As we have already observed, the New Testament was written on the basis of eye-witness accounts. Over 4,000 times the Bible claims to be inspired and it repeatedly claims that inspiration to be verbal. The Bible words were confirmed by miracles performed by both Jesus and the apostles and believed by both believer and unbeliever (John 11:47). The Bible is unique in its continuity, its lack of contradiction, its brevity, its honesty about the failings of its major characters, and its prophecies.

Dudley Ross Spears writes, "The Koran was collected into book form after Muhammad died. Since he is described as practically illiterate, he wrote not one word of the book. It was compiled by his close companion, Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr became the much disputed first Caliph (successor to Muhammad). Bakr found scraps of Muhammad's thoughts written on palm leaves, white stones, and even bones. The majority of it came from the memory of those who had committed the prophet's words to their own memory...The proof that the Koran is a revelation from God is nothing more than human testimony. Muhammad did not claim to work miracles, or have any supernatural powers. The only basis for believing the Koran is a divinely inspired book is the testimony of an ex-shepherd boy who claimed that the angel Gabriel appeared to him to reveal the Koran as the last of all of divine revelations. The same arguments against such pseudo-revelations as The Book Of Mormon, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, and The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can be made against the Koran. It is nothing more than a collection of sayings that have no real continuity, theme, or organization. It falls into the same class as all subjective claims that God speaks to certain people in various ways." (Gospel Anchor, June, 1991, page 10 and July 1991, page 11).

It is important to note that the Koran accepts the revelations given to Moses in the Pentateuch, to David in the Psalms, to Jesus in the Gospels, and to Mohammed in the Koran. This is a contradiction of what Jesus said in the gospels. Jesus placed His seal upon all the Old Testament (Luke 24:44), and upon the apostles writings of the New Testament, even stating that they would be given all truth (John 16:13). The apostles later wrote, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). Further, the apostles claimed that their writings were complete and therefore not to be added to (Jude 3; II Peter 1:3; Revelation 22:18-19).

The most glaring contradiction is the fact that the Koran accepts Jesus words in the gospels, and yet Jesus in the gospels claims to be the Son of God and equal with God (John 10:30-36; 11:27), which is denied by the Koran.

Concerning the Book Of Mormon, suffice it to say that the Book of Mormon actually denies that it is inspired of God (I Nephi 1:3; 19:6; Jacob 1:2; 7:26; 3 Nephi 8:2; Ether 5:1; Mormon 9:32).

  

This question is often asked in order to argue that there may have already been a race of people on the earth before God created Adam and Eve. In the days of slavery and prejudice some used this as an argument for the origin of the black races. Others have used it to imply evolution having already taken place on the earth or even that Satan had created a race of people. The matter is settled with three simple facts:

1. Genesis 4:16-17 Cain did not meet his wife when he went to the land of Nod, he had relations with her. He already had her when he went to Nod.
2. Genesis 3:20 Eve is the mother of all living.
3. Genesis 5:4 Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Cain, therefore, married a sister.

This, however, was not a problem for two reasons:

1. Mankind was genetically brand new and did not need to worry about the 1500 genetic defects that we have today in our gene pool.
2. God did not forbid intermarriage until Leviticus 18 where the nearest of kin one was allowed to marry was first cousin.

  

The answer to this question is simply a matter of understanding a little about genetics. There is a tremendous potential for variation within the children of just one human couple. Evolutionist Francisco Ayala calculates that a single human couple could produce 102,017 children before they would have to produce an identical twin. The number of atoms in the known universe is a mere 1080, nothing at all compared with the variety that is present in just two human beings.

In fact, it would take only one generation to get all the variations of skin color that we see among people today. If two parents with medium skin color (possessing recessive genes of both black and white), had sixteen children, on the average one child would be completely black with no capability of passing on any "white" genes. One child would be completely white with no capability of passing on any "black" genes. Four children would be medium black, four medium white, and six children (less than half) would be the same color as their parents.

God placed in Adam and Eve and ultimately in Noah's sons and their wives, all the genetic capabilities to produce the variation in human beings that we see in our world today (CREATION: THE FACTS OF LIFE, by Gary Parker, page 77-79) After the Flood and the incident at the tower of Babel, people scattered over the face of the earth according to their languages. Continual marrying and producing children within their group eventually produced dominant characteristics that became the various races of people in the world (See Genesis 10).

  

The amount of evidences for the Flood are overwhelming and I would again refer the reader to THE GENESIS FLOOD by Henry Morris as well as THE WORLD THAT PERISHED by John C. Whitcomb. Some of the evidences to consider are as follows:

1. Fossils found of sea life in the tops of all the mountains of the world which not only indicates water from the oceans reaching that level, but also the catastrophic death of billions of animals at one time.
2. The discovery of jungles and millions of African mammoths in Siberia and Alaska. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, XII, page 834, states, "The Siberian deposits have been worked now for nearly two centuries. The store appears to be as inexhaustible as a coal field. Some think that a day may come when the spread of civilization may cause the utter disappearance of the elephant in Africa, and that it will be to these deposits that we may have to turn as the only source of animal ivory." An estimated 5,000,000 mammoths whose remains are buried all along the coastline of northern Siberia and Alaska, were frozen and buried not many thousands of years ago.

  

In Henry Morris' book THE GENESIS RECORD, page 185, he notes that there were about 36,000 species of animals on the earth at the time of the Flood. This would mean no more than 75,000 species of animals on the ark when the extra "clean" animals are included. The capacity of the ark would equal 522 train stock cars, whereas 75,000 animals would only fill about 300 stock cars and thus be filled to about 60% of its capacity.

The ark had more than enough room to carry all the animals required to replenish the earth. Remember also, Noah would not have brought full-size animals on to the ark nor would ALL of these species needed to go on the ark. A few more basic "kinds" would have sufficed to produce the variation we have in existence today.

  

Again, the years were certainly literal because there is nothing in the context of Genesis to indicate that the writer was speaking figuratively. And, since Moses was writing (Luke 24:44), he wrote with the same years in mind that were taking place in his day (he lived to 120 years).

The question of why people lived so long before the flood can only be answered by gathering the facts we know from the Bible and then theorizing the most logical explanation. Consider the following:

1. II Peter 3:3-7 tells us that there was a different "world" (KOSMOS -- order or arrangement of the world) before the flood and that this old world perished. Therefore, we must go to Genesis and find out how the old world was different.
2. Genesis 1:6-7 tells us that there was a large body of water (evidently in vapor form) that God placed above the atmosphere. There is no such thing in our atmosphere today. This being so, Henry Morris of the Institute For Creation Research explains that such a body of water would have blocked out most incoming solar radiation along with increasing atmospheric pressure which would have dramatically contributed to human and animal health and longevity.
3. This would explain why there was no rain in those days and no rainbow (Genesis 2:5). This amount of water in the atmosphere would have created uniform temperatures over the whole world with no polar ice caps and therefore no winds and no storms.
4. This would also explain some of the unusual geologic discoveries. Even evolutionary scientist admit that at one time the earth was much warmer than it is now. Elephant ivory has been mined out of the ice of Siberia for over 200 years and the supply seems inexhaustible. An estimated 5 million African mammoths are buried in the ice along the coasts of Alaska and Siberia. Elephants have been found quick-frozen, with food half-chewed and half-digested. Evidence of tropical jungles have been uncovered where year-round ice packs exist.
5. This large body of water in the atmosphere would also later be used by God to flood the world. Remember, it rained for forty days and nights covering the earth over twenty-two feet above the highest mountains. Such would be impossible today since all the water in the atmosphere would only cover the earth to about one inch."

  

In the first place, there is no logical reason for scientists to date dinosaurs before man. They do so simply because of their evolutionary model and a presupposition that dinosaurs and man could not have cohabited. In fact, tracks of dinosaur and human footprints have been found in the Puluxy River bed in south Texas fossilized in stone. These tracks actually cross providing strong evidence for the co-existence of dinosaur and human.

Further, the Bible certainly includes dinosaurs when it speaks of the creation of all animals in Genesis 1:25 and again when the animals were taken into the ark (Genesis 7:2).

Job gave descriptions of two animals that are unlike anything we have ever seen today. The descriptions of Behemoth (Job 40:15-24) and Leviathan (Job 41) are as dinosaur-like as one could get.

Remember, that about 18,000 species of animals have become extinct since the flood (that is, there are over 18,000 species of animals in the fossil record that are not alive today). It is therefore not surprising that a few dinosaurs became extinct along with so many others.

By the way, travel to the zoo and go to the reptile section and see if you don't see some animals that would be considered dinosaurs if they were found as fossils instead of alive!

  

"The fossil record has been a source of great misinformation over the years. Practically every evolutionist would like you to believe that there are hundreds of "transitional forms" found among the fossils that indicate a gradual evolution of life. Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record displays that same distinct life categories as what we see in the animal world around us. "Fifty million" year-old bats are still bats! Even Darwin himself understood that the fossil record was the most serious objection to his theory. In his chapter entitled, "On The Imperfection Of The Geologic Record", he writes, "...intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Now more than 120 years later, nothing has changed. David Raup, a leading evolutionist and curator of the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which houses 20% of all fossil species known, writes in his 1979 article entitled "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", "Most people assume that fossils provide a very important history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true...Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded...Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." If this man in his position can see less transitional evidence than Darwin, the fossil record does not provide evidence for evolution. {Quotes taken from THE FACTS OF LIFE by Gary Parker, page 94-95)

  

In John 14:15 Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." Again in 1 John 2:3-4 John said, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." And in Hebrews 5:9 we are told that Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." The bottom line is that God has never counted His people as "sincere" if they willfully refuse to obey Him. In Leviticus 10:1-3 Nadab and Abihu were killed by fire from God because they offered a different kind of fire than God had commanded. How picky is that? In II Samuel 6:1-7 Uzzah was killed when he took hold of the ark of the covenant as he was trying to keep it from falling when the oxen pulling the cart stumbled. Uzzah's sincerity and good intentions did not save him from being killed when he touched the ark.

Consider also that Jesus warned the apostles in John 16:2, "...the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service." Sincerity certainly did not excuse a person who was murdering one of the apostles. Paul stated in Acts 23:1 "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." Though Paul had lived in all good conscience, he still counted himself as "the chief of sinners" (I Timothy 1:15) and a "blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man" (I Timothy 1:13). Sincerity and love for God simply does not excuse a person's disobedience.

By the way, when Jesus condemned the Jews in Matthew 23:23 for tithing mint, anise and cummin, but neglecting the weightier matters of the law, He stated at the end of this verse, "These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." Jesus, therefore, did not tell them to stop tithing these small herbs. In fact, He told them to continue with the tithe, while not neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Therefore, Jesus was not condemning strict adherence to the law, but warning that we not neglect the true meaning and spirit behind the Lord's commands.

  

"This question arises from the common misunderstanding of what the Bible means when it states that there is "one God" (Deuteronomy 6:4). The word "God" is a family name or description telling us that there is one deity. In fact, the Hebrew for God is ELOHIM (Genesis 1:1) which is a collective noun indicating a plural word with a singular meaning. It is like the words, flock, herd, family, or church. All of these words indicate singular entities, but there are more than one individual in each that makes up the whole. In fact, none of these collective nouns could exist if there were not more than one individual that were are part of them. You cannot have a herd if you own only one cow. Neither can God refer to Himself as Elohim and there be only one individual that is God.

The evidence for this plurality is also obvious in our English translations:

• Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man..."
• Genesis 11:7 "Let US go down..."
• Genesis 19:24 "Then the Lord [Jehovah] rained brimstone and fire... from the Lord [Jehovah] out of the heavens." Notice that one Jehovah is raining down fire and brimstone from another Jehovah.

It is further evident that there are three individuals that make up the God family (Elohim) and were involved in creating the heavens and earth:

• John 17:5; Psalm 8:3 The Father
• John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-16 The Son
• Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4 The Holy Spirit

Evidence for this plurality is also indicated a number of times in the New Testament:

• Matthew 3:16-17 Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all present at the baptism of Jesus.
• John 16:13-15 All three are again mentioned in one text as being part of the work of revealing the word."

  

Consider the MARVELOUS FIT OF ORGANISMS TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

For example, consider the many large fish with sharp teeth that feed on shrimp and smaller fish. Their mouths begin to accumulate food debris and parasites. How is such a fish going to clean its teeth? The answer is a visit to the local cleaning station where there are certain shrimp and small brightly colored fish. After eating, a predatory fish will literally swim over and take his place in line to have his teeth cleaned. It opens it mouth, baring vicious teeth and allows the little cleaner fish to swim in its mouth and through the gills picking off parasites in the soft tissues of the mouth. And when the cleaning is done the big fish does not eat the cleaner fish but allows it to escape. Then the big fish swims off hunting for other little fish and shrimp to eat. But how could this cleaning symbiosis have evolved? Evolutionist and Nobel Prize Winner Albert Szent-Gyorgi writes the following about mutualism among living things: "All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horrible complex underlying nervous mechanism..." "All this had to be developed simultaneously." In commenting on Szent-Gyorgi's observations, Dr. Gary Parker writes, "It's the same thing for cleaning symbiosis; it's no good if the little fish gets the idea to go into the big fish's mouth before the big fish inherits the final random mutational change to let it back out again." Szent-Gyorgi continues that he odds of getting all these random favorable mutations to happen at the same time is...ZERO. He says it just can't come about by time and chance and the natural process of mutation. Instead, he postulates "syntropy" or basically an impersonal creative force. He recognizes creation can be logically deduced but denies the Creator. (CREATION: THE FACTS OF LIFE, page 35).

There are many other similar examples such as the Nile crocodile that will open its mouth for the Egyptian Plover to walk in and pick off the parasites. The Yucca moth that lays it eggs in the seed chamber of a yucca plant providing not only food for its young, but the only means of the yucca plant pollinating itself.

Consider also the Bombardier Beetle. The following story is told by Dr. Duane Gish (FROM FISH TO GISH, page 145-146):

THAT MEAN OL' BEETLE-EATER

"Although he looks like an ordinary beetle, he is really a very unusual beetle. When some mean ol' beetle-eater comes and threatens to eat him, BOOM! --an explosion goes off right in the face of this mean ol' beetle-eater."It turns out that this beetle mixes hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen quinone and puts it in a storage chamber. The remarkable thing about this is that it is a very explosive mixture. It would blow up if I did it in the laboratory. But the beetle adds an inhibitor. When the mean ol' beetle-eater comes up, he squirts this solution into twin combustion tubes. At just the right moment, he adds an anti-inhibitor which neutralizes the inhibitor. BOOM! An explosion takes place. Noxious gases are expelled at 212 degrees Fahrenheit right in the face of the mean ol' beetle-eater. That's enough to discourage any mean ol' beetle-eater!

"Let us imagine how this might have happened by evolution. Millions of years ago, there was a little beetle. Let's call him 'Beetle Bailey.' How he got a storage chamber, I do not know. One day he decided to throw in some hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen quinone. BOOM! He blew himself up. You see, he didn't have the inhibitor. But why would he evolve the inhibitor until he had the two chemicals? He would have no use for it. It would have no evolutionary adaptive value. But if he had the two chemicals first, it's too late! He's already blown himself up.

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! For thousands of generations little beetles are blowing themselves up. They can't pass the information down to their offspring because they didn't have any offspring. There is no way that evolution could work that out.

Let's suppose that by some miracle some little beetle gets the inhibitor. You say, 'That's tremendous!' No, absolutely not. What good would it do? It would just soak and sour and corrode his innards. It would do no good. He still doesn't have the anti-inhibitor. Why would he invent the anti-inhibitor until he had the inhibitor to begin with? But why would he invent the two chemicals and the inhibitor first? It does no good. There is no evolutionary rationale for it.

"Let us suppose that finally, by some miracle, some little beetle invents the anti-inhibitor. You say, 'We have arrived.' No, he doesn't have the twin combustion tubes yet. He adds the anti-inhibitor and BOOM! He blows himself up again. There would be no evolutionary advantage to invent the anti-inhibitor without the other chemicals. but if he invents it with the other chemicals, he blows up.

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Again, for thousands of generations little beetles are blowing themselves up. They don't have those twin combustion tubes which are incredibly complex. An amazing genetic apparatus is needed to evolve those twin combustion tubes. Why would they need the twin combustion tubes until they had the two chemicals, the inhibitor, and the anti-inhibitor? But they would have no use for the other until they had the twin combustion tubes. You have to have it all together.

"Let's assume that by a tremendous miracle of evolutionary mutations or mistakes that some little beetle evolved the twin combustion tubes. 'Now,' you say, 'we finally are there!'

"No, not quite. He doesn't have the communication network. He doesn't have the signal worked out. Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be if his friend, Joe Beetle, comes up, pats him on the back and says, 'Hi, Friend!' BOOM! He will lose a lot of friends that way.

"But, why would he need the communication network and the signal until he had everything else? But everything else without the network does him no good either. You see, you have to have everything complete. You must have the storage chamber, the two chemicals, the inhibitor, the anti-inhibitor, the twin combustion tubes, and the communication network. Then and only then will you have a bombardier beetle. Up until that time you have nothing but disaster. You have no way of getting from one to the other. You must remain little old 'Beetle Bailey.'

Mean ol' beetle-eaters should be enthusiastic for evolution. It is because of creation that those mean ol' beetle-eaters are not able to eat more bombardier beetles." (FROM FISH TO GISH, page 145-147)

THE FLICKER WOODPECKER

"Here's a bird that makes its living banging its head into trees. Whatever gave it the idea to do that in the first place? Was it frustration from losing the worm to the early bird? How did banging its head into trees increase its likelihood for survival--until after it had accumulated (by chance?) a thick skull with shock absorbing tissues, muscles, etc.! And what would be the survival value of all these features (and how could they build up in the population) until after the bird started banging it head into trees?

And what about the beetle under the bark? The beetle is surely aware of all the woodpecker's pounding. So, while the woodpecker is pounding, the beetle is crawling further down its hole or digging another hole. So, before any of the drilling adaptations can have any fitness, the woodpecker must have a long, sticky tongue to reach what it somehow knows is good food under that tough tree bark.

But if you have a long, sticky tongue and you're a bird, where do you put the long tongue? For the woodpecker, the answer is to wrap its tongue under the skin and bring it clear around the head and insert it in the right nostril! Now, if you start as an ordinary bird with a short tongue and no tongue sheath, what would you do in the intermediate states--perhaps, for example, with a tongue too long for the bill but too short to catch the beetles you've just been beating your head into trees to catch?" (CREATION: THE FACTS OF LIFE, page 51). Further, think of this bird in the intermediate stages of developing each of these traits. Before he develops a thick skull with shock-absorbing tissues, he will immediately give himself severe brain damage the first time he bangs his beak into a tree, not to mention what would happen to his beak!

  

Usually when a person asks this question using the word "interpretations," they are referring to translations. Oftentimes they have heard the Bible from different translations such as King James, New American Standard, New King James, or New International Version. What many do not understand is that the main difference between different versions of the scriptures is the time period in which they were translated. Since the King James Version was translated in 1611, it uses the English of 1611. Many of the words used in 1611 have an entirely different meaning than they do today. An example of this would be Hebrews 13:5 "Let your conversation be free of covetousness." But in 1611 the word "conversation" referred to one's conduct or manner of life, not one's speech. Therefore, in the New King James Version, translated in 1979, the verse reads, "Let your conduct be free of covetousness." The same is true with the King James word "prevent" in I Thessalonians 4:15. In 1611 the word actually meant "precede" and is thus translated in the newer versions. Therefore, the main difference between translations is simply the English that was used at the time of the translation along with the translator's choice of words that would best translate the Greek or Hebrew words.

There are some minor differences that occur when different versions place more weight on some manuscripts than upon others. These differences are minute and never affect any doctrinal point.

It should also be noted that some "translations" are not translations at all, but paraphrases. Among these would be the Living Bible and the Reader's Digest Bible. The Living Bible is simply the result of a man writing the Bible in his own words. It is a commentary, not a translation. The New International Version was produced by a group of translators who tried to translate the original thought instead of the original word. As a result, there are places where their theology shines through.

Instead of the various translations being a confusion (since their messages are virtually the same), this variety allows us to better confirm the Bible message. The different versions act as checks and balances so that no one group of translators would be able to purposely change something in scripture and escape notice. The New World Translation produced by the Watchtower Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses has purposely changed certain parts of their version. But these are immediately detectable when compared with any other accepted translation.

  

The Bible was taken from hand written copies, much of which are only fragments. How can we trust that what we have is accurate?

Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can be absolutely confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations). Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the 400 remaining variations, only 50 are of any significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages.

Further, there are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.

Besides this, Jesus promised that His words would not pass away (Matthew 24:35).

  

Each Bible writer had a different style which proves that God gave each writer general thoughts, but they wrote in their own words.

{IMPLICATION: We do not have to follow the Bible strictly.} While it is true that each Bible writer had his own style, it does not follow that they wrote in their own words. God revealed His words using the style of each human author. This is shown in a number of places. In I Corinthians 2:12-13, Paul states that the words that he and the other apostles spoke and revealed were "words" taught them by the Holy Spirit. In II Peter 1:20-21 Peter tells us that no scripture is of any private interpretation. The word "interpretation" refers to how the scriptures were disclosed or revealed to man. These prophets did not reveal God's message by any private manipulation of their own, because they did not speak of their "own will", but spoke as they were "moved" by the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 4:4 Jesus told Satan that man does not live by bread alone but by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of the God." In fact, in Matthew 22:32 Jesus quoted Exodus 3:6 and argued the resurrection from the present tense of "I am the God of Abraham..." Jesus could not have argued from the verb tense if the very words of scripture were not inspired. Again, in Galatians 3:16 Paul argued that salvation came through Christ and not all Israel by emphasizing the singular form of "seed." "Through your seed all nations shall be blessed" not through your "seeds." Other scriptures that pertain: Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19.

  

Certainly it is true that the Bible was not written with the actual "finger of God." Men used pen and ink to write the scriptures. However, the Bible claims to be inspired.

That is, men wrote as "they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21). David said, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue" (II Samuel 23:2). Isaiah said, "The word that Isaiah the son of Amos saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (Isaiah 2:1). Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (II Timothy 3:16). In fact, the scriptures claim to be the words of God over 4,000 times. Now if this book has lied over 4,000 times concerning its origin, and yet it still demands us to obey it or be lost in an eternal hell, there is nothing "good" about this book. If it is "only written by men" it is worst book the world has known.

  

Anything a person is practicing that involved sinful activity must be ceased when they become a Christian. It may be one thing for a person to work as a clerk in a supermarket that sells alcoholic beverages, but to be a salesman in the employ of a liquor company and therefore in the position of promoting the sale of that which is sinful before God is wrong. Paul gives the principle in II Corinthians 6:14-17: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers..." Again, Paul states in I Corinthians 10:21: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons." In II John 9-11 we are told that we cannot even bid God speed to a false teaching without participating in his evil deeds. Working for a liquor company would certainly be promoting evil.

  

If this couple plans on marrying soon, they are admitting that saying their vows privately is not getting married. If the law of the land (that is, even the heathen) does not recognize this as marriage, God certainly doesn't. This is fornication and it not only is against God's law, it cheapens the commitment of marriage.

  

The principles given in the answer to the former question also answer this person's condition. Many would like to argue that since this person was not a Christian, Christ's laws concerning divorce and remarriage do not apply. Remember, however, that Christ said His teaching was based on a law that was "from the beginning." Marriage, nor the laws concerning it, are "church" or "Christian" ordinances. They were given to Adam and Eve and all who descended from them. Consider also that when a Christian sins he must repent in order to be saved. The same command is given to the non-Christian. If repentance for the Christian who has divorced and remarried is separation in order to cease adultery, then repentance for the non-Christian is the same. Remember that both believer and unbeliever needs the blood of Christ in order to be saved. Is the blood of Christ so strong for the unbeliever coming to Christ that they need not separate from their adultery, but the same blood of Christ is not strong enough to save the Christian who remains with his or her unlawful mate? The law is the same for both believer and unbeliever. Neither can stay in sin and expect to be saved.

  

The teaching of the Lord on the subject of divorce and remarriage is very straightforward in Matthew 19:3-12. I believe it is important when teaching any person who asks questions concerning this issue to simply turn to the text and read it. Here are some things the Lord plainly states in this text:

• The authority for marriage as well as the prohibition of divorce was given in the beginning (Genesis 2:24) and therefore applies to all men, believer or unbeliever.
• The words of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 did not give authority for a person to divorce or remarry, but was given because of the sinfulness (hardheartedness) of the Jews. What God "suffered" during this time was not God will or law "from" the beginning. In using the word "from" Jesus shows that the law given in the beginning has always been the law.
• Only one person was given the right to both divorce and remarry and that is the person whose mate had committed fornication. No one else is given that right. Anyone else who does divorce and remarry is committing adultery.
• Therefore, there can be only one conclusion for the person who admits what the person asking this question admits. When Herod and Herodias were accused of unlawfully marrying one another, John the Baptist told them that separation was the only solution in order to be pleasing to God (Mark 6:14-17).

  

In the first place, this question as asked assumes that which has NOT been proven, namely, that the earth is billions of years old. On the other hand, it not surprising that evolutionists today believe in an old earth. If one starts with the presupposition that there is no God, an old earth is the only alternative. After all, the earth does appear to be very old. Consider the following:

1. Genesis 1 indicates that God made the earth with the appearance of age. Everything was made full grown. You can imagine Adam on the sixth day looking at the stars (millions of light years away), and wondering aloud how many millions of years everything had been in existence before he was made. Of course, God would have replied that those stars were only made a few days before with the light supernaturally brought to the earth and thus bypassing the millions of years it would have ordinarily taken for the light to arrive. Consider: how old did Adam look to Eve after Eve was made? But how old was he?
2. There is no way scientifically to prove the age of the earth. There are too many variables. All of the scientific dating methods used today depend upon the belief that what we see happening in the world today, is what has always happened. There is no room for the possibility of "creation" or even a world-wide catastrophe. Consider: if you walked into a room with a lit candle, could you discover by observation how long the candle had been burning? You might measure the rate of burn along with the amount of wax at the bottom of the candle and think you had an accurate measurement. But you would be assuming that the rate of burn was always the same; that there was never a breeze in the room that might have increased the rate of burn; or that the candle was not put out and re-lit at some time. There is only one way of knowing how long the candle has been burning: ask the person who lit it!

Sometimes this question may be asked by a theistic evolutionist and thus there is a discussion as to whether the days of Genesis 1 & 2 are literal 24-hour days. Consider the following:

1. Everything we read in the Bible (or anywhere else for that matter) must be taken literally unless something in the context demands otherwise. Nothing in the context of Genesis 1 & 2 indicates figurative language. In fact, the Lord did everything He could to indicate literal days by saying after each creative day, "there was an evening and a morning." Evening and morning are caused by the 24 hour rotation of the earth. The terms "evening and morning" each occur over 100 times in the Old Testament and always have the literal meaning.
2. Further, in Exodus 20:8-11, the same writer, Moses, records that the Israelites were to work six days and rest the seventh day just as God worked six days and rested the seventh. This is the same Hebrew word for "days" and there is no indication of any figurative period of time. How ever long the day was in Moses time is how long it was at the time of the creation.
3. The word "day" (YOM) when modified by the numeral (e.g. "third day") is a construction occurring more than 100 times in the Pentateuch alone and always with the literal meaning.

  

This is a difficult question that the Bible may not give us a clear answer on.

Consider two texts. In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus condemns the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum because He had performed so many of His mighty works there and yet they had not repented. In condemning them He said, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." It is hard to imagine anyone worse than those of Sodom, and yet judgment would be easier on them than on many of the people of Jesus day because those of Jesus' day had greater opportunity.

Jesus expresses the same principle in Luke 12:47-48. Many stripes are given to the servant who knew the Master's will and yet did not prepare himself accordingly. But only a few stripes are given to the one who did not know yet committed deeds worthy of stripes. The question is, do these passages imply degrees of punishment in hell or a difference in how much mercy each will be shown in the judgment based on how much opportunity each were given? What we do know is, we have been given a great salvation and a great opportunity. God's word has been clearly revealed to us, and if we do not prepare it will be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom than for us!

  

This statement suggests that God's character actually changed once Christ came offering grace through His blood. But Hebrews 13:8 states that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." God's character has not changed and neither has His offer of mercy to those who obey Him. Even under the Law, at the giving of the ten commandments God offered mercy to those who kept His commandments (Exodus 20:5-6). How was Abraham saved? According to Romans 4, he was saved by grace. How was David saved? According to Romans 4, though under the Law he was saved by grace. Of course, the grace that God offered in Old Testament times was dependent upon the offering of Christ even as His offer of grace in the New Testament. In Romans 11:22, after Paul cited the example of God cutting off Israel because of their disobedience, he said, "Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God..." Both the goodness of God in the Old Testament times as well as the severity of God in the Old Testament times, needs to be considered in New Testament times.

Further, Hebrews 2:1-3 as well as Hebrews 10:26-31 and Hebrews 12:25-29, all tell us that the greater privileges and greater salvation of the New Testament, means that we also have a greater responsibility to righteousness and obedience. The principle is, if they did not escape who had God's word given through angels and Moses, we certainly will not escape who have the Word given through the Son of God.

  

The person who makes this statement is taking Romans 6:14 completely out of its context. Chapter six of Romans is actually teaching that grace demands that we cease sin! (Romans 6:1-2). Since grace has freed us from sin, we must no longer live in it. Romans 6:17-18 states that since we are no longer slaves to sin, we have now become slaves to righteousness.

In Paul's discussion of law and grace in Romans 3, he states in verse 31, "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." It is foolish to say that once we are under grace we are no longer under any law. If we were no longer under a law we would not need grace, because where there is no law there is no sin (Romans 4:15). When Paul in Romans 6:14 states that we are not under law, he is referring to a system of law as opposed to a system of grace or faith. Under a system of law one would have to live perfectly in order to be saved (Romans 3:20; 4:1-4). Under such a system sin would have dominion over us because we would have no means of escaping it once we sinned. But sin does not have dominion over us under a system of faith/grace because our salvation is based on forgiveness not perfection. When we sin, we can turn to God in confession and faith and thus always be able to escape sin's power. However, such "good news" in no way gives us a license to sin. In fact, it is that very doctrine that Jude condemned in Jude 4 when he said that ungodly men "turn the grace of our God into licentiousness." Grace demands us to cease from sin.

  

Acts 15:6-21 shows clearly the means by which the apostles and early church sought authority for their teaching and practice when sufficient revelation had already been made. In this passage a dispute had arisen over whether the Gentiles were to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses in order to be saved. It is interesting that the apostles do not turn to the Holy Spirit for direct revelation, instead relying on the revelation that had already been provided. So how did they go about determining the truth? Peter 15:6-11 argued the point on the basis of necessary inference. Peter first presented the pertinent facts:

1. He was sent by God to preach to the Gentiles,
2. God acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit even as He did to us (the apostles),
3. He made no distinction between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith.

With these three facts before the audience, Peter then drew the necessary conclusion: "Therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples...But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (Jews) shall be saved in the same manner as they (Gentiles)."(verse 10-11). Though God had not specifically said that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses, Peter was able to necessarily infer that they were not under such a requirement because of the facts of how God went about saving Cornelius and his household. Of course, we might add that Peter also uses an approved example as the basis for his necessary inference.

Paul and Barnabas (15:12) take up the argument on the basis of approved examples. They refer to their preaching tour among the Gentiles and how that God performed miracles and wonders through their hands as they preached the gospel without requiring circumcision or the law of Moses. The miracles and wonders God gave them as they preached placed God's approval on this method of saving Gentile people.

Finally, James 15:13-21 refers to a direct precept in scripture where God plainly approved the acceptance of the Gentiles when the tabernacle of David was rebuilt. That day had come, therefore the Gentiles were to be accepted.Jesus used the method of approved example to teach in Matthew 12:1-5. He also used necessary inference in Matthew 22:41-45 when He tried to teach the people that He was both the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.

  

Any time we get a response such as this, we need to first examine our own motives and make sure we have not come across in our teaching with a self-righteous attitude. II Timothy 2:24-25 warns us to be gentle and patient when we teach, "in humility correcting those who are in opposition."

However, there are also occasions when a person offers this response to a legitimate scriptural warning of disobedience before God. The Lord warned against judging one another when it is a measuring of someone by our own standards (Matthew 7:1-2). Further, we are warned against prejudicial judgment, judgment made when we do not have all the facts (John 7:24). But in this same text we are also told to "judge righteous judgment." In Philippians 1:9-10 we are told increase in "knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent." Again, in I John 4:1 we are told to "test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." John continues in verse 6 telling us the standard by which we are to test: "He who knows God hears us (the apostles); he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

We are not violating the Lord's prohibition against judging when we are simply teaching what God has said about what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, and discerning between a false teacher and one who speaks the truth.

  

First of all, it is important to note that we cannot judge God based on what we think we would do in similar circumstances. Isaiah 55:8-9 states, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." We are mere human beings and God has not placed us in a position to render punishment toward our children like He would render, nor has He made us capable of thinking in such a way toward our children.

Next, we need to consider that God is not only merciful, He is just to render punishment to those who are evil. Romans 1:18 states, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." God's wrath toward wickedness is not a wrath as man would have, but a judicial wrath that demands justice in His spiritual government. We do not appreciate judges in our society who allow criminals to go free on a technicality or based their own personal feelings toward the criminal. Such injustice ruins our system of government. God does not allow such in His government. Romans 3:26 tells us that Christ died so that God "might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." The death of Christ made it possible for God to be merciful without violating His own justice. Consider also Romans 11:22.

Now let's turn the question around. Will a "merciful God" punish Satan forever and ever? Revelation 20:10 says He will. Satan and His angels are as much a creation of God as any of us are. If He will punish them forever, why not those of us who follow after Satan's ways?

  

It is first important to understand that we are forever. God made us in His image and formed a spirit within us (Zechariah 12:1). We are eternal beings created for the purpose of living with God forever. Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells us that at death the body goes back to the dust, but the spirit returns to God who gave it. Luke 12:4-5 tells us that we need not fear those who can kill the body but after that have nothing more they can do. Instead we need to fear God who after He has killed, has the power to cast into hell. Jesus shows that there is a difference between the body and the spirit. The body is temporary but the spirit lives on. Since we have no end, the question is where will we spend eternity.

Matthew 25:46 tells us that the righteous will go to "eternal" life but the wicked to "eternal" punishment. Jesus used the same Greek word to describe how long hell is as He did to describe how long heaven is. Both the "life" and the "punishment" are eternal. One lasts as long as the other.

Mark 9:43-48 tells us the hell is a "fire that never shall be quenched--where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." Comparing hell to the fire and maggots of the literal valley of Hinnom, Jesus said there would be no end to the fire burning or the maggot eating on the one cast there.

Revelation 14:10-11 tells us that there "is no rest day or night" and the "smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever."

In Revelation 20:10-15 those not found written in the book of life are cast into the same lake of fire as Satan who is tormented day and night forever and ever.

  

Revelation 20:13-15 tells us that on the day of judgment Death and Hades will deliver up the dead that are in them and then Death and Hades will be cast into the lake of fire along with all of those who are not found written in the book of life. From this we learn that the dead are in a place called Hades until Judgment and then raised to be cast into hell if they are not in the book of life. Therefore, a person does not go immediately into hell at death.

In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man and pictures both of them in Hades following death. Lazarus is being comforted in Hades while the rich man is being tormented. This fits well the Old Testament picture of Sheol (Hebrew for Hades) being a bad place for those who are wicked (Isaiah 14:11), but a good place for those who are righteous (Genesis 37:35).

The same principle would hold true for heaven. We do not go to heaven as soon as we die in the sense of receiving our final reward. There still must be a resurrection when we are given a spiritual body like the Lord's (I Corinthians 15:35-50; I John 3:2; Philippians 3:20-21). In John 5:28-29 Jesus states that the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth, some to a resurrection of life and some to a resurrection of condemnation. Further, Revelation 21:1-8 shows that it is not until after the day of judgment and the resurrection that we are presented to the Lord as a bride ready for her husband. Then comes the marriage of the church with Christ when he takes us to His home to live throughout eternity.

  

Though we do not receive our final reward nor our resurrected bodies as soon as we die, there is a sense in which we will be with the Lord. In II Corinthians 5:6-8 Paul states that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. But we are confident that when we are absent from the body we will be present with the Lord. In Philippians 1:23 Paul speaks of his death and says that he would rather depart and be with Christ rather than stay on in the flesh. Revelation 7:13-17 pictures the saints who had gone through the great tribulation as being before the throne of God and serving Him day and night in His temple.

In II Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul speaks of being caught up into the third heaven (to the Hebrews the first heaven was our immediate atmosphere, the second heaven was the universe, and the third heaven was where God dwelled) where he saw visions. He calls this third heaven Paradise, using the same term that Jesus gave for the good side of Hades when He told the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). When Jesus died, He descended into Hades (Acts 2:27).

Thus, Paradise is the good side of Hades and the same place where Paul saw his visions. He considered this to be the third heaven where the Lord is. This is all we know. Concerning details of how we could be with the Lord without receiving our final reward, we will have to wait until that day.

  

Evolution denies known accepted laws of science that are accepted by all. R.B. Lindsay, in AMERICAN SCIENTIST, states, "there is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation--the law of increasing entropy." Further, Isaac Asimov, in SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE JOURNAL, states, "Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out--all by itself--and that is what the second law is all about.

True, and ,Hebrews 1:10-11 confirms that the earth has been growing old since God created it. But evolution theorizes the very opposite, claiming that things are going from a state of disorder to a state of order, and that such is irreversible. Julian Huxley, in his article, EVOLUTION & GENETICS, states, "Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution--a single process of self-transformation.

Further, of necessity, evolution must believe in millions upon millions of favorable mutations that began from nothing more than hydrogen or some other gases, which given enough time, produced people. And we are told that it is ignorant to believe in miracles! Harlow Shapley states, Some people piously proclaim, 'In the beginning God.' I say, 'In the beginning, Hydrogen.' Now how possible is that!

  

Knowing each other in heaven is one of the great blessing we have to look forward to. This seems to be the whole point of Paul's discussion of sorrowing for those who have died in Christ in II Thessalonians 4:13-18. In each verse he speaks of being reunited with those who sleep in Jesus. Because of this, we need not sorrow as others who do not have such a hope and therefore we can comfort one another with these words.

The Jews looked forward to being with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets. Therefore Jesus said that there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth when they saw these great men in the kingdom while they themselves were being cast out. Jesus then said that the Gentiles would enjoy the presence of the prophets instead (Luke 13:28-29).

When Jesus met Martha after the death of her brother Lazarus, Martha expressed the hope of seeing her brother again in the resurrection. But Jesus said, "I am the resurrection," telling her that she could see her brother again immediately if He so desired (John 11:21-27).

  

What exactly did Ham do and what was the curse? First it is important to consider all the facts involved in this story:

1. There was something that Ham did to his father that Noah was aware of when he awoke from his wine (vs.24).
2. Whatever Ham did and told his brothers about caused the brothers to abhor the sin so much that they covered their father by walking backwards into the tent so as not to see the nakedness of their father. (Obviously just the seeing of his nakedness was not the sin.)
3. There must be a connection between what Ham did and Canaan since there were four sons of Ham and neither Ham nor the other sons were cursed.
4. The curse, as well as the blessings on the other brothers, are prophecies dealing with the nations that would come from these people, and not statements about what would happen to the people themselves.

Fitting all this together, my conclusion is that Ham looked upon his father in lust and in some way committed a sin that would be both incestuous and homosexual and was later denounced in the Canaanites (See Leviticus 18:1-25).

  

The word rapture comes from the phrase "caught up" in I Thessalonians 4:16. The Latin translation of the Greek word is RAPIEMUR, hence, our word "rapture." The word, therefore, does not lack biblical support, but the concepts and doctrines surrounding the word have no biblical foundation. In I Thessalonians 4 the time in which the saints are "caught up" is the same time in which the day of Lord comes as a thief in the night (I Thessalonians 5:2) and brings judgment on the wicked. In John 5:28-29 Jesus states that the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth, some to a resurrection of life and some to a resurrection of condemnation. In Matthew 25:31-33 Jesus tells us that on the day of judgment all nations will be gathered before Him and He will divide them as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

However, in the doctrine of Premillennialism, the rapture is a temporary exodus of the saints from the earth while a great seven-year tribulation takes place on the remaining inhabitants of the earth. Following this seven year period, the saints are to return to the earth where they live for 1000 years.

This contradicts I Thessalonians 4:17 where Paul tells us that we will meet the Lord in the air "and thus we shall always be with the Lord." The scriptures never have the Lord returning to the earth. In fact, Jesus claimed that He had finished the work God had given Him to do on the earth (John 17:4).

  

In the scenario of Premillennialism, seven years prior to Christ's return, the saints will be "raptured" from the earth. During this seven year period those left on the earth will suffer the period of the great tribulation. This will cause many to repent and thereby prepare the way for the Lord's return and the beginning of the 1000 year reign of peace and prosperity on the earth.

There are three times the phrase "great tribulation" is used in the scriptures:

Matthew 24:21; Revelation 2:22, 7:14. Jesus' use of the phrase in Matthew specifically refers to the tribulation that took place on the city of Jerusalem in AD 70 by the Romans. The context demands this. In 24:2 Jesus had foretold the fall of Jerusalem as well as the temple. In 24:3 His disciples asked when these things would take place, what would be the sign of His coming to accomplish these things, and thus the end of the Jewish age. Jesus answers these questions by referring to Daniel's prophecy in 24:15 which specifically foretold the fall of Jerusalem/Judaism (Daniel 9:24-27). In 24:16 Jesus specifically warns that when this tribulation takes place those in Judea were to flee. Therefore this is not a tribulation that would take place on the whole world, but on those in Judea. Further, in 24:32-34, when Jesus identifies the time period when this tribulation would take place He states, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled." Therefore, that generation of people that Jesus was speaking to would not die before the great tribulation took place. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, Jesus prophecy was fulfilled. It is also important to not that in 24:21 Jesus said that the great tribulation that would come on Jerusalem and Judea would be the greatest the world had ever seen and there would never be another greater.

The next place the phrase is used is Revelation 2:22 where Jesus warned the church of Thyatira that if the woman "Jezebel" did not repent He would cast her and those who committed adultery with her into great tribulation.. This certainly is not referring to any future tribulation on the world.

The final place the phrase is used is in Revelation 7:14 where an angel tells John that the great multitude he sees in heaven are those who have come out of the great tribulation. In 6:9-11 we saw these same ones who had been killed for the word of God and the testimony which they held. Is this something that is still to happen or has it already been fulfilled? Revelation 1:1-3 gives us the context of the book. First, these were things that "must shortly come to pass...for the time is near." To believe that the events of this book have not yet happened is to not understand the very first verse of the book. Further, we are told that the message was sent from Christ and "signified" by an angel to John. The word "signified" means to send a message by the use of signs. Thus, the message of the book of Revelation was not revealed in literal language, but in signs and symbols. A person who either attempts to understand Revelation as literal or believes that the message of the book has not yet been fulfilled is disregarding the very first verse of the book.

Now, what was the setting of Revelation? It was written about 96 AD during the beginning of the period of Roman persecution against Christians. The tribulation spoken of in the book refers to those Christians who were suffering under the Roman oppression. To further confirm this, Revelation 17:18 tells us that the woman (who was responsible for the blood of the saints, 17:6) is that "great city which reigns over the kings of the earth." This could be none other than Rome.

There certainly may be another great tribulation that comes upon Christians or on the world, but the scriptures do not reveal this to us. As for a period in which the world suffers while the saints are in heaven for a brief seven year period, there is no scriptural foundation.

  

The only place in Bible where there is mention of a 1000 year reign is Revelation 20:1-6. First, remember what we spoke of in the previous question concerning the context of the book of Revelation. The message was revealed in signs and symbols and the fulfillment would come to pass shortly after the revealing of the book. Now to Revelation 20.

There are at least seven things that are not mentioned in Revelation 20 that are the key tenets of the Premillennial view of the 1000 year reign:

1. A bodily resurrection
2. The second coming of Christ
3. A reign of Christ on earth
4. The literal throne of David
5. Jerusalem of Palestine
6. The conversion of the Jews
7. The church on earth

How can a theory be true when it rests on a text in which not one of its peculiar tenets can be found?

This text speaks of the cause of the saints who were martyred (6:9-11) being resurrected while Satan's power is restricted so that he can no longer "deceive the nations" into wholesale persecution of the saints as he had done during the Roman persecution .

I Corinthians 15:20-28 confirms the absence of a literal 1000 year reign on the earth.

1. First, when Christ returns, "then comes the end." There is not another 1000 years.
2. Secondly, when Christ returns He "delivers the kingdom to God," He does not receive the kingdom.
3. Thirdly, Christ reigns "till all enemies are put under His feet." He does not begin His reign after His enemies are destroyed as in Premillennialism.
4. Fourthly, death is the last enemy to be destroyed and when it is destroyed (at his coming), Jesus delivers the kingdom to God. Premillennialism has every one of these principles reversed.

  

There are two places in the scriptures where there is mention of 144,000.

The first is in Revelation 7 where 144,000 were sealed so that they would not be harmed by the judgments God was bringing on the earth during the Roman persecution.

The second is in Revelation 14 where the 144,000 are standing victoriously on Mt. Zion as an ally to Christ.

As we have already noted in previous answers, Revelation was written in signs and symbols (Revelation 1:1). The symbolic nature of the book is especially seen in its numbers. Revelation 2:10 has the church at Smyrna suffering tribulation 10 days and then told to be faithful unto death. Ten days is obviously symbolic just as the seven heads and ten horns on the Dragon or the Gentiles tread down the holy city for "42 months." In context, the number 144,000 is symbolic of the saved on earth. (You may remember that the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the 144,000 are the only ones going to heaven. Note the contrast in Revelation 7 between the 144,000 who are sealed on earth (v. 1-8), and the great multitude who are before the throne in heaven (v. 9-13).

To be consistent, consider the interpretation of the 144,000 if we understand this number to be literal:

1. They are Jews only, no Gentiles are in the number (7:4).
2. They literally have the Father's name written on the foreheads (14:1).
3. They are males because they are not defiled by women (14:4).
4. They are virgins and therefore never been married (14:4). Now, who on earth fits this criteria?

  

Dispensational Premillennialism is the belief that in every "dispensation" God has desired to establish and earthly kingdom. The position is that God tried with Adam and Eve, with the patriarchs, and with Moses and Israel, each time failing to bring about a universal world kingdom of peace and service to God. God then prophesied that He would establish this kingdom with His Son. Even Christ, when He first began His ministry predicted the kingdom was at hand. However, as time passed Jesus realized that the Jews were going to reject Him so the kingdom promises were suspended as the hope of the kingdom faded. The rejection of Christ and His death was not really planned by God. Therefore, God substituted the "church age" for the establishment of the kingdom until the time was more favorable.

According to this position, we are now coming to the end of the church age. Very soon, seven years before Christ's return and the start of His 1000 year reign on earth, all Christians will suddenly be "raptured" up to heaven. During that seven years a great tribulation will take place on the earth. At the end of the tribulation, Satan will be bound, Christ will return and reign on a literal throne in Jerusalem after his enemies are destroyed, all the Jews will be converted and be given positions of authority, the Gentiles will serve the Jews, there will be 1000 years of peace and prosperity with no wicked on the earth, and the entire Jewish system with all its sacrifices will be instituted again.

At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be loosed and allowed to deceive the nations again. Christ will gather His armies and destroy these sinners casting Satan and his following into the lake of fire. The righteous will then be taken to the new heaven and new earth (for some this is just a resurfaced earth, for others it is heaven itself).

  

• The growth parables in Matthew 13 ("the kingdom of heaven is like...")
• Luke 17:20-21
• John 18:36-37
• Mark 9:1
• Colossians 1:12-13
• Revelation 1:9
• Jeremiah 22:28-30

  

Daniel 2:36-45 is a prophecy of the four world kingdoms that would rule the earth from the time of Babylon. These kingdoms would be Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman. The prophecy states that during the days of the Roman empire God would establish His kingdom which would bring all other physical kingdoms to an end. Therefore, the kingdom of God had to be established during the Roman Empire. To teach that God is going to somehow bring the Roman Empire back together again in the form of the European Common Market or some other organization is a plain violation of the context and abuses prophecy.

Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy concerning the time between the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple which began in 536 BC and the time when Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. "Seventy weeks" is a figurative period of time representing the final days of the Jewish system and nation. The "abomination that makes desolate" is clearly spoken of by Jesus (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20) as the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. Premillennialist try to turn this prophecy into a "end-time" prophecy with the "great tribulation" taking place seven years before Christ's return for the thousand year reign. Of course they must place a "gap of time" in which there was a "two thousand year gap in prophecy" to accommodate the fulfillment of this text.

  

Nothing in the scriptures indicates that homosexuality practiced with one partner is any different than when it is practiced with multiple partners. To believe such one would need to show scriptural proof that God has authorized two people of the same sex to be physically intimate. We must have authority for what we do. God gives authority for a man and a woman to marry and become one flesh (Genesis 2:24), but where is the authority for sexual relations under any other circumstance? God said He made them male and female and that a man should leave father and mother and cleave to his wife.

Sometimes the story of David and Jonathan is given as authority for a homosexual relationship with an appeal being made to II Samuel 1:26 where David says, "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." I Samuel 18:1 states, "...the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." There is nothing in these words that suggest that David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan any more than when the scripture says that Jesus loved the apostle John (John 21:20). A person who would conclude such is only trying to justify their unclean mind.

  

In Jesus story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) He certainly taught that there was consciousness after death. Lazarus was comforted, while the rich man was tormented. In Matthew 22:23-33 when Jesus taught the Sadducees about the resurrection, He quoted Exodus 3:6, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Jesus then said, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Jesus clearly taught that the dead were living and conscious. Remember that in Luke 9:28-36 Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus when he was transfigured and even spoke with Him concerning His upcoming death. Moses and Elijah were certainly conscious though they had been dead for up to 1500 years. In II Samuel 12:23 when David's first child by Bathsheba had died, David, in expressing his hope of seeing the child again said, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

On the other hand, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 seems to indicate that there is no knowledge of what is going on in this life after one is dead. In I Samuel 28:14-15, when Saul used a witch to call up Samuel from the dead, Samuel seemed angry saying, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Samuel indicates that he was not aware of Saul's recent troubles and chastises him for calling him up when the Lord had departed from him.

  

This text is often used to attempt to prove that the ten commandments are still in force today. But actually the text "proves too much." If it proves that the ten commandments are still in force, it also proves that the "law and prophets" are still in force today. In fact, the text proves neither. Of the word "destroy" Thayer says it means, to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught, to deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard. Jesus did not come to destroy the impact and purpose of the Law and the prophets, but to fulfill their purpose. Notice that Jesus does say that once the Law and prophets were fulfilled, they would pass away. Even the passing away of the heaven and earth would not stop the fulfilling of every part of the law. In Luke 24:44, Jesus said that all things written of Him in the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Once fulfilled, the Law and the prophets were no longer in force. Romans 10:4 states the same principle when it says, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Christ has brought the law to its natural completion by bringing all men to righteousness.

  

As we have noticed from the texts cited in the previous questions, God condemns homosexuality. He does so unconditionally. There is absolutely no reference to the type of person who would practice this sin, only that it is sin when practiced. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, some of the Christians at Corinth "were" homosexuals, but Paul said those who practiced this would not inherit the kingdom of God. Leviticus 18:22 simply states, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." In fact, 18:23 states, "Nor shall you mate with any beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before a beast to mate with it. It is perversion." Shall we argue that if a person is born with the urge to mate with beasts that this would be acceptable to God? No, God's prohibitions of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality are wrong no matter who commits them, no matter their background or their orientation. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the person who believes the above statement. What passage gives authority for homosexuality to be practiced under any circumstances?

  

To answer this question we must first note that it is possible to be in a saved condition without being a member of any local church. When Philip baptized the eunuch (Acts 8), he was saved but not a member of any local church. When Paul first left Damascus after his conversion and came to Jerusalem he was refused membership at Jerusalem for a short time (Acts 9). Though saved, he was not a member of any local church during that period. Does this mean the Lord doesn't care whether we are a member of a local church or not? No. Everywhere Paul went and taught the gospel a local church was established. When Paul came to an area where a church already existed, he attempted to join with that group. Paul wrote letters to local churches as did Jesus in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 1 Jesus is pictured as standing in the midst of the local churches of Asia and holding their destiny in His hand, as well as threatening to remove their candlestick (remove them as one of His churches) when they would not obey Him.

As mentioned under the previous question, there are certain things we must do collectively. Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-9; I Corinthians 12:12-27 are all texts telling us of the importance of our place in a local body of Christians. To not be a part of a local church when possible, is sinning.

  

Partaking of the Lord's Supper as well as giving are requirements that can only be done on Sunday, but these are not the only requirements of Christians who are a part of a local body. Read carefully Ephesians 4:7-16. Notice all the things that God expects a local church to accomplish:

1. Jesus gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip Christians so that they can do the work of ministry and the work of building up the body of Christ.
2. This work is to be done till we all come to the unity of the faith and to maturity so that we are no longer children tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
3. Instead, each member is to grow to the point of being able to speak the truth in love and grow up in all things like Christ.
4. Each member is to be joined and knit together with all the other members.
5. The body functions by every member supplying his part and doing his share. All of this put together causes the growth of the body as well as the edifying of the body in love.

Now, can all of this be accomplished by attending a one hour worship period on Sunday? Impossible. God has given the local church a great job to do which cannot be accomplished if individual Christians treat the local church as something they "go to" instead of a functioning unit they are a part of.

Hebrews 10:24-25 does not warn us of neglecting the assembly, but the assembling of the saints. The reason for the warning against such neglect is that we all need to stir up one another to love and good works so that we do not slip away as the Hebrew brethren were. Each member needs to both stimulate others as well as be stimulated himself to stay strong in the Lord. God did not tell us how many times to assemble, but we are to assemble enough to accomplish these goals He gave us. Certainly, an hour a week will not suffice.

  

The easiest way to answer this question is to examine the practice of the early church. When early churches used their money for benevolence, did they also include needy unbelievers?

First, it is important to clarify the question. There is no doubt that individual Christians, according to their ability, were commanded to do benevolent deeds for unbelievers. In James 1:27, James admonished the brethren to "visit the fatherless and widows in the affliction..." Also, in Galatians 6:10, Paul told the brethren to "do good to all men, especially the household of faith." In context, neither of these passages were commands for church action since all the related commands in the surrounding text can only be fulfilled by individual action.

Now let us consider collective action by a local church. In Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35 we note that during a time of great need it was believers who had all things common and were "distributing to each as anyone had need." Could this possibly have included unbelievers? In Acts 3:6, we have a lame man begging alms from Peter and John. Though we know that Peter and John with the other apostles had control of the money that was being collected by the church for those in need (4:35,37), Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I have, I give you...rise up and walk." Peter is claiming not to have any personal money that he could offer this unbeliever. What about the collected money of the church? That money was only to be used for the believers. Later, in I Corinthians 16:1-2, when Paul commanded the church in Corinth to take up collections on the first day of the week, he said, "Now concerning the collection for the saints..." Every time a church gave money for the purpose of benevolence in the New Testament, the passage specifies saints. Consider these additional passages: Acts 11:29; Romans 15:25-27; II Corinthians 8:1-4; I Timothy 5:3-16. In this last passage, Paul even warns that a needy believer is not even to be cared for by the church if he has family who can first provide for him.

  

Such action as is mentioned in this question is usually described as a sponsoring church arrangement. This is where one local church "sponsors" a work bigger than what they are able to handle as a local church. Therefore, they solicit funds from other local churches so that they will be able to do a work that they could not do alone, such as preaching the gospel on television. The bottom line is, there is absolutely no principle in scripture, either by command, example, or necessary inference, that would authorize churches pooling their funds for the purpose of an evangelistic work. When Paul was in need of monetary support while he was at Corinth, churches in Macedonia sent to provide for him (II Corinthians 11:7-9). In Philippians 4:15-16, Paul says that the church at Philippi was the first to send to him to provide for his needs. In each case, money was sent directly from each church to the preacher that was being supported. This money was not sent to Corinth, who in turn provided support for Paul. Nor did the church at Philippi become a sponsoring church collecting funds from other churches for Paul's needs.

We must remember that elders only have oversight of the flock "among them" (I Peter 5:1-2). They have no right to take oversight of the affairs of another church.

  

Yes. In Acts 11:27-30, the church in Antioch took a special collection for the purpose of sending money for the relief of the brethren in Judea. "This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." You will note, however, that there was a specific way this money was given. They money was sent to the elders. What elders? Well, there were no elders who were over all the brethren in Judea, but there certainly were local churches in Judea, each having their own elders. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas brought the money to the elders of these local churches who in turn distributed this money in their own local church as each person in that church had need. Again, there was no sponsoring church. Jerusalem did not receive the money and then distribute it to each of the churches. Further, this is the pattern given for benevolence only. We see no such pattern of one church giving to another church for the purpose of evangelism.

Paul followed this same pattern when he encouraged churches to send to Jerusalem for the needy in that church. Each church appointed their own messenger who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (I Corinthians 16:1-4; Romans 15:26-27; II Corinthians 8:16-24; Acts 20:4-5 [which gives a list of the messengers]).

  

There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. In Genesis 2:2-3, God sanctified or set apart and made holy the seventh day, but there is no evidence that He actually commanded that the day be kept by man. It was not until Exodus 16:23 and the giving of Manna that the Lord commanded anyone to keep the Sabbath. Further, the purpose for keeping the Sabbath was so that Israel would remember that they were slaves in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15). Therefore the purpose for keeping the Sabbath could not have been fulfilled by anyone else but Israel, and certainly not by anyone prior to Israel. Further, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 says that the covenant (the ten commandments--Deuteronomy 4:13) was not given to their fathers but only those alive that day and Mount Horeb. Genesis 26:5 begs the question. That Abraham kept God's commands, statutes and ordinances, does not imply that these were the same commands that were later given to Israel. In fact, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 says that they were not the same because that which had been given to Israel had not been given before.

  

As noted above, the reason for keeping the Sabbath was so that Israel would remember that they were slaves in Egypt. Exodus 20:11 tells us why God chose the seventh day as opposed to one of the other days of the week. The Sabbath was never commanded to everyone. Only Israel received this command and only Israel was amenable to keeping the command (See Exodus 31:13-17).

  

The first point we must address in answering this question is, in what sense are we referring to the church? Usually a person asking this question is thinking of the church in a denominational sense. If God is pleased with denominationalism, then it doesn't matter which "church" we are a member of. However, the concept that the Lord's church is made up of many churches believing and following a variety of doctrines, is foreign to the scriptures. In fact, Ephesians 4:4-6 tells us that there is one faith, one baptism, and one body (church). In Revelation 2-3 the very fact that Jesus corrected both the practice and doctrinal beliefs of the seven churches of Asia shows that specific beliefs and practices at variance with the scriptures are not tolerated by Christ. He threatened each church who did so with a loss of fellowship.

Secondly, we must show that "churches" (whether used as a denomination or in the local sense), do not go to heaven, individuals do. I cannot find the "right church," hook on board like a passenger on a train, and expect to go to heaven because I have joined the right church. Indeed, the Lord is the Savior of the body (Ephesians 5:23), but that simply means He is going to save those who through faith and obedience to Him have become a part of His called-out group. The Lord doesn't save local churches, He saves people.

Thirdly, there are not "different paths" leading to heaven. Where in the scriptures is such a thing taught? Galatians 1:8 tells us that even if an angel preaches any other gospel than that which the apostles taught, he would be accursed. II John 9-11 teaches that if anyone goes beyond the doctrine of Christ and does not abide in that doctrine, he does not have God. Further, if anyone comes and does not bring this doctrine he was not to be received or even bid God's speed else one would be a partaker of his evil works. This shows that it is important to be careful about the local church we are a member of. If the church is practicing error or teaching doctrines that would lead people to be lost eternally, then we cannot be a part of such a church with participating in their deeds.

This same principle is presented in I Corinthians 10:14-22. We cannot participate with a church or assembly of people in an activity that suggests we condone sin or are not honoring the gospel/doctrine of Christ. We cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons.

This point leads us to the question of when we can no longer have fellowship with a local church? We must caution that we must not severe relations with a church just because individual members differ in how they believe. A local church is a group of Christians who have agreed to work and worship together on the points that God said Christians are to do collectively. With this, there may be a number of individual beliefs upon which members would differ but still be able to work together. Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 show that members could differ and yet were still expected work together in the same church. However, fellowship with a local church would have to be severed when:

1. The church was practicing or supporting something in violation of the scripture thereby bringing me into support of the sin.
2. The church tolerated a sinful member; refused to discipline this member and thus condoned the sin.
3. The church was teaching doctrines that would cause people to be lost if believed and followed.

Remember, that in any of these situations a member would not withdraw himself until he had done all that he could to lovingly correct what was wrong.

  

There is no doubt that Jesus kept the Sabbath since He was a Jew and lived under the Law. To do otherwise would have meant that He sinned and we know that He was without sin. That Jesus kept the Sabbath would not mean that we should keep the Sabbath since we are under a different covenant than Jesus was. In fact, there are many things that Jesus did as was required by the Law that we would not be required to do today such as paying the temple tax or offering animal sacrifices.

However, there is no evidence that Paul kept the Sabbath after he became a Christian. Acts 18:4 tells of Paul teaching the Jews in the synagogue every Sabbath. Since the Jews were altogether every Sabbath, Paul used that opportunity to teach them. In fact, Paul in Romans 14 stated that it was perfectly acceptable for a Christian to esteem every day alike and not esteem one day above another. Further, in Colossians 2:16 Paul stated that no one had a right to judge another in respect to the keeping of Sabbath days. Paul did not teach the keeping of the Sabbath and he would not have taught one thing and practiced another.

When the Bible says "law" or "law of Moses" it is referring to the ceremonial laws. When the Bible says "law of God" or "law of the Lord" it is referring to the ten commandments. Making this argument is another attempt at maintaining the Sabbath command for Christian to keep today. The Bible makes no such differentiation in terms. Luke 2:22-24 uses the phrase "law of the Lord" to refer to the "ceremonial laws" of offering sacrifices following the birth of a child. Nehemiah 8:1,8 not only uses the phrases law of Moses and law of the Lord interchangeably, but also refers to the book of the law (which contains what is considered to be the ceremonial laws) as being the "law of the Lord." In Romans 7:4, Paul refers to the "law" as being done away with and then defines this "law" in verse 7 as that which states, "Thou shalt not covet." This command is found in the ten commandments, not among the "ceremonial laws." Therefore, it is the ten commandments that have been done away as well as all the other laws given through Moses.

  

It is very important to answer this question carefully since what the Bible means by the phrase "church of Christ" is not what the querist means when he uses the same phrase. In the New Testament, the word "church" comes from the Greek (EKKLESIA), meaning "the called out." The church of Christ is the “called out of Christ”. The phrase simply refers to those whom Christ has saved. The phrase is used concerning all whom Christ has saved throughout the world (Compare Ephesians 1:22-23 with Ephesians 5:23). The phrase is also used concerning individual local groups of Christians who identify themselves with Christ (Romans 16:16). These local groups certainly do not make up all who are saved.

On the other hand, the person asking this question is not thinking of the phrase "Church of Christ" in the same way the Bible speaks of it. They are thinking of a "Church of Christ" denomination. While it may be argued that a Church of Christ denomination exists, those who are Christians and want to follow only the scriptures, will not be affiliated with such a group. Therefore, our immediate answer to this question should be "No." No, we do not believe that only those in a Church of Christ denomination will be saved. What we do believe is that only those who follow Christ alone and keep His commandments are a part of His church, His called out body. It is only these people who will be saved (Matthew 7:13-14; 21-27). The question before us is not which church is going to be saved, but what must we do in order to be saved and thereby be a part of the Lord's church. The Lord will save His church (Ephesians 5:23), those who have obeyed Him and been added by Him to His body (Acts 2:47).

  

Jesus certainly was not implying to his disciples that they would be breaking the Sabbath by fleeing Jerusalem if the siege came on that day. We know this from Mark 2:23-28. Jesus justified the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath as well as David eating the showbread when he was fleeing from Saul on the basis of the principle that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made to provide for man's needs, not make a hardship on man. This is why Jesus could heal on the Sabbath and the man healed could carry his bed on the Sabbath (John 5:8). The reason Jesus told his disciples to pray that the siege did not come on the Sabbath day was because the city would be locked up on that day with guards hindering anyone from coming or going making it much more difficult to flee. Jesus was not concerned with the Sabbath command but with how the Jews would restrict the escape from the city because of the command.

  

Sometimes this verse is misunderstood to mean that one day everyone will be converted in some millennial kingdom. Instead, the verse is teaching that under the new covenant there will not be anyone who does not know the Lord as there was under the old covenant. Under the Mosaical system, one came into the covenant when circumcised at eight days old. But it would be years later until this person actually knew the Lord. Many times, even though under the covenant to God, an Israelite would know the gods of the nations around him before he would know the Lord. It would then be necessary for a fellow Israelite to teach him about the Lord. Under the new covenant such ignorance of God by those in His covenant could not take place. Under Christ, in order to enter the covenant a person must know the Lord. He cannot enter the covenant as a baby or enter ignorantly and then later learn about the Lord. John 6:44-45 states that those who come to Christ must be taught of God and must learn from the Father.

  

There certainly was fault with the first covenant, but the fault was not with God or in the way He made the covenant, but with us. Hebrews 8:8 states that He found fault "with them." The Law showed the way to righteousness (Romans 8:3-4), but righteousness could only be obtained if the Law were kept perfectly (Galatians 3:10). The fault then with the Law was that man could not keep it perfectly in order to obtain righteousness. And since the Law made no provision for the permanent forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 10:1), another covenant had to be brought, sanctified by the blood of Christ, that could provide for our salvation.

  

Hebrews was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed and the entire Jewish system came to an abrupt and permanent end. The Law was done away legally when Christ died on the cross (Colossians 2:14), but the practice of the system did not end until Jerusalem was destroyed. The Hebrew writer refers to the vanishing away of the Law when Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD).

  

The word "kill" is actually the Hebrew word for "murder." The command is, "Thou shalt do no murder." Killing of any kind is not what is forbidden, only actual murder. For example, Genesis 9:6 states, "Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The same principle for today is given in Romans 13:1-4. In John 19:10-11 when Pilate told Jesus that he had the power to put him to death, Jesus responded that he would not have this power if it were not given him by God. Man, by some governing authority, is under the responsibility to put to death the murderer. Therefore, God is not forbidding the taking of a life under all circumstances, but in unauthorized circumstances. When God commanded Israel to destroy all in the land of Canaan, He was pronouncing the death penalty on a nation that had practiced things worthy of death under God's law. Israel, was God's authorized instrument to carry out the death penalty. Thus, there is no contradiction.

  

Children often suffer the consequences of their parents sins whether God directly intervenes or not. Think of what these children would have suffered if God had not intervened and taken their lives. They would have grown up in abusive sinful circumstances that allowed both child sacrifice and all manner of abusive sexual sins. In most cases, when these children became adults they would have repeated the same sins on the generation to follow. Look at this from God's point of view. To Him, death for these children was merely a transition from miserable earthly existence to a heavenly presence with Him. Further, He has spared them from an eternity in hell if they continued in the sins of their parents. Consider also the condition of these children if God had only commanded that their parents be put to death. Now he would have left a nation full of embittered orphans. These children would not understand why their parents were taken from them and would grow up to hate Israel and God. Many of these children would have already learned the ways of their parents and would pollute Israel with their ways once they were grown.

  

It is in God's design of things to allow (not cause) the various injustices that take place in this world. He uses these injustices as tests which prove the faith of man and discern those who are worthy of heaven. This same question was also a problem to the Preacher in Ecclesiastes 3:16-17. His answer was that the day will come when all of these injustices will be rectified. God has a time and a purpose for every work, and there is a time when God will judge the righteous as well as the wicked. Ecclesiastes 7:13-14 states that God has allowed both good days and bad days to come so that man will not be able to find out what will happen after him. If man cannot know his own future, he cannot determine his own destiny and must, if he will be wise, put his faith in God instead of himself. This is in God's purpose and causes man to desire all the more the heavenly realm (Romans 8:18-25). James states in James 1:2-5 that the various trials that come upon us actually improve our character. And Peter states in I Peter 1:6-7 that these trials will refine us so that we are like pure gold on the day in which Jesus is revealed.

  

The books that are added by the Catholic Bible are called the Apocrypha (hidden or concealed) and were written 100 to 200 years before Christ. These writings contain twelve additions, of which some are separate books while others are additions made to books such as Daniel, Jeremiah, and Esther. These books have never been generally accepted as part of the Old Testament canon, and were not accepted by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1546. There are numerous reasons to reject these books as canonical, the most important of which is that none of these writings are either quoted or referenced by Jesus or any of the New Testament writers. On the other hand, Jesus and the New Testament in general refers to or makes quotations from all the rest of the Old Testament.

Unger's Bible Dictionary gives the following reasons for excluding these writings:

1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.

As for other "lost" books or books that are referred to by inspired writings, it is important to understand that inspired writers often referred to secular writings in order to further verify their point. In so doing there is no suggestion that the writings they have referenced are inspired. On the other hand, Jesus and the apostles repeatedly verified the canon of the Old Testament. See Luke 24:44; John 10:34-35; Matthew 19:4-5 along with a host of other passages that are referred to beginning with the words, "It is written..."

Finally, it is important to note that Jesus promised that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35). Jesus promised the apostles that when the Holy Spirit came upon them, He would guide them into "all truth." Nothing would be left out. Though Paul and others wrote epistles that we do not have today, these epistles were not necessary in delivering "all truth." Further, Peter stated that the word of God would live and abide forever (I Peter 1:23-24).

  

Even if "the Law" referred only to the ceremonial laws and not to the ten commandments that would not mean that the ten commandments were not done away. Hebrews 8:6-13 states that the covenant that God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt was obsolete and ready to vanish away. Hebrews 10:9 states that Christ in doing God's will took away the first covenant in order to establish the second. What is the covenant God made with Israel when they came out of Egypt? Deuteronomy 4:13 clearly states that it was the ten commandments. Further, I Kings 8:9, 21 states that the covenant is the ten commandments. This being so, the Lord took away the ten commandments in order to establish a second covenant.

  

Acts 8:13-24 is a perfect example of a person being baptized and then subsequently falling away. Simon the sorcerer had turned to the Lord after seeing the miracles performed by Philip and believing the gospel. However, Simon then offered the apostles money that he might receive the power to confer spiritual gifts as he saw them do. Peter rebuked Simon, telling him that his heart was not right with God and that he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. What should Simon do? Should he be rebaptized? No. Peter told him to "Repent and pray..." This is essentially the same principle presented by John in I John 1:6-10. John states that even Christians sin. Even a person who is "walking in the light" has sin, else the blood of Jesus would not need to cleanse him. In fact, if a Christian said that he did not have sin, he would be a liar. What is the remedy? John says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."

Therefore, rebaptism is only necessary when one's baptism was not for the right reason or with an incorrect understanding. Acts 8:12 gives two prerequisites for baptism: believing the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. To be baptized correctly we must accept the authority of Jesus and believe the things concerning the kingdom.

  

In connection with the questions concerning the end of the Old Covenant, it is important to bring into consideration II Corinthians 3:4-14. This passage clearly identifies the Ten Commandments as being part of a covenant that was "passing away" and eventually "abolished." It did not have the glory of the covenant brought in by the "Spirit."

Paul proves his point by referring to the fading brilliance of Moses' face after he had gone in before the Lord. The rebuttal by those who adhere to the Sabbath command is to deny that "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" is the Ten Commandments. Instead, it is affirmed that this refers to the stones of blessing and cursing that was erected on Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim after the Israelites entered the land of Canaan.

This, however, cannot be since Moses was dead by the time Israel entered Canaan and set these stone up on these mountains. The stones referred to by Paul can only be the Ten Commandments because this is what is referred to when Moses' face shone after coming down from the mountain (See Exodus 34:27-29).

  

Amazingly, many in our sinful world do not realize that homosexuality is sin. I have studied with more than one individual who had this persuasion even though they were not homosexuals themselves. I Corinthians 6:9-10 makes it very clear that God condemns homosexuality. The word translated "effeminate" by the King James Version, is translated "homosexual" by the New King James, and "male prostitute" by the New International Version. Thayer says the word means, "soft; soft to the touch...in a bad sense: effeminate, of a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness." The word translated "abusers of themselves with mankind" by the King James Version, is translated "sodomite" by the New King James, and "homosexual offenders" by the New International Version. Thayer says the word means, "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite." Notice that Paul states that such will not inherit the kingdom of God. Notice also that some in the Corinthian church had formerly practiced homosexuality but now had ceased this practice and had been cleansed by the blood of Christ.

I Timothy 1:9-10 uses this same word, translated "sodomite" by the New King James. In this text Paul says that such is "contrary to sound doctrine."

In Romans 1:26-27 Paul tells us that the Gentiles turned to "vile passions" and that both men and women turned to homosexuality by exchanging the "natural use" for what was "against nature." In verse 32 he states that those who practice such things "are worthy of death."

  

Psalm 51:5 does not say that David was born in sin. Reading the verse carefully you will see that "sin" modifies David's mother. "In sin did my mother conceive me..." David is proclaiming that he was conceived and born into a sinful environment and thus affected all his life by that environment. Many other plain passages show that we are not born with the guilt of sin:

Ezekiel 18:20 God argues through Ezekiel that He has not punished Israel for the sins of the fathers. The person who sins will die. Further, each man's righteousness or wickedness stays on himself and is not passed on to anyone else.

Luke 18:16 Jesus said that little children reflected the character of the kingdom of God. That could hardly be true if children were born depraved, having inherited the sins of their fathers.

Romans 7:9 Paul proclaims that he was spiritually alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Paul was born and raised under the law. Therefore the only time it could be said that Paul lived apart from the law was when he was a child and not yet accountable to the law. This was the time he was spiritually alive, and therefore could not have been born in sin. The doctrine of original sin has people starting out "dead" and then becoming alive when they come to Christ. Paul shows here that we start out "alive" and then become accountable to the law and "die."

Exodus 20:5-6 is sometimes used to teach that God punishes the children for the sins of the fathers. However, you will notice that the text states, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me." It is only when the following generations continue in the sins of their fathers that God holds the children accountable. The principle is explained by Jesus in Matthew 23:34-35. Because the Jews of Jesus day were following the pattern of their fathers who killed the prophets, the Lord said that upon them would come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from Able to Zechariah. With that "visitation of sins" the Jews of Jesus' day would lose their nation.

Consider also that if children are born in sin, then Jesus was born in sin. This is the reason the Catholic church invented the doctrine of the immaculate conception. The doctrine affirms that Mary was immaculately conceived in the womb of her mother and then lived a perfect life (never even having sexual relations with Joseph), so that Jesus would be born without inheriting sin. Of course, the Bible never tells us that Mary was sinless. In fact, only Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15), and all others are found guilty (Romans 3:9-10, 23).

  

The word "baptize" comes from the Greek word BAPTIZO which means "to dip" {W.E. Vine}. Our English word is a transliteration of the Greek word. If the original translators of our English Bible had translated the word, instead of simply carrying the Greek word over into English, all passages where we read "baptize" would have read "immerse" and there would have been no question as to the method of baptism.

Consider the following scriptures:

John 3:23 John the baptist baptized near Aenon because there was much water there. If anything other than immersion was authorized, why did John seek a place where there was much water?

Acts 8:35-39 When Philip baptized the eunuch, both he and the eunuch went "down into the water and he baptized him."

Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 both refer to baptism as a "burial" in likeness of Christ death, burial, and resurrection. Anything other than immersion would not picture the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Ephesians 4:5 states that there is "one baptism" and therefore any other kind of baptism than what we see taking place in the Bible is sin.

  

First of all, we need to understand that the Bible is not so written that we would "line up" passages against each other. Acts 2:38 states that baptism is for the remission of sins. I Peter 3:21 states that baptism saves us. These and many other passages teach us that baptism is a part of salvation. At the same time, there are many passages, such as the ones above, that teach that one must believe to be saved. Obviously these passages do not contradict. We therefore must find how these passages compliment one another.

Next, we need to note that none of the texts mentioned in the question, nor any other text in the Bible, says that "all a person has to do is believe." The only passage in the Bible where the words "faith" and "only" are put together is James 2:24 where James says we are not saved by faith only.

Now look at each of the contexts surrounding these texts. In John 3:16 Jesus says that whoever believes should not perish but have everlasting life. But only eleven verses before (John 3:5), Jesus said that one could not enter the kingdom unless he was born of water and the Spirit. Born of water can refer to nothing else but baptism as is confirmed by Romans 6:4 and Titus 3:5. Further, in John 3:36 (NASB or ASV) states that whoever does not obey the Son will not see life. Therefore, when Jesus says to believe in 3:16, He certainly is not saying that one can believe without obeying the Lord's commands or without being baptized. The word "believe" is used to summarize all that one does when he puts his trust in the Lord.

Ask yourself this question: If John 3:16 is saying that a person only needs to believe to be saved, does that mean we can be saved without repentance? Certainly not. Luke 13:3 says that if we do not repent we shall perish. Well, if John 3:16 is saying that a person only needs to believe, does that mean we can be saved without confessing the Lord? Certainly not. Matthew 10:32-33 states that we must confess Him if we are to be saved. In the same manner, when Jesus says that we must believe in John 3:16, does that mean we do not have to baptized to be saved. Certainly not. Acts 2:38 and many other passages command baptism for salvation. The point is clear. There is no one who really believes that all a person must do is believe (that is, just mentally assent to Jesus being the Son of God). The question is, what commands will you exclude from your service to God and still say you are believing? We are not believers if we omit anything God has commanded of us.

Consider Romans 10:9-10. If your father left you a 16 page will giving you instructions concerning his estate, would you read only the tenth page, lines nine and ten, which told you to put your trust in him concerning all his instructions, and then think you knew all that he required of you? Romans 6:3-4 states that baptism is into Christ and into His death. If baptism get us into Christ and into His death, how can we be saved without it? That would mean we could be saved without Christ and without His death.

Acts 16:31 records Paul telling the Philippian jailor that to be saved he must believe with all of his house. But verse 32 continues by telling us that Paul then spoke to him the word of the Lord. Verse 33 tells us that the jailor was immediately baptized. Then, after being baptized, verse 34 tells us that jailor rejoiced "having believed." When one reads the whole context, this passage teaches exactly what we have been saying: belief only does not save. Further, the jailor was not considered a believer until after he was baptized.

  

There is no doubt that the Bible clearly tells us that we are not saved by our own works. And yet, there are other passages that state that there are works that we are saved by (James 2:24). The question is, what kind of works are we saved by and what kind of works are we not saved by? Romans 4:1-4 and Ephesians 2:8-9 are referring to works that we would do in order to earn our salvation or to in some way deserve our salvation. That is, is there some way that we can be "good enough" to be saved? No! On the other hand, James 2:14-24 explains that we are justified (saved) by works that are simply obedience to the Lord's commands. Abraham was justified when he obeyed. When we simply obey the Lord's commands while putting our trust in Him for our forgiveness, we are not being saved by our works, but by trusting in His way or works for our salvation.

Titus 3:5 states that we are not saved by our own works but we are saved by "the washing of regeneration." Again, this specifically refers to baptism as part of our salvation but not part of "our own works" that we are not saved by. Colossians 2:11-12 also tells us that we are saved by grace and not by the work of men's hands, but then identifies baptism as the means by which the Lord cuts off our sins. Baptism is not our work, it is the Lord's work that we simply submit to so that He will cleanse us of our sins.

  

There is nowhere in the scriptures where baptism is described as an "outward sign" or a public acknowledgement of salvation already attained. The word "for" in the phrase "for remission of sins" comes from the Greek word EIS and means "for the purpose of." This is exactly the same phrase Jesus used in Matthew 26:28 when He said that His blood was shed "for the remission of sins." Jesus did not shed His blood because sins have already been remitted or as an outward sign that sins had been remitted. His blood was shed so that sins could be remitted just as we are to be baptized so that our sins can be remitted. As Romans 6:3 points out, we are baptized into His death. Thus baptism is for the remission of sins because it is the point which we are connected to the blood of Christ.

Consider also Acts 19:1-5 where Paul commands twelve men to be baptized again because they had an incorrect faith when they were baptized the first time. If baptism is just an outward sign, there is no reason for the rebaptism. They had already done the outward sign.

  

Cornelius and his house were the first Gentile converts in a day when Jews believed that Gentiles were unclean and without a right to salvation by the gospel. A careful reading of Acts 10 &11 will show that Cornelius and his house did not receive the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. As Peter outlines in Acts 11:1-18, there were four miraculous events that led up to the Jews allowing these Gentiles to receive the gospel. First, Cornelius received a vision instructing him to send for Peter who would tell him words by which he and his house would be saved. In fact, Peter quotes the angel in 11:14 as saying, "he will tell you words by which you and your house will be saved." If Cornelius was to be saved by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, Peter nor his words were needed. The second miraculous event was a vision to Peter instructing him to no longer consider unclean anything God had cleansed. The third event was the Spirit telling Peter go with the Gentile messengers from Cornelius and doubt nothing. The fourth event was the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius and his household. With this, Peter said, "Who was I that I could withstand God?" (11:17). He then commanded them to be baptized in water. Now what WORDS did Peter tell Cornelius by which he was saved? It is the same as all the other conversions in Acts: belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and baptism for the remission of sins. The Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles was done only to prove to Peter and the other Jews that the Gentiles were to be accepted equally with the Jews.

To further confirm this, consider Acts 15:8-11. In referring to the salvation of Cornelius, Peter says that the Holy Spirit was given them in order to "make no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." You will notice that they were saved by faith just like everyone else, but the Holy Spirit was given so that there would no longer be a distinction made between Jew and Gentile.

  

The word "church" in the New Testament comes from the Greek EKKLESIA, which comes from two words, EK, "out," and KALEO, "to call," thus, "to call out." Therefore, the word refers to a group of people who had been called out of some place or relationship into another one. In the case of the church of Christ, it refers to people who have been called out of the world into Christ by the gospel II Thessalonians 2:13-14). The word is not always used in a religious sense, but at times refers merely to a secular gathering or assembly of people.

The important thing to understand about the word is that it is a collective noun. Examples of collective nouns are: covey; herd; flock; troop; jury; team; crew; family; assembly; school; committee; company; crowd. One herd of cows is many cows. One cow cannot be a herd. So when the Lord spoke of the church He simply spoke of people. The church is not an institution or organization that people join. The church is a group of people. They are organized, but the church is simply people. The Bible speaks of the church in either a universal or local sense. Either way, it is still just people.

In fact, we can not four ways the word church is used in the New Testament to refer to the Lord's people:

1. Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18 refers to the church in a universal sense, that is, all of the saved whether dead or alive. The universal church has no earthly headquarters, earthly organization, or earthly meeting place.
2. I Corinthians 1:2; I Thessalonians 1:1; Colossians 4:15 refer to the church in a local sense, that is, a group of the Lord's people who have agreed to work and worship together in a specific location.
3. Acts 8:3; 9:31 (ASV, NASB) uses the word church in a distributive sense, that is, "the church throughout all Judea" is neither the universal church nor a single local church, but individual saints distributed throughout a region.
4. I Corinthians 11:18; 14:23 refers to the church as saints assembled in one place. A local church already exists before the saints assemble, so here is a way the word is used to specifically mean all the saints of one location when they are in their assembly.

It is important to remember that "church" is a descriptive term for the Lord's people. It describes them as "called out" of the world. "Body of Christ" is descriptive of God's people as members of one another with a head, Christ. "Bride of Christ" is another descriptive term for the Lord's people showing their relationship with Christ as a woman espoused to a husband. "Family" also describes the Lord's people showing our intimate relationship with God as our Father and to one another as brothers and sisters. "Temple" describes God's people as the place where God's presence and blessings are given. "Kingdom" describes the people of God as citizens with God as the monarch who delivers laws to be followed. Each of these terms are simply different ways of describing the people of God. Do not try to turn these descriptions into any more than the people of God.

When teaching an unbeliever, we do not want to get overly complicated in our explanation, but we do want to change the denominational concept that is so prevalent. The Lord's church is simply all of the saved. When you are saved the Lord will make you a part of His church (Acts 2:47). You will then want to join yourself with a local group of people who are serving the Lord, which will make you a part of a local church (Acts 9:26). God expects His people to do certain things as a group: pray (Acts 12:5), sing (Ephesians 5:19), partake of the Supper(Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 11:20), study/teach/preach the word (I Timothy 3:15), and give to provide for needy saints and the spread of the gospel (I Corinthians 16:1-2). Though some of these things can be done individually and therefore apart from a local church, all of these things are to be done collectively with a local church.

  

Acts 19:1-5 is a perfect example of a person being baptized a second time after being baptized incorrectly the first time. These twelve men had in all sincerity turned to the Lord, but had been taught things about baptism that were not true. The baptism taught by John the Baptist and practiced by Jesus and His disciples was by immersion but had the design of signaling repentance and a belief on Him who would come after. Once Christ died on the cross, this baptism was no longer valid. These twelve men had been baptized by an invalid baptism and therefore needed to be baptized "in the name of Jesus" (by the authority of Jesus). When we are not baptized according to the teaching of Jesus, but instead followed some man-made doctrine, we must also turn and follow the Lord correctly. If we are truly sincere in turning to the Lord, as these twelve men were, we will be happy to learn the way of the Lord more accurately and obey Him.

  

We have already noticed that God made us "male and female" and authorized a male and female to come together as one flesh in the marriage relationship. The scriptures never indicate that anyone is born homosexual or that God has made anyone in such a way that they would have no choice but to practice homosexuality. We can certainly grant that there is a small percentage of our population that has homosexual urges, but that does not mean they must fulfill those urges. From teenage years on practically everyone has sexual urges, but that does not mean they are allowed to fulfill those urges in any way other than a man and a woman in marriage. We all often experience desires that are wrong, but having the desire does not imply God made us to fulfill that desire.

Consider Paul's argument on this point in I Corinthians 6:12-20. The Corinthians were asserting that just as the belly was made for food and the food for belly, so the body was made for sex. No, Paul says, the body was made for the Lord and the Lord for the body. Therefore Paul teaches us that just because the body has desires or has the capability of performing certain actions, does not mean that God has authorized these actions.

  

Revelation 3:20 is a passage written to the Christians at Laodicea who had fallen away from the proper service to the Lord. They were lukewarm in their spiritual zeal and had turned to materialism. They needed to bring the Lord back into their life and make Him their number one priority. Therefore, to treat this passage as a commandment for those who are not Christians is an abuse of the context. There is no place in the Bible that tells a person who is not a Christian to ask Jesus into their heart. Neither is there a passage that would teach that a person would "feel" Jesus coming into their heart. Salvation is not something "felt" by any physical or mental perception. Salvation is realized when one does what the Lord says to do in order to be saved, and then rejoices that the scriptures have revealed to him that he is saved (Acts 16:30-34).

  

As a matter of fact, the Lord has repeatedly warned that we must not find ourselves in a position of being "sincerely ignorant" of what we must do to be saved. Paul pointed this out concerning the Jews in Romans 10:1-3. In verse one he claims that they are not saved. In verses two and three he commends their motivation ("they have a zeal for God"), but identifies their problem ("but not according to knowledge"). Here were a people very zealous for God, but since they were ignorant of God's way of bringing them to righteousness, they were lost.

Jesus warned in John 16:2 that there were those who would kill Christians thinking they were offering God service. Just as Saul of Tarsus, they were sincerely serving God, but murderers nonetheless.

Jesus also warned in Matthew 7:21-23 that on the day of Judgment there would be those who would complain about being left out because they had done "many mighty works" in His name. But Jesus said that His reply will be that He never knew them because they worked "lawlessness." We cannot serve God sincerely and at the same time not obey His laws.

We need to also point out, however, that this is not to imply that one must be perfectly doctrinally correct in order to be saved. There is no doubt we must understand and do exactly what the Lord says if we will be saved. But when we first come to the Lord by being baptized for the forgiveness of our sins, there are many things that we will not have an accurate understanding of. For example, the Jews who came to Christ on the day of Pentecost, did not yet understand that Gentiles could be saved without circumcision. The Corinthians obviously had a number of things that they did not understand correctly and needed Paul's instruction. We are required to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18). We will certainly not have perfect understanding of all things, but we must grow and we must constantly correct those things that are amiss in our lives. If we put forth diligence by searching the scriptures daily (II Timothy 2:15; Acts 17:11), we will not find ourselves ignorant of those things the Lord requires of us. The things He requires of us are not difficult, they are not far off, but "in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deuteronomy 30:11-14).

  

II Peter 3:9 tells us that God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. Certainly the Lord would like everyone to be saved. He made us so that we would live with Him eternally. However, Christ is the "author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him" (Hebrews 5:9). In Luke 13:23 Jesus was asked, "Are there few who are saved?" His reply was that one needed to "strive" to enter the narrow gate because many would "seek" to enter and not be able. In Matthew 7:13-14 Jesus stated plainly that "many" go in the broad gate and are lost while "few" find the strait and narrow gate and are saved. God does not want anyone to be lost, but He will not compromise His standards of righteousness and save people in spite of their disobedience to Him.

  

We must not allow ourselves to become the Judge, especially over those who are already in the hands of the Lord. It is our duty to teach the Lord's will, to apply it in our own lives, and to help others in the understanding of the Lord's will. We are not the Judge (James 4:11-12) and therefore we will leave the judgment of your mother and father to the Lord. Be assured that no one will be lost who does not deserve to be there. God is righteous and we can trust Him to be a fair judge.

However, we are not dead, and we will be judged by the words of Jesus (John 12:48). Therefore, regardless of whether our parents are saved or lost, we must be obedient to the Lord. Regardless of where our parents end up eternally, they would encourage us to do the right thing. In Luke 16:27-31 Jesus told of a rich man who died and was in torment. Did he want his family to come and be with him? No. He asked that Lazarus be sent back from the grave to warn them. Even if our parents are lost, they would want us to be saved by doing the right things instead of following them in the wrong things.

  

If God is going to save a person because he has lived a good moral life, then the plan of salvation is nullified and there is no need for the grace of God. If the principle of being saved by a moral life is true, then salvation is based upon works, not grace and forgiveness. Such an idea suggests that God will look at a person's life and decide their eternal reward based on whether they have been more good than bad. Why then did Jesus die on the cross? Man could have been saved without Jesus simply by living a good life. The problem is that no matter how good a person is, he still has sin, and sin must be forgiven if a person expects to be saved. Forgiveness is not based simply on a good moral life, but upon complete trust in Jesus Christ and obedience to His commands.

Cornelius (Acts 10:1-6; 11:14) is an excellent example of a person who was as good and moral as one could be and yet lost. Acts 10:2 states that he was "devout and one who feared god will all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always." How could one be more good and moral than that? And yet, 10:6 states that he was to seek Simon who would tell him what he must do. Acts 11:14 states that Simon would tell him words by which he and all his house would be saved. Cornelius was lost even though he was a good moral person. His only hope was to come to Christ and be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins (Acts 10:48).

  

There are a number of reasons why men are not always in agreement over what the Bible says. Some misinterpretations are the result of honest mistakes, while others are the result of dishonesty:

1. Some follow the beliefs and traditions of their parents, friends, or preachers instead of pursuing an unbiased investigation of the scriptures for themselves (Mark 7:6-9). This practice has resulted in the widespread errors of Catholicism and denominationalism.
2. Some do not understand the scriptures properly because they want to follow certain personal desires that have preeminence in their lives (II Peter 3:3-4). There may be a sin that they do not want to give up and therefore they have a strong desire to see the scriptures in such a way as to justify themselves. Or, they may even want to justify the sin of a family member or dear friend and therefore not honestly seek the truth.
3. Some are so untaught and unlearned in the scriptures that it is difficult for them to consider the context of a given passage and to fit it in with everything ese God has said on the subject (II Peter 3:16). They therefore twist the scriptures to their own destruction.
4. Some simply do not listen to God's word very carefully. They consider
   the Lord's teaching very superficially and do not strive to understand (Matthew 13:13-15).
5. Some, either honestly or dishonestly, do not consider every passage that may have a bearing on the understanding of a particular subject. Jesus corrected Satan on this principle when He said, "Again it is written" (Matthew 4:6-7).

In order for us to avoid these errors we must love the truth (II Thessalonians 2:10-11) so that we are not deceived. The wise man in Proverbs 23:23 states, "Buy the truth and sell it not." The Lord has revealed His message in such a way that it can be understood (Ephesians 3:3-4). But we must be honest (Ephesians 5:17).

  

Apparently Jesus not only believed it was possible for us to understand the Bible alike, He both prayed that we would (John 17:17-23), and commanded that we should (I Corinthians 1:10). The means by which we are to obtain this unity is given in (Ephesians 4:11-16). The apostles and prophets (through their inspired words), along with the evangelists, pastors and teachers are to equip saints to do the work of ministry and the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, no longer tossed by every wind of doctrine, but speaking the truth in love, with the whole body joined and knit together.

Remember that the Lord promised us that we would be judged by His words (John 12:48). Therefore, there is an absolute standard by which we will be judged. That standard will not be different for each person depending on how they understood the scriptures.

Furthermore, to believe that the Bible cannot be understood alike, is to believe that it cannot be understood in the way it was originally intended. Such a belief indicts God with the inability to reveal His message in a way that His own creation could understand it and be unified in obeying it. We would not so indict any other book! Is the Department of Motor Vehicles able to write a manual that drivers can understand and by which we can be unified in our observance of traffic laws? Who would deny it? So also God can write a Bible that men can understand and obey alike.

  

We can read about the beginnings of "denominationalism" in the Bible. There have always been those who would leave the truth and carry away disciples after them forming new sects based on their own peculiar beliefs. Paul warned the Ephesian elders of this very thing (Acts 20:29-30). The Corinthians had the beginnings of such sectarian practices and Paul needed to rebuke them for it (I Corinthians 1:12-13). In II Thessalonians 2, Paul warned that there would be a great falling away in which men would not love the truth but turn to lawlessness. And the apostle John said in I John 2:18 that there were already many antichrists in the world. If such division and apostasy took place in the first century when the apostles were alive, we should not be surprised that it also happens today.

A brief history of how our present day denominations came into existence may also be helpful. When the apostle John wrote his epistles in 90 AD, there was an apostasy taking place by a group known as the Gnostics. By 150 AD this group had won over many disciples. As local churches attempted to defeat their errors, they also made some critical mistakes. They found that if one of their elders had some connection with one of the apostles they could wield more authority. Therefore, if they had an elder who had been a disciple of the apostle John, or even a disciple of one of John's disciples, they could keep more of their members in the faith. This man would only need to proclaim that gnosticism was wrong for people to believe him and avoid error. The problem was that in so doing a precedent had been set for people to put more trust in a man than in the word of God. Soon, these special elders became known as bishops. By 325 these bishops came together in the first Nicean Council and formed the Nicean Creed. While there was nothing in this creed that was objectionable, the creed again set the precedent for something other than the scriptures as the final authority. Many councils and creeds followed until 606 when the first Pope was elected. During the Dark Ages there were times when the Catholic Church even tried to destroy the Bible in order to maintain their own authority. By 1000 AD it is estimated that only one out of every 10,000 people could read or write. This resulted in a strong reliance on the Catholic church for the reading and interpretation of the scriptures. By 1517 when Martin Luther triggered the Protestant Reformation Movement, men were quite accustomed to putting the confidence in the more educated for their own spiritual destiny. As the Protestant Movement flourished, more creeds were written. Schools were erected for the purpose of training the preachers for these denominations. As a result, to this day the average person questions their own ability to understand the scriptures without the help of a "theologian." However, when men and women have decided to read the scriptures for themselves, rejecting biases, and using the scripture as their final authority, the result has been a return to the pure Christianity of the first century. This should be our only appeal.

  

This statement implies that the twelve apostles believed and taught something different than Paul. This is simply not what we find in Acts 15:7-12 where Paul and Peter were on the same side when it came to teaching the church in Jerusalem about salvation. Galatians 2:6-10 further shows that Peter and Paul were in complete agreement concerning the gospel they were preaching. Certainly Paul would not have tolerated Peter preaching anything different in light of Galatians 1:8 in which he said that a person would be accursed who preached a different gospel.

Did Paul preach water baptism? Certainly. Ephesians 5:26 refers to the church being cleansed by the "washing of water by the word." Titus 3:5 tells us that salvation is not by works but by the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Thus, salvation comes through baptism and the renewing that comes by obedience to the saving words revealed by Spirit in the scriptures. Hebrews 10:22 tell us that we draw near to God in faith, our hearts sprinkled from and evil conscience, and "our bodies washed with pure water." Remember, Paul taught that there was one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). Therefore, when we see in these passages that he taught water baptism, that is the baptism he is referring to in all the other passages in which he refers to baptism (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12; I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; etc.)