"Where is God?" How can We Deal With Discouragement?

Q: This year has been intensely hard with not having a steady income… I am so worn out on waiting for [God’s] plan... In fact, this week was a week of showing me more failure. Where is God? I can get mad at Him, but not leave him and it leaves me in a weird position of needing to trust a God who does not seem to be so trustworthy…I just wonder where God is. I have known Him for 30 years. My heart, mind and soul have ached seeking, asking, being specific, thinking positive, making vision boards, stating affirmations, etc. Worn out.

A: Dear Worn Out,

I am going to ask one of our other pastors to specifically answer you off-line in regards to your financial / career questions…however I wanted to take a moment to address your concerns about God’s presence and faithfulness and the struggle with discouragement.

First of all, circumstances are never a reliable indicator of the presence of God.

Secondly, it is a natural question to ask, “Where is God?” when there seems, from our point of view, to be no action by the Lord on our behalf. The Book of Psalms is filled with questions like that one. In fact the psalms are all about people being honest with God about how they feel and yet clinging to trust and choosing to praise Him even without circumstances being changed. I think about David who had been anointed king by Samuel at God’s instruction spending years running from the homicidally jealous Saul and yet working through the same questions you are asking. It all comes to a point in 1 Samuel 30 when the Amalekites raid Ziklag while David and his men are gone and take everything and everyone. David and his men were really upset, to the point where they blamed him for what had happened. David could have just walked away, or could have blamed someone else, but notice what he did.

“Then David and the people who were with him raised their voices and wept until they had no more strength to weep. David’s two wives also had been taken captive… And David was greatly distressed, for the people spoke of stoning him, because all the people were bitter in soul, each for his sons and daughters. But David strengthened himself in the LORD his God.” (1 Samuel 30:4-6 ESV)

After David strengthened himself in the Lord, he took time to inquire of the Lord…then set off to obey God and God gave him the victory. The enemy of our soul wants us to be discouraged and quit or to take things into our own hands. Yet I find comfort in David’s process that we see here and in many psalms that I would summarize as follows:

1. Take your emotions and questions directly to the Lord in openness and honesty (v.4). Be real with Him, yet process those emotions through His revealed character. See Psalms like 142-143, 37-43.
2. Ask the Lord to search you and see if there is anything in you that needs to be repented of and surrendered to Him and then do so (Psalm 139:23-24). Adverse circumstances are not necessarily the result of personal sin, but it is wise to cover our bases and remove anything that might hinder us from receiving God’s blessing.
3. Strengthen or encourage yourself in the Lord by focusing on His character and promises (v.6). There is great strength that comes from trusting that God knows how all the pieces of our lives will fit together in such a way that He will be glorified and we will be ultimately fulfilled. I, for one, am glad that I don’t have to understand everything in order to be strengthened in the midst of the circumstances of my life! The enemy only has to outlast us for a fraction of a second to defeat us. Sometimes the victory we win is not measured by forward progress, but by simply not quitting (2 Samuel 23:9-12). By the way, the verse in Philippians that says “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (4:13) is written specifically in the context of Paul’s financial need!
4. Inquire of the Lord and then do what He says with boldness and courage (v.8) trusting that He will bring the victory… at just the right time. It is true that God’s timing often does not match up with our timetable and yet who is in a better position to see the big picture? Sometimes it helps to get godly council along the way to make sure we are hearing form the Lord correctly (v.7-8), in this case David had Abiathar, and in other situations he had Nathan.

Thirdly, I would caution you that our human senses are not dependable in determining God’s presence and our human reasoning is not sufficient at times to make sense of God’s timing. David’s whole ordeal took years for him to become king of all Israel in fulfillment of the anointing he had received. Did he have questions? Absolutely! Did he trust God? Absolutely! Do you need to walk through this on your own? Absolutely not!

Finally, in addition to continuing to seek the Lord, I would encourage you to come and join in with the Biz Net group that meets here at the church every Tuesday morning from 7:00-8:30 am. They help those who are unemployed or underemployed improve their skills as well as providing prayer and emotional support. I would encourage you to call the church and set up an appointment to talk to a pastor about this issue as email/web is only so effective.

May you experience the presence and love of God today and be encouraged to live it for Him!

How can we "bless" God?

Q: In the last verse of Psalm 145 (in the NLT), it says, "may everyone on earth bless [God's] holy name forever and ever." Can you help me understand what it means to "bless God's holy name," and how that's accomplished?

A: If we take “blessing” in a formal sense, it would be very hard to imagine how we, as weak, limited, human beings, could ever presume to bless omnipotent infinite God. Yet the blessing we offer is not the kind passed down from father to son or the superior to an inferior, but rather a synonym for praise. This verse depending on the translation uses either “bless” or “praise”. The Hebrew word in question is barak (Strong’s #1288) which pictures us as kneeling before God to praise, celebrate and adore Him. On a practical level, what is one big way that we can bless God? Psalm 103:1-2 says repeatedly that we are to bless him with all our soul and in verse 2 gives us a hint about how to do it, “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits…” and then goes on in the rest of the psalm to list and explain a number of benefits that the Lord provides. When we remember what He has done, and is now doing, we can’t help but praise/bless Him.

When the Bible talks about God's "name" it is speaking of His whole character and nature not just a means of identification like we usually understand a name. God's whole character is "holy" and gives us a tremendous amount of material for which to praise/bless Him!

Lists of Christian resources? Bookstores or Libraries in the Church?

Q: Do you have a list of recommended Christian resources we can purchase? Does the church have a bookstore?

A: The answer is no...and yes. "No", we don't have a list of books for you to buy, but "Yes" we do have a library where you can find many awesome resources to borrow for free.

Many people have asked us over the years why we don’t have a full-blown bookstore in a church our size and there are a number of very good reasons:

• Over the years, our leadership believed that it was our job to focus on being the church rather than duplicating what was available outside the church. In our case, there was a good Christian bookstore about half a mile down the street that we had no desire to compete with.
• Most bookstores are a source of revenue to help support the general church budget. While we do make copies of sermons available for purchase, we never wanted to turn the church into a business.
• A church library is far less commercial than a bookstore and allows everyone access edifying books and other media, regardless of whether they could afford to buy their own copy of the latest resource. It is a Book of Acts kind of “sharing in common” that flies in the face of an overly commercial society. “What, you mean I can use these for free?” Through the sharing of our materials, it frees up individual families’ financial resources to be used other ways. Instead of everyone buying their own everything, our sharing generously with each other should, and I believe historically has, released resources for ministry and missions purposes. Consumerism is a great enemy of the church, and in tough economic times the people that often need encouraging resources the most are the ones that can afford them the least.
• In 1989 a special anonymous gift was given to the church to establish a “Pastor’s Reference Library” which when added to a collection maintained in our Children’s ministries department, donations, and purchases has grown into a full circulation library for the whole family that currently has 25,348 volumes and 6,587 users.
• Our library has always been available to those who attend our congregation and to the greater Christian community of the Beaverton area. A few years ago, we had a new family come into our library and ask how long they had to be members before they could use the library. We said that they could use the library immediately and were stunned to learn that their former church required at least six months of official membership before materials could be checked out.
• We think that the church library best supports the biblical values of the family of God that meets together here in Beaverton, Oregon.

So, back to your question about a list of recommended resources for purchase…I would recommend that you come in and visit the church library before you buy anything. We can search our collection by Title, Author, Subject, and Series Title for you. Our library team will do our best to connect you with several titles that will be of help to your particular situation and areas of interest. Some are quite gifted in addressing apologetic and evangelistic questions, while others are more than happy to point out books that have meant a lot in their own lives. The library is also a great way to “test-drive” resources before you go out to a bookstore and purchase the ones you want to add to your family libraries! Come on in and check us out!

Church Library Hours are available on our church website: http://www.beavertonfoursquare.org/index.php?nid=53195&s=mn
Our Church Library also has a blog that is found at: http://b4library.blogspot.com/

What about tattoos? Are they a sin?

Q: I just now listened to Pastor Randy's sermon from May 23, and he mentioned tattoos as being something that are widely recognized now as not being a sin. I have a tattoo from before I was a believer, and don't hold it against anybody …, but have been struggling with the desire to get another. Pastor Randy said our first question should be whether or not it is a sin according to God, and in Leviticus it says that we should not get tattoos. I have heard rationalizations that he meant that only as it relates to getting a tattoo to honor the dead, but is that just a rationalization? [Does that mean that] any tattoo, no matter what the reason, is a sin? Or was it specifically relating to doing it to honor the dead? I realize that beyond this question I am having an issue with my own conscience and doubts, so I shouldn't be getting a tattoo right now anyways, but I am and have always wondered if it's truly a sin, or just a matter of what some recognize as a freedom or not. Thank you!

A: This is a great question! It shows that you are wrestling with some of the larger issues involved and recognize both the freedom we have in making choices and the ramifications of those choices. You ask about tattoos, but really the question is how we can know if a personal decision we make is right or merely a rationalization. The fact that you are asking questions like this gives me confidence in your discernment.

Let’s first take a look at tattoos from the perspective of what the Bible says, and what our Christian tradition/culture contributes and then address four key areas that apply to your question.

Bible: Tattoos were originally proscribed in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:28 the only place they are mentioned in the Bible. [No, this does not only apply to tattoos honoring the dead.] Tattoos were one of the pagan religious practices that Israel was forbidden to participate in. They were supposed to be holy, different from the other nations, and they were supposed to worship the One True God differently than the pagans worshipped their idols.

This command was part of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel. So does this command apply to us today? Yes and no. In their classic book, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, authors Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart make the statement, “All of the Old Testament law is still the Word of God for us even though it is not still the command of God to us…Only that which is explicitly renewed from the Old Testament law can be considered part of the New Testament ‘law of Christ’…”

So for the Christian there are no explicit Biblical commands that forbid tattoos. However, there are a number of implicit Biblical principles that we should consider.

Christian tradition & culture: Tattoos have always been taboo in the church as a defilement of the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Historically tattoos have maintained their close ties with the various forms of idolatry as people mark their bodies with images of their gods. It is true that “Christian tattoos” have become more popular in recent years and for people who already have tattoos before becoming a Christian it is often a personal declaration that now they serve a new master…Jesus Christ and not the dragon/ demon/ snake/ music/ sex/ alcohol that they used to. Interestingly, Keil & Delitzsch in their 19th century commentary on Leviticus 19 minimize the anti-idolatry connection and point out that it was a command designed to preserve a proper reverence for creation [as the work of God].

Here are a few other issues that I would suggest that you to consider as you try to sort out whether to get another tattoo in the future:

• Beauty…where does it come from and in whose eyes do we desire to be beautiful? While I would agree that some tattoos look cool, many don’t. The Bible talks to us about where our beauty is to come from in 1 Peter 3:3-5 “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” This passage is not a prohibition against external attractiveness, but a value statement on the source of adornment. Jewelry, hairstyles, etc. are not what make us beautiful to God. He values the inner beauty of a changed heart and a fully surrendered will that work their way to the outside of us and have a positive effect on those around us.
• Message…what message do tattoos send? This area is the most inconclusive in our discussion, as it seems that it would depend on the type and location of any tattoos we might have. Even though tattoos are popular right now, that doesn’t mean they communicate the right message…or why are some lower-back tattoos commonly called “tramp stamps”? Do tattoos honor God’s awesome creation, recognizing that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), or do they express disregard for His work or dissatisfaction with ourselves? Can a tattoo be an evangelistic conversation starter? Can they serve as reminders for us to stay true to Jesus like some kind of permanent WWJD bracelet? Yes, but is it the best approach for us? Will it still be the best approach in 40 years? Is it the one God wants to use?
• Ownership…if we are going to be a billboard or a human graffiti wall we would do well to ask who owns the billboard or wall before we start. Do we really belong to ourselves? The Bible says that if we are in Christ, we have been bought with a price, we are no longer our own. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) So why would we put a tattoo on a body that doesn’t really belong to us anymore? So for a Christian to get a tattoo is kind of like painting graffiti on your boss’ front door. Unless He has clearly commissioned you to do it ahead of time, it is not something I would recommend. The problem is we often don’t stop to ask anymore. What I like about your question is you seem to be asking!
• Self-will… while this is related to ownership I think deserves special mention. When we look at the people in the Bible who invited God’s wrath, by their actions and attitudes, it seems that most of the time it involves self-will. Even if they were not intentionally rebellious, they lived with no consciousness of God in their lives. They didn’t ask God for direction, or permission, they just did what they wanted with no thought to the consequences. I may be making a logical leap here, but this behavior is prevalent in our culture today. Even if we believe that God exists, we often live practically as though He didn’t exist. The cultural acceptance of tattooing seems right in line with that thinking. “It’s my body and I can do what I want!” But is it? Can we? Should we?

In Romans 14 Paul wrestles with these very questions (the controversy of that day was whether to eat and drink what had been offered to idols). He considers how the decision will affect others and concludes, “But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23).

I hope these principles will be helpful in more ways than deciding about a tattoo.

What About Glenn Beck? Is the church supporting his "Restoring Honor Movement?

Q: We have been following Glenn Beck's Faith, Hope & Charity, Restoring Honor Movement. He spoke of the "Black Robe Brigade" where leaders of faith from all religions are coming together to restore honor with the understanding that honor requires faith. Faith in something larger and more powerful than ourselves with an emphasis on salvation being "individual" and not "collective". We were curious if our church is supporting this movement?

A: This is a hard question to answer. On a personal level I must say that I enjoy watching Glenn Beck’s program. Far from being the “hate-monger” his critics make him out to be, he is a passionate believer in small government, conservative fiscal policies, and authorial intent when considering the constitution. I am encouraged by his “civics” approach to communicating his message. A history lesson is always a good thing…right? What I have heard him say about the "Faith, Hope & Charity" theme is solid and quite ingenious. Where I begin to have a problem is with the syncretistic (a blending of different elements from different religions) nature of his theology. It seems that he quotes the Bible frequently and with good effect, yet as a Mormon he has a whole different take on the message of the Bible and the nature of “faith”. As an “edu-tainer” in the area of history, civic responsibility, and political theory, and insightful political commentary I think he is a very positive influence. However, I do not see him as a spiritual leader, or Christian evangelist who brings true revival.

On the level of whether “our church is supporting this movement” I would have to say no, and yes. If by the “church” you are asking if we as pastors and leaders of this congregation (Beaverton Foursquare) are joining ourselves with Beck in his ecumenical, syncretistic, quasi-religious political revival, then the answer is no. It is not our calling from God. The gospel that we preach is simply “Christ and him crucified”, not some kind of political reformation. However, if by “church” you mean the people that gather here regularly to worship God and be instructed in the Bible, and then go into the marketplace, the schools, the community to be salt and light…then I am sure that some of them are supporting Beck’s movement. There may be many that listen to or watch his programs, there may be some that attend his rallies, but I hope that they are discerning enough to separate his conservative historical/political teachings from his progressive religious statements.

Here is a link to a recent article on this subject: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17113

What about Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-8?

Q: There are a few places in Scripture where the footnotes indicate that not all the ancient manuscripts agree on the wording, or even that it's found in Scripture. Prominent in my head are the end of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Because these are not consistently found in those manuscripts, is there any reason to think they are less legitimate?

A: Another good question Ken. There are very few disputed sections of scripture. Here you mention certainly the two largest and most well known. In such cases it is good to investigate why translators have questions about the text. When compared to the entire body of scripture the number of scribal errors and textual variants is extremely small. It is also good to note that none of these passages affects any major doctrine of the Christian faith. With the two passages you mention, there is very little doubt that they were not originally park of the writing of Mark or John, however that does not necessarily call into question their validity. A good conservative Bible commentary or two [such as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary series (EBC), The New International Commentary of the New Testament (NIC-NT)] should provide helpful insight. Let’s look at them separately via some commentary quotes:

John 8:1-11.
“Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the original text of this Gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the Gospel that precede the sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. To say that it does not belong in the Gospel is not identical with rejecting it as unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus. It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text.” (Merrill C. Tenney, in EBC)

“But if we cannot feel that this story is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been composed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though it may not be an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient.” (Leon Morris in NIC-NT)

Mark 16:9-20
   “As regards the Longer Ending itself, it may be roughly described as showing knowledge of the subject-matter of John 20, the story of Mary Magdalene, along with that of Luke 24, the Emmaus Road, and Matthew 28, the great commission.

   It is, in fact, a short harmony of resurrection appearances, a skeleton which can easily be filled in from the other Gospel narratives….

   Therefore it seems reasonable to see this as an early attempt, known at least as early as Irenaeus, to ‘round off’ a Gospel whose original ending has become in some way maimed or lost; that several such attempts were made is obvious from the different versions circulating…

   What, then, is the theological value of the Longer Ending? It may be compared with the story of the woman taken in adultery, in John viii, as an example of an early tradition which may very well be genuine and is undoubtedly primitive, but does not belong to the actual Gospel text as it stand. In the case of the Marcan ending we can go further; the contents are in any case evangelical, even if perhaps derived from other Evangels, and there is always the strong likelihood that this is an ‘official ending’, subjoined to a sort of ‘second addition’ of Mark. We know so very little about the actual circumstances of the primary composition and first written forms of the Gospel that it is unwise to be dogmatic. We shall therefore comment briefly upon it…However, it would be unwise to build any theological position upon these verses alone; and this no responsible Christian group has done. (R. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, pp. 258-9.)

“The break in the continuity of the narrative seems to indicate that vv. 9-20 were not originally a part of Mark's Gospel but are rather a summary of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus composed independently…

The Gospel of Mark has four different endings, but only two of them have any significant claim to being authentic: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel with v. 8 and (2) the so-called Longer Ending (vv. 9-20)…

External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark. One further question arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his Gospel at 16:8? If he did not, then either (1) the Gospel was never completed, or (2) the last page was lost before it was multiplied by copyists.

Although there are staunch supporters of the view that it was Mark's intention to end his Gospel with 16:8, this view does not adequately explain (1) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of both the Shorter and Longer endings; (2) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid (even allowing for Mark's emphasis on the awesomeness and mystery of Christ's person); and (3) why there is no recorded fulfillment of Jesus' promised post-resurrection appearance in Galilee to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).

Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking.” (Walter W. Wessell in EBC)

So Ken, I hope that helps!

How is the Holy Spirit different in the New Testament?

Q: In John 7, John says that the Holy Spirit will come to those who believe, but "the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified" (v.39) How does this differ from the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament? And does this indicate that the Spirit took a sabbatical prior to Jesus' arrival?

A: Ken, good question about the difference of the Holy Spirit’s interaction with people in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Of course the Holy Spirit doesn’t change but there is a big difference in how he operates in our lives. In the OT, we see the Holy Spirit “coming upon” people to power them to feats of strength and valor, or to allow them to speak prophetically. However, these occurrences on the whole seem situational and temporary. The OT prophets repeatedly speak of a time in the future when the Holy Spirit would be poured out on “all flesh” (e.g., Joel 2:28-29). A much more universal (among believers) and permanent relationship. Jesus’ teaching in John makes it clear that the Holy Spirit will indwell as well as empower believers to be and to do what Jesus has asked them to do.

Space prohibits my listing all that he does in and through Christians today, so I would suggest that you get a good theology book (Duffield & VanCleave, Grudem, Erickson, etc.) and do some focused reading on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He is so important to the life of all Christians, and yet so often we just don’t understand who he is or what he does. I, or any of our pastors, would also be glad to speak to you personally on this subject.

Why do we stretch out our hand towards a baby that is being dedicated?

Q: When Pastor Randy does a baby dedication (and sometimes in other prayer situations), he asks the congregation members to reach out their hands toward the family. Can you explain why he makes that request, and what it signifies?

A: Great question! In the Bible, the traditional way of passing on a blessing from father to son was through the laying on of hands. The father would place his hand on the son that he was blessing and then would speak a blessing over them. There was even a priority given to the blessing of the right hand over the left hand (Genesis 48:14). The laying on of hands idea also seems to have been adapted to large group settings where the hands would simply be raised towards the one being blessed. Here are a few examples from the Bible:

• When Aaron the High Priest of Israel blessed the people he did it by lifting up his hands towards them and speaking the blessing (Lev. 9:22).
• In Nehemiah 8:6, when Ezra read the law and blessed the LORD (Yahweh) before the people they answered, “’Amen, amen’, lifting up their hands.”
• When parents brought their children to Jesus seeking a blessing, He took them in his arms and blessed them laying his hands on them (Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16).
• Just before Jesus ascended into heaven, He lifted up his hands and blessed his followers (Luke 24:50).
• The custom of laying hands on those to be blessed or commissioned was continued in the early church in when seven men, full of the Holy Spirit were chosen then commissioned as “deacons” (Acts 6:6) to care for the needs of the church.
• The people of Samaria received the Holy Spirit after hands were laid on them (Acts 8:17).
• Paul and Barnabas were commissioned and sent out by the elders at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
• Paul laid hands on some disciples at Ephesus and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:6)
• Timothy received a gift prophetically when the elders had laid their hands on him in prayer (1 Timothy 4:14).

So in church when we raise and stretch out our hands towards the baby being dedicated, or the missionaries being sent out, we are simply following the ancient biblical example for directed prayer and blessing. So together, with hands stretched out, we are participating in the prayer being offered (it is kind of like a visual “Amen!”). I hope that helps!

 

Different Old Testament Catholic Books?

Q: I was talking with some Catholic relatives and they said the origional bible included the Catholic books and it wasn't until the reformation that they were eliminated. Do you know why Martin Luther eliminated them? I understand they contain some talk about purgatory and praying to the saints.

A: Your relatives did not provide a complete picture. The books you are mentioned are called Deuterocanonical books and have never been part of the Hebrew Bible, which is our Old Testament. Jesus affirmed the Hebrew Bible as we know it (which is in our non-Catholic Bibles – NIV, ESV, KJV, etc.). The Deuterocanonical books have been included for years in many of the Christian lists of Old Testament books, so in that your relatives are correct. There were debates in the early Church about whether they should be read in the churches and be classified as canonical texts. The word Deuterocanonical comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon' and indicates doubt about the inclusion of these books in the canon (canon means standard). They have always been considered as secondary, even by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians (both of whom still include them in their Old Testament). These books are also sometimes referred to as “Apocrypha.” There was a Greek version of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint), which contained some of these books at the time of Jesus. Since the early church was primarily Greek speaking, it is probable that they got their Old Testament from that source rather than the Hebrew Bible, which explains why early Catholic Bibles included them, as well.

The exclusion was not something Martin Luther did. The newer Bibles which were being printed in the common languages were being translated from the original languages of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, with a separate section including those other books (called Apocrypha). In fact it was the opposite – it was at the Council of Trent (1545) that the Catholics confirmed the Deuterocanonical books in their Bible, as a reaction against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition. The Catholics do use these books to validate both purgatory and prayer to the saints (especially 2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Here is a list of those books:

• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24[14])
• Wisdom
• Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
• Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint[15])
• Additions to Daniel:
•  Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
•  Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
•  Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

By the way, some of these books are interesting to read. The two Maccabees books fill in some history between the last book of the Old Testament and the Gospels. However, if you are a Bible reader you will note that as you read them there is not the same sense of the Spirit at work in them.

Was Paul being contradictory w/re to tongues in 1 Corinthians 14?

Q: Ken said...
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says that tongues are a sign "not for believers but for unbelievers" (v. 22), but that an unbeliever who comes to church and hears tongues will say the people in that church are out of their minds (v. 23).

Paul also says that prophecy "is for believers, not for unbelievers" (v. 22), but if an unbeliever comes to church and hears prophecy, he will "be convinced...that he is a sinner" and will "fall down and worship God" (v. 25).

Can you help me understand these conflicting statements?

A: Remember that this is a corrective message from Paul. Paul is saying that their expression of tongues when they gather is disorderly and becomes distracting to the new believer.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says that tongues are a sign "not for believers but for unbelievers" (v. 22), but that an unbeliever who comes to church and hears tongues will say the people in that church are out of their minds (v. 23).

This (and the previous verse which references Isaiah 28:11) is a reminder that those who hear things they do not understand are under judgment – and though the Corinthians themselves are operating within what is a genuine gift which might edify them personally, when they do so collectively, they are not edifying one another and they are certainly not edifying the non-believer. Used in such a way, it is like the tongue of the Babylonians – foreign to those who were taken into captivity.

Paul also says that prophecy "is for believers, not for unbelievers" (v. 22), but if an unbeliever comes to church and hears prophecy, he will "be convinced...that he is a sinner" and will "fall down and worship God" (v. 25).

The church is built up by the gift of prophecy (forth-speaking), which includes, by the way, the proclamation of the word in confrontation. So, while prophecy is given to the church for the building up of the saints in the Word, it can also bring conviction to the non-believer who hears and is convicted.

Why do some of God's people suffer?

Q: Why do some of God’s people struggle with cancer or other diseases? I know he is a loving God, but it just doesn’t seem right.

A: It is true that Christians get sick just like anyone else. And you are right that God is very loving. But as to it not seeming right…I’m not so sure how to answer that. Did God intend for there to be disease and death in the world? No. Sickness and death entered the creation through sin (Genesis 3) and no one is exempt. But God set in motion a plan of redemption that culminated in Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins. He knows what it means to suffer, and to die a horrible excruciating death. He can sympathize with us and He doesn’t leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5) no matter how difficult things get.

If Christians didn’t go through suffering like everyone else, then how would they be able to minister comfort and encouragement to those who do suffer? It is because we go through tough times and are comforted by the Lord that we are able to comfort others. As it is written,

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort." (2 Cor. 1:3-7 ESV)


We are also not without hope in our sickness, for Jesus Christ is our healer! If you read the gospels, you will see Jesus moved by compassion for the sick and healing everyone who came to him… and He never changes (Hebrews 13:8)! Even if we are not physically healed right now, as Christians we still have nothing to fear as we pass through the thin veil of death into eternity with the Lord into a new creation…free of sickness and death! It is true that we may face short-term suffering and pain in this life. But remember that we are not alone, nor are we without hope…in this life and in the next!

How can they say it was three days?

Q: In Matthew 12, Jesus references the story of Jonah and his 3-day stay inside the fish, and then says that like Jonah, "the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The idea that Jesus rose "three days later" is pervasive in Christian lore. But in all the stories of the crucifixion and resurrection, it appears Jesus died on a Friday afternoon, and rose on a Sunday morning -- which is two nights. What am I missing?

A: This is a good question and the answer has to do with the method used for keeping track of time that was in use in Israel at the time of Christ. If any part of the day was experienced then it counted. Was Jesus in the grave for a full 72 hours? No. They counted days from sunset to sunset So Jesus was dead part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday… but it is referred to as three days because parts of three different days were involved. Similarly, you could accurately say that you have lived in two different centuries and yet still be too young to have a driver’s license! Hope that helps!

Church reporting

Q: Do you have a public record of how much our church gives to missions?

A: We have an annual congregational meeting scheduled for the first Wednesday in May. Come to that mid-week service and you'll receive a host of information about ministry and expenditures, including missions. Keep an eye on the web site and bulletin for details.

Was the Cross Plan B?

Q: 1 Corinthians 2:8 puzzles me. Was Paul saying that if things had turned out differently, Jesus would not have been crucified? The crucifixion of Jesus was a fulfillment of prophesy and the essential act of our salvation. So, what is the significance of 1 Corinthians 2:8?

Note: for the sake of clarity, the question above was summarized from a longer submission that included personal testimony and reflection.

A: The verse asked about appears in bold in the following passage from 1 Corinthians:

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him—but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God." I Corinthians 2:6-10

The key to understanding this passage is Paul's confidence that "God has revealed it to us by His Spirit." Paul is contrasting the unsearchable wisdom of God, which can only be known as the Holy Spirit reveals it, with "the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age." He returns in 2:8 to a theme that he initiates in 1:17-31, which ends with a quote from Jeremiah, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." The power of the Cross, and for that matter the entire Gospel, stands in stark opposition to "eloquent wisdom."

What Paul writes in verse 2:8 is meant to highlight this contrast. He sets up a hypothetical situation that underscores the futility of trying to understand God's wisdom "from below", from a human-centered theology as it were. Paul groups the wisdom that predominates his particular age, grounded in Hellenistic culture, with those that rule in that age. They are dominated by this "wisdom"—believing all that is good, true, and beautiful is available to them through their own efforts.

Paul is pointing out, quite simply, that they are deluded. "If" is the operative word here: if they had understood who Jesus was, they would not have crucified Him. But they didn't, nor could they because they found their own brand of wisdom so much more attractive than the plain declaration of God's Word concerning His Son.

The Corinthians were being seduced by the same love of worldly wisdom. Imagine the corrective power of those lines as they were read in the Corinthian church. Imagine the congregation hearing echoes of their own deception in the sinful autonomy of the "rulers of this age" who nailed the Lord of Glory to a cross.

Paul is not contemplating a different plan in 2:8. There was always only one way, and that is the path Jesus willingly took.

A woman created before Eve?

Q: Was there another person before Eve? My pastor says there was another person before Eve, God did not like her and destroyed her. If so can you tell me more about her! Thank You.

A: The simple answer is no. There was no pre-Eve woman. This has never been a belief held by traditional, orthodox Christianity. The Bible tells the simple story of Adam as the first man and Eve as the first woman. There is a mythical story of a female night demon named Lilith from Jewish folklore. It was developed during the middle ages into the tale of a woman who was first married to Adam. It is a story that is not based in anything biblical and it can be disregarded.

Is the church at Beaverton Arminian? Contemporary? Creationist?

Q. I'm wondering and did a flyby of the Church's beliefs, but what I gather here in this thread is that this is an Arminianist Church? I may be coming to this church and would like to communicate further. I like all the activities, groups and the Statement of belief and just have a few questions. Like is this a contemporary church? And do they believe in a literal 6 day creation? Thank you in advance. Daniel

A. Thanks for your question Daniel. Yes if you follow through the discussion thread here you will see that our theology has Arminian roots. We are a Biblically conservative, Spirit-filled church that seeks to keep Christ the center of all that we do and believe. We can see passages in the Bible that clearly speak of God’s sovereignty, election, assurance and others that speak just as clearly of our God-given free-will, personal responsibility, warnings against falling away. And we are OK with living and believing in the midst of such a paradox.

As you have noticed, there are many ways for people to get involved here at the church, as well as ways to become better equipped to make a difference in our community and, by extension, in the world. In response to your question about whether we are “a contemporary church” I would like to think that we are. We pursue freshness in our communication of the timeless truths of the Bible, and in our corporate worship experiences. Yet, we are not faddishly enslaved to the latest and greatest in the church popularity sweepstakes.

I find your question about a literal six day creation very intriguing following right on the heels of “contemporary church”. Yes, we believe that God created the earth just as it says in the Bible, from the beginning in Genesis all the way through to Revelation … and have many materials on “Creation Science” available in our church library (at 231.765). If God leads you to worship together with us you are welcome to do so. I look forward to hearing from you.

Alcohol?

Q: What is the Churches teaching on moderate drinking of alcohol. I am not talking about being drunk.

A: Moderation is an appropriate response to what the Bible teaches about drinking. Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding (John 2:1-11). Wine is clearly consumed in moderation by Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). Paul encouraged Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach (1Tim 5:23). Of course, there are also clear admonitions against excessive drinking, or drunkenness (Luke 21:34; 1Cor 5:11; 6:10; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:18; 1Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1Pet 4:3). As pastors, we have seen many lives devastated by alcohol abuse, so we are cautious in this regard – neither approving nor disapproving – but rather cautioning the congregation and reminding them of the wisdom of considering the weaker brother in all of their behaviors – while we may have liberty in Christ, that does not mean that we ought to exercise every permission (1Cor 10:23-25).

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” (1Cor 10:23-24)

A Teenager's Rebellion, Provocation, or Sincerely Seeking...

Q: My 16 year-old son has decided that Christianity is not for him. He has asked me to prove what I believe logically, without using the Bible or the "Christian perspective". That puts me at a disadvantage, since I can only explain it by the Bible and faith and assurance he gives me. He [my son] does not accept the fact that much of belief in God requires faith. My dilemma is this: he wants me to explain that we have a soul that lives beyond this world, that there is a hell and a Heaven, and that God is the ultimate authority figure, without using the Bible. Can you help me??? Can you suggest any written information I can get my hands on that will help my son see the validity of the Christian faith, from a perspective of someone not believing initially, and then coming to belief through the trial and research?

A: Wow! I’ll say that your son’s request is grossly unfair…like asking someone to tell you where Haiti is without reference to its location. It makes no sense!

In order to answer his question, it is important to know first why he “doesn’t think Christianity is for him”? What is his motivation in making these statements? Is he:

• Asking sincere, searching, questions as he moves towards independence?
• Struggling with the arguments of his peers and seeing no way to answer them?
• Trying to justify behavior he knows God doesn’t approve of?
• Reacting against an inaccurate modeling of Christianity?
• Trying to irritate his mother by “pushing her buttons”? or
• Acting out against some perceived hurt or injustice for which he holds God responsible?

Each of these dispositions requires a different response. Some might reflect a genuine desire to put faith into perspective. Others might be the result of a hardening heart – a child who wants to pursue life on his own terms and must eliminate the obstacle posed by God.

What does your son think of the Jesus of the Bible? Does he like Jesus or reject even the notion of what the Bible tells us about Him? How would he define Christianity in his own words? These kinds of questions might reveal that the Christianity he rejects is not authentic Christianity at all.

From what you have written, it sounds like your son is saying that he wants to live his life without regard to God. He is ready to take life on his own terms. In that case, his challenge to you is not sincere, but perhaps prideful – declaring at the same time that he can be the god of his own life and that he knows more than you do. The way that he has framed the challenge, by limiting how you can make your case, suggests that he isn’t really interested in the answer.

For you to “prove” the existence of someone you know very well cannot be relegated to what is and is not admissible evidence. Is there evidence? Yes, abundant evidence, but it is the kind that will be dismissed by the person who rejects any evidence that proves the case while limiting the remaining evidence to things that will not substantiate the supernatural. What kind of evidence is there? Again, the first is your own life and relationship with Christ. Add to that the evidence of 100s of millions of people who know the very same Jesus – cross-culturally, -ethnically, -racially, -socioeconomically. The person who knows and loves Jesus in urban 21st century America has the same experience as the person who knows and loves Jesus in rural Ethiopia. They don’t differ on essentials (biblical essentials, by the way)… nor would Christians across the centuries. This is remarkable – even miraculous. There have been a number of authors who have done a fairly good job making the logical case (see below*), and their books might be helpful. Faith, however, is the result of a genuine spiritual encounter with the living God. A person who asks the questions your son has asked, if he is willing to hear the answer from God, will receive it. A person with a hardened heart who demands that God satisfy his proposition for how God is to encounter him is being foolish. There is abundant evidence for God – every person of faith, having eyes to see, can see that. It is the hardened heart that blinds a person to see what is plainly evident.

Here is another word picture that perhaps your son can relate to. It would be like your son trying to convince you that driving through red lights is illegal and dangerous, without referencing the driver’s manual, any of that legal mumbo-jumbo including the laws of physics, and without talking from a “social responsibility” perspective. Ultimately running red lights is dangerous whether your son convinces you of it or not. There is another way to learn this lesson, but the cost is simply too high and the consequences too permanent. The same is true of our choosing to ignore God.

If your son insists on limiting the evidence, what kind of evidence is acceptable to him? What kind of proof would be so convincing that he would immediately surrender his life into Jesus’ hands? What sort of evidence does he consider valid in proving something to you? Certainly the same kind of evidence can be used to show the validity of Christianity. Your son, while proposing to have an enlightened response, is actually very narrow-minded in his approach to God. Limiting the evidence serves only ignorance, a kind of spiritual “climate-gate” if you will. If he were willing to apply himself to the evidence he would have a much more interesting challenge to his current position. There is additional evidence that is biblical, testimonial, historical, forensic (see The Testimony of the Evangelists, below), and relational.

Finally, another important element to consider is “how does your son give and receive love?” He needs to know that you love him no matter what his position on Christianity is. It is also helpful to then show how Jesus reveals his love for your son through their own “love language.”

If we can answer these questions first, then we can develop a much better answer to his “proof challenge”.

* Here are just a few books that might be helpful. There are many more in our church library.

• The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
• The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis
• Evidence the Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
• The Testimony of the Evangelists, Simon Greenleaf
• Five Love Languages of Teens, Chapman

Why Does Jesus Conceal The Good News of God?

Q: I read Mark 4:11-12 (New Living Translation) where "Jesus says 'You are permitted to understand the secret about the Kingdom of God. But I am using these stories to conceal everything about it from outsiders, so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled'."
My question: It’s not clear to us why Jesus wanted to prevent outsiders from understanding. He says it’s so the Scripture might be fulfilled, but it still seems like we’re missing the full meaning. Wouldn’t Jesus want everyone to understand His teaching? Is it because the timing wasn’t right yet? (i.e. Jesus hadn’t gone to the cross yet to establish the new covenant).

A: Matthew gives a bit more context by quoting Isaiah more fully:
You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.

Which is from Isaiah 6:8-13, in which the context is Isaiah’s willingness to go and speak on God’s behalf: And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, and the Lord removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.

In the context of the passage, Jesus is talking about people who hear with their hearts. The parables, it seems, were written in a heart-specific language – the hearing is for those whose hearts are seeking God. To the one with even a little bit of an inclination to hear what God was saying it was granted. Those who are not seeking Him will not hear Him, even if he were to make it abundantly clear. Those who do not have a God-directed heart simply hear an interesting story that they will reject. In fact, their complete understanding could prove dangerous to the fulfilling of all Scripture.

How so? Wouldn’t Jesus want everyone to understand His teaching in plain language? Perhaps, except for those who, when they understood His claim of Deity, would seek to kill Him. The plan of God was not to be fast-tracked. The Pharisees and leaders were quick to seek Jesus’ death whenever His claim was clear.

What happened to Dan & Ephraim in Revelation 7?

Q. Why are Dan and Ephraim not included in the list of Jewish tribes in Revelation 7?

What a great question…since it reveals that you are reading your Bible closely. Yes, the list of the tribes of Israel that you read in Revelation 7 is different from what you would normally read in the Old Testament. It is a section with several interpretive possibilities. I would suggest the following solution.

John’s theme in the Book of Revelation is to pastorally encourage Christians (those who by personal faith in Jesus Christ’s redemptive sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection) to overcome the idolatry and sexual immorality of the world and remain faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ. The tribes of Dan and Ephraim were known for their blatant idolatry in the Old Testament. Their exclusion from this list of tribes, each with 12,000 people sealed, is likely based on their close ties with idolatry. Alan Johnson insightfully writes,

“The early church held that the Antichrist would arise from the tribe of Dan. Charles has argued that this belief is in fact pre-Christian Jewish tradition, first mentioned in Christian sources in Irenaeus (d. second century A.D.) … Furthermore, Dan was associated in the OT with idolatry (Judges 18:18-19; 1 Kings 12:29-30). This may be the clue. If John sought to expose Christian idolatry and beast worship in his day by excluding Dan from the list of those sealed, it may also be possible to explain, on the same basis, why Manasseh and Joseph were chosen to fill up the sacred number rather than Manasseh and Ephraim. In the OT Ephraim was also explicitly identified with idolatry (Hosea 4:17).” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12)

To go beyond your original question, about why the omission, it may be informative to consider that many scholars identify the 144,000 with the whole elect people of God, including both Jews and Gentiles. If this is accurate, then this passage, using symbolic numbers, refers to the sealing of the true church from out of the midst of those who merely claim to be the church. Let me conclude with another quote from Johnson,

“The description of the judgments under the sixth seal (6:12 ff.) ends with the question "The great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" (6:17). Chapter 7 answers this question by implying that only the true servants of God, who are divinely sealed, can be protected from the wrath of God and the Lamb.” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12)

Do we instinctively know God's law through our conscience?

Q: I've been reading Romans (NLT). In 2:14 it says, "Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong." But in 7:7 Paul says, "Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is evil? Of course not! The law is not sinful, but it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’" It sounds like Paul is saying that we instinctively know God's law through our conscience, but he then say's that he wouldn't have known that something was wrong prior to learning the law (7:7-9). Can you help me with this?

A: Perhaps it would be helpful to read Roman’s within a framework of understanding regarding the people who were to receive the letter. Paul was not the pastor of any of the churches to whom he wrote. He was planning to visit in order to be encourage and be encouraged by the Romans churches and to establish a base for ministry to Spain. Other believers had founded the Roman churches (though one of the house churches, that of Priscilla and Aquila, was led by people who he had served with earlier in Corinth). A primary concern of Paul was that they come to understand his teaching, since Paul was alleged by some to be teaching a lawless Gospel. So, Paul is addressing people in established churches who for the most part do not know him and might have concerns about his teachings. There are four groups of people under consideration in the Book of Romans:

• Gentile non-believers (prominent in Chapter 1),
• Jewish non-believers (prominent in Chapter 2),
• Jewish believers and
• Gentile believers.

Paul was aware that Jewish people generally identified more with other Jews, non-believers included, than with Gentile believers. They were convinced that their brothers in faith were the Jews. Paul is trying to explain that the true brotherhood was along the lines of faith among believers, not race, whether Jewish or Gentile. Everyone else needs Christ.

Within that context the Gentiles referred to in Romans 2:13-15 are the believers – they are more lawful without the Law than the Jews themselves. They have the presence of the Spirit, who is leading them in the works of the law written on their hearts. They are the true brethren of the Jewish believers and demonstrate it by this very lawfulness. All men have a conscience and have some ability to discern right from wrong. Without God’s salvation, that conscience can be ignored, seared, or weakened. Without salvation, based on conscience alone, men will not become righteous.

 In Romans 7:7, Paul is relating his own experience as a Jew with the Law. He could have claimed that he was a righteous follower of the Law (and he did at one time) until God showed him a sin that was at work in him even at the height of his Law-keeping – that of covetousness. In fact, Paul learns that sin is pervasive, even in this man who so desires to keep the Law. Paul wants his Jewish brethren to be aware of the conviction that the Law should bring – a man should not claim proudly that he is a faithful follower or the Law would condemn him. In humility, the Jewish Law-keeper must recognize his own inadequacy and receive salvation from Jesus Christ. Just as the Gentiles.

So, in summary, the contexts of the two statements are very different, so they are not in disagreement

Can we change God's Mind?

Q: If a person is destined or foreseen by God; from his beginning to go to hell, can a Christian come along side him and pray and intercede for him and change God's mind about this man; change his heart so that he will enter into heaven? Or is he predestined to go to hell and there's nothing we can do?

A: You’ve asked questions that have been debated among Protestant Christians for more than 400 years. While almost all Christians believe God is sovereign — He is all-powerful and all-knowing, so it would be impossible to “change his mind” in the way we can change another person’s mind — they disagree on how His sovereignty interacts with human freedom. Some believe that God’s power overcomes any resistance to His offer of salvation. Moreover they believe that God has willed, or predestined, only some people for salvation. They believe that even though a person may experience “choosing” when they receive salvation, they are really unable to resist God’s grace and they “choose” salvation because God has already chosen them. These people are generally called Calvinists.

Other Christians, called Arminians, believe that God wills that all people be saved and respects human freedom to the point that He limits His own power to overwhelm their freedom, and when they choose salvation, they truly make a completely free choice to do so. In leaving the decision to them, God respects their choice continually. Should they choose, having once been saved, to reject Him they can lose their salvation.

This is a simplification of a very complex issue, but it summarizes the two positions with respect to your questions. All but the most extreme elements on both sides consider each other to be genuine brothers and sisters in Christ despite the disagreement. The Foursquare Movement, along with most Methodists, and Free Will Baptists for example, are considered Arminian. Presbyterians and the Reformed Churches, for example, are mostly Calvinists.

Both sides can point to a lot of Bible verses to support their positions. That’s why this debate has been going on for so long.

However, a very wise pastor once said that after many years of ministry and Bible study, he didn’t know how these two views could ever be reconciled. But he was confident that somewhere way over his head where he couldn't possibly understand it these two views do reconcile in God. I think that’s a very good way of looking at it. Honest Christians, who love God and His Word, honestly disagree on the questions you pose. But I sense more than a theological curiosity in your questions. I sense a heart that longs for others to be saved—to know and be known by Jesus Christ. Remember that encouraging this desire is more important than answering debatable questions as you ponder these things.

While others may look at someone walking away from Christ and debate whether he ever really was predestined to be Christ’s (Calvinist), or whether he made a truly free decision to reject Christ (Arminian), you run after him. Tell him again of the Savior whom you love, and who loves him. Pray for his soul trusting him to God, who loves him more than you or I can ever could. God will be greatly pleased when you do these things..

When Was Jesus Actually Born?

Q:  The summary at the beginning of the Book of Mark in my Bible includes approximate dates and key events.  It listed Jesus' birth as 2-3 BC.  Why wasn’t it 0?  My limited understanding is that it was supposed to be 0, but when the BC/AD system came into existence several centuries after the birth of Christ, they made a mistake in calculating the actual year of His birth.  Just curious if you have any other insight or info on this.  

A: Remember that the chapter summaries in Bibles are not inspired Scripture (nor are the numbers or the section headings). Those summaries are brief introductions or commentary to help provide the reader with context.

Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, most likely closer to 6 BC.  You have it right, though... it was based on a different calendar system.  In the reckoning of time based on BC (before Christ) and AD (Anno Dommini = year of our Lord), there was no year “0,” so it goes straight from 1 BC to 1 AD, which is only a minor problem, but it helps explain why dating ancient times from historical records is difficult.  Eras were generally the basis for how to number years and they differed from one nation to the next.  In 525 AD, Dionysius Exiguus came up with the current system to replace the Diocletian calendar.  He didn’t have the data required to determine the exact year when Christ was born (though he honored Christ with the designations of BC and AD).  Since we know that Herod the Great reigned until 4 BC, and since we know that Jesus was about 1 to 2 years old when Herod had the children of Bethlehem killed, we now believe that Jesus was born around 5-6 BC.  There are some scholars who have even suggested that His birth may have been as early as 18 BC and that he was close to 50 when He died.  The important thing to remember when you read the biblical accounts is that they never give a date – they only describe who was in leadership, so it is our only means by which to compare dates to the calendar we currently use.