love (1 John 4:9–10\).
[The Song of Solomon](Song-of-Solomon.html) is a book filled with romantic demonstrations of love between a bride and groom. Because God included this book in the canon of His inspired Word, we can safely say that romance is acceptable and even applauded by our Creator. Romance in the context of a pure and committed relationship can enhance that relationship and increase the enjoyment of married love as God intended.
However, romance for the sake of romance can be destructive. Most romances begin with the delightful sense of “falling in love,” which can be intoxicating. The act of “falling in love” produces a chemical deluge in the brain similar to that experienced with drug use. The brain is awash in adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin (the feel\-good chemicals), which cause us to want to return to the source of that feeling. But, because of our brain’s response, romance can become an addiction. Feasting on “emotional porn” such as romance novels, chick flicks, and sexually themed TV shows sets us up for unrealistic expectations in our real\-life relationships.
Researchers estimate that the human brain can only sustain that intense “in love” feeling for a maximum of two years. Ideally, a couple has worked on deepening their love and commitment during that time so that, when the intense feelings of being “in love” taper off, a deeper love takes its place. However, for those “addicted” to romance, this tapering\-off signals that it is time to find another person who will induce the same euphoria. Some people diagnosed with “relationship addiction” may, in fact, be addicted to the feelings produced by “falling in love.” Thus, they attempt to recreate that feeling over and over again.
With that description in mind, it is easy to see why love and romance are not necessarily the same. The Bible gives several examples of couples who experienced romantic love and the results of those romances. Genesis 29 tells the story of Jacob falling in love with Rachel. He was willing to work for her father for seven years in order to marry her. Verse 20 says that those seven years were “like a few days to him because of his great love for her.” Although Jacob’s story continued with deception, heartache, and frustration for everyone, his romance with Rachel is not condemned in Scripture. However, romance got Samson into trouble when he let his emotions rule him. Judges 14 details the beginning of Samson’s downfall when he let romance dictate his decisions rather than follow the Lord’s direction.
Romance can be either negative or positive depending upon whether we let those emotions rule our lives. When we are pursuing our feelings, we can get into moral and marriage trouble. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” The popular saying “follow your heart” is terrible advice. When we follow the passions of our hearts, we are easily led into deception, sin, and regret. Instead of pursuing romance, we should pursue the Holy Spirit’s leading in our relationships. It is always wise to pursue love (1 Corinthians 14:1\). Then, when in the pursuit of showing love someone special rises to our attention, godly romance can be a gift from our heavenly Father (James 1:17\).
|
What is the difference between God’s sovereign will and God’s revealed will? |
Answer
Human will is fairly straightforward: when we want something to happen, we “will” for it to take place; when we do something, we have shown our “will” in the matter. God’s will is a little more complex. In fact, theologians see three different aspects of God’s will in the Bible: His sovereign (decretive) will, His revealed (preceptive) will, and His dispositional will.
God’s *sovereign or decretive will* is also called His “hidden” will. It is “sovereign” in that it shows God to be the Sovereign ruler of the universe who ordains all that happens. It is “decretive” because it involves God’s decrees. It is “hidden” because we are usually unaware of this aspect of God’s will until what He has decreed takes place. There is nothing that happens that is outside of God’s sovereign will. For example, it was God’s sovereign will that [Joseph](life-Joseph.html) be taken to Egypt, languish in Pharaoh’s prison, interpret the king’s dreams, and eventually save his people from famine and be honored by all (Genesis 37–50\). At first, Joseph and his brothers were completely ignorant of God’s will in these matters, but, every step along the way, God’s plan was made plainer. When Ephesians 1:11 describes God as the one “who works all things according to the counsel of His will,” it speaks of God’s sovereign or decretive will. God Himself expresses the fact of His sovereign will in Isaiah 46:10: “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.” Because [God is sovereign](God-is-sovereign.html), His will can never be frustrated.
The sovereign or decretive will of God can be divided into His efficacious will and His permissive will. We must do this because God does not directly “cause” everything to happen. Some of His decrees are efficacious (that is, they directly contribute to the fulfillment of God’s desire); others of His decrees are permissive (that is, they allow for an indirect fulfillment of God’s desire). Because God is sovereign, He must at least “permit” all events and happenings. Within God’s sovereign will, He chooses to permit many things to happen that He takes no pleasure in. Again citing the example of Joseph and his brothers, God chose, by an act of decretive will, to allow the kidnapping and enslavement of Joseph. God’s permissive will allowed the sins of Joseph’s brothers in order to bring about a greater good (see Genesis 50:20\). At every mistreatment of Joseph, God had the power to intervene, but He “permitted” the evil and, in that limited sense, He sovereignly “willed” it to happen.
God’s *revealed or preceptive will* is not hidden from us. This facet of God’s will includes that which God has chosen to reveal to us in the Bible—His precepts are plainly stated. “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8\). The preceptive will of God is what God wants us to do (or not do). For example, we know that it is God’s will that we speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\), repent, and turn to God (Acts 3:19\). It is God’s revealed will that we not commit adultery (1 Corinthians 6:18\) or get drunk (Ephesians 5:18\). God’s revealed will is constantly “making wise the simple” (Psalm 19:7\).
We are obligated to obey God’s revealed or preceptive will; however, we have the ability to disobey. God’s revealed will for [Adam and Eve](Adam-and-Eve-questions.html) was to be fruitful and multiply, tend the garden, subdue the earth, and not eat of a certain tree (Genesis 1–2\). Unfortunately, they rebelled against God’s revealed will (Genesis 3\). The consequences they suffered show that they could not excuse their sin. Neither can we claim that our sin simply fulfills God’s sovereign will, as if that absolves us from guilt. It was God’s will that Jesus suffer and die, but those responsible for His death were still held accountable (Mark 14:21\).
God’s *dispositional will* deals with His “attitude”; His will of disposition is what pleases or displeases Him. For example, God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4\). This is an expression of God’s disposition toward the lost—He wants them to be saved (if He did not, then He would not have sent the Savior). Although God’s heart desires all to be saved, not all are saved. So, there is a difference between God’s dispositional will and His sovereign will.
In summary, the will of God involves three aspects: 1\) God’s sovereign will is revealed in His unchangeable decrees. He decreed that there be light, and there was light (Genesis 1:3\)—an example of His efficacious decree. He allowed Satan to torment Job (Job 1:12\)—an example of His permissive decree. 2\) God’s revealed will is contained in His precepts, given to us in order that we may walk in holiness. We have the ability (but not the right) to break these commands. 3\) God’s dispositional will is His attitude. At times, God decrees something that gives Him no pleasure, such as the death of the wicked (see Ezekiel 33:11\).
|
Do human beings truly have a free will? |
Answer
If “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then yes, human beings do have a free will. The world’s current sinful state is directly linked to choices made by Adam and Eve. God created mankind in His own image, and that included the ability to choose.
However, free will does not mean that mankind can do anything he pleases. Our choices are limited to what is in keeping with our nature. For example, a man may choose to walk across a bridge or not to walk across it; what he may *not* choose is to fly over the bridge—his nature prevents him from flying. In a similar way, a man cannot choose to make himself righteous—his (sin) nature prevents him from canceling his guilt (Romans 3:23\). So, free will is limited by nature.
This limitation does not mitigate our accountability. The Bible is clear that we not only have the *ability* to choose, we also have the *responsibility* to choose wisely. In the Old Testament, God chose a nation (Israel), but individuals within that nation still bore an obligation to choose obedience to God. And individuals outside of Israel were able to choose to believe and follow God as well (e.g., Ruth and Rahab).
In the New Testament, sinners are commanded over and over to “repent” and “believe” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Acts 3:19; 1 John 3:23\). Every call to repent is a call to choose. The command to believe assumes that the hearer can choose to obey the command.
Jesus identified the problem of some unbelievers when He told them, “You refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:40\). Clearly, they could have come if they wanted to; their problem was they chose not to. “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7\), and those who are outside of salvation are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20\-21\).
But how can man, limited by a sin nature, ever choose what is good? It is only through the grace and power of God that free will truly becomes “free” in the sense of being able to choose salvation (John 15:16\). It is the Holy Spirit who works in and through a person’s will to regenerate that person (John 1:12\-13\) and give him/her a new nature “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24\). Salvation is God’s work. At the same time, our motives, desires, and actions are voluntary, and we are rightly held responsible for them.
|
What does the Bible say about gossip? |
Answer
The Hebrew word translated “gossip” in the Old Testament is defined as “one who reveals secrets, one who goes about as a talebearer or scandal\-monger.” A gossiper is a person who has privileged information about people and proceeds to reveal that information to those who have no business knowing it. Gossip is distinguished from sharing information in two ways:
1\. *Intent*. Gossipers often have the goal of building themselves up by making others look bad and exalting themselves as some kind of repositories of knowledge.
2\. *The type of information shared*. Gossipers speak of the faults and failings of others, or reveal potentially embarrassing or shameful details regarding the lives of others without their knowledge or approval. Even if they mean no harm, it is still gossip.
In the book of Romans, Paul reveals the sinful nature and lawlessness of mankind, stating how God poured out His wrath on those who rejected His laws. Because they had turned away from God’s instruction and guidance, He gave them over to their sinful natures. The list of sins includes gossips and slanderers (Romans 1:29b\-32\). We see from this passage how serious the sin of gossip is and that it characterizes those who are under God’s wrath.
Another group who were (and still are today) known for indulging in gossip is widows. Paul cautions widows against entertaining the habit of gossip and of being idle. These women are described as “gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:12\-13\). Because women tend to spend a lot of time in each other’s homes and work closely with other women, they hear and observe situations which can become distorted, especially when repeated over and over. Paul states that widows get into the habit of going from home to home, looking for something to occupy their idleness. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, and God cautions against allowing idleness to enter our lives. “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man \[or woman] who talks too much” (Proverbs 20:19\).
Women are certainly not the only ones who have been found guilty of gossip. Anyone can engage in gossip simply by repeating something heard in confidence. The book of Proverbs has a long list of verses that cover the dangers of gossip and the potential hurt that results from it. “A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue. A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret” (Proverbs 11:12\-13\).
The Bible tells us that “a perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends” (Proverbs 16:28\). Many a friendship has been ruined over a misunderstanding that started with gossip. Those who engage in this behavior do nothing but stir up trouble and cause anger, bitterness, and pain among friends. Sadly, some people thrive on this and look for opportunities to destroy others. And when such people are confronted, they deny the allegations and answer with excuses and rationalizations. Rather than admit wrongdoing, they blame someone else or attempt to minimize the seriousness of the sin. “A fool’s mouth is his undoing, and his lips are a snare to his soul. The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts” (Proverbs 18:7\-8\).
Those who guard their tongues keep themselves from calamity (Proverbs 21:23\). So we must guard our tongues and refrain from the sinful act of gossip. If we surrender our natural desires to the Lord, He will help us to remain righteous. May we all follow the Bible’s teaching on gossip by keeping our mouths shut unless it is necessary and appropriate to speak.
|
How can I prepare myself for marriage? |
Answer
Preparing oneself for marriage biblically is the same as preparing for any life endeavor. There is a principle that should govern all aspects of our lives as born\-again believers: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37\). This is not a flippant command. It is the centerpiece of our lives as believers. It is choosing to focus upon God and upon His Word with our whole heart so that our soul and our mind are occupied with the things that will please Him.
The relationship we have with God through the Lord Jesus Christ is what puts all other relationships into perspective. The marriage relationship is based upon the model of Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22\-33\). Every aspect of our lives is governed by our commitment as believers to live according to the commandments and precepts of the Lord. Our obedience to God and to His Word equips us to fulfill our God\-given roles in marriage and in the world. And the role of every born\-again believer is to glorify God in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31\).
In order to prepare yourself for marriage, to walk worthy of your calling in Christ Jesus, and to become intimate with God through His Word (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\), focus upon obedience in all things. There is no easy plan to learn to walk in obedience to God. It is a choice we must make every day to put aside worldly viewpoints and follow God instead. Walking worthy of Christ is to submit ourselves in humility to the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life on a day\-by\-day, moment\-by\-moment basis. That is the preparation every believer needs to be ready for the great gift we call marriage.
A person who is spiritually mature and walking with God is more prepared for marriage than anyone else. Marriage demands commitment, passion, humility, love, and respect. These traits are most evident in a person who has an intimate relationship with God. As you prepare yourself for marriage, focus on allowing God to shape you and mold you into the man or woman He wants you to be (Romans 12:1\-2\). If you submit yourself to Him, He will enable you to be ready for marriage when that wonderful day arrives.
|
What is the location of the real Mount Sinai? |
Answer
Where is the real Mount Sinai? No one really knows for sure. For centuries, scholars, explorers, and pilgrims have sought the location of the real Mount Sinai—the mountain where God gave the law to Moses and the people of Israel. To this day, several sites have been proposed, but no one site has been confirmed by archaeology as the place where God met with Moses.
The Bible gives us some general clues about the location of Mount Sinai. We know it was outside of Egypt, because the Israelites came to Mount Sinai after leaving Egypt (Exodus 19:1\). Scripture also hints that Sinai was not in Midian, based on Moses’ Midianite in\-laws leaving Sinai to return to their own land (Exodus 18:27; Numbers 10:29–31\).
The traditional site of Mount Sinai is in the south central part of the Sinai Peninsula. The mountain, today called Jebel Musa (“the mountain of Moses”), has an elevation of 7,497 feet above sea level. In AD 530, St. Catherine’s Monastery was constructed at the northern foot of Mount Sinai. At the peak are a Christian chapel and an Islamic mosque. The ancient library at Jebel Musa was the source of [Codex Sinaiticus](Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html), one of the major Greek texts used to aid Bible translation.
Other locations proposed for Mount Sinai include sites in the western, central, and northern parts of the Sinai Peninsula. One theory identifies Mount Sinai as the modern Mount Yeroham in the northern Negev Desert. Others see Sinai as being in southern Edom, or [Seir](mount-Seir.html) (Deuteronomy 33:2\). Another view places Mount Sinai in northwestern Saudi Arabia, associating it with the mountain called Jabal Maqla or Jebel el\-Lawz today.
In Galatians 4:25, Paul mentions “Mount Sinai in Arabia.” It’s good to keep in mind that “Arabia” in the ancient world is not to be equated with “Saudi Arabia” in the modern world. The biblical term *Arabia* covers a vast area, including what we now call Saudi Arabia and the Sinai Peninsula.
So, where is the real Mount Sinai? No one can say for sure. Scholars differ widely on proposed sites. What happened at Sinai changed the world; exactly where it happened is of small consequence.
|
What is Christian ethics? |
Answer
Christian ethics is well summarized by Colossians 3:1\-6: “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.”
While more than just a list of “do’s” and “don’ts,” the Bible does give us detailed instructions on how we should live. The Bible is all we need to know about how to live the Christian life. However, the Bible does not explicitly cover every situation we will face in our lives. How then is it sufficient for the all the ethical dilemmas we face? That is where Christian ethics comes in.
Science defines ethics as “a set of moral principles, the study of morality.” Therefore, Christian ethics would be the principles derived from the Christian faith by which we act. While God’s Word may not cover every situation we face throughout our lives, its principles give us the standards by which we must conduct ourselves in those situations where there are no explicit instructions.
For example, the Bible does not say anything explicitly about the use of illegal drugs, yet based on the principles we learn through Scripture, we can know that it is wrong. For one thing, the Bible tells us that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that we should honor God with it (1 Corinthians 6:19\-20\). Knowing what drugs do to our bodies—the harm they cause to various organs—we know that by using them we would be destroying the temple of the Holy Spirit. That is certainly not honoring to God. The Bible also tells us that we are to follow the authorities that God Himself has put into place (Romans 13:1\). Given the illegal nature of the drugs, by using them we are not submitting to the authorities but are rebelling against them. Does this mean if illegal drugs were legalized it would be ok? Not without violating the first principle.
By using the principles we find in Scripture, Christians can determine the ethical course for any given situation. In some cases it will be simple, like the rules for Christian living we find in Colossians, chapter 3\. In other cases, however, we need to do a little digging. The best way to do that is to pray over God’s Word. The Holy Spirit indwells every believer, and part of His role is teaching us how to live: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26\). “As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him” (1 John 2:27\). So, when we pray over Scripture, the Spirit will guide us and teach us. He will show us the principles we need to stand on for any given situation.
While God’s Word does not cover every situation we will face in our lives, it is all\-sufficient for living a Christian life. For most things, we can simply see what the Bible says and follow the proper course based on that. In ethical questions where Scripture does not give explicit instructions, we need to look for principles that can be applied to the situation. We must pray over His Word, and open ourselves to His Spirit. The Spirit will teach us and guide us through the Bible to find the principles on which we need to stand so we may live as a Christian should.
|
What was the practice of casting lots? |
Answer
The practice of casting lots is mentioned seventy times in the Old Testament and seven times in the New Testament. In spite of the many references to casting lots in the Old Testament, nothing is known about the actual lots themselves. They could have been sticks of various lengths, flat stones like coins, or some kind of dice; but their exact nature is unknown. The closest modern practice to casting lots is likely flipping a coin.
The practice of casting lots occurs most often in connection with the division of the land under Joshua (Joshua chapters 14\-21\), a procedure that God instructed the Israelites on several times in the book of Numbers (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2\). God allowed the Israelites to cast lots in order to determine His will for a given situation (Joshua 18:6\-10; 1 Chronicles 24:5,31\). Various offices and functions in the temple were also determined by lot (1 Chronicles 24:5, 31; 25:8\-9; 26:13\-14\). The sailors on Jonah’s ship (Jonah 1:7\) also cast lots to determine who had brought God’s wrath upon their ship. The eleven apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas (Acts 1:26\). Casting lots eventually became a game people played and made wagers on. This is seen in the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ garments (Matthew 27:35\).
The New Testament nowhere instructs Christians to use a method similar to casting lots to help with decision\-making. Now that we have the completed Word of God, as well as the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us, there is no reason to be using games of chance to make decisions. The Word, the Spirit, and prayer are sufficient for discerning God’s will today—not casting lots, rolling dice, or flipping a coin.
|
What are the various theories on the atonement? |
Answer
Throughout church history, several different views of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for the various views is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, making it hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of the atonement. What we discover as we study the Scriptures is a rich and multifaceted picture of the atonement as the Bible puts forth many interrelated truths concerning the redemption that Christ has accomplished. Another contributing factor to the many different theories of the atonement is that much of what we can learn about the atonement needs to be understood from the experience and perspective of God’s people under the Old Covenant sacrificial system.
The atonement of Christ, its purpose and what it accomplished, is such a rich subject that volumes have been written about it. This article will simply provide a brief overview of many of the theories that have been put forward at one time or another. In looking at the different views of the atonement, we must remember that any view that does not recognize the sinfulness of man or the substitutionary nature of the atonement is deficient at best and heretical at worst.
**Ransom to Satan:** This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom and release him from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan. This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is unbiblical in that it sees Satan, rather than God, as the one who required that a payment be made for sin. Thus, it completely ignores the demands of God’s justice as seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who requires a payment for sin.
**Recapitulation Theory:** This theory states that the atonement of Christ has reversed the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. This theory cannot be supported scripturally.
**Dramatic Theory:** This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil and winning man’s release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s victory over Satan and to provide a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.
**Mystical Theory:** The mystical theory sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over His own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his “god\-consciousness.” They also believe that man’s spiritual condition is not the result of sin but simply a lack of “god\-consciousness.” Clearly, this is unbiblical. To believe this, one must believe that Christ had a sin nature, while Scripture is clear that Jesus was the perfect God\-man, sinless in every aspect of His nature (Hebrews 4:15\).
**Moral Influence Theory:** This is the belief that the atonement of Christ is a demonstration of God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those who hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is unbiblical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man—dead in transgressions and sins (Ephesians 2:1\)—and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.
**Example Theory:** This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those who hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience. This and the moral influence theory are similar in that they both deny that God’s justice actually requires payment for sin and that Christ’s death on the cross was that payment. The main difference between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory says that Christ’s death teaches us how much God loves us and the example theory says that Christ’s death teaches how to live. Of course, it is true that Christ is an example for us to follow, even in His death, but the example theory fails to recognize man’s true spiritual condition and that God’s justice requires payment for sin which man is not capable of paying.
**Commercial Theory:** The commercial theory views the atonement of Christ as bringing infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is that of dishonoring God and so Christ’s death, which brought infinite honor to God, can be applied to sinners for salvation. This theory, like many of the others, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need of a completely new nature, available only in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
**Governmental Theory:** This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude toward sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin, it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.
**[Penal Substitution](penal-substitution.html) Theory:** This theory sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. With His sacrifice, Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. Those who hold this view believe that every aspect of man—his mind, will, and emotions—have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty for sin and that through faith man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately with Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.
|
What is dogmatic theology? |
Answer
Dogmatic theology gets its name from the Greek and Latin word [dogma](what-is-dogma.html) which, when referring to theology, simply means “a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed.” Basically, dogmatic theology refers to the official or “dogmatic” theology as recognized by an organized church body, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Dutch Reformed Church, etc.
While the term dogmatic theology is thought to have first appeared in 1659 in the title of a book by L. Reinhardt, the term became more widely used following the Reformation and was used to designate the articles of faith that the church had officially formulated. A good example of dogmatic theology is the doctrinal statements or dogmas that were formulated by the early church councils who sought to resolve theological problems and to take a stand against heretical teaching. The creeds or dogmas that came out of the church councils were considered to be authoritative and binding on all Christians because the church officially affirmed them. One of the purposes of dogmatic theology is to enable a church body to formulate and communicate the doctrine that is considered essential to Christianity and which, if denied, would constitute heresy.
Dogmatic theology is sometimes confused with systematic theology, and the two terms are at times used interchangeably. However, there are subtle but important differences between the two. To understand the difference between systematic theology and dogmatic theology, it is important to notice that the term “dogma” emphasizes not only the statements from Scripture, but also the ecclesiastical, authoritative affirmation of those statements. The fundamental difference between systematic theology and dogmatic theology is that systematic theology does not require official sanction or endorsement by a church or ecclesiastical body, while dogmatic theology is directly connected to a particular church body or denomination. Dogmatic theology normally discusses the same doctrines and often uses the same outline and structure as systematic theology, but does so from a particular theological stance, affiliated with a specific denomination or church.
|
What is Montanism? |
Answer
Montanism is named after a self\-styled prophet named Montanus who lived in Asia Minor in the second century AD. Montanism, also called the Cataphrygian heresy or New Prophecy, taught that the Holy Spirit was continuing to give new revelation through Montanus and his followers and that Jesus would soon bring the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html) to a place in Phrygia.
Montanus had been a priest in an Asiatic cult called Cybele. He joined the church and claimed to have the gift of prophecy. [Eusebius](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html), a third\-century church historian, wrote the following of Montanus: “In his lust for leadership, he became obsessed and would suddenly fall into frenzy and convulsions. He began to be ecstatic and speak and talk strangely, and prophesied contrary to that which was the custom from the beginning of the church. Those who heard him were convinced that he was possessed. They rebuked him and forbade him to speak, remembering the warning of the Lord Jesus to be watchful because false prophets would come” (*Ecclesiastical History*, 5\.16\.1\). Montanus was joined by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who also prophesied in trance\-like or ecstatic states.
Montanus insisted that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him in his ecstatic utterances. In fact, he claimed to be the embodiment of the Spirit of Truth sent by Jesus in fulfillment of John 14:26\. Followers of Montanism also claimed inspiration for themselves, saying that their words of revelation were as authoritative as anything in Scripture. Often, they could not even be understood. They were known for [speaking in tongues](gift-of-tongues.html), prattling, and chanting nonsense.
The Montanists differentiated themselves from “ordinary” Christians in that they were “Spirit\-filled,” and other Christians were not. The Montanists saw themselves as possessing a more advanced form of Christianity, having received a [special baptism](second-blessing.html) of the Spirit that enabled them to live a life of holiness.
Montanus and his two prophetesses, who together called themselves “the Three,” taught a strict moral code. Lengthy fasts were required. Marriage was discouraged, and second marriages were prohibited outright. Montanists refused any compromise with Roman authority, and many Montanists died as martyrs. Montanus himself urged his followers to “seek . . . to die the martyr’s death, that He may be glorified who has suffered for you” (Tertullian, *De Fuga in Persecutione*, 9\).
Montanism taught that the Holy Spirit had come (in the form of Montanus) to purify the church in preparation for the soon return of Jesus Christ. They looked for the New Jerusalem to descend from heaven to a plain in Phrygia near Pepuza, the Montanist headquarters in Asia Minor. To better prepare for the coming kingdom, many Montanists migrated to that area.
Starting about AD 177, about twenty years after Montanus began promoting his charismatic gifts, the church rejected him and his two prophetesses. A notable exception was [Tertullian](Tertullian.html), who defended the movement and became a leader of the Montanists in Carthage. Various local synods began to condemn Montanism for its divisive nature and its teaching of new revelation. The Three maintained the genuineness of their prophecies. When Maximilla was excommunicated, she said, “I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power” (quoted in www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm, accessed 11/28/22\).
The early church did not reject all prophecy, but it expected New Testament prophets to follow the pattern of earlier prophets of God. The prophets of the Old Testament were rational in their thinking and actions. They spoke an understandable message; they were always in control; they spoke with reason and understanding. In contrast, Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla were irrational when prophesying. Also, the Montanist teaching of a two\-tiered Christianity (those with the Spirit and those without) was unbiblical. And troubling claims from Montanus such as “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete” (ibid., accessed 11/28/22\) added to the need to separate the church from Montanism.
Montanus argued that he was being persecuted just as Jesus said His true followers would be in Matthew 23:34\. However, those who opposed Montanus pointed out that neither he nor his followers had ever endured any persecution or martyrdom because of the peculiarities of their doctrine. The Montanists who died as martyrs died for a biblical refusal to bend the knee to Caesar and the Roman gods.
|
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Theology Question-Answer Dataset
Description
This dataset contains structured, human-generated content focused on theology, primarily sourced from the website GotQuestions. Each entry is formatted as a question (prompt) and a corresponding answer (response). The dataset is provided in JSON format and is intended for fine-tuning AI models, though it can be used for other purposes as well.
The structure of the dataset is as follows:
{
"prompt": "What does it mean to present our members as instruments of righteousness (Romans 6:13)?",
"response": "\nAnswer: ..."
}
As you can see, most responses start with the word "Answer". If that is a problem to you, try this Python script (see below) that removes the first five letters if the response starts with "Answer".
Python Script
import json
def clean_responses(filename):
with open(filename, 'r') as file:
data = json.load(file)
for entry in data:
if entry['response'].startswith("Answer"):
entry['response'] = entry['response'][6:] # Remove "Answer" and the following space
with open('cleaned_' + filename, 'w') as outfile:
json.dump(data, outfile, indent=4)
# Usage
clean_responses('articles.json')
Creation Process
I compiled this dataset over the course of about seven hours. The content is structured with the goal of maintaining accuracy while providing high-quality, Biblically-based theological information.
License
I’m unsure of the most appropriate license for this dataset, as it is sourced from GotQuestions. Please make sure to credit the original creators of the content. If you have any suggestions or feedback regarding the license, I would greatly appreciate it.
Disclaimer
This dataset is intended for educational and research purposes. It is based on publicly available theological content and is not an official publication of GotQuestions.
Usage
This dataset can be used to fine-tune AI models on theological and Biblically-based content. It may also be useful for various other machine learning tasks or applications related to theology, question-answering systems, or religious studies.
JSON Example
{
"prompt": "What is salvation according to the Bible?",
"response": "Answer Salvation is a fundamental concept in Christianity, and it's essential to understand its biblical definition. According to the Bible, salvation refers to the deliverance of humanity from the consequences of sin and the restoration of a right relationship with God.
The Hebrew word for salvation, "Yasha" or "Yeshua," means "to rescue" or "to deliver." In the Old Testament, salvation often referred to physical deliverance from enemies or threats. However, in the New Testament, salvation takes on a broader meaning, encompassing both physical and spiritual deliverance.
The Bible teaches that humanity is sinful and separated from God (Romans 3:23). As a result, we face spiritual death and eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23). However, through faith in Jesus Christ, we can receive salvation and be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
The apostle Paul summarizes the concept of salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9: "_For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast._" (ESV)
In other words, salvation is a gift from God, obtained through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through our own efforts or good deeds.
The Bible describes several aspects of salvation:
* **Redemption**: The act of being freed from the penalty of sin (Romans 3:24-25)
* **Justification**: Being declared righteous before God through faith in Christ (Romans 5:1)
* **Sanctification**: The process of becoming more like Christ and being set apart for God's purposes (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4)
* **Glorification**: The ultimate goal of salvation, where believers will be transformed into Christ's likeness and live with Him in eternity (Romans 8:29-30)
In summary, salvation in the Bible is the gift of God, obtained through faith in Jesus Christ, which delivers us from the consequences of sin and restored a right relationship with God.
(John 3:16)"
}
To clean the responses, use the Python script provided above.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to GotQuestions for the original content that made this dataset possible. Please ensure they are credited appropriately when using this dataset.
Try out a Bible based AI
If you want to try out an Bible based AI, you can use ConvoLite and then press on Milo-professional
- Downloads last month
- 60