- FAQs Did angels marry humans and give birth to giants (Genesis 6)? Q: Genesis 6:1-4 says: "When mankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful and they married any of them they chose. So the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not remain in mankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for one hundred and twenty more years.' The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

" (Today's New International Version).  This surely refers to angels coming to earth and taking women as wives. The Hebrew phrase translated "sons of God" occurs only here (Gen 6:2,4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Genesis 6 the "sons of God" are distinct from "mankind," suggesting they were not human.

This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition, preserved in 1 Enoch 6-7, elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. The result of their union is the Nephilim (according to the King James translation, "giants" - see Numbers 13:32). Don't you agree? A: I don't believe that the Genesis 6 passage is referring to marriage between angels and human beings.

And I don't believe that giants were the offspring of this union. Here is why . . . Angels? First, let's deal with the two arguments which you said show that the "sons of God" have to be angels: (1) sons of God are distinct from mankind and (2) "sons of God" is used in Job to mean angels.

My reply would be: (1) I think "sons of God" are distinguished from "the daughters" (of mankind), not "mankind" as you say. "Mankind" is a part of speech called a Hebrew genitive. This means it is a descriptive noun, not a primary noun in the phrase. The primary nouns are "sons" and "daughters." So God's sons are not distinct from mankind.

God's sons are distinct from mankind's daughters. (2) The term "son of God" is used in ancient literature and the Bible to mean three things (not just one): angels (as you stated), men in covenant relationship with God, and kings. For occurrences of "sons of God" referring to men (standing in a covenant relationship with God) see Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:4-5; Psalm 73:15; Hosea 1:10; Romans 8:14,19; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2. But the term "son of god" is also an ancient expression for human kings or rulers. For example, on a tablet discovered at Ugarit, called The Epic of Kret, the hero is called Kret who is said to be "a king" and "a son of God.

" You see echoes of this use in the Scripture where rulers and judges are called "gods": Psalm 138:1 (cf. verse 4); Psalm 82:6-7; Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28. So this leaves us with two other equally good interpretations of this passage: (1) That "sons of God" refers to the godly line of Seth (just mentioned in the chapter 5). Seth and his descendants had "walked with God" and been faithful, so they could be the "sons of God" referred to. But now this godly line of people decide to intermarry with the ungodly line of Cain (mentioned in chapter 4).

The faithful become faithless. (2) That "sons of God" refers to rulers (kings, powerful men) who took whatever women they chose (whether the women were married or not married or even wanted to be married). This is an example of the sin of the time of Noah. Rulers abusing their power by means of violence (cf. Genesis 6:11-13).

Giants and the King James Version of the Bible Some people believe the Nephilim of Genesis 6 were a race of giants. Where did this idea come from? Mostly from the King James Version of the Bible (abbreviated as "KJV") which translates Genesis 6:4 this way: There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (KJV) When the King James Version of the Bible was being translated, the translators didn't know what the Hebrew word "Nephilim" meant. So they relied (possibly) upon three sources: A Greek translation of the Bible made around 250 BC (called the Septuagint or simply abbreviated as "LXX"). The LXX translated Nephilim as "giants.

" Two Jewish books written between 150-80 B.C. called Enoch & Jubilees. These books say that a group of angels came to earth before the flood, had sexual relations with women, produced a race of giants, and the giants began to eat mankind. Numbers 13:32.

This is probably the major source for the KJV translation "giants" and may, in fact, be the source for Enoch, Jubilees, and the LXX. Numbers 13:32 is the other use of the word Nephilim in the Bible. From my reading it appears that the Greek translators of the LXX had already lost the meaning of the word Nephilim. They probably tried to guess its meaning (wrongly in my opinion) based on Numbers 13:32. The books of Enoch & Jubilees are not considered inspired books (by either Jews, Catholics, or Protestants).

They contain many fanciful stories and (in my opinion) this is just another bizarre story. Just so this reply doesn't get too long, I'll focus on Numbers 13:32. Does Numbers 13:32 teach that the Nephilim are giants? Here is the context. The Israelite spies have just returned from looking over the Promised Land. Ten of the spies don't want to go into the Promised Land, so they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land.

They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them" (Numbers 13:32-33, New International Version). Now we know that the Israelites did find some people of great size in the Promised Land.

The Scriptures do refer to a few very tall people of which Goliath (2 Samuel 17) would have been one. Og, the king of Bashan, would be another (Deuteronomy 3:11). There is also a genetic group of tall people called the Anakites. They are descendants of a man called Anak. In fact, Numbers 13 is the first mention of this person named Anak.

He appears to be the ancestor for a tribe of "strong and tall people" (Deuteronomy 9:2) who lived along the southern part of Canaan. They held key cities like Hebron (Numbers 13:22). During the time of the conquest of the Promised Land they were defeated and driven back to the Mediterranean coastline, but some of their descendants were still around in King David's day (2 Samuel 21:15-22 - here called descendants of Rapha, but there is a Biblical connection between Rapha and Anak which is too hard to explain here). The giant Goliath was likely one of the descendants of Anak. So does Numbers 13:32 mean that the Nephilim of Genesis 6 are people of great size? There are three reasons why we should not hastily conclude that the giants that the Israelites found in Palestine are the same as the Nephilim of Genesis 6: (1) The Nephilim (whoever they were) were destroyed in the worldwide flood, so the large people that the Israelites found in Palestine around 1400 BC could not be their descendants.

The Bible is clear that "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals... Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." (Genesis 7:23).

The Nephilim were "living things" and men (Genesis 6:4), so they didn't survive the flood. There is no way that their descendants could show up hundreds of years later in Palestine. The Nephilim didn't survive the flood and they didn't have any offspring that survived the flood. (2) Numbers 13:32-33 is a quote of what the 10 spies said -- the spies who were panicking about going into Palestine. In other words, this verse records what the faithless spies said, not necessarily what was true in reality.

These spies said that "All the people we saw there are of great size" (v. 32). That was a lie. Indeed, there were people of great size in the land, but not all of them were giants. So the phrase: ".

.. the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim" may just be something the spies said to panic the people and keep them from following God into the promised land. We don't have to adopt the statement as being true at all. It was said by people in rebellion against God and trying to influence the people not to go into the land.

These same men were soon struck down by God for spreading a bad report about the land (see Numbers 14:37). (3) It is possible that the phrase: "... the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim" is not what the spies said, but is a parenthetical comment made by Moses when he wrote the book of Numbers.

It is certainly not necessary to believe this. The comment could have easily been made by the lying spies. There is nothing in the Hebrew to tell us one way or the other. The Hebrew language didn't have parentheses. But for argument's sake let's say that Moses wrote this to explain the origins of Anak and his people.

The first thing to note is what it is not saying: "the Nephilim are giants." That's backward. It is only saying, "...

these giants (that is, the Anakites, a genetic group of tall people) come from the Nephilim." This verse does not tell us anything about the height of Nephilim. We might conclude that the Nephilim being the ancestors of giants would have to be giants themselves, but that is not necessarily true at all. The cause of gigantism in our day is excessive secretion of growth hormone most often from a benign tumor on the pituitary gland <http://www.nlm.

nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001174.htm>. Was Anak the first to have this tumor and then pass on the predisposition of this tumor to his descendants? I don't know enough about genetics and pituitary tumors to say what is possible or not. Nevertheless there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that people before Anak were giants.

Anak may have been the first large person - that's why he is mentioned. He then passed some abnormality or genetic trait down to his descendants. The Meaning of NephilimLet's talk about the Hebrew word "Nephilim" (found only in Genesis 6:4 & Numbers 13:32). We aren't sure what root it comes from. It doesn't mean "giants.

" It's not even close to Hebrew words used to speak of tall or large people. Some say it is related to the Hebrew word nepel "untimely birth" or "miscarriage," so the sense would be "monstrosities." Others say it is related to the Hebrew word pul "to be wonderful, strong, mighty," so the sense would be "mighty men" or "heroes" as it says at the end of Genesis 6:4: "They were the mighty men of old, men of renown." Others believe it is related to napal "to fall," so the idea would be "ones who fall upon others, tyrants, violent rulers." This was the view of Martin Luther.

They are called Nephilim because they fell upon the people and oppressed them (cf. Genesis 6:11-13). Others also believe the word is relate to napal "to fall" (just like #3). But they believe it means "fallen ones." In this view, they believe that Nephilim is just another word for fallen angels.

The truth is we aren't sure what exactly the word Nephilim means or what its root origin is linguistically. This is why the Revised Standard, the New International, and the American Standard translations don't attempt to translate the word at all. They simply transliterate the Hebrew letters: "Nephilim." But let's plug the possible root meanings into the phrase "..

. the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim" and see what we come up with: Option #1: "a genetic group of giants (that is, the "descendants of Anak") come from the monstrosities." - This idea fits better with your view that angels and human women gave birth to some genetically weird human beings. So according to this view Numbers 13:32-33 would say: "And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, 'The land we explored devours those living in it.

All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw monstrosities there (the descendants of Anak come from monstrosities). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.'" But if this meaning of Nephilim is correct, what monstrosities are we talking about? Monstrosities in Genesis 6? We already showed this is not possible, since any descendants of angels and humans did not survive the flood. Option #2: "a genetic group of giants (the "descendants of Anak") come from wonderful, mighty men.

" - This idea just says that Anak and his offspring come from strong stock. It doesn't necessarily mean that they come from the heroes in Genesis 6 - just that they came from great men. So according to this view Numbers 13:31-33 would say: "And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, 'The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.

We saw mighty men there (the descendants of Anak come from mighty men). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.'" Option #3: "a genetic group of giants (the "descendants of Anak") come from violent rulers." - Like the previous option there is nothing that says these violent rulers are related to the ones in Genesis 6. All Numbers would be saying is that these large men come from a line of mean, violent people.

So according to this view Numbers 13:31-33 would say: "And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, 'The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw vicious rulers there (the descendants of Anak come from vicious rulers). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.

'" Option #4: "a genetic group of giants come from the fallen ones." - This would mean that the descendants of Anak came from fallen angels. When did this happen? It couldn't be referring to the Genesis 6 passage, because that happened before the flood and there weren't any giants hidden away on the ark. So now we have to suppose a second event after the flood (never mentioned in Scripture) when angels take human beings as wives and bear giant children?!! This option just seems too preposterous! The point I'm trying to make is that there is confusion about the meaning of the word Nephilim and this confusion is what has led to imaginative stories about fallen angels and monstrosities - stories which even many Christians believe. But when you take the options and plug them into the Numbers 13 passage, you find either reasonable statements which say nothing about giants and fallen angels (#2 and #3) or you find statements which make no sense and create more problems than they solve (#1 and #4).

A Final Look at Genesis 6 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (NIV) When you look at Genesis 6:4 without the King James translation (or another translation that uses the term giants), you realize that apart from the mistranslation there is nothing about giants in the passage. Introducing giants into the passage also doesn't fit the context of what comes in the chapters before or the verses after. Nephilim means giants?! Then what do the giants do? What happens to them? If they are giants why does it say: "They are the heroes of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:4).

They are called "men." Nothing about monsters eating humans to satisfy a voracious appetite (like in the book of Enoch) - only that they are famous, mighty human beings. And there is a very serious objection to the view that Nephilim are offspring of angels. No matter what translation you look at please note that the Nephilim were already on the earth when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men (v. 4).

The Nephilim were not a result of the union, since they were already present before the union of "God's sons" and "mankind's daughters." Finally, let's evaluate the idea that "sons of God" means angels. This would be the first mention of angels in the Bible. (I'm not counting the cherubim of Genesis 3:24.) It would be an unusual way to introduce angels.

Furthermore, the idea of angels marrying humans and producing giant offspring has no connection with the context. It doesn't flow from what went before or what goes after. Where did the angels come from? Genesis 6:4 says they "came in" to the daughters, not they "came down" from heaven. Are angels even able to have sex or procreate? (In Matthew 22:30 Christ Himself seems to say that the angels cannot marry). What happened to the angels after doing this terrible thing? Were they judged for what they did? If this is about angels taking women as mates, it seems very strange that there is nothing said about how God reacts to the angels.

Finally, why does God destroy human beings with a worldwide flood for something the angels did?So what does Genesis 6 mean? That sinful human beings (either the line of Seth or the rulers) did something wrong (involving taking women in marriage) to bring judgment upon the earth. This caused God to set a date 120 years in the future for the destruction of humanity. Mighty men (or vicious rulers) were on the earth in those days when this sin took place. Who were the "mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" (v. 4)? If the phrase refers to the giant offspring of angels and women, then it seems strange to call them "men" or "heroes" or "famous.

" If the phrase refers to vicious rulers (one possible meaning of Nephilim), then it means these rulers were famous for their mighty deeds and brutality. If the phrase refers to mighty men (another possible meaning of Nephilim), then it could mean the godly men who didn't intermarry with Cain's offspring, the faithful. These would be men like Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Noah's sons who were mighty in God and famous for their righteousness. If this is the case there is a nice symmetry and parallelism between Genesis 6:1-4 and 6:5-8:   Genesis 6:1-4 Genesis 6:5-8 Man's sin When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. (1-2) The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. (5-6) God's decree Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (3) So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them." (7) A faithful remnant The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

(4) But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (8) As you can probably tell, I opt for: The "sons of God" being the line of Seth most of whom now become unfaithful to God through intermarriage with pagan women. The Nephilim meaning "mighty men" or "heroes." And "the heroes of old, men of renown" being the same as the Nephilim and referring to the few of Seth's line that remained faithful to God. Men like Noah and his sons who are introduced by name just a few verses later (Genesis 6:8-10).

Summary The reasons I don't go with the angel interpretation are: There are two other very good interpretations of the passage that fit the context: the line of Seth intermarrying with the line of Cain or vicious rulers who abuse their power by taking whatever women they want. The idea of angels marrying humans and producing giant offspring has no connection with the context of sinful human beings and the judgment of a worldwide flood. The Nephilim were not a result of the union, since they were already present before the union of the "sons of God" and "daughters of mankind." The inter-testamental books of Enoch and Jubilees are neither from the same time period as Genesis nor considered authoritative. They simply represent an erroneous view of the passage that was held by some Jews during the period between the Old and New Testaments.

And the reasons I don't believe that Nephilim are giants: The word Nephilim does not mean giants. We may not know its actual meaning, but it has no connection to any Hebrew word for giants. The Nephilim are specifically called men, not genetic monstrosities: "mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" (KJV). The only connection between tall people and the Nephilim of Genesis 6 is one verse (Numbers 13:32) and there are many reasonable explanations for what this one verse means that don't involve viewing the people in Genesis 6 as giants or the offspring of angels & women. The idea of giant monstrosities doesn't fit the context of wicked human beings who deserve God's judgment.

Rather it leads us to pity humanity as victims of angels and monsters, rather than violent, corrupt human beings who God justly condemns to death. (See Genesis 6:15-13 where the emphasis is on mankind's wickedness, mankind's evil thoughts, mankind's corruption, and mankind's violence). If you hold to the position that angels married humans and produced giants, you must explain three things: How this idea fits the context. How the Nephilim could already be on the earth when the angels had sex with the women. How the Anakites could be genetically related to a giant race that was destroyed by the flood.

For others pages on angels see: The Truth About Angels Angel Concerning Demons Satan - His Infernal Majesty Are cherubs and angels the same?

Are cherubs and angels the same? Q: I have people in my church who think cherubs and angels are the same and I'm not so sure about this topic. Can you shed a little light on this for me? A: The options are: Angels are cherubs - that is, angels and cherubs are the same creature. Cherubs are a subset of angels. Cherubs and angels are completely different creatures. From my reading of Scripture, I would think the third option is the Biblical one, but most people, like Billy Graham in his book Angels, see the cherubim and seraphim as subsets of angels.

In fact, Medieval theologians divided angelic beings into various grades (anywhere from 7 or more orders of angels) with cherubs as one of the highest ranks in the hierarchy of angels. By the mid-1200s, Thomas Aquinas thought angelic hierarchies were important enough and confusing enough to be straightened out and so he included the subject in his Summa Theologica. He taught that there were nine grades of angels (which has become the official Catholic position ever since): Seraphim Cherubim Thrones Dominations (sometimes translated as dominions) Virtues Powers Principalities Archangels Angels In general, Protestants don't pay much attention to the specific grades of angels. While we acknowledge the existence of archangels (that is, chief angels), we generally don't go beyond this, because the Scriptures themselves are silent on the issue. John Calvin (1509-1564) called writings about the angelic hierarchy "the vain babblings of idle men" and deplored such speculations as fruitless and unprofitable.

So what about cherubs and angels? Well, I'm unable to find a place in the Bible where cherubs are called angels (or angels called cherubs). Cherubim and seraphim show up in the garden (Gen 3:24), on the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:18; Psalm 80:1), in Isaiah's vision (Isaiah 6:1-6), in Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 1:5-14; 9:3; 10:1), and in the book of Revelation (Rev 4:7), but I can't find any place that they are called "angels." Correct me, if I'm wrong. But if my study is correct, this would lead me to believe that cherubs and angels are completely different creatures - the cherubs (and seraphim) with wings limited to the place around the throne of God and the angels coming and going as messengers and ministering spirits, which look similar in appearance to male human beings. Now it won't rock my world if I'm wrong and it turns out that cherubs are a specific order of angels, but someone will have to show me where angels and cherubs are equated in the Bible.

++++++++++++++++++++++ You may also wish to view: Angel The Truth About Angels Did angels marry humans and give birth to giants (Genesis 6)?

- FAQs Who decided what books got into the Bible? Q: Who decided which prophets/authors of the Bible were valid? I know that they were inspired by God, but who decided who really was genuine and who wasn't? Being from a Catholic background we were told that popes spoke to God and their messages were inspired by God.A: I'll give you far more than you probably want here, but I will put it under three headings so skip to the heading that you really want to focus on and you can avoid some of the verbiage. The three headings are OLD TESTAMENT, NEW TESTAMENT, APOCRYPHA. We call the list of inspired books a canon (from the Greek word 'Kanon' which means "reed, rod, bar, measuring stick, standard"), so I will be using that word to refer to the final standard or list of inspired books of the Bible.OLD TESTAMENT The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22).

It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus' day the Jewish people still held to Ezra's collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called 'the Scriptures,' that is "the writings.

" Christians accept the Jewish Old Testament collection of books, because Jesus accepted them. Jesus quoted Scripture authoritatively (Matthew 4:4; Mark 14:27); referred to it as 'the Word of God' (Matthew 19:4ff; Mark 7:11-13; John 10:34ff) and believed it to be the revelation of God given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36). Jesus believed the whole Old Testament to be authoritative (Luke 24:25-27,44). Jesus cited each of the Old Testament's main divisions: the law (Matthew 4:4); the poetic books (Mark 12:10ff); and the prophets (Mark 7:6). This is the same way that Jews of Jesus' day referred to the Old Testament: the law, the prophets, and the writings (or Psalms - Psalms being the first and most prominent book in the writings) - See Luke 24:44.

The apostles of Jesus also recognized the authority of the 'Scriptures.' The 'Scriptures' were the Word of God in written form (Acts 4:25; 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 4:3; 10:15-17; 2 Peter 1:21). The apostles' consistent attitude to the Old Testament is aptly summarized by Paul's phrase, 'the oracles of God' (Romans 3:2). The Old Testament is authoritatively quoted 239 times, cited 1,600 times, and alluded to many other times by the apostles. Most of the 39 books of the Old Testament are quoted as God's Word somewhere in the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENTBefore Jesus left earth, He provided everything that was necessary for the creation of a New Testament canon. Jesus made promises to His apostles. He pledged that the Holy Spirit would: Teach them what they ought to say - Luke 12:12, Matthew 10:19. Give them perfect recall of Jesus' words - John 14:26. Guide them into all truth - John 16:12-13b.

Tell them what is yet to come - John 16:14b. Convey the very words of the resurrected Jesus to them (a continuing open line of communication with the apostles) - John 16:14-15. These promises provide all that is required for the formation of an authoritative, inspired, inerrant New Testament. As you read the New Testament you can see how Jesus' apostles viewed their own teaching: It is the "mystery now revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets" - Ephesians 3:3-5. They claim that their teaching was received by revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:6-12, 2 Corinthians 12:1-7.

The apostles claim to have the mind of Christ - 1 Corinthians 2:8-16. They claim to be giving an eyewitness account of what really happened - Luke 1:1-4, 2 Peter 1:16-18, 1 John 1:1-5. They claim that their word = God's Word - 1 Corinthians 14:36-38, 2 Corinthians 13:3, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:23-25, 2 Peter 3:2. They claim to foretell the future - 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; Jude 17. Even before all the New Testament books were written, there were discussions about which New Testament books were inspired writings from God and which were not.

Paul had to defend his writings. At one point he says: "Did the Word of God originate with you?... If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored" (1 Corinthians 14:36-38). That's strong language claiming that what he writes is God's Word and it is ignored at the reader's peril. Portions of the New Testament are already being called 'Scripture' by Peter and Paul (2 Peter 3:14-16; 1 Timothy 5:18)! Revelation 22:18-19 is further evidence of a distinction between authorized and unauthorized writings. John warns against adding or taking away from what he has recorded (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32).

This tells us that a New Testament canon was already developing, even as it was being written! There were various lists of a New Testament canon being made throughout the first centuries of the church's existence. Specific mention about books being part of 'Scripture' or not part of 'Scripture' is made by Clement of Rome (AD 95), Polycarp (115), the epistle of Barnabas (132), Justin Martyr (150), Irenaeus (180), the Muratorian Canon (175), Tertullian (190), Origen (225), Eusebius (340), and Athanasius of Alexandria (367). For a survey spanning the first four centuries of Christianity of which books were considered trustworthy see The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. This site has a wonderful table listing the evidence for each book of the New Testament. For the core of the New Testament including the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter there was virtually no serious question raised about their canonical authority.

Only a handful of books that are now included in our New Testament Bible were ever under serious question. They include such books as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, and the second and third epistles of John. All of these were finally considered to be of canonical stature and formalized within the canon. The first official meeting of churches which listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Synod of Hippo in 393. It did not confer upon them any authority, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.

The Third Synod of Carthage reaffirmed the Hippo decision in 397. The earliest know confirmation of this list by a Bishop of Rome comes from Pope Innocent in 405. The Synod of Carthage used three criteria in recognizing books as part of the New Testament canon: Was the book prepared by an apostle or under the direction of an apostle? (Ephesians 2:20; John 16:13). Was the book used and recognized by the churches? (John 10:4). Did the book teach sound doctrine as compared with books that were already accepted as Scripture? (1 Corinthians 14:29).

It is important to realize that a book did not become inspired by being included in the canon. Rather inclusion in the canon was merely recognition of the authority that the book already possessed from God. It is a little bit like an purple elephant walking into the room and us deciding that "Yes, indeed! That's a purple elephant and he is in the room." We did not make him a purple elephant and we did not put him in the room -- we merely recognize what is obvious. The canon of Scripture was NOT formed by the declaration of a church council any more than Isaac Newton created the law of gravity.

Rather, as written revelation came from God through God's chosen writers, the people of God recognized God's voice and affirmed that the writing was indeed the word of God. Jesus said, "His sheep follow Him because they know his voice" (John 10:4). The people of God knew the word of God when they heard it and read it and, as a result, the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were recognized and collected into the canon. THE APOCRYPHA The most striking difference between Bibles used by Roman Catholics and Bibles used by Protestants is the presence in the former of a number of writings that are not found in the latter or also in the Hebrew Bible. These number seven books: Tobit Judith 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon (also called The Book of Wisdom) Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) Baruch and five passages (which were added to books): The Letter of Jeremiah, which became Baruch, chapter 6 A 107 verse expansion of the Book of Esther The Prayer of Azariah, which became Daniel 3:24-90 Susanna, which became Daniel 13 Bel and the Dragon, which became Daniel 14 (Of these works, Tobias and Judith were written originally in Aramaic, perhaps in Hebrew; Baruch and 1 Maccabees in Hebrew, while Wisdom and 2 Maccabees were certainly composed in Greek.

The probabilities favor Hebrew as the original language of the addition to Esther, and Greek for the enlargements of Daniel.) The Protestants call these "apocryphal books" and by this they mean books that are not inspired. The word "Apocrypha" means hidden or secret, and was introduced by Jerome, a 4th century Christian teacher, to indicate non-inspired books with either a secret origin or secret authority. Roman Catholics call them deuterocanonical books (deuteros meaning "second"). They view them as a second inspired canon, coming after the first canon (the books that Jews and Protestants accept as inspired).

These books did not receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church until AD 1546 at the Council of Trent. According to the fourth session of the Council of Trent the Old Testament catalogue is to contain the following: The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the decree of the Council of Trent was "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal." The Council of Trent made the status of the deuterocanonical books clear: If anyone does not hold as sacred and canonical the books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, let him be anathema [that is, cut off from the church and condemned to eternal fire unless he repents]. For a short description of the books recognized by the Roman Catholic Church see Bible-researcher.

com. To view their content see Sacred-texts.com. Along with other Protestants, I do not consider these seven books (and the additions to Esther and Daniel) to be divinely inspired and authoritative. I would consider them apocryphal, rather than deuterocanonical.

Here are the reasons why these books should not be included in the canon of Scripture: Not one of the writers of these books claimed to be inspired. In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 actually says "there hasn't been a prophet in Israel for some time." (

- FAQs What about the psalms that call for destruction of people? Q: How do you deal with the psalms that ask for the total destruction of various people? A: Most of these are psalms of David. David is speaking as more than just an individual. He is speaking as God subregent, i.e. vice king (vice president).

To challenge or undermine David is to challenge God's kingdom and people. God has and will judge people for their rebellion against Him.

What about the tree of life and has anybody ever seen God? Q: God told Adam you can eat from any tree except one, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If evil has not always existed who made that tree then? And could you please tell more about the tree of life? After man disobeyed God why did He put a flaming sword which went in all directions to stop man from getting to the tree of life? If they did eat from the tree of life would man still live forever? Another point I find confusing is the Bible says no man has seen God. If this is so what about Adam? Did Adam see God or did God communicate to Adam invisibly? A: The tree is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - not because it was evil in and of itself, but because choosing it would make Adam know evil. In other words, if Adam chose to rebel by disobeying God's command, then he would know the difference between good and evil simply by his act of rebelling. Does that make sense? In a manner of speaking, Adam created evil by rejecting his Creator's command.

Yes, the tree of life would have allowed Adam to live forever. Since Adam rejected his Creator, he received the consequence of disobedience of death (just as he had been warned - Genesis 2:17). The angels with the flaming swords were to make sure that Adam was separated from the other special tree in the garden, the tree of eternal life (Genesis 3:22) - the wickedness of man could not be allowed to go on forever. Trees of life reappear in the book of Revelation in the description of heaven (Revelation 22:1-3,14,19)! We get back the tree of life, because of Jesus! The statements about no man seeing God can be very confusing. Sometimes the Bible talks about people who did see God like Hagar (Genesis 16:13).

Other times it makes the clear statement that if anyone sees God that person will die. I think the best way to understand this is by looking at the passage where Moses asks to see God. God tells Moses, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live" (Exodus 33:20). But God did permit Moses to see His backside (Exodus 33:23). Apparently in all the examples where God did appear to people, He appeared in a veiled or partial manner - not in His true essence.

The descriptions of His appearances bear this out. When God appears to Jacob, it is in a human form (Genesis 32:22-30). When He appears to Isaiah it is in a vision in the temple (Isaiah 6:1-5). When He appears to the apostles, it is in the veiled glory of Jesus, His Son (John 14:8-9). These appearances were awesome and frightening and inspiring, but they were apparently not seeing God's face (that is, His true essence, holiness, power, majesty).

Why can't we see God's face? Apparently it has to do with our sinfulness (Habakkuk 1:13). Perhaps it also has to do with the frailty of our earthy human form (1 Corinthians 15:50; 2 Corinthians 5:2-3). In other words, our bodies cannot tolerate God's purity and glory. Coming now to Adam, I don't know whether Adam saw God's face or a human form of Him. Prior to the fall, sin was not a problem.

However Adam was still flesh and blood in a natural body (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). The one clue we have is that apparently Adam and Eve were use to meeting with God in the evening and "walking" with Him in the garden (Genesis 3:8). Sounds like Adam and Eve walked and communicated with God in human form (Jesus?) every evening. So this appearance of God was not God in His complete and utter glory, but some sort of veiled revelation, such as when Jesus walked with the disciples. The beautiful thing about all of this is the statement in Revelation 22:3-4 which says that in heaven we WILL see God's face! This is also one of the promises of Jesus: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God!" (Matthew 5:8).

Apparently with our sins forgiven, in a state of perfect righteousness, and in our resurrected bodies, we will finally have the joy of seeing God in His true essence and majesty!

- FAQs Where did evil come from? Q: Hello, I am a student at a Christian school. Our recently assigned Bible homework was that I contact 5 churches and ask them the following two questions and record their replies. Where did evil come from? Has it always existed? Please include any references and a quick reply would be much appreciated. Thank you. A: I'm sure that many churches will answer that evil came from man's free will.

This is an attempt to protect God from appearing evil Himself. But according to my own reading of Scripture I would reply in the following way: God is the Creator of all things and upholds, directs, and governs all creatures, actions, and things from the greatest to the least. This is called the doctrine of providence. See Hebrews 1:3; Daniel 4:34-35; Psalm 135: 6; Acts 17:25-26,28; Job 38; 39; 40; 41; Matthew 10:29-31; Genesis 45:7; Proverbs 15:3; Psalm 103:19; 104:24; 145:17; Isaiah 45:7; Romans 13:1. God's providence extends even to the first fall of man.

See Romans 11:32-34; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22-23; 1 Chronicles 10:4,13-14; 2 Samuel 16:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28. God by His providence created angels and permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation. See Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4; Hebrews 2:16; John 8:44. God did not create evil, but did create creatures who would do evil. Evil is not independent of God but dependent on God and His activity in the world.

It is controlled by God. See Proverbs 16:4; John 1:3; Romans 9:20-23; 11:36. The sinfulness proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, cannot be the author or approver of sin. See James 1:13-14,17; 1 John 2:16; Psalm 50:21. Therefore, what this means is that God is not evil but good, BUT God created, directed, and upheld creatures that did evil without Himself being evil.

Evil has NOT always existed, because there was a time before the creation of angels and man. Genesis 1; John 1:1-3. For more information and Scriptures on this point, see: The Sovereignty of God and Tragedies by Gabe Sylvia. Who's In Charge Here? Questions on Free Will

- FAQs Did Adam and Eve's children commit incest? as there ever any incest in order for us all to be here from Adam and Eve? A: Yes, Adam's children married each other. But incest was not viewed as a forbidden activity until the time of Moses. See Leviticus chapters 18-20. Adam and Eve's children married their brothers and sisters. Even Abraham married Sarah, who was his half-sister (Genesis 20:12).

For further reading see Where did Cain get his wife?

- FAQs How do we implement a Child Safety Program in our church? Child Protection Policies. Our church is also wrestling with these issues. We have some similar things in place. However, we have had difficulty getting acceptance from a significant number of our volunteer workers. Many have refused to sign and will simply leave their ministry.

The Board of Deacons and Elders, of which I am a member, is now faced with having to find replacements. (This policy was passed before I was elected.) First of all, we are only a church of about 200 people. Everyone knows everybody else. Frankly, it seems to me that we have increased our exposure to risk, as a result of this policy.

Since many of our longtime teachers of years and years won't sign, we have taken to placing requests in the bulletin for replacements. So, we will be replacing people with a known track record, for which their only shortcoming is refusal to sign, with those who have much less history with the church, or commitment. If they were committed, why did they wait for an ad in the bulletin? Why weren't they serving already? This, to me, is a recipe for disaster, for you know there will also be pressure to "hurry up and get people qualifed." Just because somebody is willing to sign a form doesn't make them OK. You will find that out AFTER the incident.

There are many reasons given for refusing to sign, most feel we are being too intrusive. Others feel they have already proven themselves. Still others feel that signing what appears to be a legal document is inconsistent with their status as a volunteer. Also, our church is quite conservative and not all that trustful that government is the friend of churches. The board plans to review this policy, in light of these difficulties.

Has anyone at your church any wisdom for us, in this area? Your 2-adult rule is good and I don't think anyone objects to references. But, we also ask for SSN#s, drivers licenses, criminal history, and the agreement to waive any rights to review materials submitted. We did scrap the fingerprinting idea. That was just too much. Naturally, everyone wants to do the right thing.

We know we need something in place, and no one is saying we shouldn't have anything. But, if a little is good, more is not necessarily better. A: You have raised some insightful issues and good concerns. I'm not sure all of the elements of your Child Safety Program, so I hesitant to speak too dogmatically, but let me make a few observations that may or may not be appropriate. Take them with a grain of salt and you decide what "fits" and what doesn't.

It sounds like you did not get "ownership" of the program before instituting it. This is a common mistake in instituting any "change." We had the nursery supervisor, the Sunday school superintendent, the youth leaders, many of the teachers, and most of the influential people "on board" before we ever presented it to the congregation. We had these people "on board", because they were either part of the drafting committee or had the opportunity to provide significant input into the program. As I see it, your options at this point are to: 1.

Proceed to implement the program. This would mean allowing volunteers to make their choices, seeking new volunteers through personal requests (rather than bulletin announcements), continuing to educate everyone on the dangers of NOT implementing the program, and allowing ministries to temporarily die that people will not support. 2. Admit that you did a poor job of handling change or that you made the program too strict. This would mean that you go to the congregation and get ownership that we need "some" program, then you go back to the drawing board with key players, and rework it.

This will take some humility, of course, and if your program is NOT too strict, then for the sake of the kids you absolutely shouldn't do it. We did a lot of education of ourselves and then the congregation about the danger of molesters and how they have moved into the church setting. We received lists of court cases and a very informative video (available from ReducingtheRisk.com). We also began collecting articles from our local newspaper about molestation cases and suits against churches.

This provided a realistic motivation for making "sacrifices of privacy" for the sake of the children and the long-term health of the church. Of course, we had our own experience with a staff member who molested a teenage girl. There is nothing like the pain and grief of molestation and a 4 million dollar law suit to make you think long and deep about these issues. Change was easier for us, because we saw the devastation that this brought on the victim and we shared in some of the emotional pain of feeling violated. We had started formulating our Child Safety Program before the lawsuit, but the suit (eventually dropped after $14,000 in legal costs) became another motivation for change.

We have also been concerned about government involvement in this process. Like you, we believe in a strong separation of the church from government control or influence. We have reassured our people that the only place that government touches our Child Safety Program is in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services Release of Information Form. This form is necessary because this agency is the only place that has the information we need on child molesters. In this sense, it is more a data base function than a government function.

We reassure people that no record is kept of the background check (in fact, the form is not recorded at Child Protective Services and is sent back to us). Of course the form does require your Social Security #, but everybody has that already. (If you've ever had the opportunity to watch them do a search at the Department of Motor Vehicles you will find that the government already has a complete data base on you down to your shoe size. You are NOT giving away any new information by filling out a background check form.) You wrote: "Everyone knows everybody else.

" I don't think that is accurate. The staff member who molested the teenager in our church had been a member of the church for 10 years. He was a member prior to coming on staff. He was 56 years old. He was loved (even idolized) by almost everyone in the congregation.

If we had asked for testimonials about his ability to work with children, we would have had no trouble receiving many letters of recommendation. We all THOUGHT that we knew him, but we didn't. His own wife and daughter didn't know him. After the fact, we found that he had participated in numerous sexually immoral relationships since age 18. We knew absolutely NONE of this.

We are not a church that sticks its head in the sand. We did an adequate job of supervising him. We are a spiritually alive church and a church of prayer. Molesters are just VERY devious people. They have had years of practicing secrecy.

I have become more and more convinced that only God knows a person's heart. Our Child Safety Interviews have revealed some very hurting people (who should not be around children). Some people are actually looking for an opportunity to tell someone they are hurting and we have tried to compassionately help these people. These are all things that we did not know before the Child Safety Program was implemented. I realize that people going through your Child Safety Program and signing a paper does not insure that they are "okay," but it does do three things: 1.

It sets up another hurdle for a child molester to jump over. Most molesters will avoid it and go elsewhere. (Actually that is why they have gravitated to the church. The Boy Scouts, the public schools, and day care centers have all instituted Child Safety Programs. The church is about the only place that a person can go and work with children without ANY questions being asked.

) 2. It protects the church in case of a lawsuit. The court will decide any case based on whether or not "a reasonable effort was made to protect the children under your care." A decision against a church will mean the end of a good reputation. Financial judgments can also mean the end of a church's ministry.

It's a great way for Satan to devastate a good church. 3. It educates volunteers about what to do, what to look for, and what the church expects when caring for these "little ones." A key component of any Child Safety Program is education. The mere process of having a program and going through the program educates.

It says to people: "We think children are important. We protect them. We think child ministry is significant -- so significant that we let only the most qualified individuals work with our children." Jesus was very clear about the need to protect the weaker members of his church: "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). Volunteers need to know the seriousness of their task under Christ.

One final thought: The person who is implementing or supervising the Child Safety Program must be absolutely convinced of its need and able to convince others. If they have doubts, then it will not succeed. Thanks for writing and letting me know of your concerns. I hope there is something in this hodgepodge of thoughts that it useful to your leadership board.

Do you promote spanking children?! I found your site quite interesting... until I read how to change some negative attitudes in children..

. spanking?? Do you promote spanking??? I thought God gave us communication so that we use our words. Did Jesus ever physically attack anyone? Please let me know if I misunderstood what was written. A concerned reader A: Dear concerned reader, No, you didn't misunderstand. How I parent comes from how God says I should parent.

I believe in using all the means that God commands to raise children. Training will always start with communication. But parenting is like a toolbox. God provides a number of different training tools for parents. Training of a younger child can also include physical "stings" to get the message across, when the child deliberately disobeys.

This is viewed as wisdom by God: Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him (Proverbs 22:15) He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him (Proverbs 13:24). Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death (Proverbs 23:13-14). Of course spanking pains the child, but that's exactly why (when done correctly) it is so effective in promoting a change of heart. Psychologist Lawrence Kolberg recognized this when he developed his theory of moral development.

He says that in the first level of moral development, we base our moral decisions on pain and pleasure. If the decision is likely to be painful, then we don't do it. If the outcome is likely to be pleasurable, then we do. Young children function almost completely on this level until the age of 9. Two thousand years before Kolberg, the writer of Hebrews knew about the use of pain in value formation: No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful.

Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it (Hebrews 12:11). You have the right to disagree with what I write, but you must understand that what we teach on this web site comes from God's revelation. It is not based on what is at the moment secularly, scientifically, or politically "correct." I have found that humanistic-centered views of parenting change every generation. God's revelation has always been the same.

And yes, Jesus did physically attack people (John 2:13-17) and apparently will do so in the future (Revelation 19:11-21). Thanks for writing.

Is the celebration of Christmas a pagan ritual? There's no command in the Bible to celebrate Jesus' birthday. There's nothing in the Bible that would even indicate that Jesus was born on December 25. I understand that December 25 was actually a pagan holiday. So many of the symbols associated with Christmas seem to come from pagan religions. So isn't the celebration of Christmas a pagan ritual? A: You are absolutely correct! There is no command in the Bible.

December 25 probably isn't Jesus birthday. And there do seem to be some pagan holidays associated with the days around December 25th. BUT I don't agree with your conclusion. I agree with the thoughts of theologian R. C.

Sproul on this question: "It just so happens that on the twenty-fifth of December in the Roman Empire there was a pagan holiday that was linked to mystery religions; the pagans celebrated their festival on December 25.  The Christians didn't want to participate in that, and so they said, "While everybody else is celebrating this pagan thing, we're going to have our own celebration. we're going to celebrate the thing that's most important in our lives, the incarnation of God, the birth of Jesus Christ. So this is going to be a time of joyous festivities, of celebration and worship of our God and King. "I can't think of any thing more pleasing to Christ than the church celebrating his birthday every year.

 Keep in mind that the whole principle of annual festival and celebration is deeply rooted in ancient Jewish tradition. In the Old Testament, for example, there were times when God emphatically commanded the people to remember certain events with annual celebrations. While the New Testament doesn't require that we celebrate Christmas every year, I certainly see nothing wrong with the church's entering into this joyous time of celebrating the Incarnation, which is the dividing point of all human history. Originally, the celebration of Christmas by the Christians was intended to honor, not Mithras or any of the other mystery religion cults, but the birth of our King." I certainly understand that many Christians disagree about the celebration of Christmas.

They point out the following problems: The choice of December 25 was probably to counter a pagan holiday (as Sproul says). Some objects used in the celebration of Christmas were once used by pagans in their worship or the objects were actually worshipped. No where in the Bible does God command the celebration of Jesus' birth - which is also true of Easter, by the way. Personally I find none of these arguments convincing: Countering pagan holidays is a good thing in my mind. A Christian has to make a choice between complete nonparticipation (boycotting) or capturing the holiday by substituting godly activities which have a Christian orientation.

Historically speaking boycotting is seldom successful. Turning off our lights and hiding in our house at Halloween didn't keep my pagan neighbors from celebrating. And it certainly didn't help them to know Christ. Dressing up like Uncle Sam, answering the door with "Happy 4th of July," and handing out Christian music CDs with candy let my neighbors know that I'm a little wacky, Christians have joy, and it gave them an opportunity to hear about Jesus. A date on the calendar is only a date.

There is nothing inherently evil or good about a particular date. As Paul said in Romans 14:5-6a, believers can choose to make a date "special" for the Lord or we can choose to make "every day alike." We should "stop passing judgment on one another" over such matters (Romans 14:13). If one person chooses to redeem the day for the Lord, Paul says "he does so to the Lord" (Romans 14:6). Objects are only objects and it is entirely proper to invest them with new meaning.

I know of no one who worships their Christmas tree. In our house the tree is a symbol of the Trinity and eternal life. That's the only way our children have ever experienced it or know it. There were other religious holidays that the Jews celebrated that were not commanded by God: Purim and Hanukkah. The book of Esther was written (at least in part) to explain the celebration of Purim (Esther 9:26-28).

God never gave the Jews any command to celebrate this holiday, yet there is a whole book of Scripture written about it's history and celebration. Likewise God never told the Jews to celebrate Hanukkah, but the Scriptures tell us that Jesus attended the celebration of Hanukkah in Jerusalem (also called "the Feast of Dedication," see John 10:22). Where did we get the idea that the only holidays that we could celebrate are holidays that God specifically commands? That wasn't the practice of the Jews or Jesus.Is it really sinning to add holidays that celebrate God wonderful works in history? In my opinion, the Bible answers that question and leaves Christians the opportunity to choose which days they regard as sacred and which they do not: "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be convinced in his own mind.

He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord" (Romans 14:5-6a). For more thoughts on this issue see A History of the Celebration of Christmas.

- FAQs Where does it say in the New Testament that offerings should go to the local church? Tithe page you have on your web site. It didn't address a question I have. Where does it say in the New Testament that offerings should go to the local church? Also what does this then tell people who are called to attend military chapels? There are no expenses for military chapels so literally all my offering is simply passed on to missions and other good causes. Inquiring minds want to know.  :>) A: In the Old Testament, in Malachi 3:10, God says that He wants the tithe brought to the "storehouse" (this is mentioned by Larry Burkett in his article on The Tithe).

The closest equivalent to the "storehouse" in our day would be the local church. Are there any New Testament Scriptures which show where offerings were to go? The key Scriptures in the New Testament that I know of are in Acts 4:34-37 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. The Acts passage tells us that offerings were brought and "placed at the apostles' feet" and then distributed by the church as a body. The Corinthians passage tells us about a collection being gathered for the believers in Jerusalem. The Corinthians are told to bring their offerings on each Sunday to their meeting place, so that when Paul arrives he will not have to wait to receive everyone's individual collection.

The New Testament pattern seems consistent with the Old Testament pattern, i.e. offerings were brought to a central location and decisions were then made by the collective church or by church officers concerning how to distribute the funds. If you are called to attend military chapels, then your offerings aren't used for the upkeep of the chapel or the chaplains. Praise the Lord! All your offerings are being passed on to missions and other good causes! Keep giving!

- FAQs Will there be a rapture of the church? Q: PLEASE SHARE WITH ME YOUR BELIEF ON THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST? WILL THERE BE A RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH? A: Yes. I believe this is taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17: For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. The verb "will be caught up" is the same verb used in Acts 8:39 -- Philip the evangelist was caught away by the Spirit; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 -- Paul was caught up to the third heaven; and Revelation 12:5 -- Christ is caught up, snatched away, from the power of the dragon.

When the trumpet sounds (1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 15:52), dead believers will be raised from the grave and given spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:35-49). Believers who are alive will also be changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:52). Then all believers, the raised as well as the changed, will ascend to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). Q: WHEN WILL THE RAPTURE OCCUR? BEFORE OR AFTER THE GREAT TRIBULATION? A: My own opinion is "before the great tribulation." I base this upon my understanding of the Jewish wedding feast.

The groom came to get the bride, then a marriage ceremony was held, followed by a seven day feast. A wedding and marriage banquet seems to precede the coming of Christ to the earth (Revelation 19). Therefore, to put it all together, I assume that Christ's taking of His bride is the rapture, then the great Messianic banquet is held (cf. Matthew 26:27-29), then we proceed to earth with Christ to set up His kingdom. Although I now hold to a pre-tribulation view of the rapture, I understand the reasons why Christians hold other views.

At one point I was post-trib based on my reading of other passages in Revelation. At another point I was mid-trib based on passages in Daniel. Q: WILL THE CHURCH STAY HERE DURING THE TRIBULATION AND SUFFER, OR WILL THE CHURCH BE RAPTURED OUT BEFORE THE TRIBULATION? A: The church will be raptured before the tribulation, spend seven years (a week often represents one year in prophetic thinking, e.g. Daniel 9:25-27; Genesis 29:27) in the marriage supper with the lamb, then return to earth with Christ to establish the millennial kingdom (Revelation 19:11-21).

- FAQs Is your church elder ruled or congregational ruled? Q: Is your church elder ruled or congregational ruled? A: Our church has a board of elders that lead the church. Here is a section from our church by-laws: ARTICLE III - GOVERNMENT SECTION 301 - Board of Elders Membership The Board of Elders shall be comprised of those Elders nominated by the body, confirmed by the Board of Elders, and approved by the Membership (see SECTION 201) Responsibilities The Board of Elders is responsible for the administration of the Church under God's authority and in particular is responsible for the development of the spiritual life of the Church and its members. Collectively, the Board of Elders shall: Define and interpret the overall objectives and aspirations of the Church which, if attained, will produce progress toward fulfilling the Scriptural purposes for its existence. Become aware of the spiritual needs and concerns of those in the Congregation, and assist in the establishment of goals for the Church based on these concerns. Oversee the development of strategies by the various Boards, committees, ministry groups and individuals using available resources to meet the goals of the Church, including all programs, ministries, meetings, and other efforts of the Church.

Individual members may be assigned as liaison to various boards for specific periods of time. Administer Scriptural forms of Church discipline to members as outlined in Matthew 18:15-17, when a member is found to be flagrantly negligent in living the Christian life and in upholding the Covenant of Discipleship. Act on termination of membership as provided for in SECTION 104 of these By-laws. Obtain nominations from the body of those willing and qualified to serve as Elders, Trustees, Deacons, Treasurer or other required administrative positions. Ensure all candidates for positions of Elder, Trustee, Deacon and Treasurer are properly elected by the Membership.

Have the authority to remove Elders, Deacons or the Treasurer when that authority has been granted to them by 3/4 vote of the Members present at a Business Meeting and when the reason for dismissal should be kept confidential. The vote of the Elders for dismissal must be unanimous, except when considering the dismissal of another Elder. In this case, the unanimous decision of all other members of the Board is necessary for dismissal. Appoint persons to and dismiss persons from administrative positions, paid or unpaid, other that those mentioned in Responsibility 7 above. For paid positions, appointment should occur only after budget approval by the Membership.

Approve expenditures by Boards, Committees, officers, and ministry groups when such expenditures are within the Budget categories previously approved by the Membership, but temporarily exceed the limitations of the Church Budget (See SECTION 605C). Review and approve the Annual Budget prior to its submittal to the Membership. Organization and Procedures Procedures for the conduct of Elder business shall be as determined by that Board. The Chairman shall be the Pastor unless otherwise designated by that Board. Meetings The Board of Elders shall meet as and when necessary to conduct its business.

Meetings shall be called by the Chairman who will individually contact members of the Board and, when possible, announce such meetings on the Sunday morning prior to the meeting. A quorum for the transaction of business shall be a majority of the Board membership. Authority On the basis of the Scriptures and ARTICLE IV of the CONSTITUTION, the administration of authority in the Church is given by the Holy Spirit to the Elders who are to administer God's authority and be responsible for His will being put into practice. The Board of Elders, therefore, shall have the authority to interpret this Constitution and By-laws and implement actions consistent with it. (End of section from our church by-laws) We have another section from the by-laws on the requirements to become an elder from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

If you want me to, I can send that to you. The authority of the elders is balanced by the responsibilities of the congregation. The congregation is responsible to confirm elder candidates to office, to pray for the leaders of the church, to correct the elders when they are in sin according to the principles in Matthew 18:15-20, and the congregation votes on the church budget every six months (the power of the purse strings ;>). We believe this is the pattern of government we see in Scripture. If you want more information on that I can send you some handouts from our Pastor's Class comparing the different forms of church government and their Biblical basis.

Keep questioning and seeking truth. Dennis

What is a typical church service like? Q: I am curious as to the style of worship that your church engages in. After many moves around the world and many different church homes I have found that I look for a worshipful music program and strong instruction in God's Word when I am looking for a church. If you would be so kind as to give me a short blow by blow of a normal Sunday service I would be so very grateful. A: Our services begin at 10:30 AM and usually last for 1-1/2 hours. We spend about 30 minutes in worship and about 30 minutes in teaching.

Here is a typical Sunday service: Call to Worship - led by one of the men of the congregation who is assigned for one month. Worship Songs - We have a worship team consisting of piano, guitars, flute, violin, and drums which lead us in worship. Most of the songs are contemporary worship songs; at least one "older" hymn each Sunday. The congregation views the words on a video screen. Sometimes we stand, sometimes sit, some raise hands, others do not.

Our worship has a Jewish core with a variety of other styles. Welcome Visitors - Lead by one of the elders. Dismiss Children to Children�s Church - For ages 3 through grade five. Sermon - Our co-pastors are Dennis & Lars. Dennis is more of a "teacher" than a "preacher.

" Lars is more of a "preacher" than a "teacher," which makes for a nice mix of styles. Notes are usually given as handouts or projected on the video screen for the congregation to follow. Dennis has a unique style in that people feel free to ask questions and make comments during the teaching. Other elders also preach upon occasion. We have a solid teaching ministry in the church.

People learn and are expected to use their Bible at New Life, so bring your Bible with you or, if you need one, contact us. Children Return/Communion - We have communion on the first Sunday of every month. It is done in various ways (sometimes coming forward, sometimes passed to the congregation). Children are welcome to participate in communion at the discretion of their parents. Offering - We have three methods for giving at New Life.

We take up an offering during the church service. Or if you prefer to not have others observe your giving, there is an offering box in the back of the sanctuary. Giving can also be done by direct deposit from your bank account. (For our church financial policies see NLCC: Financial Policies and Goals). Closing (Benediction, encouragement, or doxology) - Done by one of the church elders.

These elements aren't set in cement and sometimes we add elements like a time of testimony, sharing of prayer needs, missions report, a special time of prayer, a dance presentation or a dramatic presentation. Announcements are usually done through the church bulletin or projected on the video screen. Our church service has a "family feel" meaning that there is a sense of close relationship and mutual participation. I hope this is helpful to you in making your decision. I think that it was a very wise question that more people should ask.

You may also wish to see: Visitor Information

- FAQs Why don't you allow women pastors and elders in your church?? I'd like your take on an issue. Women as ministers/pastors, leading heads so to speak. I'm quite sure this is forbidden, I've read in the scripture that men are to have the shepherd title, not that women can't also be very effective as leaders in another capacity, but that as the head leader it isn't their place. Am I right? If so, why are there so many women acting as leaders in so many churches? Shortage of men, or straying from the right choices?? This came up because my sister's church just recently took on a lady as minister. My sister has been married in that church, and has attended it for over 17 years.

She was going to look for another church, but found that after listening to this woman speak, she may stay as the messages are very insightful and inspiring. She's asked me for advice. I am aware of some passages that seem to say only men should lead in the church, but aren't these commands meant for just those times, like women covering their hair in 1 Corinthians 11? Based on 1 Timothy 2:12, we believe the Bible limits the office of elder to men. The reason that Paul gives for this limitation is because of the way God created male and female (equal, but with different roles). Also Paul mentions some concern about women and deception.

This probably sounds like male chauvinism. But I really want you to understand that chauvinism is NOT my motivation. Try as I might I cannot find a way around passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-38. I have heard all the arguments for women teaching and having authority and all of them involve ignoring these passages or an interpretation of the passages that just can't be sustained. This issue caused quite a bit of stress in my own life, because I was originally part of a large mainline denomination in the United States.

I was told by the leaders of the presbytery that they would not ordain me as a pastor unless I was willing to ordain women as elders and pastors. I just could not in good conscience ignore what the Scriptures said on this issue, so I was forced to leave the denomination (and a free seminary scholarship). Most of the mainline churches in the United States would at least allow (if not require) women leaders in the church. Most of these denominations are theologically liberal and the pastors, seminary professors, and church leaders believe that not ALL of the Bible is the Word of God. They believe in a view of "partial inspiration.

" My personal experience with churches that have women pastors is that the women are very sincere, caring, and often gifted, but what I have seen happen over time is that the men recede into the background and become less and less involved. My aunt and uncle's church is a good example. The pastor is a woman. All the elders are women. Where are the men? At the all-male volunteer fire department! This makes for a VERY weak home life and church life.

I really believe that what is going on is the same action that took place in the Garden. Men are more than willing to allow women to take the lead in spiritual matters. Adam was with Eve when she spoke to the serpent (Genesis 3:6 -- "who was with her") and the man stood silently by while allowing Eve to make the spiritual decisions. This is a weakness IN MEN, not women. God being well aware of this male tendency to cop out of spiritual matters reserves certain activities in the church for men only -- forcing them to engage with the church and God.

That is why at New Life, we limit the office of elder (and pastor) to men -- since this office involves both teaching and authority (those are the activities prohibited in 1 Timothy 2:12). Teaching is defined as "preaching or teaching the meaning of passages of Scripture." So women are prohibited from teaching over men and ruling over men, but they can share testimonies, give illustrations, read Scripture, pray, and be deaconesses in the church. Of course, they are completely free to teach other women and children. I don't think the women in our church feel stifled.

There are plenty of opportunities for significant ministry and use of their gifts. If you have visited our congregation, you might have noticed that at every opportunity we try to put men in front of the church body leading, teaching, directing. This is intentional. In the church service men do the Call to Worship, direct the flow of the service, the announcements, the teaching, and the Benediction. When there are times of testimony or sharing we make sure the men participate and that it does not become a women-only activity.

Co-Ed Sunday school classes on Bible books are taught by the men. In my opinion this has created a church where men are very engaged in their relationship with the Lord and in the life of the church. I believe the pattern they see in church has transferred in many cases to their home -- men leading their families as a servant, teaching their families the Scriptures, and directing them in the things of the Lord. Of course none of this male leadership stuff should ever be used as an excuse for treating women impurely, dishonorable, or unequally in Christ. I have seen husbands who use the leadership passages in the Bible to club their wives into "submission.

" That is a total misunderstanding of gentleness and what it means to be a servant leader. The marriage passages on submission were written to wives, not to husbands to tell their wives. Likewise the passages on male leadership in the church were not written to keep women oppressed, nor to make them inferior, but to spell out the God-given roles that work in this life for men and women.

- FAQs Are we saved by faith or by faith and works? Doesn't James contradict Paul? Q: James 2:14-26 seems to contradict the doctrine of justification by faith that is taught elsewhere in the Bible (such as Romans 3:28). Can you explain the seeming contradiction? A: You are absolutely correct! James 2 does "seem" to contradict what Paul teaches. Both James and Paul (in Romans 4) start with Abraham, yet seem to arrive at completely different conclusions about how we are made right. Paul says we are justified by faith alone and James seems to say we are justified by faith and works (2:21,24)! However, the contradiction is really only a verbal one (logic calls this a "verbal fallacy"). James and Paul are both using the same words: faith and justification, but with different meanings.

"Faith" in James means "mental assent; an intellectual belief in the existence of God." You can see this in verses 14, 17, 19. The faith that James talks about is a faith that even the demons can have! James was the leader of the Messianic church in Jerusalem and so he uses terms in the same way the non-Messianic Jews in Jerusalem do. The Pharisees and rabbis in Jerusalem spoke of the assertion of monotheism and the mere intellectual assent to orthodox teaching as "having faith." Does this kind of faith save people? NO! And Paul would have agreed.

Intellectual faith does NOT save anyone. The kind of "faith", Paul talks about is "absolute trust; total dependence on God; being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised" (Romans 4:5,18,21). This is more than just intellectual faith! The difference between James' "faith" and Paul's use of the word is the difference between believing a parachute could save you if you jumped out of a plane (James) and actually jumping out of a plane and pulling the ripcord (Paul). "Justified" is the other word that is being used differently. Paul is talking about being justified in God's sight (Romans 5:1).

James is talking about being justified before men (James 2:18). "Don't tell me that you have faith, show me!" James says. James gives the example of Abraham's offering of Isaac (Genesis 22). He says this action by Abraham was proof before men of Abraham's righteousness: "Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" (James 2:21). But James is quick to add that Abraham was made righteous before God some 30 years prior to this event: "Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness" (James 2:23; Genesis 15:6).

There is no contradiction between Paul and James when you realize that the one is talking about justification before God and one is talking about justification before men.

- FAQs I talked about our marriage problems with friends. What can I do now? Our marriage got off to a very bad start....

we are both equally to blame. Because I was so overwhelmed at first, I spoke about nothing else. I went around telling everyone about our problems. I realize now that this was a huge mistake. What advise can you give me regarding turning all of this around? Most of my friends don't ask questions, but one still does and she can be at times rather negative.

A: It's always difficult to give advice over the Internet, because email is so limited in what it can communicate. Without having the full story, I would just say that my wife and I went through a similar situation the first years of our marriage. We thought marriage was going to be a lot easier and more pleasant (you know, "Some Day My Prince Will Come" stuff). When we discovered that the other was a wicked, depraved sinner just like we were, we both went around talking negative about each other. Of course, it didn't help the marriage one bit, especially when the other spouse found out.

Friends love to "take your side" too and then they contribute to division rather than unity. At a marriage seminar, we were taught Ephesians 4:29. Sue and I made a commitment to only speak positively to and about each other. We went back to our friends and confessed our sin of "trashing" our spouse. This was convicting to some of our friends too, who were also slandering their spouses.

Hope some of this testimony is helpful. Joy and peace to your in all your relationships!

Do I need a marriage ceremony? Q: Good Day! I found your website and have a question about the marriage ceremony.  I have not found in the Bible passages where God or Jesus say a ceremony must take place or what the ceremony must consist of.  Does there in fact need to be a marriage ceremony as we know it in North America?   A friend of mine said that if you commit yourself to your spouse to be in the eyes of God, you are then married.  Others say that you must obey the law of the land after you have obeyed God's law.  The law of the land says a person can live together.

  If you are both Christians, what is the reason that a person must have a marriage ceremony with a minister/pastor/priest if you declare your intentions in front of God between yourselves?    I'm searching for the answer to these questions....Can you help me?  Thank you so much for whatever light you can shed on this.

A: You are right. There is no commandment in the Bible telling a married couple that they have to have a marriage ceremony. That's because a "ceremony" is not the important thing from a Biblical perspective. A public "covenant" is the important thing. The Bible says that marriage is a "covenant.

" Read Malachi 2:14. According to historical documents (like the Jewish Mishnah), a bride and bridegroom were taken to a rabbi. In the presence of witnesses a public document was recorded and signed by witnesses. (All covenants had witnesses.) This was a written covenant of marriage.

Of course, marriage ceremonies were also a common practice - simply because the couple and the parents wanted everyone to celebrate the couples' marriage. You will remember that Jesus attend one of these Jewish marriage ceremonies (John 2:1-2). The problem with commitments made to ONLY each other and God are that we are very sinful human beings. And as sinful human beings, we do not keep our commitments. We may intend to, but we "fall out of love" and we forget that Biblical love is commitment and sacrifice, not just a feeling.

It is much easier to leave a relationship when there is no one to hold me accountable to my vows (another Biblical concept). Or I can simply deny that I ever took vows in the first place. The bottom line is this: in the cases of couples that aren't willing to make their vows in public - either one or both of the individuals doesn't want to make a lifetime commitment to this marriage. With divorce already being so easy in our society, this just makes walking out of the relationship that much easier when things get tough. When I got married, I wanted to know that this person was committed to me even when they didn't "feel" in love with me, even when I'm sick, even when I'm poor, even when I'm mentally ill.

That's the kind of love that Christ has for those who commit to Him and marriage is supposed to be a picture of Christ's love for His church (Ephesians 5:21ff). So back to the original question: "Do I need a marriage ceremony?" No, but you and your partner do need a public covenant with witnesses. That is really the purpose of the Christian wedding "ceremony" - As the wedding ceremony says: to make a public covenant "before God and these witnesses."

- FAQs Why should I pray? I have looked through the Bible trying to figure out why we should pray. Do you know of any passages and/or an answer? A: Here are some reasons for prayer: Because God, our Creator and King, commands us to pray. - Romans 12:12; Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17. Because Christianity is not about religion, but relationship. Relationship requires communication.

Sons talk to their Father. - Exodus 33:11; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 4:15-16. Because we are weak and helpless and need much more than we have. - Psalm 54; Matthew 7:7-12; Philippians 4:6; James 5:13. Because we are sinners and need a changed heart.

- Psalm 51:10; Luke 18:9-14; James 5:16; Jude 20. Because other people need God to do things in their life and we can pray for them. - Job 42:7-9; Luke 6:27-28; Colossians 1:9-12; 4:3. You may also want to check out the following pages: A Prayer Survey Praying in a Kingdom Manner A Parent's Prayer Calendar Laboring in Prayer for One Another Joy and peace to you in Christ.

- FAQs Can a believer lose his salvation according to Matthew 24:45-51? assurance of salvation. I believe in it, but some friends came to me and doubt it because of the scripture in Matthew. In Matthew 24:45-51 it talks about the servant that was not aware of his master. If the servant is a believer, why would God throw him in hell since he has salvation? A: Thanks for writing! It is always a joy to hear from people! I think the answer to your question is that the servant is NOT a believer. Note that he is said to be "wicked" even at the beginning (verse 48).

There are many who claim to be servants of Christ and yet in the end prove to be "hypocrites" (verse 51) and receive the penalty of hypocrites (like Judas). In Matthew 7:21 Jesus tells us that not everyone who calls Him "Lord" is a believer, but only those who prove they have true faith. This faith is proved or evidenced by "doing the will of the Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Those who claim to be servants of Christ and call Him "Lord," but are only hypocrites, were never saved from the beginning. Note what Jesus says in Matthew 7:23: "I NEVER knew you.

" You may also wish to see: Can a Christian lose their salvation?

- FAQs Can a Christian lose their salvation? My parents and I can not agree on this. Can you help? I believe once you are saved, you are always saved. My parents believe in lost and found (backsliding or losing your salvation). They also believe that they are perfect Christians or sanctified. Because I do not live like they do, they say I have lost my salvation or was never saved.

Because I wear pants, make up, jewelry, watch TV, etc.,....

.. Can you help me find the answer? I know I am saved and always have been. I repent daily from anything I may have done wrong. My dad says Jesus says to go and sin no more.

He didn't say go and try not to sin no more. Please help. A: Tough questions, because I don't want to pit you against your parents in anyway. I want you to have a strong and wonderful relationship with your parents. But the questions you raise are foundational Biblical issues that deserve an answer.

So let's just imagine that you asked me some doctrinal questions without reference to your parents at all. Do I believe that a Christian (a genuine believer -- with true faith from the heart) can lose their salvation? * No, the Bible seems very clear on the idea that we are "kept by God" from falling. Check out the following verses. They show that God's people are given ETERNAL life the moment they believe (if we could lose our salvation it wouldn't be eternal). They show that we are kept by God's power and nothing can separate us from His love.

They show that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit who has been given as a "guarantee" of our eternal salvation and inheritance. The ultimate salvation of a true believer is absolutely secure: Isaiah 43:1-3; Isaiah 54:10; Jeremiah 32:40; Matthew 18:12-14; John 3:16; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:35-40; John 6:47; John 10:27-30; John 17:11,12,15; Romans 5:8-10; Romans 8:1; Romans 8:29-30; Romans 8:35-39; 1 Corinthians 1:7-9; 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 4:14,17; Ephesians 1:5,13,14; Ephesians 4:30; Colossians 3:3-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 9:12,15; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 12:28; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 John 2:19,25; 1 John 5:4,11-13,20; Jude 1; Jude 24-25. * I realize there are verses in the Bible that seem to teach otherwise (examples Matthew 7:21-22; Luke 8:1-15; Hebrews 6:1-8), but these verses are very few compared to the overwhelming amount of verses on our eternal security. And I believe in every case the verses that seem to teach otherwise are about people who PROFESS to believe, but don't actually believe. (See for example Matthew 7:23, Jesus says "I NEVER knew you.

") There is a difference between the person who answers an altar call because of guilt, emotion, or social pressure and the person who actually commits their life to the Lord from their whole heart. The former is only a professor. The latter is a true believer. * There are people who will object to this view and say, I believe salvation is a gift and Jesus will never take that gift back. In this sense, my salvation is secure.

But as with any gift we have the ability to destroy the gift. God will not take the gift of salvation back, but I do believe we have the ability to destroy our gift, not through sin, weak belief, or weak faith, but denial. For example, it says in 2 Timothy 2:12-13: 'If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

' So a Christian can deny the gift of salvation." My response would be that a security or guarantee that doesn't change my heart (so that I will not deny Christ) is no real guarantee at all. I am the problem in the issue of security. My ability to fall away and deny my Savior is really the problem. Trials, demons, hardships, and temptations (Romans 8:35-39) are all acting on me to bring me to the point of denial.

Yet Paul says that I will not fall away, but be "glorified" (Romans 8:30) and I will "conquer" (Romans 8:37). How can Paul be so sure? God changes my heart, so I will never want to deny my Savior. By the action of the Holy Spirit, He regenerates me (causes my heart to be born again), so I will never want to deny Christ. Jeremiah's prophecy of a new, changed heart that follows God always (Jeremiah 32:39-40) is fulfilled in me and all believers in the New Covenant. I just don't think people who think we can destroy God's gift of salvation have taken into account the many verses on regeneration of the believer's heart by the Holy Spirit.

I can only touch the surface here on this issue, but key verses on the new birth of a Christian's heart would be: Deuteronomy 30:6; Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 2 Corinthians 5:17-18; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3,23; 1 John 5:4. I'm sure you can do an Internet search on the words "regeneration by the Spirit" and get some good explanations with many more Scriptures. Can a Christian sin and still be saved? * Absolutely! The apostle John said, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us...

If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives" (1 John 1:8,10). James, the Lord's half-brother, said, "We all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2). Paul said, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I AM the worst" (1 Timothy 1:15). * I don't believe that sin causes us to lose our salvation. Sin is serious, there are consequences for our sin, and God will discipline us because He loves us enough to want us to change, but a Christian has a whole new relationship to sin.

Take for example, your relationship with your earthly father. If you disobey him, you are not a good daughter. If you rebel against him, you cause him much pain. But YOU ARE STILL HIS DAUGHTER. Nothing can change that fact.

Likewise, if you truly have given your life to Christ, then you are born of God. You have a heavenly Father. Nothing can change that. For more see What Sin Does and Doesn't Do in the Life of a Christian. * (Please don't take anything I'm about to say as a statement about your parents.

I don't know them and am not attempting to judge them or their motives. This is just my personal observation from limited experience.) My experience with people who believe in sinless perfectionism is that they are usually strong on the outward appearances (like what they wear, how often they go to church, etc.). They are also strong on what they or others SHOULDN'T do, i.

e. the DON'Ts of the Christian life. They are usually also very critical people (of themselves and others), because in their view salvation is based on being perfect. But my experience with people who believe in sinless perfectionism is that they are weak on the heart issues that Jesus is so concerned about, such as humility, love, joy, compassion, forgiveness, forbearance, and peace. I like Paul's statement: "For the kingdom of God is.

..righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men" (Romans 14:17-18). When I look for a mature believer I look for someone who is in right relationship with God, full of peace rather than worry and fighting and judging, and full of joy! This is what pleases God, not the emphasis on debatable legalisms and spiritual competitions with one another. This is my opinion, but my opinion is not really important.

Study God's Word and let Him guide you. He is a loving Father and rewards anyone who seeks Him and wants to know what is true. He will direct you. When you are sure of what your Father tells you, then hold on to it with all your heart and don't let anyone disturb your peace. Your Father has spoken and that's enough.

You may also wish to see: Can a believer lose his salvation according to Matthew 24:45-51? Questions about masturbation, homosexual thoughts, and eternal life.

Birth Control Q: What does the Bible say about birth control? A: I believe that the Bible allows birth "control" as one of the stewardships that we exercise under God. But as in all things we must allow the Lord to lead us and be obedient to His will concerning our number of offspring. The Scripture commands believers "to be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). The predominate assumption in Scripture is that we will WANT to have children, because children are a "blessing" (Psalm 127:3-5). Sue and I were like most Christians.

We bought into the world's view of children: that they cost too much, that they were a burden, that we would be hurting the world's resources by having more than two. However, as we read the Bible God began to change our thinking. Basically the world views children as a curse, not a blessing or at best the world looks upon them as a necessary evil. Listen to the comments that people make about children ("I can't wait 'til September and the kids are back in school" or "She's a teenager and you know how they are", etc.).

Sue and I read books like "A Full Quiver" (by Rick & Jan Hess, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publisher) which transformed our thinking and began to change our attitude about children. We began to seek the Lord's direction for each pregnancy and to ask God how many children He wanted us to have. We were stretched by each child that came along. But we discovered new ways of managing a household, raising a family, thinking about college, and reducing expenses. Having a large family has been a great adventure that I would not trade for winning a million dollar lottery or becoming the world's most successful businessman.

Sue and I have grown in character. We have gained much wisdom in doing things God's way, rather than our culture's way. And we have been able to do what many people (parents, relatives, neighbors, and other Christians) told us was impossible. Without being prideful, the success is satisfying: knowing that God has been faithful to do what the world thought was impossible. After our eighth child (9th actually, we had one miscarriage which we named "Singer"), Sue and I both "felt" that our family was complete.

We made the decision (we believe under the Lord) to end our family by tubal ligation. We made this decision based on Sue's health, our family stress level, the lack of an extended family support system, and circumstantial guidance that we asked the Lord to provide. Ten years later, we still believe that was the right decision and we are enjoying a new season of life that does not involve late night feedings and diapers. ;> Let me say a few words about birth control. (You will read Christians that differ with me on this, including the Hesses who wrote "A Full Quiver," but I offer my opinion based upon my understanding of the Scripture.

): 1.    There is no clear-cut Scripture reference advocating birth control, nor is there one condemning it. We must construct our beliefs based on Biblical principles rather than a clear birth control rule or commandment from God. 2.    The Roman Catholic view regarding birth control is based on the belief that sex is given primarily for procreation (Genesis 1:27-28).

Therefore, if you are having sex without the possibility of procreation, you are misusing sex (i.e., sinning). The Protestant (and I believe Biblical view) is that sex is for both procreation and pleasure (Proverbs 5:18-19; Song of Songs; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5,33-34). Therefore, it is entirely legitimate to have sex for the mere act of enjoyment, even when procreation is not possible.

3.    While it is true that we do not own our bodies, we do have stewardship over our bodies (1 Corinthians 7:4). Therefore, we have the right -- even the obligation -- to exercise stewardship over the gift of creating another human being. 4.    This stewardship must be exercised under God, however.

He is the owner, we are the manager. While I believe that God does not oppose limiting the size of one's family, Christian couples MUST check with the owner to see how he wants us to limit or not limit the act of creation. 5.    Some will say, "Why wouldn't you want to receive as many 'blessings' as possible?" My answer to that is: As in other things that Scripture calls a 'blessing' (such as finances or ministries) we are called to exercise stewardship -- we are called to make decisions about what and how much we can handle. There are good reasons to limit the number of ministries we have, the amount of money we possess (Proverbs 30:7-9), and the number of children we have.

Each couple must decide between God and themselves, what God wants them to do. 6.    Virtually every couple practices some form of birth control, whether it is one of the more scientific methods or abstinence during the wife's most fertile time. But as Christians we must never use methods of birth control that cause the destruction of another human being: abortion, IUD, some birth control pills, etc. There is a huge difference between methods that prevent the conception of another human being and methods that destroy after conception.

7.    Genesis 38:8-10 is often quoted to prove that God condemns birth control. It does not. Onan cheated his brother out of his rightful heritage by refusing to father a child in his brother's name, as was the custom in his day. This custom is called the levirate marriage (Latin 'levir' means "brother-in-law").

Details of the practice are given in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan's sin was not fulfilling his duty as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for his brother (Genesis 38:8). This passage has nothing to do with birth control (or masturbation, for that matter).

- FAQs What's wrong with sex before marriage? Q: Hello, my name is Chris and I am 16 years old. I don't understand why people take sex before marriage so seriously. All my friends have had sex with their girlfriends and they are in love with each other and so even if you are 14,15,16,17, or even 21, if you love someone and you want to share your love I think sex is not wrong. A: Hi Chris, Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts on the issue of sex before marriage. While I'm sure you would love to hear my views on the subject, I thought you might be more interested in listening to the ideas of teens your own age and from a few adults that are part of a class we are holding on Sexual Purity.

So, I turned your email over to our class to see what they thought. Here's what they had to say: - Scientific studies indicate that relationships that involve pre-marital sex fail. A relationship that starts with sex usually last only 2-3 years. A marriage usually runs into trouble in 3-5 years. If a couple have sex prior to marriage, it may start to fade just when the marriage troubles start, the strong sexual attraction may not be there when the couple needs it most.

- Sex before marriage changes your future in so many ways!! There are negative risks both spiritually and physically. - Chris, will their love for each other last a lifetime? I suggest that their sexual relations are self serving. You/they are cheating themselves of the intimacy that God intended. - If you have sex before marriage you will never know whether the relationship is based on a true "kinship" with that person or just sex. - I think sex before marriage is wrong because the Bible tells us that it is.

Sex comes with a lot of complications that even an adult would find hard to handle, not to mention sexually transmitted diseases. - Dear Chris, sex before marriage? Yes, I did and I'm terrible sorry that I did. Is it God's wish for us? No, it's not. God should be the priority in our life and all else will follow according to His plan, that way you can feel better about yourself and avoid all kinds of consequences for your deviation from God's desires. - Love waits.

Your relationship should be able to grow and thrive without sex. I encourage you to develop a relationship that does not depend on sex for oneness. - Though you cannot imagine it now, Chris, sometime in your future you will really regret having sex before you're married, if you should go ahead and do it. You are going to do what you want to do but just know, without a doubt, it is true that sex before marriage will hurt you inside. - If you have sex before marriage you lose your virginity and when you get married you are not giving your whole self to your spouse.

- Sex outside of marriage is like playing Russian Roulette. You never know when the gun will fire or the person has an STD. - I can tell you from experience that sex before marriage will ultimately damage your sexual relationship with the one you do eventually marry. It is much wiser to wait and experience that person and have that person experience you for the first time without expectation of things that were before. - If you don't marry that person who you've had sex with, then the person who you do marry won't get the entire you.

- Sex is like a beautiful gift. It's only one special gift that should not be wasted on just a love fling. - Chris, sex is a precious gift from God. This gift can only be given away for the first time once. Wouldn't this be a great gift for that one person who will be with you for the rest of your life? - The Bible says that we are not supposed to commit adultery and having sex before marriage is considered adultery, so it is called sinning.

- If you love them you'll be willing to wait until marriage to have sex. It will make it all the more special. - If you truly love someone you will respect them enough to wait until marriage to have sex. - It's not worth the risk of pregnancy or STD. It's not fair to your future spouse.

Chris, you might want to also check out the following web pages: Premarital Sex and the Bible Loving Limits Some Good Reasons to Save Sex for Marriage "I'm Not Pregnant" Answers to Tough Questions Thanks for writing! Joy and strength to you in Christ, Dennis Rupert, pastor You may also want to visit: Singles Sites Guy Stuff Page

- FAQs A spouse refuses to have sexual relations with her marriage partner. If a wife refuses to have sexual relations with her husband, is she being unfaithful to the marriage contract? Although I have no intention of divorcing my wife, I believe that her unwillingness to honor the marriage contract is the same as breaking the marriage contract, thus grounds for divorce. She has no physical reason for denying the conjugal relationship. The present reason is that there are too many other things which need to be done. Over the years it has ranged from mood complaints to protesting that it wasn't the right of the husband to demand or expect anything.

She has stated that it isn't fair to expect such things if she doesn't feel like it. Lately it's been a "too much stress, too much to do" no sex strike for 8 months. I thought our getting married would change things. I was wrong. I have tried everything.

She won't agree to counseling of any kind and any books or tapes I suggest are viewed as being pushy on my part. Now she has discovered that her husband is battling sexual temptations and is coming down hard on him for not being mentally faithful. She exhibits a great deal of self-righteous contempt and offers up how bitter she is that he has such temptations. trapped and bitter? I love her and I won't leave her. But this is not my fault.

She is, in fact, responsible for my unreasonable temptations. I have two children and am a minister with a church and a wife who doesn't see any obligations. What should I do? My spiritual needs and necessities are taken care of by God and His saints and angels. I got married to a physical being here on earth to take care of my physical needs properly, yet..

.. I person. I have physical needs. I'm bitter.

I'm trapped. I guess this is just my cross to bear. A: Dear Friend, I know that you are in tremendous pain here. I want you to know that you are certainly not alone in this dilemma. It is a rare marriage that sexual interest is the same in both partners.

And based on my counseling experiences and emails, your situation is much more common than you might realize. MANY people can empathize with your situation. And it might surprise you to know this isn't just a male problem. One out of every 3 people that speak to me about this issue are female and struggling just like you. I would assume that you would like me to agree with you about your wife's disobedience and talk about how justified you are in your bitterness and giving in to sexual temptation.

You will find that I agree with you about some of that, but before I talk about that, let me say a few other things which may be helpful or may not. You can sort through them for what is wheat and what is chaff. Let's talk about your options. Since I've been through this, let me give all the options that I came up with and the brief evaluation that I got from God regarding each option: Be angry, hurt, and desperate. - God said, "Oh, yeah, that will make your wife more physically loving to you.

..NOT!" Brother, I've been there and done that. It doesn't help at all. Get a divorce.

- And God said, "What happened to 'in sickness and health, for better or for worse, until death do us part.' This is the 'worse' part. Be a man rather than a whiny baby and fulfill the mission, Dennis." Get a mistress. - Same as get a divorce and add in the part about "Thou shalt not commit adultery.

" You both change. - God said, "Both of you together get some education and counsel. Find out what the real problems are in your relationship." Brother, you said that she was not willing to get counsel. Of course, this would seem like the best solution.

There is certainly more than just "too much stress, too much to do" going on. And she could give you feedback on any role you might play (if any) in this dysfunctional situation. But from what you said, this isn't going to happen. At least not now. You change.

- God said, "You become a different person. You get counsel by yourself. Surprise! You don't know everything about relationships, women, sex, or how to have self-control. Yeah, you are a man. But men can have self-control - It's a fruit of My Spirit.

Others have done it. You can too - with My power. You CAN live without sex - Especially, if you figure out what sex really means to you - how you use it to keep yourself together, etc. AND the things that you change in your life CAN change your wife." A little testimony here: My marriage has not always been as happy as it is now.

I have done my share of rationalizing: "Because she won't meet my needs I have every right to be angry, to insist, to divorce, or to find another woman who is in the same situation..." The mental gymnastics are never ceasing and they will only drive you to hopelessness and painful disobedience. I needed someone to help me sort out my feelings and to help me take every thought captive to Christ.

I needed to understand what sex really meant to me -- beyond the physical. I found that sex was an idol. I was using it, rather than God, to meet certain emotional and psychological needs in my life. Sex meant closeness and acceptance to me. So when I wasn't able to be physically intimate, I felt rejected and alone.

I also need to separate two issues that I was combining together. The first issue was my wife not being physically intimate. The second issue was my purity before God. I came to realize that although the first issue affects the second, the two are actually two different issues. I had to learn to be pure before my Lord whether my wife actually met her covenant obligations or not.

Through counseling I discovered that I was believing lies that were causing me great harm. At one time or another I believed in my heart that God was not good or did not know what was going on in my marriage or did not care or was not able to help me bear up under it. None of these were true and I had to learn to speak the truth to myself and know that God loves me and wants to meet all of my needs, even my physical ones -- either through my wife or by an experience of His Spirit that is much deeper than I have known up to this point. "No good thing does He withhold" from His children (Psalm 84:11-12). With the help of others, I began acting like a "believer," in what I couldn't see or feel.

So I believe you ought to go yourself. I have seen many times when one spouse makes the effort, the other spouse comes around. And even if your wife is unwilling to benefit from the counsel of others, then you can talk to someone about the feelings you are wrestling with and how to handle them so they don't lead you to disobedience. Let me recommend some resources. I realize that she is unwilling to read, but some of these would benefit you or they may be helpful to someone else who reads this.

You may benefit by listening to an audio tape called "An Affair of the Mind." It can be purchased from Family Life Today (1-800-FL-TODAY). This may help you to see how mental unfaithfulness affects your wife. And some good reading can be found in the following books: * "Solomon on Sex" by Joseph C. Dillow, Thomas Nelson Publishers * "Sexual Happiness in Marriage" by Hebert J.

Miles, Zondervan (particularly Chapters 7 & 8). You could read these separately or if you can avoid conflict, then it's a good study book to do together. Another very helpful book intended for couple study is "Great Sexpectations" by Robert G. Barnes, Zondervan. It has some wonderful content and great discussion questions at the end of each chapter that couples should take time to talk about with each other.

More recently, my wife and I have benefited from the book Sheet Music by Dr. Kevin Leman, Tyndale House. Okay, now let's get back to your first question. I suppose I ought to mention that there are many possible reasons for low sexual desire: thyroid dysfunction, drug-induced impotence, an unbiblical view of sex, low esteem, painful intercourse, an insensitive partner, pressure to perform, or past trauma, such as incest or rape. I counseled with one man who was unemployed, had been so for four years, and wasn't looking for work.

He just stayed at home surfing the web and emailing people all day. It wasn't that he couldn't work - it's just that he didn't want to look for work. The result was his wife was the breadwinner for the family, she felt used, and she showed her displeasure by not being intimate. As you can see, some reasons for not being sexually intimate are physical. Some of these are past experiences that your wife may not have worked through with God.

Some could be your responsibility. Of course, I would recommend that you and your wife see a Christian counselor, preferable one who specializes in sexual dysfunction, so that you can find the reason for the problem. Proverbs 15:22; 20:18 is wise advice. But, as you said, your wife is unwilling to get wise counsel. I don't know your wife's exact reasons for not being physically intimate with you.

But taking what she says at face value: Yes, she is being unfaithful to the marriage covenant. Yes, she is being disobedient to God's commandments regarding sex in marriage. The apostle Paul is very clear on this point: The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you can give yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-6). If she was the one emailing me, I would give her advice something like I wrote to the sister who asked Is my husband oversexed? But she isn't the one who emailed me, so I won't belabor her responsibilities. It will not really do you any good for me to just tell you how right and how justified you are.

And it certainly will do no good for you to take what I might write on that subject and beat her over the head with my words. So let's just agree that based on what you have said, you are correct, your wife is not fulfilling her marriage vows. But you are not in a marriage contract (your words). You are in a marriage covenant (God's word). There is a BIG difference between a contract (where one party doesn't fulfill their obligations, so the contract can be broken) and a Biblical covenant that represents God's love.

In a covenant even though she is unfaithful, as her husband you are called to remain faithful - just like Jesus is faithful to His church (Ephesians 5:25; 2 Timothy 2:13), even when His church is unfaithful. This will require supernatural power on your part -- it cannot be done with human effort (Galatians 3:3). Her sexual refusal is disobedience to God (1 Corinthians 7:5) - although neither you nor I knows what motivates her disobedience. However, her disobedience is not grounds for divorce. Grounds for divorce are given to us in Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 and they are sexual immorality and desertion by an unbelieving spouse.

(Sorry, withholding sex is not the same as "desertion." That's a rationalization.) Since your wife is in disobedience, you have the Biblical option of following Matthew 18:15-17. I would advise that this be done with great care and wisdom. A group of male elders descending on your wife and confronting her about her lack of sexual responsiveness would not be very wise.

In my opinion, the involvement of elder's wives along with the elders would be very prudent. Perhaps by speaking with one of the elders' wives, they may discover the reason for her lack of sexual intimacy. If a judgment is to be made against your wife, this should be done completely without your involvement. Only the other elders should decide. At the very least (in my opinion), the elders ought to require your wife to counsel with you.

However, in the end your wife may not be willing to change. Now we are back to having unmet desires and having only God to meet them. I have a good friend in Christian ministry. We meet together once a month for lunch. He has a very strong sex drive and yet has had to live in a celibate relationship with his spouse for five years now.

His wife is a practicing Christian, yet she withholds from him any touch -- even a kiss. She castigates him for perceived failures on a regular basis. Yet this man has been faithful and loving. He struggles. He is in pain at times.

But he has done something, he never thought he could do. He has lived without a female relationship, but with a God relationship for five years now. He has peace and joy. If "she won't agree to counseling of any kind and any books or tapes," then there is nothing you or I can do to MAKE her change. Of course, there is another lie.

We can't make anyone change anyway. Only God can change a person's heart. All we can do is ask God to change them and to change US. I'll stop rambling now and summarize my advice for you: (1) YOU HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS ENOUGH. - The Bible says that I can be content in all circumstances and that Jesus supplies EVERYTHING I need to live joyfully and contentedly (Phil 4:11-13) -- not just the spiritual stuff, but also the physical stuff.

He is the God of all supply and provision. Do I believe this is really true? If so, how am I looking to Jesus to fulfill my "needs" for physical intimacy? How does God do that, when my wife won't provide that for me? Can a "spirit being" (God) really meet my physical wants? If so, how? Is Jesus enough or isn't He? Many Christian men down through the centuries have found that Jesus is enough and they can remain sexually pure in marriage and outside of marriage. They were not any different than you and I. They were not undersexed. They just knew how to trust Jesus.

IF JESUS IS ENOUGH, THEN ACTIVELY TRUST HIM, CRY OUT TO HIM, LOOK TO HIM TO MEET YOUR NEEDS. (2) YOUR "NEED" FOR SEX MAY NOT BE JUST PHYSICAL. - Sex can be an addiction or misused just like everything else and this can be true of even sex in marriage. I have found that many men (including myself) use sex as a way to deal with emotional issues. It's like the wife that I counseled who said, "I'm tired of my husband using me as a pacifier.

" Many men remain emotionally stunted in knowing how to express and deal with their feelings. Sex can become a way to "feel better" when I'm sad, depressed, puzzled, feeling rejected, inadequate, etc. If that's the case, as a man, I need to LEARN NEW AND HEALTHY WAYS OF DEALING WITH MY EMOTIONS and SEPARATE PHYSICAL INTIMACY (an expression of love between two married people) FROM SELFISH SEX (which temporarily helps me feel better). As I become more emotionally mature, I will "need" physical intimacy less. Physical intimacy will take it's proper place as a mutual expression of love for each other, rather than a necessity that must be meant for me to feel better.

(3) YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT GOD IS BOTH SOVEREIGN AND GOOD. - Your wife's lack of affection may be her disobedience, but it is also part of God's plan for you and His plan is good (Romans 8:28). Your loving Father has brought this difficulty into your life BECAUSE He loves you. It may be for discipline, it may be for training (to develop self-control), it may be for you to be able to counsel others in the future -- but whatever it is for, it is good. (See Eight Explanations for Suffering.

) You must embrace God's good action in your life and not fall into despair or pity parties. You are certainly not the first man this has ever happened to. You will live through it. You will not die. You will not lose your salvation.

Instead YOU CAN GROW THROUGH IT AND FIND A DEEPER RELATIONSHIP WITH "THE GOD WHO IS ENOUGH." (4) PORNOGRAPHY IS SIN. IT ONLY MAKES THE SITUATION WORSE (NOT BETTER). I MUST PLACE "NO UNCLEAN THING BEFORE MY EYES" (PSALM 101:3). Her disobedience is not an excuse for your disobedience.

Separate the issues of physical intimacy in marriage and your purity before God. ADULTERY IS SIN, IT ONLY MAKES THE SITUATION WORSE (NOT BETTER). WHETHER YOUR SPOUSE IS SINNING OR NOT, SHE IS YOUR "PARTNER, THE WIFE OF YOUR MARRIAGE COVENANT" (MALACHI 2:14). BE FAITHFUL. (5) THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT FORBIDS MASTURBATION IN MARRIAGE AS LONG AS IT IS NOT ADULTEROUS.

See What Does the Bible Say About Masturbation? for more details. This may help you deal with the normal build up of testosterone that occurs in healthy males. (By the way, this gets less of an issue as you age, which is one of the benefits of older years.) (6) MY WIFE MAY BE IN SIN, BUT I AM NOT CALLED TO BE MY WIFE'S PERSONAL HOLY SPIRIT OR CALLED TO CONDEMN MY WIFE. HER SIN AFFECTS ME, BUT AFTER I HAVE COMMUNICATED MY LONGINGS AND DIFFICULTIES TO HER IN A LOVING WAY, IT IS BETWEEN HER AND HER GOD.

I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS AND CANNOT PLACE BLAME ON HER FOR MY IMPURITY, MY ANGER, OR MY LACK OF SELF-CONTROL. - In other words, if my wife is being disobedient to her marriage vow and to God's commandment (1 Cor 7:3-5), I can't use this as an excuse for viewing pornography (Matthew 5:28-30), not loving her as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25-29), longing for other women (Job 31:1), envying other men (Exodus 20:17), becoming a bitter person, or not showing self-control (Galatians 5:22-25). Dear brother in Christ, that's pretty much the extent of my wisdom on the subject. I've found the Word of God to be true and real and practical on this subject. Jesus HAS been enough and I've grown tremendously through these difficulties (and others).

In the end you will do what you want to do. You can blame all your temptation on her (but doesn't that go against James 1:14). You can believe that supernatural purity is only for people like the apostle Paul. You can believe that none of this is your fault. And since I don't know you from Adam, then perhaps all of that is absolutely, one hundred percent true.

But in your email I see a person very much like myself. I was a bitter, angry, unbelieving Pharisee who believed the cross was only something to painfully bear. Now on good days, I find my life in that cross, the daily freshness of the gospel, the power of the Spirit, and my relationship with the Father who loves me. And He is enough (Psalm 16:11; 103:5; 145:16-19; Philippians 4:12,19)! Sincerely and lovingly, Dennis

- FAQs My husband is a pornography addict. What should I do? i! I had been to your web page last year and was seeking for answers about pornography. I had printed out some web pages you had and I sought advice from my home church for answers in my marriage. My husband was involved with pornography and I believe he was addicted, but he denied it. He went to counseling for a while and then he stopped, thinking he had overcome it.

He made some progress, but now I am destroyed again emotionally and I don't know where to turn. I found out he has been online again looking in pornographic web pages. Again I went to the pastor to talk with him. He said that I need to confront my husband. But I am scared, because he gets angry and snaps at me and so forth.

I don't want to confront him again, since this is the third time now. It seems like a cycle. I looked for the book called "Faithful and True" by Dr. Laaser that is mentioned on your web page, but was unable to find a copy. What should I do? I love my husband.

I believe the Lord can help him overcome this. I do not want to divorce him. I have hope knowing he can overcome, if he only wants help, but right now I do not know if I should confront him again or what to do. This July we will be married 6 years. I am hurting deeply.

I am so tired of the pattern I see in him. When he is not involved with pornography, he is a good man and his behavior is just right. He just can't seem to fight it. I think I agree with a lot that is being said about addiction, but it's not fair for us wives to cope with it. I have been carrying this burden a long time now and I'm deeply praying for an answer.

I love the Lord. I am doing what I know to be right and I continue to serve the Lord, but it would be great if my husband was serving the Lord himself and getting right again. Please pray for me. What can I say or do regarding my problem and what can I ask from my pastor? He said he can't help unless my husband is willing to come in for counseling. So what is the best way to encourage my husband to come in? A: Pornography causes GREAT pain to the wife and I can hear it in your email.

A Christian lady recently wrote a book from the perspective of the wife. Her name is Laurie Hall and her book is called "An Affair of the Mind."  You can purchase the book from Family Life Today (1-800-FL-TODAY). This book may help you to know that you are not alone. If gives very practical advice for any woman with a husband addicted to pornography.

You may want to get further information and advice from a group like Victims of Pornography or CASR. You will find women at these sites who suffer the same as you do. They also offer support groups for women. There may be one in your area. In your email you mentioned a book that you were unable to find.

The book "Faithful and True: Sexual Integrity in a Fallen World", Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992 by Mark Laaser can be purchased at any Christian book store or from an on-line book service like Amazon.com. It is an excellent resource for understanding pornography addiction. I hesitate to give advice over the Internet, since I know so little of the story, but based on what you have said, I would urge you to remain faithful to your marriage even in the midst of his unfaithfulness (through pornography). Addiction is seldom overcome in one try.

In fact, the addict usually falls back into addiction three times before he or she comes out for good. So don't give up. Hang in there. You are hurt and wounded, but it's not time to give up on your husband or your marriage. You will need to experience God's love and support in a deeper way, than you have up to this point.

But you will find that your Father can be enough for you. Follow the advice of your pastor. Speak to your husband in spite of your fear. Confront your husband in a loving way. Think about what you will say and how you will say it before you approach him.

Show concern for him. If you cannot confront your husband alone, perhaps your pastor would come with you as emotional support. Don't expect your pastor to testify to what he hasn't seen or to preach to your husband. Just ask if he will come along with you, because you are afraid of your husband's anger. If your husband refuses to listen to you, for his benefit you may need to follow a tough love approach.

See Laurie Hall's book that I mentioned above and James Dobson's book called "Tough Love" (you can purchase "Tough Love" at a Christian bookstore or through Focus on the Family ministries or from Amazon.com). This tough love approach may involve following the steps of Matthew 18:15-17. If your husband is a believer and your church practices church discipline, then you can involve your church leaders in the process. If you have approached your husband and there is no response, you should be able to go to the next step in the process and bring one or two of your church leaders (pastor and/or elders) in as witnesses.

(I am assuming that your pastor has already asked you about your own marital responsibilities. In my comments above, I have made the assumption that you are fulfilling 1 Corinthians 7:3, so that your husband has no pretext for seeking sexual satisfaction elsewhere.) I hope this is a bit helpful to you. I will pray for you and for the Father to comfort you and give your husband freedom.

- FAQs I don't have anyone I can talk to about sexual addiction. I just wanted to comment about your special site on sexual addiction. This has been a problem for me for a long time. I see a new hope of release. However I don't have anyone I can talk to about this.

I wonder if you have any suggestions. In the meantime, please pray for me. It's gonna be a mighty battle. A: I'm glad you have new hope! You've asked a great question that I don't have a great answer for. I know from the many emails that we receive that this is a topic that MANY Christian men struggle with.

We formed a men's group in our church around this issue and discussed and encouraged and held one another accountable. We also broadened the focus of the group to Christian growth in many areas, so we didn't just talk about our struggles and failures. We built ourselves up in our relationship with Jesus. Can you go to your pastor and talk about this subject with him? He probably knows of others with similar needs and perhaps he would be willing to contact them on your behalf about forming a group or getting fellowship. On the Internet you may want to check out Christians in Recovery.

You may get some help from people who are part of this web site. Mark Laaser wrote an excellent book called "Faithful and True" and supposedly there have been Faithful and True groups that have sprung up around the country, but I can find no mention of them on the Internet. You might want to get the book and look for a contact number. In the meantime, I will be praying for you and all of the other brave souls that are wrestling against pornography and sexual addiction. I've been there and I know that by God's grace, we can be healed! Joy, peace, and strength to you in Christ, Dennis Rupert, pastor

- FAQs Where in the Bible does it spell out that premarital sex is sin? I should know this but I don't! Where in the Bible does it spell out that premarital sex is sin? I saw an article in the paper the other day where the writer said that "the bible does not prohibit premarital sex." Specifically, two unmarried people who have never been married. Can't call it adultery, can you? Can't use the woman at the well example, nor the woman caught in adultery. I know it's wrong and sin but I need the scriptures. Any help? A: Virginity was highly valued by the Jews, so much so that there was a ritual that was required on each wedding night to insure the bride's purity: a blood-stained cloth or garment as proof.

You can read about this in Deuteronomy 22:15,17,20. This valuing of virginity continues into the New Testament, where the word "virgin" appears many times in passages about sexual morals (for example see 1 Corinthians 7:28,34,36-38; 2 Corinthians 11:2). For a complete list of Scriptures regarding the Bible's view of premarital sex see Premarital Sex and the Bible. You may also want to visit: What's wrong with sex before marriage? What does "waiting" mean?

- FAQs Is my husband oversexed? My husband and I celebrated our 13th wedding anniversary. We had a wonderful weekend together. We were physically intimate and had a magnificent time enjoying each other. But while driving home, my husband said that he just could not stop thinking about the great weekend we had and he wanted to be physically intimate AGAIN! I am trying real hard to be understanding..

.. but is this normal? Isn't he oversexed? A: Believe it or not, this is a question that I hear quite often. And it may surprise you, but about one-third of the time the question is actually asked by men about their wives. But most of the time the question is asked by wives about their husbands.

Apparently you are not alone in your evaluation. A Roper poll of 3,000 women revealed that 54% of women believe "men are sexually obsessed" (1991). The short answer to your question is, "Yes, in general most men are more consumed with sex than women, but much of this is biological and should not be viewed as evil." In our society men are taught to be sensitive to the biological differences in women. We are urged to be understanding to their cycles, their mood swings, and their pains.

This is right and proper, since a woman's sexuality comes from the way that God has created her body. Menstrual cycles, hormones, and menopause all come from her God-given biology. What most people don't realize is that men also have sexual cycles, mood swings, and pains which come from the way God has created their brains and bodies. Sexual drive and the way it is expressed is a biological gender difference. Here are few things about men that every woman should know and accept: Visual stimulation plays a very powerful role for men in sexual excitement.

We are sexually visual beings. On the other hand, tests verify that women become more sexually excited by talk than by anything they see or touch. This is a gender difference that can create some very conflicting situations. Scenario: You are tired. You are looking forward to a good night's sleep without interruptions from the kids.

You undress for bed and put on your night clothes. Unbeknownst to you, your husband has caught a glimpse of your figure in the mirror as you were undressing. In a matter of a few seconds, what do you think has come into his mind? You guessed it: making love to his wife! Is your husband oversexed? No, just created by God to be visually stimulated by the sight of you. Imagination also plays a very powerful role for men in sexual excitement. This means we "think" and fantasize about sex a lot! Of course, all men are different, but one study I read said that the average American male thinks about sex once every seven minutes! Another study said men dream about sex three times more often than women.

There is no doubt that part of this male preoccupation with sex is due to the pornographic society in which we live. I'm certainly not condoning lust created by advertisements, radio, TV, and movies. But another part of this fixation is just God given. Our brains are wired for dreaming and imagination. Men are focused individuals (as opposed to spatial) and fortunately or unfortunately we often focus on sex.

Before the fall Adam probably dreamed about sex more often than Eve. Is your husband "oversexed"? No, just different. Men and women were created to be different and that's beautiful. Another difference between men and women is sexual desire and energy level. Women usually have one battery from which they draw all of their energy for work, care-taking, and sexual intimacy.

Men have a built in spare battery just for sex. In general, we can be exhausted as a marathon runner and still have energy for love-making. We can be sick with the flu and still be thinking about sex. This seldom makes sense to most women, but the idea of being "too tired for sex" seldom enters a man's mind. The reason for this has to do with the way the male and female brain is wired.

In brief, a woman's sexual libido is strongly linked to the emotional part of her brain. A man's sexually interest is less tied to his emotions. This difference can create a great deal of sexual tension between husbands and wives, but it's really just a biological distinction between the genders. One of the things that is the same between men and women is that we are both affected by hormonally induced cycles. Most women have a cycle of 28 days which affects their mood, their desire for sex, and the release of bodily fluids.

Men also have a biological cycle, but it is of shorter length. Males have a 3 day build up of testosterone. Men experience mood swings, changes in sexual desire, and a need for release based on this build up of testosterone. This means that the average male has a biological drive to be physically intimate with his wife every three days. If he is not physically intimate then he may experience a nocturnal emission ("wet dream") in a few days to release the build up.

This drive changes as we age and varies from man to man -- just as PMS varies from woman to woman. Of course, the male sexual drive is controllable (Old Testament example: Leviticus 18:19). None of this is meant to suggest an excuse for immorality or demandingness on the part of a husband. But a wise woman will realize that her husband is influenced by his God-given biology. She will love her husband and be sensitive to him in the same way that she expects him to be sensitive to her biology, to her cycles, and to her moods.

Men are an absolutely different species. God didn't make us "persons." He made us "male and female" (Genesis 1:27). This is wonderful and beautiful (as well as confusing and frustrating). Most wives want a husband who can respond to their unique moods, needs, and desires.

Likewise, a wife who understands her husband's legitimate, godly, physical needs and then responds to them is a rare jewel. So coming back from your 13th Anniversary, you may be thinking, "We had a great weekend together. I spent time pleasuring him. I'm happy and satisfied. But now he talks about wanting more! Isn't he ever satisfied? What's wrong with him?!" There's nothing wrong with him.

Just remember he's an alien. A different species with different needs. So what would an understanding, loving wife do? Would a godly wife tell him to pull off the road and find a secluded spot, so they can caress one another (Genesis 26:8) one last time before reentering the rat race of American life? She might. Or would a godly wife say something like, "Wow, you are insatiable! [Suggestive smile.] I do love you and I've really enjoyed this weekend.

But my mind is thinking about returning home, the kids, and all the things I need to do tomorrow. Would you be willing to postpone your desires until tomorrow night. That will give me time to think about and focus on you."? She might do that too. There's probably more than one right answer here.

What you don't want to do is say nothing (silence speaks volumes of hurt) or get angry (even in your heart) over his desires. He's a guy. He's probably not a sex addict. He's not trying to use you or hurt you or be unconcerned about your needs. He's just a person of the male gender, your lover, your husband, your friend.

The apostle Paul gives wise and clear counsel about sexual intimacy. And he gives it equally to both husbands and wives: The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you can give yourselves to prayer.

Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-6). A woman who comprehends her mate's sexual biology will have a husband who thinks he's got the most understanding wife in the world! He will probably start trying to understand her more. And he will likely be there for her on their 26th anniversary, because there is no other women who knows his needs and loves him the way his wife does.

Questions about masturbation, homosexual thoughts, and eternal life. Q: I have just read your article about masturbation being a sin and what we can do to have self control and let God transform us into the image of Jesus Christ. I wanted to contact you because I have a unique struggle. I have been a Christian since 7 years old but have always had attraction to Men and never Women. At 21 years old, I ran from God and all the things I did to grow close to him (Bible Study, Prayer Group, Church, etc.

). I threw myself into the life of a gay man and the homosexual lifestyle. This progressed into recreational drugs and other sinful activities. This lasted 15 years until through punishment (horrible punishment) and through his loving ways (this was greater than the punishment), Jesus brought me back close to him. He really does go and get the lost sheep and brings him home.

I am a living testament to that. Now, I am back in the state I grew up in and I am living with my Christian brother's family and doing things of God again. I also have been going to a group called Exodus (http://www.exodus.to/) which meets locally.

We are a group of men who struggle with attraction to men. We meet for study and as a Christian support group. I can't express enough how alive and joyful I am once again! But, for the reason I am writing, I have struggled with this masturbation issue since before I even ran from my Savoir at 21 years old. Today, I probably do this act about once or twice every 1-2 weeks. I have rid myself of any pornographic materials or anything that creates more images that may worsen my struggle of this sinful act.

I can tell you I still have no attraction to women and when I do this act it is purely for the reason to help control my wanting or lusting for men who I see in everyday life. I have committed myself to a life of celibacy because of my attraction to men and no attraction to women. I can also tell you that when I masturbate I try to do it with no thoughts in my head, but I always end up thinking some thought about a guy sexually to successfully do this and this is the part I know to be sin. I have found that as each day passes that I don't masturbate my desire for men increases. When I masturbate I don't have much of an interest in them in that way.

Do you have any comments to me about this? Also, my greatest question to you is the part you wrote about radically dealing with lust, because is says that it is something that can keep us from eternal life (Matthew 5:29-30). I am confused and upset about this! I have believed and asked Jesus into my heart and my life and asked for his forgiveness of my sins. He is changing me from the inside out. Does this not give me eternal life with him? Does my failure to stop committing sin in my lustful thoughts to masturbate keep me from eternal life?? Please help me with this question because it is important to me! Thank You and God Bless You! Sam A: You You have an awesome testimony! In my opinion, you should be greatly encouraged in all that Christ has done in your life! You've come a very long way and are doing well in the Lord! Have peace. Concerning your questions and concerns: First Let me say that I tried to say in the article that masturbation is not a sin in itself.

The Bible doesn't say anything on the issue of masturbation. It only speaks to the sin of improper lust. So wrong desires are the sin, not masturbation. Second Your experience of feeling the need to masturbate once or twice every week fits with the biology of a healthy male. Males have cycles just like women - a build up of testosterone on a three to five day cycle (longer for older men).

This testosterone contributes strongly to our desire for sex. That's normal.. Don't get me wrong. Even biology can be controlled - we have many examples of lustful people who become Christians and by the Holy Spirit develop sexual control.

After all, self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). But I'm just trying to say that what you are experiencing is normal and masturbation becomes a release which helps with the feelings of lust. No problem there. Personally, I don't think God has an issue with that. You probably understood all that.

Third As you have pointed out, the real sin issue is with "some thought about a guy sexually." That's the point of battle with the evil one and the point that God wants you to grow from. I'm sure your brothers at Exodus can help with this. They struggle (or struggled) with the same thing. By the way, Exodus is a wonderful organization and has really helped people in our church.

Press on with them. I'm not experienced enough to say this with absolute confidence, but frankly this could be your last battle concerning your homosexual addiction. You've come so far with Christ's help. Just one more step - not needing/having the thoughts - may be required for purity and freedom. Again, I don't know enough to say that with absolute surety, but it seems to me that getting the thought life under control of the Spirit is the final battle.

Jesus said that the evil thoughts of the heart is where all immorality begins (Matthew 15:1-20). God has brought you this far. You can trust Him to change this in your life too. By way of comfort, I applaud you. At this point, you are doing the best you can do.

It's just not the best you will do with the help of God. Fourth Concerning Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:29-30 about radically dealing with sin: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

" How do you read what He says? If you believe there is a different interpretation of what Jesus said that makes sense, then by all means adopt it. At the same time, we must avoid changing Jesus' words because they upset us. At times, His word is very hard and it does upset us. But rightly embraced it leads us to see reality as it is and shakes us from our comfortableness to deal radically with the sins that can kill us. You are quite right that you will need to take what Jesus has said and put it together with the other things that Jesus says about gaining eternal life by believing in Him.

We could also add verses in the Bible about eternal security: "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40) and that we are "loved by God and kept by Jesus Christ" (Jude 1). The way that I believe the Bible puts this all together is that a person who truly comes, repents, and gives their life to Jesus receives eternal life and will be kept by God - what you may know as "once truly saved, always saved." I absolutely believe that the Bible teaches that and it is a great comfort to me. But that doctrine of secure salvation is never taught in Scripture without the companion teaching that a person who is truly saved will bring forth good works (or good fruit) and will continue to grow to be more like Jesus in their thoughts and holiness.

Martin Luther put it as "We are never saved by good works, but the person who is saved will do good works or they are not saved." So change and growth in our life is not what saves us (only Jesus can save us), but a person who is saved (and has the Holy Spirit in their life) is going to change and grow. Read 2 Corinthians 3:17-18. For you and for me this means we still struggle with lust, but we see ourselves changing and overcoming by His power (1 John 5:4-5). You said that you saw change in your life.

The change is not what gives you eternal life. Jesus gives you that. But the change you see is evidence that you are truly saved and have eternal life. I probably have not done a very good job of explaining it, but it is important to hold to both truths at the same time. If we teach only that you must "believe" in Jesus and you are then eternally secure, then people are left with the idea that they can continue to live like they did before.

This would ignore many, many Scriptures such as Jesus' words in Matthew 7:15-27. This is the teaching of "easy believism" and is a big reason why we have so many people claiming to be Christians and living like hell. They have misunderstood what it means to "believe" in Jesus. They have thought that answering an altar call or intellectually believing that Jesus is Lord saves them. But according to the Bible, salvation happens only when we radically repent and radically trust our entire life to Jesus (Luke 14:25-33; 18:9-14).

Then because we are new creatures in Christ, we change, we grow, we follow His teachings, and we hate sin in our lives. Indeed, this change is a process. It is a process for me. It is a process for you. Sanctification (the Biblical word for this process) isn't a once for all event or a giant leap.

It is a series of ups and downs, successes and failures, but always leading upward. And when you graph the line of all points you can see yourself changing to become more like Jesus. It sure sounds to me like that is happening with you. So if I were you, I would be greatly encouraged. At the same time, I think that it is important to say that lust that remains undealt with can kill me.

I think this is what Jesus said and it's found in many other places in the Bible. And if I were to fall back into being consumed again with impure thoughts (and did not repent of it again), then I would have to say that I was faking this Christianity thing. In spite of what I thought, I had not really truly repented and believed at all. My heart wasn't really changed by God. I was not the 4th soil of Jesus' parable, but only the 2nd or 3rd and my destiny is hell (see Luke 8:11-15).

Is that upsetting to think about? Definitely. At this point, I can panic and begin to think "Oh no! What if I'm not saved? What if I fall back into addiction? What if I don't grow beyond this lust?" Or I can take the warning at face value with all the fears it engenders and run to the Savior. These words of Jesus are meant to drive me to Him as the only source of comfort and salvation. In fact, I think that these upsetting warnings are one of the ways that God keeps me in the faith. It reminds me of what reality really is and keeps me relying every day, every moment upon Him.

That's the way to live the Christian life. Anything less just won't do -- I'm too great a sinner. I need Him to continue to save me from myself. That will never change, no matter how holy I become or how much I grow. It is God, not ourselves, who will "keep us from falling and present us before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy" (Jude 24).

Hopefully some of what I have said made a little sense and will bring you comfort. To summarize: I think that Jesus said that lust can send us to hell and that we need to be radical about dealing with it. Never be complacent. But it seems to me that God is exceedingly patient and merciful with us, so that while this is true about lust, it is also true that: you are saved (you repented and believed and you see the evidence) you will have the victory (this is a thought-sin you will overcome as you continue to learn, pray, and trust Christ) and you do have eternal life - indeed are already now seated with Christ in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). Thanks for sharing some of your story with me -- which is really His (Jesus' story).

Love in Christ Jesus, Dennis Follow up emails received from Sam: 1st Email Dear Dennis, First of All, I almost can only say WOW! I am more than moved by your letter and I feel so blessed that you took such time and effort into helping me. I am even more touch to find you are a Pastor of a church. Thank you so much for taking your precious time to help me with so much in one letter. I want you to know I have just given thanks and praise to God for this right now and days before when I first read your response. I have read your article and this letter you wrote to me more than once and it has spurred me to study and memorize verses in the Bible! Also, my brother caught me all choked up reading your letter, so I forwarded it to him so he can share in this.

I want you to know that Jesus came to where I was living (15 years of living in sin and miserable) and lovingly led me out of there to be with my Christian family in my home state. He worked on my heart and drew me back close to him for the last 8 months that I lived there. The things that God did and showed and touch me with those months are to me miraculous. Many things I wrote down as to not forget, but it is too much to type right now. At one point about 6 weeks before I would be moving back to my home state, I was in my car by my place of work during lunch and I had to pull off to a side street because something so intense was building up inside me I knew I needed to stop.

I believe Jesus' presence was very strong and I was feeling his love very strong that I could understand how emotionless and empty and sad and lost of a place I was in. Dennis, I cried and cried so very hard and repented and repented and practically wailed to God to Jesus and I told him how sorry how terribly sorry I was for running from him those 15 years ago and I begged him to forgive me. I cried to him that I was sorry and I don't know why I was so stupid to ever run from him and try to push him away so I could think that I was what I was (gay) and nothing or no one was going to change that and I had no choice but to be gay in order to have any kind of happiness and therefore God couldn't love me because I was an abomination to him. Dennis, the things that poured out of me in tears to God is more than I can explain and the beautiful thing that I remember is that I felt his presence there with me so strongly and his comfort and love and forgiveness and security and I could feel him tell me that he knows and he loves me and much more for a whole hour in that car. Here was my God, my Savior, who I loved so much and had grown so close to my years with the Navigators, loving me with that amazing love as he showed me how much I missed and needed him and how empty and bad the place I was in.

Less than a week later, major changes happened to my work life and the opportunity arose for me to move back here to my home state and live with my brother's Christian family. I left my gay relationship, friends, and everything else that I was doing in my life that wasn't for God and this came the end of August 2006. I don't do any drugs. I quit smoking (I am still smoking 2-3 cigarettes a month when I have a couple of beers 2-3 times a month, but God is working on me and I am working with him on this cause I want it to be zero times a month). I am reading and studying the bible, praying, reading Christian books, talking with you, and bringing neighbors to church with me and I am experiencing Galatians 5:22-23.

Thanks to God's help through you I have more weapons at my disposal [see Weapons for the War Against Lust] and I have already been using them today (Romans 8:6) and this has helped. Please understand that I am not masturbating compulsively but 1-2 times a week and for a very short amount of time as a control of lustful desires or thoughts . The problem where I sin is, to accomplish this act, I have to think (if only for a few seconds) some thought of a picture of a sexual act. I know this to be sin. I will be using your tools to help me live a righteous life.

I came across a verse that I find is helping me so much. It is 1 Peter 4:1-2 (NIV): "Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God." Someone wrote that this means if you are really the recipient of the HOLY Spirit, then this means pain in a physical body that lives in this world. If we get this right in our attitude, then God says we will be done with sin.

That same person also wrote if we understand the way of faith must inevitably involve suffering, then we are truly living the gospel and have transferred out of the power of evil and into God's will. This information is helping me too. Again thank you for your help and time because it was very needed! God Bless Sam 2nd Email Dennis, I haven't spoken to you since April, but I thought that I would give you an update on Jesus' story that He is living out in my life. Thank you for reminding me that it is Jesus' story. I always want to make sure I give him the Glory.

I have been doing quite well with avoiding masturbating in sinful thoughts. I try not to masturbate at all, but I still do and I am keeping it without sexual images. Thank you for your help on that. I have been growing closer to God and was inducted as a full member of my church on October 21st (1st time I became a full member of a church) and 2 hours later I was baptized. I'm really excited about this because it is my recommitment to Christ after turning away from my sinful life.

I have also started serving in Church by helping people with the special needs during Sunday services. I'm attending the Men's bible study group that meets at our church and my brother is attending with me. It has been a year and a half since I left my gay life and I am happy to have Jesus' story of how he shaped my life on your website. I figured it would come out to more than just my family and I can tell you they only know and understand parts of it. It has been a long time needing to come out and you are the first person I have explained it to in its entirety.

If you can use it to help others in their struggles, please do so. God bless you. Sam You may also want to visit: Men's Stuff Page When Someone You Love is Gay Can a Christian lose their salvation?

- FAQs Turning the Other Cheek Q: What does it mean to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)? A: Jesus' complete statement is "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Of course, any striking is a painful blow, but the striking in this case is meant as a gross insult (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:20). If a right-handed person strikes someone's right cheek, presumably it is a slap by the back of the hand. A fist striking you would be on the left cheek.

So this teaching by Jesus is not about self-defense, but about an attack on your dignity. In the eastern culture slapping someone is considered an insult of the highest order. But Jesus says that His disciples should gladly be willing to endure the insult again. Christians are permitted to defend themselves and their families (Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29). (See Assertive Behavior page.

) However, what is forbidden is the taking of vengeance (Romans 12:17-21), bitterness (Ephesians 4:31), and retaliation (1 Peter 2:23). These are absolutely forbidden by Jesus and the apostles.

- FAQs Are the days in Genesis, chapter one literal 24-hour days? Q: Tuesday night in my seminary Bible class this came up. There are evangelical textual critics that maintain that there is not textual support for the word "day" in Hebrew to mean a 24 hour period. I thought this was strictly a liberal point of view but apparently some real conservative scholars have this view as well. What are your thoughts and opinions. A: The word "day" (yom in Hebrew) is used the same way that our word "day" is used.

It has a very specific meaning of 24 hours, but then is also used in a figurative sense of Bill Clinton's day, day of the Nazis, to indicate a period of time. Phrases in the Bible that use this sense are "day of the Lord," " King Solomon's day," etc. The argument for Genesis 1 meaning a literal day is that: It is the most natural and common meaning of the word "day." The phrase "and there was evening and morning, one day" certainly shows a literal day is intended. (The Jewish day was marked as beginning with sundown.

) Adam's age given in Genesis 5:3,5. The age of Adam is given from when he was first created. If day six (when he was created) and day seven (when God rested) were geological ages or long periods of time then the math is way off. Exodus 20:8-11 where God interprets the days of the creation week as being normal 24 hour days. The nature of the Genesis passage which is given as straight history, not poetry (compare with Jesus' reference to Genesis 1 & 2 which shows he viewed it as historical -- Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8).

If Genesis 1 was in Hebrew poetic style then we would have reason to view the "days" as symbol or poetic, but Genesis is straight history throughout. You can be a person who believes in the Bible as God's Word and believes that Genesis is historical and believe that the days in Genesis 1 are geological ages, not 24-hour days. There are many conservative scholars who hold to a non-24 hour day view of Genesis 1. We have many Christians in our church body who believe this way. I don't think this is the most natural meaning of the text and I suspect that in most cases this is an attempt to mesh Genesis 1 with the present scientific view.

But even before Darwin there were theologians that held a non-24 hour day. Augustine was one of them. These scholars were rare, however. I believe a non-24 hour day view is against most of the historic church confessions, such as the Westminster Confession (WCF I:9; IV:1; XXI:7; L.C.

15; L.C. 116; L.C. 120; S.

C. 9; S.C. 58,59). Of course, the most important thing is whether or not it has an exegetical basis in Scripture.

Dennis

Jesus and the Sabbath Q: I have a question about Jesus' approach to the Judaic laws regarding the Sabbath. He seems to have repeatedly taught that it was not the letter of the law, but its spirit we are to comply with. His basic position seemed to be that yes, the law is there, and it is good, but it must be mitigated with common sense. "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man." Is this not in conflict with scripture and Mosaic law? It seems that Jesus told the Pharisees to read not just the externals of scripture, but they must think about the underlying principles.

That's fine, but don't scriptures in the Old Testament say not to work on the Sabbath? Jesus says something like "that makes no sense and you know it. Sabbath law shouldn't be a burden but a blessing. When it is a burden, ignore it." (Sorry about the lack of "proof text," but I'm trying to keep one eye on our kids.) When He heals the blind man He seems to go out of His way to break the Sabbath law and offend Pharisaical sensibilities.

Rather than His usual "Your faith has made you whole" He makes a little mud ball by mixing His spit with dirt. This would qualify as "work" under Sabbath law. It was an intentional poke at the Pharisees not necessary to the healing. (Got Him in trouble too!) The blind man said "all I know is I was blind and now I can see." Jesus said "Look at you bunch of fools.

You have a God given miracle right in front of you and all you can think about is how it is in conflict with your reading of scripture." A: I think the confusion here relates to the idea that Jesus broke the Mosaic law. Take for example, healing on the Sabbath. There is nothing in the Old Testament that prevents healing on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath was forbidden (Exodus 20:8-11).

Going to the fields to plow, harvesting, or cooking were considered work (Exodus 34:21; 35:1-3). But healing or helping someone in trouble was never viewed as "work" in any Old Testament text or command that I know of. Did Jesus ever break an Old Testament law? This is an important point. Jesus never broke the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17-20; Luke 16:17; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:4-5) -- if so, he would not be our perfect sinless sacrifice. Jesus was entirely sinless, even in reference to the Old Testament law (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22).

What Jesus broke were the Pharisaic additions to the law, not God's law. The Jews had taken God's Word found in the Old Testament and ADDED their own oral traditions to the law. These added traditions were called "the tradition of the elders." For Jesus' view of these added traditions see Mark 7:1-13. These additions to the law were placed on the same authoritative level as God's Word! What the Pharisees did was somewhat like Roman Catholicism today: Truth = God's Word + Church Tradition.

In some ways this was understandable, because the Jews had to wrestle with the issue of "What is work?" on the Sabbath. But in the process of trying to define "work" they went to tremendous extremes. For example, if you pulled a chair across a room and dragged the leg in the dirt resulting in a furrow, then you had "worked", because you had been plowing! These traditions dealt with things like: "Can a man lift his child?" "Can a man lift his child if the child has a stone in his hand?" "Can I scrape crumbs from the table on the Sabbath? If so, how much?" "Can I shut a window on the Sabbath? How about if the window has shutters?" "Can I tie a knot on the Sabbath? What kind of knot?" "Can a wounded man be treated on the Sabbath?" "How many letters can I write on the Sabbath?" (One only.) "How far can I walk?" (2000 cubits) Get a copy of the Mishnah regarding the Sabbath and you will get a better feel for the bondage that the Pharisees had placed God's people under. Jesus put it this way: "You experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them" (Luke 11:46).

All of the conflicts that Jesus had with the Jews regarding the Sabbath related to these additions to the Word of God. Picking grain to eat with your hand was defined by the Pharisees as "reaping," therefore the Pharisees said, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath!" (Matthew 12:2). Unlawful? The only violation was the violation of their man-made additions to the law (see Mishnah, Sabbath 7:4; 7:2). It is easy to mistake Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees' tradition, as attacks on God's Word. This is one of those cases.

Another prime example is in the sermon on the mount where Jesus seems to be changing the Old Testament law. But what is really going on here is Jesus rebuking the Pharisee's misinterpretation and additions to the law. See Matthew 5:43 for instance. In each case (whether it is Sabbath controversies or Sermon on the Mount) Jesus is merely teaching the true meaning of Old Testament commands. "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man" is not in conflict with Scripture and Mosaic law.

It is only in conflict with the Pharisees' traditions. By means of their hairsplitting legalism the Pharisees were constantly burying God's law under the heavy load of their traditions and robbing men of the joy of Sabbath rest. Jesus never violated any Old Testament Scripture regarding the Sabbath that I am aware of. You may also wish to visit: Should the Sabbath be on Saturday? What Early Christians Wrote About Worship on Saturday and Sunday

- FAQs What is the "Song of Songs?" Q: What is the "Song of Songs?" A: The Song of Songs is another name for the book in the Bible called "The Song of Solomon." It means the best of all songs! The Song of Songs is a poetic wedding drama. It is about a young girl and the man who becomes her husband. There are vivid descriptions of their passion for one another, the actual wedding, and their honeymoon. The Song of Songs contains a lot of sexual metaphors, so it is a great book to read for married couples who want to understand God's perspective on physical intimacy.

(See Sexual Allusions and Symbols in the Song of Songs and Lovemaking in the Song of Songs.) The Song of Songs was considered so passionate that Jewish boys were forbidden to read it until age 14.

- FAQs What is a "Heave Offering?" Q: What is a heave offering? Numbers 31 says the Midionite booty, which included virgins, were to be offered to the Lord as a heave offering. Any insight to this? Thanks. A: "Heave offering" is a term found mostly in the King James translation, but it does represent a unique Hebrew word for one type of offering. I believe that "heave offering" occurs in three places in the chapter that you mentioned: Numbers 31:29,41,52. Many people have the mistaken assumption that all offerings were sacrificed to the Lord by being burnt on the altar.

Actually there were seven different types of offerings (depending on how you count them) only one of which (i.e., the burnt offering) was sacrificed entirely to the Lord. The rest of the offerings had at least some portion given to the people or the priests. By far, the most common offering was the peace offering which had portions that went to the Lord, portions to the priest, and portions to the congregation to eat in a fellowship meal.

You can read more about this on our web page entitled The Four Blood Sacrifices. A "heave offering" refers to the part of the peace offering designated for the priests. These particular offerings were not burned on the altar or used by the rest of the congregation. It was called a "heave" or "wave" offering because of the manner in which the offering was (usually) physically manipulated when the offering was presented to the Lord. The word comes from a Hebrew root meaning "to lift" and refers to the offering being lifted before the altar to the Lord.

The offering was then taken and used by the priest. Food would be eaten, animals kept as livestock, and maidens would be used as captured slaves or taken as wives.

- FAQs Should confession be out loud? Q: Dennis, this question comes from a discussion in our home group: - 1 John 1:9 states, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The question I brought up was, "Are we to speak our confession out loud." This was a note I had written in my Bible some time back. I looked up the Greek word for confess which is homologeo (Strong's Concordance #3670) which states, "to confess, i.e.

, to speak agreeable to fact and truth." I guess what I am asking you is if you have any thoughts on whether this means to literally speak it with my tongue "out loud." A: The Greek word was typically used for a public confession. This sense comes out clearly in Matthew 10:32 and Romans 10:9 where it talks about the need to publicly profess Jesus or He will not publicly profess us before the Father. In secular literature the word was used to confess to a crime, i.

e. to admit guilt in a court of law (which would have been verbal). Vine's Expository Dictionary defines it as "to speak...

" and "to declare openly..." Perhaps even more important is the Old Testament pattern of the Sin Offering (Leviticus 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30; 8:14-17; 16:3-22) and the Trespass Offering (Leviticus 5:14-6:7; 7:1-6) which were used to atone for specific transgressions. A bull, goat or ram was brought to the priest.

The worshipper laid his two hands on the head of the animal (signifying that his sin was transferred to the animal) and then confessed his sin to the priest. The confession would be something like this one found in the Mishnah: "O Lord, I have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before you, I and my house. O Lord, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which I have done by committing iniquity, transgression, and sin before you, I and my house. As it is written in the Torah of Moses, your servant, 'For on this day shall atonement be made for you to clean you. From all your sins shall you be clean before the Lord (Leviticus.

16:30).'" Following this public confession, the priest then sacrificed the animal. This idea of verbal confession continues in the New Testament where we are told to "confess our sins to one another" (James 5:16). I think the pattern is pretty clear that (generally speaking) confessions ought to be made to someone. This creates a humble, confessing community living in the grace of God.

- FAQs What does it mean to ask in Jesus' name? Q: How do you deal with the Scripture that says: "Ask for whatever you desire in Jesus' name and I will give it to you?" A: I believe that the phrase "in Jesus' name" is vastly misunderstood. It is more than just a phrase that we tack on to the end of our prayers. "In Jesus' name" is ambassador language. It implies that (1) I have a relationship with Jesus; (2) I am acting as His representative on His behalf, and (3) that what I am asking for is truly Jesus' desire (1 John 5:14). If these things are true, then God will grant the request.

That's a promise. Many requests that we make to God in prayer are legitimate and fine requests -- and God grants many of them. But most of our requests do not meet the three criteria that I have just mentioned and therefore are not requests made "in Jesus' name."

- FAQs Is Mark 16:9-20 part of God's Holy Word? Q: Please share with me your belief regarding Mark 16:9-20? Are these verses part of God's Holy Word or not? A: I believe that ALL that God's apostles and prophets wrote is inerrant, infallible, completely true and trustworthy. I was asked to leave a liberal denomination because of that conviction. I am entirely committed to inerrancy of the original writings. However, there is a question among people who believe in the inerrancy of God's Word about whether Mark 16:9-20 was actually written by Mark or any other apostle or prophet. This issue is not really a conflict between orthodoxy and liberalism.

It is a question about whether these verses were ever part of Mark's original writing or were mistakenly added by a copyist at a later time. In my opinion, this is a legitimate debate about what Mark wrote or didn't write. Bible-believing Christians don't deny any of the truths written in Mark 16:9-20. They are only questioning whether it was written by Mark (or any person connected with Jesus). Here are the two sides of the debate: On the one side are those who question Mark's authorship of verses 9-20.

The reason this whole subject was even raised was because these verses are lacking in some of the early manuscripts (copies of the Bible) that we have. These verses are absent in the two earliest complete copies of the Bible (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). The verses also do not appear in the earliest African Old Latin text, the Sinaitic Syriac text and other very early manuscripts. People who question Mark's authorship of verses 9-20 also point to the early church fathers. They say that Clement of Alexandria and Origen seem not to have known these verses.

Eusebius, the famous church historian who died about 340, mentions the possibility that they are not part of Mark's original writing. Jerome, writing a little later, said that almost all the Greek copies he knew of lacked verses 9-20. This group also points to what they see as changes in language and style that occur in verses 9-20: the change from personal style to prosaic summarizing, fourteen different words not found in previous portions of the book, words used in a different manner (ekeinos and phaivo), Mary Magdalene being introduced as if she had not been mentioned before, etc.. On the other side of the issue are those who think verses 9-20 were written by Mark.

A good example of a pastor/scholar who believes Mark wrote verses 9-20 is Jim Snapp II. You can get see his arguments at http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html.

Basically he argues that the ancient manuscripts which don't contain verses 9-20 all have something strange about them. For example, Vaticanus contains an entirely blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1! He also correctly points out that silence regarding verses 9-20 from Clement of Alexandria and Origen is an argument from silence which is not very weighty. Eusebius' comment about these verses is presented by Eusebius as one of two hypothetical responses by which one may resolve a question of how to harmonize Mark 16:9 with Matthew 28. Eusebius goes on to show, in the same text (Ad Marinum), that a harmonization is possible by punctuating Mark 16:9 a certain way. This means that Eusebius acquiesced to the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, for there would otherwise be no reason to show how it could be harmonized with Matthew.

Regarding Jerome, Pastor Snapp points out that he himself included Mark 16:9-20 in his translation (the Vulgate), and on one occasion cited Mark 16:14. Pastor Snapp also directs us to Irenaeus, a man taught by Polycarp, who had been taught by the apostle John. About A.D. 180 Irenaeus explicitly quoted from Mark 16:19.

In Against Heresies (Book Three, 10:5-6) Irenaeus says, "Also, towards the conclusion of his gospel, Mark says, 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven and sits on the right hand of God.'" Concerning the change in language and style, Dr. Bruce Terry has published his findings online. See The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark for his research. One of the reasons this seems to be a hotly contested debate is because certain verses in Mark 16:9-20 are used by certain groups to support their doctrine.

Some churches use verse 16 to prove that a person must be baptized to be saved. Pentecostals often point to verses 17-18 as proving that every Christian should speak in tongues. So basically there are two possibilities: Mark wrote verses 9-20. It is God's Word and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Mark did not write verses 9-20.

Therefore, while it may be a good summary, it is not God's Word. If Mark did write verses 9-20 there is no problem. If he didn't there are two possibilities: He meant to end his gospel at verse 8. He meant to write more. If Mark meant to end at verse 8 there is no problem.

If Mark meant to write more there are two possibilities: He was unable to finish for some unknown reason. He did finish but the original ending was lost or destroyed. Frankly, I wish the whole debate wasn't so difficult. Orthodox people that I respect hold different opinions and I am unable to make a firm decision on the subject. I leave the decision to your better wisdom and research.

May God guide. One final comment: I do think that it is significant to mention that Mark 16:9-20 is an unusual case. There is only one other major passage that I know of (John 7:53-8:11) that has questions about original authorship. That is very unusual when dealing with ancient writings and I think speaks wonderfully about the way that God has preserved His Word for all people down through many centuries. This is not a debate that should bother a new believer or lead them to question the Bible.

It is a debate that is unique among Bible scholars and shows the wonderful care that God has shown to give us His inerrant Word.

- FAQs Why did God allow temple items to be given to the Babylonians? Q: I was reading in the first chapter of Daniel last night and a verse stuck out to me. I don't have my Bible with me so I am paraphrasing. In it, the Lord gives King Jerhioakim (of Judah) over to King Nebuchadnazzar (of Babylon) when Nebuchadnazzar besieged (good word isn't it, besieged) Jerusalem. AND, the verse goes on to say that the Lord also gave over some stuff from the temple. I know that Jerhoiakim was a despicable King but why would the Lord give over stuff from the temple to a Babylonian? For what purpose? Your thoughts? A: Here are some thoughts on why God allowed the temple items to be taken: 1.

It was a fulfillment of prophecy -- 2 Kings 24:13; 2 Kings 20:13,17. 2. The taking of the temple items was to warn the Judean people of their sin. -- There were three deportations of the people of Judah. These items were taken during the first deportation (605 BC).

This first deportation included Daniel. There was still time to repent and save the nation. A second deportation happened in 597 BC and included Ezekiel among the captives. The third and final one (including the destruction of the temple) happened in 586 BC. 3.

(Similar to #2) Without the temple items, worship would be more difficult. This was a symbol that the worship of God in the temple would soon cease due to Judah's sin and idolatry (Ezekiel 8). God was beginning to withdraw His blessing and His presence (Ezekiel 10:18). 4. The temple vessels were brought to Babylon so that Belshazzar would use them in an act of profanity and so that God could glorify Himself -- Daniel 5.

5. The temple vessels were being preserved so that they would not be destroyed in the destruction of the temple in 586 BC and could be returned to be used in the second temple. -- Ezra 1:7-11; 5:13-15; 6:5.

- FAQs What is the Book of Enoch? have hit a small difficulty in understanding a part of the Bible. Enoch is mentioned in Genesis 5:21-24, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 14. It's the Jude reference that gets me. I understand that Enoch lived 65 years, walked with God for 300 more years and then ceased (as in God took him up). What I don't understand is the reference in Jude when he talks about Enoch's Judgment Day revelation (in verse 14).

In my Life Application Study Bible, the footnotes refer to a "Book of Enoch"... what's with that? After doing a little more scouring, I found that this book exists in the Douay version of the Bible, and that it's a book of the Bible that was removed in the King James Version. Is this true? If so, how does that affect us, since John's quotation in Revelation 22:18-19 says we should add nothing to the Bible or take nothing away? Did the King James Version remove books? Also, what more can you tell us about the Douay version of the Bible? A: Great questions!! The Book of Enoch is a book written between the Old and New Testaments.

Probable date of writing was between 150-80 B.C. Copies of the Book of Enoch have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. If this date is accurate, obviously the Book of Enoch was not written by the real Enoch who lived before the flood. Your question raises the whole issue of what books are inspired by God and what books are not.

There are many other Jewish writings from this time period which are like the book of Enoch, such as the books of Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, etc. These books give supposed prophesies, visions, and history of the Jewish people between the Testaments. Protestants usually call these books the Apocrypha (Greek, apokruphos = "hidden") and do not consider them inspired writings. (For more on this see Who decided what books got into the Bible?) However, it's not just Protestants that think the book of Enoch is suspect. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider the book inspired either.

The Roman church does include books in their Bible that Protestants don't, but Enoch is not one of them. So this is not an issue that divides Roman Catholics and Protestants. Through the years some translations of the Bible have included the Book of Enoch and other Jewish works; other translations have not. The Douay version of the Bible was one of those translations that included parts of the Apocrypha and also in this case, the Book of Enoch. Now back to Jude's quotation from the Book of Enoch.

Jude's quotation of the book of Enoch does not mean that Jude considered it inspired. The book of Enoch was a well respected writing among some of the Jews in New Testament times. Even though it was not inspired, it contains some truth (and some falsehood - like angels marrying humans) like most books. Jude simply uses a passage from the book of Enoch to prove his point about the coming judgment of wicked men. It would be similar to me appealing to a book by some famous author: "Even Tim LaHaye in the Left Behind series talks about the judgment of wicked men when he says.

..". Other New Testament quotations from, or allusions to, non-Biblical works include Paul's quotations of Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Corinthians 15:33) and Epimenides (Titus 1:12). Such usage in no way suggest that the quotations, or the books from which they were taken, are divinely inspired.

It only means that the Biblical author found the quotations to be helpful confirmation, clarification, or illustration.

Who was Melchizedek? Q: Here's a question for you: who was Melchizedek, exactly? He's mentioned about ten times in three books of the Bible (Genesis 14:17-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1,10,11,15,17), but not much is said except for his being a high-priest of God, and Jesus was ordained as a High-Priest of the Melchizedek Order. A: The bottom line is that no one knows for sure. He is a very strange figure who kind of pops up and then disappears. From Genesis 14:17-20, we know that he is a priest and a king (like Jesus). His name means "king of righteousness" and he is the king of Jerusalem (so all of this prefigures Christ).

He brings bread and wine to Abraham (a figure of the Lord's supper?). Finally he receives tithes from Abraham indicating that he is greater than Abraham (see Hebrews 7:4). So who was Melchizedek? Here are the three options that I know of: Melchizedek is a pagan priest who recognizes God's blessing on Abraham. Although Genesis 14 calls Melchizedek a "priest of God Most High," the titles "most high," "lord of heaven" and "creator of earth" (see Genesis 14:18-20) were frequently applied to the chief Canaanite deity in ancient times. The problem with this view is why would Abraham give a tithe (a tenth of the spoils) to a pagan? Melchizedek is a priest of the true God.

If you count the years it has not been all that long since the time of Noah. Since Noah's time, almost all of human kind has corrupted the worship and knowledge of the God, but Melchizedek may be an exception. He is a priest who worships the true God. Abraham recognizes this and gives Melchizedek a tithe. Melchizedek is a preincarnate appearance of Christ.

There are instances in the Old Testament where God seems to appear in human form (Genesis 18 and Daniel 8:15-16 for example). Some of the "angel of the Lord" appearances seem to fall into this category too. Melchizedek could be Christ. It would not surprise me to get to heaven and find that there had been an untold story of Christ walking through history appearing in various forms and guiding His people.

Why do we need a new heaven? Hi, could you please tell me why it says in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3: 13 that believers will be going to  a "new heaven and new earth" if heaven is already perfect?   Why do we need a "New" heaven if we believe that it is already perfect?  I would appreciate any info you have on this.  Thank you. God Bless! A: There are three heavens in Biblical thinking (see 2 Corinthians 12:2; Hebrews 4:14): the atmosphere, the sky space, the sun, moon, planets, and stars, and the place in which God has His throne room, where the angels meet with Him (Hebrews 12:22) and the people of God await their resurrection. You are quite right that the third heaven needs no cleansing, but realms 1 & 2 have been affected by evil (Ephesians 6:12) and need to be redeemed (2 Peter 3:13 - "in which righteousness dwells).

Was the wine that Jesus drank the same as wine today? Q: I have what you may see as an easy question. What was the difference in the wine JESUS and the disciples drank in comparison to what we have today? Was there any difference at all? I am having a tough time witnessing to people about drinking and how GOD doesn't like it when JESUS is turning water to wine at "gatherings" and drinking with his disciples. "Gimme" some help on this Pastor. A: There isn't really much difference between the wine made in Jesus' day and the wine made today. The process of fermentation FOR WINE is similar.

However, after the time of the New Testament the invention of distillation rather than fermentation greatly increased the alcoholic content and made liquor possible. This type of strong drink was not available in Bible times. I've attached a PDF file on "wine" from the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia which has some very good information. Concerning Jesus turning water to wine at the marriage feast, I believe that God DID approve of Jesus' action. There are a number of references to Jesus drinking wine (examples: Luke 7:34; John 19:29).

We know from the writings of the Jewish rabbis and the writings of the early church that the wine used in Passover/communion was one part alcoholic wine to 4 parts water. My understanding of the Bible is that the drinking of wine is acceptable. It is the abuse of alcoholic beverages that is sin. What the Bible speaks against is drunkenness, not drinking. Q: But how can you drink wine and not feel its affect? People always say "there ain't nothing wrong w/ drinking as long as you don't get drunk", but the truth is even if you only have one glass of wine (not communion wine) you may not be so drunk where you'll fall over, but it will have some affect on you.

...right? And won't that be bad so to speak in GOD's eyes? A: Apparently this mild affect of wine isn't bad in God's eyes: "God makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate - bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart." (Psalm 104:14-15).

Note that in this passage "God makes... wine that gladdens the heart." Wine is viewed as a gift from God.

This discussion of drinking brings up a broader issue that you might want to think about. I think that many Christians have a Greek view rather than a Jewish view of God's creation. By the time of the New Testament, the Greeks had become very anti-materialistic. The Greeks divided reality into two parts: spirit, which they thought of as good, and matter which they thought of as evil (or at the very least inferior to the spirit). This is why the Greeks sought to free their spirit from the body.

The goal of this life was to purify the spirit and free it from matter. As a result, the Greeks (and Romans) burned the person's body upon death. The material was evil and something to be left behind. And if you really wanted to free your soul, you would avoid bodily pleasures and material things. The ascetic (the person who did without things) was viewed as the most likely to gain happiness in the next life.

The Jews, on the other hand, followed the Old Testament view of seeing the creation as good. God looked at all He had created and said that "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). Even after the fall, no "thing" is evil in and of itself (1 Timothy 4:4). The Jews had a very upbeat view of material things. The physical body was viewed as something to take with you into the next life - hence, bodies were not burned, but buried to await resurrection (Genesis 15:15; 23:19-20; 25:9; 35:8,19,29; 47:30; John 19:38-42).

The Jewish view of sex (in marriage) is very positive (Proverbs 5:18-19; Song of Songs; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5,33-34; Hebrews 13:4). Likewise food, wine, dancing, money, etc. are all viewed as good things that we can take pleasure in as long as they are used according to God's commandments (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20; 8:15; 9:7-9; Psalm 16:11; Romans 14:14). At the risk of being misunderstood, I believe the Bible teaches a view of "Christian hedonism" - not living for pleasure, but living for God and enjoying all that He has created for our benefit and enjoyment (1 Timothy 4:1-5). But sometimes Christian views on drinking, sex, or money come more from a Greek perspective than a Biblical perspective.

In order to protect ourselves and others or in an attempt to become more holy or pure, we add rules or commandments that aren't in the Bible. But when we do that (even if we do it for a good motive), we have become legalists, rather than grace-oriented children of God. The Bible is clear that drinking alcoholic beverages (without becoming drunk) is an acceptable activity. In fact, Jesus even chose wine as an element for the Lord's supper. ONLY drunkenness is viewed as a sin (Proverbs 23:29-35; Ephesians 5:18).

We can be tempted to add to God's commandments, because of the dreadfulness of alcoholism, drunk drivers, or simply observing the stupidity of drunk people. Believe me, I understand the temptation. My college roommate was an alcoholic and I cleaned up his alcoholic vomit on more than one occasion. AND my brother was killed at age 19 by a drunk driver. But we CAN'T try to be more righteous than God! If it isn't prohibited in the Bible or cannot be reasonably deduced from Biblical principles, then it's best that we not add to God's Word.

Other pages you may wish to view: Worshiping with Body Sexual Allusions and Symbols in the Song of Songs

How do I answer skeptics' questions about the Bible? Q: I am having a problem with my faith and wanted to know if you could help me explain some of the info I have found on the internet. I have done some research about questions that have arisen after reading The Da Vinci Code and The Templar Legacy. I stumbled upon the following website (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.

html) and now I seriously doubt even the divinity of Jesus or the truth of the Bible. I have read Josh McDowell�s book explaining the fallacies of The Da Vinci Code (which I agree with), but all of the problems with the Bible as stated by the above website, I have confirmed with my Kings James Version of the Bible. I am a graduate of a large Christian University and have struggled with some questions of my faith since my freshman year. Now it seems as if a floodgate of information, that I have never heard discussed in any sermon, is disproving Christianity altogether. Since according to your beliefs you are Fundamentalist, please help me explain these discrepancies or point me in the right direction of proof.

A: Thanks for writing. I won't be able to answer each and every objection on Paul Tobin's web site. I just don't have the time. But I will take some time to work through a few issues from his Bible contradictions section. Perhaps you will see a pattern in the issues he raises and how to deal with them that will help you think about the other issues that you are challenged by.

Let me start out by saying the author raises nothing new - that is, these issues have been brought up by skeptics for the past 150 years (at least) and there are good reasonable responses to each one. Of course, they are new to you and I'm sure that they seem overwhelming. Unfortunately you did not have the benefit of a church or college which talked about these issues. Please be reassured that you don't need to give up your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible or the reality of who Jesus is. But, of course, you want more than simply my reassurance, so let me give you a sample of how a Christian can respond.

You mentioned about the truth of the Bible as being one of your most pressing issues. Here is a short response from his page of Bible contradictions (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html).

He deals with the following issues: Creation account, plants and Adam - The author says there is a contradiction between Chapter 1 where plants are created before man & Chapter 2:4-7 which says plants had not been created, then goes on to describe God creating man. Response: Genesis 2:5 doesn't say simply "plants." It says "plants of the field." It's not all plants that we are talking about, but cultivated plants, shrubs, and herbs = crops. The phrase "of the field" is repeated twice to separate it from the plants spoken about in Chapter 1.

The author ignores this modifier and creates a false dilemma. One of the reasons that "the plants of the field had not yet appeared" was because "there was no man to work the ground" (2:5). The point being that there was no need for crops, because man had the whole uncursed world providing food for him (see 1:29) and even a garden where God made fruit trees grow out of the ground "which were good for food"(3:8-9).      But in Genesis 3:17-19 we find the curse upon Adam for his disobedience: "You will eat the plants of the field by the sweat of your brow." Now because of the curse, Adam must till the land in order to get food.

Note the repetition of the phrase "plants of the field" and God's statement that now "you will eat the plants of the field" (3:18). No contradiction -- in fact, it shows the unity between Chapters 1, 2, & 3. Chapter 1 talks about the creation of plants in general, which will serve for food for mankind. Chapter 2 is referring to crops that haven't appeared because they aren't needed until the fall of mankind. Chapter 3 talks about crops are being raised by man due to the curse.

Perfect unity. Creation account, animals and Adam - Similar to the previous issue, the author says there is a contradiction between Chapter 1 where birds and beasts are created before man and Chapter 2:19 where birds and beasts are created after man. Response: Concerning the animals in 2:19, please note that it does not say that the animals were formed out of the ground on day 6. It only says that God formed them out of the ground. It's a flashback to Genesis 1:24 & 1:21, setting the stage for Adam's naming of the animals.

It's like me saying, "The terrorists flew the plane into the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield held a memorial service for the slain servicemen." Is there anything in that sentence that demands that the day of the memorial service was also the same day as the plane flying into the Pentagon? Not really. The first sentence sets up the reason, justification or context for the second sentence. This is why the New International Bible translates "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."       (By the way, these flashback sentences are typical of Hebrew writing style.

They often give you a one sentence summary of a previous event in order to provide the context for the present event they are reporting. Examples: compare Genesis 1:27-28 with 5:1-2; compare Genesis 5:32 with 6:10; compare Genesis 8:18 with 9:18.)       You know, in order to believe that these are "contradictions," you have to believe that whoever wrote (or, in the skeptic's view, "edited") these first two chapters of Genesis was a pretty sloppy writer. If someone was making this stuff up, don't you think they would have noticed that they had God creating plants and animals TWICE? Flood account, pairs of animals - The author says there is a contradiction between God's instructions to Noah in Genesis 6:19-20 (bring two of every kind) and God's instructions in 7:2-3 (7 pairs of clean animals & birds). Response: Throughout his web site, the author uses the word "contradiction" in an improper manner.

In logic a contradiction is "A and not A" - in other words, I make a truth statement (A) and then I say that not A is also true. For example, "The wall is blue. The wall is not blue." This is a contradiction. Both cannot be true at the same time.

     For God to say, "Bring two of every kind" and then to be more specific and say, "Bring 14 of every kind of clean animal" is not a contradiction. This is what my college logic professor called a "contrary." (Different people use different terms. Others say "paradox," "antinomies," "contingency," or "alleged contradictions." I'll use my professor's term just to be consistent.

) Using our previous example, a contrary would be "The wall is blue. The wall is yellow." Although it may not be clear to us at first how a wall can be both blue and yellow, it is not a contradiction. A little thought can get you to the point that you see, "Oh, the wall is both blue and yellow!" An important truth that must repeatedly be hammered home is this: a mere difference does not a contradiction make! Two statements can differ without being in contradiction.      For example, one witness in a court case might testify that he saw two people at a crime scene, Jake and Sam, while another witness may only testify to seeing Sam.

These statements are not contradictory. In fact, in a court of law, these statements could be considered complementary. This is the nature of many of the alleged contradictions in the Bible. For instance, in Matthew, we read that Jesus met two blind men. In Mark and Luke, we only read about one blind man meeting Jesus.

In Matthew and Mark, we read that Jesus went to pray alone three times in the Garden of Gethsemane, whereas, in Luke, we read that Jesus went alone to pray on one occasion. Under legal rules of evidence and the Law of Non-contraction, these aren't contradictory scriptures, and yet they make all of the infamous lists. (For more on this subject see http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2174.

)     You have the identical thing here with God's instructions to Noah. By Noah taking 7 pairs of clean animals, is he still taking at least one pair? Sure he is. God hasn't contradicted Himself. He has only added to it. It's like your teacher saying to you, "I want you to do all the odd numbered problems on page 91.

" Then a few minutes later saying, "I want you to do the first five even numbered problems." Did your teacher contradict herself? Nope. She just added to your assignment.     In reading skeptics you will find that many, many of the "contradictions" they bring up are really contraries, not contradictions. A little thinking will get you to the point that you see how both can be true.

     And reconciling the differences can often lead to insight. Why did God want Noah to take 7 pairs of clean animals? The "unclean" animals would only have to reproduce themselves after the flood, but the "clean" animals would be needed also for the offerings that Noah would sacrifice (Genesis 8:20) and would eat (Genesis 9:3). The Conquest of Hebron - The author sees a "contradiction" over who conquered the cities of Hebron and Debir. Response: Not to be derisive, but this issue is pretty lame. Again, there is no contradiction - just an contrary.

Either Caleb was the principle commander under General Joshua who was responsible for capturing Hebron and Debir (Joshua 10:36-38) - therefore, Joshua 15:13-17 is a more specific explanation of how Joshua 10:36-38 happened - OR (as I think likely) Caleb's conquest of Hebron and Debir is a explanation of what happened after the initial campaigns under Joshua. Chapter 15 is the allotment of the Promised Land to certain tribes and clans after the initial conquest. Caleb is from the tribe of Judah and his clan is allotted the southern area. It seems likely to me that Caleb is reconquering Hebron and Debir from Philistines that came in and resettled the area after the Canaanites had been exterminated by Joshua's initial campaign. The quick resettlement of cities is something you see over and over again in the Bible.

I hope that you are picking up on some of the "tricks" used by skeptics to question the Bible. It is very common for skeptics to talk about "contradictions" when we are really dealing with contraries. Use this tool when thinking through the issues which the author raises about David's Introduction to Saul; Michal's Children (clue: she had another husband); Genealogical Contradiction, Joseph's Father (solution: Matthew's list is a royal, dynastic succession showing that Jesus is the descendant of King David; Luke's is a biological list for either Joseph or possibly Mary's ancestors); and The Death of Judas (clue: how does a person hang themselves? What happens to the body afterward?). The slaying of Goliath issue is a probably a copyist misread. When we talk about inerrancy of the Bible, we mean and have always meant that the original written documents are without error, not every subsequent copy of the original.

The author of the web site is being completely devious when he writes: "This inconsistency was so obvious to the translators for the King James Bible (or "The Authorized Version") that in an act of dishonest piety they actually rewrote the verse in II Samuel 21:19." Even the most superficial study on this passage makes it clear that the Hebrew for "Lahmi the brother of" (1 Chronicles 20:5) is very similar to the Hebrew for "the Bethlehemite." If the author of the web site has studied this passage at all, he must know this. The King James translators did not make it up! Somewhere along the line it seems likely that a copyist of 2 Samuel copied it incorrectly and subsequent copiers (attempting to be faithful in handing down the word of God as they received it) continued to faithfully record the error. You can argue that the King James writers should have footnoted their decision, but you can't say they were being "dishonest" or simply "rewrote the verse.

" Since the author raised a charge of "dishonesty," I am led to make a comment about honesty and skeptics. It is certainly true that Christians are not always honest people. We are sinners who can and do lie for many reasons. However, we are people committed to Truth and believe that God commands us to be truthful in our dealings with others, even when this puts us at a disadvantage. Skeptics don't believe in anything called the Truth (with a capital 'T') and being truthful is usually a situation ethic for them - that is, it depends on the situation.

Hence, my personal experience with skeptics is that they will sometimes play fast and loose with the truth in order to tear down a Christian's faith. So take what is written by a skeptic skeptically and be sure and check what they tell you the Bible says with what the Bible actually says. Of course, this is a good rule for anything you read. The "problem" of "Matthew's Mistaken Reference" is an example of pure dishonesty. The author must know as well as anyone else who has studied the verse, that Matthew is a combined quotation of BOTH Zechariah 11:12-13 AND Jeremiah 19:1-13; 18:2-12; 32:6-9.

Matthew mentions only the major prophet. In addition, Matthew uses the idea of "fulfillment" differently. A repetitive pattern found in the Old Testament and then repeated in the life of Jesus is also a "fulfillment" in Matthew's way of thinking. For example, see Matthew 2:15 where he quotes Hosea 11:1. This was a typical way of thinking about "fulfillment" among the Jews of Jesus' day.

Matthew's gospel is written for Jews, so it's completely legitimate.I could go on and on, but I'm afraid I might be wasting time responding to issues that aren't really the "big" issues. Let me make a few suggestions: Learn how to think and reason. Skeptics take advantage of the lack of training that Christians have in thinking through and dealing with challenges to our faith. We don't know the difference between contradictions and contraries.

Robert is rich. Robert is poor. Do these statements contradict one another? The answer is�not necessarily! First, two different people named Robert could be under consideration. Second, two different time frames might be in view; Robert could have been rich but, due to financial disaster, he became poor. Third, the terms �rich� and �poor� might have been used in different senses; Robert could be spiritually rich, but economically poor.

     Christians also don't catch common logical fallacies such as equivocation (changing the meaning of a word in the middle of the argument), circular reasoning, and loaded questions. For more on this you might want to get a copy of the wonderful books The Thinking Toolbox and The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel Bluedorn & Hans Bluedorn. The books are easy, but invaluable, reading on reasoning and logical fallacies. Don't panic when you hear a challenge to your faith. Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.

" Although this or that "problem" may be new to you, no skeptics are coming up with new problems that haven't been raised before. These "problems" have been around for years - we even have some of them recorded for us in the early Christian writings of debates with Roman skeptics. There is nothing new under the sun. Some brother or sister in Christ has responded to the "problem" before. In spite of these "problems" reasonable men and women have still believed that the Bible is true, that Jesus Christ was and is and will be the LORD of all, and that it makes sense to put your faith and trust in Christ for your life.

     I recommend the purchase of two books: Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (first written 1874, which shows again that there is nothing new under the sun). In addition, most evangelical commentaries will provide answers to alleged problems in particular verses. Read original sources.

There was a lot of hype about the "Gospel According to Judas" when it came out. I dare say, probably not one news reporter spent any time reading the actual "gospel." I went on line to the National Geographic website where they provided a link to an English translation. It's very BORING stuff! Ridiculous Gnostic mythology about emanations and aeons. The writing is anti-Semitic too.

According to this "Gospel," the Jews stupidly worship a lesser god, evil and corrupt, who created the material world in which we live. Jesus laughs at the other disciples because they pray to the false god of this world. I urge every Christian to read the "Gospel According to Judas" rather than what people are writing about it. This "gospel" isn't even in the same league (no, the same planet) as the gospels in the New Testament.      You have a similar situation on the web site you've been reading.

The author has a number of sections on how the Genesis record of creation, the garden of Eden and the Flood were copied from Sumerian and Babylonian myths. These myths (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) have been translated into English and you can find them on line. Read through them yourself and compare them to what you see in Genesis. Make a list of the similarities and differences. I think that you will be more surprised by the differences (not the similarities).

Then begin to ask some questions: (1) Does similarity mean borrowing? What are all the options in terms of similarity? And if there is borrowing, then who borrowed from whom. In other words, is the Biblical account a reflection of the myths or are the myths a reflection (perhaps degeneration) of the Biblical account? Or is similarity due to similar content? (2) Can the similarities be explained in any other way than some Israelite copying the myths? Could Moses (or God) have another reason for some of the similarities? An apologetic one perhaps? Learn how to weigh evidence. Think of yourself in a courtroom hearing testimony. Let's take the example of The Da Vinci Code's assertion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. Dan Brown writes that "80 other gospels competed for inclusion in the New Testament" (which is a complete lie - I dare anyone to list the names of 80 gospels!).

But okay, let's go with that. How many of these competing gospels talk about Jesus marrying someone? NONE. I repeat...

NONE. Even the Gnostic "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" says not a thing about Jesus marrying her or any one else.      The only gospel that comes even close to linking Jesus and Mary is the Gnostic gospel of Phillip (written between A.D. 180 - 250).

This writing talks about Mary being Jesus' companion - a Coptic word with the same vast range of meaning as our English word. There is also a reference to Jesus "kissing her" more than the other disciples, so the disciples ask, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" That hardly points to marriage, since the disciples wouldn't ask the question, if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. So for the prosecution we have one reference to kissing written 150 years (at the earliest) after Jesus' crucifixion.      What do we have for the defense? Four gospels, numerous letters from Paul and the other apostles, the writings of Josephus and other secular historians (written between A.D.

48 - 95) containing eyewitness and second hand testimony that Jesus was celibate, didn't have a special relationship with Mary Magdalene, died, (and was raised).      Please tell me. How would the court rule? It wouldn't even be a contest. It has been my experience that if you weigh the evidence like this in questions raised by skeptics, Christianity always comes out ahead. Ask questions in return.

I do NOT think that it is fair that skeptics get to raise all the questions. Quite frankly, it's pretty easy for skeptics to raise questions because Christians have an ancient document which we claim to be a revelation from God written over a span of 1,600 years containing 66 books written by 40 authors. Just from the standpoint of size, scope, and antiquity that's a pretty big target. Skeptics have no such target, but we can and should still raise questions. If skeptics are going to raise issues with Christianity, then it's only just that we get to return the favor.

     For example, it seems fair to me to ask, "If the Bible isn't true, then what is?" Most skeptics are atheists (or agnostics, which in my opinion is just a nice way of saying 'practical atheist'). "If there is no God, can we really speak of 'truth' at all? How can there be something called right or something called wrong?" I've never had an atheist be able to explain that to me. "Where do morals come from or are they just preferences?" And if you believe that morals are just preferences, I'm not sure that you're somebody I can trust (Romans 1:28-32).      "If we are just highly evolved animals, then what is the purpose of living? Continuing the evolution of the species? Why should I care if the species survives or not?" As one skeptic wrote: "I think you just cease to exist, like the mosquito you swatted yesterday." So I ask, "If we just cease to exist, then why bother continuing to live now? Why not just end it all now? What's the difference?"      And I'm always curious about the motive of a site like "A Skeptics Guide to Christianity.

" It seems to me that skeptics take great delight in tearing down Christians beliefs, but why bother? They have no good news. "If we are all simply moving to annihilation, then why not leave Christians in their delusions, if it makes them happy? What's the motive? Feeling intellectually superior? Who will care that you were intellectually superior when you cease to exist?"      "Or is the motive a need to keep convincing yourself by convincing others? Or does the Bible have it right that this isn't about convincing Christians at all? Is it really about mocking and ridiculing God - Romans 1:19? Is it an active desire to suppress the Truth (Romans 1:18)?"      So don't be afraid to ask questions of skeptics. When all is said and done, I just find a lot more "problems" with being a skeptic than with being a Christian. Skeptics have nothing to offer..

. but skepticism. It's not a good trade. Hopefully these tools will be helpful to you as you wrestle with issues raised by skeptics. Sincerely yours in Christ Jesus,Dennis Rupert You may also wish to see: How to Approach Bible Difficulties A Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts You know too much Freud and Lewis Good News

Are all foods now "clean"? The Maker's Diet), but friends tell me that I am wrong because in the New Testament, God declared that the unclean meats and fishes are now clean. I can't find anywhere in the New Testament a sweeping statement like that? I know food doesn't condemn you by eating it. I eat to maintain good health and nutrition, not just for the pleasure of it. What does the New Testament say regarding this? A: I believe the verse they are referring to is Mark 7:19: In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean. 1 Timothy 4:3-5 is on the same subject: [These false teachers] forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. These verses make it clear that there are no "clean" and "unclean" foods since the time of Jesus - in other words, that there is no punishment or discipline for disobedience attached to the eating of any food. However, it may be that God declared foods clean or unclean in the Old Testament based on their health value. Others believe that God simply forbade the eating of certain foods to set His people and the nation of Israel apart from the world. That's a question that you will need to resolve in your own mind.

If the former idea is true (health value), then there is some benefit to eating only Old Testament clean foods. But the point would be that these healthy foods are better alternatives to other foods, not that eating them or not eating them is an act of obedience or disobedience to God.

- FAQs What does the Bible say about tattoos and piercings? What does the Bible say about tattoos? or men getting piercings? A: Thanks for asking. Here are my thoughts on the subject. Old Testament The only Scripture specifically mentioning "tattoos" is found in the Old Testament: "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:28.

Tattoos were used extensively by the other nations for pagan worship, decoration, and to mark a slave. Based on Leviticus 19:28, tattoos are still forbidden among Jews today (by both Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism). There is even one rabbinic text prohibiting the burial of bodies with tattoos. (However this prohibition is very rarely enforced - although some traditional Jewish mortuaries and cemeteries will not officiate at a funeral of one who is tattooed.) The only Scripture that I know of on decorative "piercing" (as opposed to piercing by a sword or nails) is Exodus 21:6.

This is a passage on piercing the ear lobe of a person to mark him as a slave. In the Jewish nation, slaves and pagans were the only ones with pierced ears. When Jacob's family wanted to set themselves apart to the Lord, earrings are specifically mentioned as items that they put off (Genesis 35:4). Apparently any disfigurement or cutting  of the body was not allowed for His "holy people" (see Leviticus 21:5; Deuteronomy 14:1-2; 1 Kings 18:28). The only exception to this was circumcision (Genesis 17:11-13).

In modern day Judaism, it has become permissible for women in the West to pierce their ears because it is a common practice among the majority non-Jewish population. Jewish men, however, still may not pierce their ears. In the Jewish writings on this subject, the rabbis refer to two concepts: (1) We were "made in the image of God." Even though God is spirit, somehow our bodies reflect God's glory. (2) Our bodies are a good gift from God - complete as is.

As one Jewish rabbi put it, "No matter how well considered, a tattoo is the result of a short-term decision to decorate the body forever. What hubris to imagine that any of us, as individuals, can improve artistically on the original design of the Lord." New Testament So if you were a Jew living in the Old Testament (or today), it would be clear that God forbids tattoos and piercings. However, Christians don't obey all the Old Testament laws. As a matter of fact, some of them are specifically set aside by Jesus and the apostles.

Are tattoos and piercings still forbidden or are they now acceptable for a Christian? For more on the subject of taking Old Testament commandments and relating them to the present day, I recommend that you read How to Apply the Old Testament to Today. But let's ask, "Do the Old Testament verses line up with any basic principle found in the New Testament?" The answer is "yes." There is the New Testament concept that our bodies are not our own. This teaching is found specifically in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20: "The body is meant for the Lord" 1 Corinthians 6:13. "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

" 1 Corinthians 6:19. "You are not your own; you were bought at a price." 1 Corinthians 6:19. "Honor God with your body." 1 Corinthians 6:20.

The key principle here seems to be that our bodies belong to God, not ourselves, and that we are to use them in ways that honor and reflect God's glory. Conclusion Now let's use deduction to arrive at a conclusion. Based upon these facts (the Old Testament commands against tattoos and piercings AND the New Testament principle that my body is not my own) I would reason that God would rather I leave my body free from self-inflicted marks and cuts. We were made in "the image of God." Apparently He thinks no further pictorial adornment is needed.

Could I be wrong about this? Sure, it's a deduction, rather than a specific New Testament command. But I think the key point that is clear in the New Testament is that our bodies aren't really ours to decorate as we see fit. Therefore, I tell people to ask God whether He wants His body tattooed or pierced. If you get a "yes" answer, then I won't condemn you. Just make sure it is God speaking to you and not you speaking to yourself in the name of God.

A Final Word Nothing in what I've said is meant to imply any disapproval against those who come to Christ with tattoos, cuttings, or piercings. We come to Jesus just as we are - with all our imperfections in spirit and body. There are many people in our church who have tattoos and scars from their previous life before Christ. Some of these tattoos are even pagan or demonic. Some of the cuttings are from suicide attempts.

No one looks down on these brothers or sisters or judges them. We are all flawed sinners. That is why we need Jesus. Some of us bear our markings outwardly. Some of us bear them more inwardly.

- FAQs Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament? Greetings from Australia from a Brother In The Lord from Down Under!! I�ve been reading through the Old Testament for over 12 months in my daily devotions and I would love to hear a �pastor� share on some of the really �tough� verses. We often hear sermons on the �nice� bits but I sometimes rack my brains over some verses which seem to paint a picture of a different God to the one who came in the flesh and dwelt among us as Christ. A prime example would be when God told the Israelites to kill all � babies, wives etc. The �enemy� soldiers I can live with �. but why the �innocent�.

Yes �. we know that the Israelites could become tarnished and led astray by any pagan tribes that were left, but it still seems awfully harsh. And sometimes we�re talking 20,000 + people. And I find it hard to understand stoning. Is it at all possible to stone someone and be human at the same time? Couldn�t they be like Jesus and say �.

�go on your way and sin no more.� And when did the practice end? Also I read the other night about a law (in Deuteronomy) which basically said - if two men are fighting and the wife of one of them grabs the other man by his testicles - then she has to have her hand cut off! There�s some wonderful verses in the Old Testament about looking after the widow and the orphans and the foreigners who live in your country. Also some great stuff on using correct weights and not to cheat �. but I think you know the verses that I�m referring to. So if you could add something on this subject in your FAQ I�d be grateful.

Cause from what I read you�ve got a bit of �theological� training and understanding and you�re not going to step away from the tough questions. A: Great questions. And questions that might call for a slightly different way of thinking about God and Jesus. The typical view of Jesus is that Jesus was always non-judgmental, accepting of everybody, pacifistic, and always gracious. And this view seems to contrast with the God of the Old Testament who (at least at times) seems to be judgmental, vengeful, condemning, and violent.

Those may not be the exact words people would use, but something similar to that. (By the way, this isn't a new view. A man named Marcion in the early church had the same view and created a powerful heresy that the early church had to respond to.) But I think these views of Jesus and God come from a selective reading of the Bible or a misreading of some of the passages in the Bible. Let me give an example.

You mentioned the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Many people read this story as if Jesus was overturning the Old Testament punishment of stoning - in fact, some people read this event as if Jesus was saying that all the Old Testament punishments were too harsh. I believe this is a misunderstanding of what Jesus is doing. Jesus is being set up by the Pharisees (see verse 6). The dilemma that the scribes and Pharisees are setting up for Jesus is this: If Jesus said, "No, don't stone her" then it would appear that Jesus was breaking God's law given to Moses (Leviticus 20:10).

If Jesus said, "Yes, stone her" then He would be breaking Roman law which didn't allow the Jews to execute anyone without their permission (John 18:31). Jesus' fantastic answer didn't minimize her sin; didn't get him into a debate about Mosaic law; and didn't get him in conflict with Roman law. It wasn't meant as a setting aside of the Old Testament judicial punishment. It was meant to reveal how unfit the scribes and the Pharisees were to be the woman's judges and executioners. Why were they unfit? Four reasons: They were accusing her of adultery, while they were plotting to murder Jesus (see John 7:1).

This is a bit hypocritical! The law required the execution of both parties (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), not just the woman! Adultery takes two people. So where is the male? More than likely the woman had been tricked into this situation and provision made for the man to escape. The Pharisees said that the woman had been "caught in the act of adultery" (v. 4). But compromising circumstances were not sufficient evidence to convict someone.

Jewish law required the testimony of at least two witnesses who had seen the act. The Pharisees did not mention the names of the witnesses, nor did Jesus hear testimony from two witnesses, yet he was being asked to give judgment. Finally, the Pharisees altered the law a little. The exact manner of execution was not prescribed unless the woman was a betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Jewish custom at this time was actually death by strangulation for both offenders.

So the statement in verse 5 about the Law of Moses "commanding" stoning of such women, was not entirely accurate. So Jesus wasn't really setting aside the Old Testament judicial laws. And Jesus wasn't saying that every person is unfit to render judgment upon another person. If this were the case, then juries and judges would be unbiblical! Jesus was merely turning the trap back on the Pharisees who intended to trap Him! I'm sorry that I don't have time to deal with all the questions you mentioned, but I'll attempt to give short brief answers to some of them. I'm sure that because they are brief, they will be insufficient, but they may point you in a direction of thought or a direction for further study: Concerning the extermination of whole populations of people: I might have answered some of this question in this article <http://www.

new-life.net/joshua.htm>. Concerning the killing of "innocent" babies and wives: Is it a Biblical view to look upon any person as "innocent?" Are we judged because we sin (the committing of individual sins) or judged because we are sinners (our nature)? What role does Adam as the representative and head of the human race (Romans 5:18; Psalm 51:5) and "original sin" (John 3:6; Ephesians 2:3 - "born rebels") play in God's justice? Does God, as Creator of every person, have the right to take the life of any creature that He creates (Romans 9:20-21)? Stoning = a form of community execution. What are the benefits of community execution as opposed to hiring someone to execute? Does community execution actually place limits on capital punishment by requiring the participation of each person in the community? Does it provide an incentive for the community against further sin in ways that execution by a state sanctioned executioner would not do? Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - This is the passage about the two men fighting and a woman who grabs the other man's sexual organs.

I agree that in our eyes this seems harsh. Two thoughts: Damage to reproductive organs might cause a man to be unable to leave descendants. Descendants were the Social Security system in Israel for the elderly and widows. A woman damaging a male's sexual organs could actually be hurting this man's wife and leaving her destitute. In fairness to the Old Testament, we need to say that this is the ONLY place in the Old Testament were mutilation is prescribed.

If you read the ancient Code of Hammurabi or the Islamic Quran, mutilation is a very common punishment for a number of offenses. You said that the Old Testament paints "a different God to the one who came in the flesh and dwelt among us as Christ." I sometimes think that Christians read the New Testament selectively. Jesus' first coming was a time of special grace and mercy. No doubt about that.

There is an extreme amount of mercy, patience, and forgiveness shown by Jesus during His earthly ministry. But: (1) Jesus' earthly ministry was a special season of mercy prior to judgment - See Luke 13:6-9. A focus on the merciful acts of Jesus during His three years of ministry does not give us a complete picture of the character of Jesus. It must also be balanced with the terrible things that Jesus said would happen if people didn't repent, what Jesus said about His second coming, and how Jesus appears in other New Testament books - for example see Revelation 1:13-18. In other words, our view of Jesus can be somewhat skewed by the period of grace that God is offering to the Jewish people.

(2) But even if we disregard my first point, I think many people overlook or ignore Jesus' tough "Old Testament" side. In order to miss the dangerous and harsh Jesus you have to close your eyes to: Jesus being the one individual who speaks more about hell and the punishments of hell, than anyone else in the Bible. Jesus' many calls to repentance with warnings of judgment, if people don't repent (example: Luke 13:1-5). Parables spoken by Jesus, such as the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:24-27) or the Parable of the Tenants (Luke 20:9-19) which end in terrible punishments. Events such as the cleansing of the temple or the cursing of the fig tree which are certainly not peaceful actions by Jesus.

The hard sayings ("pluck out your eye," "cut off your hand") and harsh words of Jesus, such as calling people "hypocrites," "blind guides," "vipers," "white washed tombs," and "the one doomed to destruction." Predictions about the terrible destruction of Jerusalem which Jesus says is a judgment from God for the people's lack of repentance. And predictions about His Second Coming which is a time for "the Son of Man to come" and "separate" and "judge mankind." In fact, I would say that the harshest of God's judgments is actually found in the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Only in the New Testament do we find an innocent man condemned to die by the cruelest means possible for the crimes of other people.

Of course, I'm referring to Jesus dying for our sins on the cross. "It was the Lord's will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer" (Isaiah 53:4,10; Matthew 26:39; 27:46). That's the harshest judgment in all the Bible. When all these things are taken into account I believe that the Jesus of the New Testament is really no different, than the God of the Old Testament. Indeed, He is one and the same.

Related pages: Was Joshua Justified in Exterminating the Whole Population of Jericho? "Do Not Judge": Why Are Christians So Judgmental?

- FAQs When is the Day of Atonement? (Jewish Calendars) Q: I was reading in Leviticus 23:26: "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement." Does that mean July 10th is the Jewish Day of Atonement? A: Okay, this can be sort of confusing. So let me attempt to make this a little less confusing by mentioning four points about Jewish calendars.Point #1: The important thing to keep in mind is that the Jewish people actually have two calendars (three if you count the Gregorian calendar that the rest of us follow). They have a religious calendar which follows the Old Testament commands for holidays AND they have a civil calendar used for legal contracts and counting of Sabbatical and Jubilee years.

It's sort of like one of our government workers here in Washington D.C. who follows our regular calendar that starts on January 1, but also lives by the government's fiscal calendar, because he works for the United States government. The civil calendar was apparently used since the time of creation, since this is the calendar used in the book of Genesis. The religious calendar was started by God at the time of Israel's exodus from Egypt (see Exodus 12:1-2).

Both calendars (civil and religious) existed side by side from that point forward. Point #2: Another confusing wrinkle in understanding Jewish calendars is that there are sometimes different names for the same months. For example, the first month in the religious calendar is Abib. The word means "young head of grain." That's the Canaanite name for this month and was adopted by God, since He was taking the Israelites into the land of Canaan (Exodus 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:1).

But later in the Bible after the Israelites had returned from exile the Babylonian name Nisan was used for this month (Nehemiah 2:1; Esther 3:7). Same month, but different name. Point #3: The third thing to remember about Jewish calendars is that they are lunar calendars. In other words, each new moon marked the beginning of a new month. Since a lunar year is only 354 days, agricultural festivals (which some of the Feasts are tied to) could become misaligned rapidly.

So the Jewish people added a 13th month (called Second Adar) in 7 of every 19 years to keep things in sync. Point #4: The fourth and final thing to remember about the Jews and the way they keep time is that the Jews count their days from sundown to sundown - not midnight to midnight as we do. We usually think of a day as daylight to night time. The Jews thought of a day as the beginning of night time (sundown) to the end of the daylight (sunset). is in light brown A given Jewish holiday spans two days on our Gregorian calendar.

Observance of a holiday begins at sundown on the day before it is listed in the calendar! Application: Okay, now let's take all this and apply it. Let's start first of all with a day and look at it from the perspective of three calendars. Perhaps you have heard people talk about Rosh Hashanah. Rosh Hashanah is actually the Jewish new year for their civil calendar. This year Rosh Hashanah falls on September 30 on our Gregorian calendar (or more accurately at sundown on September 29, since they count from sundown to sundown).

But in addition to it being the Jewish new year for the civil calendar, it is also an important date on the religious calendar. On the religious calendar it is Yom Terua, which is "the day of the blowing of the shofar." Most Bibles translate it as "The Feast of Trumpets." This holiday is commanded In Leviticus 23:24. It is a day of sacred assembly, rest, and special offerings.

It occurs 10 days prior to the Day of Atonement.   Calendar Jewish Civil Jewish Religious Gregorian (year 2008) Date 1st month, 1st day 7th month, 1st day sundown Sept 29th Name Rosh Hashanah Yom Terua   Yom Terua (i.e., the Feast of Trumpets) occurs 10 days prior to the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement is a religious festival, so this time we will start with the Jewish religious calendar.

As you quoted in your email, Leviticus 23:26 says: "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement." If we were following the Jewish civil calendar, it would be the first month and the 10th day. This year the Day of Atonement falls on October 9 on our Gregorian calendar (or more accurately at sundown on October 8th). The Jewish name for the Day of Atonement is Yom Kippur. There is no special name for this day on the Jewish civil calendar.

  Calendar Jewish Religious Jewish Civil Gregorian (year 2008) Date 7th month, 10th day 1st month, 10th day sundown October 8th Name Yom Kippur     Conclusion: So I guess the thing to take away from all this is that our 1st, 2nd, and other months have absolutely nothing to do with the 1st, 2nd, and other months of either the Jewish civil or religious calendars. In addition, our months are not lunar months, so (for example) there is no way to compare our 9th month (September) with their month Tishri. Their months will float around our months by a few days each year and seldom be in sync with ours. So when you read in the Bible that it was the 1st month, don't think of January in our Gregorian calendar. You will have to figure out if the Bible is referring to the Jewish religious calendar or the Jewish civil calendar and then work from there to get a sense of the season of the year.

Study Bibles are usually very helpful on this point, but you can also do your own calculations.As an example, take Genesis 7:11. This verse occurs in the story of Noah and God's judgment upon the earth by water. Genesis 7:11 says the flooding of the earth started in "the second month" of the year. So we will have to figure out if it is the religious calendar or the Jewish civil calendar that is being referred to.

It turns out to be the civil calendar (since the religious calendar hasn't been started yet), so it would be autumn. Furthermore, Genesis 7:11 tells us it was the 17th day of the 2nd month.You can actually use an online Jewish calendar to do some of the transition to Gregorian. If you go to the link on this web site for "Current Calendar" it will give you the major Jewish holidays. If you can figure out a little Hebrew, you can even see the day a Jewish month begins.

[The table found at the bottom of this page might be helpful in translating Biblical months to their modern Jewish and Gregorian equivalent.]From this web link I figured that if we had an anniversary day for the flood, we would commemorate it at sundown November 15 for the year 2008! And the rain would have stopped sundown on December 25 ("forty days and forty nights" later). This at least can give you a perspective regarding the time of the year that something happened. Neat Insights From All This Calendar Stuff: As you can see, this is tedious work, but sometimes looking at details like this can yield some interesting connections. For example, in Genesis 8:4 we are told that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat "on the 17th day of the seventh month.

" Noah and his family are saved! A very important day!Now remember the seventh month of the Jewish civil calendar is the first month of the Jewish religious calendar (see the table below, if you are confused). It is the month named Abib (also called Nissan). What happened on Abib 17 (Nissan 17) in the rest of the Bible? The resurrection of Jesus! The Passover lamb was always sacrificed on Nissan 14. Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover that evening after sundown - Nissan 15. Jesus was crucified and buried on Nissan 15.

His body remained in the tomb on Nissan 16. He was resurrected around 6 AM on Nissan 17! (Perhaps this is why Peter in 1 Peter 3:18-20 mentions Noah being saved in connection with Jesus being raised by the Spirit.) Similar delightful connections can be found for the giving of the law to Moses and the day of Pentecost in which the Holy Spirit was given to the church (Sivan 6).Jewish tradition assigns dates to many events where dates are not actually given in the Bible. According to Jewish tradition all these events happened on Nissan 15: Abraham battled four kings and delivered Lot (Genesis 14) God made His covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15) Angels visited Abraham before the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18) Isaac was born (Genesis 21:1-6) Jacob wrestled with the Angel (Genesis 32:25-29) Moses sees the Burning Bush (Exodus 3) The Israelites exit from Egypt (Exodus 12:24-32) - Of course, the Bible also gives Nissan 15 as the date for this event.

Daniel is thrown in the lions' den (Daniel 6) Nissan 15 is also the day that Jesus died on the cross for our sins! The LORD is wonderful in his ways!! The table that follows contains a list of the months with the various Jewish names both Biblical and modern:  # of Month of the Religious Calendar # of Month of the Civil Calendar Names Gregorian Equivalent 1 7 Abib; Nissan March-April 2 8 Ziv; Iyyar April-May 3 9 Sivan May-June 4 10 Tammuz June-July 5 11 Ab July-August 6 12 Elul August-September 7 1 Ethanim; Tishri September-October 8 2 Bul; Cheshvan October-November 9 3 Kislev November-December 10 4 Tebeth December-January 11 5 Shebat January-February 12 6 Adar February-March Intercalary month added about every three years so the lunar calendar would correspond to the solar year. Second Adar; Adar Sheni  

- FAQs Shouldn't the Sabbath be on Saturday? Q: My husband & I have been studying the sabbath. When scripture is illuminated concerning the sabbath and compared to our traditions of church history on the sabbath, truth is lost! The scriptures that the christian church has used for acknowledging the Sunday sabbath do NOT hold up in the word of God! Please share your thoughts on this. We are desiring to know the truth. Thank you! A: My study of the Scriptures and early church documents indicates that in regard to the Sabbath some definite change has taken place from the Old Testament. The conclusion that I have come to is that in the New Testament church there were as many attitudes to the observance of the Sabbath as there were to the keeping of the Mosaic Law.

These appear to have included the following four approaches: Jewish and Gentile Christians, like those in the Pauline churches who followed the teaching of the apostle and considered themselves free from the Sabbath commandment -- e.g. Colossians 2:16. Jewish Christians like those from Jerusalem whom Paul encountered in Galatia who regarded the observance of the whole law, including the Sabbath, as necessary to salvation -- Galatians 4:8-11. Jewish Christians like the Jerusalem apostles who continued to keep the Sabbath as part of the way they fulfilled their role as the true Israel, but did not insist on Gentile converts observing the seventh day -- e.

g. Acts 15. Gentile Christians who for various reasons decided to adopt Jewish Sabbath observance. The second group is clearly wrong. Sabbath observance where it is seen as part of keeping the law as necessary to salvation, arouses strong reactions from Paul.

Paul compares their adoption of Jewish Sabbaths and festivals to a return to bondage to "elemental spirits" (Colossians 2:16-17,20; Galatians 4:3,9). We are NOT saved by our observance of the Sabbath or by keeping any of the laws of the Old Testament (Galatians 3:10-11). Worshipping or not worshipping on Saturday is NOT a salvation issue (although some groups continue to act as if it is). You can argue that it is an obedience issue, but it is NOT a salvation issue. The conflict between the other three groups (Groups #1, 3, 4) is evident in Paul's letter to the Romans.

How does the apostle recommend handling the differences? Romans 14:5-6 isolates the observance of "days" as one of the issues between the strong and the weak Christians in Rome. The "weak" need to stop condemning the "strong" and the "strong" need to stop despising the "weak," and both need to welcome each other (Romans 14:1; 15:7). They need to recognize that he who observes the day and also he who does not are both intending to honor the Lord (14:6). As you continue to study this issue . .

. You will want to look at the practice of Christians holding worship activities on the "Lord's day": Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10. And the pattern of our Lord's appearances on Sunday: John 20:19,26. And the day of Pentecost happening on a Sunday: Acts 2:1. Something seems to be going on here.

Jews always gathered for worship on Friday evening and Saturday morning (they reckoned their day from sundown to sundown, as I'm sure you know). Yet here we have worship activities regularly taking place on the first day of the week. In terms of a weekly gathering, some change is obviously taking place. You will want to examine Hebrews 4:9-11 that seems to imply a fulfillment of the Old Testament Sabbath in a Sabbath-rest for New Covenant people.  You will also want to look at early church documents.

Here are just a few examples: - Barnabas 15:9 talks about Christians celebrating on the "eighth day" rather than the seventh day. - Justin Martyr's First Apology (A.D. 152): "We hold our common assembly on the day of the sun, because it is the first day, on which God put to flight darkness and chaos and made the world, and on the same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead; for on the day before that of Saturn they crucified him; and on the day after Saturn's day, the day of the sun, he appeared to his Apostles and disciples and taught them these things, which we have also handed on to you for your consideration." - "We have nothing to do with sabbaths or the other Jewish festivals, much less with those of the heathen.

We have our own solemnities, the Lord's day, for instance, and Pentecost." Tertullian (A.D. 220) There is also a theme that runs through the book of Hebrews 3:7-4:13 and also found in early Christian documents about the Sabbath rest being fulfilled in Jesus and the new covenant. Irenaeus (about A.

D. 190) says "he will not be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly keeping the sabbath, that is, giving homage to God in the temple of God, which is man's body, and at all times doing the works of justice." It appears to be Irenaeus' view that New Covenant people (Christians) don't merely keep one day for the Lord, but keep the sabbath continuously by loving and worshipping our Lord on all days and at all times. For more on early Christian practice see What Early Christians Wrote about Worship on Saturday and Sunday. The best book I know of on this subject is From the Sabbath to Lord's Day, D.

A. Carson, editor, Zondervan, 1982. There are a few Greek terms, but if you don't read Greek, just skip over the Greek terms in some of the essays. You will still find it very helpful in your study. Joy to you in Jesus, Dennis Rupert You may also wish to look at: Jesus and the Sabbath How to Apply the Old Testament to Today

Was Jesus God? Q: Was Jesus God? A: Absolutely. And He still is God. I am always surprised when people say that "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is God." Actually it says it in many, many places. The apostles say it.

Jesus says it about Himself. It is said by the Jews and the Romans who killed Christ. And it is said in many different ways. It is said in words. It is said in actions (like falling down in worship).

It is said in miracles. Here are just a few of the Scriptures that show that Jesus is God (complete deity, coequal with the Father, and one with the Father). Hebrews 1:1-3 says, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God�s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." You and I would know absolutely nothing about this God unless He told us.

Ours is a God who speaks. He speaks to us out of the silence of eternity. The Bible is the story of God�s self-disclosure. In times past God spoke through prophets, then later through His Son who is "the exact representation of God's being." The Scripture clearly affirms that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Verse 14 makes the identity of the Word clear: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." The Word who "was God" (v. 1) "became flesh" in verse 14.

Imagine a line. Everything below the line represents what we can perceive with our senses -- what we can understand and identify with our eyes, with our logic, with our test tubes. Everything above the line represents everything that we cannot perceive with our senses. The God above the line entered below the line of sense and perception, so that we could perceive Him with our senses. God chose to become a human being to communicate with humanity.

It would be similar to a human being becoming a cockroach to communicate with cockroaches. Really this isn't an exact analogy, since the jump that Jesus made was far greater: from Creator to creature. Human to cockroach is only creature to creature. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father�s side, has made him known." This creates a situation that is without parallel in world religions.

If I awoke to read the morning paper and I read "It has now been conclusively proven that nobody by the name of Confucius ever lived." It wouldn�t change a thing. The essence of the Confucius faith is found in the teachings. If I awoke to read the morning paper and it read "It has now been conclusively proven that nobody by the name of Buddha ever lived." It wouldn�t change a thing.

The essence of the Buddhist faith is found in its teachings. But if it was conclusively proven that Jesus Christ never lived, Christianity would collapse. The essence of the Christian faith is found in the person of Jesus. The teaching of Jesus is not really unique, except in the way Jesus talked about Himself: I and my Father are one (John 10:30). He that has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:7-9).

Before Abraham was "I am" (John 8:58). "I am" was the covenant name for God in the Old Testament (Yahweh). The Jews understood the significance of this statement, because they picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy (John 8:59). Remember Jesus was crucified because of blasphemy: "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18).

None of the prophets ever spoke like this. The prophets said, "Turn to the Lord and He will heal you." Jesus said, "Come unto me and I will give you rest." The prophets said, "Repent and God will forgive you." Jesus said, "I forgive your sins" (Matthew 9:2).

And when someone objected and said, "Only God can forgive sins." Jesus in essence replied, "Yes, that�s quite right." All through the gospels, Jesus is taking the place of God. Among all of the religious leaders of all time Jesus is unique. Muhammad never made any such claims.

Buddha never made any such claims. Confucius never made any such claims. Now there are those who would want to say, "I believe that Jesus is the founder of one of the world�s great religions. I believe that he was a great teacher, but this business about Jesus being God I just cannot buy." I can understand that reasoning, but that tells me that the person has not really thought clearly about what Jesus has said.

I don�t think Jesus has left us that option. This business about being a good teacher � He wasn�t a good teacher at all if He wasn�t what He said He was. There are many positions you can take with such extravagant claims: Of course he wasn�t God, but He thought He was. � I suppose there are many people in the Washington, D.C.

area who think they are God, but we don�t worship them, we pity them. Jesus didn�t seem, or act, or sound like a lunatic. Of course he wasn�t God and he knew he wasn�t God, but he claimed to be. � Well, if that�s the case then you ought to have nothing to do with him, because he�s the biggest fraud that ever lived. Let�s be rid of him once and for all.

Don�t hang around the church. If you do you are guilty of purveying massive error -- a massive world wide deception. He really was who He claimed to be. � If this is true, the conception of Mary�s child is the single most significant thing that ever happened upon the face of the earth. Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

The incarnation of Christ is the great event that split the centuries in two. There are many other places that clearly teach Jesus' deity: Notice the exchange of titles in the story of the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:8-11: And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.

" Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:26-28). Paul wrote: For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9:3-5).

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God... (Philippians 2:5-6). For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope�the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:11-13). The rules of Greek grammar indicate that both titles describe Jesus. But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever. (Hebrews 1:8).

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours. (2 Peter 1:1). Again the rules of Greek grammar indicate that both titles describe Jesus. The same grammatical construction appears in verse 11, where it is obvious that the titles there (Lord and Savior) apply to Christ. We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.

And we are in him who is true�even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20). If you have 30 seconds with a Jehovah Witness (who does not believe that Jesus is God) then have them turn to Revelation 1:8: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." A Jehovah Witness will tell you that this verse refers to God the Father, the God of the Old Testament.

So God is the Alpha and Omega. Alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. God is the Beginning and End of all things. Now have your JW friend turn to Revelation 22:13: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. To whom does this verse refer? Well, a Jehovah Witness will tell you it must refer to God the Father, since He is called the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8.

(Of course in verse 15 the speaker calls himself "Jesus," but perhaps there was a shift in speakers between verse 13 and 15. We will give the Jehovah Witness the benefit of the doubt.) Notice that the person who is the Alpha and Omega is also the First and the Last. So from a Jehovah Witness point of view: God = Alpha and Omega = First and Last. Now turn to Revelation 1:17-18.

John is writing about his vision and he says, When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." Here are the connections that we have seen so far: God = Alpha and Omega = First and Last = one who was dead and now alive! When did God die? The only answer is: "in Jesus.

" The inescapable conclusion is that Jesus is God!

When Did Satan Fall from Heaven? Q: Hi, Dennis. I'm hoping you can help me here. I've been asked for scripture relating to Satan being cast out...

a fallen angel. I responded with Revelation 12:7-13. It does relate the story. However, the person who I responded to said that would indicate the battle happens during the end-times, since this passage is found in the midst of end-time judgements. I re-read it and passages prior to it, and am thinking it is kind of a "flashback" of occurrences getting to that point.

But, I'm not convinced of that. Any thoughts? I don't want to leave the person hanging. A: Well, you asked for it. I always end up giving you more than you probably want. I also think that I am probably going to muddy the waters for you, rather than clear them.

Here goes... The "turning" of Satan happened prior to Adam & Eve eating the fruit, since Satan tempts them against God. The Bible calls him the first sinner (1 John 3:8), so in the sense of a "moral fall," Satan morally fell prior to the temptation of Eve.

Concerning a "geographical fall," the issue is much more complicated. After Adam & Eve's fall, Satan still had access to God's throne in heaven. This is seen in his appearances before God with the other angels (see Job 1:6,12; 2:1,7). It is clear that Satan has no authority in heaven, but he can appear there and accuse the brethren (cf. Revelation 12:10).

Although Satan doesn't have authority in heaven, he does have authority in the earth (Matthew 4:8-9; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12; 1 John 5:19). The term "falling from heaven" is a Near Eastern way of saying that someone is suffering defeat. The term is used in non-biblical literature to describe the fall of gods from power (For examples see these web sites: Hurrite Pantheon; Hittites; Hindu Myths). It's like our term "falling from grace." We don't mean an actual change of geographic position, rather a change of power or relationship.

All of the passages that mention a fall of Satan are somewhat symbolic, so it is hard to know exactly how to take them. The four passages are: Revelation 12:7-13 -- the one you mentioned Luke 10:17-24 Isaiah 14:12-17 Ezekiel 28:11-19 Let me take them one at a time. Revelation 12:7-13 Concerning the Revelation passage, it would seem that the woman spoken of is "the people of God," i.e. true believing Israel.

She gives birth to the Messiah. It is clear that the child is the Messiah, because only Jesus is the one who is said to "rule the nations with a rod of iron" (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27; 19:15). If John intended this prophecy as chronological, then the war in heaven (vv. 7-8) happens sometime between the birth and ascension of Christ (vv. 5-6) and before the second coming (v.

12). So your friend could be right. Either the war in heaven happened because of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, or it happened sometime between AD 30 and now, or it will happen sometime between now and the Second Coming. But taking any prophecy chronologically is always iffy, unless the prophecy clearly says so. George Ladd in his commentary on Revelation says: Here John employs apocalyptic mythological language to describe a spiritual fact.

We misunderstand the character of John's thought if we try to place this heavenly battle somewhere in the stream of time. John is only concerned with the fact that Satan is defeated....

The reference to Satan being 'hurled down' is only meant to describe Satan's actions against God's people losing their force. We are not to think of any actual change of domicile. I guess my own tendency IS to take the passage as chronological, but to take the "losing their place in heaven" (v. 8) as more symbolic of some sort of defeat, rather than an "actual change of domicile." So when did Satan suffer this defeat? This war in heaven appears to happen sometime after (or because of) Jesus' ascension to the Father (v.

5). I don't think we can say anything more certain than that. Luke 10:17-24 Now let's look at the Luke passage. Luke records Jesus' words: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18). Commentators have often tried to decide when in Jesus' thought this fall occurred.

In this passage, the fall of Satan is connected with the return of his disciples from a short-term missions trip. The disciples were able to cast out demons. This is somewhat similar to the statement in Revelation: "They overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony" (Rev 12:11). The shed blood of Christ is the real means of victory over Satan. The secondary means of victory is the actions of Jesus' people.

My own sense is that just as in Revelation the "fall of Satan" doesn't refer to any particular change of residence, but is a symbolic way of saying that he is being humbled and defeated by the actions of the apostles. This fits with Old Testament language regarding the fall of nations and kings. Isaiah 14:12-17 Concerning the Isaiah passage, some people believe that Isaiah is giving a description of the fall of Satan (vv. 12,15). But the passage clearly applies to the king of Babylon.

I really don't see any legitimate reason to see Satan in the passage. It is the king of Babylon who suffers defeat and humiliation here. Ezekiel 28:11-19 This a prophecy concerning the king of Tyre (see verses 2 & 12). But the prophecy seems to go beyond the king of Tyre, because of the symbolic language. Ezekiel calls the king "a guardian cherub" and refers to Eden.

What does this mean? Is this a veiled reference to Satan behind the king of Tyre? I honestly don't know. The imagery keeps shifting. Some of it could refer to Satan, I suppose, but some of it could also refer to Adam (in Eden, clothed only with precious stones around you, blameless until wickedness was found in you). And there are also symbols that seem to refer to the high priest of Israel (9 stones that are mentioned are among the 12 worn by the Jewish high priest, ordained to guard God's holy mountain, i.e.

Jerusalem). Whoever is being referred to here was "driven from the mount of God (Jerusalem), expelled from among the fiery stones, and thrown to the earth." Is the language just meant symbolically of the king of Tyre or is it a reference to some fall of Satan behind the king of Tyre? Honestly, it's just not clear to me. I guess you could see Satan behind the king of Tyre, but all of the imagery doesn't seem to fit Satan (e.g.

, "through your widespread trade, you sinned" -- v. 16). Furthermore, you are still left with the question, when did this fall happen? Is this a third fall of Satan? If it is a fall of Satan, then when was Satan driven from Jerusalem (v. 16)!? So here's my opinion: I don't think the Isaiah & Ezekiel passages have anything to do with Satan. I think that the reference to Satan's fall is a symbolic way of describing some terrible humiliation and defeat (the defeat must be defined and understood from the context).

Based on that I think that there have been a number of "falls" of Satan: the moral fall before Eve's temptation, Jesus' disciples on their mission trip, the death of Christ on the cross, the testimony of martyred saints. Of course, that is just opinion. Now for things that are NOT just my opinion: Jesus defeated Satan and all spiritual forces of evil at the cross (Colossians 2:14-15). The testimony and work of Christians is helping to defeat Satan (Revelation 12:11). Satan's ability to accuse us before God has been (or will be) limited (Revelation 12:10).

Satan will finally be defeated and his destiny is in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10; Matthew 25:41)! For more regarding Satan see Satan--His Infernal Majesty.

- FAQs Predestination and Foreknowledge Q: I just wanted to tell you I really enjoyed the teaching on Sunday. Both my wife and I have always been very interested in the "predestination" issue. The lesson spurred a good discussion between us. I've always been concerned that if there are people who are predestined to be saved, then that means there are others who are not. If that is correct, then aren't they just spinning their wheels through life, never having the opportunity to know God? I have a difficult time accepting that.

What I think is this: 1) That we were all known by God, in the beginning 2) God gave us the ability to choose, i.e.: Free Will 3) God knew which of us would/will choose Him 4) When Jesus died on the cross, He knew me, my wife, you, and others who will turn over their lives to Him. So, Yes, there is free will. Yes, there is "Predestination" in the idea that God already knows who will choose Him, before we are born.

Thus, when Jesus died for our sins, he died for the future sins of those of us who will ultimately choose Him? So... are we close? A: I have a bit of a different view on it. The view that you have espoused is really "foreknowledge" rather than "predestination.

" The "foreknowledge" view says just what you said: God knows ahead of time those who will accept him. This is a view that is held by some Christians. There was a Dutch teacher who taught this view. His name was James Arminius, so Christians who hold this view are often called Arminians. The difficulty I have with this view is on point #2 that you mentioned: "God gave us the ability to choose, i.

e.: Free Will." I can certainly agree that every individual has the ability to make choices, but this statement needs further clarification. The issue at hand is: "Does everybody have the ability to choose Christ and salvation?" Concerning that question I would have to say "no." Actually the Bible teaches that NO ONE has the ability to choose Christ and salvation.

In fact, no one wants to even seek after God (Romans 3:10-11; 8:7). Because we are so sinful and because we are born rebels, we do not even care to seek after God. Every part of our being has been affected by sin, including our "chooser" (Romans 8:7). In regards to salvation, our will is not free, but enslaved to our evil nature (John 8:44). So for someone to come to Christ, God Himself must reveal Himself (Romans 10:20) and draw them (John 6:44,65; Titus 1:15) and open their heart (Acts 16:14) and make them alive (Ephesians 2:1-5).

I realize that this view flies in the face of our American "can do", "I choose" culture. And I want to assure you that I believe in freewill regarding things other than salvation. But concerning salvation I am God-centered, believing that no man has the power (or even the desire) in and of himself to choose Christ. I also realize that this view creates logical problems such as you have mentioned: "I've always been concerned that if there are people who are predestined to be saved, then that means there are others who are not. If that is correct, then aren't they just spinning their wheels through life, never having the opportunity to know God? I have a difficult time accepting that.

" The writers of the Bible are also aware of these logical problems (example: Romans 9:14-24). My commitment has always been to the truth of whatever the Bible says (even if I can't make complete rational sense of it). I do believe that it will make sense one day. But I also know that I am a finite being and "God's thoughts are not my thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8). If you would like to do more study on this view, I would suggest a wonderful book called "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther.

It is very readable and persuasive. Two other classics on the subject are "The Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards and "Willing to Believe" by R. C. Sproul. Please understand that while this is an important topic, it is also an issue that Christians have debated for many years.

All of the elders of the church believe in "predestination," but we have many members of the church who do not and we still love one another and work together in Christ.

- FAQs Why would a loving God make a man, knowing that the man would reject God, and that God would then have to send the man to eternal damnation? Q: I've had a running email debate with a new age friend for most of a year now. Here is a question that I struggle with myself. Please give me your thoughts, but don't just say that "it's so because God is sovereign." That only works for us Christians. "Why would a loving God make a man, knowing that the man would reject God, and that God would then have to send the man to eternal damnation?" A tougher version for the Calvinist is "Why would God create a man with no intention of Electing/Calling the man, and then sentence the man to eternal damnation.

" A: There are some questions that just cannot be answered except from a creature/Christian perspective. God is God (that's the definition of God) and He can do what He darn well pleases to do. The problem with new agers and pagans (and some Christians) is that they try to create a god that is manageable, predictable, controllable, or intellectually graspable. But the very nature of Godness is to be "un-" all of those things. When Paul was asked this question he replied in the following manner: But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? -- Romans 9:20-24, The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

Paul gives three answers to your question: God is creator and can do what He wants with His creations just as a potter does what he wants with his creations. Those who are not chosen have a purpose, i.e. to demonstrate God's wrath and make His power known (v. 22).

-- It probably goes without saying that this will not sit well with humanists who see themselves as central to the universe. Those who are not chosen were created to make the riches of God's glory known to those to whom He is merciful (i.e., those of us who are chosen to be saved by the mercy of God). Mercy is revealed by contrast.

I doubt if this will be acceptable to your friend. It is not acceptable to many Christians who are basically humanists in their orientation. But it is the truth affirmed over and over again throughout God's Word. [See Who's In Charge Here?]

- FAQs What translation of the Bible do you recommend? Q: Obviously you study from Greek manuscript translations, but for those who don't (yet) read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, what translation(s) do you recommend? I have most recently been swayed by friends of the "King James only" school. And I have always felt that the Living Bible really misses the mark. A: The answer to your question depends on what you are using your Bible for. Most people in our church use the New International Version -- I know many of the translators from my seminary days and I recommend it. However, for serious Bible study, I recommend the New American Standard Version.

For understanding the argument of an epistle, I recommend Moffatt or Phillips. For a brand new Christian who is a poor reader, I recommend the New Century Version. Obviously, I avoid any "gender neutral" translations that intentionally change the meaning and gender of the original words. In other words, they add to or subtract from God's Word - a very dangerous practice (see warnings in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19). The New Living Bible is a paraphrase and not a translation (and at least in early days this was made clear in the Preface to that translation).

I have no problem using the NEW King James version. It's a good translation. However, I recommend against the old King James version, since it is written in a different dialect from 20th century English. I have found too many people who use the old KJV who fail to understand what they are reading. Others do exactly the opposite of what God intents, because they don't understand how words have changed their meaning from the time of the KJV translation.

One example of this was a woman who continuously talked about Christianity to her pagan husband. I found out about her evangelistic nagging and asked her why. She told me she was merely obeying the teaching of 1 Peter 3:1-2 which (in the King James Version) told her that her husband would be won by her "conversation." "Conversation" in 17th century England meant "behavior," not talk. She was doing the exact opposite from what the Lord commanded! I have other examples of the same sort.

I am amazed at the spiritual energy that is expended on the "King James only" debate. I certainly don't agree with the attempt to mistranslate or "update" God's Word (for example, Zondervan's recent attempt to put out a gender neutral translation - This is marketing by interpretation, not translation). But the "King James only" debate is basically an issue of whether we will use the most ancient Greek manuscripts as our guide or whether we will use the most numerous manuscripts as our guide. If you follow the most numerous manuscripts view then you arrive at something called the Textus Receptus (the "received text"). If you follow the most ancient manuscripts view, you put a heavy emphasis upon the oldest texts: for example the Alexandrian texts.

But when all is said and done, NO doctrines are changed by whether you use the New King James Version based on the Textus Receptus or whether you use the New International Version based on the Alexandrian texts. This is not an argument that affects ANY major doctrines. My opinion is that we should use the most ancient texts we have available and that they should be given heavier weight. This is the way all other ancient documents are reconstructed. But even if you choose the Textus Receptus, you are merely adding short phrases or words that already appear elsewhere in the Scripture or are already implied from the passage.

A good example of the latter is Luke 17:9. Jesus asks, "Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do?" If you look at the KJV they have after Jesus' question: "I trowest not." NKJV has "I think not." This is merely stating what is already obvious from what Jesus said. "I think not" does appear in numerous manuscripts, but not in the Alexandrian texts.

My opinion is that it was probably added by a copyist at some point, either because (1) the copyist wanted to make the point even more clear or (2) it was a phrase written on his original (perhaps in the margin or over top the words -- having been written by a former preacher or student) and he didn't know if it should be part of the original or not, so he erred on the side of caution and included it. As I said, I am amazed by the spiritual energy that is expended on this. I can't help, but think that the real motive behind the debate FOR SOME is to provide a reason for division and exclusiveness from the rest of the Body of Christ. The debate certainly seems to come from the legalistic, "we are the only true church" side of Christianity. I have to believe that some pastors are thinking: "If I can convince you that the KJV Bible is the only true Bible, then you will stay in my church rather than go to someone else's church that uses 'modern' translations based on the Alexandrian texts.

" Having spoken with some of those pastors, I believe that this is a fair statement of their true motive. It is sad when we have to manipulate people or create scare tactics to get people to remain in our churches.

How can God condemn people who never heard of Jesus? Q: I have a friend at college who is a new Christian and is questioning her beliefs. She had a question that I didn't know how to answer (at least, not in a way that she was able to accept). Why would a loving God allow whole civilizations (e.g. native Americans) to never have the opportunity to know him.

Also, how can condemning them to hell be justified when they were never given a chance to accept Christ as their savior? A: The answer to your question is found in Romans 1:18-2:16. In this passage Paul says that all men and women do know God (1:19-21) and yet they intentionally suppress the truth, so that they can live for themselves. Also all people have some sense of right and wrong written on their hearts (2:15), yet even though they know what is right, they continue to do evil. Because everyone knows there is a God and knows right from wrong Paul says "they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). A second answer to your question is that many people who lived in places where the gospel has never reached still know about Jesus, because God revealed it to them.

There is a great book on this called "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson (available in our church library) with stories of people from unreached tribes who knew about Jesus as a result of a vision or other means. A basic principle is that if we live up to the light we have, God will give more light. Unfortunately most people never live up to what they know and they do not seek God (Romans 3:11). But those who do seek God will receive more light. A third answer to the question is that it implies that God is somehow unjust in condemning people who never heard about Jesus.

This is not really fair to God. God does not condemn people because they reject Jesus. He condemns people because they are rebels, sinners, and rejecters of Him -- born that way from the moment of birth and prove it throughout their lives. In a real sense, God just gives every man or woman exactly what they ask for: "I want to live my life without God." On the day of judgment God says, "If that's what you want then that's what you will receive.

I am love, joy, peace, light, hope, security, pleasure, and refreshment. I will now send you to a place where I am NOT." We call this place hell. A fourth answer to your question is that people who bring up this question are seldom interested in unreached people. It is usually raised as an objection to Christianity, so that the person doesn�t have to personally deal with their decision about God.

If unreached people aren�t accountable to God, then there is probably hope for the person asking the question to get by without dealing with Jesus. If a person is so concerned about people knowing Jesus, then why are they debating God's fairness when they should be telling others about His Son. Two thousand years ago Jesus said, "Go into all the nations and proclaim the good news" (Matthew 28:19). After two thousand years that mission is still unaccomplished. Why? Because men and women have been too self centered to fulfill the mission.

After all this time it's really not God's fault that people don't know. It's ours. I hope some of this is helpful as your speak with your friend.

A million dollars to answer a tithe question! Sir, I read with interest Larry Burkett's article on tithing. I am not a member of any church and have been told that I have but a short time left. Before I leave I would like to leave my wealth to several churches or ministries. I would like to donate $1,000,000.00 to your ministry if you will help me solve a personal search.

For years I have searched the bible for the name of One New Testament Saint that paid a 10% tithe from the resurrection of Jesus. Please send me the verse and name where this happened. And my heart will be full. I have also searched early church History and cannot find where this was a practice. Do you know of any books where this was recorded as a Practice by the Early Church? Up to 70 AD.

R.J.A: Dear R.J., You can keep the million -- not interested.

But I do hope that you will allow me to make some comments about your challenge.First of all, I know of no books where the tithe was recorded as a practice up to A.D. 70, because I know of no early church documents that exist before A.D.

70. Tricky, tricky! The earliest church documents (other than the New Testament books) that I know of are Clement's letters (A.D. 90). Possibly the Didache is earlier (but that is debated).

So your challenge is a nice ploy, but not possible.Secondly, I know of no references to the tithe AFTER Jesus' resurrection. But then I don't really think that believers limited themselves to a measly tithe. They seem to have given much more than the tithe. Examples would be Acts 2:44-45; 4:32,34-37; 2 Corinthians 8:3.

Of course, before the resurrection there is a New Testament command to tithe from Jesus' own lips: People who don't agree with tithing, usually respond to Matthew 23:23 by saying Jesus was speaking "under the law." But to state that Jesus was "under the law" doesn't really answer the question as to whether the tithe is binding on Christians or not. There are many commandments that were part of the Old Testament law (like "don't murder") and repeated by Jesus that are carried over to the New Testament church. People who don't agree with tithing need to demonstrate that tithing is not one of the carryovers into the New Testament. It's not enough to simply state that Jesus said this because He or the Pharisees were still "under the law.

" See "How To Apply The Old Testament To Today." "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. YOU SHOULD HAVE PRACTICED THE LATTER, without neglecting the former." (Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42).

The Pharisees gave a tithe (tenth) of even their spices! Jesus says this is something THEY SHOULD PRACTICE. There are two things that I think create problems for Christians when it comes to the tithe: The first problem is that Christians think that the tithe is a purely Jewish and religious concept. The truth is that God simply used a concept that was familiar to all of the people in the Middle East. "Tithe" means "tenth" and referred to a 10% tax that was levied upon every subject who was under the protection of a king. The king says, "I will allow you to farm my land and I will protect you from invaders, robbers, and unrighteous neighbors.

In return I require 10% of everything you produce."The tithe was a secular practice in both Egypt and Babylon. It's not just a Jewish practice. You might have read about the Egyptian tablets that were discovered in Cairo that appear to be the oldest writing found to date. The Associated Press report says:"Clay tablets uncovered in southern Egypt from the tomb of a king named Scorpion may represent the earliest known writing by humankind.

.."But the subject they mostly deal with may be of no surprise at all. It's taxes."Gunter Dreyer, head of the German Archaeological Institute, said the tablets record linen and oil deliveries made about 5,300 years ago as TITHE to King Scorpion I.

"You can see this tithe and king connection in Scripture too in 1 Samuel 8:15-17. In this passage the prophet Samuel is telling the Israelites not to ask for a king. He warns them that if they get a king "he will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants�. He will take a tenth of your flocks and herds�" The word "tenth" is "tithe" -- same Hebrew word.So when God takes a secular tax concept and commands the Israelites to give him a tithe of everything they produce, what is He telling them?He is saying that (1) He is their king, (2) that He owns the land, and (3) that He will protect them.

This is why God gets so upset over people in the Old Testament not paying their tithe. It's not because God needs the money. Failure to tithe is a rejection of His kingship (Proverbs 3:9-10). Paying tithes recognizes the Lord as their King (see also the covenant renewals under Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 31:4-11 and Nehemiah in Nehemiah 10:37-39).Giving of the tithe is also recognition that God owns everything and the Israelites are merely stewards (Psalm 50:12; Deuteronomy 26:1-11).

When they failed to give to God, He accuses them of robbery (Malachi 3:7-9). They are keeping what is not theirs to keep.Tithing also meant that the King would watch over his people and bless them (Deuteronomy 14:29; Malachi 3:10-12). Failure to tithe meant that God was not obligated to uphold His part of the bargain to protect them (Haggai 1:2-11; 2:15-19). What the tithe principle teaches: God is our sovereign king.

Everything we have belongs to God. We are the renters or stewards (see Mark 12:1-12). He is the owner. As God receives His share of increase, He will provide protection against our enemies. God is still our king.

He still owns everything. We still need Him to watch over and protect us. I don't see where this principle ceases in the New Covenant.The second thing that creates problems for Christians related to the tithe is that most Christians have a misunderstanding of the validity of the Old Testament for today. I think that it's clear that the Old Testament has some continuing legitimacy for Christians today.

It's hard to ignore passages like 2 Timothy 3:14-17 where Paul says the Old Testament is profitable for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training." Or a passage like Matthew 23:1-3 where Jesus clearly upholds keeping even the minutiae of the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20) These are very strong words from our Lord's mouth. Those who encourage Christians to completely ignore the Old Testament commands disregard the teaching of Jesus.Now obviously Christians keep some laws from the Old Testament, but they ignore others, so what does this mean?The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament have been fulfilled in Christ. There is no need to continue to practice these according to the book of Hebrews.

These would be laws such as sacrificing an animal for sin or washing with water to make yourself ceremonially clean. Jesus is our once-for-all sacrifice and we have been cleansed by His blood. These laws are "accomplished" (Matthew 5:18).There were also national laws that related particularly to Israel as a nation. These were laws such as utterly destroying the people of Canaan, stoning people for practicing idolatry, or leaving the corners of your field unharvested for the poor.

These commandments may not have much authority to Gentile Christians who are called not to form one earthly nation, but to live in all nations of the world.But I see nothing in the New Testament that indicates that the rest of the Old Testament commandments cease to have some continuing validity. The commandments left over after removing ceremonial and national laws are usually called the personal moral laws of the Old Testament. The verses I've already mentioned (2 Timothy 3:14-17; Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 23:1-3) make it clear that the moral law has some usefulness and is to be obeyed -- at the very LEAST, by way of principle, if not specific detail.For more on this you might want to see our web page entitled "How to Apply the Old Testament to Today".

What this means is that every Old Testament command does not need to be repeated in the New Testament and we miss much of God's word if we expect it to be. For example, there is nothing in the New Testament regarding the sin of bestiality, but, I dare say, there are few Christians that would say that therefore, it is permissible to have sex with animals. The Old Testament moral law is still binding upon us.Requiring the Lord to repeat everything in the Old Testament that is still binding in the New Covenant reminds me of my children who say, "But Dad, you didn't tell me to go to bed tonight. You only told me last night.

" If the principle of tithing held during the times of the patriarchs, and Moses, and the nation, and Babylonian captivity, and during the return, and was restated by Jesus Himself, why does God have to repeat it again?I'm convinced that the tithe principle is not just a ceremonial law or a national law. This is why the tithe was practiced before Moses or Israel even existed. The tithe was a practice and principle before the tabernacle was ever created (Genesis 14:20; 28:22). The tithe is a moral principle for all time for all people everywhere who: (1) claim God as their King, (2) believe that He owns everything, and (3) desire His protection. Because Christians are so Old Testament illiterate and unfamiliar with their Jewish heritage they miss the entire significance of the tithe and end up arguing over percentages.

So let me wrap this up. R.J., in once sense you are right. Christians shouldn't believe in tithing just because it is in the Old Testament or even because Jesus commanded the Pharisees to do it.

We should check the rest of the New Testament to see what it says. When we do that I come to the conclusion that we should believe in BEYOND tithing. The tithe is something that has changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament, but the change is actually one of greater degree of giving, not less like people would like it to be. I base this belief on two Scriptures: Matthew 5:20 and 2 Corinthians 8:7. In the first Scripture, Jesus said our obedience to the law must "exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees" (Matthew 5:20).

Hear the challenge?So what is the goal we should strive to exceed. The Jewish people actually gave more than one tithe. The priests and Levites were excluded from owning hereditary land, so the Levites were to be given a tithe (10%) of all produce (see Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18:21; 2 Chronicles 31:4-11; Nehemiah 10:37). This tithe provided funds for them to minister in the temple and teach God's Word to the people. But there was also a second tithe commanded in the Old Testament.

The second tithe was to be consumed by the worshipper in his pilgrimages to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 14:22-27; 12:17). The Old Testament worshipper was required to go to the temple three times a year and so this tithe provided funds for travel, sacrifices, and lost wages. And in addition to the first and second tithe, there was another tithe. This tithe (called the third tithe by the Jews) was a tithe for the poor. It replaced the second tithe in the third and sixth year of the seven-year cycle, in which the land was allowed to lie fallow (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 26:12).

If you think I'm making this up, you can read about the law of tithes in the Jewish Talmud. There are copies of the Talmud on the net. Look up tractates Ma'aserot and Ma'aser Sheni. You will find as you read the Talmud that the Jews practiced these these three tithes even after kings began to rule and tax the nation and even when the Jews were under captivity by foreign powers. When you add up all of the tithes, the first-fruit giving, temple taxes, and redemptions you find that the Jewish people gave an average of 25% of their income to their King, i.

e. God. Jesus said our "righteousness is to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees"! So should we tithe? NO. A mere tithe wouldn't even approach what the scribes and the Pharisees did! [Here's where I get preachy:] I get tired of greedy, self indulgent Christians who whine about giving even 10% of their income to God. They have completely failed to understand either God's kingship over them or their Savior's generous sacrifice in becoming poor so we could be rich (2 Corinthians 8:9).

I agree with those who say there's nothing in the New Testament that mandates giving exactly ten percent of your income for kingdom purposes. But my interpretation is that the Old Testament gives me a sense of what God is seeking, and the New Testament gives me the encouragement to exceed the standard. I give because I have been loved first and I've been created by God to love Him back, and I've been given exciting opportunities to prove my love by investing in His kingdom. I'm only giving away what belongs to God anyway! I'm just a steward. One final comment: I do not teach "beyond the tithe" because I believe in the "prosperity doctrine.

" I realize there have been many people who have been abused and burned by televangelists and preachers who have twisted the Bible to finance their lavish lifestyles. If you'd like to read more on this see Alan Marshall's excellent essay on his web site entitled "Are You a Jabez Junkie?" I believe that Christians are the sons of God sacrificing for an eternal kingdom - investing all we have and all we are to baptize, teach, and disciple all nations! The Bible says that the "righteous requirements of the law continue to be fully met in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to God's Spirit" (Romans 8:4). Are the requirements of the law related to giving being met in Christians today? One final thought. In a passage about collecting offerings Paul commands us to "excel in this grace of giving" (2 Corinthians 8:7). I just have never been able to convince myself that giving 10% of my income is "excelling.

" Can you?Righteous, joy, and peace to you in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17), Dennis Rupert

Why do you feel the need to preach the law of the tithe? Q: Why equate giving with tithing? Why isn't the discussion of money simply about giving generously? Why do you feel the need to preach the Law? A: I agree! The discussion about money is simply about giving generously. Ah, but what is "generously"? There are varying views on that in the Christian community. The Old Testament gives us a place to begin. And this is why there is great benefit in preaching the law. My view is that some of the moral law is still binding (Matthew 5:17-19).

The law is GOOD (Romans 7:12; 1 Timothy 1:8). It is not the law that died, but I that died to the law (Galatians 2:19). So what good is the law? 1. The law REFLECTS THE MIND OF MY FATHER. How do I know what my Father wants? Read the Old Testament commands - New Testament too, of course.

The Old Testament law shows me the boundaries of His desires (but not the boundaries of His love). 2. The law HELPS ME MEASURE MY PROGRESS. The law is an exam God doesn't grade! Want to know how you are doing? Compare yourself to what God required of His chosen people. God's commandments are an exam for my encouragement, repentance and trust.

As Paul said the Old Testament "teaches, rebukes, corrects, and trains me in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). 3. The law REMINDS ME OF MY NEED FOR CHRIST. As I read God's righteous requirements in the Old Testament, I am constantly confronted with the wickedness of my heart. I see the law requiring three tithes of the Jewish people! Wow, and I complain about 10%! I see God judging the Israelites for grumbling over and over again.

Oops, that sounds a lot like me. The law is a sump pump bringing up what is underground in my heart. It reminds me of the depravity of my heart and points me to my constant need for Jesus. 4. The law is a ROAD MAP SHOWING ME WHERE THE MINE FIELDS ARE.

The law doesn't just tell me what to do. It tells me what NOT to do. If I listen, it tells me how to be protected and fulfilled in a fallen world. I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free. - Psalm 119:32 For more on this see "Free From the Law, But Not Against the Law".

In summary then: I apply the Old Testament law (and New Testament law) to my actions. I apply the gospel to my heart. Q: Here are a few things that I never hear pastors talking about when discussing the tithe: 1. Abraham gave a tenth of the SPOILS OF WAR; he did not give based on his "gross income". A: Abraham gave recognizing who his King and Protector was -- the one who gave him the great victory over the five kings.

The Scripture you refer to does not tell us whether Abraham also tithed on his "gross income." It is silent on the issue. But Abraham certainly had some recognition of God's kingship over him (Genesis 15:2) and Abraham was sacrificing something on all of those altars he was building around Canaan. So was Isaac. And Jacob either got the idea of tithing (Genesis 28:22) from his father or from the covenants made with kings in Canaan (upon which the idea of tithing is based - 10% of your profit was typically given to the king who owned the land - for more on this see A million dollars to answer a tithe question!).

Q: 2. The Bible commands the Jews to "Eat the tithe". What is the modern day analogue to this practice? A: There were actually three tithes required of the Jewish people (- for more on this see A million dollars to answer a tithe question!). The second tithe is the one you are referring to and was used in fellowship sacrifices (also called peace offerings) which were eaten on festival days in Jerusalem. It was like a large potluck supper -- in which the priests, all family members, and the poor attended.

I would think the analogue to this would be using a second tithe to pay for worship expenses, feeding the poor in our churches, and fellowship banquets. That's a start. My wife and I have also used our second tithe to attend seminars or pay our way to mission trips. Q: 3. Circumcision was also a practice of Abraham.

And not just a practice: an "everlasting covenant" between his offspring and God. It seems that any argument made in favor of tithing using Abraham as justification could also just as well be made for circumcision. No one deals with this. A: Circumcision is specifically set aside in the New Covenant by the apostles (Acts 11:2-3; 15:1,5; 21:21; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 7:18-20; Galatians 2:3; 5:6; 6:15; etc.).

Baptism now replaces circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Concerning tithing, nothing is said about setting it aside. Indeed Jesus at one point said that it should continue (Luke 11:42). Silence on an issue does not necessarily mean that God's moral law has changed. (Although in the case of the tithe, I do think there has been a change.

) Q: 4. What about the passage that says to be a "cheerful giver" and not to give under compulsion? A: Correct, attitude is important when you give. But so is obedience. I assume that if you have children, you want your children to be obedient AND to do it cheerfully. Just because they may not be cheerful does not mean you don't want them to be obedient! Q: 5.

There were 4 things the Jewish Christian New Testament church required of new gentile believers from the Old system: -- don't eat food polluted by idols -- don't engage in sexual immorality -- don't eat the meat of strangled animals -- don't drink blood Circumcision was left off this list even though it was an everlasting covenant and so was tithing. A: The issue in the Acts 15 passage you are referring to is whether the Greeks needed to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). A council in Jerusalem was convened to settle the issue. Circumcision was not required, but four stipulations were laid down in areas where Gentiles had particular weaknesses and where the Jews were particularly offended by Gentile violations. The relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians is the focus of these four requirements.

It's not meant to be an exhaustive list of what principles carry over from the Old Testament to the New Covenant. Also left off the list are: loving your enemies, prayer, being thankful and a host of over things that come from the Old Testament. Just because they are left off of the list proves nothing one way of the other. You'd have to look at other Scriptures in which the apostles speak to be sure about what continues and what does not. Q: 6.

The question is NOT, "Is it right to give?" Of course it is. Give until it hurts. But I feel it is dangerous to preach Old Testament practices to the New Testament church. A: DANGEROUS! Paul wrote to Timothy: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

" (2 Timothy 3:14-16). What Scripture do you think that Paul is referring to? The Old Testament, of course. Now I agree that it is dangerous to preach the Old Testament in an unbiblical manner. But the New Testament is full of Old Testament preaching. It is how we preach the Old Testament that matters.

I would submit that not preaching the Old Testament is very dangerous. Some Christians take the Word of God and divide it up into arbitrary pieces -- periods of history. This view is called dispensationalism. Anything not in "your piece" has no impact on you, no binding authority, and can be neglected. I don't believe this is a Biblical view at all.

Jesus and the apostles saw a unity between the covenants (Galatians 3:6-9,14-18,29), Gentiles being grafted into a Jewish covenant (Romans 11:1-32), and a continuing role for the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17-19; 2 Timothy 3:14-17). Some things do change as the covenant goes through different administrations, but the changes are made clear by the Scripture itself. When the Scripture is silent about a topic you must assume that it still has some continuing validity and force at least in principle. Even if there was a change in giving from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Bible is clear that this change would be to greater giving rather than less: "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). "Excel in this grace of giving" (2 Corinthians 8:7).

If this is the case, preaching tithing would be LESS than what is required, not more.

Why do you feel the need to preach the law? (Part 2) Q: Thank you for responding to my questions. You present a powerful case, and I have been doing a lot of thinking about this lately. I'm still not convinced that tithing is compulsory. But I'm really intrigued by your position. In fact, I thought of a bunch of new questions that exceed the scope of tithing.

I've never really understood what is and what is not binding from the Old Testament teachings. A: This is a super difficult concept in some ways, yet absolutely essential to understand, I think. You can see that it's difficult for the early church too. That had to hold church councils concerning the subject (Acts 15), they debated each other (Acts 11:1-18) and rebuked one another (Galatians 2:11-14). What changes take place when God is no longer working with one nation, but with all nations? What stays? What remains "everlasting?" But I think that there is a lot of guidance in the New Testament on these issues.

Most people make a major mistake when they read passages about believers being no longer "under the law" or believers being "dead to the law." Unfortunately they assume this means the law is no longer valid or important and they become "antinomians" (against the law). It is true that believers are no longer slaves to the law (under the law). It is true that we died to the law. But the law didn't die, we did.

What is the continuing use of the law? If you haven't already, you might want to check out Free from the Law, but Not Against the Law. This is the best summary I've found on the continuing use of the law. (It's not mine. I got it from a program called Sonship.) The law is good (Romans 7:12,16; 1 Timothy 1:8).

It has no power to save. But it does have power to guide and help us know the mind of God. I would highly recommend that you get a hold of one of these books. You'll get a lot out of them. They are written by evangelicals who are seminary professors and are very readable: The Covenants of Promise by Thomas McComiskey The Old Testament in the New by S.

Lewis Johnson Christ of the Covenants by Palmer Robertson Q: For example, circumcision is called an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his offspring. Paul says that we, Christians, are heirs according to a promise. (The promise made to Abraham, right?) Part of that promise, or covenant, was circumcision. Yet good ol' Paul says that circumcision doesn't have "any value". Circumcision --- OUT Tithing --- IN Sabbath --- OUT Ten Commandments --- IN (Although the Sabbath stuff is in the 10 Commands) A: Let me make my own list.

Circumcision --- CHANGED to baptism (Colossians 2:11-12) Tithing --- CHANGED. The tithe is a standard for Christians to start with ("excel in this grace of giving" - 2 Corinthians 8:7) Sabbath --- OUT (because of Colossians 2:16) Nine Commandments --- IN (because each is repeated and affirmed in the New Testament) Concerning circumcision, I think part of your difficulty here relates to the meaning of the Hebrew word for "everlasting" or "forever." The Hebrew word is olam and it doesn't necessarily mean forever and ever and ever. It's root meaning is "unto most distant times" or "unto hidden times." I don't want you to take my word for this.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (a standard reference book among evangelicals) says: "That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever," but "forever and ever." Both the Greek and the Hebrew word came to be used to refer to a long age or period, not necessarily perpetuity." There are other examples of olam not meaning perpetuity: Exodus 21:6; Isaiah 32:14-15; Numbers 25:13. What this means is that God's command to Abraham to circumcise his children is a covenant that will exist "unto most distant times," i.e.

times hidden from Abraham's sight. Abraham understood this meaning and that God's intent was for this command to be "for the generations to come" (Genesis 17:12), but not necessarily to the end of the world. Q: This stuff eats at me. There doesn't seem to be much unity at all between Old and New Testaments. Isn't this why Jews to this day have trouble with Christianity? We Christians think the Mormons are heretics, but we did the same thing to the Jews! We added and subtracted a whole bunch of stuff from supposedly God-breathed material.

A: Yes, you're absolutely right: this is why Jews have trouble with Christianity. But "we" didn't do anything to the Jews. God did. If God spoke in a second revelation ("In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." - Hebrews 1:1-2), then we are merely receivers of that revelation and attempting to follow it as best we know how with God's help.

The reason I'm not a Mormon is that Joseph Smith's "revelation" was NOT a revelation from God. The revelation we believe in came from God's Son, not some sinful man. God attested that His Son was indeed the savior of the world and that all He said was true. Smith's revelation comes no where close to anything like Jesus. Mormonism is a man-made "revelation," the New Testament is a God-made revelation.

Let me add this to the discussion of Jews and Christianity. Do you think that a Jew would be more attracted to a Christianity that has totally misplaced and ignored the law and the Old Testament or would he be more attracted to a Christianity that sees itself as being grafted into a Jewish covenant (Romans 11:17-29)? I think the latter. Although that's not a reason to accept my view (the only reason should be Biblical), it does help Christianity provide a bridge to Jewishness. At our church we take great delight in understanding and celebrating our Jewish heritage. At Easter time we usually celebrate the Passover and show the place of the Lord's Supper in the Passover ceremony.

We preach from the Old Testament with authority and power, since it is the continuing revelation of God's moral will. In our worship we try to be Jewish in our expressions. As a result of this we have a number of completed Jews (i.e. Jews who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah) who are members of our church.

Q: If you care to, I could engage you in an ongoing dialogue about these issues. But you have already done more than I could have expected. And I am grateful to you for taking the time to reply to a stranger. A: I've really enjoyed discussing things with you. I've appreciated your willingness to consider my "strange" views -- although I trust that you know that these views are not really strange, but were held by the Reformation greats like Knox, Calvin, and Luther.

Even if you don't become convinced, I hope that you won't consider me a "deceiver" (like one recent email) just because I teach the continuing validity of the principle of tithing.Here is a section that I just recently added to the page on "How to Apply the Old Testament to Today." It gives practical examples of how the law continues to provide guidance. For what it's worth.Why is This Important?I believe that the Bible doesn't just tell us how to be saved, but also how to live as saved people.

Paul said to Timothy that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The "Scripture" that Paul refers to here is mostly the Old Testament (see verse 15), so the promise is that between the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures (i.e. the Bible) a Christian can be completely equipped for every good work. The equipping of a godly man comes from both Testaments, not just one.

If we limit ourselves to the New Testament we run into a problem. There are many areas of life that the New Testament simply doesn't address. The Old Testament addresses these areas, but the New Testament is absolutely silent on certain issues.Here are some examples of Old Testament teachings and commandments that are important in living. I am totally unaware of anything said about these subjects in the New Testament and yet every Christian needs guidance for practical living on these issues:caring for the environment (Deuteronomy 20:19-20) caring for animals (Deuteronomy 22:6-7) what to do when you find a lost item (Deuteronomy 22:1-3) what does God think of hygiene and sanitation (Deuteronomy 23:12-13) may I marry a close relative (Leviticus 18:6-18) how many children does God want me to have (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 127:3-5) does man have dominion over the creation or does the creation reign over man (Genesis 1:28-29) cross dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5) having sex with animals (Leviticus 18:23) caring about the safety of others (Deuteronomy 22:8) abortion (Isaiah 44:24; Psalm 139:13-14) premarital sex (Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

I was speaking with a pastor about my concern that God will have to judge our nation because of our unrighteousness. He startled me by saying that he didn't think God would do that. He said that the New Testament says nothing about God judging Gentile nations for their sin. You know what? He is absolutely right! I can find numerous verses in the Old Testament (e.g.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12) about God holding the nations accountable for their wickedness, but not one in the New Testament. The practical outworking of this was that this pastor didn't see any need to try to work against the tide of abortion, homosexuality, divorce, or greed in our nation. It wouldn't matter anyway, since God wouldn't judge us.When we cut ourselves off from the Old Testament (i.e.

when we don't allow it to speak with authority to us) then we miss out on fundamental teachings from God.God bless,Dennis Rupert

- FAQs Questions on Free Will Q: I AM A BORN AGAIN CHILD OF GOD AND DESIRE TO PLEASE HIM IN THOUGHT, WORD, DEED, BODY, SOUL, AND SPIRIT! I LEARNED ABOUT YOU FROM MY DAUGHTER. PLEASE SHARE WITH ME YOUR BELIEF REGARDING THE WILL OF MAN. DOES MAN HAVE A FREE WILL? A: I do believe that man freely chooses and is not forced in his choices by anything external (i.e. God or Satan).

So in this sense, I certainly believe in free will. A person freely chooses what they want. Their choice is not coerced by any outside influence. In other words, there is not and never has been a person who wants to believe in Jesus, but God won't let him believe. In this sense our will in free to choose.

However, I believe we need to think more deeply about where our choices come from. We choose based on what we want. Choices come from our nature (what the Bible also calls our "heart"). We can diagram this connection in the following way: Our nature (heart)  --->  Our choices  --->  Our actions So what is the state of an UNbeliever's nature or heart? Put another way, what does an UNbeliever want? According to the Bible, an unbeliever's nature is a fallen nature. What is a fallen nature? What does a fallen heart want? According to God's Word, an UNBELIEVER is unable to choose good things (Romans 8:7).

He does not even seek after God (Romans 3:10-11). Concerning the choice of bacon or cereal for breakfast, the UNbeliever's will is free. In regards to salvation, an UNBELIEVER'S will is not free in the sense of being undetermined, totally random, or arbitrary. His choices come from his heart and his heart is enslaved to sin and does not desire to choose God's way (John 8:44). Martin Luther called this the "Bondage of the Will" and his book by that title changed my thinking on this.

Other verses which talk about the condition of an unbeliever's heart or an unbeliever's nature and what an unbeliever desires are: Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Psalm 58:3; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19; Romans 3:9-12; 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-3; 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; Titus 1:15; 3:3. Because of this I believe that an unbeliever needs the help of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-7; 6:63) to come to repentance and submit to Christ's Lordship (John 3:1-7; John 6:44,65; Titus 1:15; Acts 16:14). Because a believer has a new nature (heart) created by the Holy Spirit, then a believer's will is free to choose righteous or sinful things. However, I believe that the Scriptures place two limitations on this freedom: (1) A believer is not able to ALWAYS choose righteously and perfectly -- i.e.

attain a state of sinless perfectionism in this life (1 John 1:8). (2) I do not believe that a believer will choose to absolutely reject Christ and continue unrepentant in sin. I believe that God's Spirit "keeps" the believer (Jude 24) or will take him to heaven prior to that condition (1 John 5:16). So I return to your original question: "Does man have a free will?" Every person has a free will in the sense that every person chooses what they want. Their will freely chooses from their heart.

God never stops a person who wants to believe from actually believing. But a will is not something that exists by itself. We choose based on what our heart wants. The Biblical view of the heart is not very pretty. An unbeliever's heart is "corrupt" (Jeremiah 17:9), "loves darkness" (John 3:19), is "under the power of sin" (Romans 3:9), and "desires what the devil wants" (John 8:44).

If this is true, then an unbeliever's will is free to choose what he wants. BUT he doesn't want to choose Christ. So in this sense, an unbeliever is unable to choose God, so an unbeliever is not free to choose God. Why? Not because God prevents him, but because an unbeliever doesn't ever want to choose God. As Romans 3:10 says: "No one seeks for God.

" Something or someone has to come into an unbeliever and change his heart, so that he will want to choose God. You can read more about my opinion on this on our web site at FAQ: Predestination and Foreknowledge. Q: TO WHAT EXTENT DOES GOD CONTROL MAN'S WILL? A: I believe that God changes a man's nature (heart) and from this changes a man's will. Q: SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS: 1. DID GOD CAUSE ADAM TO FALL IN SIN? DID GOD MAKE ADAM FALL? A: Honestly, I'm not smart enough to figure all of this out.

This issue confuses first and secondary causes. Adam freely chose and was not forced externally by God to fall into sin. The Scripture doesn't speak in these terms, so I don't either. On the other hand, we cannot deny that God is the first cause of everything (Acts 17:28). God certainly created Adam knowing Adam would sin.

I like what the Westminster Confession says on this: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Q: 2. DOES GOD CREATE A LARGE PORTION OF MANKIND TO GO TO HELL? OR DOES HE WISH THAT ALL BE SAVED AND THEREFORE GIVE EACH THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE SAVED? A: Yes (Romans 9:21-23; Proverbs 16:4). Yes (2 Peter 3:9). And Yes (Romans 1:19-20).

To affirm all three statements may seem contradictory, but actually (in logic) these statements are contraries not contradictions. A contradiction is to say A is true and not A is true, as in "The wall is red" and "The wall is not red." This is a contradiction and, of course, makes no sense. But a contrary has only the appearance of being false. For example, "The wall is red" and "The wall is blue.

" This appears at first to be impossible, but upon further reflection or further information we may find that both statements are indeed true: "The wall is made up of an interwoven red and blue design." The Bible seems to clearly affirm all three of the above statements. God creates people to go to hell. God desires all men to be saved. And God gives every person the opportunity to know Him.

Do I understand completely how it all fits together? No. But simply because I don't understand doesn't mean that I should deny one of the propositions, so that it will appear more intellectually palatable. I assume that there are some things (like the working of God's purposes) that are above my understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9). Actually it would be human arrogance not to believe this. I rest in the fact that each statement is true and eventually I will understand how they all fit together (1 Corinthians 13:12) - if not in this life, then the next.

- FAQs Did God change His mind? Q: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE SCRIPTURES THAT SAY "GOD CHANGED HIS MIND". WHY WOULD HE NEED TO IF HE IS PERFECT AND KNOWS ALL THINGS FROM BEGINNING TO END? A: I assume that you are referring to passages like Jonah 3:10: And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of [or changed his mind concerning] the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Other passages are: Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:11; Psalm 106:45; Hosea 11:8; Joel 2:13. Some people view these Scriptures as contradicting other statements like Malachi 3:6: I am the Lord, I change not or other passages like James 1:17 or 1 Samuel 15:29. This contradiction is not real, only apparent.

In logic this is called a fallacy of equivocation, i.e. using a word which has two different meanings. In one sense, God never changes in His character. However, God does change in his dealings with people.

Take the example of the Ninevites in the Jonah passage quote above. God's character towards the Ninevites has not changed (Jonah 3:10). He is still the same holy and righteous God that He was before Jonah's preaching. But when the Ninevites changed, God's dealings with them must change. God decided not to punish them based on a change that happened in the people (e.

g. Nineveh's repentant attitude). What changed was the people, not God's standards or God's nature. So we may say that God's character never changes, but His dealings with men change as they change from ungodliness to godliness. When a man bicycling against the wind turns around and goes with the wind instead of going against it, the wind seems to change, although it is blowing just as it was before.

Can Satan read minds or put thoughts in your mind? I would like you to answer the following question or direct me to the Bible, or course, if this specific question is answered clearly. I am currently leading a bible study on Revelation and we discussed Satan last week. My statement to the class was that Satan can put thoughts into your mind. Now, I'm not so sure about that statement.  I have searched and searched and am not sure about the following: Can Satan put thoughts into your mind or does he just use things such as: what you have heard from others, areas of your life that you have given into that are now a weakness, things that you have seen before, etc.

? This has turned into a very puzzling question. I know that Jesus was tempted by Satan, but Satan was literally standing before Jesus. A: The short answer is that I have been asked this question a number of times and to the best of my knowledge Scripture does not explicitly address the issue. If you would like a longer reflection on the subject continue to read on. Your question is related to the question, "Can the devil read your mind?" or, more broadly, "Can mental communication happen between Satan and a human being?" My experience, (which really means nothing because it is only experience, not revelation from God) - my experience seems to be that demonic thoughts are sometimes projected into my mind.

I know that I am a sinner and I have a tremendous amount of wicked thoughts that come from my own heart. But there are times when I think, "Where are these thoughts coming from? They seem out of character even for my depraved heart." One of the tactics that was very helpful to me in overcoming addiction was to rebuke these evil thoughts and ask God to put pure thoughts into my mind. I would often receive an immediate silencing of these voices and then could deal with the temptation without the added stress of "alien input." But I am the first to say that I could be completely misinterpreting my experience.

Perhaps these thoughts actually come from my own heart and I'm just more sinful than I want to acknowledge. Satan has had 6,000 plus years of viewing human beings. He is an expert in observational intelligence. Maybe Satan puts thoughts in our mind the same way other people do. How many times has another person introduced a destructive or ungodly thought into your mind - not by mental telepathy, but more normal means? I remember reading about the Mapplethorpe exhibit of purported 'art' in my local newspaper when it was at the height of its shocking infamy -and I've never been able to rid myself of the images created by what I read.

Though we are not even to speak of what things the wicked do in private (Ephesians 5:12), our culture now parades these very things before us as a matter of public discourse, law, and entertainment. So it is easy for me to understand how Satan can manipulate my thinking by outward means. Other people certainly do. But let's lay aside experience and talk about the Bible. To the best of my knowledge there is no direct statement in the Scriptures such as "the devil can read your mind" or "the devil can put thoughts in your mind.

" There is also no example in the Bible that I am aware of such as "Satan knew David's thoughts and so he...". Since Satan is an angel it would help us if we had a clear statement about angels reading minds or communicating through mental telepathy, but again I am at a loss to know where this is in the Bible.

We could perhaps answer the question in the affirmative by looking at the power of demons. Demons and Satan are separate individuals, but I would guess that whatever powers demons have, Satan would also have. There are examples of people who are forced to speak by demons (Mark 1:23-24,34; 5:9; Acts 16:17). Are these demons controlling the person's mouth by direct thought manipulation? Perhaps. But these are examples of people who are seriously demonized, where demons have taken up residence "inside" the person.

Would this be true for a normal individual? Probably not. Would it be true for a Christian? I certainly don't think so. I think Job is a relevant example illustrating the likelihood of a negative answer to the question. God knew Job's mind (because God is omniscient), but Satan knows only what he sees of Job and what he believes Job's response will be to trouble. Satan evidently believed that if he could abuse Job, Job's faith would crumble (Job 1:11; 2:4-5).

He clearly didn't know Job's mind and God did (Job 2:10). On this example, we'd conclude that Satan cannot read minds. Of course, this is just a kind of logical assumption from one example and I'm always hesitant about establishing a doctrine based on assumption or single illustration. It's worth mentioning -at the same time- that Scripture ascribes omniscience (which would have to be closely related to mind-reading, right?) solely to God. There are a number of examples of God knowing a person's thoughts (Psalm 139:4) and Jesus knowing thoughts (Mark 2:6-8).

There is never anything like this said of Satan. So in spite of what we have read or seen in science fiction, mind reading and thought communication is probably the privilege of God alone. How we apply conclusions is often as important as the conclusions we reach. I knew someone who believed that Satan could NOT read your mind, so he became paranoid about what he would say. It became a secrecy game between him and Satan.

He even stopped voicing his prayers (since this would tell Satan about his weaknesses and his strategies). He "thought" his prayers to God, rather than spoke them. This may seem to be a sensible application, but we must always check our applications (not just our conclusions) against the Bible. Of course, we see nothing of this in the Bible. Believers in Jesus Christ don't need to live in fear or try to keep information from Satan.

I assume that if this were a vital question, that our Father would have given more revelation on the subject. Apparently, it is not a central issue for spiritual warfare or resisting Satan. Whether he knows our thoughts or doesn't know them, whether he puts thoughts into our minds or thoughts come by other means, we can still resist Satan by being alert (1 Peter 5:8-9), giving him no foothold (Ephesians 4:27), talking to God (Matthew 26:41), trusting our Father for power (1 John 5:4), etc.

- FAQs Are all sins the same? Could you please tell me where I can find scripture where it states that all sin is the same? I would greatly appreciate it. A: Is all sin the same? Yes and no - it depends on what you mean by "the same." They ARE the same in that any one sin is enough to keep us out of heaven. James 2:10-11 would be a Scripture that teaches this. In this sense even the littlest sin makes us a lawbreaker (like Adam and Eve) and this is offensive to God who is holy, pure, and righteous.

His justice demands punishment of even one sin. And God is so pure that He is unable to live in the presence of someone who has committed even one sin - see Habakkuk 1:13. Other Scriptures along this line would be Psalm 130:3; 143:2; Romans 3:23. In this way, all sins are the same. But all sins ARE NOT the same in their effects or their judgment.

God clearly sees some sins as more wicked and heinous than others: For example, there are eleven sins listed in the Old Testament that require the death penalty. Why did God tell the judges to give different punishments, if all sins are exactly the same? There are also passages in the Old Testament which speak of "great sin": Exodus 32:21,30,31 and 2 Kings 17:21. "Great" is a comparative adjective. Apparently God's Word looks at some sins as "greater" than others. In the New Testament Jesus talked about "least commandments" (Matthew 5:19) implying that although all commandments are important, some commandments are more important than others.

Jesus also talks about an "eternal sin" (Mark 3:29) which cannot be forgiven. This shows that Jesus makes distinctions in the penalties of sins. Why different penalties for sin, if all sins are the same?

- FAQs Can the Holy Spirit be taken away from us? assurance of everlasting life article and I completely agree, but I have family that are Pentecostal, and they are pretty unsure of their salvation. Although I think these doctrinal discussions are secondary issues, I believe it's a great blessing to be at peace knowing that you have permanent salvation. I know that from a human point we don't really know if someone else is saved for sure, but I think that from God's perspective it is "once saved always saved." I have looked at different passages that kind of point out that you can lose your salvation, but the one that my family always points to is 1 Samuel 16:14, where the Holy Spirit was taken away from King Saul. Why, if we can't lose our salvation, did he lose it? And the question arises, is he in heaven or hell? I know that the passages that declare assurance are overwhelming, but I just can't explain this passage.

A: The Holy Spirit was given to Saul in the Old Testament because he was the king of God's people, not because he was saved. In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit was only given to prophets and leaders (like the judges and kings). These people were said to be "filled" or "stirred" by the Spirit or the Spirit "rests on them" or "comes upon them" or is "put upon them" (see Exodus 31:3; Numbers 11:17,25; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 13:25; 14:6; 1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Chronicles 15:1; Ezekiel 2:2; etc.). In the Old Covenant the purpose of the Holy Spirit was mainly for gifting and empowering.

People like Gideon, Samson, Saul, and David received the Spirit to gift them for leadership. The prophets received the Spirit so they would speak the very words of God. Every believer did not receive the Spirit. And God's Spirit could be taken away. This is why David (after being convicted of his sin of murder and adultery) prays, "Do not take your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11).

There are even examples of the Spirit "coming upon" unbelievers in the Old Testament: Balaam (Numbers 24:2), possibly King Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1.) At Christ's baptism it is specifically pointed out that something different is happening. John the Baptist declares that the Spirit "remains on" Jesus (John 1:32) - the anointing of the Spirit isn't temporary for Jesus! In the upper room at the last supper Jesus says the Father will give them the Spirit "to be with you forever" (John 14:16). The lasting presence of the Spirit is now being given to those who are Christ's disciples! In the New Covenant the Spirit continues to empower, but now he also seals believers in Christ (Ephesians 4:30) - like the seal placed on an envelope - it can only be opened by the owner. Just as in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant it is possible for the Holy Spirit to empower or use someone for ministry who isn't saved.

Judas would be a good example of this. Judas was apparently empowered to do miracles along with the rest of the group (Luke 9:1-6) and yet was always a "son of damnation" according to Jesus (John 6:70-71; 12:4-6; 17:12). Hebrews 6:4-8 would be another example of this. God will use whomever He wishes to accomplish His kingdom purposes, even unbelievers. But a person who believes in Jesus is not merely used by God; He is loved by God.

And once he becomes a believer, he is "sealed [strong word] guaranteeing [another strong word] his inheritance" (Ephesians 1:13-14; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; 5:5). So the bottom line is King Saul never had a heart for God, was never a believer, and the Spirit was given for leadership empowerment. It was taken away when God rejected Saul as king. But in the New Covenant, a believer in Christ receives the Spirit, not just to gift him, but to remain with him "forever." The Spirit is a "seal" given as a "guarantee" of our salvation.

Take the time to read the verses that I have referenced. You will be greatly blessed. This teaching is VERY absolute in the New Testament and appears in the writings of John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, Peter, and Jude.

- FAQs Where did Jesus go between His death and resurrection? I always thought that when Jesus died He committed His spirit to the Father and went to heaven. But if that's the case, why do we say in the Apostles' Creed that "he descended into hell." Which is it? A: What can we say for certain about Jesus' location? Jesus said to the repentant rebel, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). So the question is: "Where was paradise?" Where Was Paradise This isn't as easy to answer as you would think. The problem is that there is not agreement in the writings of the Jewish people about "paradise.

" Both before, during, and after Jesus' time, the term "paradise" has different locations and includes different people. Sometimes it is located in the distant East; sometimes identified with the third heaven; sometimes located on the perimeters of the circle of the earth-like a Greek view of the Elysian Fields. Sometimes it is talked about as a compartment of Hades (Hades being the place where all dead people went), that is, the happy side of Sheol where the righteous went upon death. Sometimes it is the home of the specially privileged few, the abode of those who haven't seen death, like Enoch & Elijah. What can we say for certain? If we go by Jewish literature, we can't say much with any certainty.

The only agreement is this: it is the place of the righteous after death. Key Passages So what does the Bible say about where Jesus went and what he did between His death and resurrection? These are the key Scriptures that you should read: Concerning the Old Testament saints - 1 Samuel 28:3,13-15; Luke 16:19-31. Concerning Jesus' location and activities - Luke 23:43,46; Acts 2:24; John 20:17; perhaps 1 Peter 3:18-19. Scriptures that equate paradise with heaven - 2 Corinthians 12:2,4; Revelation 2:7. Scriptures that (in my opinion) are taken out of context and don't apply - Ephesians 4:8-10; 1 Peter 4:6.

I'd recommend reading the above Scriptures before you read the next section. Two Acceptable Views The two orthodox views of Jesus' location and what He did are the following: Paradise was (and still is) the third heaven - the place where God's throne room is located - just as 2 Cor 12:2,4 and Rev 2:7 teach. Jesus committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and His spirit went to where the Father was. On Sunday God reunited Jesus' spirit with His resurrected body - just as ours will be. In this view, the phrase "He descended into hell" in the Apostles' Creed refers not to after His death, but while Jesus was still on the cross.

There, in the experience of forsakenness ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" Mark 15:34), the full torment of Hell was cast upon Jesus. The strength of this view is that it is straightforward and uncomplicated. It follows the same pattern that all Christians will follow: our spirit goes to the Father, it remains with the Father until it is reunited with our bodies at our resurrection.   Paradise was a compartment in Hades. Hades was the place where all the dead went before the resurrection of Christ.

The wicked went to a place of torment (Luke 16:22-23). The righteous went to "paradise," also called "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16:22), where they were conscious and were "comforted" (Luke 16:25). According to this view, when Jesus died His spirit went to the place in Hades where the righteous were. Why did Jesus go to Hades? Perhaps to proclaim His victory to disobedient "spirits in prison," either human or demonic (1 Peter 3:18-22). He did this, however, while actually staying in the paradise precincts.

At some point - either the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:50-53) or the resurrection of Jesus or the ascension of Jesus - Abraham's Bosom was emptied and all the Old Testament saints were led into heaven. Heaven is now the new location of paradise (2 Cor 12:2,4; Rev 2:7). After the taking of the righteous to heaven there is only one area of Hades left, the place of torment. The unrighteous dead await final judgment in Hades, when Hades will be cast into the "lake of fire" (Rev 20:14), or "hell."According to this view, the meaning of the phrase "He descended into hell" is that Jesus' body died and though His body was still on earth in a tomb, His spirit literally descended into Hades.

This may be the meaning of Peter's comment about "the agony of death" that Jesus was freed from (Acts 2:24). Death itself was an "agony" that He suffered with the righteous in paradise until the third day. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that Jesus' humiliation consisted of, among other things, receiving "the wrath of God and the cursed death of the cross, in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time" (Q27). The Larger Catechism, with it's larger answer puts it, "Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of death, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been expressed in the words, He descended into hell" (Q50). Many hold this second view with the difference that Christ's proclamation in Hades (1 Peter 3:19) was to the Old Testament saints who needed to hear the gospel in order to be saved.

This is not taught in the Bible. Instead the Bible clearly teaches that the Old Testament saints were saved through faith in the promises of God (which included the coming Messiah) - for example, see Acts 4:12; Romans 3:10-12,19-20; 4:3-8,23-24; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Galatians 3:6-11; Hebrews 10:1-12. Bottom Line Where was Jesus' spirit and what did He do? We aren't given a lot of clear information - just as we aren't told where Jesus is between resurrection appearances. In my opinion, the evidence is so scanty that we can't be dogmatic. Either of the above views has been considered orthodoxy by the Christian church, although one denomination may embrace one view or the other.

Both views agree that heaven and paradise are now the same place and that this is where the souls of dying believers immediately go to be with Christ (2 Cor 5:6-8; Phil 1:23-24). We can be unified on this point. And we can also say, as Michael Horton writes in his book on the Apostles' Creed, "His hell gained our heaven; his curse secured our blessing; his incalculable grief brought us immeasurable joy." (We Believe, pp 101-102.)

- FAQs Is what the Jehovah Witnesses are teaching me correct? I am currently torn in my faith. I was/am a Christian that is searching for answers. I have been in the United Kingdom for 3 months and I welcomed Jehovah Witnesses into my home. We started to study together and I am now confused in my faith. Their beliefs are different, but made much sense from the scripture.

For example, celebrating Christmas and birthdays aren't true worship. I keep reading scriptures that relate to this in 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 and Isaiah 52:11. This is what they pointed out to me. They also told me that having pictures, crosses, jewelry, etc..

was also false religion. That we shouldn't use images in worship/prayer (Exodus 20:4; Isaiah 42:8 and 1 John 5:21). Is this to wrong to do? Also did Jesus die on a stake or a cross. If a stake why do we associate it with a cross? The big one that concerns me is the trinity. Is Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit the same.

For it says that Jesus was GOD'S first creation and this indicates that he was created and had a beginning. God has no Beginning or End. In the scripture John 1:1 says that "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (or a god according to the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. Ok, the trouble is we all agree that the Word is Jesus (John 1:14), but if Jesus is God, how can you be with someone and be that someone (John 1:1)? Also, doesn't it say that no man can see God? If they are equal why does it say that the Father is greater then the Son (John 14;28; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 17:1)? I come to you for advice with Scripture truth. I need some guidance in the right direction to the truth.

Please, if you can help I would greatly appreciate it. A: Some of the questions that Jehovah Witnesses ask can really mess with your mind. At the same time, it's good to know the answers to their questions - because there are good answers - so that your faith in the Truth can be solid. The first (and most important) point concerning the Jehovah Witnesses is that they lead people back to the slavery of legalism and salvation by works. Now if you are a Christian at all (and by saying that, I'm not doubting that you are), you should know that isn't right.

Talking with the Jehovah Witnesses feels like moving from peace into bondage; from relationship to a Person into following a set of rules. It feels that way, because it is. It's all about "Do not taste, do not touch" (Colossians 2:20-23): Do not participate in blood transfusions Do not donate your organs Do not sing the national anthem of any country Do not salute any flag Do not join the armed forces Do not vote Do not celebrate birthdays or anniversaries Do not celebrate Christmas Of course, you already recognized this when you sent the email, because the first thing you wrote about was what NOT to do (Christmas, birthdays, pictures, crosses, jewelry). In Jehovah Witness teaching, salvation is a reward for good works. In their book Let God Be True they express this belief: "All who by reason of faith in Jehovah God and in Christ Jesus dedicate themselves to do God's will and then faithfully carry out their dedication will be rewarded with everlasting life.

However, that life will not be the same for all. The Bible plainly shows that some of these, that is, 144,000 will share in heavenly glory with Christ Jesus, while the others will enjoy the blessings of life down here on earth." (Let God Be True, p. 298). The Watchtower indicates that salvation is determined not by trusting in Jesus Christ, but by loyalty to the Jehovah's Witness leaders: "Your attitude toward the wheatlike appointed 'brothers' of Christ.

..will be the determining factor as to whether you go into 'everlasting cutting off' or receive 'everlasting life.'" (The Watchtower, August 1, 1981). This helps explain why the Jehovah's Witnesses evidence such great zeal in spreading their teaching from house to house - they are doing it to earn their salvation.

Of course, the JWs will talk about "faith," but by this they mean intellectual assent to their teachings, not "trusting" in Jesus like the Bible means the term. True Christianity is about trusting Jesus Christ, who saves us by His righteousness. It's all about the experience of a personal relationship with Jesus (through the Holy Spirit). It's about grace and undeserved mercy. You will hear very little about these things in Jehovah Witness teaching.

They really have missed the heart of the gospel. They have even missed the purpose and meaning of the cross. There are a lot of nit-picky items we could discuss about the Jehovah Witnesses, such as the celebration of Christmas or the wearing of crosses. In my opinion, these are all things that Paul calls "non judgmental items." See Romans 14:1-5, 13-18; Colossians 2:16-23.

Each Christian is permitted to make up their own mind about such things. We shouldn't judge another person on the basis of their conviction on these issues. These are issues that the Bible doesn't command you to do or prohibit you from doing. By the way, to quote Bible verses about "being separate" and "touching no unclean thing" is a very typical legalistic appeal. They quote these verses to play on your guilt without proving that the Bible actually teaches that Christmas, birthdays, flags, or jewelry are "unclean.

" It isn't really fair and it's a logical fallacy called the Loaded Question. A Loaded Question is a question that has another question or an assumption mixed up in it. The assumption is made that celebrating birthdays is unclean (without proving it), then they ask, "Doesn't the Bible say to "touch no unclean thing"? Wait a minute! Let's deal with the hidden question: "Are birthdays unclean things in God's eyes?" The same thing is happening when JWs quote passages about idolatry (Exodus 20:4; Isaiah 42:8; and 1 John 5:21). The Loaded Question is, "Doesn't the Bible tell us not to worship idols?" Of course, it does. But the JWs are assuming that having a picture of Jesus or wearing a cross is an idol.

Is it? An idol is an image of something used for worship. If you are worshipping pictures, crosses or your jewelry, then you are sinning. But if you are not worshipping your cross, just wearing it for witness or to remind you of what Jesus did on the cross for you, then be at peace. Oh, yes. You asked about whether is was a cross or a stake.

It was a cross. We have drawings (like the one at right) and descriptions of crucifixions from the time of the Romans. They all involve a cross beam used to stretch out the arms. Nails were placed through the wrist (part of the "hand" in the ancient way of thinking). Jesus showed the nail wounds in his hands to his disciples (see John 20:24-28).

(By the way, the graffiti is from A.D. 200s and depicts a boy with one hand raised in an attitude of worship before a crucified figure with an ass's head. The mocking words scribbled beneath are "Alexamenus worships his god.") Now the Trinity is not a nit-picky item, because it goes to the heart of who Jesus is.

Is he simply the angel Michael now living in a spirit body (as JWs teach) or is he God in-fleshed, now living in a resurrected human body? Most people (including Christians) don't have a really clear understanding of the Bible's teaching on what we call the Trinity (tri - unity), so it becomes confusing when cults challenge this idea that God is "one nature in three persons." (By the way, no one would invent such a difficult doctrine. It's way too hard to explain - which is one of the reasons why I believe it to be the Truth and not an invention of men). The Bible teaches that the three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are equal in essence (that is, their divine nature), but subordinate to one another in their persons: the Son submitting to the Father (just as in any good family) and the Holy Spirit submitting to both the Father and the Son. This explains why some verses teach (as you pointed out) that the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28), yet also teach that they are equal in nature (John 10:30; Philippians 2:5-6) and worship (Matthew 2:11; Luke 24:52; Hebrews 1:6).

By the way, if Jesus is only a super-angel, as the JWs teach, then we definitely shouldn't worship Him - yet we are taught to worship Jesus in the New Testament: Colossians 2:18; Hebrews 1:4-14; Revelation 19:9-10; 22:8-9. If you haven't already seen the web page on "Is Jesus God?" then take a look at it http://www.new-life.net/faq202.htm, especially the last three paragraphs which explain how to demonstrate to a Jehovah Witness that Jesus is God, even using their own translation.

Of course, you don't find a huge number of verses in the Bible saying that Jesus is "God." The reason for this is that "God" is really the name for the first person of the Trinity, that is the Father. So the New Testament only speaks this way when they are really trying to push the point that Jesus is divine (such as in John 1:1). But you do find many statements of Jesus being divine, the exact image of God, and of God's nature, etc. Rather than quote all of those here, you can read them on the "Is Jesus God?" page.

Now concerning John 1:1, the thing to say here is that Jehovah Witnesses have to ignore Greek grammatical rules and then publish their own translation in order to get John 1:1 to say: "And the Word was a god." The Jehovah Witness translation is simply in error when it comes to this verse. "a" is what we call an indefinite article. There is no indefinite article in Greek, so the Greek doesn't say "a god." There are definite articles in Greek ("the") and it is true that the definite article does not appear here.

Why? Because in Greek you don't use a definite article with a predicate nominative. In the sentence: "The Word was God," "The Word" is the nominative (subject) of the sentence and "God" is the predicate nominative of the sentence. To show that God is the predicate nominative and not the nominative you leave off the article in Greek. So the absence of the article has nothing to do with Jesus being "a god," whatever that type of creature may be. Even if you could reject John 1:1 - which you can't - the apostle John goes on to show in many other verses of the same gospel that Jesus was divine.

Most of these are even evident in the Jehovah Witness translation. See John 5:18,23; 8:58-59; 9:35-38; 10:30; 14:7-9; 17:5; 20:26-28. By the way, what the Jehovah Witnesses teach about Jesus is nothing new. It's called the Arian heresy and was quite prevalent in the early church. The Council of Nicene (from which we get the Nicene Creed) was called to deal with it and it was condemned as unbiblical.

And rightly so. Think about it. If Jesus is just a super-angel, then how can He die for the sins of human beings? The whole idea of Jesus being a substitute for our sins on the cross is lost (2 Corinthians 5:21). Super-angels cannot be our substitute (they are not human) and the death of one cannot atone for the sins of ALL people (because they are not divine, so their life is not of infinite worth). They cannot sympathize with our human weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15-16) and they definitely shouldn't be worshipped (Matthew 4:10; 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; John 9:35-38; Revelation 5:13-14).

If Jesus is anything less than a unique divine-man, then the cross loses it's meaning and a personal relationship of faith in Jesus is unnecessary. I'll deal with two other questions you mentioned, then I'll cease. you asked, "Doesn't it say that no man can see God?" I've answered that question on this web page <http://www.new-life.net/faq015.

htm>, so I'll let you read what I wrote there. The final issue is about Jesus being the "first born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). First, let's size up the problem. If we include direct statements about Jesus' divinity, divine activities that Jesus performed, divine attributes that Jesus has, divine titles that Jesus is said to have, and the worship given to Him (which Jesus never rejected), we have (at least) over two hundred statements about Jesus' divinity found in the New Testament. In Colossians 1:15 we have one verse that on the surface seems to teach that Jesus was the "first thing" that God created.

Just on the basis of courtroom evidence, I would suspect that I must not have correctly understood what Paul means in Colossians 1:15. That, in fact, is the case. First of all, note that it says "first born," not "first thing." It's not even about being created, but something about "first born." Jesus is the "first born" - a good Jewish and Roman term speaking of inheritance rights.

The firstborn son had certain privileges and rights in the Biblical world. Jesus Christ has these same rights in relation to all creation - priority, preeminence, and sovereignty (see verses 16-18). So the idea is more that Jesus is the first born over all creation, rather than the first thing of all creation. (The genitive case used here can have that sense. It's called a Genitive of Place or Position.

) The emphasis is not on Jesus being created or even being born, but on Jesus having the position of the first born son. The same thought occurs in Hebrews 1:1-2: "God appointed Him heir of all things, through Whom He also made the worlds." You might also want to note that the phrase that precedes "first born" is a phrase about Jesus' divinity: "He is the image of the invisible God" - an idea repeated in Hebrews 1:3: "the exact representation of God's nature." How can an angel - any angel, even Michael - be the exact representation of God? If an angel can be an exact image of God, then that God is way too small. Certainly not the God we read about in the Bible who is "Holy, Holy, Holy," "the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.

" (Isaiah 6:1-5; 46:9; 1 Timothy 6:16). Jesus came to earth to represent His Father: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" (John 14:9-10). The divine Son shows us the invisible divine Father who we never can or will see, because Jesus "and the Father are one" (John 10:30). I hope some of this is helpful to you.

The bottom line is that the Trinity (although not a Biblical word) is a Biblical idea. There's no other way to fit the New Testament teaching together about Jesus being divine, having the same titles as God, and being worshipped. And the other bottom line is don't trade the peace, freedom, and grace you have in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ for the slavery of following man-made rules. Please read Galatians 2:20-3:14. I'd recommend that you check out the following links.

They contain much helpful information about Jehovah Witnesses and their teaching: http://www.christiananswers.net/ http://www.carm.org/witnesses.

htm http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=articles.articles http://www.

equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Topics&TopID=493&List=all http://www.thechristiandefense.com/weblog_entry.

php?e=138 http://www.xjw.com/

- FAQs Did I understand that your church has women deacons? Q: Sorry to bother you with questions, but my wife and I have a question for you. Did I understand that the church has women deacons? If so, do they serve only other women? I examined the constitution and by-laws...can you explain the basis for this? Scriptural references? A: Yes, the church does have women deacons (or deaconesses, if you prefer).

No, they do not serve only other women. Here is a list of some of the deacon responsibilities: Benevolence Requests Financial Counseling Flowers, Cards Food Bank Hospital Visitation Meals to the Sick and Needy Moving This gives you an idea of what the deacons do. As you can see the duties are focused on service, not leadership or teaching. We believe that there are two Biblical offices in the local church: elders and deacons. In our church the deacons are servants to the Body who minister to physical needs of the church.

They are NOT church leaders (some baptist churches call their church leaders "deacons"). Deacons are also NOT teachers. The leaders/teachers in our church are called "elders." Based on 1 Timothy 2:12, we limit the office of elder to men. One of the elders supervises the deacon ministry.

Concerning women serving as deacons: 1. The office of deacon is a servant office, not a ruling or teaching office (like eldership). This is seen in the origin of deacons in Acts 6:1-6 and in the meaning of the Greek word diakonos, which originally meant "a person who waits on tables." 2. Since it is a servant office, there is nothing to preclude women from serving as deacons, since the command in 1 Timothy 2 prohibits women teaching or leading men, not serving men.

Indeed in Romans 16:1 Phoebe (a woman) is called "a deacon of the church in Cenchrea." 3. Although I recognize that there are different interpretations of this, I believe that 1 Timothy 3:11 lists qualifications for deaconesses, not qualifications for deacons' wives. The Greek is literally, "the women are to be worthy of respect..

.". The Greek says nothing about "wives" The word is "women." Some translations have "wives," but that is an interpretation made by the translators, not the original wording. 4.

In the Christian document called the Syrian Didascalia (from the late 3rd century) deaconesses are specifically mentioned as an office of the church. The functions of women deacons are summarized as: "assisting at the baptism of women, going into the houses of the heathen where there are believing women, and to visit those who are sick, and to minister to them in the area of their need, and to bathe those who have begun to recover from sickness." I think on this issue, as on all issues, we need to bind where the Scriptures bind and loose where the Scriptures loose, that is, be as closed or as open as the Scriptures are. Main points: (1) There is nothing in the nature of the office of deacon that precludes women from serving. And (2) there is evidence from the Scriptures and early church history that women actually did serve as deacons.

Therefore, our church allows women to serve in the office of deacon. Food for thought: Acts 9:36-42 -- The activities mentioned and the high respect for Dorcas are most unusual. Was Dorcas a deaconess? I definitely don't mind questions and if we can't defend our positions from Scripture, then we shouldn't be holding them in the first place. Joy in Christ to you and your family, Dennis

- FAQs Aren't the "only males can lead" commands cultural? (This question is a follow up to the previous email.) I was aware of the passages you mentioned. They seem to say only men should lead in the church, but aren't these commands meant for only those times, like Paul's command about women covering their hair in 1 Corinthians 11? You've hit on a very common argument for women pastors, that is, Paul's commands were cultural. I'd accept that, if I could find a cultural reason or element in either of the two passages (1 Corinthians 14:33-38 and 1 Timothy 2:1-15). But these passages refer to "in all the congregations," "as the Law says," "I am writing to you the Lord's command," and the creation ordinances of Adam and Eve.

There just isn't any hint of a cultural element here at all. I grant you that there are some commands in Scripture that have a cultural element to them like "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (1 Corinthians 16:20) and head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. I'm afraid in some people's mind this becomes a reason to completely dismiss or ignore the command, but I believe that is a mistake. I ask three questions when dealing with "cultural" commands (1) What is actually commanded. (2) What is the principle behind the command? (3) What would be a way to fulfill that command in an appropriate way in our culture? Concerning 1 Corinthians 16:20, what is actually commanded? An affectionate greeting with an on-the-cheek kiss.

What is the principle behind the command? We should show physical displays of affection for one another. What would be a way to fulfill that command in an appropriate way in our culture? A kiss to another man would mean something inappropriate in our culture! How about a hug? A handshake? A pat on the shoulder? Concerning 1 Corinthians 11 and head coverings, I ask myself what is actually commanded? Paul commands "a sign of authority on the head" - see 1 Corinthians 11:10. What is the principle behind the command? The issue of rejecting authority. Removing a head covering was a sign (in the Corinthian's culture) of women not wanting to be under subjection to anyone. What would be a way to fulfill that command in our culture? Removing a heading covering or wearing a head covering doesn't really mean anything in our culture.

What would be a sign of "women's liberation" in our culture? Burning a bra? (al la 1960s). Refusing to wear a wedding ring? Not taking the last name of a husband? Paul's command would be "Don't do that and do stick with the sign of authority in your culture."

Where do you draw the line with a borrowing neighbor? Q: Dennis, I don't know where to draw the line...I have a neighbor and they think whatever they need they can borrow it..

.They are Christians...At least they say they are and they go to church every sunday and every wednesday night.

.. Since I moved here they have borrowed so much food.. And Dennis it isn't food that is a necessity.

.. It's icings for cakes and butter and egg and sugar for making choc. chip cookies..

. Or oil to make a cake or cookies.. She borrowed 4 sticks of butter to make a triple batch of cookies..

. They always come to say they want to borrow and they never return it.. I have always tried to stick to the Biblical principle of not judging..

. And to give... But where do I draw the line.

.. My own kids ask why can't they buy it...

The father has a good job and the mother cleans houses so she can be home for the kids after school.. They aren't hurting.. They even have asked to come in and use the computer for school work.

. It's like what is mine they think is theirs... Finally after no one let there kids use the computer they went out and bought a $2000 computer.

.. I don't mind borrowing, I really don't...

. Last night they come to the door to borrow the blender so they can make Blizzards....

I said I don't have one.. I feel so guilty about it.. I do have a real old one.

. Do I have to give everything they ask for??? If I don't have something, they keep knocking on other people's doors until they find one to borrow... I just don't know how to address this problem.

.. It has been happening since I moved in and they live next door...

Her son is the hyperactive child who has the problems... They are not doing anything for their son..

. They expect the neighborhood to understand him and conform to his wishes so he doesn't get out of hand... I have been very patient with the mother and have done everything I can to help her, but every time I am nice and we talk she is asking me to take care of her son or the borrowing gets worse.

.It's to the point I don't talk to her... I just don't know where to draw the line on this.

.. Do I keep on giving without judging??? I don't want to do anything that is unchrist like...

I just need some input as to what to do... I try and do things for other people..

Right now I watch 3 kids after school almost everyday and I do it free.. The reason why is the mother is working so hard and she is trying to make ends meet...

It's only for about 30 minutes a day until the father gets home... They have had financial problems..

I don't mind.. Her kids are wonderful...

otherwise the children would sit at home all alone... I'm here so why not let them in my house where it is safe..

.She is not a christian..but she sends her kids to church on a bus..

She is doing something right for the kids... If you can guide me in someway or show me some Biblical passages where I can get my answer I would appreciate it..

.My hubby is about ready to tell them off. And I have told him that is not the right thing to do...

A lot of people think since I stay at home we have tons of money..HA HA HA!! I just spend it wisely...

Thanks. Your sister in Christ A: Dear Sis, Great questions! And your spirit is reacting to this family's MISUSE of Scriptural principles. The Bible makes it clear that we are to help those who are truly in need without judging them. This is the loving thing to do. But the Bible also says that we are not to help those who are "using" the generosity of other Christians.

It is, in fact, an unloving act to help them. Example: 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. When we help people who are able to help themselves, we are in fact "enabling" them to continue in their sin or weakness. Instead we are to "speak the truth in love" to them (Ephesians 4:15,25; Matthew 18:15; Proverbs 9:8; Luke 17:3). Your neighbor's Christian witness is being ruined by her actions in the neighborhood.

The loving thing to do is to: (1) decide to speak to her about one of the issues that you see, (2) pray about this to God asking Him for the words and the timing, (3) think about what you are going to say and how you are going to say it beforehand, (4) speak to her, and then (5) trust God for the results. Usually people don't react well to being corrected, but that is the loving thing to do, especially with other Christians (Romans 15:14). Don't be surprised if she does not receive it at first. She may become angry. She may withdraw from you.

But: (1) you are doing what God says to do, i.e. correcting your sister in love, (2) her response is her responsibility before God, not yours -- don't personalize her reaction, (3) we must love God and do what He says to do, more than we love the praise or fear the rejection of men, and finally (4) if she withdraws from you and the family -- heh, that takes care of the problem of her "using" you!!! ;> We have a Scripture study on how to correct other people called Loving Enough to Confront. Also you may want to check out our web page entitled Assertive Behavior. Dennis

- FAQs What is your view of godly counsel and determining God's will for your life? Q: What is your view of godly counsel and determining God's will for your life? A: There are a lot of different very good systems for knowing God's will. I have found the following guideline to be of help: 1. SCRIPTURE 2. SCRIPTURE 3. SCRIPTURE 4.

The BIBLE 5. SCRIPTURE 6. Prayer 7. Advice of others (godly counsel) 8. Circumstances 9.

Reason Guidance COMES FROM THE BIBLE, prayerfully used. The Bible is God's Word. It is the only inerrant source of truth, so look for Biblical commands and Biblical principles in making your decisions. I remember R.C.

Sproul of Ligonier Ministries saying the reason we have so much trouble making decisions is because we don't really know our Bible. The older I have grown, the more I believe that to be true. Almost all decisions can be made from commands or principles that are found in the Bible. If we know where to find it, the Scriptures speak to every area of life, not just spiritual things. (Did you know the Bible even tells you how to go to the bathroom? Deuteronomy 23:12-13).

Unfortunately, most of us don't spend time studying the Bible, so we are lost when an issue of guidance comes around. Concerning advice from others: we should seek godly counsel from the wise (Proverbs 12:15), but not for their opinions (e.g. Joshua 9:14). Instead seek godly counselors for their assistance in using the Bible to help you make a decision that honors God.

Counselors have a lot of wisdom and Bible knowledge, but they are far from infallible. They are sinners just like the rest of us. Of course, I reject the whole "shepherding movement" where church leaders tell you what car to buy and who to marry. That is a cult, not the Scriptural form of church government. That is control, not spiritual leadership.

Seek advice from wise men and women, but follow God and His Word, not men (Acts 4:19). Circumstances affecting a decision must be evaluated within Biblical boundaries. An open door does not always mean "Go." After all, some "open doors" lead to elevator shafts! If it's not Biblical (for example, marrying an unbeliever), then an open door (such as her family giving their blessing to the marriage) is a temptation. In this case, an open door is not God saying "Go.

" But if you are following Biblical commands and principles, then God will confirm His will by open doors. He is our providential Father - in control and in charge of everything. So look for God to validate guidance by open doors. Reason must be used in moving from the Scriptures to the problem as you apply Biblical teaching to your decision, but the effects of sin on the human mind has been considerable. I remember a man who wanted to divorce his wife reasoning that it was okay to leave her because the Bible said, "If the unbeliever leaves, let him do so.

A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances." I asked him how that fit his situation and he replied that his wife was acting like an unbeliever and she had left him emotionally. Hence - according to his logic - he was free to divorce her! Our fallible "reason" can led us to great sin. Therefore, you must always check your reasonable conclusions with the rest of the Biblical principles that converge on the issue at hand. Does it seem like I keep coming back to the Bible for guidance? ;> I think that is what Jesus did too.

Hope some of this is helpful. Thanks again for writing. God's peace in Jesus be yours today. Dennis Rupert

- FAQs I fear rejection from my peers Assertive Behavior. I know what it means to be assertive, and I can do it with everyone but my peers (I'm a 23 yr old female). I was rejected a lot when I was in jr. high and high school by other girls, so now I am so passive and SOOO nice all the time. My mom calls me "accommodating".

Somehow, I feel guilty if I'm not REALLY nice, helpful, smiley, etc., with my peers, and I end up feeling stupid, disrespected, and resentful. I'm a Christian, and that may have something to do with it. I'm married, but I don't have many friends. I am very uncomfortable and unrelaxed around other girls my age, and I can't open up.

It stresses me out thinking about having to have a conversation with someone, so I have been closing myself off to relationships for years. Am I beyond help? A: "Am I beyond help?" CERTAINLY NOT! God is never beyond anything!! "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave Him up for us -- will God not also, along with Jesus, generously give us everything we need?" (Romans 8:32). "He who began a good work in you WILL carry it on to completion until the day Christ returns." (Philippians 1:6). I was bullied, hurt, and ridiculed by male peers all of the time I was growing up.

As a result the easiest relationships for me were with older adults or members of the opposite sex. But God began to open new ways of thinking for me and I realized that what was "true" while growing up (among kids) was not necessarily "true" among adults. Our peers grow and so do we. So I began to risk relationship with peers; risk rejection. I can't say that all of those peer relationships have gone well.

A few years ago my best male friend lied to me (big time, for about 6 months) and ended up doing something that destroyed his marriage and hurt the church. But that was only one incident. I now have some very deep and blessed friendships with my peers and it has enriched me as a person. Let me make some suggestions: Continue to foster relationships with people that you do feel comfortable around (perhaps older or younger women). Don't close yourself off.

Do some reading on fears of rejection or on being a "pleaser." Some books that I have found helpful are: "The Rejection Syndrome" by Charles Solomon, Tyndale House. "When Helping You is Hurting Me -- Escaping the Messiah Trap" by Carmen Renee Berry, ISBN 0-06-250050-3. "Hiding from Love" by Dr. John Townsend, ISBN 08910-96213.

"Finding Inner Security" by Janet Congo, ISBN 0-8307-1045-0. "The Father I Never Knew" by Phil Davis, ISBN 08910-96124. If you need some further help, then don't be afraid to talk to an older women who can mentor you or to a Christian counselor. Other people CAN identify with what you are going through. You are not alone.

And these people can give you wisdom on how they have overcome the same fears. Also talking about our fears with someone often removes half of the power. Let me know how you progress, okay?

- FAQs I fear becoming a prideful Christian! I am filled with confusion, as are many believers I assume, about my faith. From a very young age I have had incredible faith and a sense of peace, no doubt of Christ ever. However, I fear my own hypocrisy. I have an amazing way of making things that I know are sins O.K.

because I don't feel it effects my faith i.e.; I don't believe in God any less. I know that I am losing ground on what believing in Christ really means. I fear becoming the stereotypical Christian because of the intense feeling of them being above everyone else or superior.

Aren't we supposed to be like servants to others? To love no matter what? To be Christ-like? I am confused by my desire to be like Christ, what an amazing life to pursue, and my desire to not be like Christians... Does this make any sense to you? If you have any insight please respond. A: Yes, what you said does make sense.

It sounds like you have been hanging around some prideful Christians. The "real Christian" is one who is holy and yet humble. You seem to be aware that Jesus wants us to change to become more like him. Obedience doesn't save us (Galatians 2:16), but it is an evidence and a result of our salvation (Luke 6:43-45; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 1 John 2:3-6,17). Likewise you are right that Christians should be humble (Philippians 2:3; Colossians 3:12; Titus 3:2; James 3:13; 1 Peter 5:5).

I would recommend that you find some humble, holy Christians to fellowship with and don't stop growing to be like your Savior!

- FAQs Why doesn't God give me a husband? I'm single, divorced, have one son. Left former husband as he was abusive. Life now stable and good - but lonely. See other divorced friends getting remarried. They seem to find a guy, sleep with him, even with their children in the house and before you know it, they are happily married after 2 years or less of dating.

I dated a Christian man, thought my prayers were answered, though he couldn't hold on to a dime if he had it. Worked through thick and thin with him over 3 years until he felt "called to be single". After less than 2 years of dating another woman, he is married to someone who is rich and can support him - and all that time I thought he loved me - probably wanted me because I thought I had money - and gave up when he found out I didn't. Been dating another guy now for almost 3 years. He is very nice and deep, but can't seem to make a commitment.

Why is it that God is so slow to answer my prayers for a decent man to make a commitment to me? I have a wonderful son and we are a great family of two (and 5 pets), but I too would like to be held and loved and two years away from being 40, I am beginning to think God will never answer my prayers. God has answered so many of my prayers before, but when it comes to this one (which I prayed long before I met my former husband) - God seems to be completely deaf? (This response is from a member of our staff) A: First let me reassure you that God is not deaf to your prayers regarding a husband nor is He blind to your loneliness and pain. Jesus was single. He had intense times of loneliness. He knows those feelings for He has experienced them.

Hebrews 4:14-16 tells us: Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Second, I also understand how you feel. You see I'm 34, soon to be 35, Christian and single.

And for a long time I felt like I was single because God was punishing me for something. I let my heartache and loneliness turn to resentment. How could God do this to me? Since I was a teenager I dreamt of getting married and having a family of my own. I prayed for a husband throughout my teens and my twenties. It seemed all my friends were getting married and starting families, why wasn't I? Well when my thirties hit and I was still single, I felt cursed.

I thought that even though I had prayed faithfully, God didn't fulfill what I considered to be His part of the bargain. I decided that He didn't really love me, because He wouldn't give me the one thing I thought I desperately wanted. What I didn't realize at the time was that what I really wanted was to be loved. To be loved totally, completely and without reservation. I was looking for something that no other human being could ever give me, but what Christ could and did give to me freely.

When I gave Him my life including my anger, frustration, heartache, fear and loneliness, He showered me with His perfect love. He opened my heart to accepting a peace and patience in seeking His will for my life. I've learned (actually I should say I'm just beginning to learn) how incredible His love really is. One of my favorite passages from scripture is Isaiah 53. These verses describe how deeply and beautifully Christ loves us.

Though we rejected Him and hated Him, He still bore our grieves, our sorrows, our sins. He still gave up all that He was and surrendered His very life just for us, just for you and me. It's really amazing when you think about it. No other person could ever love that completely. Yet Christ knowing everything about us - the good, the bad and the ugly still loved and loves us totally.

It's not about married or single. It's about Christ being the Lord of my life and daily turning my life over to Him. I'm learning that when I trust Him as my Lord I find that He is also my brother, my father, my best friend and my husband (Isaiah 54:5). As I said, I'm LEARNING. Thankfully Christ is faithful, patient and willing to work lovingly with a very hard headed woman.

I hope that hearing my own experience has been of some help to you, even if it is just knowing that someone else understands what you feel. God's peace and love be with you. ++++++++++ Why Doesn't God Give Me a Husband - the sequel...

Well it is now eights years since I wrote the response to the above question and I'm still single. Let me be honest. When I answered that letter eight years ago, my response was genuine. Jesus really was meeting many of my needs to be loved and cared for. He is enough, but it was probably also with the belief that while I wasn't married yet, I would be sooner or later.

And, truthfully, I thought sooner. I can't tell you the number of well meaning friends that have talked to me about this "season of life" being single but just wait. And, oh, my favorite: "I have a friend who has a cousin who has a daughter who never dated and then BAM! (why is there always a bam?...

anyway) BAM! She met someone. Got married at 40 and was pregnant by 41." Not to burst any balloons here, but, um, I'm 42. I've hit the snooze on my biological clock so often I won't see menopause till I'm 90. I would pray and pray and always, always God's response was "I'm enough".

Not only would He answer with "I'm enough" but He would open my heart to know that He was, in fact, more than enough. God is a good, awesome, and loving God. Make no mistake about it. I wasn't out in the cold. God has always provided for me generously.

But....well.

..at times...

.I'm a brat and I want what I want. Can you relate? So I decided I wanted to be married. And praying wasn't getting me there. So I took over.

Oh yeah, that had success written all over it. I signed up for all kinds of dating services: match.com, eharmony, Christian caf�, True Love Got Tired of Waiting and Is Now Willing to Settle for Someone with a Pulse.org, and so forth. No more waiting for "someday my prince will come.

" Not me, I'm a woman of the new millennia and I'm goin' huntin' <insert Elmer Fudd laugh>. So with all this personality, you would think men would be beating a path to my door or would at least stop by and ask directions to the nearest Quiznos? Right? Say "right" just to be polite. Anyway, neither happened. Well, almost neither happened. A couple of months ago I met a Christian gentleman who was looking for a woman that made Christ the center of her life.

Okay, I've been there. May not be living there now, but I know what that looks like. So I said, "Hi." He said, "Hi" and that initiated two months of emails and phone calls. It was like the movie You've Got Mail.

Alright, honestly it was probably closer to the movie Shrek, but that's not the point. The point is I got what I wanted. I was on my way and would soon need a subscription to Bride magazine. Just one slight drawback. I was the most miserable of human beings.

What I might gain could not come close to what I'd lost in leaving Jesus. I was lost and I ached to be home. Telling God that it's my way or the highway is a great way to end up feeling like road kill. Then the battle - the battle every Christian knows. Knows far too well.

I've gone too far. I've done too much. My sin is too great. There is just no way, you would take me back..

. and you can finish the thought. Why do we ever allow ourselves to reach such a state that when we finally cry out to God it must be an act of complete desperation? God forgive my foolishness. I didn't cry out to God. I SCREAMED! And then I waited to be rejected, because surely my sin was too great.

God's response was "Do you really think you are capable of such a sin that my blood would not be sufficient, to not just cover it, but to drown it?" Did you ever notice that the prodigal son never makes it to the door? As soon as he is in sight of the house the father is out the door, down the road, and embracing his son. The son doesn't have to throw himself down before his father and beg for forgiveness berating himself for his foolishness. God does not seek wailing, gnashing of teeth or beating ourselves (physically or emotionally) to a pulp. Just surrender. "Not my will, but Yours.

" Not my will, Lord, but Yours. I'm home again. Father and I have talked and I'm single. It's not a season. It's my life.

And the only question I have is: who am I, that Christ would love me so much He would choose to share me with no one? I don't have the answer, but I am humbled and thrilled to know the One who does. Other pages you may want to visit: What Kind of a Husband Would Jesus Have Made? Who Should I Marry? Singles Sites

- FAQs Is my student wearing a Satanic symbol? I am a teacher and have noticed one of my students wearing a cross with an oval type circle at the top of it as a necklace. Do you know if this is a symbol of Satan? I have always heard that it was, but he is quite convinced that it is not. Do you know? I assume that you are referring to an "ankh" -- another way of describing it would be a cross shaped like a "T" with a tear drop or loop at the top. The "ankh" has a long history going back to Egyptian times. It is one of the most familiar of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

It was the sign for life and fertility. Many statues of the Pharaoh have him holding an "ankh." It is carried in the hands of many Egyptian deities. It was often produced in solid form and worn as jewelry. The ankh was popular throughout Egyptian history and due to its cruciform shape remained so into the Coptic period.

The Coptic Christian church adopted the ankh as a symbol of the cross (since the cross gives life to believers). In Christian iconography it is called the crux ansata, the handled or "eyed" cross. In their zeal to adopt all things pagan, modern day followers of Wicca have adopted the ankh as one of their symbols. It is often cast in silver and worn as a necklace or on the left ear. Some Wiccans wear an ankh or they will adopt a nickname containing the word "ankh.

" You can find a number of Wiccans and some Satanists with "ankh" names by doing a word search on the Internet. I know of teens who insisted that their ankh necklace didn't mean anything special. They said that it was only an Egyptian hieroglyph and a Christian symbol. But some of those teens have later become followers of Wicca. It probably meant something to them that was other than what they were telling me.

So is your student wearing a Satanic symbol? Symbols stand for something and as you can see from the history of the ankh, it has stood for life, fertility, the life-giving cross of Christ, or Wiccan paganism. As with any symbol, it stands for whatever the person or the group or culture at the time intends for it to stand. So the important question is probably: "What does it mean to the student and other students in the class?" And then based on what they think it means, how will it affect them, because symbols have power for good or evil influence. I'm sure that God will give you discernment and wisdom in this.

- FAQs Was a rod really used for spanking? In your support of spanking, you mention several scriptures from Proverbs. Why do you "assume" the rod was used to spank with or inflict pain or stings? The shepherd used the rod to guide, create a boundary, they did not beat the sheep. Proverb 23:13-14 endorses a "beating" which sounds more like abuse and not the loving correction you purport. Also, the term "rod" is used in other scriptures that doesn't seem to connote an instrument to inflict physical pain, but rather a "parable" term to acknowledge a kind of tool. Another concerned reader A: Dear another, Thanks for writing.

I believe you have answered your own question about the rod by referring to Proverbs 23:13-14. These verses say: "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with the rod, he will not die. Beat him with the rod and save his soul from death." These two verses show that the rod WAS for beating. The shepherd usually used a staff, not a rod, for rescuing, guiding, and creating a boundary for the sheep.

The shepherd used the rod for beating (if not always sheep, then enemies of the sheep). Both are necessary in the life of sheep and both are necessary in our lives. Just like Psalm 23:4 says, "your rod AND your staff, they comfort me." Concerning the word "beating" (Hebrew naka, "smite" in the King James language) - my mom used to threaten to "beat me," but no one ever needed to call social services. There is a whole range of meaning for this Hebrew word (just as in English).

The word is used to describe everything from whipping a donkey, to hitting a rock with a stick, to killing a man. The entire range involves unpleasant physical affliction, but not necessarily brutality. There are people who see any physical affliction as brutality. I'm not of that camp and I think that is more the spirit of the age, than Biblical thinking. Even in the New Testament, God sees the discipline of parents as a worthy method which "produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12:7-11).

Thanks for your comments.

- FAQs What does "waiting" mean? I am a divorced 46 year old woman engaged to a 53 year old gentleman. We are both committed Christians, and truly want to wait until marriage to have sex. I know this is God's will...

but my question is this. Does waiting for sex until marriage mean waiting for intercourse only, or does it mean any kind of sexual contact? My fianc� is the first Christian man that I have ever met that has wanted to wait, but we are confused on what waiting means. At this time we are not doing anything other than small kisses, holding hands and cuddling. At times I find myself wanting more intimacy, but we both do not want to cross that line. I have read many articles online about abstinence.

..but have not found an answer to this question. Thank you for your response and help in this situation. God bless.

A: 1 Timothy 5:2 says "Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity." Until you are this gentleman's wife, he should treat you as a Christian SISTER WITH ABSOLUTE PURITY. Sister, then wife. There is no in-between in Scripture. There is no sister, sexual stimulator, then wife.

Another Scripture that may apply is Proverbs 5:15-21. The desire to want more intimacy is natural, but should be resisted until marriage for the sake of purity and focus on building your spiritual relationship. Sex at this stage can really get in the way of becoming friends. Friendship deepens a marriage and makes it last.  Another reason that you need to be careful about physical limits is simply beyond a certain point you CANNOT stop "going all the way.

" See our web page entitled "Loving Limits" on the 12 steps of intimacy. These steps are biological and hardwired into our physical creation. Crossing certain lines WILL lead you to actions that are meant for the joy of the marriage bed. You may also want to visit: Premarital Sex and the Bible Who Should I Marry? What Kind of a Husband Would Jesus Have Made? Where in the Bible does it spell out that premarital sex is sin? What's wrong with sex before marriage? Do I need a marriage ceremony?

Being gay is not wrong! you guys have a lotta nerve to tell people that homosexuality is wrong...You are not God..

.therefore you DO NOT EVER tell people that being gay or a "queer" is bad. i don't care what is in the bible becuz it also says in there that GOD will love us no matter what we are or who we choose to become and you can not argue against that. I believe that if you feel you are good enough to judge other people u obviously need to step off your stool and take a look around you becuz you are no different than anybody else in this world. you are God's child as are the rest of us and you need to realize that.

Oh and about saying that homos are more likely to get std's....ummm.

...sorry but your just about wrong. any body who has sex knows that there is a chance that they could get an std.

sorry but your article..pissed me off and i think you need to take a hard look at yourself...

being gay is not wrong. Some guys are born to have a natural attraction to woman...others are born having a natural attraction to guys.

..vice-versa. You can not control that or change that. Again-- you are not God!!! I think people like you need to die and stop breathing my precious oxygen.

You, like a virus, tend to breed and this is why you must be stopped because otherwise you will go around creating other self-righteous weirdos who have nothing better to do than attempt to tell everyone else how wrong they are...HATER!!!!! A: Thanks for your letter. Even when people don't agree with us, we are thankful to hear from them.

Perhaps you would prefer me not to respond. If that's the case, please just ignore the rest of this reply. God Loves Me No Matter What? If you are willing I would like to explore this idea of God loving us. I believe that most people don't think very deeply about this issue and end up spouting clich�s about what the Bible and Jesus say, rather than what the Bible and Jesus actually say. Now it is certainly true that God provides for everyone.

The Bible tells us that He sends the rain, causes growth, holds our atoms together, etc. As Jesus said, "God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). In this sense, God mercifully cares and gives to everybody. We might call this God's general love for all beings. The theologians call it common grace.

It is also true that "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). In other words, God provided His most precious possession (His Son) to give us a way to not perish, but to experience abundant everlasting love. The theologians call this God's compassionate love. So I would agree that God loves every person through common grace and compassionate love. In this way He in shows mercy and goodness to everybody.

People are often surprised to find that there aren't more verses about God's love for everybody in the Bible. I think they have the idea that God (or Jesus) is like some grandfather figure that has warm feelings toward everybody and will eternally feel this way. But the Bible says that we all fall short of God's expectations (Romans 3:23) and therefore are living under God's anger (Romans 1:18-32). God is angry with us because we don't honor Him as God and attempt to live life without Him. This idea of God's anger is something that runs throughout the Bible from the book of Genesis through Revelation.

We are all traitors and rebels at heart. That includes me. In that sense, what you said in your email is right: I'm "no different than anybody else in the world." BUT God provides a way of change and holiness through His Son Jesus the Messiah. I know that it is often said that Jesus loved everyone unconditionally - no matter what they did.

Jesus' actions in reaching out to all kinds of people and parables such as the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son are said to show this. I certainly agree that Jesus will love anybody. I'm certainly an example of that. I just don't believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus loves everybody unconditionally. Jesus did reach out to everyone.

In fact, Jesus seemed to cure the diseases of anyone that came to Him and asked. But Jesus said there were two essential conditions for receiving continued relationship with Him: repentance and faith. This was the message He proclaimed: "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in the good news!" (Mark 1:15 ). Faith means putting complete trust of your life in Jesus' control.

Repentance is a genuine admittance that we were wrong to go our own way and a desire to go God's way no matter what the cost. Jesus And Repentance This condition of repentance is a repeated theme with Jesus. Jesus said that the reason He came was "to call sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). Jesus said that unless we repent we will "perish" (Luke 13:3,5). In fact, the parable of the Prodigal Son includes the prodigal saying, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you" (Luke 15:18).

For other times that Jesus talked about repentance see Matthew 3:2,8; 4:17; 11:20; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 15:7,10; 16:30; 17:3-4; 18:10-14; 24:47. This is only a partial list. So if Jesus is any example (and He is usually the one that people appeal to in the Bible as being the most loving) then I really don't believe it's correct to say, "GOD will love us no matter what we are or who we choose to become." Certainly God mercifully provides for all His creatures (God's common grace) and God gave His Son so there would be an opportunity for anyone who believes to avoid perishing (God's compassionate love). So it would be accurate to say that God reaches out to all of us with the offer of His love.

But God will only move into an eternal loving relationship (God's redemptive love) with us if we will repent and trust Him. You certainly don't have to like those conditions, but I think we need to be honest about what the Bible really says and not make it say what we want it to. This means in order to have relationship with God and to no longer live under His anger, I had to repent of my sins of wanting to run my own life, hatred toward other people, premarital sex, a bad temper, bragging, impatience, lying, viewing pornography, and envy of others. That's the short list and God is still working in me to overcome what I am repenting of. In order for you to have relationship with God, you will have to repent of some things too.

Homosexuality and Hating You may be surprised to learn that I really would prefer to believe the way you do about homosexuality. It would be so much easier to get along with all the other people who believe that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality. I wouldn't have to receive emails from people wishing I was dead. But the things I wrote in the article which you refer to are scientific facts (most of which originally appeared in medical or scientific journals reporting on studies of the gay population). And what the Bible says.

.. well that's what the Bible says and since I believe the Bible is God's communication to people, then it really isn't about what I say, but what God is saying about homosexuality. I'm sorry we disagree about homosexuality. But your issue really isn't with me.

It's with the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. Finally, I want you to know that I don't wish you harm in any way. I'm sorry that you view me as a "virus"  when all I'm attempting to do is talk about what the Bible says and what the Christian church has unanimously believed for 1,950 years (that is, prior to some contemporary churches teaching that monogamous, committed homosexual marriages are acceptable). I'm sorry that you want me to "die and stop breathing." I certainly don't want you to do that.

So here's my dilemma: How does that make me the "HATER"? Aren't you the one who wants me to die? Wishing you the best in Christ, Dennis Rupert, pastor You may also wish to see: A Few Words About Homosexuality When Someone You Love is Gay What is Repentance and How Do I Do It? Questions about masturbation, homosexual thoughts, and eternal life.

Is it wrong to wear earrings or pants? Hi, I wanted to ask you guys a question. Do you think it is bad for a girl to wear earrings or pants? I know it might sound dumb, but I just got baptized and I want to learn more about God. If you have any idea what I am talking about please write back. A: No, I don't believe there is anything in the Bible against wearing earrings or pants. Sometimes Holiness or Pentecostal churches teach this.

They believe they find a command against the wearing of jewelry in 1 Timothy 2:9 and a command against pants in Deuteronomy 22:5. The command in Deuteronomy certain teaches against women wearing male clothing, but in our society pants are certainly not exclusively male clothing. At one time they were, but no longer. What about the 1 Timothy passage? There are two things to say. First, we should ask what it meant for women to wear braided hair, gold, and pearls in that society.

If you do a little historical research on Roman apparel you will find that these things all represented costly or time consuming extravagance. Pearls were fabulously priced and thus way beyond the purchasing power of the average church member. A display of gold ornaments meant "I'm rich. Look at me and envy." Braids were fastened by jeweled tortoise-shell combs, pins of ivory or silver.

The pin heads often were jewels or consisted of carved miniature images (an animal, a human hand, an idol, the female figure). This braiding of hair would take a servant hours to accomplish.  So in each case, these items represented extravagance. An additional thing to say about this passage is that it is probably an example of using an absolute statement (not A but B) when a relative statement is actually meant (not merely A but B). Now don't let your eye's glaze over at this, but this is a typical language idiom and an important thing to keep in mind when reading the Bible.

The Hebrews tend to give an absolute statement when we would give a relative one. [Other Biblical examples: Genesis 45:8; Exodus 16:9; Psalm 51:4; Psalm 51:16; Jeremiah 7:22-23; 1 Corinthians 1:17; Philippians 2:4; 1 John 3:18.] What this means is that the best translation of 1 Timothy 2:9 is probably "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not merely with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds." Absolute statements like this are used when the speaker wishes to emphasize the latter part of the statement: "Women should dress with good deeds." So how should a woman dress? God says that women should learn how to dress modestly and decently.

Women should not try to show off, wearing flashy apparel so as to make others jealous of them or to attract men by sexual stimulation. Vanity is a sin and the pursuit of the cult of beauty is a waste of the time, money, and energy God has given to you. But women do not have to balk at fashion either (unless a particular fashion happens to be immoral or indecent). Christian ladies must not look decidedly old-fashioned, awkward, or strange. This is just another way to draw attention to yourself: "Look at how holy and different I am.

" A proud heart is sometimes concealed behind a mask of pretended modesty. That too is a sin. "Be not the first by whom the new is tried, Nor yet the last to lay the old aside." So is it wrong to wear earrings or pants? No. But it is wrong to think that the most important thing about yourself is your outward appearance.

Yes! [How much time do you spend getting outwardly beautiful compared with the time you spend getting your heart close to the Lord?] A close relationship with the Lord and good deeds are the best and most important adornment for a Christian woman. (

- FAQs Was Peter crucified upside-down? Q: I had a question that has come up in a mailing list discussion (for one of my classes) regarding upside down crosses. Someone brought up the fact that Peter was crucified upside-down. I've heard about this too but I don't remember reading it in the Bible. What is the documentation for that? Someone has challenged the fact that Peter was ever crucified. I wish I knew my history better but they don't exactly teach you biblical history in public schools! A: It seems absolutely certain that Peter was executed in Rome sometime during the persecutions under Nero (AD 64).

Whether he was crucified upside-down is a little less certain. Here is the evidence and documentation: The earliest mention that we have of Peter's death is in a letter from Clement, bishop of Rome (AD 88-97), to the Corinthians. He mentions the suffering and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, bears the following testimony (about AD 180) referring to Peter and Paul: "Both of these having planted the church at Corinth, likewise instructed us; and having in like manner taught in Italy, they suffered martyrdom about the same time." About AD 200, Tertullian, a Christian teacher, mentions the deaths of Peter and Paul as occurring in Rome under Nero.

Peter's death is also found in Caius, an ecclesiastical writer (3rd century), who says that Peter and Paul "suffered martyrdom about the same time." Eusebius in his book entitled Ecclesiastical History (written AD 325) says: "Thus Nero publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God, was led on in his fury to slaughter the apostles. Paul is therefore said to have been beheaded at Rome, and Peter to have been crucified under him. And this account is confirmed by the fact, that the names of Peter and Paul still remain in the cemeteries of that city even to this day" (Ecclesiastical History 2:25). This tradition of Peter's death was not localized in Rome alone, but was apparently widespread throughout the Church.

There are also a large number of written stories about Peter. These stories are highly questionable as history, but they all agree when speaking of Peter's death: he was crucified in Rome during the time of Nero. Some of these stories are quite early -- for example "The Acts of Peter" (2nd century AD). It is from "The Acts of Peter" that we get the story of Peter being crucified upside-down. Supposedly Peter requested that he be crucified upside-down because he was "unworthy to die in the same manner as my Lord.

" Eusebius also records this story, but says his source is from a church theologian named Origen (who wrote about AD 230) Eusebius wrote: "Peter appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, to the Jews that were scattered abroad; who also, finally coming to Rome, was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way" (Ecclesiastical History 3:1).

- FAQs Why do you have magic on your web site? Q: All of the information that I pulled from your web site seems to be right and good and true. However, I would like to say that I am astonished that your web site includes an "interactive magic" section. I clicked on "Quizzes" and then got a menu including various titles including Interactive Magic. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, hoping this was some sort of expository on magic compared to God's Word, I proceeded to click on the title Interactive Magic and found a link to a magic site! Several times on "The Color Theory" game this unknown "I" refers to his mystical powers enabling him predict the color I had chosen. Now, I too, am a fellow Christian and have some knowledge of God's Word.

And I know that Deuteronomy 18:10 - 12 specifically states what is considered by God to be an abomination. "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer or one who interprets omens. or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord . .

. . " There is no reference to "good magic" anywhere in the Bible that I am aware of. So I would appreciate it greatly if you could reply to my e-mail and explain why this section is included in your web site. Perhaps you believe differently.

Perhaps it is an oversight. Whatever the reason, I am very interested in your answer. Christina A: Dear Christina, The page you are referring to links to tricks, not witchcraft and that's the whole point. Christians fail to distinguish between witchcraft (use of supernatural powers) and magic tricks (the art of producing baffling effects or illusions by sleight of hand, concealed apparatus). The magic tricks are for fun, but they are also there to teach you not to believe everything.

The more we understand about how people can manipulate us with false signs and wonders, the better off we will be. David Copperfield performed a trick similar to "The Color Theory" game that we link to. I had a member of my church (who had watched this trick with David Copperfield) tell me that he thought that David must have demonic powers! I had to show him how to do the trick before he would believe that David was not a warlock! Many Christians are gullible people. This page is my attempt to make people more informed. The more we understand about magic (magic, not witchcraft), the less we will be duped by fake healers, false prophets, and psychic hotlines! Before you judge us too harshly check out our page entitled "Is There a Difference Between Magic and Witchcraft?" Joy and peace in Jesus Christ, Dennis Rupert, pastor

- FAQs What's the difference between the Star of David and a pentagram? I wear a golden Star of David around my neck, and my husband is convinced that rather than a symbol of my firm belief in God, it is a pentagram, or symbol of sorcery and the Devil. Could you by any chance define the difference between the two and settle the long standing disagreement, and possibly show me any visible difference between the two? A: There is a simple answer and a more detailed history to your question. The simple answer was given to me by Max Mitchell, a believer and a Messianic Jew who has had contact with a number of Satanists over the years: Occult symbols usually have a circle around them. If it's a six pointed star with a circle around it, then it's a hexagram. If it's a six pointed star without a circle around it, then it's a star of David.

If it's a five pointed star with a circle around it, then it's a pentagram. If it's a five pointed star without a circle, then it's just a five pointed star. In occult thinking the circle represents a boundary or an attempt to control the power of the symbol. Other occult symbols enclosed in circles are: Anarchy symbol - The letter "A" enclosed in a circle which represents rebellion against all authority especially God. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is quoted in the Satanic bible.

Peace Symbol - also called the cross of Nero, a broken inverted cross in a circle meaning that if Christianity was defeated there would be "peace" on earth. Gay Symbol - a pink triangle in a circle is used by gays to let other gays know their homosexuality, but it is also used by some Satan worshippers to conjure demons directly from hell. The circle represents a boundary of power so they don't get hurt by the demon. Some use the triangle without the circle because they want to be possessed. Those are Max's comments about the meaning that Satanists attach to these symbols, but please understand that none of this is absolute.

Symbols have different meaning from one group to another and the meaning can change over time even in the same group. This is only a generalization. Here is a little bit of history on the Star of David (six points) and the pentagram (five points). The Star of David (also called the Magen David, shield of David) is the symbol most commonly associated with Judaism today. The standard name for the geometric shape is a hexagram or six pointed star, usually composed of two interlocking equilateral triangles.

Unlike the menora, the Lion of Judah, the shofar (ram's horn) or the lulav (palm frond), the Star of David is a relatively new Jewish symbol. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the symbol historically was not limited to use by Jews. It originated in antiquity, when, side by side with the five-pointed star, it served as a magical sign or as a decoration. In the Middle Ages the Star of David appeared with greater frequency among Jews but did not assume any special Jewish religious significance; it is found as well on some Christian medieval cathedrals. The term Magen David, which in Jewish liturgy signifies God as the shield (protector) of David, gained currency among medieval Jewish mystics, who attached magical powers to King David's shield just as earlier (non-Jewish) magical traditions had referred to the five-pointed star as the "seal of Solomon.

" Kabbalists, a Jewish mystical occult group, popularized the use of the symbol as a protection against evil spirits. The Jewish community of Prague was the first to use the Star of David as its official symbol, and from the 17th century on the six-pointed star became the official seal of many Jewish communities and a general sign of Judaism, though it has no biblical or Talmudic authority. The Star of David gained popularity as a symbol of Judaism when it was adopted as the emblem of the Zionist movement in 1897, but the symbol continued to be controversial for many years afterward. When the modern state of Israel was founded, there was much debate over whether this symbol should be used on the flag. It now appears on synagogues, Jewish tombstones, and the flag of the State of Israel.

[For more information see G. Sholem, "The Curious History of the Six Pointed Star; How the 'Magen David' Became the Jewish Symbol", Commentary, 8 (1949) pp. 243-351.] If you are wearing a six pointed star not enclosed in a circle, you are displaying the typical Jewish symbol called the Star of David and most people would recognize it as a completely Jewish symbol. Concerning the pentagram.

The pentagram at left is the traditional pentagram with the five points of the star, one up, two down enclosed inside a circle. This style of pentagram has existed for countless thousands of years, first dating back to around 3500 B.C. At this time it was used by Mesopotamian rulers as a symbol indicating that their power encompassed the four corners of the known world. To the Hebrews the five points of the pentagram were tied to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible) and represented as a whole the concept of truth.

Perhaps most curious is the pentagram as it relates to early Christianity. Constantine the Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity chose to use the pentagram on his seal and amulet. Up until medieval times, the five points of the pentagram represented the five wounds of Christ on the Cross. During these times the pentagram carried no evil implications at all and in fact, in a lesser way than the cross, was symbolic of the Savior. In the nineteenth century.

Eliphas L�vi, an Occultist, was the first to adapt the inverted pentagram as symbolic of evil. The illustration to the right shows L�vi's two sketches of the pentagram. The first, his "good" orientation, featured the five points of a man within the points of the Pentagram. This is called the microcosmic man and represents the four elements, earth, wind, fire and water represented as the man's limbs with his head representing the spirit. Next to the Microcosmic Man, he drew the inverted pentagram as the goat's head or Baphomet.

In so doing, he formed for the first time, a differentiation between good and evil symbolized by the pentagram. The Baphomet sigil or simply Baphomet has become the official symbol of The Church Of Satan, which was started by Anton Szandor La Vey in 1966. Satanists and pseudo-Satanists have used this sigil all over the world.

- FAQs Why do you say Wicca is evil? I was born & raised Catholic. I was baptized, received Holy Communion, had my Confirmation, & was married in a Catholic church. I attended Catholic school through the end of high school. I consider myself well educated. I am now a Wiccan & have been practicing for several years.

As a Wiccan, I am encouraged to research the origins of my new religion, as well as the tenets of any other religion. Thus I came upon your article on the origins of Halloween. I commend you on your commitment to provide accurate information & to debunk the inaccuracies of other Christian literature. I have one problem with your article. I object to your labeling "pagan superstitions" as evil, especially when, earlier in your text, you admit that pagans do not believe their gods or spirits are evil, merely dangerous.

As I'm sure your research will agree, true Wiccans/Pagans do not practice evil. Our #1 tenet is "As it harms none, do as you will." I'm sure you will agree that the desire to "harm none" is not evil. A: Thanks for taking the time to write to us. I appreciate the encouragement about the Halloween page.

Concerning my comment about pagan superstitions being evil: I understand that you do not view your beliefs or practices as "evil." While I defend your right to practice Wicca in the United States, nevertheless I do believe that the Bible teaches that pagan practices are evil. By evil, I mean, "morally bad or wrong" and "causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful" (American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition). I certainly understand that you do not agree with this statement. Nobody likes having their ideas or actions branded as evil.

But I'm sure that you view certain Biblical beliefs and practices as "morally bad" and "harmful" too - perhaps the Biblical teaching about only one God or certain practices that the Bible labels as sin or Christ's teaching about hell. I embrace these Biblical ideas, but I accept the fact that you view them as "morally bad" and "harmful." And, of course, there are things that we both embrace and agree on as evil, such as racism or kidnapping. What we are discussing is the difference between toleration and acceptance. You tolerate my beliefs and allow me the opportunity to propagate and defend them in the market place of ideas.

Yet you don't believe they are correct ideas and because incorrect ideas have consequences, some of my ideas can do great harm. Likewise I hope that you will allow me to practice tolerance of paganism without having to approve pagan beliefs or practices. By labeling certain ideas and practices of paganism as evil, I in no way intend to say that paganism has a monopoly on evil. While I do not view Biblical Christianity as evil, I do view myself as evil. I often do things that are morally bad and cause ruin, injury, or pain to others.

So, unlike the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, I do not intend the label to be an excuse for persecution of pagans. If I persecuted you, I would also have to persecute myself. I am familiar with the tenet: "As it harms none, do as you will." In my opinion, you have hit upon one of the key differences between paganism and Christianity. Let me make a few observations about this tenet and compare it to Biblical teaching: (1) This tenet sounds very worthy, but it leaves open the question "What is harm?" Since Wicca has no central, unified revelation (like the Bible), the definition of harm is left open to the interpretation of each individual.

We do not find universal agreement among human beings on what "harm" is. You may do things to me that you wouldn't think harm me, but because we are all self-centered and limited in our understanding, what you do may in fact do very great damage to me. This is what I found in my life. My perception of what was good and bad was very twisted by my own selfishness and ignorance. I controlled people and called it "helping.

" I committed immorality and called it "love." I hated people and called it "justice." I wanted to divorce my wife and called it "best for both of us." I needed someone to save me from my own pathetic sense of morality. I found that the Bible provides a clear revelation of what is right and wrong, what is loving and what is harmful.

We are not left to grope around in the dark for moral values - they are given to us in the Creator's owner's manual. (2) "Do no harm" doesn't go far enough. Jesus said that we are not only to not hurt other people, we are to "do to others what we would want done to ourselves" (Luke 6:31). No Christian that I know of lives up to this, but Jesus' ideal is far greater than "don't do anything to hurt other people." The difference between the two is overwhelming to me.

It is one of the essential differences between Jesus and all other religious leaders and philosophies. (3) The second part of the tenet "do as you will" is viewed by the Bible as an "evil." We have been doing "as we will" since our first parents fell in Eden. A Biblical viewpoint is that we should do as God, our loving Father, wills. To do as we will is considered selfish, self-centered, and misguided.

In fact, Biblically speaking, it is considered rebellion and treason against our Creator. Our will is what has created all the problems is this world. Jesus said it best as He was praying right before He was crucified "Father, not my will, but yours be done." You have really hit upon a key difference between paganism and Biblical Christianity: the definition of sin. Satan's suggestion to Adam was that sin should be defined as "anything that proves harmful to man.

" The Bible teaches that sin is "what is wrong because God says so." These are still the only two definitions of sin. Sin is either "what is wrong because God says so," or "what is wrong because it harms us." And, of course, with a false definition of sin, we never really discover how great our sin is. One night in college I submitted my life to Jesus.

Since above all I had offended Him, I asked for His forgiveness. He forgave my failures of the past and has given me new power through relationship with Him to live differently. I still fail miserably, but I am now a more joyful, loving, peaceful person than I ever was before. Jesus Christ helps me to "As it benefits others, do as He wills." Thanks again for writing.

(For more on Wicca, see ExWitch.)

- FAQs How can you question the legend of the candy cane?! I was searching for information regarding the meaning behind candy canes and ran across a link to your site about the legend of the candy cane. Your notion that there is no meaning behind the candy cane amazed me. Your explanation provides absolutely no evidence that a candy manufacturer in Indiana did not design the modern candy cane. Do you really think that the stripes on the candy cane are a coincidence? Did you know that Mr. McCormack's brother-in-law was a priest and the one responsible for automating the manufacture of candy canes? Maybe Mr.

McCormack or his brother-in-law designed the modern candy cane with its repudiated meaning. What's wrong with people believing in the candy cane legend? Is it so bad that a person might reflect on Jesus and his sacrifice for us every time they see a candy cane? I'm disappointed that you would spend time on such an issue, and even more disappointed that you would make such a notion without any evidence. A: All I am interested in doing is separating fact from fiction. I LIKE the story of the candy cane, but let's tell it as a story unless we can prove it as a fact. The burden of proof is not on me.

That's not the way evidence works. The burden is on someone to show me ANY evidence that there was a candy cane maker in Indiana. I've looked and asked for many Christmases and NO ONE has been able to give me a name, a date, or a specific location where this was supposed to have happened. You see, I talk to non-Christian people all the time who think Christians are a bunch of loonies, because we gullibly believe anything (especially urban legends it seems) and then we turn around and promote fiction for fact. For non-Christian people this calls into question our most important message, the greatest fact of all: Jesus lives, Jesus died for our sins, Jesus rose, Jesus is coming again.

If we can't get the details right about minor things, how can people outside the Christian faith believe the most major thing of all (1 Corinthians 14:8)? Because of this I will always have a passion for getting the facts straight, even if it disturbs the comfortable imaginations of some Christians. If you want myths, become a Hindu! Hinduism is not concerned about historical fact. But Christianity is not about cleverly invented stories (2 Peter 1:16). It's about a real God, who sent His Son in time and space, who really died for sin, and really rose from the dead! So this web site will always be dedicated to sorting out truth from fiction.

- FAQs Isn't Christianity just another religion used to keep the masses in check? After visiting your site I would like to give you my input on religion as a whole. I believe that religion is used as a way to keep peoples lives in check and to give people purpose in their lives. As far back as we have records, civilizations and empires have believed in some greater being (or beings) that require human submission. Wars have been fought on account of these beliefs and nations and religions have been destroyed only to be replaced by new religions and nations. I'm just wondering why you think your religion is so special, it's not the oldest religion in the world (I mean it's not the first religion).

It's not even the largest religion in the world or the one converting the most people to itself. So what makes Christianity so special? Why should people turn to another empty religion? Does it make people feel secure? Does it give a point to life? Just curious, why in a world were Christianity is making such a small impact in the lives of nonbelievers why you all just sit around and watch the world go by; and yet continue worshipping this god who commands that you go and make a difference. I'm simply amazed that Christianity has lasted this long. A: Thank you for your input regarding Christianity. Yes, I think you are correct that Christianity has been used by rulers to keep peoples lives in check - hence the phrase: "Religion.

..is the opium of the people" (Karl Marx). That is not necessarily all bad, since every civilization needs a code of ethics in order to survive. And its not bad at all, if the code of ethics actually comes from the Creator of mankind (as Christianity claims).

Yes, I think you are also correct that Christianity gives people purpose in their lives. I don't understand how people can live without purpose. This is one of the things that drew me to Jesus Christ. I had pretty much figured out that if there was no God then there was no meaning to life. If there was no intelligence or meaning behind my existence, then I was just an accident - a random collision of molecules - that would soon cease to exist.

I prayed and said "If there is a God, then show yourself to me and I will give my life to you." He did. I did. I would take exception to what you said about Christianity not being the oldest religion. Christians see themselves as an extension of the faith that goes back to our first parents.

We are a completion of the Jewish faith - after all, Jesus was Jewish. I also would disagree about numbers. Christianity in its various forms is the largest religion in the world (about 30% of the world population). There are more Christians than Muslims, Hindus or atheists. Christians fill every corner of the globe and every part of society.

The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book in the world. I only say that to keep the facts straight - not to make a case for Christianity. Being the largest doesn't make it the best. Jesus himself said that the road that leads to life is narrow and only few find it (Matthew 7:13-14). That would seem to indicate that true Christian believers (as opposed to nominal Christians) are a minority in the world.

The most important thing about Christianity isn't rules, but relationship. Its power is in a life-giving and life-transforming relationship with Jesus the Messiah (John 1:10-13) who makes a way for us to know the Father (John 14:6-7). We get to know God, be forgiven by Him, be changed by Him, and be with Him forever. That is what has made my life worth living and sacrificing for. By-the-way I'm also amazed that "Christianity has lasted this long.

" Look what He has to work with. Must be a God thing!

- FAQs What about the white devil race? I am a college student. I have just finished reading Malcolm X's autobiography. I am curious to your response on white devils. In the book it is said that Mr. Yacub was sent to the island of Patmos (this same island is described in the Bible as the island where John received the message contained in Revelations in the New Testament) where he began to create the white race by breeding together lighter and lighter complexioned people until the 'bleached out devil race' emerged.

Do you have any information on this, for or against it. I would be interested in reading it. Please let me know either way. Also could you comment on the statement that Christianity is the White man's religion and only served the black man by keeping them under the heal of the white man or in slavery. I am not saying I believe or disbelieve any of this, but I am curious as to what you would have to say about this.

Thank you. A: I don't have any information on Mr. Yacub and the creation of the white devil race on the isle of Patmos. Your email was the first I have ever heard of the story. I agree that Christianity (or a bastard form of Christianity) was used to keep Afro-Americans under the heel of the white man.

No one can deny that there were preachers and churches and whole denominations that tried to justify the slavery of a race from the Bible. They misquoted and misused God's Word to enslave, murder, and abuse black men and women. But the gospel that was proclaimed by Jesus was given to ALL the nations (Matthew 28:18). Jesus was born a Jew - not a European white man. He was not blonde and blue eyed.

Jesus crossed all cultural and religious and racial boundaries in his lifetime. Christians are told to do the same. Concerning slavery, the Bible itself (Old and New Testament) NEVER commanded or condoned or encouraged or allowed enslavement because of race (only as a result of war). One final point is that while some Christians were using their religion to subjugate the black man, other Christians (both white and black) who read the Bible without "colored" glasses saw that freedom and justice was the right of all men of every race. These Christians were the founders of the abolition and emancipation movement in the United States.